4 ms·

I've been thinking about the debate for a minute, and I have no idea where I stand. On the one hand, 2000 year old Egyptian burial masks are being destroyed. I'

I've been thinking about the debate for a minute, and I have no idea where I stand. On the one hand, 2000 year old Egyptian burial masks are being destroyed. I'm pretty sure they're all "museum quality" (calling any 2000 year old piece of Egyptian history not "museum quality" is absurd - I've spent many a museum trip staring at pottery shards). On the other hand, we've revealed masterpieces by removing a painting by someone unknown to find a painting by Da Vinci or the like. Reading a text so old can teach us so so much. It can unlock long-lost languages, it can answer long-debated historical unknowns. So I don't know. I wish they could just X-ray it like they do with Picassos and Van Goghs - non-destructively revealing amazing insights. But I guess that's not available here?

cbd1984 12y ago
There's no guarantee the mask would last another 2000 years. Depending on where it's stored, there's no guarantee of another 20 years. Had we left the mask alone, and stored it somewhere, it's entirely possible it would have been destroyed by some random process without us having learned a damn thing from it.
- skj 12y ago
  So, we're lucky it wasn't destroyed already, so we might as well break it now?
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    No, we should only break it if we can learn something from it if we do; obviously, we should only do it if we have very good reason to think that, but if we do, why wait?
    - kbutler 12y ago
      If we destroy it today, we get x, but in 20 years, technology may have advanced enough to get x + y. Or learn x without destroying the original. Like the early plunderers of the Egyptian tombs - they got short term benefits, but at what cost?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
nemo 12y ago
I initially figured that the work was being done by scholars who knew what they were doing, but from this it doesn't sound like it, and sounds pretty disturbing: http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-mark-josh-mcdowell-and-mummy-masks-what-they-all-have-in-common http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-...
mcv 12y ago
I think it's a matter of balance. If there are tons of these mummy masks and we have no idea what's on the paper they're made of, then the value of the information on the paper outweighs the value of any individual mummy masks. But once we start rediscovering more and more new copies of exactly the same texts in those masks, it may be more important to keep an eye on how many masks we have left. In general, though, I'm inclined to value the information higher than the object itself. And paper can carry lots of information.

cbd1984 12y ago

There's no guarantee the mask would last another 2000 years. Depending on where it's stored, there's no guarantee of another 20 years. Had we left the mask alone, and stored it somewhere, it's entirely possible it would have been destroyed by some random process without us having learned a damn thing from it.

skj 12y ago
So, we're lucky it wasn't destroyed already, so we might as well break it now?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  No, we should only break it if we can learn something from it if we do; obviously, we should only do it if we have very good reason to think that, but if we do, why wait?
  - kbutler 12y ago
    If we destroy it today, we get x, but in 20 years, technology may have advanced enough to get x + y. Or learn x without destroying the original. Like the early plunderers of the Egyptian tombs - they got short term benefits, but at what cost?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

nemo 12y ago

I initially figured that the work was being done by scholars who knew what they were doing, but from this it doesn't sound like it, and sounds pretty disturbing: http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-mark-josh-mcdowell-and-mummy-masks-what-they-all-have-in-common http://www.bricecjones.com/blog/the-first-century-gospel-of-...

mcv 12y ago

I think it's a matter of balance. If there are tons of these mummy masks and we have no idea what's on the paper they're made of, then the value of the information on the paper outweighs the value of any individual mummy masks. But once we start rediscovering more and more new copies of exactly the same texts in those masks, it may be more important to keep an eye on how many masks we have left. In general, though, I'm inclined to value the information higher than the object itself. And paper can carry lots of information.