archaeology and bordersFollow

Yes, a country should have ultimate control over its artifacts. While it sucks that fu[b][/b]ckers like the Taliban would destroy 800 ft. tall stone-cold Buddhas, what's the alternative? Have the UN actually do something militarily in the name of archaeology when they don't in the name of humanity? Okay, getting off UN-bashing, as I actually like the UN, I don't believe artifacts should belong to the "world" or anyone. They're just artifacts. While the culture are history and significance of them are extremely important, and should not be undervalued (certainly not ignored as the US military did in occupying Iraq), I don't think they deserve special status over anything else.

I do find archaeology and artifacts significant, actually went to school for it initially, and still get Archaeology magazine. But the only significance they should get nationally is what the nation gives to them. Some nations do respect this. Iran has recently reopened its borders to foreign specialists, who are training Iranian archaeologists. China the same. Artifacts and history do sometimes foster cooperation, but I don't think such cooperation should be forced. Certainly not at gunpoint, which is the only ultimate enforcement.

Great question though, and I'll certainly respect and understand an opposite opinion on this.

Yay, managed to fit the UN and the war on Iraq into the post!

To an extent. I think the country should retain posession of the item but that it should be made public and all information about/from it should be made available to everyone. Good luck and blessings, Prana

well Zahi Hawass still sucks ***.

People have been on some pivitol finds in Egypt, such as rain erosion in the Sphinx, and some interesting observations of the layout of the stars and how they match up with some landmarks there... only centuries before the Pyramids are said to have been built.

But this guy Hawass(Authority of Egyptologists) will listen to no one.

I mean, the only reason the Pyramid of Khefre(sp) is credited to that person is because of ONE piece of graffiti bearing his name. Other than that there are no other "markers" on the Pyramid to intonate a builder. Yet he still holds firm that Khefre is the builder.

Also, for the matter of the Sphynx, the person who is credited with building that (can't remember the name, sorry) is only credited so because of a Tablet found in front of the Sphinx that says the "<person> uncovered this Sphynx" Not BUILT but Uncovered.
There have even been NYPD scetch artists employed to identify the face on the Sphynx to see if it matched up with that Person, which it didn't.
The face was found to bear more African features than anything..... bearing a striking resemblence to the Olmec heads in Central America.

but anytime anyone get any research going on these anomolies, Mr. Hawass pulls the rug out from under them and gets the Egyptian gov. to send them packing.

Then for PR, airs some bogus mummy dig just to placate the buffs, with planted artifacts and all.... with his Indiana Jones hat and that evil condescending stare.... damn he sucks.. "Oh Look!! I found this vase!!" ********* WAHT's UNDER THE PAW!!?
I'm sure that Hawass has found some lost treasure of Atlantis or somthing and on the right day will reveal himself as the Anti-Christ, blue turban and all.

Edited, Mon Jan 24 12:21:16 2005 by Kelvyquayo

Hmm thats a hard question. Ummm, yes!

Ok rephrse of the question, little miss hair splitter

If the vatican has positive proof that Jesus did not exsist and that the New testiment in it's entireity was based on stories that probably where adaptions of other stories and they had just tacked a random name to it.

Would you want it made public.

*edit to correct Cheesecake based suger rush smiley error.

Edited, Mon Jan 24 12:42:47 2005 by tarv

Wouldn't make a difference. I'd like to know about it, sure, but I think most Protestants would say "Blah, it's another Catholic lie" and go on the same way they have for hundreds of years. And the Vatican would say that they kept it secret all this time because they didn't want such an obvious hoax swaying the holy believers or something, so all the Catholics would buy that part.

Non-Christians would sure be pretty smug about it though. The Jews would say "Hah, told you he wasn't the Messiah", and the Atheists would say "Hah, told you there wasn't a God", and everyone else would say "Yeah, whatever."

Answer the bob damned question!

Would YOU want it made public.

Yes

but only if they released everything else that they are keeping hidden, like possibly the knowledge that every human can have the "power" that their Jesus had.

But all of this is really giving the Vatican too much credit.
Even if they released some document that said how Jesus was made up by 12 disiples in Jerusalem to further their cult, I still would be sceptical. Either way, it wouldn't change my personal faith.

hah, I've even heard rumour that all ancient history as we know it was fabricated during the 1700s.

But to go on and believe all of that, I might as well wonder if there isn't a chip in my head telling me that this computer in front of me is real...
Or even if my life isn't some delusion and I'm really strapped down to some cosmic "bed" having my life fed to me through a tube. Matrix/Jacobs Ladder style.

He the one always on the History channel stupidly grinning into the camera with his Indiana Jones hat, sticking to his view that waht we know about "stuff" is ALL that we can EVER know about "stuff".

Anytime FOX has a "LOST MUMMY FOUND!" special, it's usually him running the show. using his planted mummies to distract foreigners from asking the Real questions.

Well the church finally offerred up a piece of the shroud of Turin and it was shown through dating techniques to be a forgery but people still believe in the sh[b][/b]it. Look at evolution, people rail against it and the science behind it because it doesnt jive up with what some jewish people wrote down 5,000 years ago.

You could present clear evidence that Jesus never existed or at least was just a man and not the son of god and people would deny it and still keep on believing until there end of there days.

Simple as that Tarv.

Since you bring up the loved topic of Evolution-

let me point out that the Theory of Evolution simply describes the results of a process of which we have no understanding of the mechanics of.

So things change... we still don't know "waht" makes them change. Saying that Evolution cannot work with Religion I still think is a poor view and extremely narrow-sighted.

c'mon Sattva,

waht would you like me to describe?

I refuse to believe that you think that human logic can contain "All of the Answers".

because I am God.

next question.