[onetimemanytime]

>>Shocked to learn a half century later that I was speaking with the greatest archeological thief of all time.

Worse. Desecrating hundreds of graves to take remains is the one thing that cannot be explained or forgiven.

I see Roman coins or Roman era stuff for sale on some FB groups. Frankly, buying them, even if illegal (some countries have laws making anything historical found state property), is not the end of the world provided you don't destroy them.

[bennyp101]

Once someone is dead, they are dead. The body is just a vessel carrying around the person, I don't think it /is/ the person. I don't think there is much difference between preserving some bones behind a glass case, and some Roman coins.

I understand why some people do, but it's just some bones - something that is not rare or particularly special in the grand scheme of things. Obviously there is a lot of spirituality and religion attached to remains, but that shouldn't have any bearing on practical matters.

[dash2]

You're perfectly entitled to think that. You're not entitled to dig up my parents because of those beliefs, and if you do, you will rightly be locked up!

[lotsofpulp]

The "rightly" in your statement is simply a function of who has political power. For example, I doubt many people who dug up Native Americans' parents got locked up. Also, once your parents' grandchildren or maybe great grandchildren pass away, there is little chance anyone will care about digging them up, especially if the land is in demand.

[dash2]

The fact that some people did not get punished does not imply that what happened wasn't wrong.

You're also mistaken that people don't care. In fact archeologists think carefully about the dignity of human remains: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archa...; https://apabe.archaeologyuk.org/pdf/APABE_ToHREfCBG_FINAL_WE...

[arcbyte]

I think generally you're right. OP has a point, but at the end of the day, as social beings we all play a collaboration game. This involves sometimes doing things or forgoing doing things that we have no interest in because others have an interest they want respected. In exchange, we expect respect for our interests, even when others don't share that interest.

If OP doesn't care about human remains, there's nothing wrong about that. However, others do care about how remains are treated. in exchange for care about whatever OP does hold sacred or in honor, OP ought to show care about human remains, despite being disinterested.

The first link you posted 404d for me, but I read the second PDF to largely agrees with me and OP actually that it is the interests of the currently living people we actually care about. To be clear, I'm one of them.

[tatersolid]

This is mostly false; Every non-sociopath culture has respect for the dead of other cultures as part of its base.

In my rural, mostly Lutheran Indiana childhood all Native American burial sites were treated with as much respect as “our own”

[bennyp101]

And I wouldn’t dig up any remains that somebody had a connection to - I totally get that.

Socially it is not the done thing, but society changes, and I wonder if in 50/100 years we value the land more than desecration?

Human remains and how they are treated is always going to be a divided subject

[quantified]

I see your point. People are emotional, have taboos of all kinds and are funny about life and family. It’s not about logic.

[lotsofpulp]

Is there a limit to how many years after one dies that one’s remains or grave can be disturbed?

The concept of having ownership of a piece of the universe even after death is puzzling to me.

[onetimemanytime]

>>Is there a limit to how many years after one dies that one’s remains or grave can be disturbed?

One gazillion years for a scumbag taking the head to his basement and destroying bones.

Graves can be moved if determined by the government, of course, but with dignity. That is totally different from some jerk deciding to desecrate graves. In a lot of countries that can send the desecrater to his own grave. If the law doesn't act, family will.

[snarf21]

What is a last will and testament if not that? You dying doesn't give anyone else the right to just claim ownership of your house the second you die. Also, most burial plots include essentially a lease for maintenance. It is probably the cemetery owner who would press charges for theft. There are probably also specific laws on the books that make this illegal.

[uvesten]

IIRC, this is basically a U.S-only phenomenon. In Europe and most other places of the world, there is the understanding that a grave will not last forever.

In most parts of Europe, the grave is actually "guaranteed" to still be yours for quite a short time (~40-50 years) before the lease is up. If you want to keep it, the family has to pay to keep it.

[orbital-decay]

Aren't certain crypts preserved for centuries, though?

[wl]

> I see Roman coins or Roman era stuff for sale on some FB groups. Frankly, buying them, even if illegal (some countries have laws making anything historical found state property), is not the end of the world provided you don't destroy them.

The problem is that buying these artifacts incentivizes bringing more of them to market. The result is looting of archeological sites. Diggers get their marketable trophies to sell at the cost of destroying the knowledge future archeologists could obtain from the site because it has been jumbled. Recovering looted antiquities is a small consolation as the value of such objects to archeology is severely diminished when they are divorced from their archeological context.

The only ethical thing to do in our current situation, if you value archeology as a method to understanding the past, is not to engage in the antiquities trade and encourage others to do the same.