At what point or under what conditions does graverobbing become archaeology?

Answer 1

I have sat here 30 mins looking at your question.

I have a degree. I cannot think of an answer.

(I just hope you don't think of re-inventing the Rubic Cube!)

Answer 2

Tricky question. Time was, there really was no difference. Thank goodness for NAGPRA- the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Nowadays, in the US, if an archaeological dig comes across native remains, they have to call the tribes of that area, along with the state archaeologist and a bunch of other people. The principal investigator of the dig, the state archaeologist, and the tribal representatives will get together and decide what to do. Actually, the tribes will decide what to do, and everyone else will do it. What happens next depends on the tribe. Most work nowadays is done before the area in question is developed, into a road or building or golf course or whatever. If the grave can be left there without being destroyed, it will. Otherwise, it will be removed by professionals and, if allowed, studied before being reburied in a safer area. Different tribes have different levels of comfort with people viewing the remains, but their wishes are followed. This is not to say that nasty things still aren't done, of course, even with professionals. However, we at least have a legal framework now for professional digs.

I think that what NAGPRA attempts to do is kind of the dividing line. If the descendants are okay with the dig, then it's not graverobbing. With archaeology, you don't always know who those descendants are, so we go with close enough: the tribes in that area when the Europeans came through, or the town in the case of a historic cemetery, or the owners of the land on which the historic cemetery rests. It's not a perfect situation, and I don't like the idea of digging up remains just 'cause. But in a lot of situations, it's necessary. We here in cultural resource management do it so they don't get ruined, basically. If we can study it before we rebury them, so much the better.

Answer 3

That is a very good question !!
I would imagine it must have to be a body that has been in the ground for some considerable amount of time in an unmarked plot or what is considered to be unmarked with the deceased having no known relatives left alive that the authorities can trace and not in what is an "obvious" and maybe still used burial plot.
Baz

Oh and Katy above about the people who you refered to as "English Tourists who took things from Egyptian graves" is totally wrong.
Lord Canarven and Howard Carter were registrered Archeaologists and had been commissioned by the Egyptian government and British authorities to dig for acient relics in Egypt.
Get your facts right please.
Baz

Answer 4

Awesome! The answer to this question is all archeology is grave robbing, it just depends on if anyone is around to yell about it and how loud can they yell. It also depends on things like who is funding it? Is it a university? museum? or privately funded? Where will the items found be displayed? In a public museum? In a private collection? Will they be sold? Who will they be sold to? Was permission obtained to remove the items? By who? Is this considered legitimate?

I am a cultural anthropologist interested in intellectual property rights which deals with not only these questions but ands the complication of intangibility of the objects of study and the divisible nature of information (it can be shared without taking away from the original).

What do these questions have to tell us about the Elgan Marbles? The Egyptian obelisk in Paris? Pre-Columbian mortuary items in private American and European collections?

Look at a book called "Stealing History" by Roger Atwood. Excelent look at the tombs at Sipan in Peru and compared to the ruins of Babylon after the first Gulf war and Angkor Wat.

Answer 5

That's a very interesting question. I think that time has something to do with it - though English tourists in the early 1900's were notorious for taking things from Egyptian pyramids (including mummies!). When the pursuit of knowledge is the main reason for excavating (because archaeologists are still just trying to make money like the rest of us), then I believe that we cannot consider it graverobbing.

Answer 6

Its to protect precious historical artifacts from being destroyed and lost by mindless grave robbers who would definitely at some point in time rob the grave. For example thousands of artifacts were lost from the pyramids, either stolen and melted down, or destroyed when ransacked. Strict laws control all excavations.

Answer 7

I would presume that grave robbery is against the law as remains are very sacred. Archaeology would be research with a Government's approval.

Answer 8

You may call it archaelogy but it's still grave robbing. Why wouldn't it be? I understand all the "learning" that comes withit but it is still grave robbing. If those people had known, all those years ago, that they would be dug up in the name of education, they would have insisted on a different burial and that's why I'm going to be cremated.

Answer 9

Great question!
I guess that is one of those things that depends largely on your point of view! One person might believe her actions constitute valuable research while those same actions are viewed by others as depraved disrespect for a sacred space.
Where is that line??

Answer 10

I would imagine it is when the act carries no financial benefit.