Christian Zealots Destroy Ancient Arctic Petroglyphs

[Dingfod]

Canada's only major Arctic petroglyph site, a 1500-year old gallery of mysterious faces carved into soapstone on a tiny island off of Quebec's northern coast has been ransacked by vandals. The region's top archeologist suspects it was done by devout Christians from a nearby Inuit community.

The petroglyph site has been called "the Island of the Stone Devils" because some of the faces appear to be adorned with horns. Previously, crosses have been scratched on the petroglyphs. Some area residents have told researchers they believe the site is inhabited by evil spirits.

Robert Frechette, director of the nearby Pingualuit provincial park in the Nunavik region of northern Quebec

I first visited the island 12 years ago and I can see that every time it's deteriorated, describing how tourist looting and natural erosion of the site's soft soapstone first prompted preservation proposals in the 1990s. But this time I was quite amazed. Someone has taken some parts of the rock away. There's graffiti. And someone has been carving with an axe or something sharp in the grooves of the faces. It's pretty bad.

Daniel Gendron, chief archeologist with the Inukjuak-based Avataq Cultural Institute, the key promoter of indigenous history and identity in Nunavik

The latest vandalism at Qajartalik follows the pattern of previous attacks by members of a very strong movement of conservative Christians in Kangiqsujuaq and several other Inuit communities in northern Quebec.

Kangiqsujuaq's mayor, Mary Pilurtuut

I hadn't been informed of fresh damage at the site and doubt something religious would have been involved. Recently, it's not the case, suggesting that most of the deterioration at the site has been caused by nature.

Surprising how little difference there is between Christian extremists and Muslim extremists.

[livius drusus]

Ugh. That's vile. Soapstone is so easy to damage too. It wouldn't take much more than a pocket knife to permanently scar the petroglyhps.

The evidence of "Christian extremist" culpability is pretty tenuous, though (way too tenuous to justify the title of the article/thread), nor do I get your comparison to Muslim extremists. You mean like the Taliban destroying those Buddhas? Because if so the difference between the two acts strikes me as large, not little.

[Julie]

I don't get the comparison either. While both were tradgic there are comming from vastly different places.

This destruction is more thank likely done while under the influence of alcohol or glue (Huffing is a huge problem in the inuit communities, as well as sucide)

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Ugh. That's vile. Soapstone is so easy to damage too. It wouldn't take much more than a pocket knife to permanently scar the petroglyhps.

The evidence of "Christian extremist" culpability is pretty tenuous, though (way too tenuous to justify the title of the article/thread), nor do I get your comparison to Muslim extremists. You mean like the Taliban destroying those Buddhas? Because if so the difference between the two acts strikes me as large, not little.

I suppose the evidence is a little scant. I didn't start out with that as a title and don't remember why I changed it. As for the comparison, if it is true that Christians defaced the petroglyphs, it is only one of scale, the intent is similar.

[Clutch Munny]

The chief archaeologist does allude to previous attacks by the conservative Christians as facts in evidence.

The differences with the Taliban are large, but the public perception of the differences are larger still. So, a point worth making, in my view, though with appropriate epistemic caution. (I betray my custom user title, I suppose.)

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The chief archaeologist does allude to previous attacks by the conservative Christians as facts in evidence.

Previous attacks involved Christian-specific defacements (crosses carved into the petrogylphs, for instance). If this one does, it's not mentioned in the article. It's all very vague, so from my perspective, the facts in evidence are considerably more limited than from the archaeologist's.

Besides, as Julie notes, even if the vandals did come from that particular community, assuming a specifically religious motivation rather than drunkenness or assholery is still something of a leap.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The differences with the Taliban are large, but the public perception of the differences are larger still.

Is it? I'm not sure how I'd go about quantifying public perception of the differences between extremist Islam and extremist Christianity, but then again, my custom title is just a usergroup function.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Previous attacks involved Christian-specific defacements (crosses carved into the petrogylphs, for instance). If this one does, it's not mentioned in the article.

I'm saying that the previous attacks in themselves serve as noteworthy cases even if the present one was not committed by Christians.

Is it?

Sure. In a similar vein I'd say the differences between, say, the Crusader butchery in the Levant and the current persecution of Christians in Iraq are also enormous, but the latter too is a point worth making to someone expounding on the former in, say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure how I'd go about quantifying public perception of the differences between extremist Islam and extremist Christianity, but then again, my custom title is just a usergroup function.

It might be hard to quantify, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult to investigate whether North Americans associate the vandalizing of other religions' monuments more with Islam than with Christianity.