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?

It should be free.

👏👏👏👏
100% agree.

It’s not about what we can gain as a species, “lessons from the past” and so on from the dead of thousands of years ago, it’s always been about learning how past humans lived so we can feel connected to our common humanity. We study history and prehistory via archaeology to learn everything about past human societies from dwellings to temples, from clothing to culture, from diet to diseases, from peaceful to warfare/violent deaths, etc.

I think it would be more disrespectful to forget and ignore our human past.

Nearly everywhere that is habitable (ie mabe not high mountains) will be someones burial ground.

May I ask why? Genuinly curious, not challenging!
I'm planning to do same

You have a point OP

Don't you think you are in wrong job if georgian graves make you vomit?

I replied to this and MN ate it.

I read that he hadn't wanted the body on permanent, public display.

I would suggest we start a general chat thread in the history section but I'm meant to be spending less time online!

For several hundred of thousand years humans have connected to and respected their ancestors through rituals, songs, stories, sitting in nature etc.
We absolutely can connect with them without digging them up.
For me it's about respect, I think we go through plenty enough in life and it's not too much to ask to be finally left alone in death.

@MissingNightshades

Songs and sitting in nature are lovely.

However, it's nice to have some real history too.

While I respect spiritual & religious connections to ancestors, thats not what I was referring to in regards to learning about past human lives and feeling connected to a common humanity.

No closure. No guarantee they will take them (depends what they die of) and there may be a return of some parts at some point.
I’ve signed the forms though. We’ll see, but I don’t like it.

I agree, I went to the Mary Rose exhibit in Portsmouth and I couldn’t believe they had skeletons on display.

At what point does it become acceptable, for example World War shipwreck’s are protected and treated as war graves, so obviously that is deemed as not acceptable. I’m assuming mainly because these people are still very much in living memory.

I am a huge nerd on the other hand, and if any bodies were found from the Franklin expedition in the Canadian Arctic then of course I would be very interested to see what information they could gather from this. But even then I’d draw the line at displaying the poor souls body in a museum for people to stare at.

We've found out so much from ancient remains including which diseases were where. We've always built on or dug up graves. It is a bit unnerving but that's what happens with working cities.

But any relatives are no longer around to be upset. When I'm gone I won't care. I believe that it's what you do whilst you are here that's important.

Hey OP - I'm not an archaeologist but I have a hobby which at this point I which goes hand in hand with archaeology and as a result, have attended several local excavations. Some of these excavations involved the removal of human remains from the site.

For every one of these excavations I've been asked to attend, the site was being examined and the remains & other finds removed due to the fact that either a bypass or a new housing estate had planning to build on the area. They'd had to do surveys of the site which had highlighted that there were remains of history on the land and so archaeologists were called in. They were unfortunately not called in to protect the site but rather preserve and rescue as much as they could, while recording the history that was there, before the new developments are built.

These sites, which did have historical remains and importance, were going to be essentially bulldozed. In the grand scheme of things, the level of history was not spectacular, it was nothing unseen or unheard of in the area, they were not sites of major historical importance or heritage so sadly it was deemed that it was for the greater good to build on this land regardless.

Therefore, although the remains were removed and taken away, they were rescued from being, dug up and destroyed by the workers who needed to build the developments. They were recorded, identified ( their approximate age, sex, time period etc) and their lives were, for the first time in centuries, known about. I do completely agree that a resting burial shouldn't be disturbed if there is no threat to it, as a final resting place is a final resting place for a reason, however in the circumstances I have described I also believe that moving the remains somewhere safe is the lesser of two evils when the alternative is their remains still being moved, but also being destroyed, lost, forgotten about. When their final resting place will be changed either way, removing the remains respectfully and storing them carefully is my preferable option compared to the desecration of their bones, their belongings, their "footprint" on the land.

Thank you for getting back to me!

That’s ok. My siblings are all for it. It’s difficult.

I can understand why. It is such a different approach to the usual, and 'traditional' funerals do serve a closure element for many.
I think because I've been in a job where it is an everyday occurance, my attitude is rather more pragmatic.
I hope that you can come to accept their wishes for your peace of mind - maybe talk to someone who has faced the same challenge?
Best wishes

I think bodies only have to be buried for 99 years. After that they're fair game for exhumation, they're no longer a body just human remains. I don't particularly get bothered about the idea of centuries- or millenia-old remains being dug up and used as long as it's not excessively disrespectful and unnecessary (i.e. putting a skeleton is a museum is OK, using one as a prop to destroy in a drill video isn't).

Body parts have historically been used for lots of purposes, they're used in the fabric of buildings or worn as jewellery for example. So putting them in a museum, to me, is fine, so long as they died a long time ago.

If you don't want to be disturbed after you die burial probably isn't the right option for you.

I was in Egypt recently and the mummys are amazing. 2-4k years old, immaculately preserved, with hair and skin, and looking just like (a slightly more wrinkly version of) them alive. I did find it uncomfortable to be peering in at them though. I wouldn't want my body to be laid out like that in thousands of years time, and I'm very much in the once you're dead you're gone camp.

I disagree. To me the remains of a human being once life has departed have no especial meaning outside of sentiment. To believe people should 'rest in peace' 'rest together' and so on suggests there is something still sentient about a dead body, when we all know there is not. People are not 'resting' in any state of awareness (thank goodness, as who would want to be aware they were in a grave? With or without their loved ones) They no longer exist and there is no humanity or life which requires consideration or respect.
The remains of the recently deceased should be afforded respectful treatment out of consideration for the living, so entirely different.

I used to work in a Hospice so I’m surprised I feel like this in a way.
Maybe the thought of it is worse than the reality and if that’s their wishes then there’s no way I’d try to change anything. Good idea to seek out some people that have experience of it though.

That is what I thought at first but putting the body on display is a bit disrespectful.

Moving and re-burying elsewhere such as with Richard III I support, but not some of the examples others have quoted where skeletons are just put on display.

I don't think the only reason we treat deceased bodies carefully is so their relatives won't be upset though. It's out of respect for that person, that human being themselves, isn't it?

If a person has no living relatives, we still don't throw their body in the boot of a car or on a rubbish dump. We recognise that that body BELONGED to the person and that they still have some rights, and we still have some duties, over how it should be treated.

I'm also interested in where the line is drawn. World war 1 would be over 100 years now, so would it be ok to dig up the war graves and exhibit the soldier's skulls?