Raiders or Researchers?

Today I want to discuss a topic slightly off from my intended series on Archeological Preservation. Instead of discussing the issues surrounding the conservation and preservation of a historically significant structure, I’m going to discuss the preservation of a burial site. Today, I will be talking about grave robbing. I will be distinguishing the differences between grave robbing and the legally sanctioned version of it called “research”, discussing the legality of removing artifacts from a site, and the ethics of removing a dead guy from his coffin. Fun stuff right? Not if that dead guy is gonna put a curse on you.

“Grave robbing” is the illegal act of removing artifacts  from  grave or burial site. Not to be confused with “body snatching” which is the act of digging up a grave site to remove the corpse or remains for whatever purpose. Grave robbers often sell their stolen items via the black market to museums or private collectors for personal profit.

Some good ol’ fashioned grave robbing

So then why is it that the exact same action – the removal of artifacts from a dig site – conducted by an archeologist is legal and sanctioned? Because its for science! In most cases archeologists have permits and operate within the guidelines set by the State (assuming we’re digging up bones in the US. You want to uncover an Egyptian mummy? That’s a whole different blog entry to write). Even if a grave robber somehow managed to get a permit, the main difference is what the intent is. A grave robber is plundering for personal gain, while an Archeologist is researching in the name of science and knowledge.

One of the big surrounding issues that is discussed is at what point is it ok to call it “archeological research” or “historical research”? Especially if said research intends to remove a corpse or remains to study. It’s pretty easy to say that digging up a mummy is entirely justified in the name of science, but say, what if Archeologists wanted to examine a 50 year old corpse? Odds are it won’t happen – since a given rule is that is has to be between 75-100 years old to be considered historically valuable, and in the US that number is exactly 100 years old. However, what if age isn’t enough? Do we need another justification to examine an ancient dead body other than the fact that its “historically significant”?

There have been examples in history where justification hasn’t just come from age or historical significance, but the scientific benefit of knowledge and understanding that could potentially annex history. Examining the corpse of a long dead Pope to determine how he died, or examining the remains of an ancient human to see how they lived during the Ice-Age are only two of numerous examples of such reasoning. Should this be the logic and justification for disturbing the dead? This is just one of the many ethical dilemmas that Archeologists have to deal with in their field of research, and what makes this such a great Civic Issue topic.

The modern debate of Grave robbing versus Archeology extends into the subject of Shipwrecks and underwater recovery. In light of wrecks like the Titanic or (as seen in my first post) the Queen Anne’s Revenge, artifact removal is simply done without restriction, since the legal limits of archeology have little jurisdiction once a site is in international waters. However, a site like the Titanic, which is home to over 1500 souls who never survived the incident,  would be considered a grave site by people of personal relation. And since all of the wreck has been discovered, explored, and salvaged entirely by private organizations like Odyssey Marine Exploration (OME), this would technically make it grave robbing, right?

This is where things get tricky. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (shortened down to UNESCO for everyone’s convenience) Convention of the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, created in 2001, allows the recovery of artifacts from shipwrecks if they provide a “significant contribution” to the knowledge and research of the site. The issue here is that it was only signed by 23 countries, none of which include the US, Great Britain, Russia, China or other major states. So, since its not actually taken seriously, most countries freely allow marine exploration organizations to freely operate on their own – to plunder or research as they see fit. In the case of OME though, the rationale is that since major universities and research organizations that are non-for profit cant’t fund their own research vessels or missions to the bottom of the ocean, OME can by funding its missions off the artifacts it finds and sells to museums. Its not necessarily a sketchy way of doing business, but its one way to legally call yourself a grave-robber.

I bet those guys have found some pretty nifty treasures with that self-propelled dish washer

In most cases, it would be argued that grave-robbing is not okay. It is often done recklessly, and without care fort he historical site, and denies and scientific benefit of researching the potential artifacts. However, as we’ve seen in this post, there are exceptions that make it a necessary evil.

If you feel that disturbing a 5,000 year old mummy from its resting place just to put it (or its stuff) behind a glass wall in a museum is okay is up to you (and the laws of the country you’re digging in). It is an ethical matter of letting the dead rest in peace, and must be considered very thoroughly. No matter what the plausible scientific benefit.

Personally, I’d really rather not have a curse placed on me. Haven’t any of you seen Raider’s of the Lost Ark?!

Just remeber: Booby traps can’t tell the difference between a grave-robber and an Archeologist

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Restoration of the Acropolis

Welcome back! First off I want to apologize for my first post to anyone who’s actually gotten to read it. I published a post on the restoration of the Queen Anne’s revenge, only to find out the next day that some information included was incredibly inaccurate. I have fixed those mistakes, but I’ve been too lazy to repost the article. It will be up soon. I am deeply sorry for this, and I will keep note to pay better attention to detail in this next post.

Disclaimer: I’m not an actual Archeologist, just an interested hobbyist.

Today, I will be talking about the the history of the Acropolis in Athens, and the current restoration that has been underway for the past few decades.

The Acropolis in Athens. Its most notable structure is the Parthenon.

The word Acropolis comes from the Greek word Akron meaning “edge” and the word Polis meaning “city”. There are many Acropolises around the world, but the most notable of all is the one in Athens, Greece. Upon the Parthenon and a number of other ancient greek structures now rest.

The majority of structures on the Acropolis are temples dedicated to various gods of ancient greek mythology. The Parthenon, the greatest of them all, was dedicated to the Greek goddess of war and wisdom, Athena. The first temples were erected in the 4th Century B.C., and the Parthenon itself was constructed over the period of roughly 10 years (447 B.C. to 438 B.C.) although earlier versions of a temple to Athena existed in its spot before. The Acropolis is primarily constructed of limestone and marble from the surrounding mountains. From the time of its completion, the entire Acropolis had been sacked, burned, blown up, and eventually reconstructed  multiple times over. The most notable damage-inducing event in history was during the 1687 Siege of Athens by the Venetians, as part of the Morean War. The Parthenon was being used to store gun powder, and as fate would have it, it was struck by a cannonball.

A re-imaging of the Acropolis as it would have been in its glory days.

Aerial shot of the Acropolis today

 

The acropolis visualized in its former state – and intended post restoration look.

In 1975, reconstruction efforts began to fully restore the Acropolis and its artifacts (which now reside in the Acropolis Museum in Athens). Supported by the Greek State and the European Union, efforts have been underway to stabilize, conserve, and prolong the life of the Acropolis and the Parthenon. Two organizations exist within the Greek Ministry of culture that help coordinate, direct, and study the renovation program. They are the Committee for Conservation of the Acropolis Monuments (ESMA [the acronym stands for its greek name]) and the Acropolis Restoration Service (YSMA).

The program aims to restore damage caused to the Acropolis by three different means: Mechanical damage, caused by earthquakes, explosions, fires, and freezing; Chemical damage, a result of acid rain and air pollution which has eroded the marble; and Biological damage, caused by plant roots, molds, and bird dropping etc.

Restoration has included attempts to restore pieces of the buildings spread around the Acropolis and piece them back together -using new materials from the surrounding mountains as sparingly as possible.

Here’s a video showing some of the reconstruction being done and discussed by the program director

The Parthenon has undergone some of the most reconstruction and preservation efforts. Damage from the 1981 earthquake was cause for major renovations of the east-side pillars. Many of which have since been either partially or fully restored. Other parts of the temple like the Pronaos, Opistanaos, and the North Colonnade have required almost complete dismantling in order to replace certain ground work and to restore more pillars.

The restoration of the Parthenon, as it can be seen today

The restoration of the Temple of Athena Nike has been completed since 2010. Renovations included completely dismantling the original structure, reworking and replacing the ground work, reshaping and restoring the marble, moving original pieces to the Acropolis museum, and resetting it all in place.

The Erechtheion was one of the first structures to be completely restored. Between 1979 and 1987, interventions were made to previous attempts at restoration. The work began by removing the caryatids to the Acropolis museum, and then dismantling over 720 pieces of the structure. Old iron fittings used in previous restorations that were not starting to rust were replaced with Titanium ones. Along with these efforts, pieces of the structure that were set in the wrong position were corrected to its original state of antiquity.

The Circuit Wall – the wall of limestone that surrounds the Acropolis also has undergone major repairs. Along with basic repairs to cracks and erosion damage, main efforts are devoted to monitoring the stress levels of the walls with special fiber optic cables and 3D graphic rendering and monitoring software.

It is easy to see how technology has devoted such a role in the restoration of such a historically and archeologically significant site. In this video, we can see how the curators at the Acropolis Museum use lasers to restore the caryatids.

 

 

It just amazes me how intimate a connection we can make between the technologies of the past and the technologies of the future.

There could be no argument against these renovations in the academic world. Possessing the technological capability to accurately restore these priceless wonders of the world and carrying it out without reservation is part of our contribution to civilization. The greeks built these structures to serve their gods, but today they represent culture, civilization, and the great feats of mankind. And our efforts to keep those symbols around for future generations is just as valuable a contribution.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments