3 ms·
I would rather historically interesting objects that don't belong to anyone be unearthed and return to humanity, be they owned by an individual or a museum. Ot
by yostrovs 6y ago
I would rather historically interesting objects that don't belong to anyone be unearthed and return to humanity, be they owned by an individual or a museum.
Otherwise they continue degrading under the surface, and what good is that?
- flagrant 6y agoThe whole point of these laws is to ensure that interesting objects return to humanity. When an individual digs up an object and keeps it, it has not returned to humanity. Furthermore, information about the object, such as its location and condition is irretrievably lost. If an object cannot be responsibly recovered and catalogued then it should remain in the ground until it can be.
- yostrovs 6y agoYou imply that an individual is not part of humanity so that only museums, usually governed by the state, create the illusion of humanity. I disagree. The Chinese government during the Cultural Revolution destroyed nearly the entirety of Chinese historical objects. What was saved by unofficial groups or individuals became Chinese history. I'm just glad the Jacobins are not totally in charge in France, as they would think it better to just melt the finds into useful metal.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y agoThe issue is that jackasses don't document their finds. Context in which you found something is as important, if not more, than the item. Not to mention idiots destroy archeo sites because they are interested in trinkets they can sell rather than history itself. There is a reason why you don't dig up the entire site but rather put in a few trenches after noninvasive research.
- flagrant 6y agoWhat is the functional difference between destroying an artifact and keeping an artifact in a private collection where nobody can see it, from the point of view of humanity?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- justinclift 6y agoHmmm, well at least a single member of "humanity" in this case knows about it. Still, not exactly fantastic. That being said, at least with the "private collection" thing it has a chance to be donated to a public institution at a future point. eg when the collector passes away Destroyed objects clearly don't have that option.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThe object itself is usually only as interesting as the area in which it was found - it's the ground and things that surround it that lets archeologists establish the age, meaning and significance of an artifact. Just digging something up destroys that information. (Also I suspect such artifacts will degrade much faster if unearthed and improperly handled than they would if left in the ground.)
- yostrovs 6y agoObviously there are not enough academic archaeologists to dig up the stuff, not even a small fraction probably, considering how much time passed and how much dirt there is to sift through. Plus the vast majority of the found stuff has little historical significance. Finding Roman coins and medieval metal tools should not be equated with finding an Egyptian tomb. Their value is pretty much as collector items. They are sold on eBay.
- nsajko 6y agoWhy do you think the artifacts will degrade worse if left where they were for a long time already, than if dug up and stored by some amateur? And, more importantly, the scientific value is mostly lost when removing the artifact from its context.