25th July 2005, 01:00 AM
Intersting comments on the ethics of excavating burials. I am just left wondering how many religions actually believe that the body continues to have significance after death. I can think of a couple. But the other thing is, how many religions consider the body to be severed from its spiritual significance after death? I am sure I have encountered several of these too, but I left my brains somewhere against the boards at hockey practice tonight so I cannot remember the specifics. Going beyond this, to what extent are we projecting our society and its ethics on the past in making these statements? Was the burial in the mound significant, or was it the mound that had the significance? I know that some sects believe that the body is essential for resurrection, but how many consider the body to be just so much junk after the soul has left it?
And also, it seems to me that taking the view that burials should only ever be excavated if they are threatened needs to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is that no development should be allowed where there are burials, if you are going to follow that logic at all. After all, if we are going to respect the significance of the burial and not excavate it for research purposes, surely we should also respect it with regard to development and not develop the site in the first place.
Yours ramblingly,
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
And also, it seems to me that taking the view that burials should only ever be excavated if they are threatened needs to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is that no development should be allowed where there are burials, if you are going to follow that logic at all. After all, if we are going to respect the significance of the burial and not excavate it for research purposes, surely we should also respect it with regard to development and not develop the site in the first place.
Yours ramblingly,
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature