Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Interesting dichotomy. I would say that ethically, there can be no justification for exhumation without threat-regardless of any religious stance. On a personal note, my own beliefs are guided by my faith. Perhaps as a parallel and, an important note, should we as a profession be making decisions autonomously on this issue? When guidelines/legislation is/are drawn up, why are the public at large not consulted for their views? 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Interesting points Troll. I think 'exhumation' is quite a loaded word and has connotations that are quite different to the phrase 'research excavation of burials'. I understand that your faith means that you are opposed to the excavation of unthreatened burials, but I personally believe that excavation of unthreatened burials is justified (for a number of reasons differing from cases to case). However, your final point is perhaps the most pertinent: who decides? There are clearly differing well thought out views, and who mediates those is an interesting and not clear (to me).
Hope I havent misunderstood things.
G
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
the act of exhumation can be seen as a violation of the individual and, the "sacred space" it occupies. Is it ethical to sever the metaphysical/religious processes in play simply because the contemporary community are no longer there to see us do it and object? I also question the "validation" terminology-research. We are happy (on rare occasion) to leave structural archaeology un-molested in lieu of future advanced and, non-invasive technologies. As the rites of passage in the Human theatre of behavioural dynamics are amongst the most emotionally and ideologically charged arenas, why are burials not accorded the same respect and, forethought. I guess that most archaeologists hold fairly rigid atheistic views and as such, may dismiss the ideologies of past communities as either a false dillusion or, superseded by the "truths" of modern science. Guys, I don`t feel that we have the right to quite literally sever or permanently interrupt the rights of passage of others-modern or archaic-in the name of research. On another ride, those with faith just might be right you know.....explain your actions to the God of your choice when you meet them at the gates! For my part, I will live my life as close to the teachings and laws of my faith as possible.When I die, my body will be subject to a gamete of prescribed and ancient processes including inhumation. It is not right for some yellow jacketed graduate to interrupt and sever the process in the name of "research". It may sound as though I only champion the cause of those buried in a faith environment-I don`t, an atheist also has the right to be left in peace without becoming the plaything of an individual/organisation that ostensibly, claims to hold the ethical/moral high ground-usually in complete ignorance of the processes of passage they sever. In simple terms, it is not for us to decide.Archaeologists today can be seen as painfully ignorant of the ideologies behind the worlds modern religions/belief systems-let alone those of archaic communities.Before you say it, this is no valid excuse to go exhuming archaic inhumations to learn more about their beliefs. Severence is just that. Under threat-yes, exhumate after due consultation and within the framework of strict professional guidelines.For simple research-no, this is violation and intellectual hedonism/masturbation at its worse....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Troll, in light of your most recent mail, would you be unwilling to excavate any archaeological remains which might possess a ritual significance?
Would you draw a line between excavating human remains and a sword ritually deposited in a river?
Does your philosophy include a consideration of the potential of the transubstantiation of artefacts?
Which brings me onto slighter widening the question. Has anyone ever encountered difficulties in reconciling personal beliefs with archaeological practice? For example do vegans have problems in handling the remains of slaughtered animals? Are there any developers that archaeologists would draw a line at working for, for example a project sponsored by an oppressive government or its foreign subsiduary.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Good morning Kevin. I would have no problem with the excavation of areas of "ritual significance" if-and only if, the remains were under clear and imminent threat. I see the excavation of a ritually deposited artefact and the excavation of Human remains as polar opposites in the sense that artefacts have no "soul" and are not subject to prescribed "rites of passage" in the Human sense. On the issue of transubstantiation, the terminology has, for me, clear binary oppositions when viewed in both Human and, artefactual contexts. Artefacts can be seen as functional objects/offerings for the USE of those "on the other side" so to speak and, are therefore peripheral/supplimentary to the rites of passage of the dead. In burial contexts, the focii of the act itself is the individual-and the community burying them. The artefactual material can be seen as symbolic/meaning peripherals-add-ons to the hardware of inhumation if you like. The deposition of artefactual material in wet contexts during the European prehistoric theatre for example can be viewed as some sort of interplay/placation between the living and their deities within a prescribed "theology". The burial of the dead and the accompanying "rituals" are specifically designed as a relationship between a dead "passed" individual and their deity. Hope this helps. Yes, there are units/developers/consultants that I refuse to work for-for the most part because they are nothing short of incompetent, coniving, profit- before -ethics heritage rapists. In a political sense-yes, an ethical and, politically aware archaeology is something I would like to see. The medical profession deals with Human beings and as such, take political/ethical issues seriously (with varying degrees of success and sincerity) and as the archaeology profession is/should be about people-why should we behave in any other fashion? By the way, by default, ALL governments are oppressive!!! 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
If only life was as simple as the CoE guidlines. Heres an ethical dillema for you. A recent discovery of a burial ground adjacent to a C of E Church evaluated prior to development. C of E wades in and says this is clearly a case of the churchyard boundary having moved. Chancellor rules that it is consecrated ground, therefore outside the jurisdiction of the disused burial ground act and the C of E gives permission to develop. Carbon dating now says the bodies are 7th- 8th century, so not C of E. Do we go along with the C of E and exhume? what about the beliefs of the dead? how does that fit in with the guidlines saying we should show due deference and respect? Do I go and get a Catholithic priest?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
These are the questions that are too hard for the big boys to come up with an answer...
I would however suggest talking to Joe Elders (archaeologist for teh CofE.... top bloke... even if he is mad...
You can find his details
http://www.bajr.org/WhoseWho/NationalSea....asp?id=30
} 
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Intersting comments on the ethics of excavating burials. I am just left wondering how many religions actually believe that the body continues to have significance after death. I can think of a couple. But the other thing is, how many religions consider the body to be severed from its spiritual significance after death? I am sure I have encountered several of these too, but I left my brains somewhere against the boards at hockey practice tonight so I cannot remember the specifics. Going beyond this, to what extent are we projecting our society and its ethics on the past in making these statements? Was the burial in the mound significant, or was it the mound that had the significance? I know that some sects believe that the body is essential for resurrection, but how many consider the body to be just so much junk after the soul has left it?
And also, it seems to me that taking the view that burials should only ever be excavated if they are threatened needs to be taken to its logical conclusion, which is that no development should be allowed where there are burials, if you are going to follow that logic at all. After all, if we are going to respect the significance of the burial and not excavate it for research purposes, surely we should also respect it with regard to development and not develop the site in the first place.
Yours ramblingly,
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
rambles with intersting concepts.
It is intersting to see a clear conflict of concept... where by saying that burials can only be excavated when exposed to threat.. but they are only exposed to threat when Big Bucks development Ltd want to put a multiplex on top... let the dead lie?? or only when exposed by true accident? If you know there is a graveyard there... it should be avoided. if you did not know... then ther is a case... but a proper evaluaation should have found the graveyard first. Digging for teh sake of digging is not ethical...... hmmmmmm
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Digging for teh sake of digging is not ethical...... hmmmmmm
Personally, I would say that digging for the sake of digging is not ethical. There should be clear research goals and a commitment to an appropriate level of publication, if digging where there is no development threat. But then that is a completely different thread and I am being unnecessarily pedantic!
Cheers
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
|
