Asklemmy

43936 readers

468 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

122

Why is it not grave robbery to take artefacts from ancient graves and put them in a museum? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 3 weeks ago by tux0r to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As I was reading about the Valley of the Kings again, I wonder why that was actually legal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, there's a weird implied statute of limitations type of thing with remains. Like thousands of years ago, we can learn so much and uncover history by looking at remains. But you don't learn much and it's weird and presumably illegal to dig up recent remains.

I dunno what that time limit is, but to me at least it feels like it exists and intuitively makes enough sense

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago

i think you've hit the nail on the head regarding why robbing recent graves is unethical; that is, it's denying valuable data to the archeologists of 3024 CE.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In the National Museum of Scotland there's a bronze-age skeleton curled up in a recreation of the person's grave, surrounded by their grave goods. While I was stood looking at it, a woman was explaining to her granddaughter that the skeleton had been found in Shetland, where she herself was from. The girl turned to her and said, "Was he a friend of yours, granny?" We all laughed, but I think we all had the same uncomfortable thought - this wasn't just dry bones, it was a person. What if it was a friend of granny's? What amount of time makes it ok?

Looking at this body in the British Museum was even worse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28589151

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Being born in the same town means there is a high chance of it being a relative of the girl and her grandmother.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Shetland is an archipelago, but ok. Historically populations in the Scottish islands moved around a lot more than you would think. Sick of the tiny village you grew up in? Hop in a boat and go to Orkney, or Skye, or Lewis. Travel by land was difficult, by sea was comparatively easier. There was also a lot of incomer traffic, from Ireland, Scandinavia, even the Baltic. So yes, there might have been a tiny fraction of genetic connection, but unlikely to be significant.