quote:We know about the desire of the pharoahs, but there is no legal entity enforcing it anymore.
Well, yeah. But now your applying the standard of the extreme example to the instant case. There was definitely a wish that the bodies not be disturbed. And the digging is taking place solely to disturb the bodies, with full knowledge and purpose.
quote:Having thought about it, I conclude that I believe that after a thousand years, the knowledge to be gained is more important that the wishes belonging to a person whose core of being, family, culture, and civilization have vanished. The person isn't actually there anymore, and having your remains be studied and learnt from is a form of honor. For these people, the era of living in a forgotten little corner of humanity is over; time to rejoin the human endevour in the only way a dead body can.
This is an example of what I find to be a destructive impulse - the almost idolization of knowledge. Yes, knowledge is good. Yes, it can be used to do good things. And yes, it should be pursued. But it is not the center of the human endeavor, nor do we need to know everything.
posted
Incorrect, the digging is taking place to learn more about the bodies and civilization; disturbing the bodies is merely the means.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intentions don't really matter here, since we cannot know for sure whether the former human in question wanted/would want to be discovered/undisturbed.
The value of the information we could gain here is potentially priceless, but again you cannot know for sure... so that doesn't work as a blanket justification either.
Perhaps human remains, like patents, should have an expiration date? After a certain point you become the historical property of the entire human race. The purpose here is to find something that has largely been lost to us. Such is the doom of human civilizations that predate the word processor: you've got to dig around quite a bit to get at their stories.
On the other hand, human civilization has always been preserved first and foremost by stories, and in this way the archaeologists are doing nothing more than giving that preservation an upgrade--wouldn't you rather they be the ones doing the digging than a simple grave robber?
quote:Incorrect, the digging is taking place to learn more about the bodies and civilization; disturbing the bodies is merely the means.
Incorrect. The intent is to disturb the bodies. The motive is to learn.
Digging where no bodies are known to be might disturb a body, but the intent was to move earth, not bodies. Here, the digging is planned and executed with the purpose of removing those bodies.
posted
Yeah, like I die and leave instructions in my will that everyone else should die, and you're all gonna go find the nearest high bridge to jump off of.
The dead don't have desires.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Intentions don't really matter here, since we cannot know for sure whether the former human in question wanted/would want to be discovered/undisturbed.
We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.
posted
I think the reason there cannot be any agreement on this issue (though I certainly wish there could) is that Dagonee is saying we should respect "their" wishes not to be disturbed. He is still thinking of the pharaohs as "they." I see no "they." I see "it." The corpses are not people. They are things. The pharaohs may not have seen it that way in their time, and they certainly would not have wanted to be exhumed, but they are gone now, leaving only the empty shells that were their bodies. Those empty shells should be afforded the same respect as bits of pottery or the bones of dinosaurs.
This really gets into the question of why we carry out the wishes of the dead in the first place? Is it for their sake? Their families? Their spirit's? Fear?
I posit that the way we treat the dead of our time is not actually out of the respect we have for the dead, but out of the respect we have for the living, for those left behind. If those left behind are dead as well, and all that is left is legend and history, then the wishes of the people need no longer be considered, for the "people" are gone.
Dagonee sees the world in a different way, so he will not be convinced.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, like I die and leave instructions in my will that everyone else should die, and you're all gonna go find the nearest high bridge to jump off of.
posted
Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
posted
kat, I know you have strong religious beliefs. And I know your beliefs do not require anything particular of your remains. I don't believe the same thing you do... I have my own strong religious beliefs that are different.
I realize, however, that it's not something I can know for sure, and I acknowledge a teeny, tiny little possibility that you may be right and I may be wrong. I say teeny tiny because I acknowledge a small possibility that any of the many other systems of belief besides mine might be right, so each of them gets a teeny tiny portion of the total.
So, the ancient Egyptians also get a teeny tiny possibility that they might be the ones that are "right." Frankly, I respect their religious beliefs as much as I respect yours.
In their religious beliefs, they live forever with the possessions they were buried with. 1000 years is a miniscule portion of forever. If they are right, we're stealing their stuff and screwing with their bodies.
So, while I respect your right to your opinion, I'm kinda disappointed that you think the time that has passed should override what we know of their beliefs. Especially considering that your beliefs include an eternal life after this one. A very different one, I'll grant you, than the Egyptians dreamed of. But still... what if they were right?
(I don't mean this to be offensive to the LDS faith, I'm hoping that the comparison will inspire you to sympathize somewhat with why I might feel this is wrong. If I've crossed an unknown [to me] line, I apologize.)
(Now to see what dozen or so posts have sprung up in the meantime...)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Solely is surely wrong. I didn't dispute if the intent was there, I disputed the reason, the why.
You're embezzling money from your company. The auditor finds out before your virus destroys the records. He's the only possible witness. You desire him not to tell on you.
You point a gun at him. You pull the trigger. The auditor dies.
When you pulled the trigger, your sole purpose of pulling the trigger was to cause the death of the auditor. Your reason for wanting him dead was to keep him from telling on you.
Either way, the action is being taken to remove these bodies from their resting place.
posted
Actually, as the cultural identity issue develops, I suspect archaeology will become severely hampered from nations seeking to protect their ancient dead from foreign interlopers.
So the home nation can do the intruding and disturbing and make money from tourism as well as foreign scholars interested in learning.
I think it's different to me because the people involved are dead. I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
It's like...it's like eating beef. For some people alive today, eating beef is an anathema because the cow is sacred. That's fine - I'm not going to eat beef in front of them and I'm definitely not going to ask them to do so. On the other hand, I'm not going to stop eating it either.
posted
So ElJay, do you accord the same degree of respect to all belief systems you don't yourself hold? I'm not sure of your beliefs, but lets say for the sake of argument that you're a Methodist. Given that, if you had to say, would you give more merit to the religious beliefs of, say, Episcopalians than you would those of the worshipers of the Aztec pantheon?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE]We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.[/QUOTE]
But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
quote:We can be pretty darn sure, based on what we know of their beliefs and the way they were buried and guarded.
But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
posted
So ElJay, do you accord the same degree of respect to all belief systems you don't yourself hold? I'm not sure of your beliefs, but lets say for the sake of argument that you're a Methodist. Given that, if you had to say, would you give more merit to the religious beliefs of, say, Episcopalians than you would those of the worshipers of the Aztec pantheon?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee- So nobody ever does anything for the purpose of bettering humanity because everything has a more immediate purpose?
In your example, the pulling of the trigger didn't have the purpose of killing him, it had the purpose of expelling the bullet. I mean, it had the purpose of igniting the explosion which would propel the bullet, I mean . . .
Purpose is larger than immediate purpose. Though I do, of course (as I never disputed it), accede that part of what's happening is the bodies being disturbed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, idolizing anything to the point of ignoring other concerns can be destructive. I'm not ignoring other concerns - if the tombs had been erected 50, 100, or even 400 years ago, I'd agree with your stance. That's because while the bodies are dead, the descendants and the culture are still alive.
For me, the knowledge becomes more important once the descendents, the families, and the culture are dead as well.
I don't agree with the disturbance of native American burial grounds for that reason - the people objecting are related and still remember that civilization collectively.
But in this case, what exactly are we getting from this knowledge? Assuming your premise that time diminishes the harm of disturbing graves, why is the knowledge important enough to cause even the miniscule harm remaining after thousands of years?
Wouldn't the knowledge gained from disturbing more recent graves actually be more relevant to us?
posted
Dagonee- hence the difference between immediate purpose and purpose in general. Not to mention that your immediate purpose was clearly to eject the bullet, not otherwise.
Re: the hundred mile example, if merely not possessing property rights excludes wishes, then disturbing the body isn't a problem. Not to mention that this is pretty close to a real example -- the pyramids constitute huge tombs, most of which are supposed to remain undisturbed. Must we accede to the requests of all the people who build giant monuments?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More importantly....why are you all triple posting? I know you feel strongly about this, but sheesh.... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should also keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should also keep in mind that all grave sites are eventually met with disturbance. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom (or what).
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee- hence the difference between immediate purpose and purpose in general. Not to mention that your immediate purpose was clearly to eject the bullet, not otherwise.
Re: the hundred mile example, if merely not possessing property rights excludes wishes, then disturbing the body isn't a problem. Not to mention that this is pretty close to a real example -- the pyramids constitute huge tombs, most of which are supposed to remain undisturbed. Must we accede to the requests of all the people who build giant monuments?
Look, ridiculous extreme examples notwithstanding, these are their bodies being disturbed. I’m not talking about walling off the valley of the kings here. They are digging up the bodies on purpose, in contrast to accidentally digging them up during an excavation for another purpose.
quote: But pretty darn sure doesn't really mean anything, does it? You can't know FOR SURE whether the ex-human in question bought into the cultural impetus that left them preserved so well, even if it would seem logical to assume so. And you cannot know FOR SURE whether said ex-human being may have changed their preference on the matter since then, if they were capable of coming around to another point of view. You cannot even know FOR SURE that a burial site that you haven't yet excavated was intended to be respectful or DISrespectful of those that may be buried there.
Fine. But you and I both know that there’s a far stronger case to be made that they would not want their bodies disturbed. Sounds like rationalization to me. “Maybe they changed their mind, so I’ll go ahead and desecrate their grave because they might actually want me to.”
quote: Dag, I answered that already.
I haven’t seen a single person explain what’s so all-fired important about this knowledge we’re getting.
quote: We should also keep in mind that all grave sites eventually get disturbed. It's only a matter of when, and by whom.
posted
Wow, neat... okay here goes, we'll see if it comes out in triplicate.
kat:
quote: I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
I do not believe proxy baptisims can make the slightest amount of difference in the world. What if I'm wrong?
You do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being distrubed a thousand years later. What if you're wrong?
I know you consider proxy rites to be a completely normal thing. To me the idea is as weird as the idea that ancient Egyptians are partying somewhere with all the possessions and slaves that are buried with them and haven't been stolen yet. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that proxy baptisms work, if the soul sees the light and is willing. Can you allow for the possibility that what happens to your physical remains really does matter in the afterlife?
Noemon: An excellent question! It would take too long to answer using my actual religious beliefs, so let's use your example.
For the sake of the argument, I'm a Methodist. The differences between the beliefs of Methodists and Episcopalians are so slight as to be non-existant to the average lay person who doesn't make a study of such things. As a Methodist, I believe in a pretty inclusive God, and expect to find Episcopalians who in Heaven with me, along with Lutherans, Catholics, non-denominational Christians, and the occasional Baptist. Naturally, I think they'll all have been corrected a teeny bit on some minor theological points so they now understand us Methodists were right along, but they'll still be there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that people who didn't get a chance to hear God's true word in life but lived in what I would consider a "good" way get that opportunity after death, and that those who had the opportunity in life but didn't believe will see that they were wrong and get the opportunity to embrace God. So I would expect to meet up with Aztecs and Atheists, too. I don't know how much of that would be endorsed by a Methodist minister, but call me a kinda "fuzzy" Methodist.
So! Do I think Aztecs and Egyptians and Episcopalians and Mormons will be in my Methodist heaven? You better believe it. And we'll all have a little chuckle about the silly differences we had here on earth and go off to enjoy eternal bliss together.
Do I believe, that if I'm wrong, everyone else out there including Episcopalians and Aztecs has the exact same chance of being right? Yep.
So in other words, I think I'm right. Other religions that are closer to my beliefs I think are closer to being right then those that are further away. If I'm wrong, all other religions have an equal chance of being right. If Baptists happen to be right, then I'll be closer to having been right then the Aztecs will. If the Aztecs have it right, I sure hope their idea of punishment for non believers includes a chance to embrace their god that doesn't include having to be reincarnated and have my heart ripped out of my chest while it's still beating.
But it doesn't matter. Because I'm right.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, neat... okay here goes, we'll see if it comes out in triplicate.
kat:
quote: I do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being disturbed a thousand years later.
I do not believe proxy baptisims can make the slightest amount of difference in the world. What if I'm wrong?
You do not believe they can be hurt by their bodies being distrubed a thousand years later. What if you're wrong?
I know you consider proxy rites to be a completely normal thing. To me the idea is as weird as the idea that ancient Egyptians are partying somewhere with all the possessions and slaves that are buried with them and haven't been stolen yet. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that proxy baptisms work, if the soul sees the light and is willing. Can you allow for the possibility that what happens to your physical remains really does matter in the afterlife?
Noemon: An excellent question! It would take too long to answer using my actual religious beliefs, so let's use your example.
For the sake of the argument, I'm a Methodist. The differences between the beliefs of Methodists and Episcopalians are so slight as to be non-existant to the average lay person who doesn't make a study of such things. As a Methodist, I believe in a pretty inclusive God, and expect to find Episcopalians who in Heaven with me, along with Lutherans, Catholics, non-denominational Christians, and the occasional Baptist. Naturally, I think they'll all have been corrected a teeny bit on some minor theological points so they now understand us Methodists were right along, but they'll still be there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that people who didn't get a chance to hear God's true word in life but lived in what I would consider a "good" way get that opportunity after death, and that those who had the opportunity in life but didn't believe will see that they were wrong and get the opportunity to embrace God. So I would expect to meet up with Aztecs and Atheists, too. I don't know how much of that would be endorsed by a Methodist minister, but call me a kinda "fuzzy" Methodist.
So! Do I think Aztecs and Egyptians and Episcopalians and Mormons will be in my Methodist heaven? You better believe it. And we'll all have a little chuckle about the silly differences we had here on earth and go off to enjoy eternal bliss together.
Do I believe, that if I'm wrong, everyone else out there including Episcopalians and Aztecs has the exact same chance of being right? Yep.
So in other words, I think I'm right. Other religions that are closer to my beliefs I think are closer to being right then those that are further away. If I'm wrong, all other religions have an equal chance of being right. If Baptists happen to be right, then I'll be closer to having been right then the Aztecs will. If the Aztecs have it right, I sure hope their idea of punishment for non believers includes a chance to embrace their god that doesn't include having to be reincarnated and have my heart ripped out of my chest while it's still beating.
But it doesn't matter. Because I'm right.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit that the pyramids are not a ridiculous extreme example, largely by the fact they exist. To what degree do we honor the wishes not to be disturbed? Can we breach the "do not disturb" area? Can we enter the inner sanctum? Can we mess with the jars that hold (well, held prior to decomposition) their organs but not the body itself?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's so "all-fired" important? Whether or not you agree that examining burial wraps is worth it, Sappho's writing are pretty darn important, and that's just a coincidental find.
Many would consider huge sums of knowledge about Egyptian custom, civilization, and religion to be somewhat important. At least, there are lots of people paying lots of money purely for the discovery of it, which would certainly suggest importance to me. Heck, its quite possible we wouldn't know very well how Egyptians thought about the afterlife if we hadn't read a lot of their writings that can be found on the interior walls of tombs.
I'm sure the Egyptians thought knowledge of their civilization and its accomplishments was pretty darn important as well -- and we'd have extremely little of it other than the obvious stuff (they liked point shapes) if we hadn't entered tombs, which are some of the best sources of information (information in them tending to be preserved).
Does the knowledge result in better manufacturing techniques, or change our "hard" sciences? Not very often, though studying mummies has helped the practice of medicine at several points in time. However, it does enhance our knowledge of ourself. Modern psychology would not be where it is today without the wealth of knowledge we've gained from ancient civilizations (often through information about how they deal with death). Modern literature would not be anywhere near where it is today.
Our self-conception as a culture is in a large part rooted in how we perceive ourselves related to other cultures, both living and dead.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I submit that the pyramids are not a ridiculous extreme example, largely by the fact they exist. To what degree do we honor the wishes not to be disturbed? Can we breach the "do not disturb" area? Can we enter the inner sanctum? Can we mess with the jars that hold (well, held prior to decomposition) their organs but not the body itself?
The 30,000 square miles and the having everyone die were the extreme examples I referred to.
I have NEVER claimed that every wish of the dead should be honored. I have stated that their bodies should not be despoiled. The boundaries between the two can be rationally thought out.
quote: What's so "all-fired" important? Whether or not you agree that examining burial wraps is worth it, Sappho's writing are pretty darn important, and that's just a coincidental find.
Many would consider huge sums of knowledge about Egyptian custom, civilization, and religion to be somewhat important. At least, there are lots of people paying lots of money purely for the discovery of it, which would certainly suggest importance to me. Heck, its quite possible we wouldn't know very well how Egyptians thought about the afterlife if we hadn't read a lot of their writings that can be found on the interior walls of tombs.
I'm sure the Egyptians thought knowledge of their civilization and its accomplishments was pretty darn important as well -- and we'd have extremely little of it other than the obvious stuff (they liked point shapes) if we hadn't entered tombs, which are some of the best sources of information (information in them tending to be preserved).
Does the knowledge result in better manufacturing techniques, or change our "hard" sciences? Not very often, though studying mummies has helped the practice of medicine at several points in time. However, it does enhance our knowledge of ourself. Modern psychology would not be where it is today without the wealth of knowledge we've gained from ancient civilizations (often through information about how they deal with death). Modern literature would not be anywhere near where it is today.
Our self-conception as a culture is in a large part rooted in how we perceive ourselves related to other cultures, both living and dead.
And part of that conception apparently is that other culture’s beliefs don’t matter, as long as there’s some nebulous chance we’ll learn something new about them.
posted
Nebulous chance? I bet you'll find that for every mummy unearthed there have been hundreds and hundreds of pages written on new things we've learned because of that mummy specifically.
edit: hundred and hundred of pages, not papers. Maybe dozens of papers, though it all depends.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
