19th August 2014, 04:25 PM
gonetopot Bombert said that the law had changed recently. has it? As for the ethics of reburial. The reburial thing seems to be an condition of issuing the licence and the act of parliament that it is based on seems to be concerned of licence to exhume bodies from known grave sites presumably with known religious affiliation. Now would you want to get your hail marries right and should these artefacts be reburied by secularists or people of a different religion. Recently buried a family member. It cost. Reburial seems to be find a likely hole and chuck them in. Cheap and convenient. Obviously you might want to consider if you have become the "holder of the burial rights to the grave". You probably got to have liability insurance for that.
I must admit I think that archaeologists might be missing a trick with the reburial thing and see if they couldn't make a bit more song and dance about it. Maybe put a lot more effort into accusing people of being related to the bag of bones and asking for a subsidy for them. Obviously it would be done tastefully. You could possibly use it with the ministry of Justice that as you hadn't found the full expected subsidy from the ancestors that you have to hold onto their bones for a little bit longer. Obviously we couldn't have a set price because that would be anti competitive.
I must admit I think that archaeologists might be missing a trick with the reburial thing and see if they couldn't make a bit more song and dance about it. Maybe put a lot more effort into accusing people of being related to the bag of bones and asking for a subsidy for them. Obviously it would be done tastefully. You could possibly use it with the ministry of Justice that as you hadn't found the full expected subsidy from the ancestors that you have to hold onto their bones for a little bit longer. Obviously we couldn't have a set price because that would be anti competitive.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist