题目内容
Archaeology as a profession faces two major problems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltry sums are available for excavating and even less is available for publishing the results and preserving the sites once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with priceless objects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegal excavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces being sold to the highest bidder. I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology and reduce the amount of illegal digging. I would propose that scientific archeological expeditions and governmental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the open market. Such sales would provide substantial funds for the excavation and preservation of archaeological sites and the publication of results. At the same time, they would break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market, thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegal activities. You might object that professionals excavate to acquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient artifacts are part of our global cultural heritage, which should be available for all to appreciate, not sold to the highest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply, everything that comes out of the ground has scientific value. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may be correct in claiming that every artifact has potential scientific value. Practically, you are wrong. I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancient lamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. In one small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recently uncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs in a single courtyard. Even precious royal seal impressions have been found in abundance—more than 4,000 examples so far. The basements of museums are simply not large enough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discovered in the future. There is not enough money even to catalogue the finds; as a result. they cannot be found again and become as inaccessible as if they had never been discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer, sold artifacts could be more accessible than are the pieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to sale, each could be photographed and the list of the purchasers could be maintained on the computer. A purchaser could even be required to agree to return the piece if it should become needed for scientific purposes. It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market. But the demand for the clandestine product would be substantially reduced. Who would want an unmarked pot when another was available whose provenance was known, and that was dated stratigraphically by the professional archaeologist who excavated it "The clandestine product" (Line 2, Last Par
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Although numbers of animals in a given region may fluctuate from year to year, the fluctuations are often temporary and, over long periods, trivial. Scientists have advanced three theories of population control to account for this relative constancy. The first theory attributes a relatively constant population to periodic climatic catastrophes that decimate populations with such frequency as to prevent them from exceeding some particular limit. In the case of small organisms with short life cycles, climatic changes need not be catastrophic: normal seasonal changes in photoperiod (daily amount of sunlight), for example, can govern population growth. This theory—the density independent view—asserts that climatic factors exert the same regulatory effect on population regardless of the number of individuals in a region. A second theory argues that population growth is primarily density-dependent—that is, the rate of growth of a population in a region decreases as the number of animals increases. The mechanisms that manage regulation may vary. For example, as numbers increase, the food supply would probably diminish, which would increase mortality. In addition, as Lotka and Volterra have shown, predators can find prey more easily in high-density populations. Other regulators include physiological control mechanisms: for example, Christian and Davis have demonstrated how the crowding that results from a rise in numbers may bring about hormonal changes in the pituitary (垂体) and adrenal glands (肾上腺) that in turn may regulate population by lowering sexual activity and inhibiting sexual maturation. There is evidence that these effects may persist for three generations in the absence of the original provocation. One challenge for density-dependent theorists is to develop models that would allow the precise prediction of the effects of crowding. A third theory, proposed by Wynne-Edwards and termed "epideictic", argues that organisms have evolved a "code" in the form of social or epideictic behavior displays, such as winter roosting aggregations or group vocalizing; such codes provide organisms with information on population size in a region so that they can, if necessary, exercise reproductive restraint. However, Wynne-Edwards’ theory, linking animal social behavior and population control, has been challenged, with some justification, by several studies. The challenge posed to the Wynne-Edwards’ theory by several studies is regarded by the author with
Archaeology as a profession faces two major problems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltry sums are available for excavating and even less is available for publishing the results and preserving the sites once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with priceless objects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegal excavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces being sold to the highest bidder. I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology and reduce the amount of illegal digging. I would propose that scientific archeological expeditions and governmental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the open market. Such sales would provide substantial funds for the excavation and preservation of archaeological sites and the publication of results. At the same time, they would break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market, thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegal activities. You might object that professionals excavate to acquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient artifacts are part of our global cultural heritage, which should be available for all to appreciate, not sold to the highest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply, everything that comes out of the ground has scientific value. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may be correct in claiming that every artifact has potential scientific value. Practically, you are wrong. I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancient lamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. In one small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recently uncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs in a single courtyard. Even precious royal seal impressions have been found in abundance—more than 4,000 examples so far. The basements of museums are simply not large enough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discovered in the future. There is not enough money even to catalogue the finds; as a result. they cannot be found again and become as inaccessible as if they had never been discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer, sold artifacts could be more accessible than are the pieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to sale, each could be photographed and the list of the purchasers could be maintained on the computer. A purchaser could even be required to agree to return the piece if it should become needed for scientific purposes. It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market. But the demand for the clandestine product would be substantially reduced. Who would want an unmarked pot when another was available whose provenance was known, and that was dated stratigraphically by the professional archaeologist who excavated it Which of the following objections does the author anticipate his proposal might encounter
Debates among candidates are rare in most countries. But they have become a staple of American politics. Americans like debates because the candidates can be compared in an unscripted, live performance. History indicates that a bad performance, particularly a telling gaffe, can badly damage a candidate in the polls. The debates are a "key test" of the strength and abilities of the candidates. The unforgettable debate quip that can deflate a candidacy is the worst nightmare of any presidential hopeful. "There you go again", Ronald Reagan’s memorable retort to President Jimmy Carter, was a line that stuck with both viewers and commentators in the 1980 presidential campaign. Carter went on to lose the election, polls showed mostly because of the economy. But Carter’s debate performance didn’t help. The potential of debates to damage a vulnerable presidential hopeful is one reason why some candidates, particularly frontrunners, are reluctant to risk their chances in such an uncontrolled environment, But broadcast presidential debates, both in the primaries and in the general election, are now routine and expected by the American people. It was not always so. Face-to-face presidential debates began their broadcast history in 1948 when Republicans Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen faced each other in a radio debate during the Oregon Republican presidential primary. The first broadcast television debates between the two major party nominees were in 1960 when Senator John F. Kennedy faced Vice President Richard Nixon. The debates were considered crucial to Kennedy’s narrow victory. Interestingly, Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. But the far larger television audience applauded Kennedy’s performance, testimony to the importance—in the television age—of image as well as substance. The point is Americans are concerned not just with a leader’s policies and ideology, but also with his character and temperament. In the contentious atmosphere of a debate, such personal attributes are easier for voters to judge than in pre-packaged campaign commercials or formal speeches. Since 1987, the presidential debates have been organized by the bipartisan organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Its purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the two major parties. In Election 2000, the commission set a threshold for the participation of third party candidates in the debates. They must show they have the support—as evidenced in a number of opinion polls—of at least 15 percent of the population. Whatever the quality of the debates in Election 2000, they are unlikely to equal the most famous political debates in American history which occurred long before the invention of radio and television. In 1858, Stephen Douglas debated Abraham Lincoln for a U.S. Senate seat. Douglas, a pro-slavery Democrat, was the incumbent. Lincoln was anti-slavery. "Honest Abe," as he was endearingly called, lost the Senate race, but two years later was elected the first Republican president of the United States. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are still heralded for the quality of the discourse at a crucial time in the nation’s history. The most famous political debates in American history most probably focused on discussing
Science is committed to the universal. A sign of this is that the more successful a science becomes, the broader the agreement about its basic concepts. There is not a separate Chinese or American or Soviet thermodynamics, for example; there is simply thermodynamics. For several decades of the twentieth century there was a Western and a Soviet genetics, the latter associated with Lysenko’s theory that environmental stress can produce genetic mutations. Today Lysenko’s theory is discredited, and there is now only one genetics. As the corollary of science, technology also exhibits the universalizing tendency. This is why the spread of technology makes the world look ever more homogeneous. Architectural styles, dress styles, musical styles—even eating styles—tend increasingly to be world styles. The world looks more homogeneous because it is more homogeneous. Children who grow up in this world therefore experience it as a sameness rather than a diversity, and because their identities are shaped by this sameness, their sense of differences among cultures and individuals diminishes. As buildings become more alike, the people who inhabit the buildings become more alike. The result is described precisely in a phrase that is already familiar: the disappearance of history. The automobile illustrates the point with great clarity. A technological innovation like streamlining or allwelded body construction may be rejected initially, but if it is important to the efficiency, or economics of automobiles, it will reappear in different ways until it is not only accepted but universally regarded as an asset. Today’s automobile is no longer unique to a given company or even to a given national culture, its basic features are found, with variations, in automobiles in general, no matter who makes them. As in architecture, so in automaking. In a given cost range, the same technology tends to produce the same solutions. The visual evidence for this is as obvious for cars as for buildings. Today, if you choose models in the same price range, you will be hard put at 500 paces to tell one make from another. In other words, the specifically American traits that lingered in American automobiles in the 1960s—traits that linked American cars to American history—are disappearing. Even the Volkswagen Beetle has disappeared and has taken with it the visible evidence of the history of streamlining that extends from D’Arcy Thompson to Carl Breer to Ferdinand Porsche. If man creates machines, machines in turn shape their creators. As the automobile is universalized, it universalizes those who use it. Like the World Car he drives, modern man is becoming universal. No longer quite an individual, no longer quite the product of a unique geography and culture, he moves from one climatecontrolled shopping mall to another, one airport to the next, from one Holiday Inn to its successor three hundred miles down the road; but somehow his location never changes. He is cosmopolitan. The price he pays is that he no longer has a home in the traditional sense of the word. The benefit is that he begins to suspect home on the traditional sense is another name for limitations, and that home in the modern sense is everywhere and always surrounded by neighbors. The general idea of the passage is that
微信支付 
支付宝支付