NationStates Jolt Archive

Read through the holocaust threads brings to mind a question that I have long pondered over.

It is considered fine to dig up ancient sites of battle and plunder their relics for the advandcedment of the knowledge of our own history.

But how long is long enough to do this? What about sending a team to Ypres, to dig over some of thoses WWI trenches? How about some of those battles in the States where the conalists and aborigenies faught?

Read through the holocaust threads brings to mind a question that I have long pondered over.

It is considered fine to dig up ancient sites of battle and plunder their relics for the advandcedment of the knowledge of our own history.

But how long is long enough to do this? What about sending a team to Ypres, to dig over some of thoses WWI trenches? How about some of those battles in the States where the conalists and aborigenies faught?

Wasn't Time Team doing just that recently? In the Ardennes or somewhere?

I'm no expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that something passes into history when the largest part of those who witnessed it first-hand have passed away. In a way you could say when it passes from living memory into history.

Wasn't Time Team doing just that recently? In the Ardennes or somewhere?

I'm no expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that something passes into history when the largest part of those who witnessed it first-hand have passed away. In a way you could say when it passes from living memory into history.

That's my sort of feeling also, yet I can't help but think of the bones that the British musem sent back to Australian aborigines a year or so back. Which would seem to indicate that for some at least 'living memory' matters not a jot.

if they have a good scientific reason to do so; if they excavate with sensitivity; if they treat the remains as if they were their own dead; i dont see why it couldnt be done now.

I'm no expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that something passes into history when the largest part of those who witnessed it first-hand have passed away. In a way you could say when it passes from living memory into history.

^This.

I want reparations from the Italian government for what Roman soldiers did to the native celts in Britain.

if they have a good scientific reason to do so; if they excavate with sensitivity; if they treat the remains as if they were their own dead; i dont see why it couldnt be done now.

That would imply that mumies, for example, could no longer be displayed in museums.
I would agree that there needs to be scientific reason, and sensitivity. But to treat them as if they were recent deads is not very reasonable.

Read through the holocaust threads brings to mind a question that I have long pondered over.

It is considered fine to dig up ancient sites of battle and plunder their relics for the advandcedment of the knowledge of our own history.

But how long is long enough to do this? What about sending a team to Ypres, to dig over some of thoses WWI trenches? How about some of those battles in the States where the conalists and aborigenies faught?

Actually they already do go over the sites of some major battle areas of WWI

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23754852-663,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/19/1050172792443.html

I want reparations from the Italian government for what Roman soldiers did to the native celts in Britain.

This.

I want reparations from the Italian government for what Roman soldiers did to the native celts in Britain.

Such an action would set precedent for a quarter of the world to sue Britain for colonising it or something.

Such an action would set precedent for a quarter of the world to sue Britain for colonising it or something.

Heh but then how far back would you like to go? Could I sue the descendants of the Saxsons?

I guess the real question then is, how far back do we have to go before history becomes history?

I'm no expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that something passes into history when the largest part of those who witnessed it first-hand have passed away. In a way you could say when it passes from living memory into history.

Reminds me when I was a kid and had this conversation with my aunt:

Aunt: "Such a kid."
Me: "I'm not a kid anymore."
Aunt: "Yes you are. I bet you don't even know what a record player is."
Me: "Yes I do. We studied about those in history."
Aunt: "......"

Reminds me when I was a kid and had this conversation with my aunt:

Aunt: "Such a kid."
Me: "I'm not a kid anymore."
Aunt: "Yes you are. I bet you don't even know what a record player is."
Me: "Yes I do. We studied about those in history."
Aunt: "......"

lol, when they would try bs with me I would give some stupid answer for example if they asked me that question I would say sure it is the thing you played those big CD's on.

Read through the holocaust threads brings to mind a question that I have long pondered over.

It is considered fine to dig up ancient sites of battle and plunder their relics for the advandcedment of the knowledge of our own history.

But how long is long enough to do this? What about sending a team to Ypres, to dig over some of thoses WWI trenches? How about some of those battles in the States where the conalists and aborigenies faught?

I think the rules is they all have to be dead. I remember back when they did the Titanic. I think anyone who was on it has to have passed on. So if everyone died it is okay.

Reminds me when I was a kid and had this conversation with my aunt:

Aunt: "Such a kid."
Me: "I'm not a kid anymore."
Aunt: "Yes you are. I bet you don't even know what a record player is."
Me: "Yes I do. We studied about those in history."
Aunt: "......"

You were a scary child, I am sure.

My mother says that when I was 5, I suddenly came talking about volatile substances. She didn't know what those were, but it seems I did. I was never a kid.:(

Read through the holocaust threads brings to mind a question that I have long pondered over.

It is considered fine to dig up ancient sites of battle and plunder their relics for the advandcedment of the knowledge of our own history.

But how long is long enough to do this? What about sending a team to Ypres, to dig over some of thoses WWI trenches? How about some of those battles in the States where the conalists and aborigenies faught?

I know some work has been done in the US on various battle sites, not only between (ahem) colonists and aborigines but also Revolutionary War and Civil War sites. Quite a lot of work has been done on the Little Big Horn site, for instance, where the Sioux won a notable victory over the US Army.

I know some work has been done in the US on various battle sites, not only between (ahem) colonists and aborigines but also Revolutionary War and Civil War sites. Quite a lot of work has been done on the Little Big Horn site, for instance, where the Sioux won a notable victory over the US Army.

And was there any negative reaction from either side?

Goddamn suggestive thread title...

Goddamn suggestive thread title...

Heh I do my best!:D

That would imply that mumies, for example, could no longer be displayed in museums.
I would agree that there needs to be scientific reason, and sensitivity. But to treat them as if they were recent deads is not very reasonable.
oh i didnt know that we were talking about mummies.

although i do think that if the egyptian government should request that they no longer be put on display that that should be honored. they are dead people after all.

Too busy to properly read OP or thread, so I just want to answer the title question:

When it's coming out my mouth.

oh i didnt know that we were talking about mummies.

although i do think that if the egyptian government should request that they no longer be put on display that that should be honored. they are dead people after all.

Well, I took it to mean we're talking about all deads of interest to archaeology, and mummies just seemed a prime example. I could also have listed the Lindow man, or the Oetzi, or others. But I thought mummies are the most commonly known example.

And I don't really think they should be re-interred... I think they should be treated respectfully, yes, but I don't see why they shouldn't be available for scientific research. The better and more sophisticated our methods get, the more these mummies and corpses can teach us.

I think that if someone had a decent reason, nobody would object to an archaeological dig at, for example, Auschwitz. The thing is, for events that recent, we have so many records that archaeology is unneeded.