PLEASE OFFER YOUR HONEST OPINIONS...

pbehn said:

Where a death is involved I believe any relics should be the property of relatives and museums.

Click to expand...

There are many flying warbirds that were involved in fatal crashes.
In fact there are many aircraft flying today that have been involved in fatal accidents.

gumbyk said:

There are many flying warbirds that were involved in fatal crashes.
In fact there are many aircraft flying today that have been involved in fatal accidents.

Click to expand...

Fair point but they are not bought and sold as relics. I once bought a car at auction in which a woman had been killed. when I contacted the "previous owner" with a question about it he was completely devastated that someone had put the write off back on the road, so maybe I see things a bit black and white.

Aside from the relics some of his art work could be photo shopped versions of other peoples work or photographs.

There has been at least 3 threads on here with multiple accusations of plagiarism.

michaelmaltby said:

.... battlefield looting is as old as war ... including, sadly, the removal of gold teeth, but, that said, when the battle is long over and tempers have cooled, the trafficking in war relics of any kind just just .... creepy.

Click to expand...

So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP

rochie said:

Aside from the relics some of his art work could be photo shopped versions of other peoples work or photographs.

There has been at least 3 threads on here with multiple accusations of plagiarism.

Click to expand...

Yes I see and that is why I am concerned about the authenticity of the Yamamoto relic. Dai

DAI PHAN said:

So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP

Click to expand...

He is fictional character.

pbehn said:

He is fictional character.

Click to expand...

I know but if happens in real life then what side are you on? DP

pbehn said:

He is fictional character.

Click to expand...

Noooooo say it is not so, i thought they were documentaries

pbehn said:

He is fictional character.

Click to expand...

O.K. So, just replace "Indiana Jones" with "Howard Carter", or "The British Museum"...

DAI PHAN said:

I know but if happens in real life then what side are you on? DP

Click to expand...

In general I believe that much archaeology is grave robbing by the state. I have visited hundreds of historic sites including Stonehenge twice. I have never heard or read anything that increased my knowledge, they just speak vaguely abut "primitive religious ceremonies". Well a burial in UK is a religious ceremony and if I bury someone I would appreciate it if they remain buried. In my region there are hundreds if not thousands of Tumuli or burial mounds, all have been excavated and as far as I can see nothing really learned but the skeletons of those buried are kept in boxes and drawers in scientific institutes, until they lose interest and lose them or see them out with the rubbish. I have been to museums which have human skeletons on display and I consider it ghoulish. My uncle was custodian of a castle in Yorkshire. His job was to maintain and preserve it not to add to it or change it.

When it comes to the famous and especially the notorious it becomes a different matter.

gumbyk said:

O.K. So, just replace "Indiana Jones" with "Howard Carter", or "The British Museum"...

Click to expand...

I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.

rochie said:

Noooooo say it is not so, i thought they were documentaries

Click to expand...

Rochie,....they lied, although there are an alarming number of people who watch such things and believe they are based on truth.

pbehn said:

I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.

Click to expand...

I was thinking Greece when talking British Museum. There are now fairly strict controls over what archaeologists can and can't do. AFAIK each dig has to be approved by the country they are working in.

gumbyk said:

I was thinking Greece when talking British Museum. There are now fairly strict controls over what archaeologists can and can't do. AFAIK each dig has to be approved by the country they are working in.

Click to expand...

I worked in Greece with a young female engineer, she had spent two months in London just visiting museums (I am sure she had other more social activities too) She loved the place especially the British museum. The Elgin Marbles are actually in a poor state compared to how they were originally, that is because it was used as a storehouse for gunpowder which exploded. If those marbles weren't in the British Museum then they probably wouldn't be in the Acropolis either because the Nazis looted art and they would have loved them for some construction in Berlin. In this case the British Museum fulfilled a function, but perhaps it is time they went back, however I think if they did fewer peple would see them.

DAI PHAN said:

So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP

Click to expand...

Indiana Jones is a character in a movie, so...

pbehn said:

I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but I think at some point because of historical value it does belong in a museum. But I do see your point and understand it.

It is not valid to claim that valid archaeology amounts to grave robbing. All things in the world are owned by somebody, or some government. If a university or individual has the permission or authority to retrieve a given artefact then it is legitimate for them to do that. If a government legislates to either apply a blanket prohibition on the extraction or retrieval of certain items, such as what the German government has done with the retrieval or display of Nazi memorabilia, then such retrieval becomes a crime with another description but is still not grave robbing, .

For submerged war wrecks, there are international rules concerning retrieval of items from such wrecks, and the respect that needs to be paid to the dead that can be associated with those wrecks. It is generally a crime to remove items from a war grave without permission.

With regard to Ancient site, the law varies from country to country. In Australia, to be considered a grave site, you must be within a declared cemetery to be considered a grave site. It is not a grave site, if no-one has been buried there for more than 50 years (I think). Cemeteries older than this frequently are decommissioned (not the right term) the headstones removed and the land redeveloped. Frequently cemeteries that have some historical significance are protected by some form of heritage order. A few of the really old burial sites are designated archaeological site, which under the ICOMOS Burra International charter are protected by international convention. Same applies to most aboriginal burial sites.

One would think that Yammotos crash site would be protected by this charter. If so, the removal of wreck pieces for the purposes of souvenirs would seem to be running contrary to the intent of the abovementioned cultural heritage charter.

What makes it particularly irksome to me is that this souvenir hunting is often done without any certification or record keeping. The souvenirs are sold off with no benefit to the public awareness or appreciation. The items sit in some ones drawer somewhere, unloved, forgotten and not contributing in any way to the wider awareness of the event. So, no, I'm not in favour of this sort of souveniring but I would also say it is not grave robbing, unless the permissions processes have not been followed.


This is an interesting article on the plunder of WWII pcean floor wrecks in the Indonesian archipelago

Wartime shipwrecks are being illegally salvaged. Are we powerless to stop it?

In the United States laws about salvage and souvenirs are generally managed under the e Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987. Tthe United States government asserts ownership to all abandoned shipwrecks in state waters ( out to three miles on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, out to either three or nine miles in the Gulf of Mexico, and throughout the United States portion of the Great Lakes ) through the Abandoned Shipwreck Act. However, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, which essentially eliminated both the law of finds and the law of salvage of abandoned shipwrecks in state waters, transferred title to all abandoned wrecks in state waters to the respective states, some of which have management policies that facilitate shipwreck exploration and identification, and permit artifact recovery (e.g., South Carolina).

The other important ownership issue to be considered involves those shipwrecks entitled to sovereign immunity. Sovereign shipwreck property encompasses warships and other vessels used for military purposes at the time of their sinking. This would include naval vessels of any nation, including German U-boats, Confederate States Naval warships, Colonial privateers, and Spanish galleons. Further, this includes both naval warships sunk by accident or belligerent action, such as the U.S.S. Schurz or the U.S.S. Jacob Jones, as well as those disposed of in tests or sunk as an artificial reef, such as the U.S.S. Wilkes Barre.

President Clinton's Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships (January 19, 2001) succinctly sums up the issue of sovereign immunity:

"Pursuant to the property clause of Article IV of the Constitution, the United States retains title indefinitely to its sunken State craft unless title has been abandoned or transferred in the manner Congress authorized or directed. The United States recognizes the rule of international law that title to foreign sunken State craft may be transferred or abandoned only in accordance with the law of the foreign flag state."

Since sunken U.S. Navy vessels are federal property, according to U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 641), technically no portion of a government wreck may be disturbed or removed, and any unauthorized removal of any property from a U.S. Navy wreck is illegal. Ypu coul;d say such unauthorized removals constitute a form of grave robbing.

According to the principle of sovereign immunity, foreign warships sunk in United States' waters would be protected by the United States government, who would act as custodians of the sites in the best interest of the sovereign nation. Other countries generally acknowledge this principle as well. For example, the C.S.S. Alabama, as a Confederate States Navy warship, became the property of the United States following the end of the Civil War. While it was sunk off the coast of France, it is still recognized as United States property. Likewise, the H.M.S. Fowey, a fifth-rate British warship sunk of the coast of Florida, still remains the property of the United Kingdom. Yet, it should be pointed out that in some situations even foreign governments do not play by their own rules and respect the principle of sovereign immunity.

England has some provisions for the protection of aircraft crash sites

Military Aircraft Crash Sites | Historic England

so my advice about the fragment that was purchased is that morally it probably should probably have never been removed. legally I would say the wreck was probably unprotected, given its location.