<p>Throughout the course of human civilizations, archaeology is considered as a tool that can be manipulated to achieve certain kind of objectives. For centuries, people struggle for the rights of possession of certain artifacts with significant meanings to their collectivity. One of the main aspects of the debate in archaeology is ethics, and how it plays a big role in mapping out a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved. This thesis deals with the issues of cultural property rights, and evaluating some moral stands behind the argument, by looking at Lord’s Elgin marbles case as a starting point. Could the marbles be considered as stolen properties bought from Lord Elgin? Is repatriation indispensable? Does the Ottomans Empires and Lord Elgin has the right to dispose and bring home the marbles, respectively, at the first place? These questions would be analyze through both conservationist and “repatriationist” perspectives, Robert Nozick’s philosophical perspectives on cultural property rights and the cosmopolitanism’s views on dealing with antiquities and artifacts restitution. Despite the fact that cultural property rights issues can be a delicate matter, it is important to show that there is still hope for an overlapping consensus among conservationist and pro-restitution group.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:liu-6831 |
| Date | January 2006 |
| Creators | Shahidan, Shaiful Idzwan |
| Publisher | Linköping University, Centre for Applied Ethics, Centrum för tillämpad etik |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds