>

Who exactly is harmed by this? The dead person is dead and they have no loved ones left to care about what happens to their body.
/u/hotelofthemoon (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

There is endless education to be had, from diet to how people died, what medical procedures were done at the time, what diseases, etc., etc.
Also, in the case of something like Egyptian tombs, esp the ones of the wealthier or more famous -- looters have been looking for and looting those for centuries. 
Isn't it better to find, excavate, and treat respectfully than leave or replace and have stuff looted? >

Looting! I didn’t even think of that. Excellent point. I think that’s definitely changed a lot of my perspective. Because even if I disagree with the general concept, it would probably happen inevitably with how greedy people are ∆ !! >

There is this moment when public, political or scientific interest outweighs the right of a dead person to remain in their burial place. This is true for modern as well as for ancient graves. Basically, if there is anything significant to learn from your corpse that may not be learned otherwise, and that is of importance to currently living people, your corpse may be exhumed. Or if you happen to be buried under circumstances that are subject to examinations and maybe even criminal proceedings (like if your corpse is buried in a mass grave behind a catholic boarding school or sth of the sort).
The thing is, the further you go back in time the fewer graves are left, and the more can be learned from those that are still there. Not just from the remains, but also from the surroundings, because graves are one of the best place to learn something about a society by looking at how they treated their dead. Graves sometimes contain well preserved funerary goods like fabric, food, medicine, jewellery - stuff that otherwise didn't survive the ages and can basically only be found in well preserved, undisturbed grave sites. 
In many cases, the alternative to not excavating also would be to destroy the site or letting it get destroyed, as in our modern days many sites are found by accident. By that I mean building sites for roads, houses etc. Or the sites are in danger to be affected by climate change (thawing, flooding,...) and generally impacted by human activity (landscaping, agriculture, deforestation...), not to mention looting. >

I would argue it isn't immoral to dig up any grave. After all, who is it hurting to dig it up? Sure, it would cause distress to some people if you dug up their recently deceased ancestors, but besides that, what's the harm? It's not like the dead give a damn. >

Not everyone believes in utilitarianism, whereby measurable harm to a living person is the only thing that should be avoided.
Even under that model though:
The idea someone might desecrate or otherwise disrespect my grave, (or worse, those of those I care about) would distress me greatly. I don't think that's an uncommon sentiment. The only way to avoid this distress, is to respect the already dead, so as to assure the living that they and their loved ones will be respected.
If you think the wishes of the dead are irrelevant, do you think we should abolish wills and ignore any promises we make to the dying? I think most people feel there's at least some moral imperative to respect people's wishes even after they're gone. >

I think the wishes of the dead are only relevant insofar as they affect the living. So that would mean people who are living's current wishes, as you point out, and the feelings of the people who love those who have died. But, at the end of the day, what they don't know won't hurt them. No matter what the ancient pharaohs desired, it won't hurt their feelings now if we dig up their tomb. Nor will it hurt their loved ones. >

Why should we care about their past wants at all? They are dead, they no longer have wants. >

Eh, that doesn't necessarily hold. Sure they're dead but many had beliefs about their burials or their decendents may still be around. Point is, in archeology and anthropology as a whole we practice respect for the dead. That doesn't mean we can't excavate but it does mean we should still try to do it in a respectful way. >

You explain what we do without actually explaining why we should care. >

Couple reasons. First is that there's no reason not to. Why shouldn't we be respectful of the dead? Our job is to understand their culture and the realities of their lives so giving them respect is the least we can do. Second, oftentimes the decendents of those people are still alive or the religion or culture they practiced is still alive and so its important we maintain respect for those peoples. 
The entire field is to study humans, why should we not show them respect? You tell me. >

Knowledge is more important then respect >

And im saying we can do both... we've been doing this for like the past hundred years. Showing respect to the dead isn't much detriment to us at all as you seem to think it is. >

Im not saying its a detriment. Im saying its not important. If its beneficial for research to be respectful because of the trust of locals, all good. But if the locals don't care, we shouldn't let the customs of age past restrict us. >

Most researchers look at it this way. Currently, you have to consent to donate your body to science. These people clearly never did so the best we can do is show them some respect. Doesn't mean we won't still excavate, but we do it in a respectful manner. >

I don't believe in disturbing a common grave.  But these ancient rulers built themselves elaborate tombs, and stashed a bunch of artifacts inside.  That's a gold mine for archaeologists.
I like the way Tolkien wrote Gondor's decadence.  It goes something like "Kings made their tombs more splendid than the homes of the living." >

∆ I definitely think you’ve made a good point about the rulers. If I think about it from that perspective, a lot of these elaborate tombs were made through the abuse towards lower class citizens. This changed my perspective (and I completely agree about common people not being disturbed) >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ok-Future-5257 (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Trust me, who ever is buried there does not care anymore... >

We don't need to respect dead people. They no longer have any feelings. We should however, respect their family and loved ones who are still alive. In the case of ancient graves, all their loved ones are also dead. >

It's hurting literally nothing. The people are dead, there is no "rest" happening to be disturbed. "Resting place" and "rest in peace" are terms that the living uses to give death some kind of purpose or meaning. It's total BS. Honestly, if these people had some looking glass into the future, they would have been gratified to know that modern people would be studying their desiccated and lifeless remains - they were that vain and conceited and since they don't get to walk with their gods or live in eternal riches, they might as well be fawned over by someone who will be doing the closest thing to worship that a corpse will ever have.
Even if their spirits were around and hanging out with the body, digging them up has got to be a break from the monotony of just existing in the grave/tomb/urn etc. And if they are mummified, they don't deserve peace and quiet. They are "enjoying" their "rest" at an insane cost to other people that they stepped on to get to that point.