Arcadia Discussion Zone

Your evidence for this statement is where?



The tomb was reported to the DRAC about 18 months ago - not 10 years as you seem to be suggesting. And the DRAC did make a statement at the time indicating their interest as reported by the Bloodline team. If they thought it was rubbish, they wouldn't have made this statement.

VAM

In the fact that DRAC have refused to have anything to do with the gimmick.




HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF MESSAGES AGO did Raven give out the fact that DRAC have made NO official announcement and that Giraud's comment was taken out of context - that it was NOT an "official DRAC statement".

HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF MESSAGES AGO did Raven give out the fact that DRAC have made NO official announcement and that Giraud's comment was taken out of context - that it was NOT an "official DRAC statement".


I think you will find all that has been taken down off of Ravens web site for some reason .....

Hi,
It most certainly was a DRAC statement provided to Bruce for use pre the release of "Bloodline".

Correction: Giraud's private comment was presented as an official DRAC announcement - it was no such thing.

Not a private comment at all. A written comment provided via email, with full right to veto by both sides, intended for use in the publicity material pre the release of "Bloodline".
Sorry if it's getting a bit repetitive

Repeating canards again.
This was all discussed many months ago.

Repeating canards does not change them into "facts".

DRAC have never released any official comment or any official announcement relating to this story.

Period.

DRAC have no interest in the matter...

You raised a doubt, I have answered it honestly. It is of course entirely up to you if you choose to disbelieve me. But that doesn't change the truth.

Dated 26 September 2008

I'm not following all this "Bloodline/Tomb/Drac" stuff....but I'll go along with this statement quoted below......how would the boot feel if it were on the other foot?

"the English should leave the French Patrimoine alone"

Your responses lack any subtlety of interpretation, and assume that Raven's conversation with the man from the DRAC represents the full picture and invalidates our conversations with the DRAC which have happened over a protracted period. I can understand why Raven says what he does, and I know of course why I say what I do. It's about having a certain open-mindedness, being prepared to see other people's points of view. That's all.

In my view, DRAC would be mad to make any comment of positive interest in the alleged tomb for fear of creating a "situation", in the RLC (geographical) area.

I think relying on the fact that they have not made such a comment about any planned steps for investigation as evidence that they are not in the slightest bit interested is a bit naïve.

Surely DRAC cannot make any comment regarding an investigation / excavation of the tomb until after the event...

Et voila!

That's right, it's all about a belief system.
It will never translate into an any actual archaeological excavation in practice.

Somebody could likewise create the long lost grave of King Arthur in the United Kingdom, decorate it with artefacts obtained from e-bay and archaeological auctions, present freshly-composed Latin texts contained in ancient vials similary obtained from archaeological auctions, and the British Press will be as equally silent about that as the French Press are silent about the "secret of BS" in RLC.

Correction: DRAC make announcements during the event.
And it is plainly obvious that DRAC has no interest in this story.

How many times has the site been contaminated by non-archaeologists?
Only professional archaeologists in France have the right to conduct excavations.
Where is the legal literature from DRAC that would have been necessary for the various items - hair strands, bottles, chests, etc - to be officially REMOVED from the site AND to be transported to another country?

All this needs official permission with relevant documentation from DRAC.
Where is all of this material?

They are 2 separate issues here, aren't there?
1. The statement displaying an interest in the site put out by DRAC for Bloodline.
2. The archaeological investigation.

It isn't about a "belief system", heaven forfend! It is possible that two people can have two different experiences and responses from a single organisation - these two things can co-exist, as indeed they do in this case. I do not suspect Raven of lying just because of our dealings with the DRAC.

Whether and when it does translate into a full-scale archaeological investigation by the DRAC is only within the remit of the self-same DRAC to decide.

1. Giraud was expressing a personal opinion, not making any official DRAC announcement.
2. The archaeological investigation does not look like it's going to go ahead if DRAC have not so far made any official announcement in relation to the matter.

And going back to official documentation that DRAC need to provide in relation to taking artifacts from sites and then taking them to other countries - where is this documentation?

Are you seriously suggesting that ordinary members of the public in France have the right to contaminate and excavate archaeological sites and take artefacts from those sites to other countries without obtaining officially documented permission from DRAC?

To separate out a response to your list of personal opinions on disparate parts of the matter -

1. Giraud was of course speaking as Conservateur at the DRAC, writing from an official email address with the full knowledge that this would be used in a film made for cinema viewing.

2.Your opinion on whether it looks as though the investigation is going to go ahead is based on what exactly?

3. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks English people should tamper with what may turn out to be an archaeological site worthy of forensic examination. DRAC have the case - it is up to them how they handle it.

Where's the statement from the landowner that he will allow the excavation of a tomb on his land? It looks like everyone has left that particular person out of the picture entirely. If he simply says bugger off, there will be no excavation.

Is that right? What is the law on that?

Where is the documentation that DRAC have to provide in order for artefacts to be excavated, removed and transported to other countries by non-professional archaeologists? What was the name (or names) of those in DRAC who sanctioned this action to take place and where is the paperwork? How can the official documentation be accessed? Where is its location?

That is just your speculation...

http://www.draccentre.culture.gouv.fr/

The contamination of the archaeological site by non-professionals, the removal of artefacts, the transporting of those artefacts to other countries - without the endorsement of DRAC would be illegal in France. Unless permission was granted by DRAC for that to have happened. Where is the official documentation?