Destruction of archaeological sites

[ianz123]

Hi,

I was reading an article about the destruction of archaeological sites.

"In March 2001, the world stood still and watched the Taliban blow up two 1500-year-old standing Buddha statues, the tallest in the world, on a cliff in central Afghanistan."
This was a terrible incident that the Taliban did but in 2007, IKEA (yes the IKEA) was making a store in Nanjing, China where they came upon ten ancient tombs. Under the Chinese law, companies found destroying ancient tombs can be fined 50,000 to 500,000 yuan (around $6,6k - $65k). IKEA took the financial hit and destroyed the 10 ancient tombs.

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on the Taliban. If the Taliban got sanctions for destroying archaeology (which they deserved), why were there no sanctions imposed on IKEA?
What do you think?

[ladykrimson]

In my opinion, there were no sanctions placed on IKEA because:

1. China is part of the UN Security Council, and the creation of the store benefited the Nanjing economy.
2. The UN Security Council wants to give the appearance of actively fighting the war on terrorism.
3. As far as we know, the Taliban is not represented in the UN Security Council, so no one was there to object to the sanctions.

PLEASE NOTE: This is only an opinion based on what I know of the UN Security Council and of politics in general.

[Frank Apisa]

Anyone who destroys antiquities...is a low-life form.

One has to feel pity for them. They are like pond scum.

[evensaul]

Anyone who destroys antiquities...is a low-life form.

One has to feel pity for them. They are like pond scum.

Do all antiquities have value by virtue of age alone? I ask because you make a very generalized statement, without any attempt to explain why antiquities should be preserved.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Hi,

I was reading an article about the destruction of archaeological sites.

"In March 2001, the world stood still and watched the Taliban blow up two 1500-year-old standing Buddha statues, the tallest in the world, on a cliff in central Afghanistan."
This was a terrible incident that the Taliban did but in 2007, IKEA (yes the IKEA) was making a store in Nanjing, China where they came upon ten ancient tombs. Under the Chinese law, companies found destroying ancient tombs can be fined 50,000 to 500,000 yuan (around $6,6k - $65k). IKEA took the financial hit and destroyed the 10 ancient tombs.

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on the Taliban. If the Taliban got sanctions for destroying archaeology (which they deserved), why were there no sanctions imposed on IKEA?
What do you think?

It appears that tombs aren't considered to be important antiquities by the Chinese government, and are destroyed during construction fairly regularly: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...build-a-subway If the government of China really valued them, wouln't the fines be higher than $6-65K? So, what makes you think those tombs should be preserved, when the government of China has put a fairly low price on them?

[Frank Apisa]

Do all antiquities have value by virtue of age alone? I ask because you make a very generalized statement, without any attempt to explain why antiquities should be preserved. [COLOR="Silver"]

Antiquities are relics from humanity's past; they are used by scholars to study how we got to where we are...and all have value (some, admittedly, more than others). Most people would realize that without it having to be explained. It is a self-evident thing that essentially should require no logical establishment.

One of the reasons I am probably going to abandon this forum is because of ******** like your question, Evansaul. Way, way, way too much of that kind of nonsense going on here.

I suspect...just suspect...that the reason this forum is so poorly populated, is because of nonsense like that.

[evensaul]

Antiquities are relics from humanity's past;

Yes.

they are used by scholars to study how we got to where we are...

Generally, yes.

and all have value (some, admittedly, more than others).

Here you start swerving towards the real truth of the matter, but don't quite reach the finish line: Not all antiquities are worth preserving.

The Chinese government preserves tombs and other antiquities that it believes are worth preserving, and lets the relatively worthless ones be raised to allow modernization. Value of a thing is most often determined by the relative scarcity of the item and the amount of demand for it, right? Well, the Chinese people have been burying people for millennia, and there are probably countless lesser tombs that are discovered all the time. When another small tomb of some relative of a forgotten minor warlord of 2500 years ago is discovered, I've no doubt that the authorities react with something like "Oh, another one? :yawn:" If the characteristics and contents of the tomb offer absolutely nothing new, then what is the value? But a price will be put on it's destruction to extract money from corporations, just because a government can and will do that to increase revenues.

Now, here is an example of a minor tomb that may be preserved, because it has some significance: https://qz.com/1066453/archaeologist...e-tang-xianzu/

And here is another, likely to be destroyed: https://www.livescience.com/60979-an...se-couple.html Once archaeologists have carefully examined the tomb, taken pictures, and removed artifacts, it will likely get bulldozed. Or, maybe, the entire tomb will be removed and relocated to a museum. But if there are several other very similar tombs already preserved, what value does it have? I don't know, maybe this one does. But I guarandamnty you that there are a lot of very minor tombs in China that the government allows to be bulldozed. No one cares because they have no intrinsic value. Antiquity does not automatically equate to importance or value.

[Frank Apisa]

Like I said...my guess is the reason this site is so poorly populated, is because of nonsense like this.

I wanted to start a thread titled, "Most people agree that the sky looks blue to people on the ground" just to see how many regulars asked me to clarify what I meant by "blue"...and what material I used to establish my assertion that "most people" see it that way.

I also thought about, "Most people refer to the effect of the Earth's rotation as 'the sun rises in the east'" to see how the regulars reacted to the "most people" assertion...or who asked for "establishment" that the sun doesn't actually rise in the east and that it actually is just an effect of the rotation of the planet.

This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum, folks, no matter that it supposedly is dedicated to a more rigorous debate format.

I came here to get something not readily available in other fora...information available in a more theistic oriented general forum. I'm going to continue to monitor the threads I find interesting to glean that information. I won't be participating...the game playing is way too much.

I'll comment from time to time (if allowed)...providing the forum does not collapse under its own (supposed intellectual) weight.

I say again: This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum!

[Belthazor]

Like I said...my guess is the reason this site is so poorly populated, is because of nonsense like this.

Two things.
Though he number of members willing to actively participate is relatively small, notice the number of views on some of these threads. There is a lot of traffic here even if most people are just reading and not posting.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum, folks, no matter that it supposedly is dedicated to a more rigorous debate format.

Yet you don't appear to have even given a look to Evan's examples to see if they pass muster?
IOW, you are just giving his comments a "nuh uh" and you are correct, that kind of thing doesn't work well here. It IS a site for more "rigorous" commentary, as opinions just don't cut it here unless supported.

I can see how it may seem tedious at times ( and sometimes it's just because people don't always admit when they are wrong). However blanket statements like:

"Antiquities are relics from humanity's past; they are used by scholars to study how we got to where we are...and all have value (some, admittedly, more than others)."

should be challenged. After all, I have an old pair of underwear in my shop I was going to use as a rag, maybe they should be saved?
Extreme example? Of course it was, but blanket statements deserve scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

I say again: This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum!

I believe Evan was being sincere in his links to show a practicality to preserving the past and not just being obnoxious at your expense.

[Frank Apisa]

Two things.
Though he number of members willing to actively participate is relatively small, notice the number of views on some of these threads. There is a lot of traffic here even if most people are just reading and not posting.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------



Yet you don't appear to have even given a look to Evan's examples to see if they pass muster?
IOW, you are just giving his comments a "nuh uh" and you are correct, that kind of thing doesn't work well here. It IS a site for more "rigorous" commentary, as opinions just don't cut it here unless supported.

I can see how it may seem tedious at times ( and sometimes it's just because people don't always admit when they are wrong). However blanket statements like:

"Antiquities are relics from humanity's past; they are used by scholars to study how we got to where we are...and all have value (some, admittedly, more than others)."

should be challenged. After all, I have an old pair of underwear in my shop I was going to use as a rag, maybe they should be saved?
Extreme example? Of course it was, but blanket statements deserve scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------



I believe Evan was being sincere in his links to show a practicality to preserving the past and not just being obnoxious at your expense.

Appreciate your comments...and agree with many.

Best I refrain from posting here. I'm having a private discussion right now...and checking in regularly to read what others write on the topics that hold interest for me. We'll see what the future holds.

[Belthazor]

Appreciate your comments...and agree with many.

Best I refrain from posting here. I'm having a private discussion right now...and checking in regularly to read what others write on the topics that hold interest for me. We'll see what the future holds.

I liked some of your posts on economics

Still wonder about your thesis you talked about that was going to post soon?

[ianz123]

I agree that not all tombs are valuable and worth to "show" but just the fact that a big corporation would destroy an archaeological site is absurd.

Here is another instance of destroying ancient sites, also from ancient origins: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-...-tunnel-009623

Valuable or not, this is our history and the idea that we can't know something that happened in the past is kinda depressing to me.

[evensaul]

I agree that not all tombs are valuable and worth to "show" but just the fact that a big corporation would destroy an archaeological site is absurd.

You're making it sound like big corporations bulldoze sites without any government regulation or approval. That isn't what is happening. If the government of China, which has lots of experience preserving important archaeological sites, decides that one isn't worth saving, that's good enough for me. What criteria are you using to decide otherwise?

[ladykrimson]

Personally, I think that anything ancient is valuable mostly because it's amazing (and I am a little bit of a hoarder). There are some things, however, that people probably don't want preserved, maybe because they are a reminder of painful things. Or perhaps these ancient tombs were simply redundant relics.

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

Antiquities are relics from humanity's past; they are used by scholars to study how we got to where we are...and all have value (some, admittedly, more than others). Most people would realize that without it having to be explained. It is a self-evident thing that essentially should require no logical establishment.

One of the reasons I am probably going to abandon this forum is because of ******** like your question, Evansaul. Way, way, way too much of that kind of nonsense going on here.

I suspect...just suspect...that the reason this forum is so poorly populated, is because of nonsense like that.

Just because you can't understand someone else's point of view doesn't mean it is worthless. It was a valid question if you think about it. Part of any good debate is to define the terms so that there is no misunderstanding. What is considered to be an antiquity? Should all antiquities be preserved? You, yourself, said that some antiquities have more value than others, so who determines said value of the subject? When is it acceptable to destroy an antiquity?

The OP left out a lot of specifics about the tombs and exactly what happened when IKEA decided to destroy them.

[Aspoestertjie]

Like I said...my guess is the reason this site is so poorly populated, is because of nonsense like this.

I wanted to start a thread titled, "Most people agree that the sky looks blue to people on the ground" just to see how many regulars asked me to clarify what I meant by "blue"...and what material I used to establish my assertion that "most people" see it that way.

I also thought about, "Most people refer to the effect of the Earth's rotation as 'the sun rises in the east'" to see how the regulars reacted to the "most people" assertion...or who asked for "establishment" that the sun doesn't actually rise in the east and that it actually is just an effect of the rotation of the planet.

This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum, folks, no matter that it supposedly is dedicated to a more rigorous debate format.

I came here to get something not readily available in other fora...information available in a more theistic oriented general forum. I'm going to continue to monitor the threads I find interesting to glean that information. I won't be participating...the game playing is way too much.

I'll comment from time to time (if allowed)...providing the forum does not collapse under its own (supposed intellectual) weight.

I say again: This kind of thing does nothing of value for this forum!

This debate site is not for sissies. And I believe most regulars carefully choose which battles to fight.

As for the OP - If one organization is sanctioned, then the other should be sanctioned as well. Preserving history is important to all of us. To know and understand where you come from or what happened in history is important because it gives us direction. The only way to preserve history, is if there are no exceptions on the rules.