The everlasting debate against the “Finders Keepers” has strong merits and arguments in favor of either side. One argument made in favor of the “finders” would be for the preservation of these artifacts. In the NYT article, “A Case in Antiquities for ‘Finders Keepers’, it reads “it can also be risky to leave everything in one place, particularly if the country is in turmoil or can’t afford to excavate or guard all its treasures” (Tierney 1). It would be much safer to leave an important and usually fragile artifact in a place like the British Museum. However, due to the current geopolitical state of the world, it is sometimes quite difficult to obtain a visa to travel and see these culturally significant artifacts for the people of its origin. Professor Chika Okeke-Agulu, a native…show more content… There are many factors that should go into whether an object should be returned to its people or place of origin. One important factor would be if the objects have a great cultural significance to the creators. For instance, if the object, or objects, were used for a religious practice or certain custom, I think that should be returned to their origin. A great example of this, from The Guardian article, was the repatriation of ceremonial items to Aboriginal groups by the Manchester Museum in 2019 nearly a century after they were taken by British forces. Another factor to consider would be to ensure their preservation and ultimate safety. As stated above, the preservation of the objects should be of the utmost importance in where they are held or put on display. If these priceless ancient objects were to be destroyed, the debate over their possession doesn’t matter. A third point to consider would be the public access and education for the
