Hi Lee,

No, I don't have a particular problem when it comes to solving crime - at least for those where the victims or their direct relations (parents or children) are alive.

My problem isn't with exhumation in general, my problem is the reasons for it. Yes, obviously we can obtain data. My question is how much of that data is really necessary, as opposed to interesting.

I have absolutely no problem with fully scientific exhumation in archaeology when there is a danger that the tomb/grave/whatever is under threat, either by robbers or by development - as long as the remains are treated with respect. My definition of this is that, if the bodies were obviously ritually interred then we should show an understanding and sympathy with the notion that, although we may have no knowledge of the ritual or religion involved, the way in which a person was laid to rest was important to them and their people. I seriously dislike the "rescue" or remains that then end up in museum displays or, worse, in bone drawers.

However, this case is not like that. The body is safe. The ONLY reason to exhume the body is to answer intellectual curiosity. The bottom line is "would this person have wanted to be dug up to prove the identity of someone else" - note, she's not considered important in her own right, just as a clue to someone more important to the inhabitants of a far away land.

That is what I find reprehensible about this. I understand, for example, why you want to know about Columbus's last resting place. However, it doesn't really matter, does it? What matters is what the man achieved when alive - his bones tell us nothing of significance.

Pete

God is our guide! from field, from wave, From plough, from anvil, and from loom; We come, our country's rights to save, And speak a tyrant faction's doom: We raise the watch-word liberty; We will, we will,we will be free!