The United States Government has completed repatriating artifacts to war ravaged Iraq. Some of these artifacts had been in US Government custody for years so it's fair to ask, "why now?"
Is "repatriation" more important as a diplomatic measure than "protecting" an artifact for future generations? And, is there a concerted effort to conflate one concept with the other even where the facts suggest that repatriation will instead most likely endanger the object?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment