4 ms·

Is it normal to hide these archaeological sites? Just seemed weird to not publicize the finding. I suppose it’s better to have tourists and locals come visitin

Is it normal to hide these archaeological sites? Just seemed weird to not publicize the finding. I suppose it’s better to have tourists and locals come visiting.

stan_rogers 6y ago
Yes, it is normal - and that's because sites quickly become useless for archaeology when the souvenir-hunters and traders in artifacts come a-calling. It's not just about what is there, but where everything is in relation to everything else.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Still, melting ice can render ephemeral objects unrecognizable in days. Even if 'pot-hunters' moved in, they would at least preserve something. As it is, perhaps millions of artifacts are decaying to be lost forever? That's not good archaeology either. I'm of two minds on this.
viraptor 6y ago
> I suppose it’s better to have tourists Not if they will move / not report interesting items, or stomp over ground you want to see undisturbed for some time. Just look how quickly the recent monolith discovery changed into a tourist attraction and got popular on the internet.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
Yes, it's typical. For one, you don't want people disturbing sensitive sites that may need to be revisited periodically. Things that have the allure of value tend to make otherwise reasonable people greedy and come sniffing around for things to loot. It's not hidden from anyone with credentials or the government, just the general public.
trianglem 6y ago
Absolutely not. Humanity is not trust worthy. It’s going to be a couple of days before Instagram influencers descend on the site and destroy it.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  Comparing (for example) Edmund Hillary, the first Westerner to climb Everest, to a present-day Instagram influencer is satisfying. He followed the philosophy of Radiant Living and went on a hunt for the abominable snowman.
  - trianglem 6y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Is it normal to hide these archaeological sites? Just seemed weird to not publicize the finding. I suppose it’s better to have tourists and locals come visiting.

stan_rogers 6y ago

Yes, it is normal - and that's because sites quickly become useless for archaeology when the souvenir-hunters and traders in artifacts come a-calling. It's not just about what is there, but where everything is in relation to everything else.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Still, melting ice can render ephemeral objects unrecognizable in days. Even if 'pot-hunters' moved in, they would at least preserve something. As it is, perhaps millions of artifacts are decaying to be lost forever? That's not good archaeology either. I'm of two minds on this.

viraptor 6y ago

> I suppose it’s better to have tourists Not if they will move / not report interesting items, or stomp over ground you want to see undisturbed for some time. Just look how quickly the recent monolith discovery changed into a tourist attraction and got popular on the internet.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

Yes, it's typical. For one, you don't want people disturbing sensitive sites that may need to be revisited periodically. Things that have the allure of value tend to make otherwise reasonable people greedy and come sniffing around for things to loot. It's not hidden from anyone with credentials or the government, just the general public.

trianglem 6y ago

Absolutely not. Humanity is not trust worthy. It’s going to be a couple of days before Instagram influencers descend on the site and destroy it.

throwaway2245 6y ago
Comparing (for example) Edmund Hillary, the first Westerner to climb Everest, to a present-day Instagram influencer is satisfying. He followed the philosophy of Radiant Living and went on a hunt for the abominable snowman.
- trianglem 6y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.