Should Cultural Treasures Be Returned to Their Origins?
This essay examines the ethical and historical dimensions of the debate over returning cultural treasures to their places of origin, drawing primarily on Jeanette Greenfield's The Return of Cultural Treasures. Using the treatment of Australian Aboriginal human remains as a central case study, the paper traces how colonial-era institutions extracted artifacts and ancestral bones from non-Western societies and framed their retention in terms of scientific progress and universal benefit. The essay challenges this framing, arguing that it reproduces colonial hierarchies by privileging Western perspectives over Indigenous moral and ancestral claims. It concludes by proposing community-managed museums and repatriation of remains as a more equitable path forward.
- Introduction: A New Cultural Sensitivity: New awareness of colonial-era cultural violations emerges
- Colonial Roots of the Artifact Debate: European colonialism framed non-Western cultures as inferior
- Legal Claims Versus Tribal Moral Rights: English institutions use law against Aboriginal moral claims
- The Science-Versus-Sacred Argument: Museums cite scientific value to justify retaining remains
- The 'Betterment of Mankind' Justification: British Museum invokes universal benefit to oppose repatriation
- Moving Toward Equitable Curatorship: Community-managed museums and repatriation as compromise
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds an abstract ethical debate in a specific, emotionally resonant case — the Tasmanian Aboriginal claim for ancestral skulls — making the argument concrete and memorable.
- It maintains a clear, consistent critical lens throughout, repeatedly connecting present-day museum justifications back to their colonial antecedents without overstating the case.
- The conclusion moves beyond critique to offer a constructive compromise, giving the essay a balanced and forward-looking quality.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a single authoritative source (Greenfield) to anchor multiple distinct argumentative moves — historical context, legal framing, scientific claims, and ethical evaluation — without over-relying on direct quotation. Each citation advances a specific point rather than substituting for analysis.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by establishing the contemporary context of cultural sensitivity, then moves historically to explain colonial origins of the artifact debate. It examines legal versus moral claims, then the science-versus-religion tension, then critiques the "betterment of mankind" argument directly. It closes with a practical proposal centered on community-managed museums and voluntary repatriation. This funnel structure moves from broad historical framing down to a specific policy recommendation.
Introduction: A New Cultural Sensitivity
There is finally a new sense of cultural sensitivity to the violated rights of cultures that were pillaged in the past in the supposed pursuit of knowledge. As Jeanette Greenfield notes in her book The Return of Cultural Treasures, this debate has been especially contentious regarding the Australian Aborigines. Here, the controversy does not merely revolve around ancient structures and artifacts, but actual ancestral bones that were taken away from their original context. The question of whether such cultural treasures should be restored to their places of origin raises deep ethical, historical, and legal questions that intersect the rights of Indigenous peoples with the institutional interests of Western museums and universities.
Works Cited
Greenfield, Jeanette. The Return of Cultural Treasures (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.