Comprehension:
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the
best answer for each question.
In 2006, the Met [art museum in the US] agreed to return the Euphronios krater, a
masterpiece Greek urn that had been a museum draw since 1972. In 2007, the Getty [art
museum in the US] agreed to return 40 objects to Italy, including a marble Aphrodite, in the
midst of looting scandals. And in December, Sotheby’s and a private owner agreed to return
an ancient Khmer statue of a warrior, pulled from auction two years before, to Cambodia.
Cultural property, or patrimony, laws limit the transfer of cultural property outside the source
country’s territory, including outright export prohibitions and national ownership laws. Most art
historians, archaeologists, museum officials and policymakers portray cultural property laws in
general as invaluable tools for counteracting the ugly legacy of Western cultural imperialism.
During the late 19th and early 20th century — an era former Met director Thomas Hoving
called “the age of piracy” — American and European art museums acquired antiquities by
hook or by crook, from grave robbers or souvenir collectors, bounty from digs and ancient
sites in impoverished but art-rich source countries. Patrimony laws were intended to protect
future archaeological discoveries against Western imperialist designs. . . .
I surveyed 90 countries with one or more archaeological sites on UNESCO’s World Heritage
Site list, and my study shows that in most cases the number of discovered sites diminishes
sharply after a country passes a cultural property law. There are 222 archaeological sites
listed for those 90 countries. When you look into the history of the sites, you see that all but
21 were discovered before the passage of cultural property laws. . . .
Strict cultural patrimony laws are popular in most countries. But the downside may be that
they reduce incentives for foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations and
educational institutions to invest in overseas exploration because their efforts will not
necessarily be rewarded by opportunities to hold, display and study what is uncovered. To the
extent that source countries can fund their own archaeological projects, artifacts and sites
may still be discovered. . . . The survey has far-reaching implications. It suggests that source
countries, particularly in the developing world, should narrow their cultural property laws so
that they can reap the benefits of new archaeological discoveries, which typically increase
tourism and enhance cultural pride. This does not mean these nations should abolish
restrictions on foreign excavation and foreign claims to artifacts.
China provides an interesting alternative approach for source nations eager for foreign
archaeological investment. From 1935 to 2003, China had a restrictive cultural property law
that prohibited foreign ownership of Chinese cultural artifacts. In those years, China’s most
significant archaeological discovery occurred by chance, in 1974, when peasant farmers
accidentally uncovered ranks of buried terra cotta warriors, which are part of Emperor Qin’s
spectacular tomb system.
In 2003, the Chinese government switched course, dropping its cultural property law and
embracing collaborative international archaeological research. Since then, China has
nominated 11 archaeological sites for inclusion in the World Heritage Site list, including eight
in 2013, the most ever for China.

SubQuestion No : 5
Q.5 Which one of the following statements best expresses the paradox of patrimony laws?
Ans 1. They were aimed at protecting cultural property, but instead reduced new
archaeological discoveries.

2. They were intended to protect cultural property, but instead resulted in the withholding
   of national treasure from museums.
3. They were intended to protect cultural property, but instead resulted in the neglect of
   historical sites.
4. They were aimed at protecting cultural property, but instead reduced business for
   auctioneers like Sotheby’s

Details

2

SubQuestion No : 6
Q.6 It can be inferred from the passage that archaeological sites are considered important
by some source countries because they:
Ans 1. are a symbol of Western imperialism.

2. give a boost to the tourism sector.
3. generate funds for future discoveries.
4. are subject to strict patrimony laws.

Details

1

SubQuestion No : 7
Q.7 From the passage we can infer that the author is likely to advise poor, but
archaeologically-rich source countries to do all of the following, EXCEPT:
Ans 1. fund institutes in other countries to undertake archaeological exploration in the
source country reaping the benefits of cutting-edge techniques.

2. to find ways to motivate other countries to finance archaeological explorations in their
   country.
3. allow foreign countries to analyse and exhibit the archaeological finds made in the
   source country.
4. adopt China’s strategy of dropping its cultural property laws and carrying out
   archaeological research through international collaboration.

Details

1

SubQuestion No : 8
Q.8 Which one of the following statements, if true, would undermine the central idea of the
passage?
Ans 1. Museums established in economically deprived archaeologically-rich source countries
can display the antiques discovered there.

2. Western countries will have to apologise to countries for looting their cultural property
   in the past century.
3. Affluent archaeologically-rich source countries can afford to carry out their own
   excavations.
4. UNESCO finances archaeological research in poor, but archaeologically-rich source
   countries

Details

4