Archaeology, human remains and the media

[Dave-Bonner]

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, is it not possible to apply a fast, refined and practised system of excavation which results in the recording and lifting of two skellies a day - with the appropriate level of observation and care - without adopting a 'whack-it-out' attitude?

Alright, if not then its a justified criticism and I'd agree, but surely it would come down to the experience of the diggers and the merits of the 'systematic' process - where a systematic process is applicable with obvious leeway for exceptional examples.

[gumbo]

Frankly, if time team excavate a few burials in a 'rushed manner', A. it is nothing that doesnt go on throughout the year on professional sites due to time pressures, and B. I dont mind because I think TT has done a lot of good for archaeology e.g. public awareness of career archaeology, public access to and understanding of period based archaeology, presenting the joy of the interpretative process, enthusing youngsters to go to university in the mid nineties, and, of course, Mick Astons range of jumpers etc. (although advancement of field methodology is not one of their acheivements).

'This is irreplaceable heritage, and the mortal remains of people. A person is not a pot, and never will be.' Im slightly uneasy with this attitude. All archaeological deposits are irreplaceable. To me, human remains are an artefact or material class to be studied in exactly the same way as pottery (apart from perhaps in legislative/law terms). Importace comes with context. What about urned cremations, in this case a pot is also a person?

Muddy- Interesting about MOLAS method. Do you think this is a bit too selective on the recording front though? I mean, two nails and a photograph for each burial so that they can all be rectified is not too much more work. Or is it? Granted, it all depends on the scenario i.e. I would rather have the bones located to a cut and in a bag for post-ex than not at all. But surely not photographing each burial is only for extreme circumstances such as time pressures or where a value judgement has been made (e.g. county arch says only a sample of the burial practice is worth looking at). Otherwise I would be worried about losing information (e.g. grave layout, charnel practices, positions of neo-nates etc. etc.

g

[vulpes]

The MoLAS system is not 'horrific' it is merely a well refined technique for speeding up the process by digitising where possible. When sites contain literally thousands of graves, such as Spitalfields this is a godsend - and helps maximise the efficiency without losing information. I don't see what the speed of recovery has to with respect. Fast excavation need not mean sloppy or rough.

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by vulpes

The MoLAS system is not 'horrific' it is merely a well refined technique for speeding up the process by digitising where possible. When sites contain literally thousands of graves, such as Spitalfields this is a godsend - and helps maximise the efficiency without losing information. I don't see what the speed of recovery has to with respect. Fast excavation need not mean sloppy or rough.

Well said, especially the last bit:face-approve:

Again, it depends on time pressures, working conditions etc. I've been able to do up to 3 inhumations (without gravegoods) a day in fairly easy clayey silts or chalky fills and do a good job, although not up to the standards I would attain if it were a research project with unlimited time. Tends to be a different story on heavy clays though, where it can take a up to a day an a half to excavate 1 inhumation properly. Most difficult one's I've ever had were having to clean around one's where the graves had been backfilled with solid, highly plasticised boulder clay, the type that is either like concrete when dry or like glue when wetWe were also digging in an icy January so we had to use an ice pick and a kettle of hot water to defrost the soil. Doesn't dound good, I know but there was at the time no other way of doing it.

[i_love_rocks]

Surely there is a difference between excavating a medieval/ post-medieval cemetery with clearly defined grave cuts, 1-4 individuals per grave, all orientated east-west, largely without any grave goods apart from the occassional shroud pin and piece of coffin wood, as compared to an anglo-saxon, Roman or prehistoric burial with x amount of grave goods, unknown burial practices (incl. orientation, possible fixation of the body, container etc), higher fragility of the bones etc?
Lets not forget that medieval/ post-med cemeteries is what you're going to have to deal with in an urban situation (where MOLAS largely works and has developed these techniques). That means there is lots of pressure, more burials to deal with, more known in terms of the historical significance and practices associated with human burial. Therefore, fairly rapid (yet careful) excavation, photogammetric digishots and lifting are defendable.
This is clearly different if you have to address more unknown aspects about the dead - you wouldn't excavate a Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic burial in the same way.
I do accept that we're dealing with people here and I would disagree that they are just another type of data - however, I am equally uneasy about romanticising the dead. I would say that archaeologists generally treat the dead with more respect than average developers/ building contractors do and a few instances of increased site visits by contractors' senior management just to see 'the skeletons' come to mind. Lets also not forget that the law and the home office license granted to archaeologists excavating human remains lay's down pritty strict rules about site access and respect for the dead.

I am not a fan of Time Team, but I see that they have helped to bring British archaeology to the attention of he general public. Sure, not everything they do is great, but at the same time I don't want to know what people would say about my skills as an excavator, if I was filmed and shown on prime time TV...

[Els]

All good points. I didn't mean to suggest that speed itself was disrespectful, merely that to approach it with an attitude that stressed expediency and output over more "human" considerations was distressing. Speed tends to sacrifice quality (as Beardstroker says, he does a better job with more time). Obviously, though, total destruction of the site with no records is far more disrespectful to the dead than what can be obtained through a rescue excavation. We take what we can. My objection was to expediency as a general primary ethos. If there's time to do it properly, of course it should be done.

i_love_rocks, is there an inherent suggestion in your post about the value of information obtained from prehistoric, as opposed to historic burials? If I have misread your intent, I apologize, but the bioarchaeological data obtained in historic graves is as valuable for illumination of the lifestyle of ordinary men as is the bioarchaeological data obtained from prehistoric graves, grave goods or not. After all, history doesn't tell us much about common people.

[i_love_rocks]

Els - you're quite right, and I didn't mean to suggest that prehistoric burials are more 'valuable' than historic ones.
I was mainly referring to burial practices, which are generally speaking less well understood for proto- and prehistoic periods then for the historical era (at least in Europe), although I am not saying that there aren't instances when interesting lessons can be learnt with tespect to that from historical burials either.

[sniper]

i would agree with Els about the value of excavating burials from all all periods in the same manner and with the same standards. A quick rectified photo of the skellie in situ is invaluable to an osteo, to be sure that bones are missing because of truncation, to show any disturbance that might influence the interpretation of fractures etc as peri or post-mortem, to indicate unusual burial positions that may be due to pathology or burial during rigor mortis etc etc. And as an osteo, I don't take ages to excavate a burial, my quickest time is 2 hours from finding grave cut to being ready to photo and lift. Speed does not equate with lack of care, as long as people are aware of the best ways to lift a burial. I recently saw one skeleton, nothing to do with me or who I work for, that had had both femoral heads broken off during lifting. That is sloppiness and totally unnecessary. A controlled "wrenching" out of bones does no harm whatsoever as long as you know what you are doing and is often the only way to get them out of the ground, but that just showed lack of experience and care.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[gumbo]

'i would agree with Els about the value of excavating burials from all all periods in the same manner and with the same standards'

I don't think that this is what some people are saying though. Leaving aside the 'period' issue, some people seem to be advocating value judgements and different standards for different cases... Or am I just being thick... This seems to be the MOLAS way, judging from previous posts. Im not saying this approach is bad, im just intrigued about the 'value judgement' process, is it done on a legal, formal or ad hoc 'hunch' basis?

[1man1desk]

I think there are two entirely separate questions here, both of which need to be fully considered.

Firstly, it is important to treat the dead with respect, so we need to excavate burials in a way that achieves that aim. This would not, by itself, imply high archaeological standards - just respectful treatment of the remains. Period is only relevant here in relation to the likelihood of there being known living relatives who might be upset by what we are doing.

Secondly, we need to consider archaeological technique in relation to the nature, quality and quantity of archaeological information to be gained from this particular burial or cemetery. That might vary quite a lot, depending on period, context, condition of the bone, likelihood of grave goods or grave furniture, previous disturbance, etc.

On that basis, it is true to say that we should always be respectful - human remains are not the same as any other portable find. However, it is not true to say that being respectful means that we should always treat every burial in the same way.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished