Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
It's a very right-wing article so I would regard it as balance against the other reports rather than providing the whole story:
quote: '...do they [archaeologists] have a political agenda? -- has come into question.
quote: It's a question that equally hangs over the deliberations of a meeting that took place recently in Dublin of the World Archeological Congress. The members reportedly considered a lengthy statement urging colleagues to refuse any military requests for a list of Iran's sites that should be exempt from possible air strikes. Finally they settled for a shorter July 11 press release. Among other things, the final press release says that WAC "expresses strong opposition to aggressive military action . . . by the U.S. government, or by any other government." The release quotes WAC's president as saying that WAC "strongly opposed the war in Iraq and . . . we strongly oppose any war in Iran" and that "any differences with Iran should be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic means."
quote: If as scholars, archeologists take a priori public positions on political matters, what are we to make of the field-data they produce? How impartial can it be? And with their own credibility marred, who is there left as an impartial body of experts for the public to turn to?'
Speaking of the WAC and their political impartiality (or not), does anyone know what happened at the WAC congress session that was trying to include Tara and the M3?
Andy
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road