Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

61–70 of 74 posts

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

#61
post #54
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I suspect we're in some serious philosophy territory now. I find it problematic to insist that since governments make laws, they then are exempt from moral criticism. Just because a government can make a law doing something doesn't mean it's a morally permissible thing to do. I guess the word "stolen" could have a legalistic interpretation, but there's surely a moral one as well. And I think the legal discussion is e…

You said "stolen". That's a question of property rights. It's a legal definition. If the government takes my land via eminent domain, and pays me for it, I can criticize the government "morally", but I can't say it "stole" my land without engaging in hyperbole and some misdirection. This is why someone else would put "stolen" in quotes. Those quotes are what the thread is about. You can't just decide for yourself that something was stolen because you are morally offended. If you do that, someone else will put stolen in quotes.

But if we venture into moral criticism, then let's remember that for many ancient artifacts, they were in the process of being destroyed by the various local governments until Europeans came along. Greek papyri were being burned in scrap heaps for heat. Ancient pottery was being smashed and recycled for raw materials. Many of these artifacts were pulled from local trash heaps and recyclers. Europeans had to come and decipher the hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform because the local societies -- for whom these were the works of foreign civilizations -- had no idea what they meant and zero intellectual curiosity in studying these works. Arab Egypt had ownership of the rosetta stone and a vast array of hieroglyphs for over a millennia and never understood it, and launched no program to uncover their secrets. For them, pre-Islamic Egypt was at best a pagan society that they conquered long ago, and there wasn't much point in trying to understand it. The French and British travelled long distances and spent great personal fortunes on expeditions to study these artifacts and understand these ancient civilizations. It wasn't Arab Egypt that learned the names of the Egyptian dynasties and deciphered the Book of the Dead. It wasn't Arab civilization in Mesopotamia that deciphered Akkadian and learned the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was Europeans. Europeans prized and valued this cultural product of other civilizations, they preserved it, often rescuing it from destruction, and they purchased it from local antiquities dealers, and they put it in their museums. Of all the consequences of colonialism, this was on balance on the good side of the ledger, or at least ambiguous, so it's an odd thing to morally condemn, given the many richer targets for criticism in the colonial world.

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

#62
post #61
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we're in some serious philosophy territory now. I find it problematic to insist that since governments make laws, they then are exempt from moral criticism. Just because a government can make a law doing something doesn't mean it's a morally permissible thing to do. I guess the word "stolen" could have a legalistic interpretation, but there's surely a moral one as well. And I think the legal discussion is e…

You said "stolen". That's a question of property rights. It's a legal definition. If the government takes my land via eminent domain, and pays me for it, I can criticize the government "morally", but I can't say it "stole" my land without engaging in hyperbole and some misdirection. This is why someone else would put "stolen" in quotes. Those quotes are what the thread is about. You can't just decide for yourself tha…

Thank you very much! I really appreciate the amount of thought and care you put into all your responses. You're probably right that were it not for Europeans taking some artifacts from around the globe they would have perished; and so I agree that on the whole it may have been better that Europeans took many things into museums.

I feel like Last Week Tonight show about Museums was probably a decent overview of the state of things. I wonder, if you've seen it, you disagree with more than 10% of what's said?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJPLiT1kCSM

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

#63
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.

Not the right piece for El Prado, that is focused in art, oils and sculpture; but the MAN would surely appreciate and know how to honor a jewel from... [updated, 640] the Visigoths period, where Spain was ruled by Germanic people.

Could we borrow it for a while? The same European culture extended by a lot of different places. If it says "Greetings from Triana" somewhere, yep, is ours.

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

#64
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything?

(Sorry for the long delay in responding—I was “posting too fast”.)

> Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything?

That doesn't change anything? No, probably not.

But that doesn't change undergraduate textbooks? I'd imagine it's harder to find a once-in-a-lifetime, dazzling mathematical discovery that does change them. (RSA encryption, maybe, although that was famously at least twice in a lifetime, RSA being re-discoverers of classified work.) I think of Fermat's last theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles'... ) and the bounded-gaps results on primes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds ), both of which will surely be mentioned in new editions of good textbooks, but neither of which is likely to change the actual mathematical content of those textbooks.

And these are just the ‘popular’ ones! For a long list of others, one can look at Fields-Medal work. In my own area, there is the recent proof of the fundamental lemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_p... ), which is unlikely to be suitable even to be stated in any but the most advanced textbooks.

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

#65
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To nitpick - you are wrong. A crucifix is the cross of Christ. It can still be a symbol of Christ's crucifixion while "just" being a cross without any Christ handing on it. The whole value of finding of the pendant that it shows very early Christian iconography in England.

To nitpick - you're both wrong. It's a square made of four smaller squares. Or maybe we're all right and art is subjective, who knows.

Clearly a Windows 698 logo

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

#66
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…

> 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 by many different groups).

Realistically, it belongs to whoever some group of self-appointed liberals feels should own it. Things are complex, but we need simple narratives to be righteous.

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

#67
Sometimes taking something and preserving it is not a bad thing. Anyone recall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan?

I'm pretty sure thousand or 10 of thousand of Egyptian artifacts were looted, probably quite often by Egyptians.

Take at look at many regions of the African continent. When ethnic groups or even groups they perceived themselves different would wipe out tribes or societies, artifacts were taken or destroyed.

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

#68
post #62
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "stolen". That's a question of property rights. It's a legal definition. If the government takes my land via eminent domain, and pays me for it, I can criticize the government "morally", but I can't say it "stole" my land without engaging in hyperbole and some misdirection. This is why someone else would put "stolen" in quotes. Those quotes are what the thread is about. You can't just decide for yourself tha…

Thank you very much! I really appreciate the amount of thought and care you put into all your responses. You're probably right that were it not for Europeans taking some artifacts from around the globe they would have perished; and so I agree that on the whole it may have been better that Europeans took many things into museums. I feel like Last Week Tonight show about Museums was probably a decent overview of the st…

That is kind of you.

I will take a look, but 35 minutes of John Oliver is a big ask.

Last time I watched him -- years ago -- he spent the entire segment in 100% outrage mode with a sledgehammer wall-of-sound style rhetoric in which nuance and empathy were entirely absent from his sequence of cherry-picked outrage nuggets.

But at the same time, I didn't find him very funny. Sam Kinison was also a loud outrage comic, but he was funny. But Kinison's yelling had an emotional honesty that Oliver lacked, since you can't really be too honest if you are doing politics on TV, especially partisan politics for the PMC class - a large amount of Oliver's material (that I saw) was basically mocking the beliefs of working class people. But perhaps he's changed. George Carlin was probably the one who made political comedy work the best, but he was deconstructing ideas that people have, and specifically ideas that you, the listener, had, often without questioning. That's what made people go "hmmm, that's interesting" when they listen to Carlin. Nobody says "Hmm, that's interesting" when listening to Oliver, they say "Boom! Nailed it! He's got their number!!" Subtlety, balance, making an honest effort to portray the complex world as it really is -- that was completely absent. It was all about caricaturing people or institutions as being unreasonable or suitable for mocking. Real life tends not to be like that.

I do wonder why people refer to Oliver as a news source or use him in arguments, it's basically the same thing as citing Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was actually much kinder -- sure, he also cherry picked examples to make his opponents look like fools, but he usually treated them as confused fools ("young minds, full of mush") rather than malicious actors. Limbaugh was also often self-deprecating and was able to change tone so that it wasn't all full throttle attack mode. But still I wouldn't cite one of his shows as evidence to support my point, as that's clearly a partisan show that is meant to be entertainment for those who agree with him rather than any kind of reasoned investigation.

Update:

So I watched the first five minutes, and it's the standard grievances. Take the Elgin sculptures, which Oliver says Elgin stole from Greece, and as proof, he says that they were sawed off -- with a picture of a man wearing a wig hat entering a bedroom window in the background. Then he claims to show a rebuttal by the British Museum which isn't the official rebuttal at all. Here is the actual rebuttal: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/...

Here is a Smithsonian article on this, feating both pro and con views:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-the-much-debated-...

What no one disputes is that Elgin bought the right to remove those sculptures from the Government at the time, which simply didn't value them as we do today. Nothing was stolen. What is disputed is whether it was "fair" to buy the sculptures -- both the government that sold them and the buyer have been criticized.

Unfortunately for the Greeks, this was the Ottoman government, because Greece was ruled by the Ottomans for four hundred years, and no one knew that twenty years after Elgin bought the sculptures, Greece would wage a successful war for independence from the Ottomans, finally ending that reign. Bad luck for Greece. However, does that mean that they should be "returned" to Greece, because the later rebellion somehow invalidated the sale?

You basically need to go through this process of Oliverification for all of his points, and maybe some you'll agree and others you wont, but then you still have to step back and ask "Are these representative?" and more importantly "Have the important issues been discussed at all?". Also note that while all of these cases are controversial, Oliver is not presenting both sides, and when presented the British Museum side, it wasn't actually their rebuttal but something that made them look foolish. That should tell you something about the reliability of the show. I'll let you decide whether you think you are better informed or misinformed.

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pepperidge Farm remembers when tasteful multi-layered entendres on HN were appreciated. This is in fact what we designed our multilayered packaging on for our delicious Milano cookies. A multi-layered delight of highly processed wheat with Italian history.

accounts like yours, on the other hand, are obviously low-effort and should be removed.

I think we can both agree that effort and quality of outcome are not always proportional.

You have no idea how much effort Pepperidge Farms put into that last comment.

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

#70
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.

Agreed. When the British people prove capable of protecting this invaluable history, other more storied institutions might then be willing to entertain their movement back under British control.

At the moment, the British have not proven themselves to be able to field a competent government, how do we know they will have the requisite sophistication to shepherd such human historical treasures?

Post reply on HN