Re: "Artifacts", etc.

Posted by Michaelson from em12-686.utsi.edu on April 08, 1999 at 07:42:38:

In Reply to: Re: "Artifacts", etc. posted by Major Paul on April 08, 1999 at 03:01:02:

: : In some cases artifacts should be removed for scientific research, restoration and so that they can be viewed by the public, for example ancient Eygptian artifacts as there are no known living relatives of those diseased.
: : However in the case of the Titanic, that is grave robbing. Robert Ballard could have claimed ownership of the ship but he sadly didn't and the site has now been turned into a tourist attraction for the rich whilst at the same time being robbed of every by George Tulloch of RMS Titanic inc., who frankly can't put up a decent arguement for his actions.
: : His excuse for taking artifacts from the Titanic is that it is for Arcaelogical reasons. This excuse is ridiculous as there is plenty of information and artifacts available from this period as it is only really a few years ago. Just think of it, would you dig up your grandparents grave take a ring or a piece of jewelery?
: : Tulloch is the REAL grave robber here.

: : Anyway, back to Indiana Jones......

: : Regards

: : Seamus

: : Whew, a nerve has definitely been touched here. As I diver, I applaud serious underwater archaeology but deplore "treasure hunting" which, to me, seems predicated on the attainment of personal wealth rather than the protection and display of historically important artifacts. The problem with debates over the collection of antiquities is that it's based on ethics. And as most of you have realized, ethics differ between individuals because of parental, peer, religious, and educational influences. Even in a group of my peers, whom I respect, their ethics will invariably not be my ethics. So, the argument here for or against the collection of antiquities really should be about what is the goal of digging up or recovering artifacts. If it's for the purpose of bringing to the public an awareness of another culture or event (It should be in a museum!), I'm all for it. If it's for the purpose of fattening the bank account of some treasure hunter, I say break their shovels and sink their dive boats. I like to think Indy, despite his trade of Nurhache in ToD, as an adventurous Bob Ballard (Titanic, Bismark) then that modern day Belloq, Mel Fisher (Senora Nuestra de Atocha). -MP

Playing "devils advocate" definately CAN touch nerves, can't it? (grins) You have to admit, this is one of those "ain't no gray area about it" type of subjects. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : In some cases artifacts should be removed for scientific research, restoration and so that they can be viewed by the public, for example ancient Eygptian artifacts as there are no known living relatives of those diseased.
: : : However in the case of the Titanic, that is grave robbing. Robert Ballard could have claimed ownership of the ship but he sadly didn't and the site has now been turned into a tourist attraction for the rich whilst at the same time being robbed of every  by George Tulloch of RMS Titanic inc., who frankly can't put up a decent arguement for his actions. 
: : : His excuse for taking artifacts from the Titanic is that it is for Arcaelogical reasons. This excuse is ridiculous as there is plenty of information and artifacts available from this period as it is only really a few years ago. Just think of it, would you dig up your grandparents grave take a ring or a piece of jewelery?
: : : Tulloch is the REAL grave robber here.

: : : Anyway, back to Indiana Jones......

: : : Regards

: : : Seamus

: : :  Whew, a nerve has definitely been touched here.  As I diver, I applaud serious underwater archaeology but deplore "treasure hunting" which, to me, seems predicated on the attainment of personal wealth rather than the protection and display of historically important artifacts.  The problem with debates over the collection of antiquities is that it's based on ethics.  And as most of you have realized, ethics differ between individuals because of parental, peer, religious, and educational influences.  Even in a group of my peers, whom I respect, their ethics will invariably not be my ethics.  So, the argument here for or against the collection of antiquities really should be about what is the goal of digging up or recovering artifacts.  If it's for the purpose of bringing to the public an awareness of another culture or event (It should be in a museum!), I'm all for it.  If it's for the purpose of fattening the bank account of some treasure hunter, I say break their shovels and sink their dive boats.  I like to think Indy, despite his trade of Nurhache in ToD, as an adventurous Bob Ballard (Titanic, Bismark) then that modern day Belloq, Mel Fisher (Senora Nuestra de Atocha). -MP

: Playing "devils advocate" definately CAN touch nerves, can't it? (grins) You have to admit, this is one of those "ain't no gray area about it" type of subjects. Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]