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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Raiders or Researchers?

  1. Kayla Lord says:

    I’m currently in an art history course in which we discuss this topic a lot. Whether for historical or scientific research, I don’t think it’s okay to remove a corpse from its resting place or to disturb a grave. There should be some level of respect for the dead. We just recently discussed the excavation of Tutankhamen’s tomb. The archeologists removed the body from it’s sarcophagus by hanging it upside down and lighting candles under it to melt the wax and oil-like remains until the corpse fell out. They wanted the corpse out of it’s sarcophagus because it was solid gold, and of course money is more important than human decency. They also beheaded the mummy so that they could remove the solid gold face mask from it. They wanted the face mask to display it in a museum. Basically, they dismantled this body so that they could show off the items they found. Currently the mummy itself is on display in the tomb site, which is horrid if you ask me. No amount of research trumps respect for the resting place of a human being.

  2. Kamryn Troyer says:

    I would agree that there is a very fine line between a desire to gain knowledge to share with the world, and the kind of curiosity that most won’t admit is driven by nothing but pure wanting. Allowing the dead to “rest in peace” is an interesting concept, and boils down to how much value we place on the traditions and moral beliefs of our ancestors. Can you imagine hundreds of years from now, someone wanting to dig you or a relative up? It seems wrong, but often we look past that. Not that I have any significantly strong feelings against archaeological digs, but often I feel that it can simply be taken too far.

  3. Jordan Klavans says:

    Before reading your post, I would have thought that the difference between grave robbing and archaeological research was pretty cut and dry. Now, I can kind of understand what makes it so murky. Like you mentioned, some of the projects on shipwrecks (like the Titanic) seem to be a mix of both. Sure, private organizations can investigate and research the wreck, but they can also sell their findings to museums and even collectors. In this instance, I feel like it’s a pretty tricky scenario. While I wouldn’t consider these projects as “grave robbers”, there does seem to be something morally wrong with selling artifacts and/or research. While I love Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones movies, it makes a clear, and unrealistic, distinction between the “good guys” and “bad guys”. Clearly, the line between the two is a lot more blurred in real life.

Leave a Reply