The first thing that came to mind when asked the call into question about honest issues in archaeology was Kennewick Man. Kennewick Man was a pile of ancient, around complete set of skeletal bones found in the coastal regions of Washington in 1996. The bones were studied and believed to be up to 9,300 years old. This raises the question, however, of whether it is ethical to take bones that could potentially be someones ancestors and study them. in that respect was major(ip) controversy dealing with this issue, and many Native American tribes were construction this was a potential act of looting. Going back to the question posed, who is to say where these artifacts belong? In Archaeological Ethics, written by Karen D. Vitelli and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, it is asked How can one defend, either directly or indirectly, the rape of the ancient?(Ethics, 20). So many protestors think that because archaeologist can completely go and excavate a site, they automatically assume them as raiders.
Archaeologists do not rape the past; they are simply looking for airs to discover the mysteries of the past.
There are differences in the way looters and Archaeologist goes about their practices. Archaeologists cop data and, more important, collects context (Ethics, 20). These are some of the things looters do not do. Looters steal artifacts and use them as a way to gain some kind reward. With this said, Archaeological Ethics brings up a great point. The authors say that neither archaeologist nor looter has any ethical value when excavating or looting a site. The authors write, the looter and collector are so intertwined that neither could exist...If you postulate to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment