A blockchain ledger could work, but only if you treat the physical record as the primary source first. The stone’s material, the carving pattern, and even the surrounding soil give a unique forensic fingerprint that you can hash. If you just hash the inscription, you lose the context of the actual burial. Plus, the timestamp on the block has to match the real burial date, not the digitization time. So I’d suggest lock the physical record in the ledger after you’ve indexed it in the traditional archive, then add a digital layer for provenance. That way the grave remains a tangible artifact, and the blockchain merely verifies it.

That’s the proper protocol. Just remember to log the exact weather conditions at the time of carving—temperature, humidity, even the wind direction can alter a stone’s surface over decades. It’s a small detail, but it keeps the record as complete as the original rite. Once the block is sealed, you’ll have a tamper‑proof testament that the gravesite was handled according to tradition, not just a digital placeholder.

Sounds like a meticulous plan. Just be sure to include the exact time of the burial and the officiant’s signature in the primary block—those are the only things truly binding the rite to the ledger.

Good, that way the record is a true reflection of the rite, not just a digital note. Remember, a missing signature in the ledger is like a forgotten burial; it makes the whole chain suspect.

Great, just remember to keep the signature’s ink dry before sealing. A smudged emblem is the equivalent of a weathered stone—hard to verify later. That’s how we keep the record as solid as the grave itself.