Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Why not open it? Archaeologists examine grave goods and open tombs all the time. Is there something special about this one? Is its curse somehow more powerful than all the others?

I really wonder about the ethics of opening up graves. What is the rule that separates a cemetery from an archaeological site?

View on HN

The archeologist in this NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruin...) reported that the box was too fragile to open. Likely opening the box would destroy all or part of it or its contents. Using MRI (or other scanning methods) as opposed to opening/disassembling is fairly common now in archeology when dealing with fragile objects.

But I agree with your skepticism regarding graves vs sites. I seriously doubt the folks who were buried or did the burying expected or wanted the remains exhumed for any purpose whatsoever.

Native Americans clearly considered this kind of thing grave robbing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protect...). I can't see a substantial difference here.

I'm not sure where the line is. It seems like there should be a substantial benefit beyond just satisfying curiosity.

The benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of considering the feelings of the long dead. Namely, leaving things buried in the ground forever offers no benefit at all.

>The benefit of satisfying curiosity

And if left unchecked it leads to things like this [1], where a graduate student cut down a tree to count its age only to realize it was the oldest living tree in existence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)

I really don't see how digging up graves is comparable to killing things.

I never compared the two. Hence quoting only the part that is relevant.

If you're not making a comparison, then I don't see the relevance either.

Just because I am not making a direct comparison to your exact wording, doesn't make my comment any less relevant.

Your basis of argument that if the benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of X, it should be undertaken is absolutely wrong. To cite along the same track so you call out on relevancy again: Digging out historical graveyards and examining the bodies has its merit especially to increase our knowledge about the time period, however in reality going around digging into sacred places is also considered a douche bag move. Thus as said in the first comment, curiosity is something that should be kept under check.

It does? Depends on what weight you give to the opinion of the folks buried. I doubt they would agree that curiosity by itself is sufficient benefit.

Opening it would break it. There wouldn't be any DNA after that amount of time. Scans of the box have already allowed 3d prints of its contents.

The half-life of DNA is 521 years. So, even if these were the bones of Christ, there would still be plenty of DNA available for testing.

If there is enough DNA, what do you compare against to conclude anything?

1) Check their haplogroup. See what part of the world they came from. Put it on 23andme so people can see if they are related.

2) Test to see if they are his mother's bones.

> Archaeologists examine grave goods and open tombs all the time.

They walk on eggshells when it comes to Judaism or Christianity. They are still treated as far more holy than any other religion.

Haven't you watched Raiders of the lost Ark? :)

Well. You see, this one might be something from a real religion that white people believe in as opposed to one of those charming little pagan beliefs.

I think the term is "one true religion"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com