# Provenance of antiquities; are archaeologically rich countries demanding too much? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466 "2005-11-23T19:53:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/41 "2005-11-30T20:05:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Bruce didn’t _steal_ so much as _rescue_. And it was such a [burden](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html) to…uh…liberate all that stuff, too! I don’t think all artifacts should automatically be returned to their home territory. I believe that every situation is unique and our current system of public debate is the best we are going to get. When it comes to matters of art and heritage, we should look towards science as a model. Ideally, it should operate not on a base of petty ownership, but on a base of making sure that items get taken care of and are put to the best public good. In the particular case of the Elgin marbles, I think that Greece has a pretty good argument- they are a part of a set in such a way that both parts of it would benefit by them being back together. They will certainly take care of them now. Right now the full impact and signifigance of the marbles is lost. I think the world on the whole would benefit from returning the marbles. But when it comes to and item whose provenance is unknown, isn’t a national treasure, and has been hanging out in the museum for a while- I think that ought to stay right where it is. As for the rest- there are too many factors for hard and fast rules. I do think that graves should be treated respectfully and that mummies are not appropriate for public display- I like **DocCathode** ’s idea. I do think that objects that are still directly sacred should be given to the appropriate church. I do think that items legitimately purchased or aquired through approved archaelogical digs should be considered different from items grabbed from local palaces and museums in times of war or just plain taken during colonial times. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/42 "2005-11-30T22:24:52Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > And while we have archeologists today, some of the people who brought artifacts back were definitely grave robbers. Sure, some of the people who brought artifacts back were greedy treasure hunters more interested in making a buck than the preservation of history. Does this really matter a whole lot in the debate over whether artifacts should be returned? > [@](#): > > Aren’t they still human remains? Why does a few millenia change that? Exactly how long does somebody have to be dead before it is acceptable to exhibit them to the public? I’d say 2,000 years is a pretty good place to start the bidding. > [@](#): > > Since my first trip to the Smithsonian, I’ve held that the public display of mummies is wrong. It is a violation of privacy, and insult to the deceased. That seems rather loony to me but not as loony as reburial with replicas of the artifacts found when their tombs were open. Why replicas instead of the originals they were found with? If this is all about human dignity wouldn’t it be a slap in the face to give them replicas? Marc ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/43 "2005-11-30T23:01:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The current Greek government has no connection to the ancient City-state that once owned these, thus they have no claim. Actually, modern Greece has a lt of connection with ancient Greece, if only the language. > [@](#): > > \*The fact that your ass is currently parked on the land where something was once made give you no moral claim to it. The Parthenon is still on this piece of land. And the marbles have a quite direct connection with the Parthenon. As for Bruce rescuing them, fine. That was a good thing. Nowadays, the situation is quite different. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/44 "2005-11-30T23:17:49Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > Sure, some of the people who brought artifacts back were greedy treasure hunters more interested in making a buck than the preservation of history. I raised that point only to counter **Renob** ’s statement that all uses of the phrase ‘grave-robber’ in this thread should read 'archeologist. > [@](#): > > Does this really matter a whole lot in the debate over whether artifacts should be returned? IMO ‘We took it to protect it and advance human knowledge’ holds up a lot better than ‘We swiped the loot for money and fame’ when a country is demanding something back. > [@](#): > > I’d say 2,000 years is a pretty good place to start the bidding. Why? What happens at 2000 years that makes it acceptable to exhibit dead naked people who did not sign consent forms and actually had themselves buried or entombed out of sight? The mummy at the Smithsonian was in a sealed tomb, an outer sarcophagus, an inner sarcophagus, and wrapped in linnen. To me, this was a clear statement that he didn’t want his naked corpse exhibited in public. > [@](#): > > That seems rather loony to me but not as loony as reburial with replicas of the artifacts found when their tombs were open. Why replicas instead of the originals they were found with? If this is all about human dignity wouldn’t it be a slap in the face to give them replicas? > [@My Earlier Post](#): > > Burying the corpse with reproductions of objects would allow museums to exhibit the originals, prevent looters from digging up the corpse for artifacts, Reburying the corpse with the originals would lead to looters trying to find the grave, and loot it. In most cases, the actual object itself is not significant and a replica is acceptable. It doesn’t matter whose Sennet set, or mead horn, the body is buried with. Any Sennet set or mead horn will do. Note that some cultures already buried even royalty with replicas. The terra cotta warriors of Xian are stand ins for real, human soldiers. Egyptian Ushabtis are stand ins for real, human servants. Unfortunately, I don’t see how replica jewelry or ornaments could be real gold or jewels. Brass and glass would have to do. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/45 "2005-11-30T23:21:22Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > To me, the major draw back of shipping antiquities around the world is the loss of context. Just what does an Egyptian mummy mean when seen in a children’s museum in the US? To many people, it’s the novelty/voyerism of seeing a long dead body displayed out in public that attracts, because very little can actually be learned about the Egyptians from walking by a display like this. Well, actualy, I think it’s a good thing that antiquities or works of arts of various origins can be displayed in other, longaway countries. Despite the lack of context, actually viewing these works of art is fascinating and completely different from just watching pictures of footages. For instance, visiting the Paris museum of Oceanian arts was quite a revelation to me. However, there are, IMO, and as i already said, at least some major artwork that should be displayed in context. The Sphinx’s nose shouldn’t be kept in Camberra, to take an extreme example. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/46 "2005-12-01T00:08:41Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Why? What happens at 2000 years that makes it acceptable to exhibit dead naked people who did not sign consent forms and actually had themselves buried or entombed out of sight? The mummy at the Smithsonian was in a sealed tomb, an outer sarcophagus, an inner sarcophagus, and wrapped in linnen. To me, this was a clear statement that he didn’t want his naked corpse exhibited in public. I just put in 2,000 as the starting bid but I see your point. Truthfully I don’t really care what that person wanted when he was mummified as history doesn’t belong to those in the past. > [@](#): > > Reburying the corpse with the originals would lead to looters trying to find the grave, and loot it. In most cases, the actual object itself is not significant and a replica is acceptable. Until grave robbers come by 2,000 years later and these strange artifacts, obviously imitating a past civilization, are recovered and sold on eBay. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter whose Sennet set, or mead horn, the body is buried with. Any Sennet set or mead horn will do. Note that some cultures already buried even royalty with replicas. The terra cotta warriors of Xian are stand ins for real, human soldiers. Egyptian Ushabtis are stand ins for real, human servants. Unfortunately, I don’t see how replica jewelry or ornaments could be real gold or jewels. Brass and glass would have to do. Why can’t they have the dignity afforded to them when they were originally buried? Replicas? Pah, how disrespectful is that? Marc ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/47 "2005-12-01T00:13:33Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I’d say 2,000 years is a pretty good place to start the bidding. I too don’t like much seeing bodies being displayed. I honestly don’t see why them being 20 years old or 2000 years old makes a difference (apart from the outrage of still living relatives). It doesn’t bother me _that_ much, but I find this rather distasteful and not respecteful. Regardless of the age of the bodies. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/48 "2005-12-01T03:14:15Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I too don’t like much seeing bodies being displayed. I honestly don’t see why them being 20 years old or 2000 years old makes a difference (apart from the outrage of still living relatives). It doesn’t bother me _that_ much, but I find this rather distasteful and not respecteful. Regardless of the age of the bodies. I suppose it’s distasteful for some but I would find it fascinating to see the product of their complicated burial rites. I honestly don’t understand why some people find it so distasteful. We’re talking about a 2,500 year old dried out corpse. Marc ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/49 "2005-12-01T03:44:59Z")
It’s about human dignity. These people were buried- most likely by their grieving loved ones- in some kind of good faith that their graves would be an eternal resting place. “Rest in Peace” means something. I wouldn’t want my relative’s grave to be disturbed. And if it needed to be (like moving her remains to catacombs or something) I’d still expect that the remains would be treated with dignity and respect. I also expect that people’s religious beliefs will be respected after they are dead. For example, Orthodox Jews believe strongly that the body will enter the afterlife in the same phsyical state it is buried in. It would be a crime against dignity to burn a Jew’s body or seperate the remains, even well after death. I think the Egyptians clearly had some heavy religious beliefs regarding the grave and I don’t think it’s our place to fuck with that. Even though I don’t know these people, I still consider it my duty as a human to respect the wishes and memory of the dead. There is a difference between examining a body to contribute to the world’s body of knowledge and parading a body in front of a bunch of gawking school children as a curiousity. Most people in museums are not there to do a scholarly analysis on a mummy behind glass- they simply want to go “Cool! A mummy! It’s just like Bubba Ho-Tep!” I don’t think that is worth affronting the dignity of the dead for. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/50 "2005-12-01T07:52:38Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > It’s about human dignity. These people were buried- most likely by their grieving loved ones- in some kind of good faith that their graves would be an eternal resting place. “Rest in Peace” means something. Does that mean archaeolgist shouldn’t examine burial sites or perserve the artifacts found? Does the meaning of rest in peace apply to the body only or to the objects that may have been buried with the individual? > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t want my relative’s grave to be disturbed. And if it needed to be (like moving her remains to catacombs or something) I’d still expect that the remains would be treated with dignity and respect. I don’t quite see the connection to a 2,500 year old corpse. Does this apply to Neanderthal bones unearthed in Europe as well? > [@](#): > > I think the Egyptians clearly had some heavy religious beliefs regarding the grave and I don’t think it’s our place to fuck with that. Even though I don’t know these people, I still consider it my duty as a human to respect the wishes and memory of the dead. So archeologist shouldn’t dig in areas they suspect to contain graves? Graves are a treasure trove of information that can tell us a lot about the society that left them. If we make grave sites off limits to legitimate archaeological endeavors then we’re missing out on a lot of information we can use to reconstruct our past and understand ourselves a bit better. > [@](#): > > There is a difference between examining a body to contribute to the world’s body of knowledge and parading a body in front of a bunch of gawking school children as a curiousity. Most people in museums are not there to do a scholarly analysis on a mummy behind glass- they simply want to go “Cool! A mummy! It’s just like Bubba Ho-Tep!” So long as the museum treats its subject with respect I’m not seeing a big problem. I imagine there are plenty of people with a genuine interest in seeing the mummified remains of an Egyptian from so long ago for something other than purient interest. I suppose this is just one area we’re never going to see eye to eye on. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/51 "2005-12-01T13:35:53Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > This from the schedule of upcoming programs on KCRW: > > I’d like to listen to the show before saying too much, but this just knocks me over. Are the archaeologically rich countries going to strip us bare? Will the British Museum have to give back the Elgin Marbles? Should the only antiquities I have access to be those of the Gabrieno and Fernandeno Indians, since they were the aboriginal people of my region? Or should museums be encyclopedic repositories of world culture, so that people who live in California but can’t afford to travel to Rome or Athens can still enjoy and admire the art of ancient Mediterranean cultures? > > I first started paying attention to this issue when the Getty Museum was being mentioned in the news; a former curator is currently on trial in Italy for having purchased smuggled Italian antiquities from a Swiss dealer. Well and good; if something was acquired in violation of agreements and treaties that govern, then it should be returned, but if you go by the quote above the source countries are ramping up the issue considerably. One’s now hearing the Metropolitan Museum implicated, and the source countries are being accused of applying the current reasonable rules to acquisitions that are decades old (perhaps as much as a century, in the case of the Met). > > As an American of European descent (though not specifically Mediterranean), I sincerely feel that antiquities from the roots of Western culture are my heritage too, even though my ancestors came here from Europe. I am not an archaeologist (though I did play one briefly in college), but I think the whole beef is driven by the almighty buck. Having custody of artifacts, and sending them around the world to be studied or viewed, has got to be a good source of income. Of course, I have nothing to base that on. Anyone know what kind of money changes hands when these things are loaned out to other countries? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/52 "2005-12-01T18:36:23Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I just put in 2,000 as the starting bid but I see your point. Truthfully I don’t really care what that person wanted when he was mummified as history doesn’t belong to those in the past. Reread my first post to this thread. The mummy can be privately studied by archeologist without being exhibited to the public. This allows them to learn from the mummy, and the mummy isn’t stripped naked and put on display for gawkers. > [@](#): > > Until grave robbers come by 2,000 years later and these strange artifacts, obviously imitating a past civilization, are recovered and sold on eBay. Whoo! Look at all the unsupported assumptions there! > [@](#): > > Why can’t they have the dignity afforded to them when they were originally buried? Replicas? Pah, how disrespectful is that? A lot less disrespectful than being naked in a glass case as crowds file past. > [@](#): > > Does that mean archaeolgist shouldn’t examine burial sites or perserve the artifacts found? Again, read my first post to this thread. Archeologists would study the site, dig up bodies and artifacts, study them for a fixed period and then rebury the body secretly with replicas. > [@](#): > > Does the meaning of rest in peace apply to the body only or to the objects that may have been buried with the individual? I know you know the answer to this one. You mentioned replicas in your previous response. > [@](#): > > I don’t quite see the connection to a 2,500 year old corpse. It’s a former human being. > [@](#): > > Does this apply to Neanderthal bones unearthed in Europe as well? Yes. > [@](#): > > So archeologist shouldn’t dig in areas they suspect to contain graves? Graves are a treasure trove of information that can tell us a lot about the society that left them. If we make grave sites off limits to legitimate archaeological endeavors then we’re missing out on a lot of information we can use to reconstruct our past and understand ourselves a bit better. I never said archeologists shouldn’t dig in graves. > [@](#): > > So long as the museum treats its subject with respect I’m not seeing a big problem. I imagine there are plenty of people with a genuine interest in seeing the mummified remains of an Egyptian from so long ago for something other than purient interest. I suppose this is just one area we’re never going to see eye to eye on. If somebody was buried privately, I cannot understand how a museum putting their naked corpse in a public display case could possibly be called respect. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/53 "2005-12-01T21:26:33Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Reread my first post to this thread. The mummy can be privately studied by archeologist without being exhibited to the public. This allows them to learn from the mummy, and the mummy isn’t stripped naked and put on display for gawkers. Why put anything on display for “gawkers?” Isn’t possible that those of us who haven’t dedicated our lives to Egyptology might be very interested in viewing an authentic mummy? I remember when I saw the Ramses II exhibit in Denver during the 80’s they had a full length photograph of his corpse, is that permitted? > [@](#): > > Whoo! Look at all the unsupported assumptions there! Yeah, completely unsupported given that there is absolutely no evidence of human beings digging up remains that were buried in millenia past. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I never said archeologists shouldn’t dig in graves. So what we’re essentially speaking of is just how much respect we should have for the graves of others. It’s ok to ransack their graves and take their artifacts, though they probably wouldn’t have wanted that, it’s ok to remove the bodies, study them, and rebury them in a different location but once the body is on display we’ve suddenly crossed a line. That seems somewhat arbitrary, no? > [@](#): > > If somebody was buried privately, I cannot understand how a museum putting their naked corpse in a public display case could possibly be called respect. We’re just going to have to agree to diagree here as I do not believe we will reach a common concensus. I understand where you’re coming and while I respect your position but I just don’t agree with it. Marc ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/54 "2005-12-01T21:52:36Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > Why put anything on display for “gawkers?” Isn’t possible that those of us who haven’t dedicated our lives to Egyptology might be very interested in viewing an authentic mummy? Isn’t possible that we should respect the deceased’s wishes not to be exhibited naked? > [@](#): > > I remember when I saw the Ramses II exhibit in Denver during the 80’s they had a full length photograph of his corpse, is that permitted? Bit of a grey area. I’ll go with a tenative yes. > [@](#): > > Yeah, completely unsupported given that there is absolutely no evidence of human beings digging up remains that were buried in millenia past. :rolleyes: Don’t you roll your eyes at me. You didn’t say ‘What if somebody loots the new graves?’. You said > [@](#): > > Until grave robbers come by 2,000 years later and these strange artifacts, obviously imitating a past civilization, are recovered and sold on eBay . Unwarranted assumptions- Looters will be after this grave rather than the much easier to find and reliably profitable cemeteries we currently bury most bodies in. That the looters will consider the replica artifacts “strange”. That it will be ‘obvious’ to the looters that the replicas are “imitating a past civilization”. In two thousand years, all current records could be gone. They may have no clue what the artifacts are and never heard of ancient Egypt. Or, they may think the replicas are authentic. Or they may worship them as gods. That eBay will still be around. > [@](#): > > So what we’re essentially speaking of is just how much respect we should have for the graves of others. It’s ok to ransack their graves and take their artifacts, though they probably wouldn’t have wanted that, it’s ok to remove the bodies, study them, and rebury them in a different location but once the body is on display we’ve suddenly crossed a line. That seems somewhat arbitrary, no? Not to me it doesn’t. Leaving them buried means leaving them for looters. Looters will do a bunch of stuff I object to, and destroy information in the process. Again (as I said in my first post), allowing archeologists to exhume and study the graves allows them and us to learn from them and increase the store of human knowledge. Reburial in an undisclosed location, respects the wishes and beliefs of the deceased and treats them with human dignity. What knowledge is gained by public display of mummies? What information do archeologists learn by putting the dead in big glass cases? It draws in crowds and makes money. Exhibitting naked dead people for money. Does the line seem so arbitrary now? BTW-If a person has given consent to be exhibitted after death, I consider it disrespectful of their wishes not to do so. The current BodyWorlds exhibit comes to mind. If somebody signed forms expressing their desire to be plastinated and made into anatomical sculpture, overriding their wishes would be an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466/55 "2005-12-01T23:41:06Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > What knowledge is gained by public display of mummies? What information do archeologists learn by putting the dead in big glass cases? Archaeologists? None or next to none. The general public? Potentially a good bit. Is this necessary to advance our knowledge base? Maybe, maybe not - more than a few researchers I’m sure were initially inspired by archaeological displays of one sort or another as youngsters. Basically it’s the same argument I use for zoos - the greater public good is served by exposing the young and impressionable to the wonders of the world around us. As to the rights of the dead - I’m rather conflicted. Generally I like think I’m about as respectful of the religious and personal propriety of individuals as anybody. But if their is one area where I get rather “hand-stabberish” about my atheism it is when it comes to archaeological remains. I do have an ongoing internal dialogue with myself over this, as I can see the problems with my views. But I really do have a hard time respecting the wishes of those many generations removed from us - they’re dead and “they” don’t exist and therefore they don’t give a shit. I guess currently my flimsy line of respecting wishes might run as far as those who can draw a direct line of desent that is not terrifically removed temporally ( i.e. plundering Zuni graves from three generations ago might be bad, but I don’t give a good god damn about the propriety of violating Anasazi gravesites ). Inconsistent, perhaps, but then so are a lot of things in life. - Tamerlane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/provenance-of-antiquities-are-archaeologically-rich-countries-demanding-too-much/332466.md?page=2)