3 ms·
The archeologist in this NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruins-likely-the-remains-of-early-jamestowns-elite http://www.npr.or
by ickwabe 11y ago
The archeologist in this NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruins-likely-the-remains-of-early-jamestowns-elite http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruin...) reported that the box was too fragile to open. Likely opening the box would destroy all or part of it or its contents. Using MRI (or other scanning methods) as opposed to opening/disassembling is fairly common now in archeology when dealing with fragile objects.
But I agree with your skepticism regarding graves vs sites. I seriously doubt the folks who were buried or did the burying expected or wanted the remains exhumed for any purpose whatsoever.
Native Americans clearly considered this kind of thing grave robbing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protect...). I can't see a substantial difference here.
I'm not sure where the line is. It seems like there should be a substantial benefit beyond just satisfying curiosity.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retra 11y agoThe benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of considering the feelings of the long dead. Namely, leaving things buried in the ground forever offers no benefit at all.
- nivla 11y ago>The benefit of satisfying curiosity And if left unchecked it leads to things like this [1], where a graduate student cut down a tree to count its age only to realize it was the oldest living tree in existence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)
- Retra 11y agoI really don't see how digging up graves is comparable to killing things.
- nivla 11y agoI never compared the two. Hence quoting only the part that is relevant.
- Retra 11y agoIf you're not making a comparison, then I don't see the relevance either.
- nivla 11y agoJust because I am not making a direct comparison to your exact wording, doesn't make my comment any less relevant. Your basis of argument that if the benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of X, it should be undertaken is absolutely wrong. To cite along the same track so you call out on relevancy again: Digging out historical graveyards and examining the bodies has its merit especially to increase our knowledge about the time period, however in reality going around digging into sacred places is also considered a douche bag move. Thus as said in the first comment, curiosity is something that should be kept under check.
- ickwabe 11y agoIt does? Depends on what weight you give to the opinion of the folks buried. I doubt they would agree that curiosity by itself is sufficient benefit.