As I was reading about the Valley of the Kings again, I wonder why that was actually legal.

  • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If it’s a grave of someone in living memory, then sure, it’s grave robbing, but even if someone knows it’s their 224x great grandparent then if there’s no memory either directly or even via oral history then it’s definitely archaeology

    There’s a very blury line somewhere between the two, but it’s up to whoever shouts loudest or digs quietest to define that

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    5 hours ago

    A scientist might think that the historical/scientific value is more important that the personal rights of people who died millenia ago.

    The people who dug up graves in the early 20th century just didn’t see the locals as people, though, which is also why most of those museums were in Europe, not anywhere near where the artifacts were found (if the artifacts were given to museums at all, instead of being sold to private collectors).

    If you ask me personally: A pharaoh is a king, and fuck the king.

    • frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah, there’s a weird implied statute of limitations type of thing with remains. Like thousands of years ago, we can learn so much and uncover history by looking at remains. But you don’t learn much and it’s weird and presumably illegal to dig up recent remains.

      I dunno what that time limit is, but to me at least it feels like it exists and intuitively makes enough sense

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    You’re not the only one asking this. Lots of museums are putting in place policies against exhibiting human remains and working on repatriating remains they do have.

    Things to websearch if interested, UK Human Tissue Act of 2004, and keywords along the lines of “museum policies human remains”.

    • 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒍@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 minutes ago

      Yeah, but those greaves are a part of a still existing culture and religion/beliefs, I don’t think it’s the case with the ancient Egypt, Vikings graves etc

    • Jamin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      in the U.S we have the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, requires museums and federal agencies to return Native American human remains and cultural items to their tribes. It’s all about respecting Indigenous heritage by ensuring that these items are returned to their rightful communities.

  • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Shrug dead is dead. Short or long it doesn’t affect anything. People are just sentimentalists.

  • actually@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Might makes right, at least in many cases. Lots of stolen artifacts, and bones, stored away from the public, or the descendants

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Because grave robbing is financially motivated for the sake of the individual robbing the grave. They are out to enrich themselves, not others.

    Museums obviously do have some financial incentive, but they aren’t just turning around and selling these relics to the highest bidder. They trade with other museums, they share artifacts, for the enrichment of humankind, rather than their own personal enrichment.