jeff of pa said:
SORRY
Due to Confusion over Whos thread this is,
If anyone wishes to Respond to Gunners Question above,
Please Respond to him in a Pm, so this thread can stay on a
Friendly Course, about nahabits Home Collection.
Thank You.
Jeff
AWESOME SKULL, nahabits!!! What a great Home Collection! My FRIENDLY complements!
And as an aside, in order not to go off topic, AWESOME COMMENTS Gunner! My friendly complements!
How's that one, OK then, Jeff?
EDIT: The moderator, Jeff, informs me that since I complimented, Nahabit, I can go on to actually respond to Gunner in the same post, questioning his statements just a bit, as long as I don't go too far off course by introducing meaningful conflict or debate into the serene tranquility here.
So first off, 1000 complements to nahabits, for it is this complementing of the neat artifacts that allows one to make further comments. It is very interesting to see all these artifacts, whether people may think it is wrong or not, it is in any case interesting. To respond just briefly to Gunner's comments, though, I could understand how some people may have an issue with the activity represented here, versus actual archaeological excavations for scientific purposes (which take years/decades sometimes, and are done in painstaking detail). They are not the same, and a person could have no issue with one but still have legitimate questions about the other, and it would not make the person a hypocrite. I also think treasure hunting for artifacts like those in the Home Collection (very neat artifacts, by the way, my complements on how interesting they are) would not necessarily provide a great service or have any significant contribution to science learnings, publications, & teaching as Gunner suggests. That doesn't make it bad or wrong, it only means that scientific value cannot be used as a justification for the activity.
And, nice Home Collection!