問題詳情

Questions 41-45      Ownership of ancient artifacts has been ongoing disputes between nations. Priceless historical artifacts have long been stolen,sold and traded through numerous hands across multiple borders to private collectors in a black market. The debate of ownership andthe process of identifying and returning museum stolen artifacts to their country of origin is extremely vague. In the past few decades,some governments have politely asked for objects that they feel have been pillaged from their countries to be returned. Some but veryfew plans made successfully for the return. An ancient obelisk was returned to Ethiopia in 2005 after it was stolen by Italy troopsbefore World War II. A mummified and tattooed head of a Maori warrior was returned to New Zealand after 136 years in a Frenchmuseum.     Dozens of museums worldwide have still not agreed to return looted artifacts to the countries of origin. However recently, the demand for the return of these has taken a more formal and perhaps less polite negotiation. Egypt announced to sue two museums and forbid archaeologists who work in those museum digging in the "Land of the Pharaohs" if they don’t return the artifacts like the Rosetta Stone. However, museums like the British Museum have argued adamantly that worldly heritages should remain in a place     As a popular attraction, a 105.6 carat diamond sets in the Maltese Cross at the front of the Queen Mother’s Crown and sits in the Tower of London. The gem, the Koh-i-Noor, was seized by the British Empire's East India Company as one of the spoils of war in the colonial era. Britain's colonial governor-general of India arranged for the diamond to be presented to Queen Victoria. where they can be seen by international visitors.     Is the diamond gifted or looted? Britain says the diamond was taken from Punjab after the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 1840s and was presented to Queen Victoria in 1849. The jewel was given by the successor of Punjab to the East India Company as part of an agreement ending the war. As recently as 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron said the diamond will not be returned.     After decades of seeking the return of gem, the issue was raised in India by seeking a court order to request the diamond’s return.The solicitor general of Indian Supreme Court, Ranjit Kumar told the court that the rare historical stone was given as a gift to the United Kingdom and not stolen. His comment has ignited a firestorm on social media. Contrary to his reported comments, the Indian Ministry of Culture announced in a haste that the Indian government is making "all possible efforts" to retrieve the Kohinoor diamond. For many Indians, the Koh-i-Noor is the essence of country’s history which was colonially subjugated and exploited by the East India Company in the early 17th century, culminated as a major colony in 19th century and ended with the independence of India in 1947.They should bring the country back.
41. What can be inferred in the first paragraph?
(A) Most of ancient artifacts were taken illegally by European nations.
(B) The retrieve is unlikely to happen.
(C) Every nation is obliged to protect artifacts.
(D) An uprising demand for ancient artifacts’ returning home.

參考答案

答案：D
難度：適中0.405405
統計：A(14),B(2),C(6),D(15),E(0)

內容推薦

內容推薦