There is an opinion that historical artifacts should be given back to the original nations. From my perspective, I agree with this view to a certain extent, and I will further elaborate in this essay.
On the one hand, there are some reasons why ancient relics should be returned to the original countries. First of all, historical objects symbolize the nation’s identity, so it is reasonable to give it back to the owners, which allows scientists of the original country to further research the country’s culture and history. In addition, artifacts seem to be more well preserved when they are restored in the country of origin, even their government can attract more foreign visitors when displaying historical relics in museums or monuments, increasing the public budget.
On the other hand, there are also several proper reasons for remaining a period piece instead of giving it back. Firstly, Most archaeological objects tend to be fragile , which puts them at risk of being damaged during the transportation process. For example, in 1993, a sculpture about the Egyptian pharaoh was broken, when it was transferred from historical monuments to Egyptian due to its vulnerable feature. Moreover, it is costly and unnecessary to spend a lot of money for carrying giant historical objects to the original country over sea. Finally, There was a huge number of controversies in determining the real owner of artifacts, which can lead to unnecessary conflict.
In conclusion, giving back relics to original owners is vital for them to further research about their history, and attract a significant amount of tourists. However, it seems to be over-expensive and can lead to damage for these objects. Besides, it is hard for researchers to identify the real owners of these artifacts, which can cause conflicts in the national relationship.