17 ms·

The 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 t

The 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 ago
You 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Hmmm, 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.

yostrovs 6y ago

You 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 ago
The 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 ago
What 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 ago
  Hmmm, 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.