Intersting topic has come up on another forum...
is it 'proper' to excavate burials that are not under threat?
should they be reburied as soon as possible?
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Undoubtedly Yes!!
I believe that research excavations to recover human remains are as vaild as any other form of research archaeology.
I am in total agreement with the policy adopted by the Museum of London.
See
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite...ains_1.htm
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Errr! No! burials that are not under threat should be left alone(I feel). And, Why, when you dig up a 1000 year(or older) stiff does the local transvestite turn up to give it a "decent christian" burial.Who said that the poor fella was a christian anyway!!
Leave them alone I say!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
I'm not aware of that happening with non-christian burials Deep. However, in cases of clearly Christian sites (e.g. Cherry Hinton, Cambs) this has happened - and why not? It is quite difficult to find a minister of the correct (often defunct) denomination to preside in these cases and quite often, I think, a selection of the local faiths are invited to attend. The table showing the different faiths in Kevin's link is interesting, as is the commitment to eventual reburial for 'some' of the remains. How they decide which ones deserve reburial is not clear, however. So, how one can be in complete agreement with such a vague policy is a mystery to me, it looks a bit like a cop out rather than a policy. Also the MoL skeles all (tell me if I'm wrong) came from sites that were under threat, not 'pure' research excavations so we're straight away off topic. I myself would endorse the widely held view that sites in general are best left alone unless threatened, for the usual reason that we will probably be able to do a better job in years to come....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
I think the research excavation of burials, and any potential sensitivities involved should, be evaluated on a site by site basis. But I agree with Kevin that they should be excavated. People should get over the 'we could do it better in generations time' thing, if research projects on burial sites are desired then they should go ahead. An excavation is as much of an artefact for the study of the time it was carried out as it is a record of what was there in the past. To stop research excavation is irresponsible.
Gumbo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
The Church of England indicates that research excavation of unthreatened burial grounds is only acceptable if interments are more than 100 years old, and the proposed work is acceptable to the living close families of those who are buried, if known. Any such work should take place within an established research framework, and have a budget which provides for excavation costs, study of all recovered remains, and their reburial or deposition in a suitable institution. The guidelines the C of E recently brought out in conjunction with English Heritage suggest that such issues could stimulate debate and perhaps be usefully applied to dealing with Human remains from a wider range of contexts.
This seems to be a fairly reasonable approach. Having said that, the general attitude of the Church towards burials is often not helpful, and it's only very recently that they've begun to recognise the potential of burials to contain important archaeological information. Individual Churches are still one of the most intransigent developers I have to deal with as well, despite the guidelines. They are often very happy to disturb burials with no thought whatsoever if it is involved in (sometimes short term and dubious) improvements to Church facilities, but then will throw a whole host of theological argument around about the ethical validity of proposals for carefully monitored projects.
In general, this debate usually ends up being very subjective towards people's own beliefs and sensibilities. Personally, I'm not all that religious, so am fairly happy to treat Human remains with due respect, but ultimately as finds. The respect question is one to chew over too - given a choice, I like to think my remains might one day be excavated carefully by an atheist archaeologist and stored on a shelf, rather than machined out by a Chuurch-sponsored JCB and bunged in a presumably holy charnel pit.
It is nice not to have to argue about sampling though - no-one ever queries the "complete excavation" principle of excavting graves and proposes half-sectioning as acceptable practice.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
At the risk of playing devils' advocate...
I assume that the CoE guidelines would apply to a project to excavate a burial ground. Most known burial grounds are of fairly recent date. I've never really understood osteoarchaeology for its own sake.
Most of the stuff I've read about Medieval and post med populations basically concludes that people had short lives, infant mortality was very high, though infants are not fully represented, and people suffered from diseases like syphillis and arthiritis, etc, etc.
It doesn't really seem to add much about to the sum of knowledge about how people lived in the past. Most of these conclusions can be reached with common sense.
Research excavations on sites that are more complex than JUST a cemetery should of course be encouraged. Any burials found in the course of investigating a more complex site should be fully recorded. To do otherwise would be to ignore an important aspect of a site.
Besides, I don't see why the CoE should even have the final say on things. Surely we should ask the Catholics about pre 1550's burials....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I for one have no problems with excavation of human remains for research purposes as long as the research goals are well-defined and appropriate to the type of cemetery being excavated. The CoE guidelines seem reasonable and permit due respect to the remains, but as Curator Kid points out, churches often operate double standards and can be really awkward if they feel like it.
Oxbeast: your response seems somewhat simplistic. The point of excavating cemeteries is not just to examine the bones, but also to examine issues of spatial analysis, social inclusion and exclusion and other societally determined factors in the layout of the cemetery, amongst other things. As such, I think it can, in fact, add considerably to the body of knowledge about the past as long as the right questions are posed. Really, it is not about "common sense", it is about the evidence, as they might say on CSI. It is not enough to say that something is common sense; you need to provide evidence to support your statements, otherwise, why should anyone accept them?
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
The 'double standards' of Churches is possibly due to the flux with bringing in the new EH /CofE guidelines. There's bound to be some period of adjustment where people get used to the new attitudes.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There is no double standards in the Church.
What there is a lot of semi-automous bodies and hard pressed church wardens trying to project and preserve the stock of 13000 listed Churches. They are volunteers.
The money for the upkeep comes from collections, jumble sales and small scale fund raising events.
The purpose of the guidelines was to ensure that the parishes know what they are supposed to do. The CofE employ there own archaeologists at a national level and if anybody has a difficulty with a particular parish I suggest you get in contact with them.
Peter
