I've derived so much knowledge and enjoyment from people looking at bones that I'd be delighted to be dug up by archaeologists. Not, as BT says, that I'll know anything about it.
I'm reminded of Shakespeare's epitaph which urges the reader, ' ... for Jesus's sake forbeare' from disturbing the dust enclosed there.
'Blessed be he that spares these stones.
But cursed be he who moves my bones.'
Interesting how bones and 'relics' were still to be accorded some dignity even after the Reformation. Perhaps they were concerned about souvenir hunters?
Coming back to Madagascar again, they have the ceremony of the 'Turning of The Bones' whereby bodies are exhumed after around 3 years, cleaned and then carefully wrapped in white scarves before being reburied with their names written in felt pin or placed in caves. Bones are treated with great reverence and dignity.
I wouldn't mind an archaeologist examining mine and I've noticed on some of these archaeological programmes on the telly how they are beginning to take a more 'reverent' attitude than they used to.
But I can understand why people wouldn't want their mortal remains interfered with.
It wouldn't worry me but then I would prefer to be buried rather than cremated so I do have some concerns in that respect - although I wouldn't expect everyone to share my views on this issue.
In urban Greece they are running out of burial space. They don't do cremations there. I think you'd have to go to Bulgaria for that. They do exhume bones and put them in ossuaries.
People in the US frequently scatter ashes at a place the deceased loved, sometimes illegally. A friend's family scattered a loved one's ashes at Santa Anita racetrack.
I can’t speak to British Presbyterian or Reformed practice, but there’s a long-standing strand of American Presbyterianism (or at least Southern American Presbyterianism) with a preference for burial attended just by family and close friends, followed as immediately as possible by the service at the church. (And the service is often followed in turn by a reception at the church where people can speak to the family.) In my experience, this way of doing things was often the preferred way for ministers and their families. It’s what my parents wanted, as well as much of my mother's extended family (lots of ministers).
We've had one like that at our (Presbyterian) home church not long ago. There was a small family gathering at the grave for the burial, and then they met a huge crowd back at the church for the service and a celebration. I think the sense was, "We've taken care of Jim - now let's celebrate him!" Which we did - it was a happy funeral for a good man whose life was worth celebrating generously. His family has a long history here and burial within the community seemed exactly right.
On the other hand, living in the same place, we are far from any family and thousands of miles from the oldest of our friends and family. It makes no sense (to me) to have any permanent memorial memorial in a place that nobody would ever have any reason to visit. I would like cremation to take place as quickly as possible and, sentimentally - my sentiments - my ashes to be taken to one of a handful of places in Scotland that have a strong connection for me, but does it matter to anyone else? The easy solution is to be scattered in the nearby river that flows into Lake Erie, so a little bit will eventually go over Niagara Falls - fun to think about.
I hate the UK practice of a service at a crematorium. Doing it remotely is fine with me, and perhaps a small service later in the church, with plenty of good music. With our family, good singing is too much to hope for. A rushed ceremony for my father with a rent-a-priest at a production line crematorium, with smoke blowing down as we left, was a harrowing experience I hope never to repeat. We scattered his ashes in the Clyde not far from where he was born, and that was good.
I am curious about the objection to archaeologists poring over your bones. What would be the problem with that?
I've seen Time Team poring over bones, speculating how they lived and died, what illnesses they had. "Ooooh look, Boogie had metal plates in her neck, how interesting."
No thanks, not over my bones.
But I'm still puzzled as to what the problem is exactly. Why is it a problem for someone to think you are interesting? Obviously archaeologists will speculate about what illnesses someone may have had, it's helpful for understanding historical approaches to illness and can even help current or future people with said illnesses (archaeology and forensics are after all closely related fields). If you're an organ donor for eg, I don't see how donating your bones to archaeology is ethically much different.
Personally, given that I'm not there to use my body anymore I would prefer my remains to be used to make the world a better place. Cremation is extremely polluting and doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Comments
'Blessed be he that spares these stones.
But cursed be he who moves my bones.'
Interesting how bones and 'relics' were still to be accorded some dignity even after the Reformation. Perhaps they were concerned about souvenir hunters?
Coming back to Madagascar again, they have the ceremony of the 'Turning of The Bones' whereby bodies are exhumed after around 3 years, cleaned and then carefully wrapped in white scarves before being reburied with their names written in felt pin or placed in caves. Bones are treated with great reverence and dignity.
I wouldn't mind an archaeologist examining mine and I've noticed on some of these archaeological programmes on the telly how they are beginning to take a more 'reverent' attitude than they used to.
But I can understand why people wouldn't want their mortal remains interfered with.
It wouldn't worry me but then I would prefer to be buried rather than cremated so I do have some concerns in that respect - although I wouldn't expect everyone to share my views on this issue.
In urban Greece they are running out of burial space. They don't do cremations there. I think you'd have to go to Bulgaria for that. They do exhume bones and put them in ossuaries.
We've had one like that at our (Presbyterian) home church not long ago. There was a small family gathering at the grave for the burial, and then they met a huge crowd back at the church for the service and a celebration. I think the sense was, "We've taken care of Jim - now let's celebrate him!" Which we did - it was a happy funeral for a good man whose life was worth celebrating generously. His family has a long history here and burial within the community seemed exactly right.
On the other hand, living in the same place, we are far from any family and thousands of miles from the oldest of our friends and family. It makes no sense (to me) to have any permanent memorial memorial in a place that nobody would ever have any reason to visit. I would like cremation to take place as quickly as possible and, sentimentally - my sentiments - my ashes to be taken to one of a handful of places in Scotland that have a strong connection for me, but does it matter to anyone else? The easy solution is to be scattered in the nearby river that flows into Lake Erie, so a little bit will eventually go over Niagara Falls - fun to think about.
I hate the UK practice of a service at a crematorium. Doing it remotely is fine with me, and perhaps a small service later in the church, with plenty of good music. With our family, good singing is too much to hope for. A rushed ceremony for my father with a rent-a-priest at a production line crematorium, with smoke blowing down as we left, was a harrowing experience I hope never to repeat. We scattered his ashes in the Clyde not far from where he was born, and that was good.
But I'm still puzzled as to what the problem is exactly. Why is it a problem for someone to think you are interesting? Obviously archaeologists will speculate about what illnesses someone may have had, it's helpful for understanding historical approaches to illness and can even help current or future people with said illnesses (archaeology and forensics are after all closely related fields). If you're an organ donor for eg, I don't see how donating your bones to archaeology is ethically much different.
Personally, given that I'm not there to use my body anymore I would prefer my remains to be used to make the world a better place. Cremation is extremely polluting and doesn't seem to benefit anyone.