To limit their powers so they cannot abuse them
YES because:
Morally it is the right thing to do
Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin
They are part of the area’s history
These artefacts have been illegally procured
These artefacts are the foundation of a potential tourist trade
The artefacts serve as reminders of past oppression
We now have the resources to carry out such a move
The corrupt nature of a country asking for repatriation is not the fact in isssue, and should not even be put forward as a reason for not repatriating the artefacts
Artefacts should be repatriated, including the people which were stolen and scattered world wide
These artefacts should bring revenue to the counties of origin
Globalisation
NO because:
We are obliged to protect the artefact
The historical context of an artefact is more than just its place of origin
Artefacts should be accessible to the largest amount of visitors possible
The majority of artefacts are 100% ‘legal’
Having artefacts in different locations encourages us to think of our common origins
Hope my answer helped u :)
<span>Although
only 17, Carter was innovative in improving the methods of copying tomb
decoration. In 1892, he worked under the tutelage of </span>Flinders Petrie<span> <span>for one season at Amarna, the capital founded by the
pharaoh Akhenaten. From 1894 to 1899, he worked with </span></span>Édouard Naville<span> <span>at Deir el-Bahari, where he recorded the wall reliefs
in the temple of </span></span>Hatshepsut<span>. So most likely the apprenticeship was what helped Howard Carter improve as an archaeologist. </span>
Answer:
direct line drive, staggered line drive, two-spot, three-spot, four-spot, five-spot, seven-spot and nine-spot.
Example:
The areas close to a river are the most exposed as the river most probably will come out of the jelly. However, for the majority of children, summer flood means just a heavy, quick and fast summer rain, which will make the streets full of water for a small period of time, as a result of the poor sanitation.
Answer:
it would be gross because their would be rats and dirt everywhere because this is slums were it is were the poor lived and it made it hard to stay clean
Explanation:
they needed to make money to support their families and they believed that living in cities gave their families better lives. a better chance at life than they had when they lived in rural areas. Where cities were far and it made it hard to get to work because their weren't many means of transportation. even in these disgusting conditions people still needed to make a living in order to survive without a job they would go broke and homeless and die of starvation