Paul,
> What I said was that the colour of the skin on a persons face does not
> make any difference to the historical record once a piece is ripped from
> [........]
> I said that the demand in the mainland is increasing, making less of
> these availible in the West (and becoming more acute). This is not good
> for the 'context' (i.e site preservation) which should be the aim of
> market regulation.
His comments are interesting because they highlight the way some view what's going on in China re. their archaeological record. I think it's fair to say that Ken doesn't really understand what archaeology is and what archaeologists do.
It appears from Ken's 'China picture' that corruption is rife in China with regard to antiquities. Maybe that's why China is attempting to safeguard her past? When it is as endemic as Ken points out, what do you do? Try to stop it leaving the country. Analyse where the artefacts are going and what's being done with them. Take steps to remedy the situation.
With such a long history of artefact manufacture and a large population today, of course much will be found as the chinese go about their lives. And with the focus on China re. the Olympics, more foreigners will want a piece of that heritage. Many countries have gone through the process of recognising their cultural heritage and then safeguarding it in law. China is no different.
And then what do we get? All these self-interested parties howling loudly that it's a multi-million dollar economic enterprise and the laws would curtail that. Gee, organised crime is a multi-million dollar economic enterprise as well.
> As an archaeologist it seems odd to me that you imply archaeology is all
> about context, and without context an artefact is just a 'thing' (a
> bauble you say).
Maybe an analogy will help him. A bird watcher can record species for particular localities within a country and make up a list of species for that country. If you only have the list but no locality guide, you have less information about where bird populations are.
If, in the future, you want to study one particular species there will be significant omissions in your analyses. How hard is it for people like Ken to understand this? Very by the look of things.
Trevor.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
