Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
2nd February 2009, 02:40 PM
"If I were a prehistoric person in a museum,instead of being reburied by a group of people who think they know best when clearly they don't,i'd be pretty danged proud that people were coming to look at me and learn about me"
A couple of thoughts-
Isn't the idea of burying someone that their remains are not disturbed by other people or harmed by scavengers? so wouldn't the concept of being displayed in a museum be alien to a prehistoric person?
Also, when a modern person says they wouldn't mind being 'looked at' or studied scientifically that is done from a modern/scientific mind set, and not from an understanding of prehistoric thinking.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd February 2009, 02:58 PM
True... the thing come down to deliberate disturbance... then responsibility
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd February 2009, 08:10 PM
Hello Oddie, its great to have you engaging in the debate here. Don't worry, you're not going to be crucified, but you might be asked to justify some of your positions.
"Genetics can be argued either side of the 'fence', but becomes meaningful when linked not only with place but with self. DNA is the physical link, and rebirth the spirityual. While genetics are physical proof of identity, rebirth is a system of belief we either understand / do not understand / agree with / disagree with."
Here you come close to stating that genetic continuity is more important than spiritual beliefs. I profoundly disagree that genetics are the physical proof of identity: your genome only tells you about you DNA. Identity is a more amorphous concept of self, and probably has more to do with a sense of belonging and membership of a group. If genetic links are more important than spiritual belief, and 'identity' is a purely genetic characteristic, you risk some fairly poisonous people associating with you. You seem to be trying to change paganism from a loose and inclusive set of diverse beliefs into a racial cult.
"If and when groups/individuals from Egypt begin repatriation requests to museums in England, and if these people request our support, this will be given. Personally, I find mummioes facinating, but remain disturbed at their relocation - education aside, the poliltics of the matter demand the burying of the remains of post colonialism."
I think you might mean either museums in Britain (the B in CoBDO)or in the UK. I know there are mummies in Swansea and I would be very surprised if there weren't some in Scotland. Your comment on mummies is interesting: you find them fascinating because you know about them. If it weren't for a search for knowledge (into which you can include archaeology) you wouldn't know anything about them. It is unlikely that the Egyptians will demand repatriation and reburial of their mummies, as from what I've heard, people in Muslim societies are not particularly affected by pre-Islamic remains.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
3rd February 2009, 11:41 AM
As someone who has worked in the past on extracting genetic information from human bone, I do find the whole debate rather interesting. Just one thought to be starting with... and I don't want to get into the ethics of reburial arguement here:
To actually get the genetic information (genomic and/or ribosomal DNA) out of bone (or tissue for that matter) involves quite a few very, very destructive techniques that, I'm sure, the Druids wouldn't be very happy about. Yes, there are non-invasive methods to test genetic markers, but on the whole these do not provide enough depth in study. More in-depth searches for genetic information requires more in-depth analysis... to the point of destruction (and dare I say sacrilege!). In the dim and distant past, I've used a Black 'n' Decker drill on someones' ribs, skull and leg bones to firstly scrub the bone to remove possible contaminants (ie the diggers / palaeopathologists DNA) and then to actually get enough bone dust to make a viable sample for DNA testing and futher amplification (though Polymerase Chain Reaction). In order to prepare for this, I'd have to literally boil the bone dust (ie ex-person) in sooped-up chemicals to extract the DNA, then zap it with a number of other chemicals and ultra-violet light to see it. This was done on a number of individuals - a range from prehistoric pagans (or whatever), Roman pagans and yes (I will surely burn in hell for this... if I actually believed in hell that is) Medieval Christians.
Now, in order for the Druids to argue genetic closeness to their ancestors through DNA analysis, they should be aware of the rather 'un-natural' or 'unsympathetic' methods used to provide their information... in the very recent past, an archaeologists / molecular biologist (ie me) HAD to be sacreligious in order to provide them the genetic ammunition they so easily shoot off. Furthermore... just what sacreligion did the archaeologist / biologist commit? Mine, theirs or the Druids?
I don't have a religious bone in my body. But I DO have respect for the dead. On excavating burials, I'd try to treat each skeleton with respect... down to the point of even talking to them (saying hello and good morning / afternoon)! They were people once.
Whenever I did the analysis (drilling and boiling) it was with whatever sense of 'respect' and 'reverence' I could summon up... certainly it was NOT done with a sense of "Yay! I am Dr. Death!". The way I looked at it was... "someone could be drilling into me in a few hundred years time. I hope they treat me with some form of reverence, but also find something useful in me old bones!".
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
3rd February 2009, 03:51 PM
Response to the consultation from BABAO:
http://www.babao.org.uk/index/reburialissues
Hear hear!
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
3rd February 2009, 04:19 PM
Yay!!! Well chuffed with that result 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
3rd February 2009, 04:32 PM
Agreed... a fair and robust statement
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
4th February 2009, 09:10 PM
Hi folks - just a quickie.
Interesting bedates here. Don't get too hung up on the DNA stuff, It's all about respect really. For a start, I'm only a poor lilttle oddie who skipped genetics to focus upon post processual thinking and social anth.
Having quickly broused the comments, I must sya that it's great to read that genetists respect our long dead ancestors - yes folks, everyone's ancestors. If you wish to drill the teeth of your ancestors, that's fine, but as they are my ancestors as well - I must say that no one should assume control or ownership of 'the past'. I understand that reburial is contrary to archaeological thinking (I was a field arch for 2 years before study), I can't help thinking that it would be lovely for those who dug up my ancestor (our ancestor) to rebury them again to properly complete the job. May even aid the process of rebirth and reincarnation.
Funny how all Christian burials excavated are properly reburied (after research has been carried out), while non-Christian's babies are put in glass cases for the voyeurs to drool over. Please try to remember that the bodies of our ancestors should remain in the care and embrace of the Earth Goddess - their teeth included! Bit unfair that no one slags off the law for being so one sided. May cause a religious row eh?
Oddbones /|\:face-approve:
Oddie
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
4th February 2009, 09:33 PM
There is a new consultation ongoing as part of a review of the 2005 guidelines. This specifically adresses the question of non-Christian reburial. Whilst recognising that:
"This panel has proved to be very successful in promoting a consistent approach to relevant religious, ethical, legal, archaeological and scientific issues, but this has thrown into relief the lack of a similar source of advice covering non-Christian remains."
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/serve.../nav.20213
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
5th February 2009, 04:36 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oddie
Hi folks - just a quickie.
Interesting bedates here. Don't get too hung up on the DNA stuff, It's all about respect really. For a start, I'm only a poor lilttle oddie who skipped genetics to focus upon post processual thinking and social anth.
Having quickly broused the comments, I must sya that it's great to read that genetists respect our long dead ancestors - yes folks, everyone's ancestors. If you wish to drill the teeth of your ancestors, that's fine, but as they are my ancestors as well - I must say that no one should assume control or ownership of 'the past'. I understand that reburial is contrary to archaeological thinking (I was a field arch for 2 years before study), I can't help thinking that it would be lovely for those who dug up my ancestor (our ancestor) to rebury them again to properly complete the job. May even aid the process of rebirth and reincarnation.
Funny how all Christian burials excavated are properly reburied (after research has been carried out), while non-Christian's babies are put in glass cases for the voyeurs to drool over. Please try to remember that the bodies of our ancestors should remain in the care and embrace of the Earth Goddess - their teeth included! Bit unfair that no one slags off the law for being so one sided. May cause a religious row eh?
Oddbones /|\:face-approve:
Oddie
Hi
Personally I find your description of people who find human remains interesting "voyeurs" who "drool over" "non-Christian babies" not just offensive but emotive and intellectually challenged. Who are you to simply disregard and denigrate the hundreds of thousands of people's views who visit museums because you advocate a modern religion? What gives you the right to look down on museum audiences as mere passive "drool"ing idiots whilst portraying yourself as somebody with a neutral stance? You may state that no body should have an exclusive claim on our ancestors but you demand reburial on your terms based on your religious beliefs. Isn't this stance merely placing your ideas above others? That isn't compatible with your statement " No one system of thinking should claim sole ownership or dominate another". What I think you actually mean is "no one system other than that sanctioned by ME should dominate another". Not only do you think your views on human remains take primacy but you extend that to artefacts despite the fact that it is impossible to know what meaning (if any) artefacts had in the burial practice.
Lets just take a look at some of your quotes:
"Because the ancestors can't give their consent in this way, the council speaks for the ancestors"
"It is morally abhorrent that the long dead child's remains should be used in this way,"
Emotive, one sided and self justified are all terms which can be applied to these statements. Your one sided view is quite evident in your choice of words, for example:
It is not "morally abhorrent" it is the case that YOU find it morally abhorrent. Personally I don't, you don't have the right to declare on the moral issue in such a pejorative way unless you can be confident that your supported by most people.
The council speak for our ancestors! Are you implying YOU speak for OUR ancestors! Because YOU and the rest of the council don't! YOU speak for yourselfs! What gives you the right to declare yourself prehistoric peoples spokesperson? This implies you believe you have a closer relationship to them than the rest of us and can divine their wishes better than I can. I'm concerned that you care more for your ego than the remains of prehistoric people and I believe that your statements betray your sense of superiority which drives you.
Steven
|
