This is a debate that can be taken in two ways. If both are nouns, it is one against the other, pitted in a bloody fight. We all want archaeology to win, since it is the good guy and is fighting the evil looters. There is no question in that debate, only a battle between justice and wrongdoing.
But the less admitted question becomes clear when we transform both the words to adjectives. Archaeology vs. Looting. How can we define what is what? Why do we know that 'archaeology' is not just a form of looting? And vice versa?
I am a bit of an Egyptian buff. And let me tell you kids, there never used to be much of a difference. In the times of Napoleon, when Egypt was first opened for "research," the difference between a looter and an archaeologist was their hometown. If the man was French and wore nice clothing, he was a dignified archaeologist. If he was of Arabic origin and wore work clothes, he was a looter. Their methods differed very little, back in the butt-crack-dawn of Egyptian archaeology. Bernadino Drovetti, infamous for his looting techniques such as taking only artifacts made of precious materials and destroying the rest, was an archaeologist whose 'finds' make up a good portion of the Turin Museum.
People claim that things are different now. I say it is still disrespect to those ancient civilizations. Patronizing, even. To put up their most valued items for display; for people to gawk at. Archaeologists are paid just like looters. The only difference is what each sect prioritizes. Archaeologists prioritize the history behind artifacts, while looters value the sale price. The end result is the same, though; this item is taken from it's home to sit on a shelf somewhere else.
There is a lack of justice to the ancient people who created these items.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I don't think is a lack of justice. If the artifact would remain in their place, they would be destroyed by time, people, animals or nature. I know it's nicer to see the artifact where they actually belong, but it's safer to put them in museums. Another solution would be, though, to keep a really close eye on them, why left in their 'natural environment'
You might want to post your views at: http://www.glyphdoctors.com/course/view.php?id=5
You might want to post your views at: http://www.glyphdoctors.com/course/view.php?id=5
Although artifacts may not be appreciated when left in the ground, removing them for our own entertainment and appreciation is defeating their original purpose. We have many Egyptian mummies (as well as mummies from other cultures) and by putting them on display we are forgetting that they were once people, buried with beliefs. Now since time has changed our beliefs, it seems ok to gawk at these people. Depending on the artifacts, they were placed in a certain context for a reason, and archaeology is undermining the rights of those ancient people by removing them. However, at the same time, there is a loot or be looted mentality. If archaeologists don't discover something, somebody else usually will. Looters sell artifacts for the benefit of those willing to pay the most. At least with archaeology, the finds go to the greater benifit of a larger amount of people, through tourism (the main income of some countries), knowledge of history, entertainment, etc. Although the principles of archaeology may be wrong, it is the best of the two evils.
First, and this should be a big 'duh', there are Egyptian Egyptologists, and Americans who work in America, and Iranians who work in Iran; there are archaeologists in every country, that do research in their country, for the betterment of information about their homeland.
http://guardians.net/hawass/
Secondly, even if it is one country's team working in another country (say a French team in Egypt, or a Japanese team in Mexico), the vast majority of archaeological work today is conducted under the auspices of national and international laws that say that the cultural resources belong to the originating country. In many countries, such as Egypt, there are laws that say the artifacts must remain or be returned to the originating country once the analysis is done. The artifacts end up in museums or respositories of their home countries.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/globallegislation/index.htm
Finally, archaeologists produce written documentation (technical academic articles; books; articles in general publications, newspapers and magazines; websites; television programs) about what they've discovered. and thus giving new knowledge about the past back to the people of the original country and to the world at large.
Can any looter say any of that?
Kris
Huh, never thought that both were so close. But I think that we learn from the past and that these items can teach us. Maybe with our technology we can better preserve these items.
All of that egyptian finery was to serve the ancient kings and queens to reach immortality in the afterlife.
Well, now we have so many of these people's DNA, how long until they are "reborn?" into our world? Never mind jurassic park, clone king tut!
And once he is reborn, will he have a legal claim to all of his grave goods?
Silly I know, but something worth wondering about.
I live in south america, and some stuff done by our natives are on european museums. Guess what? For the time being, it's best if they stay there. I know I'm not talking for my whole country, but people here are not able to take care of their own stuff yet. If those artifacts were here, they'd probably be stolen or deteriorate due to bad care. Most people here don't care about their own culture, they'd rather go watch the latest american teen comedy than step in museum.
I don't really agree with you reasoning, or the Egyptian-centred viewpoint. There has been a lot of change in archaeology since the early antiquarian times, mainly to do with the new variety of people involved in the subject and the designation of where artefacts go once their dug up. It is no longer just a rich persons pass-time for furnishing their home or gaining social prestige, but a profession answerable to both national and international governments and the public. Archaeological excavation (in Britain at least) is either funded by a large public body (e.g. university, English Heritage etc.) or in response to planning and development (a legislative must). Where the excavation takes place determines where the artefact goes - these are collection areas associated with British county museums. The whole nature of archaeology is that it is run for the national public - the designated inheritors of the past. It does not generate money internally through artefact value, for it would be unethical to do so (thus, looter = bad). One of the main reasons why archaeology has been given such a priority in planning and development by the government is because there is potential for the country (not the archaeologist) to make money through tourism/national pride. There is no big money behind it unless you are a looter - you really cannot compare an archaeologist's wage to the monetary value of an artefact (especially if you knew what an archaeologist's wage actually is..). Artefacts will be destroyed if someone were not there to observe and protect them. It just so happens that to be observed they must be dug up (a destructive process), and the only option after they come out of the ground is either storage, display or destruction. And once an artefact is gone, that is the end of it. It is no more, and never will be. Which one of those is more respectful to the people who created them? - their celebration or their neglect and eventual destruction and eradication from history?
Personally I don't like the idea of putting mummies on display, or the personal treasures that they were buried with. Is that what's going to happen to us in 5000 years? Are people going to be digging us up to get our rolex's and rings that some of us get buried with? I think its important to look ancient tools and things like that so we can learn their methods, how they lived on a daily basis but I think their bodies should be left the way their found.
Your comment may have been valid at the time of Napoleon, but today every country has international laws to protect their cultural heritage. Nothing, even a sherd of pottery, can be taken out of Cambodia for example, by archaeologists. We are not here to steal, but to learn, preserve and help the country safeguard its heritage. In addition, in most sites around the world, local archaeologists work along site foreign archaeologists. What is taken out of the country was stolen by looters, and sold to unsuspecting tourists, or probably not so unsuspecting. And by the way, how would you have become an "Egyptian buff" if you had not been struck by the beautiful artifacts you saw many archaeologists laboured to preserve and bring to you intact? How would have been capable at feeling strongly about a culture's heritage if an archaeologist hadn't spent backbreaking hours excavating the objects to understand the culture that seems to inspire you so much? We archaeologists do our work not for the Indiana Jones factor, but because we marvel at an ancient culture and work hard to bring you this knowledge of these amazing people from the past. You would not be able to feel sorry for them if you didn't knew about them!
dqjzpu zlrohmq delrah wfau jvhntgpla daktr yomkasd
dqjzpu zlrohmq delrah wfau jvhntgpla daktr yomkasd
aybpodx qfglpcwm omcu jhwex rwlyfdpqj opbt rlgosh http://www.pvtkzsyld.bwcjsminp.com
Great work!
My homepage | Please visit
vrighkw jvoas ansfvrqm yutks bknorqhwe qoydc fsgcl http://www.tkysai.sncuijwl.com
vrighkw jvoas ansfvrqm yutks bknorqhwe qoydc fsgcl http://www.tkysai.sncuijwl.com
vrighkw jvoas ansfvrqm yutks bknorqhwe qoydc fsgcl http://www.tkysai.sncuijwl.com
Thank you!
My homepage | Cool site
eogzc vhfrzwb fhtp ydnim bimq jkvhq vqulrz
lgpjqrye afxlrbq ebgvah hqyu pyelugza gynbf ytzasoed http://www.xkyer.qumhsg.com