I wonder whether there is a precise time period that separates archaeology and grave robbing? Is it a legal issue? If you take bones and/or valuables but do not sell them is it OK? Is it grave robbing only if you plunder for profit? I see news reports about hordes of gold and valuables and wonder. In fact how can archaeologists justify opening graves, no matter how new or old, and removing the remains that were interred?
I don’t think there is a precise factual answer to this question, so probably it is better suited for GD. I have also edited the title to better indicate the subject.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
First off, the distinction is a way of archeologists distancing themselves from a past they (wrongly) see as ignoble. But it’s certainly true that in the past archeology wasn’t done with due care, and lots of times without permission.
The problem is that it was only through that that we learned to take proper care, and in those days, there frequently was nobody to get permission from, or we did get permission but that the locals now are pissed they didn’t get a better cut.
Part of the distinction is that archaeologists are after information, while grave robbers are after money and tend to destroy information in the process. Archaeologists despise grave robbers. There’s also the fact that archaeologists don’t necessarily focus on objects that are worth money to begin with; an ancient garbage dump is considered a great find I understand. Better than an ancient tomb in a lot of ways, because tombs are deliberate productions; you get a more balanced view of a society’s life by looking at their garbage.
Knowledge. And the fact that in most cases there’s no one left who cares, so who are they hurting ?
And even those things of value which archaeologists do take out of sites, are likely to end up in a museum where all can appreciate them, rather than in the private collection of some legally-dodgy rich buyer, or worse, melted down for the metal content.
The dead person cares.
Let’s take a typical case of grave robbing. Let’s say you are not related to the dead person in any way. Are you offended by the grave robbing? (I’d think most people would say yes.) Why does it bother you? One answer would be that you feel bad for the dead person’s relatives. But I think the reason most people object to the grave robbing is not a concern for the relatives, but a concern for the dead person himself, that he should be left alone, and be allowed to rest in peace. If so, then what’s the difference whether he died yesterday or ten thousand years ago?
I only object to grave robbing when there’s a loss of knowledge as a result. The dead don’t care.
Actually, being dead is kind of the definition of not being. And if something doesn’t exist, it can’t have any qualities.
Anyways, as for the OP: while there are actual distinctions between the profession of grave robbing and the profession of archeology (eg. profit motive, care with which sites are looted, etc…) the two are just different ends of the same behavior. People go into a tomb/grave/burial site, and then they take what’s inside. One group sells then plunder to private collectors, the other loot ends up in public museums. But, that doesn’t mean that those who heritage has been carted off see it that way. IIRC, Egypt recently launched a diplomatic campaign to get western powers to return the artifacts that they looted from Egypt over the years.
All that being said, there is an actual, essential difference between grave robbers and archeologists. An archeologist can survive a nuclear blast, and being hurled a vast distance by that blast, as long as they find a lead-lined fridge to hide in first.
Let me play corpse’s advocate here.
While, personally, I agree with this sentiment, you and I have no way of knowing this to an absolute certainty.
I mean, what if one of these bronze-age cultures was right? What if disturbing the mummy means an eternity of restlessness for the soul? The practice of archaeology makes an inherent value judgment: our culture knows more about the afterlife than this dead person’s culture did (i.e. they “thought” that it existed, but now we “know” that it doesn’t). But in reality, we each know the same amount: nothing.
Again, I don’t believe in such things. But who am I to presume I know more than Hatshepsut did?
The difference is in intention and method. An acrchaeologist is after information, with the intent to make this widely available to everyone who wants to know; and he or she acts carefully so as to preserve and record this information for posterity(whether in the form of artifacts or, just as importantly, the association of various artifacts in position with each other).
The grave robber is after prizes which he or she can keep for themselves or sell to the highest bidder (who will likewise keep for themselves). In going after these prizes, they destroy information - the location of the artifacts in relation with each other, and other non-prized artifacts which may in fact be rich in information (a rotted pile of rags may disclose all sorts of valuable info, but your grave-robber may simply toss them aside).
We know it as well as we can know anything outside of a mathematical proof. It’s not practical to take every wild possibility into account; there are too many, and many are mutually exclusive . What if leaving the remains in the grave subjects their spirit to torment ? There’s just as much evidence for that as for disturbing the remains bothering their spirit.
You are the product of a far more advanced and knowledgeable culture, that’s who. A culture that has the scientific knowledge to say that there’s just no reason to believe in spirits of any kind.
“Absolute certainty” is not required. There’s no such thing outside mathematics. I cannot be absolutely certain the sun will rise tomorrow, but I still live my life as though it will. Same with there being no existence after death.
You’re the one with the flushing toilet and penicillin (generic you). That’s all I have to say on the “wisdom” of Bronze Age civilizations.
I do not believe in spirits, I am not bothered much about the debate concerning spirits wandering for eternity. I fact I myself will not opt for burial when I die but rather cremation. My concern is with the sanctity that should be afforded to those who DO believe and opt for burial, even though they are dead I believe their wishes (ie eternal rest) should be respected. Archaeology and a search for information are indeed noble and justified but could not the grave be respected and returned to its original state. note I will concede that once a grave is known it may open open the door for later grave robbers. Well nothing is ever simple is it?
I do not believe in spirits, I am not bothered much about the debate concerning spirits wandering for eternity. I fact I myself will not opt for burial when I die but rather cremation. My concern is with the sanctity that should be afforded to those who DO believe and opt for burial, even though they are dead I believe their wishes (ie eternal rest) should be respected. Archaeology and a search for information are indeed noble and justified but could not the grave be respected and returned to its original state. note I will concede that once a grave is known it may open open the door for later grave robbers. Well nothing is ever simple is it?
I’m an public (non-academic) archaeologist and I have excavated dozens of burials. Primarily prehistoric Native American burials but a few historic-era European/Anglo burials as well.
I work almost exclusively in California and can only speak to my experiences here. Other states, countries, jurisdictions, etc. my have completely different protocols.
In California, burial excavation is most likely our last recourse. By that, I mean that if a burial is not being threatened by imminent destruction it will be nigh impossible to get permission to excavate. Our museums and curation facilities are filled with burials excavated “back in the day” before anyone thought to ask permission. If you are looking to do research there are ample opportunities…although many of the burials are slowly being repatriated under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
If destruction is imminent, then burial removal may be the preferred alternative (this can include cremations as well as intact burials). However, a complex series of negotiations will have to take place first between the various project participants and typically a legal document will be drawn up to ensure the future disposition of the remains. Typically, these agreements will also dictate the types of analyses available to us prior to reburial. Destructive analysis (OH analysis, mtDNA analysis, carbon dating, etc.) of skeletal material or of a burial good used to be universally forbidden but some tribes have discovered that the archaeological data gleaned from these types of investigations may actually help them.
I have worked on projects where the remains have been removed for repatriation at an off-site location but I have also reburied remains in the same general area within a project area once the subsurface work has been completed.
In any case, I obviously don’t see this as grave-robbing. While I concede that, aside from a few individuals, it has only been recently that the Native American perspective has been considered, the actions of many early archaeologists (and here I draw a distinction between archaeologists what we would call an “antiquarian”) can only be considered within the social framework of the time. Archaeologists were just as racist and ugly towards the Native American community as the rest of society. This is something that we, as current archaeologists, have to acknowledge as we are often forcefully reminded of it with some regularity!
How about taking this further, given that by definition we do not know the precise expectations of prehistoric cultures? What it they wanted their graves to be opened by future generations, and that without, they wouldn’t live forever? How can you prove me wrong?
Actually, some might argue that a God who could create the Universe without existing possesses a higher quality of greatness than a God who could create the Universe with existing, so therefore a God who exists is not as great as a God who doesn’t and so therefore does not possess maximal greatness 
I shouldn’t have said “absolute certainty.” I should have said “even the slightest hint of certainty.” You can have some degree of certainty about the sun rising tomorrow, but no certainty whatsoever about what happens to your consciousness after you die. There are no reputable reports from anyone returned from the dead. Period. Anyone claiming to know what happens after death is deluded or a hoaxter. Yes, we are more advanced in terms of science and plumbing these days, but as far as the afterlife, we are just as ignorant as a King Tut or an Emperor Qin Shi Huang or a famous Ancient Native American Chief whose name I can’t be bothered to look up at the moment.
I see your point. We can not prove such a desire by deductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning can be helpful in situations like these. The ancient Egyptians, for example, went to great lengths to keep grave robbers away, and left detailed hieroglyphs describing how the remains must be left at peace for the soul to be left at peace. And many American Indian cultures passed down similar beliefs through oral histories from ancient times to modern day. Some cultures, at least, don’t want their remains disturbed. And realizing that their silly superstitions about this are just as valid as our agnosticism, perhaps they deserve some respect.
Again, I should emphasize that I don’t believe in the afterlife. But I’m willing to play moral relativist in the area of the “sacredness” of human remains.
Wrong. We have a great deal of knowledge on how the brain works, and plenty of evidence that we are our brains. And there’s no evidence for a way for the brain activity and structures that constitute a human personality to survive death. By all the evidence it’s simply impossible.
In answer to the OP, it’s the reason I give for not continuing my studies. “I couldn’t reconcile my respect for the descendants wishes regarding the remains with my scientific curiousity,” sounds more noble than, “A few months before I graduated The American Anthropologist ran an article stating that by 1980, the earliest I could’ve earned my doctorate were I suddenly transformed into a good student, 90% of all Anthro/Archaeology PhDs would need to find careers in other fields, so I grabbed my BA and skipped the middleman.”