Oh Silly Ethics.

Controversy at the Smithsonian anyone?
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/smithsonian-shipwreck-exhibit.html
The new Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds exhibit seems to be getting a lot of heat at the moment, escalating especially with its opening date being in 2012. The artefact collection apparently was discovered, and recovered by a private German company in the Java Sea. Being a private company, who also sold many of the artefacts (especially ceramics), most archaeologists are calling into question the ethics of the recovery and the ethics of displaying the exhibit.

Concludes Bruce Smith, curator of North American history at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History: "I think this exhibition would send a very bad message to the public, that the Smithsonian doesn't stand for the preservation of archaeological resources and that mining archaeological sites is OK."

Now, that's just the jist of the article. The Smithsonian is setting up a blue-ribbon panel to debate the ethics over this exhibit. The whole time I'm reading this article I keep thinking two things:
1)Would you rather pirates came and sold all of it and didn't document a thing? Because Indonesia didn't participate with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (mouthful, right there).
2) What are you going to do about it now?
Like really, that's all I can think. After the debate on the ethics is over, and whether or not the exhibit opens, what will be done about the find itself? I'm sure they're going to document everything about every artefact (which I enjoy, don't judge me!) And I'm sure the company who found it has coordinates so they can go back there and comb over it, and discuss the implications of where it was found and omg soil content. But to me, really it feels a little... redundant.
Now watch as every anthro, arky person tries to drive a stake through me for heresy.
But it does! It feels redundant! These people had an archaeologist on site when they dug it up. It's not like they botched it, or maybe they really did. They don't actually tell you in the article. It just feels like if it's such an ethical issue, then they'll probably want to go back over it. Fine, I get cataloging the artefacts, but I swear if they go back and comb through the site itself before they declare it "ethical" I will facepalm.
Also, side note. The Anthropologist in me snickered, in a trolling manner, and thought: "so who deemed it unethical by their standards. You guys remember the first archaeologist right? You'd call them tomb raiders these days."
But thats just me...
Also:
Atlantis? What? What?!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110312135018.htm
Heh. I personally think Plato was a troll with this comment.

Also also!
Help Japan, give a little love:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/impact.your.world/?hpt=T1