Hacker News Reader

Comment by superb-owl | Hacker News Reader

Serious question: at what point does grave robbing become archaeology?

I'll be irked if someone 1000 years from now unearths my carefully lain grave, inspects its contents, and picks apart my bones. The typical response is "you'll be dead, what do you care" but I think that's trivializing a lot of deeply held feelings.

View on HN

I don't think you have a right to claim some piece of land for eternity, at the expense of future people who want to use that space to live in (or for their infrastructure).

So if your grave can't just remain there, what's the alternative? Do you just want it destroyed without inspection?

Moved and interred in a more convenient location?

People forget where burial grounds are all the time and the first reminder is when a backhoe goes through a grave. Best case, they call an archaeologist to figure out if there are any more and to relocate what's left.

The body would still be claiming some piece of land for eternity; just somewhere else. This would still break my "no claim on land for eternity" requirement.

Perhaps this is semantics, but you're not placing a claim on a piece of land for eternity. You're placing a claim on any piece of land. And it's not for eternity. It's for so long as the land is not otherwise used or until geologic forces make it irrelevant.

Serious question: at what point does grave robbing become archaeology?

Serious answer: When you are doing it for research, have been given permission from the relevant local authorities and turn over everything you find to the relevant authorities rather than keeping it for yourself.

For myself, as someone of no special significance, I hope to find some little out of the way burial site, and arrange to be buried with as much finery as I can afford at my allotted time, in the fond hope that some archaeologist will unearth the site 1000 years hence and assume that I was an important figure and those buried around me were my subjects :-)

Do you think everyone who ever died should have a claim over the land they're buried in for the rest of all time? That seems obviously not workable.

Don't get me started on conservation of old buildings.

Get buried in a pine wood box, you'll be gone in < 100 years. Plant a tree ontop and create something productive in your later years.

That seems to be the way to go. I used to want to be cremated but now that seems ridiculous given that I'd be ending my existence with yet another display of extravagant and pointless waste, so a pine box where I can return to the earth with the least amount of fuss is really appealing.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you have, but as an archaeologist cremation or not doesn't really change the amount of fuss given to the dead. I've excavated huge burial mounds with both. The cremated remains are usually a lot easier to deal with though.

I just meant from an environmental point of view, not a "digging me back up" angle.

This is my primary concern, I would rather sequester carbon as a tree than contribute it in particulate via cremation. Disclaimer, if my next tree self burns down that's on the tree and not me :)

Not to mention that you're depriving nature of any nutrients you are holding. You're jealously burning your wealth to ensure that no one else can have it.

There is a growing[1] movement of being buried covered in mushrooms, including the box you are in, to speed up the decomposition, and to leave as little impact on the land as possible.

I previously wanted to be cremated, but now being composted by fungi seems to be the right way to go.

[1] no pun intended.

I suspect you’re in the minority. Most people would be thrilled if in 1000 years people were still talking them, even if it’s only because of the bling they were buried with.

The line is pretty blurry at times. Some universities have been terrible about meeting NAGPRA requirements to return human remains, for one thing. In the early 20th century, a Catalina Island newspaper described grave robbing as a fun day out for the family. On the other hand, plenty of rich dudes in the 1800's tried to give it more credibility even if they were doing much the same.

They're digging them up anyway for the train line, so the archaeology doesn't really cause any additional problem.

Make sure that a note to that effect is placed in your grave.

"Piss off! I'm only resting."

"I'm pining for the fjords!"

I aint'd dead.

Well, technically that is what the various ancient greats tried to achieve: that graverobbers would be so terrified they'd skip that grave and the ones that persisted ended up being given the Indiana Jones treatment. Not that it mattered, eventually you run out of traps and there are always more grave robbers. So in the long run it all gets found and that's before nature has its way with the environment where your gravesite is located.

Personally, I'll go for cremation, the idea to continue to occupy a plot of land after I'm dead sounds pretty selfish.

How well did that work for ancient Egyptians? The future generations are bound to desecrate any grave eventually. They always have and always will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com