To think it’s no more acceptable to dig up ancient graves than it would be to dig up recent ones?

[AngeloMysterioso]

I follow a few historical Instagram accounts and one has just posted about a c. 1000 year old mummified body that has just been unearthed from an underground tomb in Peru.

It looks as though this poor person died in a fairly horrific way and now it’s remains are on display in a glass box with people taking pictures a few feet away.

AIBU to think these people should be left well alone to rest in peace with the same respect and dignity that we afford to people who died last week?

Ah, OK, maybe that particular story was indeed invented, then; but there's no doubting that monarchs and other powerful people through history have treated innocent people appallingly, just on whim.

I always think of Anne Boleyn and how she must actually have felt, when she knew she was about to be brutally murdered as a young woman as 'punishment' for her husband wanting to be married to somebody else instead. I know she put on a brave, dignified face (according to the history books, anyway); but what must have been going through her head in the run up to it?

Would we be thinking about these people and their lives and experiences, if we didn't dig them up, examine, exhibit some etc etc.

Exhibits need to attract visitors. An exhibit of boring stuff, just rubbish thrown out, no personal effects, grave goods or remains would not attract visitors. Without human interest and effectively, archaeology tourism, funding drops even lower...

Take that to its logical conclusion, the stuff you lot are all aware of and fighting over, would be relegated to dusty passages and low res images in an archive somewhere you wouldn't even know to look in, let alone have access to.

We'd know far less, we'd have far less chance of finding things before they're destroyed by modern construction, we'd have less of a connection to our, human, past, than we do now...

I cannot agree that that is ever a good thing.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really get the fascination at looking at human bones as a tourist attraction. They all look pretty much the same (to the layperson), anyway, don't they?

Unless somebody told you and/or you knew the context, would most of us really be able to tell the difference between the bones of Henry VII and those of Derek Perkins who lived in a village 300 miles away at the same time?

I hope Anne will forgive me for saying it...but she wasn't young, and she grew up mostly in court. My memory is awful but he must have executed a dozen or more for "treason" in her day. If she chose him, she knew he was about. But I haven't read enough to know how free she felt to make that decision.

She must have been a very strong, even egotistical, person, in order to think England would back her as the new Queen.

hopefully this is a sensible thread and not the Monty Python argument sketch, so I don't need to say that I don't approve of beheading her! I just don't see as a young girl being beheaded in the same way as, perhaps, Lady Jane Grey.

But that's why they're displayed, usually with information and context surrounding them. Tour guides and school telling the stories

If I remember correctly, Henry aggressively pursued her and her dad ordered her to marry him.
I'm not sure she had much choice...

There was a netflix docudrama about her recently - a bit modern in style for my taste but the historian talk heads were interesting and gave the impression that she did have some agency (within the context of the time) so not just a pawn.

In terms of knowing what to expect in terms of executions, the treason executions really ramp up after her death. Henry VIII executed a lot of nobility but if you look at the dates most of them are in 1536-1547 so I don't think it is far to say she should went in knowing what to expect.

agree with this. The person is no longer there and the remains are of historic significance.

@WiddlinDiddlin

Agreed!

Honestly, we should spend more time worrying about and looking after the living. The dead are gone.

We're just projecting our own sensibility onto these remains.

They're not going to be left in peace.

Think of the billions of people who have died on earth. Where do people think they all went? Most of those bodies have been totally destroyed.

Not suggesting she knew she'd be executed. And yes, the frenzy really ramps up.

I just think that court was incredibly harsh and I imagine her father would need her to be keen to some extent - the extent to which a woman had agency over on her own life. Being Queen was a hell of a task.

wasn't Anne keen to show Henry reasons to break with the Catholic Church? I don't pretend to "know" - none of us can. So I don't know that she was merely a pawn in the game either.

didn't know about that docudrama. I am a bit of a dusty old book 😂, I like a dusty old book or a straight documentary but as I seem to have a lurgy and cba getting off the couch, I might have a lok.

I think it's fine for people to decide what they want to happen to their physical remains, and that their wishes should be respected to whatever degree is possible.

If people are buried in sanctified ground, then I wouldn't feel right about disturbing that. Even if it's not sacred to me, it was to them.

If you are laid up and more of a book person than docudrama, try this podcast episode on Tudor women and their families The interviewee Nicola Clarke has also written a dusty old book on Gender, Family and Politics that looks at what power women did have in the Tudor world - it is an academic book though rather than general history.

terry thank you so much!

I think towards the end she resigned herself to her situation. When the swordsman was delayed from Calais she got very upset because she wanted it all over and done with. She did seem scared about the pain of dying such a violent death but tried to hide it behind dark humour.

She was a very religious woman with a strong belief in a Christian afterlife. Back then, people were more sure in their belief in the afterlife and she seemed convinced that she was going to a better place (as she managed to receive her last confession and the sacrament of the Eucharist, which means that she would ‘die a good death’). In that sense, she would have seen it as the end of one journey and the start of the next, which would have given her great comfort.

I personally feel that’s how she managed to keep her shit together so well at the end. Resigned to her fate, weary of life and strong faith in a better afterlife.

A bit torn on this.

I studied archaeology including a lot on ancient bones, how to interpret them forensically. It was fascinating but I always connected the bones to the people they once were. In hindsight some of them were from native American populations and should probably have been returned, I don't know how they got to my UK university.

I don't really have an issue with displays of bones in museums if suitably ancient. In spite of my academic background I absolutely cannot cope with mummies and will avoid looking at them at all costs. Extremely creepy.

As others have said, it's better for remans to be reinterred or even respectfully destroyed rather than churned up by piling equipment and bulldozers.

Interesting debate.

I agree, OP. It seems very disrespectful to dig up someone's resting place intentionally.

Not the same at all, but we recently had a family grave opened to intern my Nana's ashes and I was very particular about having the vicar present and him doing a final blessing. I do keep faith and I appreciate some people don't but it wouldn't have felt right to me to just open the grave where people are at rest.

I think this poor fella is an excellent example of this dilemma. He specifically stated that he did not want this to happen to him. The fact he remains in his glass vase propped up for all to see really haunts me.

londonist.com/2011/12/should-the-hunterian-museums-giant-skeleton-be-buried-at-sea

Oh that’s awful. Maybe when they reopen, that poor soul won’t be there? I’ve never been there.

Who needs to rest in peace? There is no person anymore, it’s just bones. I don’t understand this logic.

They can do what they damn well like with me when I’m dead 😂

But when someone has specifically said they’re not okay with it, it’s different.

I agree.

But I don't see remains as 'people', the people have gone. I fancy the idea of being an interesting artefact in 1000 years over the idea of 'resting' when I'm nothing but bones.

Having a protected space on Earth solely for your remains, forever, is a rare privilege and not sustainable.

I support the idea of remains being left for a reasonable period while any mourners are still alive, and an enduring mark of their place on Earth e.g. a plaque. But burial and crypts need a re-think on the whole.

Well…ok then, but I’m talking in general.

anyway, this might seem disrespectful to some but when a person died 200 odd years ago, has no living relatives to object, and they themselves certainly won’t know because they no longer exist, who is being hurt or harmed?

@EmmaEmerald
But when someone has specifically said they’re not okay with it, it’s different

But they are dead? They don't exist anymore. If there are relatives around then I think it's right to do what they want but unless you believe in the afterlife I don't understand why it matters what happens to the physical remains.

When my father died he was cremated and we said we didn't want the ashes and that they could dispose of them however they want.

The ashes are 'just' ashes and have no meaning to our family. Our memories of when he was alive are what are important to us. Those are all that matter.

As an atheist I struggle to understand who people are sopposed to be disrespecting if they are digging up ancient remains.

There's lots of things in life people are not OK with but just have to accept, why would it be any different in death?

Personally, I find the amount of time, effort, money, physical and head space people give to the dead bizarre. I'm sure there's something far more productive we could be doing with the millions upon millions of meat suits left behind each year.

And so Charles, having been gawped at in life, is now gawped at in death? Having particularly planned to avoid it?

I can’t find any justification for that.

did anyone think what Burke and Hare did was okay?