Of course it's reasonable to assume they didn't want to be disturbed. But you can't really prove an intention of the forgotten dead, and that's my only point. If they have no living relatives and left no will, you can only guess at what they want(ed) and you can never be certain that you are right.
Which is to say that you don't go digging up Arlington cemetary because we know what is there and we consider the rest that the dead have earned there to be some kind of sacred (note, however, that this is more because of how WE feel about it than how THEY felt about it--grief is always for the mourner's loss, I seem to remember reading somewhere) while it is another kind of sacred altogether to respectfully uncover (with the greatest of care) a piece of our story which has largely been lost to us for the specific purpose of preserving it in ways that were not available to them at the time they were buried.
Is that comparable to posthumous baptism? Maybe. Did the Pharaoh get to bring his body and possessions with him into the afterlife? Well, no he didn't, but of course you can't really prove that either. Perhaps the difference is that in Baptising the dead that you know, you are trying to move them, while in excavating the dead that you don't know, we are trying to move ourselves.
Either way I still think it rather obvious that time eventually renders all intentions irrelevant. These graves, and particularly those that may contain treasures for the taking, are going to either be excavated, pillaged, thieved or destroyed. It seems only prudent that we learn what can be learned while it is still possible to disturb them honorably.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is acquiring new information not learning something new? I honestly don't get the distinction.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: How much are the present-day inhabitants of egypt descendents of the anciant pharohs?
mph, if you're still there: I looked into this a couple of years ago, and apparently modern Egyptians are virtually genetically identical to ancient Egyptians. Surprised me.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledge, as Dag seems to be constructing it, is founded on information. Look at it like the relationship between data and theory. You need the data in order to construct the theory (well, in the inductive method at least). There tends to be a diminishing return of knowledge on new information, but there (usually) remains a return.
I've tried to stay out of this as what appears to be the only trained archaeologist on the board (I feel I am in danger of getting too involved and perhaps a bit defensive). But I do want to point out that funerary archaeology (a term loosely used in this instance) is one of the branches of archaeology with the greatest chance of providing practical application, both in forensics and in the understanding of factors like disease and population dynamics.
But is pragmatism the only yardstick by which an endeavor is judged? Personally, I feel that knowledge is a goal in and of itself. An ontological curiosity is what sets us apart from non-sentient species. That and opposable thumbs, I guess.
Practical applications of knowledge are admirable, but so is knowledge itself. Besides, one never knows when something discovered in a theoretical milieu will become important in an applied science. As a somewhat muddy but salient example, the products of the space race have been many (from the simple benefits of "space age materials" created for the program to the very real benefits of the information retrieval and transmission possible through satellites), despite the fact that the prime motivations were less than entirely practical (yes, it's more complex than that, but I think you see the point).
The fact is that a great deal of science is done for what could almost be called entertainment reasons. I am sure many of my former colleagues would be incensed were they to overhear this opinion, but the majority of archaeology serves to provide "impractical" but interesting diversion to our society. I don't think that's a bad thing, however.
Judging by popularity of entertainment in our society, we have, as a species, a need for experiences which occupy the mind outside of pragmatic goals.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
