Genuine historical/scientific need or morbid curiosity? (Warning- might be upsetting)

[FadedRed]

I will try to be brief but would appreciate other posters insight here. Prompted by article in today's Grauniad, but something that I have thought about for a long time.
I am very interested in history in general and medical history in particular, but wonder if we should not be exhuming the dead in the name of historical/scientific research? When these people were interred, they had the expectation to 'rest in peace for eternity', yet we have TV programmes like 'finding the ancestors', history cold case, etc, even Time Team can sometimes dig up ancient burial sites.
It bothers me, yet I am still fascinated by this sort of historical stuff and I know it can lead to valuable knowledge.
What do others think?

Anyone?

I haven't read the article in question, but in many times and cultures, there was no expectation that people would 'rest in peace for eternity.' I think the standard amount of time you could expect to be left in 'your' grave used to be 20-30 years. Even today some cemeteries only issue short leases.

The problem is, the dead take up a lot of space, and it's inevitable that some graves will be disturbed, either to make way for fresh graves, or for building works. Personally, I think that if we have to disturb graves then it's best to learn what we can about the life of that individual, then relocate their remains.

Thanks for reply Seshata - I hadn't thought of that.
I think that's a valid view, however, that in past times I think there was in many areas. especially UK, that rest in peace meant exactly that.
I don't have a problem with gaining such knowledge in situations where exhumation is necessary, as in your answer, but it is the 'voyeuristic' nature of todays publication and the TV programmes that I find a bit disturbing.
Perhaps it just me.......

I have often thought the same and like you still find it interesting. Not alone

There are very strict rules controlling lifting of skeletons in an archaeological context and they are treated with considerable respect by the osteologists who examine them. If removed from consecrated ground I think they are generally reinterred in another consecrated site. Even when included in a tv programme I would expect that their examination forms part of a larger research agenda and not just be undertaken for the purpose of the programme.

I'm always amazed at how much space and respect we give dead bodies, several years on. I can 100% understand the ritual and respect afforded something which resembles a loved one although I know they're not there any more iyswim, but bones when there's no-one around who knew them

Eventually we will fill the land available for graves and memorials. But I think most of the digging up is related to things like crossrail, so a byproduct, rather than us setting off to dig up known graves. If you think about the exhumation of Richard III, I imagine he'd have been quite keen to get a decent tomb, rather than a car park.

I haven't seen the article. There was a fascinating programme on a 'Crossrail' excavation a while back on TV and I do know what you mean.
I do feel a bit bad when I see skeletons/Mummies in museums etc as no doubt they thought they would be buried forever. I have no religious beliefs but it seems exploitative in some way. I don't object to the remains being studied but I would prefer them to be put back or somewhere appropriate found.