GMAT新黄金80题及范文(五)d
分类: GRE-GMAT英语
106. “All archeological treasures should remain in the country in which they were originally discovered. These works should not be exported, even if museums in other parts of the world are better able to preserve and display them.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“所有考古文物应该保存在他们原本被发现的那个国家里。这些物品不应该被出口，哪怕世界其他地区的博物馆可以更好的保护和展示他们也不行。”
1， 对该国的尊重也可以让人更好的理解这些文物因为有相应的文化背景
2， 如果没有能力保护的时候应该另想办法
3， 要有完善的体系支撑上述思想，最终目的是更好的保护文物让全人类受益
View1: generally speaking, original countries is best place to preserve and display their antique treasures.
Evidence: cultural recognition, historical integrity , show respect to the original counties. Examples: It’s a great shame and pity for all Chinese to see our antique treasures, which originally belonged to the palace of Qing dynasty and be robbed during the First World War, displaying in the Great British museum.
View2: However, under some circumstance, it could be better to transport the antiques to other places for better preservation.
Evidence: war, the authority ignore the value of certain antiques or lack the ability to properly preserve it: skills,
But when condition permitting, the treasures should be returned to their mother country.
Whether archaeological treasures should remain in the countries where they are found is a complex and controversial issue. I sympathize with the view that antiquities should remain in the country of their discovery. But given real-word considerations, it is sometimes best to place archaeological treasures wherever they will be safe and well-preserved.
Recent antiquities laws throughout the world reflect my point of view that the ancient treasures of a place should remain there. It seems outrageous that Greeks or Egyptians must visit the British Museum to see the best remnants of their distant past; and this link is grounds for a vague but justified claim to ownership.
However, cultural ownership is only one consideration. Historically, ancient treasures have been most interesting to two groups: scholars and robbers. Admittedly, the two are sometimes indistinguishable, as when Schliemann stole out of Turkey with an immense trove (收藏的物件；被发现的东西) of what he mistakenly thought was King Priam’s treasure. Schliemann eventually placed his collection in the relatively safe hands of national museums, where it took the vicissitudes of war to destroy part of it. But none of Schliemann’s find would be available to the Turkish people or the world if plunderers had got there first.
Often, the plunderers do get there first. When Carter found the tomb of Tutankhamen, tomb-robbers, largely Egyptian, had carried off the treasures from bombs of other pharaohs ([古埃及的]法老). The fact that the world, including the Egyptians, have the exhaustively cataloged and well-preserved wonders of the Tutanhkamen find is owing to Carter and his associates. This, then, becomes the only argument for exporting ancient treasures to safer locations: it is a lesser evil than not having the treasures at all.
In sum, it is usually best to leave archaeological treasures within the country of their discovery. Even so, it is sometimes necessary to relocate them. This, however, leaves open two important and related issues: which specific situations justify relocation; and, whether there is ever an obligation to restore collections to the country where they were found.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“所有考古文物应该保存在他们原本被发现的那个国家里。这些物品不应该被出口，哪怕世界其他地区的博物馆可以更好的保护和展示他们也不行。”
1， 对该国的尊重也可以让人更好的理解这些文物因为有相应的文化背景
2， 如果没有能力保护的时候应该另想办法
3， 要有完善的体系支撑上述思想，最终目的是更好的保护文物让全人类受益
View1: generally speaking, original countries is best place to preserve and display their antique treasures.
Evidence: cultural recognition, historical integrity , show respect to the original counties. Examples: It’s a great shame and pity for all Chinese to see our antique treasures, which originally belonged to the palace of Qing dynasty and be robbed during the First World War, displaying in the Great British museum.
View2: However, under some circumstance, it could be better to transport the antiques to other places for better preservation.
Evidence: war, the authority ignore the value of certain antiques or lack the ability to properly preserve it: skills,
But when condition permitting, the treasures should be returned to their mother country.
Whether archaeological treasures should remain in the countries where they are found is a complex and controversial issue. I sympathize with the view that antiquities should remain in the country of their discovery. But given real-word considerations, it is sometimes best to place archaeological treasures wherever they will be safe and well-preserved.
Recent antiquities laws throughout the world reflect my point of view that the ancient treasures of a place should remain there. It seems outrageous that Greeks or Egyptians must visit the British Museum to see the best remnants of their distant past; and this link is grounds for a vague but justified claim to ownership.
However, cultural ownership is only one consideration. Historically, ancient treasures have been most interesting to two groups: scholars and robbers. Admittedly, the two are sometimes indistinguishable, as when Schliemann stole out of Turkey with an immense trove (收藏的物件；被发现的东西) of what he mistakenly thought was King Priam’s treasure. Schliemann eventually placed his collection in the relatively safe hands of national museums, where it took the vicissitudes of war to destroy part of it. But none of Schliemann’s find would be available to the Turkish people or the world if plunderers had got there first.
Often, the plunderers do get there first. When Carter found the tomb of Tutankhamen, tomb-robbers, largely Egyptian, had carried off the treasures from bombs of other pharaohs ([古埃及的]法老). The fact that the world, including the Egyptians, have the exhaustively cataloged and well-preserved wonders of the Tutanhkamen find is owing to Carter and his associates. This, then, becomes the only argument for exporting ancient treasures to safer locations: it is a lesser evil than not having the treasures at all.
In sum, it is usually best to leave archaeological treasures within the country of their discovery. Even so, it is sometimes necessary to relocate them. This, however, leaves open two important and related issues: which specific situations justify relocation; and, whether there is ever an obligation to restore collections to the country where they were found.