5 ms·

40k items. Imagine trying to amass a collection of 40k pieces of ordinary silverware; I'll bet most people couldn't, or would require a lifetime to accomplish i

40k items. Imagine trying to amass a collection of 40k pieces of ordinary silverware; I'll bet most people couldn't, or would require a lifetime to accomplish it. This man could fill museums with genuine artifacts. "Life work" seems perfectly appropriate. While I can't condone collecting the human remains, and fail to see the allure personally, there is no denying what he had accomplished was exceptional. The article is obviously heavily biased and sensationalistic, written to prioritize ad revenue and social media sharing, so I'm reserving judgement on a man I've never met; especially judging his 90+ years through the lens of 2020's social norms.

lookalike74 5y ago
That's ridiculous, a prolific thief is still just a thief.
- majkinetor 5y ago
  His crime is that he stole from the dead ? So much passion for such trivia...
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    I think there is a bit of a difference between taking artifacts and digging up corpses and taking parts of them.
    - jamal-kumar 5y ago
      Incredible people have to be reminded of this still.
      - majkinetor 5y ago
        What is incredible is that people confuse dead nature with the living one. Besides, five minutes ago you didn't even know there is something deep in the ground and now you construct all kind of weird GenZ shenanigan around digging it up... Obligatory, I guess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4
    - majkinetor 5y ago
      What difference after so many years? What is this, supernatural episode? Should we stop burning fossil fuel because technically, you are burning dead animals and maybe even some people of ancient civilization ?
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        Whats the limit on how long until we can dig people up? Is it ok if someone digs up a corpse a week after the funeral? a year? a decade? Who gets to decide and if a culture believes that remains must be left untouched forever, who gets to decide that that cultures beliefs are irrelevant and overrule them if that culture is still around?
        majkinetor 5y ago
        It can reasonably be assumed that corpses on dedicated locations like cemetery should be protected while there are direct live connections (kids, partners). Lets say 100 years at most although it is probably overkill. However, even today if you don't pay a parcel rent, cemetery can dig the corpse up and ditch it. Entire first generation of cryogenic people were lost due to this problem (grandkid didn't want to pay for grandpa for eternity in cryogenic coffin). So with all this in mind, it makes sense that after your are legally dead and lets say 1 year passed (to allow for the "return from the dead" cases we know happen), you should be considered dead nature. After that time, it becomes a matter of your relationship with the cemetery or other company and contract you have with them. If their "SLA" is that they will "own" it for you, then digging it up can be considered legally as a theft. If you have culture that wants to keep dead forever, then that culture will find ways to manage it the official way I guess along with the laws on theft, and wont leave it to the little dwarfs to manage. You must keep in mind tho that each day number of dead people is rising and number of alive stays close to the same. Any civilization wanting to keep dead forever will have a lot of problems with this idea, unless it can find a way to teleport them to different dead dimension unrelated to us. Such advanced civilization will sure have much better way to preserve uniqness of each individual.
        oauea 5y ago
        If your culture is that your corpse must remain untouched, and you drop dead in the middle of a mall, no one is going to leave the corpse there.
pjc50 5y ago
That's 40k pieces of archaeological information destroyed. It's more of an antiwork; he's single-handedly prevented several careers in archaeology. (The recording of context, and preservation of finds is often more important than the finds themselves)
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >he's single-handedly prevented several careers in archaeology. Only by the same reasoning that a hydraulic grabber arm prevents a career in household refuse removal. This dude had a career in archeology. Granted he did some dumb stuff, particularly regarding handling skeletons, but I have a hard time believing those practices weren't more prevalent in professional archeology back when he picked them up (being super anal about leaving things undisturbed is a fairly recent trend). He did the traveling and digging part that's hardest to get funding for for on his own time. If anything the stuff the FBI dumped into museum collections has enabled more careers in archeology. Nobody will fund gallivanting around the globe looking for artifacts. But if you have an existing artifact it's much easier to convince people to pay for a trip to go look for more stuff like it, investigate the site further, etc, etc. It's a positive feedback loop. The only way the outcome could have been better would be if the FBI didn't get involved until after he died. That way the bones still could have gotten back to the tribes that wanted them but more of the low value stuff that isn't novel or special enough to be worth museum space or repatriation would have been kept out of the dumpster. The government doesn't have the processes and isn't well practiced at the ways you get rid of many small lots of niche stuff that's not novel enough for museums so that's likely where a large chunk of the collection will end up.
- LocalH 5y ago
  The recording of context doesn't matter that much when viewed through the modern lens, honestly. Too much interference from modern experience.
jamal-kumar 5y ago
I'm going to have you spend maybe more than a few seconds imagining how you would feel if those were your ancestors within a few generations and then reconsider your equivocation of human remains with grandma's spoons.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  My ancestors were subsistence farmers somewhere in eastern Europe. I don't know anything about them beyond that. Having great great great grandpa Vlad's skull in some rich man's private collection isn't quite as cool as being able to say you're descended from some skull that's in some fancy university museum but it's a step in that direction. In both cases I'd know a lot more about my ancestors than I do now.
- majkinetor 5y ago
  I took your few seconds, and still have 0 frecks to give. I would be way more concerned about lost time that somebody took from me trying to make it important.
- poulpy123 5y ago
  How many generations ? I don't know for the US but in Europe many museums and churches expose human remains

lookalike74 5y ago

That's ridiculous, a prolific thief is still just a thief.

majkinetor 5y ago
His crime is that he stole from the dead ? So much passion for such trivia...
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  I think there is a bit of a difference between taking artifacts and digging up corpses and taking parts of them.
  - jamal-kumar 5y ago
    Incredible people have to be reminded of this still.
    - majkinetor 5y ago
      What is incredible is that people confuse dead nature with the living one. Besides, five minutes ago you didn't even know there is something deep in the ground and now you construct all kind of weird GenZ shenanigan around digging it up... Obligatory, I guess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4
  - majkinetor 5y ago
    What difference after so many years? What is this, supernatural episode? Should we stop burning fossil fuel because technically, you are burning dead animals and maybe even some people of ancient civilization ?
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      Whats the limit on how long until we can dig people up? Is it ok if someone digs up a corpse a week after the funeral? a year? a decade? Who gets to decide and if a culture believes that remains must be left untouched forever, who gets to decide that that cultures beliefs are irrelevant and overrule them if that culture is still around?
      - majkinetor 5y ago
        It can reasonably be assumed that corpses on dedicated locations like cemetery should be protected while there are direct live connections (kids, partners). Lets say 100 years at most although it is probably overkill. However, even today if you don't pay a parcel rent, cemetery can dig the corpse up and ditch it. Entire first generation of cryogenic people were lost due to this problem (grandkid didn't want to pay for grandpa for eternity in cryogenic coffin). So with all this in mind, it makes sense that after your are legally dead and lets say 1 year passed (to allow for the "return from the dead" cases we know happen), you should be considered dead nature. After that time, it becomes a matter of your relationship with the cemetery or other company and contract you have with them. If their "SLA" is that they will "own" it for you, then digging it up can be considered legally as a theft. If you have culture that wants to keep dead forever, then that culture will find ways to manage it the official way I guess along with the laws on theft, and wont leave it to the little dwarfs to manage. You must keep in mind tho that each day number of dead people is rising and number of alive stays close to the same. Any civilization wanting to keep dead forever will have a lot of problems with this idea, unless it can find a way to teleport them to different dead dimension unrelated to us. Such advanced civilization will sure have much better way to preserve uniqness of each individual.
      - oauea 5y ago
        If your culture is that your corpse must remain untouched, and you drop dead in the middle of a mall, no one is going to leave the corpse there.

pjc50 5y ago

That's 40k pieces of archaeological information destroyed. It's more of an antiwork; he's single-handedly prevented several careers in archaeology. (The recording of context, and preservation of finds is often more important than the finds themselves)

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>he's single-handedly prevented several careers in archaeology. Only by the same reasoning that a hydraulic grabber arm prevents a career in household refuse removal. This dude had a career in archeology. Granted he did some dumb stuff, particularly regarding handling skeletons, but I have a hard time believing those practices weren't more prevalent in professional archeology back when he picked them up (being super anal about leaving things undisturbed is a fairly recent trend). He did the traveling and digging part that's hardest to get funding for for on his own time. If anything the stuff the FBI dumped into museum collections has enabled more careers in archeology. Nobody will fund gallivanting around the globe looking for artifacts. But if you have an existing artifact it's much easier to convince people to pay for a trip to go look for more stuff like it, investigate the site further, etc, etc. It's a positive feedback loop. The only way the outcome could have been better would be if the FBI didn't get involved until after he died. That way the bones still could have gotten back to the tribes that wanted them but more of the low value stuff that isn't novel or special enough to be worth museum space or repatriation would have been kept out of the dumpster. The government doesn't have the processes and isn't well practiced at the ways you get rid of many small lots of niche stuff that's not novel enough for museums so that's likely where a large chunk of the collection will end up.
LocalH 5y ago
The recording of context doesn't matter that much when viewed through the modern lens, honestly. Too much interference from modern experience.

jamal-kumar 5y ago

I'm going to have you spend maybe more than a few seconds imagining how you would feel if those were your ancestors within a few generations and then reconsider your equivocation of human remains with grandma's spoons.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
My ancestors were subsistence farmers somewhere in eastern Europe. I don't know anything about them beyond that. Having great great great grandpa Vlad's skull in some rich man's private collection isn't quite as cool as being able to say you're descended from some skull that's in some fancy university museum but it's a step in that direction. In both cases I'd know a lot more about my ancestors than I do now.
majkinetor 5y ago
I took your few seconds, and still have 0 frecks to give. I would be way more concerned about lost time that somebody took from me trying to make it important.
poulpy123 5y ago
How many generations ? I don't know for the US but in Europe many museums and churches expose human remains