Ethical question blog post BV HOA 211


I think that when it comes to the preservation of archaeological sights there is a lot more than just a few precautions that need to be addressed.  Environmental factors that have the most visible impacts are moisture, heat, human intervention, animals, plants, and the movement of soil over time through wind, flooding, and gravity.  Also, if others have access to it, and it has value, you can be sure it will get destroyed.  Looting is probably the greatest destroyer of sites. Humans dig up the entire thing over time, destroy it, and sell it.  Depending on the type of material that is being preserved also plays a role in what we can do to keep these items safe.  Decomposition, crumbling of stone-like material, and even bacteria’s in organic materials like bones, or wood.  So one question would be how can we be sure to take precautions of large archaeological sights when there is so much that we cannot control?  Another question I would pry ask is how can we be sure that while keeping large sights preserved, can we also be sure that the studies will not harm the artifacts found?  I think that if we can leave all artifacts in large sights, while also keeping the natural look of the sight the historical research could be preserved and well maintained. Also, I think that we should not allow large sights to become a tourist attraction.  I think this because places like Machu Picchu are trying to preserve the historical location but are running into issues with other people coming in and disrespecting the location.  Another thing about places like Machu Picchu, the sight has reconstructed nearly 30% of what it originally was when the sight was found.  This sight continues to be reconstructed to this day and at what point does a piece of history not become natural history anymore?  I think this is a good example of controversial reconstruction of history because to me I think this should have been preserved, not reconstructed to allow tourism even if the sight is being well maintained.  I personally think that things like large archaeological sights should remain preserved, not altered or reconstructed physically.  If our scientists or even others that are curious about the natural look, we are at a stage in technological advancement that we can make a 3-D rendering in what we believe the sights looked like. 

Dr. Sarahh Scher, "Machu Picchu," in Smarthistory, August 9, 2015, accessed September 3, 2020, https://smarthistory.org/machu-picchu/.

Comments

  1. Sara YaunSeptember 6, 2020 at 2:30 PM

    I also wrote about this topic, but with a historical site called Knossos. I find it sad how archeologists and historians would prefer to destroy pieces of history to make it a tourist attraction, instead of preserving the site. In my opinion, it would be beneficial to block off the site so that people don't cause excessive destruction, but still make it available to look at and learn about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Xaiyne Calma-ViloriaSeptember 6, 2020 at 3:13 PM

    Environmental factors are big ones that I had not considered. With that, another would be the financial factors. How much would it cost to preserve, reconstruct, or conduct and archeological study? Where would the money for an archeological study/preservation/reconstruction even come from? Mount Rushmore was federally funded, but the Native American monument “Crazy Horse” in South Dakota is funded by donations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SantiSeptember 6, 2020 at 5:33 PM

    Sight reconstruction is something that could be a paradox of some sort. If you replace all the parts of a ship piece by piece is it the same ship? And if you take all the old pieces and build a ship with that is that the original? That is pretty much what they are doing with these historical sights. I agree that scientists and archaeologists should stick to using 3-d rendering in order to stop putting up false history on a truly historical monument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownSeptember 6, 2020 at 8:06 PM

    Brenden,
    You brought up some very valid concerns in your ethical dilemma blog post on archaeological sites such as Machu Picchu! A couple things that I think worked well for your blog post was that you described a lot of natural phenomena that happens overtime- strictly from the patterns of mother nature (i.e. decomposition, crumbling, bacterial growth, water damage, fires, windstorms). I can agree with you that it is unfortunate how large historical locations end up becoming commercial tourist attractions and less concerned with historical site protection.
    -Autumn Fink

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kirstyn CraigSeptember 6, 2020 at 10:18 PM

    Great post Brenden! While I completely agree that the environmental effects play a big part in the damage that occurs to these archeological sights, from what I read from my own research, the biggest reason damage can occur so often is due to human involvement. Carelessness, selfishness, and lack of proper training seems to result in damage to irreparable artifacts.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparison: Night attack/Tapestry

  The comparison post I chose to write about are the Bayeux Tapestry and the Night attack on the Sanjô Palace.    The Bayeux Tapestry is a long piece that is 20 inches high and roughly 230 feet long.   The tapestry is a commemoration of the struggle for the throne of England between William who was the Duke of Normandy and Harold, the Earl of Wessex.   The tapestry has 75 scenes that depict the events of that lead up to the Norman conquest in 1066.   The end of the tapestry is missing but is believed that the ending shows the coronation of William as the King of England.   Though this is called a tapestry it is not a true tapestry as the images are more embroidered using wool and yarn than being woven into the cloth.   The main thing to know about the tapestry is that it is a close representation of the actions made through the times of war. The Night attack on the Sanjo Palace is an art piece displayed across scrolls called emaki.  This piec...
Read more

Artwork analysis: The Black Death

Image
 The art piece I chose to write about is called “The black death.”  The piece is a depiction of the black plague, with the plague personified as the black plague.  In the piece arrows are used to strike those around her, specifically in the neck or the armpit areas likely where the infection would spread.  Black death appeared in Europe around 1348, and it killed nearly a quarter to half the regions population.   The black plague victims would experience flu-like symptoms at first and then would see, “a swell beneath their armpits and their groins.”  The disease worked fast and killed fast.  Normandy had lost nearly 70-80 percent of its population.   The pandemic ended up killing approximately half of Europe’s population of all trades.   Young, old, rich, poor, religious or not.   During the time of the pandemic, William Langland, wrote in a poem saying, “God is deaf nowadays and will not hear us.   And for our guilt her g...
Read more

Comparison Art: Olmec, Yoruba

Image
  The first piece of art is from the 12 th -14 th century sculpture made of terracotta with residue of pigment and traces of mica.   The piece is thought to represent Ife, which flourished from the twelfth to the fifteenth century in the southwestern Nigeria region.   The Yoruba people are unique in Africa in representing naturalism.   Most Yoruba art is centered around royal figures and their attendants depicting the political structure of a city ruled over by a king.   Heads sculpted by the Yoruba people were used ritually as offerings or sacrifices.   The next piece is about the Colossal heads of the Olmec.   The Olmec civilization thrived along the Mexico gulf from 1200 to 400 B.C and was the first major Mesoamerican culture.   Like the Yoruba, archaeologists believe that these heads were created to depict Olmec rulers.   The largest of the heads is one found in La Cobata and stands about 10 feet tall and weighs around 40 tons. ...
Read more