I find these ethics unsatisfying! The idea of disturbing the bodies of the dead (including the long dead, i.e. prehistoric people with no specific connection to present cultures or communities) doesn’t sit well with me. But I can’t quite articulate the reason why.

Scarre 2006, Can archaeology harm the dead?, Scarre and Scarre (eds), The ethics of archaeology: Philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice

What does it mean to ‘show respect’ to the remains, or the wishes, of the dead? In some cultures, any kind of disturbance of remains counts as disrespectful. To defer to this hard-line position would rule out much archaeological activity at a stroke. (It would also provide a considerable impediment to much development and construction work that involves destroying sites where remains are present.)

Tarlow 2006, Archaeological ethics and the people of the past, Scarre and Scarre (eds), The ethics of archaeology: Philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice

Making a coherent philosophical case that past people should be the subjects of our ethical concern is fundamental to the intention of this chapter, but complex and controversial.
first is the argument that Geoffrey Scarre (2003) has recently made, that those engaged in researching the past through archaeology do indeed have an ethical responsibility to past people […] on the idea that practices in the present which egregiously flout the values and dignity of past peoples impacts upon them as living beings and therefore ‘we need to consider the possibility that archaeological investi- gation does some form of retrospective harm to its objects’. It is therefore unnecessary to share, for example, Tutankhamun’s own religious beliefs about the consequences of harm to his body after death to recognise a duty to his remains, because maltreatment of his body would be deeply inimical to a project that was of great importance to him during life (Scarre 2003).

Bahn 1984, Do not disturb? Archaeology and the rights of the dead, Oxford journal of archaeology

One can perhaps start by making the point that until recent times no one can have foreseen that people in the future would take an archaeological or anthropological interest in burials, so that there can be no question of a specific objection to such scientific investigation. It is probably fair to assume that, as today, some would have objected while others would not, so that this approach leads nowhere. What we do know is that many cultures had an intense dread of having their tombs or remains disturbed by the potential plunderers of the time: i.e. graverobbers. Such disturbance violated their beliefs about the afterlife; it deprived them of the corporeal integrity and/or the goods they needed after death.
However, although one cannot pinpoint the specific reasons involved, it is clear that bodies and objects were carefully, often reverently deposited in the ground, and one therefore returns to the basic problem: What right do we have to disturb and remove them?
The problems are infinitely more delicate when dealing with proto-historic and historic cultures whose religious beliefs are known to us in detail. To the Ancient Egyptians, for example, the preparation for the afterlife and the preservation of its security were the most sacred things in their culture
the legal and political aspects of the issue-like archaeological public relations-are more concerned with the sensibilities of the living than with any basic ethical principles

de Tienda Palop and Currás 2020, The dignity of the dead: Ethical reflections on the archaeology of human remains, Ethical approaches to human remains: A global challenge in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology

Thus, for example, the moral problem is not only to transfer, manipulate, analyse, and exhibit the remains of the person buried in a prehistoric megalithic mound, but also to open and destroy their burial. Megalithism implies a monumentalisation conceived to exhibit death (Criado 1989). The process of excavating the mound and removing all its structure subverts the will of the person
In principle, in archaeological research, there seems to be no special controversy with the analysis of human remains exhumed from prehistoric and historic archaeological sites.
It seems that the rights or moral statute of these ancient dead would not be recognised in a similar way to those of the recent dead; those tied with cultural bonds to social groups and living beliefs