Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

  1. #1
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    The most common answer that I have discovered looking up this question online is "the intent behind it makes the difference" and "if the government says its OK, its archaeology".

    This sort of discussion pops up when amerindian and other indeginous burial sites are involved. But also stuff like the Titanic tend to attract criticisms, some people don't seem to like the idea of people digging up their ancestors and taking their stuff, regardless of motive.

  2. #2

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    I think grave-robbing sounds more profitable. Of course most archaeology isn't the excavation of burials, which is illegal in some cases in some countries. Destruction of cities are some of the most valuable sites however, and usually the excavations of the remains of those killed in the destruction takes place, but of course, they aren't proper burials.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #3

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    If it's actually disturbing graves (as pointed out, an awful lot of archaeology doesn't go anywhere near gravesites), then yes, it's grave-robbing in the strictest sense.

    That said, my reaction is "so what?" In nearly all cases, anybody for whom the grave would have had direct significance is long since in their own grave, making the worst possible violation "indignation over disturbing the remains of people kinda like me that I didn't actually know". The potential gains in terms of historical and anthropological understanding far outweigh that risk.

  4. #4

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    I assume this thread is here is because of the ethical implications. Sometimes people actually have an unexpected strong reaction the first time they encounter remains at a site.

    This is an Edomite girl who lived almost three thousand years ago:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    She was exhumed during a salvage excavation at Wadi Fidan. The Jordanian government planned to create a reservoir there which would have submerged, and partially destroyed, hundreds of burial sites, 287 graves were "salvaged". This girl's parents almost certainly worked at the copper production sites at Feynan. All the bones showed high levels of contamination from metals involved in the production. Even this girl had some, though less than the adults. The men not surprisingly had the most. You can see she's wearing a copper bracelet made from copper from Feynan. All the remains are now in San Diego, because the Jordanians don't really care what's taken. I wasn't there, but I'm told there was somewhat of an uncomfortable reaction to finding a kid for some.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  5. #5

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I wasn't there, but I'm told there was somewhat of an uncomfortable reaction to finding a kid for some.
    Having a six year old child myself, it would be hard not to put together a narrative which would be personally painful about her death, projecting that on your own children.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  6. #6
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Dead people have no rights. The debate is property rights which I suggest is political not ethical - wrong forum.

  7. #7
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Oh Denny Crane, dead people only have rights if the government in charge say they do. Same as with living people.

    Obviously, this debate is about living people and those peoples belifes about respect for the dead and/or sacredness of burial sites, not property.

    I belive I heard somewhere that there is a significant number of australian aboriginals that want all australian aboriginal remains to be reburried, so if you belive australian aboriginals have cultural/religious have rights in regards to the dead than suddenly there is an ethical debate here, eh?

  8. #8

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    The most common answer that I have discovered looking up this question online is "the intent behind it makes the difference" and "if the government says its OK, its archaeology".

    This sort of discussion pops up when amerindian and other indeginous burial sites are involved. But also stuff like the Titanic tend to attract criticisms, some people don't seem to like the idea of people digging up their ancestors and taking their stuff, regardless of motive.
    archaeology usually try to save a site, grave robbing is just about gobbling up the valuable stuff for profit. There is a gray area but to some degree it is based on the age of the grave and whether it is the only source for knowledge. That's why archaelogists have no keen interest in the Titanic other than validating how it sank but they will fine comb any grave from the bronze age.

    Archaelogists will also often just open a site, catalogue the finds and then close it again preserving as much of the prior condition as possible so their approach actually includes a debate of the pros and cons of opening graves etc.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  9. #9
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Well last time I checked grave-robbing wasn't a ing scientific discipline!

    What's up next? Rapists and gynecologists?!

  10. #10
    Border Patrol's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Irvine, California
    Posts
    4,286

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    Oh Denny Crane, dead people only have rights if the government in charge say they do. Same as with living people.

    Obviously, this debate is about living people and those peoples belifes about respect for the dead and/or sacredness of burial sites, not property.

    I belive I heard somewhere that there is a significant number of australian aboriginals that want all australian aboriginal remains to be reburried, so if you belive australian aboriginals have cultural/religious have rights in regards to the dead than suddenly there is an ethical debate here, eh?
    Rights are not something given. A government cannot bestow rights unto anybody.
    Proud Nerdimus Maximus of the Trench Coat Mafia.

  11. #11
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taiji View Post
    Well last time I checked grave-robbing wasn't a ing scientific discipline!

    What's up next? Rapists and gynecologists?!
    I'm a little disturbed that you think the most important distinction between sexual assault and gynecology is the intention behind them. Surely the important thing is whether you have permission to participate and the harm done if you don't.

    I think you have to respect the spiritual beliefs that people had when they were alive, even after they are dead. After all, does anyone in this thread seriously think that necrophilia is justified just because dead people don't have rights if you don't believe in the soul and an afterlife? Its the same principal.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  12. #12

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    I think you have to respect the spiritual beliefs that people had when they were alive, even after they are dead. After all, does anyone in this thread seriously think that necrophilia is justified just because dead people don't have rights if you don't believe in the soul and an afterlife? Its the same principal.
    Ok, fair, but to what extent? Is there an "expiration date" on that concept, and at what point do you measure the value of respecting those beliefs against the value of the knowledge the dig could provide?

  13. #13
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    I'm a little disturbed that you think the most important distinction between sexual assault and gynecology is the intention behind them. Surely the important thing is whether you have permission to participate and the harm done if you don't.

    I think you have to respect the spiritual beliefs that people had when they were alive, even after they are dead. After all, does anyone in this thread seriously think that necrophilia is justified just because dead people don't have rights if you don't believe in the soul and an afterlife? Its the same principal.
    I'm glad to hear you are disturbed by your unbelievably inept, or simply unkind and dishonest, interpretation of my post.

    I'll say it twice: Archaeology is a ing scientific discipline! You really can't tell the difference between theft of someone's belongings and an archaeological investigation? You think dead people, for no reason whatsoever, give a about having their bones messed about, but, rather strangely, they don't give a about science any more?! ... It's nuts - How can you defend such foolishness?
    Last edited by Taiji; June 26, 2014 at 07:48 AM. Reason: discontinuity

  14. #14
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,075

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Ok, a more serious remark now. In professional archaeology there's actually a strong trend, also backed up now by regulation (at least in Europe), that the best way to preserve archaeological remains is not to dig them up at all. Most archaeological research taking place these days are so called "emergency digs". That's when sites are under imminent threat of destruction, usually as a consequence of planned construction works. There's also a growing awareness that past digs have destroyed a lot of valuable evidence due to crude research methods and that, by extention, future technology may be better equipped for non destructive research than our current methods. Sorry if that bypasses the moral question, but if that's the current practice, then that moral question is becoming less and less relevant.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  15. #15

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    The most common answer that I have discovered looking up this question online is "the intent behind it makes the difference" and "if the government says its OK, its archaeology".

    This sort of discussion pops up when amerindian and other indeginous burial sites are involved. But also stuff like the Titanic tend to attract criticisms, some people don't seem to like the idea of people digging up their ancestors and taking their stuff, regardless of motive.
    Depends, who is doing it, why, how long ago where the burials? Are the remains treated with respect and reburied? What can be learned (for instance the people in iceland killed by the Spanish Flu, dug up to get freeze preserved samples of the virus for research purposes, to discover why it was so deadly).

    This has to be taken into account. Then ofc you get the situation where you didn't expect remains, this happens frequently in Iron Age sites.

  16. #16
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,420

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Well it obviously it depends on circumstance, and if there is no longer an actual genetic or cultural connection then there is no reason why the remains can't be properly studied. For example the remains of King Richard III of England, while there is an obvious genetic connection to the living Royalty of England, it is so far back that any reason not to study it is quite frankly absurd and pretentious. A reasonable argument to exhume the remains, study them, and then give it a final burying ground should be made, but there is actually no parental relationship that the Royal house could argue to oppose the study of it's remains, quite frankly it would seem overzealous and abuseful to keep him away from science to study.
    It's all in the grounds of respect, that should go both ways, people should actually try to understand what archaeologists are doing before trying to outright deny us access to the remains.

    And Archaeology isn't entirely, or even mostly, about digging up bodies, You do know there is such a thing as buildings, plumbing systems, day to day utensiles and instruments, etc, That actually outnumber corpses 20 to 1? Hell, most of the time we don't even have the budget to mantain the things that are dug up, which is part of the reason avoiding to do so without a proper institutionally avalled subject of Investigation is becoming popular in the archaeological world.

    Ok, a more serious remark now. In professional archaeology there's actually a strong trend, also backed up now by regulation (at least in Europe), that the best way to preserve archaeological remains is not to dig them up at all. Most archaeological research taking place these days are so called "emergency digs". That's when sites are under imminent threat of destruction, usually as a consequence of planned construction works. There's also a growing awareness that past digs have destroyed a lot of valuable evidence due to crude research methods and that, by extention, future technology may be better equipped for non destructive research than our current methods. Sorry if that bypasses the moral question, but if that's the current practice, then that moral question is becoming less and less relevant.
    Well yeah, I mean we all obviously want to see the grand monuments of ancient people's but if we can't guarantee its care once out in the open, what's the point of digging it out in the first place? Most people take that into account around here when in digging proyects, there has to be an actual academic reason to want to pop something out of the ground.


    I wasn't there, but I'm told there was somewhat of an uncomfortable reaction to finding a kid for some.
    eeeh sissies, I have seen babies, small children and adults, some of them horribly mutilated (to our standards anyway), and I find it odd that anyone that has already seen a dead person would actually be uncomfortable with these sceletal remains. One of my partners is a mother of a three year old, and while there are certainly found feelings when finding the remains, most, if not all of them are academical in nature. A finding would have to be particularly gruesome for me and most of my partners to actually get upset by it, discounting the possibility of finding an actual crime scene (which would truly be horrendous.).
    Last edited by saxdude; June 19, 2014 at 03:28 PM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by saxdude View Post
    eeeh sissies, I have seen babies, small children and adults, some of them horribly mutilated (to our standards anyway), and I find it odd that anyone that has already seen a dead person would actually be uncomfortable with these sceletal remains. One of my partners is a mother of a three year old, and while there are certainly found feelings when finding the remains, most, if not all of them are academical in nature. A finding would have to be particularly gruesome for me and most of my partners to actually get upset by it, discounting the possibility of finding an actual crime scene (which would truly be horrendous.).
    What Phier said makes sense to me as a parent. It wasn't that people started weeping or anything though, just everyone got quiet for awhile. Not everyone had seen a dead kid before, that was the difference I'm sure. It was also a large team mostly made up of graduate students who had only seen skeletal remains from that dig. But I don't think gruesome had anything to do with with it. I certainly wouldn't describe it that way. The other day I was talking to the excavators at Ashkelon, evidently they found a ton of newborn skeletons in a sewer next to a brothel. Most of them were male, which is opposite of what you'd expect until you think about why. That's more gruesome I think, but there isn't so much of a personal story to imagine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  18. #18
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    I seem to (very vaguely) remember watching a TV show about researchers at a site a long time ago. They first asked a local shaman if the spirits said it was OK to study a site, and the spirits evidently were cool with that. (Or maybe I am misremembering that, though that is pretty sensitive to the locals)

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Ok, a more serious remark now. In professional archaeology there's actually a strong trend, also backed up now by regulation (at least in Europe), that the best way to preserve archaeological remains is not to dig them up at all. Most archaeological research taking place these days are so called "emergency digs". That's when sites are under imminent threat of destruction, usually as a consequence of planned construction works. There's also a growing awareness that past digs have destroyed a lot of valuable evidence due to crude research methods and that, by extention, future technology may be better equipped for non destructive research than our current methods. Sorry if that bypasses the moral question, but if that's the current practice, then that moral question is becoming less and less relevant.
    Well that is good to hear.

    I personally don't have a problem with archaeology so long as its respectful to the people that have connections to the dead, and the historical site isn't destroyed (if it can be helped). Ideally it should handle the dead with respect too.

    What is a museum exhibit of a mummy but a better kept modern version of a tomb open to the public? I'm sure King whats-his-face would be rather comfortable in his new home, still surrounded by his stuff, and with new adoring fans.

    Quote Originally Posted by saxdude View Post
    You do know there is such a thing as buildings, plumbing systems, day to day utensiles and instruments, etc, That actually outnumber corpses 20 to 1?
    Of coarse I know about that, but who would have a problem with excavating classical age Greek plumbing? The issue arises in regards to stuff like this...
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/communit.../#.U6NkpbGQkx4
    Last edited by James the Red; June 19, 2014 at 05:45 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    I personally don't have a problem with archaeology so long as its respectful to the people that have connections to the dead, and the historical site isn't destroyed (if it can be helped). Ideally it should handle the dead with respect too.
    There is a bit a gray area when people believe they are closely connected to the dead in a particular case when it can be empirically demonstrated that they probably aren't (but sometimes not until after the dead have already been examined).

    In my experience, people are respectful of human remains without giving much thought to it. I've seen people playing around with ancient horse remains, but not human bones. I prefer they don't touch them any more than they have to, because I don't want them getting their filthy modern DNA on them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  20. #20

    Default Re: The 'is archaeology grave-robbing?' debate.

    There are times when a people can have a valid claim to remains and I would respect their desire to not have them exhumed.

    Then there are times when its pretty much bulldoohicky, like in the case of Patric Stewart.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •