Comment by Aloisius

4 days ago

There's something about how this article was written that reads like grave robbing, especially the bit about them hoping to discover "more treasures."

9 comments

Aloisius

Reply
rester324  3 days ago

While the article does not mention it, chances are that the sarcophagus was found during doing the soilwork for modern construction. In which case the construction company is obliged to report that to the ministry in charge and then the excavation can be done with proper care. If there was not a law for that we wouldn't talk about grave robbing but grave destroying instead.

4ndrewl  3 days ago

It sells newspapers unfortunately. For the longest time newspapers (and by extension much of the general public) equat archaeology with treasure hunting.

I don't know the circumstances of this dig, but it may have been a rescue dig ahead of eg massive concrete foundations going in. In many countries this is what drives (and funds) fieldwork.

animal531  3 days ago

There's a bit done by a comedian where they ask what the differences are between grave robbers and archaeologists, but basically it boils down to a question of time.

  • vintermann  3 days ago

    If historical grave robbers left detailed descriptions of what they'd found and where they moved it to, I wouldn't mind much.

    • jacquesm  3 days ago

      Those descriptions themselves would be a major archaeological find if they were preserved at all. But chances are that those detailed descriptions would be lost even if the original artifacts would have still been preserved had they not been looted.

  • IAmBroom  3 days ago

    A key fossil, journal entry, or bit of clothing that would help explain "X" is going to stay mute if sold on the black market and kept on someone's shelf. Maybe we'll get lucky and learn about it someday from the heirs - but probably not.