The Discovery Channel is hosting Egypt Week, with the main event being the live excavation of a massive graveyard.
Why is it considered OK to despoil graveyards? I doubt many of us would be happy if our parents or grandparents were dug up so people could examine their burial site.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, we generally have the sense not to bury the wealth of nations and the greatest artistic acheivements of our time with the mouldering corpses of our ded.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even so, does that make it OK?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Not really. But I'm willing to let it go considering that they are pretty much dead, so they don't mind. Furthermore they were buried thousands of years ago, so absolutely nobody currently living on the planet has a personal emotional attatchment to the people who used to live in those corpses.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think most of us have organ donor cards; I'd hope that would mean we wouldn't mind our body being respectfully examined in the interests of science (some aspects of which may very well save lives).
Also, as nearly everywhere humans were there are dead people, for purely practical reasons a ban on digging up dead people would stop nearly all archaeology (of human civilizations and such). Current archaeology best practice demands that anywhere there is a clear close relationship (such as with many Native American sites), human remains be turned over to the decisions of those related (usually by tribe).
[ December 07, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I should put this in perspective. The way I see it, corpses don't really deserve any specil consideration, considering that they are no longer inhabited by the people who died. In fact, I think organ donation should be something you have to actively opt out of.
(edit)
Mind, I'm not saying that people whose religions specifically command certain burial rights be disregarded. You should be able to opt out of organ donation for any reason at all, even squeamishness. Still, it should be the exception, and not the rule.
[ December 07, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Frankly, it's pretty sick that folks even care what happens to dead bodies other than sanitary disposal.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
*faints*
I agree 100% with Idemonsthenes.
And I hereby give consent that people 6,000 years from now are more than welcome to dig me up and examine every particle of what is left of my being if it helps know my time better.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I also give such consent. Heck, I give such consent for people to use my body for scientific purposes immediately after I die (well, I'd prefer to be verified dead first).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok, there are issues in some religions, I believe Judaism is one of them about the corpse being treated a certain way. Granted the religions of ancient egypt really don't exist in the same ways. And there are orthodox Jewish archeologists so maybe the bodies just have to be treated respectfully. Rivka?
AJ
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
To be perfectly honest, if someone wanted to dig up my parents (provided, of course, they were dead), I wouldn't mind. They'd be dead - and they wouldn't know what was happening to them. Be it for purposes of burglary or study, it wouldn't matter to me.
And yes, I also give my consent to be dug up in 6000 years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, it's pretty sick that folks even care what happens to dead bodies other than sanitary disposal.
Why? What's "sick" about giving respect to the dead by treating their bodies with dignity?
I have nothing against organ donation, although I think the default should NOT be the taking of organs. But the respect due a person does not end at their death, nor is that respect solely due to the possible feelings of survivors.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I think, as has been mentioned, the attitudes on this vary from culture to culture. It sounds like maybe modern Egyptians don't object to this.
In the U.S., native American tribes have finally succeeded in becoming forces that archeologists have to reckon with - and many of them do NOT want the remains of their ancestors disturbed, let alone studied.
I remember an article in which a tribal representative was giving an example of the cultural gap. He said he'd sit down at the table with the archeologists and ask how they'd feel if he dug up their ancestors, examined the gravesite, and used the remains as specimens to be studied. The archeologists were all pretty cool with the concept. The point was lost, because it didn't connect at all with the values of the archeologists.
So I guess I'm interested in how this sits with the Egyptian public.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
One thing to consider is how the ancient Egyptians would have felt about it.
From what I know about their religion, I don't think they would have liked it.
I have mixed feelings on this one...
[ December 07, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How much are the present-day inhabitants of egypt descendents of the anciant pharohs?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One thing to consider is how the ancient Egyptians would have felt about it.
I think this question is highly relevant.
Dagonee
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I mean, the problem Native Americans have with it has to do with their beliefs, right? Well, the Ancient Egyptians apparently believed that if your body is preserved, you have it in the afterlife, just as if your possessions (or symbolic representation thereof) are buried with you, you'd have it in the afterlife. I don't think they would like the idea of someone doing research on a dead body.
However, we wouldn't really know this if no one had ever opened the tombs. And even in ancient Egypt, there were grave robbers. So, I don't know what to make of it, really.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I wonder how much an influence the prevalence of secularism within a culture would have on this issue. I'm thinking that the more secular, the less this matters. The more religious, and in particular religious about ancestory, the more it would matter. I wonder how the Japanese feel about this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm fine with it. Current and recent graveyards should be left alone, but anything over, say, a thousand years is part of history and time. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, all is vanity - all of that. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
IIRC, in Japan human remains only remain in one place for a few years, then it's disposed of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But they took steps - very successful steps - to break the ashes to ashes, dust to dust cycle.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We aren't re-introducing those bodies to that cycle.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But their intention was that by preserving these bodies and building tombs, they would not be destroyed or disturbed. Should we disregard that intention?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Should a person's intention be honored *forever*?
Personally, I think that's taking things a bit far. They're dead. As long as you're respectful of their remains, I don't see honoring a modern interpretation of a 4,000 years dead person's original intentions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But for what purpose? It's one thing to begin a major project, uncover a grave site you didn't know was there, and reinter the bodies in a respectful manner.
This is simply curiosity.
Dagonee
[ December 07, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Do you believe that the soul survives forever? If so, should we respect those who are dead?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can you respect the dead without fulfilling their every desire?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But they took steps - very successful steps - to break the ashes to ashes, dust to dust cycle.
So did Ozymandius.
This isn't a couple of kids poking around the haunted house. It's a study of humanity, and it's a source of knowledge that we would be without otherwise.
These people are dead, their children are dead, the next fifty generations are dead, and they don't care anymore. I wouldn't advocate having a stepping contest on the site, but if every piece of ground that has ever had a dead body in it is off limits, the we just tied up the whole earth. Let the earth move on.
It isn't the final resting place, anyway. There is no final resting place. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But they're not trying to free up a piece of ground to be productive, nor am I advocating keeping every square foot of ground where bodies have been off limits.
In this case, these people are intentionally going into a tomb and removing carefully preserved bodies, for no reason other than to lear something about a long dead civilization. This is not crucial knowledge. This is one step better than voyeurism.
Dagonee
[ December 07, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I mean, if we were just studying the writing on the walls, or even looking at the scrolls and stuff with them, it might be one thing. Do we really need to submit the bodies to CAT scans, biopsies, and everything else, just to learn how a particular king or priest died?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They died three thousand years ago. They preserved themselves and their goods in order to be remembered. What better way?
I feel certain the excavators aren't going to be hanging around a lab making the skeletons talk.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Porter, can you respect the *living* without fulfilling their every desire? My answer: Absolutely. I respect my father, but I rarely do what he wants me to do. Fortunately he's not dead yet so he has plenty of suggestions in him I'm not going to take.
When he dies, I will try to honor his wishes. But I won't make a religion of it.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Why not? And go ahead and dig up my relatives. You may learn something of 20th century society by examining their remains.
When I go, please recycle my biomass back into the planet's. I'm just borrowing it right now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What constitutes crucial knowledge? AFAIK, most every time we examine a mummy closely we learn something new and fascinating. Are we only allowed to excavate when we think in advance we're going to come out with something "fascinating"?
Not to mention, that as far as I can tell they're not doing this excavation because of Egypt Week, they're video taping this excavation because of Egypt Week (and probably contributing some funding, of course). The excavation seems to be a pretty standard academic one.
I mean, we found most of the known fragments of sappho being reused as mummy wrappings!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This reminds me of the story from the Frasier pilot - about the actress who just wanted to be remembered. She planned an elegant suicide a la Marilyn Monroe, with perfect makeup and a bearskin rug, but she made herself sick with the alcohol and drugs and died drowning in the toilet instead.
But she was remembered.
No one turned themselves into a mummy with all the expense in order to be forgotten.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What constitutes crucial knowledge? AFAIK, most every time we examine a mummy closely we learn something new and fascinating. Are we only allowed to excavate when we think in advance we're going to come out with something "fascinating"?
Actually, I'm not at all convinced that any discovery is enough to justify it.
quote:Not to mention, that as far as I can tell they're not doing this excavation because of Egypt Week, they're video taping this excavation because of Egypt Week (and probably contributing some funding, of course). The excavation seems to be a pretty standard academic one.
I know that. It doesn't change the analysis one bit. Academic graverobbing doesn't strike me as preferable to profit-motivated graberobbing.
quote:I mean, we found most of the known fragments of sappho being reused as mummy wrappings!
So?
Dagonee
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: They preserved themselves and their goods in order to be remembered.
Actually, they preserved themselves and their goods in order to have them with them in the afterlife. They believed that you could literally take it with you. They also believed that removing or disturbing these things would deny the person whose tomb it was these things in the afterlife. Now, just because we don't believe it, is it right to disregard their belief?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Seems to me that anyone who thinks this is OK shouldn't have a problem with posthemous baptism.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- if my wishes are that no ground for one hundred miles around my burial site be disturbed, should that wish be respected?
As for Sappho, her works are considered some of the most influential poetry of all time. That's "so?"
You're okay with people being moved for "productive" purposes with respectful reburial, but there are many peoples where any disturbance is a sacrilege. Why does that its "productive" in nature make it okay?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee -- if my wishes are that no ground for one hundred miles around my burial site be disturbed, should that wish be respected?
If you happen to own those 30,000+ square miles then sure. But in this case, it's the looting of the bodies thats at issue.
quote:As for Sappho, her works are considered some of the most influential poetry of all time. That's "so?"
Not everything needs to be preserved. Clearly you don't think any means would be OK to procure those lost verses. This is one of the means I consider too much.
quote:You're okay with people being moved for "productive" purposes with respectful reburial, but there are many peoples where any disturbance is a sacrilege. Why does that its "productive" in nature make it okay?
Actually, I was clear that inadvertance was important in that equation, and treating the bodies with respect afterwards - i.e., reburying them somewhere - us important.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with Dagonee. While I, personally, would prefer to have my remains return to the ecosystem as efficiently as possible, and my possessions given to my loved ones or anyone who could put them to good use, I respect other people's wishes in regards to their remains and their possessions.
It seems clear the the ancient Egyptians wanted their remains preserved for as long as possible and their possessions with them. I don't think we can use the fact that there were ancient Egyptian graverobbers are justification, as they obviously weren't respecting the wishes of the dead, either.
I don't believe they should have eternal possesion of the land they were buried on... if someone owns it now and wishes to build on it, they should be able to. But I would prefer the remains and possessions be respectfully moved and reburied. If this is land out in the middle of the desert that isn't being used, that we're just looking for tombs to excavate for further study, I'd rather we didn't do that.
I can see some merit to saying the people of modern Egypt have a right to their heritage, to the artwork/pottery type stuff that is recovered... but entirely too much of that stuff is out of the country for that to really work for me.
Oh, and while I'd like my body to be used as can benefit mankind and then respectfully composted, I would not be at all happy with the idea of it or any of my ancestor's remains ending up in a museum. That's squiky.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If you happen to own those 30,000+ square miles then sure.
You can't own anything once you're dead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You can't own anything once you're dead.
But at the time you express that desire you can. And it's quite easy to set up a legal entity that can enforce that wish.
Dagonee
[ December 07, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No legal entity lasts forever.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but then the desire wouldn't be known any more, and we'd be back to inadvertent intrusion.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I mean, if we were just studying the writing on the walls, or even looking at the scrolls and stuff with them, it might be one thing. Do we really need to submit the bodies to CAT scans, biopsies, and everything else, just to learn how a particular king or priest died?
Actually yes we do. We can learn hugely significant things about history this way. For example I saw add for a show on teh discovery channel about one of the sons of... was it Ramses? Apparently in the bible it says he was killed by god, but they may be able to prove using his skeleton that a) it is Ramses first born son, and b) he was murdered by a human and did not die in the way the bible claims. (this is all picked up from the add as a rough example, please forgive any inaccuracies). But the point is a lot can be learned about our history by examining dead bodies. And learning about our history is very, very important becuase "those who ignore history are doomed ot repeat it". Sides once you're dead you're dead. You've decomposed, you're gone.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that we don't have really good reasons to believe certain dinosaur species were not sentient, much less what their wishes would have been, we must clearly stop the excavation of new species.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I'm not going to speculate on the Egyptian remains, but burial in a grave to be there for your posterity isn't something that happens worldwide.
When I lived in Switzerland, I discovered that people have three options when they die. #1- buy a permanent final resting space. The cost is substantial- one friend compared the cost to buying a home. #2- be cremated and have your name engraved on a wall #3- rent a spot for 20 years. After 20 years (give or take three) they dig everything up and put the remains in a "vault" (read: a cement building where everything is dumped together)
The people that I talked about it with said that option 3 is the most popular since it's the most affordable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Yes, but then the desire wouldn't be known any more, and we'd be back to inadvertent intrusion.
We know about the desire of the pharoahs, but there is no legal entity enforcing it anymore.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Having thought about it, I conclude that I believe that after a thousand years, the knowledge to be gained is more important that the wishes belonging to a person whose core of being, family, culture, and civilization have vanished. The person isn't actually there anymore, and having your remains be studied and learnt from is a form of honor. For these people, the era of living in a forgotten little corner of humanity is over; time to rejoin the human endevour in the only way a dead body can.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We know about the desire of the pharoahs, but there is no legal entity enforcing it anymore.
Well, yeah. But now your applying the standard of the extreme example to the instant case. There was definitely a wish that the bodies not be disturbed. And the digging is taking place solely to disturb the bodies, with full knowledge and purpose.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Having thought about it, I conclude that I believe that after a thousand years, the knowledge to be gained is more important that the wishes belonging to a person whose core of being, family, culture, and civilization have vanished. The person isn't actually there anymore, and having your remains be studied and learnt from is a form of honor. For these people, the era of living in a forgotten little corner of humanity is over; time to rejoin the human endevour in the only way a dead body can.
This is an example of what I find to be a destructive impulse - the almost idolization of knowledge. Yes, knowledge is good. Yes, it can be used to do good things. And yes, it should be pursued. But it is not the center of the human endeavor, nor do we need to know everything.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Incorrect, the digging is taking place to learn more about the bodies and civilization; disturbing the bodies is merely the means.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Intentions don't really matter here, since we cannot know for sure whether the former human in question wanted/would want to be discovered/undisturbed.
The value of the information we could gain here is potentially priceless, but again you cannot know for sure... so that doesn't work as a blanket justification either.
Perhaps human remains, like patents, should have an expiration date? After a certain point you become the historical property of the entire human race. The purpose here is to find something that has largely been lost to us. Such is the doom of human civilizations that predate the word processor: you've got to dig around quite a bit to get at their stories.
On the other hand, human civilization has always been preserved first and foremost by stories, and in this way the archaeologists are doing nothing more than giving that preservation an upgrade--wouldn't you rather they be the ones doing the digging than a simple grave robber?
Because _everything_ eventually gets disturbed.
[ December 07, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Incorrect, the digging is taking place to learn more about the bodies and civilization; disturbing the bodies is merely the means.
Incorrect. The intent is to disturb the bodies. The motive is to learn.
Digging where no bodies are known to be might disturb a body, but the intent was to move earth, not bodies. Here, the digging is planned and executed with the purpose of removing those bodies.
Dagonee
[ December 07, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, like I die and leave instructions in my will that everyone else should die, and you're all gonna go find the nearest high bridge to jump off of.
The dead don't have desires.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Intentions don't really matter here, since we cannot know for sure whether the former human in question wanted/would want to be discovered/undisturbed.
We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And the digging is taking place solely to disturb the bodies
Solely is surely wrong. I didn't dispute if the intent was there, I disputed the reason, the why.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I think the reason there cannot be any agreement on this issue (though I certainly wish there could) is that Dagonee is saying we should respect "their" wishes not to be disturbed. He is still thinking of the pharaohs as "they." I see no "they." I see "it." The corpses are not people. They are things. The pharaohs may not have seen it that way in their time, and they certainly would not have wanted to be exhumed, but they are gone now, leaving only the empty shells that were their bodies. Those empty shells should be afforded the same respect as bits of pottery or the bones of dinosaurs.
This really gets into the question of why we carry out the wishes of the dead in the first place? Is it for their sake? Their families? Their spirit's? Fear?
I posit that the way we treat the dead of our time is not actually out of the respect we have for the dead, but out of the respect we have for the living, for those left behind. If those left behind are dead as well, and all that is left is legend and history, then the wishes of the people need no longer be considered, for the "people" are gone.
Dagonee sees the world in a different way, so he will not be convinced.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, like I die and leave instructions in my will that everyone else should die, and you're all gonna go find the nearest high bridge to jump off of.
Yes. That's exactly parallel. You're so smart.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hold the phone. When did Keats start posting again?!? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
[ December 07, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Just now, apparently Storm. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, I know you have strong religious beliefs. And I know your beliefs do not require anything particular of your remains. I don't believe the same thing you do... I have my own strong religious beliefs that are different.
I realize, however, that it's not something I can know for sure, and I acknowledge a teeny, tiny little possibility that you may be right and I may be wrong. I say teeny tiny because I acknowledge a small possibility that any of the many other systems of belief besides mine might be right, so each of them gets a teeny tiny portion of the total.
So, the ancient Egyptians also get a teeny tiny possibility that they might be the ones that are "right." Frankly, I respect their religious beliefs as much as I respect yours.
In their religious beliefs, they live forever with the possessions they were buried with. 1000 years is a miniscule portion of forever. If they are right, we're stealing their stuff and screwing with their bodies.
So, while I respect your right to your opinion, I'm kinda disappointed that you think the time that has passed should override what we know of their beliefs. Especially considering that your beliefs include an eternal life after this one. A very different one, I'll grant you, than the Egyptians dreamed of. But still... what if they were right?
(I don't mean this to be offensive to the LDS faith, I'm hoping that the comparison will inspire you to sympathize somewhat with why I might feel this is wrong. If I've crossed an unknown [to me] line, I apologize.)
(Now to see what dozen or so posts have sprung up in the meantime...)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Solely is surely wrong. I didn't dispute if the intent was there, I disputed the reason, the why.
You're embezzling money from your company. The auditor finds out before your virus destroys the records. He's the only possible witness. You desire him not to tell on you.
You point a gun at him. You pull the trigger. The auditor dies.
When you pulled the trigger, your sole purpose of pulling the trigger was to cause the death of the auditor. Your reason for wanting him dead was to keep him from telling on you.
Either way, the action is being taken to remove these bodies from their resting place.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hold the phone. When did Keats start posting again?!?
It took a topic of such amazing interest and wit to get him back. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, as the cultural identity issue develops, I suspect archaeology will become severely hampered from nations seeking to protect their ancient dead from foreign interlopers.
So the home nation can do the intruding and disturbing and make money from tourism as well as foreign scholars interested in learning.
It's always different when it's family, neh?
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, not really - that's why the law makes the distinction between premeditation and not.
Granted, you as a future lawyer know this and I'm just being a knit, but there ya go.
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ElJay, I see what you are saying. *thinks*
I think it's different to me because the people involved are dead. I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
It's like...it's like eating beef. For some people alive today, eating beef is an anathema because the cow is sacred. That's fine - I'm not going to eat beef in front of them and I'm definitely not going to ask them to do so. On the other hand, I'm not going to stop eating it either.
[ December 07, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So ElJay, do you accord the same degree of respect to all belief systems you don't yourself hold? I'm not sure of your beliefs, but lets say for the sake of argument that you're a Methodist. Given that, if you had to say, would you give more merit to the religious beliefs of, say, Episcopalians than you would those of the worshipers of the Aztec pantheon?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
[/QUOTE]We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.[/QUOTE]
But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.
But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
[ December 07, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So ElJay, do you accord the same degree of respect to all belief systems you don't yourself hold? I'm not sure of your beliefs, but lets say for the sake of argument that you're a Methodist. Given that, if you had to say, would you give more merit to the religious beliefs of, say, Episcopalians than you would those of the worshipers of the Aztec pantheon?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee- So nobody ever does anything for the purpose of bettering humanity because everything has a more immediate purpose?
In your example, the pulling of the trigger didn't have the purpose of killing him, it had the purpose of expelling the bullet. I mean, it had the purpose of igniting the explosion which would propel the bullet, I mean . . .
Purpose is larger than immediate purpose. Though I do, of course (as I never disputed it), accede that part of what's happening is the bodies being disturbed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
Dagonee
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Hold the phone. When did Keats start posting again?!?
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think this Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
An interesting spin, Noemon.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee- hence the difference between immediate purpose and purpose in general. Not to mention that your immediate purpose was clearly to eject the bullet, not otherwise.
Re: the hundred mile example, if merely not possessing property rights excludes wishes, then disturbing the body isn't a problem. Not to mention that this is pretty close to a real example -- the pyramids constitute huge tombs, most of which are supposed to remain undisturbed. Must we accede to the requests of all the people who build giant monuments?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Yeah, I've been having problems all afternoon.
Boo.
[ December 07, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Carrie ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag, I answered that already.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Looks like I wasn't the only one having forum issues.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
We should also keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Bah.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
We should also keep in mind that all grave sites are eventually met with disturbance. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
(trying again)
Keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom (or what).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee- hence the difference between immediate purpose and purpose in general. Not to mention that your immediate purpose was clearly to eject the bullet, not otherwise.
Re: the hundred mile example, if merely not possessing property rights excludes wishes, then disturbing the body isn't a problem. Not to mention that this is pretty close to a real example -- the pyramids constitute huge tombs, most of which are supposed to remain undisturbed. Must we accede to the requests of all the people who build giant monuments?
Look, ridiculous extreme examples notwithstanding, these are their bodies being disturbed. I’m not talking about walling off the valley of the kings here. They are digging up the bodies on purpose, in contrast to accidentally digging them up during an excavation for another purpose.
quote: But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
Fine. But you and I both know that there’s a far stronger case to be made that they would not want their bodies disturbed. Sounds like rationalization to me. “Maybe they changed their mind, so I’ll go ahead and desecrate their grave because they might actually want me to.”
quote: Dag, I answered that already.
I haven’t seen a single person explain what’s so all-fired important about this knowledge we’re getting.
quote: We should also keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
Everyone dies, too. Doesn’t make murder OK.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow, neat... okay here goes, we'll see if it comes out in triplicate.
kat:
quote: I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
I do not believe proxy baptisims can make the slightest amount of difference in the world. What if I'm wrong?
You do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being distrubed a thousand years later. What if you're wrong?
I know you consider proxy rites to be a completely normal thing. To me the idea is as weird as the idea that ancient Egyptians are partying somewhere with all the possessions and slaves that are buried with them and haven't been stolen yet. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that proxy baptisms work, if the soul sees the light and is willing. Can you allow for the possibility that what happens to your physical remains really does matter in the afterlife?
Noemon: An excellent question! It would take too long to answer using my actual religious beliefs, so let's use your example.
For the sake of the argument, I'm a Methodist. The differences between the beliefs of Methodists and Episcopalians are so slight as to be non-existant to the average lay person who doesn't make a study of such things. As a Methodist, I believe in a pretty inclusive God, and expect to find Episcopalians who in Heaven with me, along with Lutherans, Catholics, non-denominational Christians, and the occasional Baptist. Naturally, I think they'll all have been corrected a teeny bit on some minor theological points so they now understand us Methodists were right along, but they'll still be there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that people who didn't get a chance to hear God's true word in life but lived in what I would consider a "good" way get that opportunity after death, and that those who had the opportunity in life but didn't believe will see that they were wrong and get the opportunity to embrace God. So I would expect to meet up with Aztecs and Atheists, too. I don't know how much of that would be endorsed by a Methodist minister, but call me a kinda "fuzzy" Methodist.
So! Do I think Aztecs and Egyptians and Episcopalians and Mormons will be in my Methodist heaven? You better believe it. And we'll all have a little chuckle about the silly differences we had here on earth and go off to enjoy eternal bliss together.
Do I believe, that if I'm wrong, everyone else out there including Episcopalians and Aztecs has the exact same chance of being right? Yep.
So in other words, I think I'm right. Other religions that are closer to my beliefs I think are closer to being right then those that are further away. If I'm wrong, all other religions have an equal chance of being right. If Baptists happen to be right, then I'll be closer to having been right then the Aztecs will. If the Aztecs have it right, I sure hope their idea of punishment for non believers includes a chance to embrace their god that doesn't include having to be reincarnated and have my heart ripped out of my chest while it's still beating.
But it doesn't matter. Because I'm right.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow, neat... okay here goes, we'll see if it comes out in triplicate.
kat:
quote: I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
I do not believe proxy baptisims can make the slightest amount of difference in the world. What if I'm wrong?
You do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being distrubed a thousand years later. What if you're wrong?
I know you consider proxy rites to be a completely normal thing. To me the idea is as weird as the idea that ancient Egyptians are partying somewhere with all the possessions and slaves that are buried with them and haven't been stolen yet. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that proxy baptisms work, if the soul sees the light and is willing. Can you allow for the possibility that what happens to your physical remains really does matter in the afterlife?
Noemon: An excellent question! It would take too long to answer using my actual religious beliefs, so let's use your example.
For the sake of the argument, I'm a Methodist. The differences between the beliefs of Methodists and Episcopalians are so slight as to be non-existant to the average lay person who doesn't make a study of such things. As a Methodist, I believe in a pretty inclusive God, and expect to find Episcopalians who in Heaven with me, along with Lutherans, Catholics, non-denominational Christians, and the occasional Baptist. Naturally, I think they'll all have been corrected a teeny bit on some minor theological points so they now understand us Methodists were right along, but they'll still be there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that people who didn't get a chance to hear God's true word in life but lived in what I would consider a "good" way get that opportunity after death, and that those who had the opportunity in life but didn't believe will see that they were wrong and get the opportunity to embrace God. So I would expect to meet up with Aztecs and Atheists, too. I don't know how much of that would be endorsed by a Methodist minister, but call me a kinda "fuzzy" Methodist.
So! Do I think Aztecs and Egyptians and Episcopalians and Mormons will be in my Methodist heaven? You better believe it. And we'll all have a little chuckle about the silly differences we had here on earth and go off to enjoy eternal bliss together.
Do I believe, that if I'm wrong, everyone else out there including Episcopalians and Aztecs has the exact same chance of being right? Yep.
So in other words, I think I'm right. Other religions that are closer to my beliefs I think are closer to being right then those that are further away. If I'm wrong, all other religions have an equal chance of being right. If Baptists happen to be right, then I'll be closer to having been right then the Aztecs will. If the Aztecs have it right, I sure hope their idea of punishment for non believers includes a chance to embrace their god that doesn't include having to be reincarnated and have my heart ripped out of my chest while it's still beating.
But it doesn't matter. Because I'm right.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I submit that the pyramids are not a ridiculous extreme example, largely by the fact they exist. To what degree do we honor the wishes not to be disturbed? Can we breach the "do not disturb" area? Can we enter the inner sanctum? Can we mess with the jars that hold (well, held prior to decomposition) their organs but not the body itself?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Caleb! I've missed you and you never answered my last e-mail. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What's so "all-fired" important? Whether or not you agree that examining burial wraps is worth it, Sappho's writing are pretty darn important, and that's just a coincidental find.
Many would consider huge sums of knowledge about Egyptian custom, civilization, and religion to be somewhat important. At least, there are lots of people paying lots of money purely for the discovery of it, which would certainly suggest importance to me. Heck, its quite possible we wouldn't know very well how Egyptians thought about the afterlife if we hadn't read a lot of their writings that can be found on the interior walls of tombs.
I'm sure the Egyptians thought knowledge of their civilization and its accomplishments was pretty darn important as well -- and we'd have extremely little of it other than the obvious stuff (they liked point shapes) if we hadn't entered tombs, which are some of the best sources of information (information in them tending to be preserved).
Does the knowledge result in better manufacturing techniques, or change our "hard" sciences? Not very often, though studying mummies has helped the practice of medicine at several points in time. However, it does enhance our knowledge of ourself. Modern psychology would not be where it is today without the wealth of knowledge we've gained from ancient civilizations (often through information about how they deal with death). Modern literature would not be anywhere near where it is today.
Our self-conception as a culture is in a large part rooted in how we perceive ourselves related to other cultures, both living and dead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I submit that the pyramids are not a ridiculous extreme example, largely by the fact they exist. To what degree do we honor the wishes not to be disturbed? Can we breach the "do not disturb" area? Can we enter the inner sanctum? Can we mess with the jars that hold (well, held prior to decomposition) their organs but not the body itself?
The 30,000 square miles and the having everyone die were the extreme examples I referred to.
I have NEVER claimed that every wish of the dead should be honored. I have stated that their bodies should not be despoiled. The boundaries between the two can be rationally thought out.
quote: What's so "all-fired" important? Whether or not you agree that examining burial wraps is worth it, Sappho's writing are pretty darn important, and that's just a coincidental find.
Many would consider huge sums of knowledge about Egyptian custom, civilization, and religion to be somewhat important. At least, there are lots of people paying lots of money purely for the discovery of it, which would certainly suggest importance to me. Heck, its quite possible we wouldn't know very well how Egyptians thought about the afterlife if we hadn't read a lot of their writings that can be found on the interior walls of tombs.
I'm sure the Egyptians thought knowledge of their civilization and its accomplishments was pretty darn important as well -- and we'd have extremely little of it other than the obvious stuff (they liked point shapes) if we hadn't entered tombs, which are some of the best sources of information (information in them tending to be preserved).
Does the knowledge result in better manufacturing techniques, or change our "hard" sciences? Not very often, though studying mummies has helped the practice of medicine at several points in time. However, it does enhance our knowledge of ourself. Modern psychology would not be where it is today without the wealth of knowledge we've gained from ancient civilizations (often through information about how they deal with death). Modern literature would not be anywhere near where it is today.
Our self-conception as a culture is in a large part rooted in how we perceive ourselves related to other cultures, both living and dead.
And part of that conception apparently is that other culture’s beliefs don’t matter, as long as there’s some nebulous chance we’ll learn something new about them.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nebulous chance? I bet you'll find that for every mummy unearthed there have been hundreds and hundreds of pages written on new things we've learned because of that mummy specifically.
edit: hundred and hundred of pages, not papers. Maybe dozens of papers, though it all depends.
[ December 07, 2004, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
100 papers saying what, exactly? Acquiring new information isn't the same as learning something new, except in the most trivial sense.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, this thread has moved on quite a bit, but since AJ asked: Jewish Law and Archeology.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag,
Of course it's reasonable to assume they didn't want to be disturbed. But you can't really prove an intention of the forgotten dead, and that's my only point. If they have no living relatives and left no will, you can only guess at what they want(ed) and you can never be certain that you are right.
Which is to say that you don't go digging up Arlington cemetary because we know what is there and we consider the rest that the dead have earned there to be some kind of sacred (note, however, that this is more because of how WE feel about it than how THEY felt about it--grief is always for the mourner's loss, I seem to remember reading somewhere) while it is another kind of sacred altogether to respectfully uncover (with the greatest of care) a piece of our story which has largely been lost to us for the specific purpose of preserving it in ways that were not available to them at the time they were buried.
Is that comparable to posthumous baptism? Maybe. Did the Pharaoh get to bring his body and possessions with him into the afterlife? Well, no he didn't, but of course you can't really prove that either. Perhaps the difference is that in Baptising the dead that you know, you are trying to move them, while in excavating the dead that you don't know, we are trying to move ourselves.
Either way I still think it rather obvious that time eventually renders all intentions irrelevant. These graves, and particularly those that may contain treasures for the taking, are going to either be excavated, pillaged, thieved or destroyed. It seems only prudent that we learn what can be learned while it is still possible to disturb them honorably.
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
How is acquiring new information not learning something new? I honestly don't get the distinction.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quote: How much are the present-day inhabitants of egypt descendents of the anciant pharohs?
mph, if you're still there: I looked into this a couple of years ago, and apparently modern Egyptians are virtually genetically identical to ancient Egyptians. Surprised me.
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
Knowledge, as Dag seems to be constructing it, is founded on information. Look at it like the relationship between data and theory. You need the data in order to construct the theory (well, in the inductive method at least). There tends to be a diminishing return of knowledge on new information, but there (usually) remains a return.
I've tried to stay out of this as what appears to be the only trained archaeologist on the board (I feel I am in danger of getting too involved and perhaps a bit defensive). But I do want to point out that funerary archaeology (a term loosely used in this instance) is one of the branches of archaeology with the greatest chance of providing practical application, both in forensics and in the understanding of factors like disease and population dynamics.
But is pragmatism the only yardstick by which an endeavor is judged? Personally, I feel that knowledge is a goal in and of itself. An ontological curiosity is what sets us apart from non-sentient species. That and opposable thumbs, I guess.
Practical applications of knowledge are admirable, but so is knowledge itself. Besides, one never knows when something discovered in a theoretical milieu will become important in an applied science. As a somewhat muddy but salient example, the products of the space race have been many (from the simple benefits of "space age materials" created for the program to the very real benefits of the information retrieval and transmission possible through satellites), despite the fact that the prime motivations were less than entirely practical (yes, it's more complex than that, but I think you see the point).
The fact is that a great deal of science is done for what could almost be called entertainment reasons. I am sure many of my former colleagues would be incensed were they to overhear this opinion, but the majority of archaeology serves to provide "impractical" but interesting diversion to our society. I don't think that's a bad thing, however.
Judging by popularity of entertainment in our society, we have, as a species, a need for experiences which occupy the mind outside of pragmatic goals.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)