-2

A few miles East of Venice, is the island of Torcello. It is a quaint, picturesque looking island with a history dating back to the Early Middle Ages-(and perhaps earlier). In the middle of the island there is a small, but historically significant stone chair which served as the Throne of Attila The Hun. While Attila ruled his Central European Empire from Hungary, apparently, he had another Royal Chair located in Northeast Italy. Historians and Archeologists, however, dispute the idea that this ancient stone chair was built for Attila and that it was built about 100 years after his death. The ancient stone chair probably belonged either to the Governor or Archbishop of the island-(around 1500 years ago).

But, there is actually a larger moral question that is rooted in history, while also transcending history. Let's say, the Historians and Archeologists were just wrong about the chronology and future evidence actually proves that this stone chair was indeed, Attila's Throne, the question is as follows:

If this modest and rather unpretentious looking ancient stone chair was, in fact, the Throne of one of the most famous and infamous Barbarians in World History, should a traveler-(or even a resident of Torcello island), sit on this chair or even approach this chair? Would it be morally appropriate or wise to sit on or even approach the Throne/Chair of a notoriously barbarous, fearsome Leader, such as Attila The Hun? Should one have moral hesitations, questions and reservations beforehand and would it be wise to pause and seriously think about the moral consequentiality of such a decision?

(Note: Attila The Hun's Latin nickname was, "The scourge of God").

Alex
  • 844
  • 6
  • 7
  • IIRC Christine Korsgaard says something about the moral value of the pen used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, that bears on such a question... I'll see if I can find the reference. – Kristian Berry Jun 20 '21 at 02:01
  • OK I guess it was Shelly Kagan ([see here](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/#TheSucThiIntValAll)). – Kristian Berry Jun 20 '21 at 02:05
  • I can't help but think there are better examples to get at whatever you are trying to get at.. – CriglCragl Aug 08 '22 at 11:29
  • Point of interest: Attila was only a 'barbarian' from the European/Christian perspective; from any other perspective he was an emperor on the level of Julius Caesar. Careful with biases here... – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '22 at 18:31
  • I would say that Attila probably shared more in common with the imperial rule of Genghis Khan, than with someone, such as Julius Caesar. (Genghis Khan lived about 800 years after Attila, however, their eye opening behaviors were almost indistinguishable). One might possibly compare Attila to some of the crazier Roman Emperors, such as Caligula or Nero, though not necessarily Julius Caesar. – Alex Sep 08 '22 at 01:04
  • Should one touch the Intihuatana? – Scott Rowe Sep 09 '22 at 03:27
  • Pardon my ignorance but what is the Intihuatana? – Alex Sep 09 '22 at 03:38
  • It's the most sacred thing in the Inca empire, which was overthrown long ago. – Scott Rowe Sep 10 '22 at 02:37
  • 1
    I was under the impression that the Intihuatana was a sacred stone at Machu Pichu . I believe tourists can still visit this part of Machu Pichu, but are forbidden to touch the sacred stone. – Alex Sep 10 '22 at 03:34
  • Right you are. I've been there. I like Winayhuayna better though. – Scott Rowe Sep 10 '22 at 13:09

2 Answers2

1

You should avoid damaging historical relics in general.

Well, regardless of the specifics of the deeds of the person it's associated with, it's a fairly-well accepted principle (outside of certain historical revisionists that want all artifacts that are associated with groups they disagree with destroyed) that historical monuments and artifacts should be preserved from damage.

Quoting the UNESCO World Heritage website:

Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.

As a result, I would recommend that you avoid doing anything that might cause damage to historical artifacts. While sitting on a stone throne might not seem like much, it would cause very small amounts of wear and tear that, over time and many people acting similarly, would result in the seat being eroded and damaged.

As such, I would say that sitting on the throne would likely be unethical because of the damage it causes to an irreplaceable historical artifact.

nick012000
  • 129
  • 4
  • Good point. I tend to agree with you. Perhaps the local Government of Torcello or the Italian Government should fence off the stone chair and not allow visitors to sit on it, but only allow visitors to view it. – Alex Jun 20 '21 at 17:54
  • What if the historical relic is of something bad? Plenty of Confederate museums and relic rooms where I live. – Scott Rowe Sep 10 '22 at 02:42
  • 1
    @ScottRowe "outside of certain historical revisionists that want all artifacts that are associated with groups they disagree with destroyed" – nick012000 Sep 10 '22 at 10:29
  • Yes, sorry, you did say that. But... The question remains. – Scott Rowe Sep 10 '22 at 13:03
1

I'm not sure there is a straight forward answer what you should do with that throne or historic relics in general.

The thing is there is a lot of extrinsic and intrinsic value in them, there's symbolism, there's fetishism, there's remembrance, there's celebration of something, there's material history, there's haptic experience, there's visual experience, there's emotional experience and so on.

And depending on what you focus on, anything from preservation from every touch to utter and complete annihilation can be a reasonable reaction to it.

Like for a material researcher it might be of utmost interest to have such artifacts preserved from human erosion because they want to know what materials were used for building them so what kind of technology these cultures had available to them and what secret techniques they had that we might have forgotten.

While for a person having been subject to oppression either direct or indirect and having this throne being the symbolic representation of the injustice done to them (ok might be a little late here), it might bring some catharsis to destroy it, "conquer it", demystify it and "desecrate" it (even or especially the infamous has an aura of being untouchable) or simply to treat it for what it is an ancient chair.

While other's like to experience the aura of intimidation of large pompous buildings and thrones in general or see a different perspective, like a throne is literally putting oneself on top of other people so that they have to look up to you. Or what it must have felt being at the bottom and having to treat that chair as sacred. Or simply what it must have felt like to sit on stone for a longer period of time and whether that was actually as pleasant to begin with.

So the object itself serves a lot of purposes some are intrinsic to the object and some are purely symbolic or even fetishizing.

What we know for certain is that a) we can't keep them all b) once they are gone they are likely gone for good and c) the reason why they are of historic significance is because their time has passed and their actual significance has fainted.

haxor789
  • 4,203
  • 3
  • 25