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

  • frank@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days 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

    • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      In the National Museum of Scotland there’s a bronze-age skeleton curled up in a recreation of the person’s grave, surrounded by their grave goods. While I was stood looking at it, a woman was explaining to her granddaughter that the skeleton had been found in Shetland, where she herself was from. The girl turned to her and said, “Was he a friend of yours, granny?” We all laughed, but I think we all had the same uncomfortable thought - this wasn’t just dry bones, it was a person. What if it was a friend of granny’s? What amount of time makes it ok?

      Looking at this body in the British Museum was even worse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28589151

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Being born in the same town means there is a high chance of it being a relative of the girl and her grandmother.

    • juliebean@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      i think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding why robbing recent graves is unethical; that is, it’s denying valuable data to the archeologists of 3024 CE.