Talk:Burial

Can someone add something about the Western custom of burying corpses six feet deep? Does this signify anything and is it common in other cultures? thankx.

There is no such custom. SpinningSpark 11:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just finished adding a ton of new info to this page. Some things still needing work:

• sectstubs on Burial of Animals.
• I used way too many nested lists. Got rid of most of them... are the remaining ones still too clunky?
• I'm sure I've missed some alternatives to burial. Can't think of any more offhand; I'm sure others can think of some. :-)

--Benc 04:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Scratch marks have been found on the inside of coffins, attesting to the fact that unintentional live burials do occasionally occur in cases where the body has not been embalmed."

I seem to remember that these scratchmarks are an urban ledgend and are in fact proven to be caused by something else. While I don't doubt that unintentional alive burrial has happened I am not sure what to do about this, especially considering that I forgot where I read/heared about the scratchmarks being an urban ledgend. Anyone got a source for this? --Jpkoester1 June 29, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the first image. Just think of it - a burial with fictional ceremony of a fictional character. I think this image should not greet the reader in an article on real world subject. But I should admit I have no replacement picture to offer.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 08:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Walt Disney was cremated and the ashes buried in a secret location — Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery — one of many cemeteries that cater to the needs of famous dead people. " - LOL!!!!!! "Needs of famous dead people". ROFL!!

I'm somewhat suspicious that an employee of Forest Lawn wrote that section. There are a lot of people who think that their "catering to the needs of famous dead people" is really just trying to make a buck at the gift shop. --Charlene 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

With the help of Jeff3000 (thanks Jeff!) I made a draft on this subject:

Bahá'í burial law prescribes both the location of burial and burial practices and precludes cremation of the dead. It is forbidden to carry the body for more than one hour's journey from the place of death. Before interment the body should be wrapped in a shroud of silk or cotton, and a ring should be placed on its finger bearing the inscription "I came forth from God, and return unto Him, detached from all save Him, holding fast to His Name, the Merciful, the Compassionate". The coffin should be of crystal, stone or hard fine wood. Also, before interment, a specific Prayer for the Dead is ordained. The formal prayer and the ring are meant to be used for those who have reached fifeteen years of age.[1]

We are not sure where to put this in the Burial article, as there is only one sentence on Islam. We could break up this section, and put some parts in the "Where to bury" section, and some in "Prevention of decay". Wiki-uk 12:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As there has been no reply until now, I have added the whole paragraph under 'Burial Practices'. Wiki-uk 12:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just reworked the "mass burial" section. I saw no reliable sources for the assertion that mass burial is an improper form of burial, disrespectful, or dehumanizing (to remains???). It was also inaccurate in that it implied that families could always get genetic testing for bodies now buried in mass graves and give their loved ones "proper" burials. Putting aside the idea that somehow a mass grave is "improper" (which appears to me to be biased - not all cultures are against mass burial), it also ignores the fact that DNA testing is not always successful (if remains are burned, for instance). It also ignores the fact that most mass burials are in countries where DNA testing is prohibitively expensive or simply not available. The section also didn't discuss the most common reasons for mass burial - natural disasters, epidemics, terrorism, and accidents - or mass burials in potter's fields.

One thing I did remove was the unsubstantiated assertion that those conducting genocide use mass burial as a way to dehumanize and objectify their victims. No matter how logical this opinion is, it's still an unattributed opinion. I'd also point out that murdering people is what really dehumanizes and objectifies them; you can't dehumanize remains anyway, and dead bodies are by definition objects. I just can't shake the suspicion that whoever edited this is an employee of the funeral home business who wants to make inexpensive burials seem "disrespectful", "demeaning", and "improper". --Charlene 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also ended up editing "anonymous graves". The idea that somehow marking a grave is more respectful than not marking it is unattributed opinion and (I suspect) somewhat biased towards Western, Judeo-Christian-Islamic practise and Anglo-American culture. It also sounded like a very long ad for the tombstone business. Were attribution given, the entire section would still have to be reworded to say something like, "Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical De Mortis, stated that anonymous burial was disrespectful to the deceased because....". (Of course I made that encyclical up.) Anonymous burial is not obviously disrespectful to anyone, so attribution is absolutely necessary. --Charlene 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See WP:The Holocaust in Poland. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I need to know how they buried people in the 14th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.113.31.209 (talk • contribs)

As I understand the terms in English: a grave is exhumed; buried remains are disinterred. Correct? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since this article is almost entirely about human burial, I propose to move it to Human burial and make "Burial" a disambig. bd2412 T 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Objects are sometimes buried in order to hide them against removal or tampering. For cables and pipelines, burial provides protection."

This sentence makes NO SENSE (and is in any event false) and has no place in paragraph 2 of an article on burial. Assume it represents vandalism. Not sure what words cables and pipelines overwrote.

For what it's worth, this article is much too short.

Dstlascaux (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is unsourced, does not identify when or where these practices were supposed to be common. Slavery existed for centuries in the US, and enslaved Africans or African Americans in different regions had different practices at different times. Because this refers to positioning the body in relation to a belief associated with Christianity (Gabriel's trumpet), it may have been intended to reflect 19th c. antebellum practice in some areas, but seems too vague to be useful without more sourcing.--Parkwells (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, the following

"Slaves were buried east to west, with the head facing east and their feet to the west. This positioning represented the ability to rise without having to turn around at the call of Gabriel’s trumpet. Gabriel’s trumpet would be blown in the eastern sunrise."

If you sit up from that position, you're facing west. So - does Gabriel really come from the west, or did they bury their dead in the opposite direction? Orthografer (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

does our body became oil?

Just want to introduce myself - I write an ongoing online book on natural burial, visible at http://www.beatree.com

I've been trying to get my head around the self-serving edits under the natural burial topic for the last year or two and finally just have to jump in. I'll be visiting this page a lot, as well as the 'natural burial' one. I can't fix everything at once - it's pretty awful, actually. I'll do most of my talk under 'natural burial' - suffice it to say that a small handful of people have taken on the wikipedia work a couple of years ago and distorted it for their own political and commercial purposes, in my opinion.

I'll attempt to be as equitable as possible, but as an informed source I have opinions about what constitutes history, too -- more on the other talk pages at 'natural burial'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabeal (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm a reader, not a writer, but it seems that the picture of the dead family dog, covered in flower petals and lime at the bottom of it's grave is not wholly necessary. I don't know how many find this a worthwhile contribution to the article, but I don't feel it adds anything. Just voicing my opinion. 208.3.72.157 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It doesn't add much, it touches on vanity, and to be quite honest it's a really shoddy photo (complete with time and date stamp in the corner). I've removed it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised that there was no article that I could find on paupers' graves, and no mention of the practice in this article. (I was going to change the link in the Boot Hill article which currently reads '... known more formally as paupers' graves' to link to paupers' graves. But there's nowhere to link to.) Does anyone know enough about them to add to this article or start a separate one? Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

While the section on exhumation says it is taboo, and goes on to list many legitimate and quasi-legitimate reasons to dig up a grave, no mention is given to motivations for digging up a grave that are rarely considered acceptable. Grave-robbing for wealth buried with the dead or for procuring cadavers for medical demonstration or experimentation, for example.94.193.52.157 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm removing the reference to this company and their freeze-drying method of corpse disposal as it seems suspiciously like commercial promotion. And as fas as I can find human remains have never been processed by this system, so it is hardly of sufficient significance to be included in an article on burial. Sergeirichard (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1.The headings for the different types of natural burials are drastically different than the rest. We recommend uniformity in the titles to help tie the article together. 2.Is there a way to expand upon the reef burial section? It’s a very interesting topic but only a sentence or two long. 3.Adding to the Reinterment section to explain about the reburial of a corpse would be useful. Kraftal2 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.chicora.org/cemtery_relocation.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20070405144013/http://chicora.org:80/cemtery_relocation.htm on http://www.chicora.org/cemtery_relocation.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716145341/http://www.stonereport.com/ihtm/detail-e.htm?aclnews=10%3A0%3A294%3A%3A%3A0%3A242%3A to http://www.stonereport.com/ihtm/detail-e.htm?aclnews=10%3A0%3A294%3A%3A%3A0%3A242%3A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have been working on the article Burial Act 1857. Please could I make a suggestion for the section 'cultural aspects of exhumation'? The article currently reads,

In England and Wales once the top of a coffin has been lowered below ground level in a burial if it raised again, say for example the grave sides are protruding and need further work, this is considered an exhumation and the Home Office are required to be notified and a full investigation undertaken. Therefore, grave diggers in England and Wales are particularly careful to ensure that grave sites are dug with plenty of room for the coffin to pass.[

May I suggest that it may be improved by stating, 'The Burial Act 1857, and the Coroners And Justice Act 2009 are the principle legislation governing exhumation in England and Wales. The Burial Act 1857 requires an application to the Secretary of State to grant a licence for any exhumation, except in burial grounds consecrated by the rites of the Church of England, in which the Church authorities are responsible for giving permission. The Coroners And Justice Act 2009 allow a coroner to order an exhumation for a post-mortem examination, or for criminal investigations and proceedings.'

See Burial Act 1857 for more details.

Please let me know your thoughts. WPCW (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

When a person died in our village there funeral did on the same day….some of people goes to cemetery to make a pit or trench like place by excavating them to buried the remains of the dead(deceased) or otherwise interred .they use some equipment just like shovel , trowels , fork to dig the place . Some the elder people of relative set there in called ‘HUJRA’ where the peoples come for to set with them and give him pray called ‘DUA’ to the dead ; gives courage and patience to the close relative ; also pray for families happiness and avoid them from all such sorrows further. The loved once give bath to the dead and wear them a white clothes called ‘KAFAN’ which just 4 or 5 piece of clothes to cover up the dead. Moreover a person gives a information over the speakers in masjid to inform the people around ; the information like who died and what family he belong and when the prayer did called ‘JANAZA’ . so at the given time the people gather at a wide place standing in a row wise closely and make a prayer to the dead , the dead place in front of imam who the lead the prayers. Completing the prayers the dead took them to the cemetery and buried him and cover them with a soil and make a small tomb over it. Then imam give some information to the people about death in Islamic point of views , tilling the truth of this world and life after death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakirkhanpk (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a new section under Location could be added to cover the ancient practice of burying family members beneath homes.

- In Çatalhöyük in southern Turkey, one of the world's most ancient settlements. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289525849_Living_above_the_Dead_Intramural_Burial_practices_at_Catalhoyuk/figures?lo=1

- In Kahun in ancient Egypt, infants skeletons excavated, two to three to a box, buried beneath the floors of many of the houses.

- Mesopotomatia (if I recall, Ur)

- Ancient Asian migrants in Alaska (above this child's body was a hearth, which I believe was in the home https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/alaska-dna-ancient-beringia-genome/

Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Right of sepulchre. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Right of sepulchre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Might burial have originated simply as a means of eliminating the sight of a decaying corpse? (Smell was mentioned, albeit last, in the original article.) Is it possible that our repulsion regarding corpses is biological (we're programmed to find corpses repulsive), thus there is -at the root- a very practical reason for burial? I am not suggesting that respect for the dead and associated burial rituals are absent from early burial history, but I cannot help but wonder what came first and what motivated it. I would also think that, repulsion notwithstanding, a corpse could attract the types of carnivores that early humans (or other homo species) would have preferred to avoid for reasons associated with avoiding getting attacked themselves (versus the disrespect factor). Perhaps ritual and respect for the dead originated from a very practical practice. 71.166.182.254 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply