24th July 2005, 11:54 AM
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!!!