Your task is to use the links and guiding questions for each perspective (provided on the King Tutankhamun webquest) to consider why the person in that perspective might:

​

a) think that we should dig up and study human remains, and;

b) why they may believe that we should leave them buried.  

You must consider both sides of the argument for every perspective.  The answers won't come directly from the websites - you will need to use the information in combination with your own thoughts and ideas.

​

​You will be presenting your arguments in this Padlet.  

Archaeologists are speakers for the dead and provide a voice to those stories that otherwise might be lost to history. Whilst, it is impossible to know if the deceased would want their stories to be revealed to the modern world, excavating the past has and continues to play a crucial role in the unravelling and study of the human race. 

Archaeologists face the inevitable and unethical discomfort of disturbing a person’s final resting place to satisfy idle curiosity. An archaeologist may find validity in the argument that humans should leave the buried untouched, as excavating a tomb or grave would mean removing it from its original site and disassembling the body. 

2. Historians are interested in studying human remains as it informs us about past societies, and can help our society in the future. By learning more about the lives, societal structures, norms and cultures of past civilisations we can get a greater understanding of the past. With this new information we can see what worked and what didn't work in the past and adapt the way we live for the better.
3. It is argued that if human remains are to be displayed in museums, it should be done respectfully. However, this is extremely hard to achieve so is it even worth displaying in the first place? Measures can be made in museums such as no touching, no flash on cameras and a more conserved display method but not too much else can be done. But the information gained from the display of these human remains is too valuable to historians and the public to be knowingly left in a tomb for it to be potentially stollen.
4. Historians need to be aware of many factors when dealing with human remains to make sure mistakes from the past aren't repeated. Historians need to take into account how fragile the remains are when handling and cutting into them to prevent more examples of mishandled and broken remains. It must also be considered that the remains once were a human and should be treated respectfully. The best way to ensure the remains are treated with care is to have adequate technology to be able to get top results while also not put the remains at risk.

1. In the quest to find out more about historical figures, cities and societies, historians have used human remains to discover more and gather information. Historians have opened up tombs and taken remains out of their resting places, cut into and taken apart bodies and used machinery to scan remains. By doing this the remains are disrupted and the care and value of the burial is completely thrown away. For example, Egyptian burials help get the person to the afterlife but the disruption of this is unethical.
The Archaeologist (Hal)

1. What does an archaeologist do?
Archaeologists investigate historic and prehistoric sites and physical remains to understand human links to the past and to preserve past cultures. Archaeologists find clues about the past. They use a variety of extraction or digging techniques.

4. What would be the disadvantages of leaving human remains buried?
Bioarcheologists, specialists in the study of human remains, believe are deeply aware that they are handling what was once a living person. They see themselves not only as scholars of the past, but as speakers for the dead, giving a voice to those whose stories might otherwise be lost to history.  Therefore, as human bones tell stories that would otherwise be lost to history, archeologists treat gigging up human remains as a coronary investigation and not an indecent hobby powered by idle curiosity.

2. What unethical things could an archaeologist do with human remains?
One example relevant to the removal of King Tut's remains that is highly critisized was the forceful disassembly of his skeleton. As King Tut was basically glued to the bottom of the coffin, Howard Carter knew that taking apart the skeleton bone by bone was the only way, at the time, to analysis the remains. This was highly critisized as being indecent and disrespectful.
3. What groups of people would be affected by the unethical treatment of human remains?
The objections towards the excavation of human remains often stem from religious beliefs and historic grievances, but the outrage is also driven by perceptions of indecency—the discomfort of disturbing a person’s final resting place to satisfy idle curiosity.
The Scientist (Insert your name here)

To dig up the past, Archaeologists give insights into a previous ancient realm that once existed. Archaeologists are people who study human history through the excavation and analysis of sites which is not something that is actively in demand and would advocate for any discovery to be unearthed. This is why they see themselves as scholars of the past a speaker for the dead. They give insight into ancient civilisations and cultures that would otherwise have disappeared and forgotten over time. It is impossible to know if the ancient beings would want to be excavated.

Archaeologists do have to suffer the guilt and feeling of destroying a culture and going against their belief when digging up sites. This could serve as a moral barrier that could have archaeologists leaving sites buried. Archaeologists also might leave sites unburied since digging and excavating will cause more damage rather than discovery and insight due to numerous reasons. This can be viewed in Emperor Qin of Ancient Chinas tomb.