Comedy At A Funeral

If laughter is the best medicine, then is it okay to laugh at a funeral provided something funny has happened? I don't mean laughing at the dead or the mourners, for that would be cruel, but if for example the priest (who is performing the service) trips and falls into the open grave and his vestment end up around his ears, is it then okay to giggle.
For example, while attending a recent funeral for a friend of the family an incident occured in which many in the crowd giggled quitley to themselves. While on his way to read the eulogy, the deceaseds uncle (a rather large gentalman) tripped on the step up to the podium and fell headlong into the side of the casket. The casket shook violently and shifted in its mountings above the open grave, and for a moment we all thought it would fall in prematurely. Luckliy it did not and the gentalman was okay..however his watch had come off and slipping under the casket into the grave. by this time my dear sweet mother and I couldn't look at each other for fear of breaking out in ruckus laughter. A feat made even more difficult when the gentalman then dug under the casket with an umbrella, all the while trying to hook his watch with the handle. After finally succeeding he held his watch up and noted to the crowd that he had got it. By now the majority of the crowd were giggling histarically away to themselves and the tears of mourning were replaced by ones brought on by laughter. Afterwards at the wake everyone agreed that had the deceased been present at the funeral he would have been the first to laugh.
It is sad to think though that in our culture everyone is expected to be or at least act sad and depressed during the course of a funeral. I understand that it is a sad time full of mourning, but I personally feel that it is disrespectful to the dead. I know I would want people to be laughing at my funeral, because I love to crack jokes and make people laugh and to think of them blubbering away makes me feel like I had failed them.
After the death of both of my grandfathers I only shed a few tears in private and the rest of the time I spent making the rest of my family laugh through retelling the great stories associated with the deceased. Like the time grandpa fell over a low wall while spraying his grandchildren with a super soaker. I know I would prefer to remember the good times then live with the images of the deceased in a casket or while sick in bed, etc.
Of course I won't step out of bounds or force others to do the same, for we all mourn in different ways, but if I can even make one other person at the funeral giggle or smile then I feel like I have paid respects to the dead as I would hope others would do for me.
I will leave you with a video and remember not to laugh, because this is someones funeral.

Grave Goods or Grave Bads

I'm not sure what it is about the idea of grave goods but it seems rather silly and illogical to bury anything with the dead. Oh I am greatful that various cultures, both past and present, have buried goods along with their dead otherwise Archaeologist might not have a lot to do. I am also fully aware that there are number of reasons both religious and status based as why people include goods in graves, but it still makes little sense to me.
Take for example a sword. On average a basic, battle ready sword will take a month or two to forge. For a good quality sword that will last more then a couple of battles your looking at six months to a year. There is a lot of time and effort that is put into forging a sword and yet they get buried with the dead, who lets be fair, in a nonreligious sense do not need them. Swords are also expensive and many warriors who could actually afford a sword, let along learn to use one (very complicated weapons to use well), would probably be appalled to know that their trusty (or thrusty) sword was then placed in a hole to rust. It makes more sense to me to instead give your sword to a relative, say your son, so that he can continue using the sword. I know I would probably remember the person who gave me a sword for a longer time then the selfish old goat who took his sword to the grave.
This waste in the form or grave goods is also present not just in weapons, but also in food, materials, and other tools. What does it matter if you bury sixty pounds of gold with your dead when some theif years later will just dig it up and run off with it anyways. The gold would be better spent on the family you leave behind after your dead. But some could argue that gold and swords are just things and have no real value and are therefore estentially worthless. However the same argument cannot be used when it comes to food. Food has worth as it can mean the difference between life and death. If one were to look at the South Fore of Papua New Guinea and there endocannibalistic mortuary practices, you would see that not only do they honour their dead through eatting them, but also recycle them as a source of protien.
In our own western culture grave goods are rare dependant on the burial practice followed. Most graves may not include any items, though grave gifts may be incorperated in some way. Flowers, cards, teddy bears, flags, or even beer can be thrown on top of the grave in respect to the dead. This inclusion of gifts therefore gives me a new idea. Maybe these goods buried with the dead that we keep digging up aren't possestions of the dead at all but gifts from mourners. Which would therefore, at least to me, would insinuate that there exists some form of grave gifting compition. Estentially you would have those seen as wealth competeing with each other over who can throw the most wealth into a grave and therefore who respects the dead the most.
This idea of competing to show respect seems absurd, but then so does the act of wasting goods on the dead.

Display? or Not to Display? for that is the question.

To be honest I can understand why people would have such a moral objection to having their relatives displayed to the general public. In most socities death is a private affair, sure a funeral can be very public but once the body is disposed of it is never looked at agian or at least it's not sappous to be. That said, in my personal opinion, if the Smithsonian wanted to display my bones, probably with the tagline "Homo Moreawesomethenyou", I probably wouldn't care oneway or another as I would be very dead by then. As I do not believe in an afterlife, though reincarnation would be cool (as long as I don't come back as a silverfish), I have no real qualms with what happens to me after i'm dead. Yet I can't help but think what I could be used for once i've died and left behind a handsome corpse. I could be placed in a museum, used to teach students in a university, or used by the members of Delta Tau Chi in a hilarious prank against the Dean of Admissions (CHEESE IT!!!)
However that said I must say it is beyond me as to why the Smithsonian has a warehouse or two filled with skeletons. If one were to be found with hundreds of thousands of skeletons in one's garage or basement, one would be branded "crazy" and locked up. Though if you plead in the name of science you might just get away with it. Personally I think what needs to happen is for some authority or other to tell the museums that they can't have anymore skeletons untill after they have finished with the ones still on their plate. Lets first organize and see what you have before digging up and storing anymore. In a way it is sort of like a horrible episode of Hoarders:

NAGPRA - Now Smithsonian do you know why we are here today?
SMITHSONIAN - Oh I know why! You wanna take my babies!! Well you can't have them!!!
NAGPRA - Smithsonian listen, these aren't your babies they are the remains of other peoples relatives. You have a problem but we can help you.
SMITHSONIAN - NO!!! Get away from me!!!! Their mine! All Mine! No one else can have them! I need them!

I can understand having a few skeletons, mummies, what have you in order to study and display in your museum. Where would we be if doctors in the 1800s hadn't studied cadavers in secrecy? or if Leonardo hadn't stolen corpses from graveyards to disect? But to store an untold number of human remains in massive warehouses like some Arch of the Covanent, well it just doesn't make sense. I say return the majority of the bones and human remains and only keep a few for studying.

Surprising discovery in Norway

Secrets in stone: Rare archaeological find in Norway

ScienceDaily (2011-01-31) -- It looked to be a routine excavation of what was thought to be a burial mound. But beneath the mound, archaeologists from Norway found something more: unusual Bronze Age petroglyphs. ... > read full article

In a mortuary sense this burial is very interesting. The researchers for this site believe that this mound was both a place of death but also rebirth. However i'm not certain how one can tell if a past culture believed in rebirth. In this example they are associating petroglyphs with the idea of Gods and rebirth. I would also associate cremation with the idea of a rebirth of the soul. If the cultrue in question believed that the soul resided in the body and therefore had to escape the body after death, then the use of cremation would aid the soul in escaping. We know that they cremated and then buried there dead, but why practice both for one burial? Unless you are aiding the soul's escape from the body and then returning the body to the Earth.