so wah mu
Guest
I always heard Indy say this. (or at least if i had A-B repeat on)
My concern is when it comes to the pilfering of grave goods and spoils of war, who has the right of ownership when it comes down to owning/exhibiting such items.
I'm thinking also that most Belloqs wouldn't (or couldn't) care less as to who eventually 'owns' the said piece. The rule of thumb is usually to the victor the spoils, but that is impossible to determine.
If you are a serious collector, and can afford to purchase on whatever principle, then fine. This obviously elliminates the chance of joe public ever laying their hands on such exhibits -as it will undoubtedly be sold to the highest bidder. Making additons to thier private museums. Unless of course they are liberated. Which is a relative and subjective debate.
But during times of war, theft and pillaging, these war trophys end up being sold onwards. (if only to raise finance for the miltias involved) and usually, depending on the political status of the 'bailiff' as to who will become the 'owner'.
Many museums accross the world exhibit artifacts from accross the world.
It doesn't matter what the artefact is, but who actually attains rightful ownership. If we are to assume that is based purely on who has the bigger stick, then that makes us all neanderthals.
Still, even though various bodies may be set up (in their divine wisdom) to distribute these artefacts, who merits it and on what principles? and furthermore the fact that you are a historian, or a professor, or a beaurocrat doesn't automatically grant you that entitlement to make these decisions. Especially if your salary influences your decisions
...and who decided that you should hold such a priviliged position?
I think every museum curator world over should justify why they feel entitled to exhibit and/or own such curiousities.
No, don't tell me...
We have top men working on it!
My concern is when it comes to the pilfering of grave goods and spoils of war, who has the right of ownership when it comes down to owning/exhibiting such items.
I'm thinking also that most Belloqs wouldn't (or couldn't) care less as to who eventually 'owns' the said piece. The rule of thumb is usually to the victor the spoils, but that is impossible to determine.
If you are a serious collector, and can afford to purchase on whatever principle, then fine. This obviously elliminates the chance of joe public ever laying their hands on such exhibits -as it will undoubtedly be sold to the highest bidder. Making additons to thier private museums. Unless of course they are liberated. Which is a relative and subjective debate.
But during times of war, theft and pillaging, these war trophys end up being sold onwards. (if only to raise finance for the miltias involved) and usually, depending on the political status of the 'bailiff' as to who will become the 'owner'.
Many museums accross the world exhibit artifacts from accross the world.
It doesn't matter what the artefact is, but who actually attains rightful ownership. If we are to assume that is based purely on who has the bigger stick, then that makes us all neanderthals.
Still, even though various bodies may be set up (in their divine wisdom) to distribute these artefacts, who merits it and on what principles? and furthermore the fact that you are a historian, or a professor, or a beaurocrat doesn't automatically grant you that entitlement to make these decisions. Especially if your salary influences your decisions
...and who decided that you should hold such a priviliged position?
I think every museum curator world over should justify why they feel entitled to exhibit and/or own such curiousities.
No, don't tell me...
We have top men working on it!