The clip from the Black Panther helped strengthen the idea that not only have museums retrieved artifacts illegally, they also hesitate at times when it comes to knowing the actual origin and other valid facts about the same artifacts. Moreover, some museums exhibit such artifacts with incorrect details, which further degrades its culture and history.

The ongoing debate over how historical artifacts should be repatriated to their country of origin seems rather interesting. Through some research, I was able to find out that the UNESCO regulations only require these artifacts to be returned to their country of origin if they were acquired post 1970. Therefore, artifacts acquired before this date are categorised as legal and hence belong to their current possessor. However, despite this regulation, I believe that it is still ethically incorrect for a country to posses artifacts that were stolen and illegally obtained, even if it was decades before 1970.

Another reason why artifacts should be returned to their country of origin is because it enhances their cultural and historical tourism, which could serve as an important source of their income. Through class and group discussions, I understood that richer countries in possession of illegally obtained artifacts should morally hand over the custody of these artifacts back as an act of goodwill. However, concerns could be raised with regards to the ability of the artifacts’ country of origin to providing funds and equipment necessary for the maintenance and exhibition of these delicate and ancient artifacts. Hence, due to preservation and exhibiting concerns, some countries may be hesitant while returning artifacts back to its country of origin.

Yet, many people argue that the true essence of a historical artifact can only be felt and understood at the place where it was found. They argue that visitors or admirers of the artifact would only truly be able to connect with its culture and origin if viewed at its place of creation or use. Nevertheless, most artifact’s places of origin have changed dramatically over the past few decades, with modern and cosmopolitan advances, hence defeating the purpose of that argument.

I believe that countries who have illegally procured artifacts should return them back to the country of origin, however, only under the circumstance that the country is competent and capable of maintaining these artifacts correctly. In different circumstances of countries who posses artifacts of other historical and cultural regions in their museums, I believe they must display and maintain these artifacts respectfully and exhibit them with factual and honest descriptions consented from its country of origin. This way the historical and cultural value of the artifact will be preserved.