I went to a museum and saw a mummy and was wondering what gives the person the right to exhume the body and display it? Is there a time limit on how long something needs to be dead before you can dig it up?
Well, for some people, there isn’t any difference. Others (like myself) distinguish it by grave robbing generally involves destroying part of the tomb (or whatever) in the process of getting the treasures inside. Archaelogists, however, are supposed to be more concerned with preservation and gaining knowledge.
What I mean is shouldn’t we leave the dead, rest in peace?
the stench ???
Lots of Native Americans (and others) agree with you. I guess the difference is whether there’s anyone around who can claim to be a descendent.
I’d say the moral difference is the motive.
Grave robbers are in it for profit. They sell what’s obviously valuable (jewels, gold), and don’t care about what can’t be fenced easily.
An archeologist is more interested in learning about an ancient culture. The shard of pottery is as important as the ruby pendent.
The line can be blurred of course, every museum wants a mummy, every archeologists wants to make a big find and obtain notoriety.
Off hand, I’d say about a hundered years…
In a way, archaeologists are immortalizing the dead people and cultures they study by showing the world how and that they existed. Plus, studying the fates of ancient cultures can often help us understand what is in store for us. Who was it that said, “To know nothing about what came before you is to remain a child forever”?
Setting aside the dispayed mummy for a moment…
The primary difference is context. When a grave robber goes to dig up anything - ceramics, arrowheads, bones - he is destroying the context of the artifact. A great deal if information is gained from the surroundings of the item. What strata was it located in? Is that consistent with the age of the artifact? What else was near the artifact? Broken lithics, animal bones, burned sherds or post holes, pollen spores? That can tell you a great deal about the site, whether it’s a midden, tomb, or lodging.
Now getting back to the mummy… On a personal note, I think displaying human remains is disrespectful to the idea of that human’s existence and is a sensationalist practice. You can learn a quite a bit from human remains, but most archaeologists I know believe the remains should be treated with respect and not simply as another artifact.
Serious answer: As a former archaeological digger, Mennochio, Kai, liirogue, and Yapping Poodle are right. I dug up 6-9th Century Avars, long forgotten, in the middle of a modern day wheat field. We photographed and drew everything in situ. We studied context a great deal, preserved all artifacts, and tried to note and save every little detail, including the stuff that was worth no money. We treated the stuff with no market value in a manner equal to the things that did have monetary value.
Preferred answer: If you start digging a grave and the family of the deceased or guards come out and chase you, that’s probably grave robbing.
Grave robbing is for personal gain.
Archeology is to enrich the knowledge of all humankind.
Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Getting a degree in grave robbing is generally easier than getting a degree in archaeology.
Grave Robbing: the ones doing the digging get paid…
Archaeology: The guy sitting in the tent sipping lemonade gets all the credit…
So if I dug up the slave graveyard on my Grandparents farm, (merely for the curiosity of seeing what may have been buried there) with no archaeological experience, would that be:
a) “Grave robbing”, even though I take nothing.
or
b) Stupid, as I have no real reason other than my own wonder?
For the record, I’m all about “resting in peace”, so I have no urge to dig up any remains.