3rd November 2006, 02:20 PM
In relation to Paul Belford's remarks, I note that Troll's inital post refers to 'Western' institutions, not UK ones. I interpreted that to mean Western European, so Troll's criticisms could be seen as directed towards the new, Eastern European members of the EU.
Having said that, there are two entirely different fields of ethics involved here, and it is important not to muddle them up because they have different implications.
Firstly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as such, irrespective of their archaeological importance. This is a matter of personal rather than professional ethics, but it is one that is culturally and religiously conditioned. Not all ethnic/religious groups even in the UK view human remains (even of the very newly-deceased) with the same degree of reverence that is assumed by the law, and it is possible that in some countries this (relative) lack of reverence is the dominant culture. In other places, reverence might be expressed differenly from the way we do it. For example, keeping bones of different individual separate is not important everywhere. We should not seek to impose our own cultural prejudices onto other peoples, but should in fact conform to local custom in these respects.
Secondly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as a source of archaeological evidence. That is a matter of professional ethics, and requires us to process, handle, record and archive human remains to the same standards wherever we are in the world.
The overlap between the two comes where the ideal way to treat/store human remains from an archaeological perspective conflicts with local mortuary custom, and that is where we need to find a workable and ethical accommodation between the two - as we do in the UK. However, we should not assume that the details of that accommodation will be the same abroad as in the UK.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Having said that, there are two entirely different fields of ethics involved here, and it is important not to muddle them up because they have different implications.
Firstly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as such, irrespective of their archaeological importance. This is a matter of personal rather than professional ethics, but it is one that is culturally and religiously conditioned. Not all ethnic/religious groups even in the UK view human remains (even of the very newly-deceased) with the same degree of reverence that is assumed by the law, and it is possible that in some countries this (relative) lack of reverence is the dominant culture. In other places, reverence might be expressed differenly from the way we do it. For example, keeping bones of different individual separate is not important everywhere. We should not seek to impose our own cultural prejudices onto other peoples, but should in fact conform to local custom in these respects.
Secondly, there is the issue of respect for human remains as a source of archaeological evidence. That is a matter of professional ethics, and requires us to process, handle, record and archive human remains to the same standards wherever we are in the world.
The overlap between the two comes where the ideal way to treat/store human remains from an archaeological perspective conflicts with local mortuary custom, and that is where we need to find a workable and ethical accommodation between the two - as we do in the UK. However, we should not assume that the details of that accommodation will be the same abroad as in the UK.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished