Always Wondered This...., archaeological or desecrating a grave???

I love those historical shows and where they study some lost city or discover ancient artifacts.
But I have always wondered this. When remains of some bones are found or the discovery of an ancient burial ground it is seen as a great discovery.
But the question that I always wondered about was when is it considered and archaeological dig or desecrating a grave???
Are there laws covering this?? Is there a certain time period??
It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.
Just thinking out loud.......

Good question, Togo. I too enjoy the history channels. I think alot depends on the culture where the dig is located. Some cultures have no problem with allowing bones to be examined for information, with an added plus of the spotlight on them. I do know recent archeological digs in Israel where the bones found where not allowed to be examined and where given a formal burial.

If time last and our bones are discovered, what would you want done?

Flora

In this case I haven't really many options to strike back...

Apart from that I agree with you. I think too, thats a question of the culture where do you want to examine the bones. Im sure there are a lot cultures, they haven't a problem, quite the contrary - if you share the results with them and bury the bones honorable again.
I think too in some cultures it is a question of argumentation (persuasion?) and in other again simply a question of the price. I'm sure too that there are some cultures who never allow an examination...

Best regards

Ingo

Togo,

Personally I don't think that today's archeology should be considered a desecration of grave or bodies discovered...it is a study for a better understanding of our past and how our ancestors were living, to learn about disease where and how it came about...in other words to me archeology though again not a perfect science can confirm at least what is written in books by the historians.

To me a desecration of grave would be those in the past century where it was considered a "job" to dig grave and rob them and sale gold teeth and jewerely on the market. As it was done in pharaos times...breaking into the pharaos tomb and simply smash the body into pieces and steal. Or again during the Victorian era where the rich lords would travel to Egypt and bring back sarcophagus with the mummies inside and have them on display in their mansion or what was the "in" thing to do was to smash the bones to pieces and have them processed into some king of medicine in the hope of gaining eternal life...this was desecrating and destroying in complete ignorance of the treasure that was not theirs.

Today, however archeologist that are discovering graves will most likely take them out also for protection against tomb robbers and scientist will study and again will bring them to another location for burial. Most of the ancient countries are more involved in archeology today that they were 50 or 60 years ago. Archeology is science and I don't think it should be seen as desecration of grave.

But then again archeology though a science should also respect the religious and cultural wishes of the countries who do not approve of it.

Flora,

For my part...I wouldn't mind to have my grave discovered in a thousand years from now where maybe asthma would not exist anymore and they could study those ugly lungs of mine and learn about it.The same as we learned about mummifying bodies technics from the Egyptians.


LOA

LOA;

I agree with your stance. If the grave is at least 500 years old it seems to me alright to open it, What a vehemently disagree with is the desecration of War graves such as those of ships that have been sunk in war. Even though the Titanic was a civilian vessel and sunk from collision with an ice berg it is a dedicate historilcal grave and should not have been disturbed by treasure hunters. At some future time if they want to dig up my remains all they will find is a pile of ashes buried under a peonea bush in the corner of my Mothers grave.



Camac.

This is an interesting question -- not the question of old graves, since I don't really think there is any time limit on a resting place that people thought of as such, and they should probably be left alone no matter how old they are, or how simple or ornate their lives and deaths were. But if you were to dig me up -- well, you won't, first of all, because ideally I will be burned, ground to a fine powder and scattered over a field of chili peppers--but if you WERE to dig me up, the idea that my grave would be of any historical interest kind of tickles me. Kind of makes me want to be buried after all, with a passel of very strange and unintelligible grave goods, to set those future archaeologists a merry puzzle. Just dump the whole kitchen junk drawer in there with me, to start with. All the old Bic pen tops alone should be worth the scratch of a head.

Thanks for your interesting thoughts on this subject. Makes me ponder the question even more.

Lady-of-Avalon you are right that many archeologist don't desecrate graves but try to preserve them and learn from them. (although some may say that uncovering any grave for whatever reason would be considered desecrating it)
Maybe I should have said instead of desecrating it, disrupting it.

Some believe it's ok to uncover a grave, burial site, for science and good intentions. I mean bodies are exhumed as well for different reasons too.

Then I read this tonight:

"In Southern Chinese culture, graves are opened after a period of years. The bones are removed, cleaned, dried, and placed in a ceramic pot for reburial. This is especially common in Taiwan. The practice is called jiǎngǔ '揀骨 “digging up bones” and is an important ritual in the posthumous “care” of children for their deceased parents and ancestors. Failure to carry out this ritual is considered a failure of filial piety."

Different beliefs for different religions and cultures.

After researching this a little more I found that many countries DO have very strict guidelines, ethics, and policies in dealing with the digging up of human remains.

I looked up some more info and read "The Human Remains Working Group" in England put together some guidelines relating to this. They keep referring to the remains being older than 100 years old for archaeologically evaluation to be acceptable as well as many other restrictions.

Maybe a lot just depends on your own beliefs as to what is acceptable or not.

As for my body being dug up at some point to be studied.....hmmm......
I'm ok with it but I hope they would have a boneafide reason to do so or I would have a bone of contention with the digger.

speaking of bones...

have you read about the one where the bones of a couple were found in a
6000 year embrace? would it have made a difference whether or not these were found? probably not. but then again, i never forgot this article. i kept thinking what a kewl concept, dying while someone was holding you...

whether they were embracing because of fear, or they just finished loving each other and then catastrophy hit, who knows? all i know is that i was touched when i read about it. at least they didn't die alone. i do respect burial grounds, and i don't think they should be disturbed, but there is a part of me that would like to understand why these people ought to be remembered, what they stood for, their contribution or mistakes to the evolution of a world, and we can only do that by studying and recording whatevers left of them.

i agree that it should be done respectfully, properly, and carefully, and then returned the same way they were found. maybe even erect a proper monument for them or something...

now descecrating a burial ground to make way for a shopping mall, thats a different story.