• _NoName_@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This kind of loses sight of the whole part of why these artefacts are actually important: their situ. In-situ (in the original location it was found in the position and orientation it was in when found) can tell us everything from its purpose, the culture of origin, etc. But outside of situ many of these artefacts become useless.

    Yes, these objects being in unstable countries can mean much risk to those objects. This instability is often directly caused by the policies of the more politically powerful countries, though. For instance, the Afghanistan example you give is arguably directly due to Ally foreign policy destabilizing the region for our own self interest.

    Rather than accepting the current political climate’s default stance of leaving the middle east a wartorn region in the world - and having to choose between either leaving artefacts to potentially be destroyed or destroying the situ of the artefacts and robbing the native descendants of their ancestral objects - we should probably instead push for foreign policy which lifts unstable regions into developed States where they are better able to preserve their heritage.

    • azan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a really nice thought and I agree, but it doesn’t answer any of the practical questions the current of many countries often poses. Imo a, maybe temporary, solution that protects these artifacts is necessary.

      Sadly FP will not change for these kinds of reasons, which is not saying we shouldn’t push for it nevertheless. In the meantime I fear not much good will come from an idealistic stance but rather practical solutions that at least preserve the hope we can at some point in time marvel at artifacts in their proper context. Just my opinion though