Live data from Hacker News

‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

washingtonpost.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it breaks multiple guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I read through the guidelines and couldn't find any rules it was breaking. What guidelines do you believe are broken by the top comment?

>Don't be snarky.

>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.

>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grandparent comment is a triple entendre: the historical British tendency to take priceless cultural treasures home with them for display is being inverted; the modern British tendency to retire/vacation in Spain is being noted; and I think there's also a jab at Brexit disallowing easy movement, as more people can more easily see a thing exhibited in an EU museum than in a British one due to the Schengen area.

Looks like it breaks multiple guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sometimes guidelines are meant to be broken, and I think taking an opportunity to make a jab at the long history of British colonialism and cultural appropriation was worth it.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#43
post #24

I hope this key piece of British history gets exhibited in a place where everyone can enjoy it, like the The Prado museum in Spain.

I love this form of humor.

A comedian, 3 Year Letterman [0], does this a lot of Twitter and catches a lot of people off guard. The responses are really entertaining. Their website is a running list of top hits [1].

[0] https://twitter.com/3YearLetterman

[1] https://www.determinedlook.com/

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through the guidelines and couldn't find any rules it was breaking. What guidelines do you believe are broken by the top comment?

>Don't be snarky. >Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. >Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

Calling this "flamebait" or "ideological battle" is pretty over-the-top.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grandparent comment is a triple entendre: the historical British tendency to take priceless cultural treasures home with them for display is being inverted; the modern British tendency to retire/vacation in Spain is being noted; and I think there's also a jab at Brexit disallowing easy movement, as more people can more easily see a thing exhibited in an EU museum than in a British one due to the Schengen area.

Looks like it breaks multiple guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'll allow it.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#46
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think it's a jab at the British "stealing" other people's historical artifacts and displaying then in British museums.

I wonder why you wrote "stealing" with quotes. Presumably this is exactly what they did in numerous (majority?) of cases.

Much of the "stealing" arguably isn't. Just to pick a notable example, the Rosetta Stone was given to the British by the Egyptian government.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#47
post #40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why you wrote "stealing" with quotes. Presumably this is exactly what they did in numerous (majority?) of cases.

I mean, it's a tough call, because you can't really identify who something is stolen from. In some cases you can, but in most you can't. Say you have the necklace of some Pharaoh. OK, who is the rightful owner? The present day Arabs inhabiting Egypt, who conquered it? Or the Greeks who conquered it before then? Or the Romans? Or the "ancient Egyptians" (this refers to many people, as Egypt was conquered several times…

> I mean, it's a tough call, because you can't really identify who something is stolen from. In some cases you can, but in most you can't.

I don't think one has to identify whom something was stolen from to know that it was stolen. For a lot of artifacts in the British Museum, it may not be clear or able to be agreed upon who could be said at the time of their appropriation to own them, but it's clear that the British didn't.

> But then you say "no, that doesn't apply to colonial governments - not to white people. Only legitimate governments can benefit from the OG rule", to which I would answer ….

You seem to be putting a lot of words in your interlocutor's mouth! If I find something, it's not my responsibility or right to decide whose it is, and my inability to do so doesn't make it mine. It may be that someone else will come along and commit an injustice equal to my taking it if I don't—but that doesn't excuse my taking it. I need not work out a theory of ownership before simply leaving what I have found where I found it.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts in all fields are dazzled by stuff that laypeople don’t find exciting. “We have to change all our textbooks” is a ridiculous bar.

It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries. It’s hard to be impressed by “here’s a necklace that changes nothing”.

> It’s not a ridiculous bar for “once in a lifetime” “dazzling” discoveries.

As a mathematician, there are plenty of my discoveries in my field that are once in a lifetime and dazzling (to specialists) that would be meaningless to the average mathematics undergraduate student, much less changing textbooks.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#49
post #47
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's a tough call, because you can't really identify who something is stolen from. In some cases you can, but in most you can't. Say you have the necklace of some Pharaoh. OK, who is the rightful owner? The present day Arabs inhabiting Egypt, who conquered it? Or the Greeks who conquered it before then? Or the Romans? Or the "ancient Egyptians" (this refers to many people, as Egypt was conquered several times…

> I mean, it's a tough call, because you can't really identify who something is stolen from. In some cases you can, but in most you can't. I don't think one has to identify whom something was stolen from to know that it was stolen. For a lot of artifacts in the British Museum, it may not be clear or able to be agreed upon who could be said at the time of their appropriation to own them, but it's clear that the Britis…

> I don't think one has to identify whom something was stolen from to know that it was stolen.

If we are talking about people, then yes, but governments are different. They are not people. Governments are law makers. So you are claiming that British law shouldn't apply and I am asking you for the name of the government whose law you think should apply. That at least deserves an answer.

The UK was ruling Egypt at the time and you have to prove its own laws weren't being followed -- which is unlikely to be the case as regardless of how we may not like Perfidious Albion, they are a stickler for things like property rights. The British museum paid for these artifacts, and you need to prove that the people who sold them those artifacts had no right to do so, but these antiquities traders were acting in accordance to British law, so you need to prove that someone else's law should have been applied instead. Whose?

> If I find something, it's not my responsibility or right to decide whose it is, and my inability to do so doesn't make it mine.

Again, people aren't governments. If you find oil in the ground, it may not belong to you, but if the UK finds oil somewhere in the mandate of Palestine, you can be sure that it belongs to the UK, since that is territory controlled by UK, and the oil belongs to the government that controls the territory, not France or China or some other government that doesn't control the territory. And if some Arab tribes conquer that region, then the oil belongs to them. And if some other nation conquers it, then the oil again gets a new owner. Or do you think the House of Saud was the first group of people to live in Saudi Arabia? No, but they were the government in charge when the oil was found, and no one has managed to conquer them -- that's the only reason it's their oil -- because they found it and they rule over the territory. And who do you think will be the owner of any artifacts that Saudi Arabia digs up as they search for more oil? Yes, it will be Saudi Arabia. The rightful owner. And they can transfer those artifacts to some museum in Riyadh if they want, even if the artifacts were made by some ancient civilization that has no genetic relationship to the house of Saud. They could be of Ethiopian origin, but Saudi Arabia is not going to "return" them to Ethiopia. This is the definition of what it means to be the government - it means your laws are the ones that apply in the territory you rule over.

I think that's the mistake you are making here. Maybe you think there was some international law in effect at the time? International law originates with the UN charter, which post-dates what the UK did, and you wouldn't want to apply a law to an action which predated the law, as that's understood to be an illegitimate application of law. If you start retroactively applying the UN charter to all government actions that happened in the past, you will find every government on earth an inveterate thief and lawbreaker - from the UK to the Egyptian Pharaohs, they all stole everything.

Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians

#50
post #40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why you wrote "stealing" with quotes. Presumably this is exactly what they did in numerous (majority?) of cases.

I mean, it's a tough call, because you can't really identify who something is stolen from. In some cases you can, but in most you can't. Say you have the necklace of some Pharaoh. OK, who is the rightful owner? The present day Arabs inhabiting Egypt, who conquered it? Or the Greeks who conquered it before then? Or the Romans? Or the "ancient Egyptians" (this refers to many people, as Egypt was conquered several times…

I'm also going to argue the definition of "stolen" artifacts

A lot of the artifact in the area where lifted from scavenger and sold on the black market, trough the inaction of the government at the time and corruption of officials of such government.

Given such context I see the artifacts at the British museum retrieved under these specific circumstances as saved, not stolen.

I do make a difference however for these artifacts that were taken at gun point against the will of the government.

The difference need to be made on a case by case basis. But still.

Post reply on HN