17th February 2009, 05:26 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln
Hi Steven,
"It is not feasible to record bones in a database"
When a specialist is contracted to produce a report on human remains, do they not keep all their analysis on a database? and can then refer to it for future refence? once the analysis is done they don't then need to phsycally keep the bones- similarly, pathologists who deal with the recent dead don't need to retain the bodies and they can be released back to families etc for burial/cremation.
"Or make plastic models"
Medical students used to use real skeletons, and as that is illegal they have to use plastic models.
"The question goes right to the heart of whether we as archaeologists accept the responsibility that once we intervene in a site we HAVE to ensure the preservation of the archive"
No disrespect to you Steven, but I think the real question is; should we view human remains as just 'archive material' and treat them in the same way we would animal bone,pottery,metal,glass etc? and as such just another type of artifact to be retained for study or archiving.
I asked a New Zealand archaeologist what happens to Maori remains when found on sites, he said that after they have been examined/recorded they are returned to Maori Elders-and are not kept as 'archive material'-shouldn't we have the same policy for all human remains?
Hi Bier Keller,
"Artefacts being retrieved from cists while the remains were chucked out,maybe just keeping the skull"
In recent years we have seen the scandal of some hospitals seeing it as their right to keep back body-parts from children for further study and only releasing part bodies back to families for burial/cremation. A question that needs to be asked is; where do we draw the proverbial line between when deceased humans are to be treated with full respect and when do they become just artefacts?
Hi DD
No disrespect taken, we are discussing and so we can have different opinions and ideas.
My main point is that databases are not archives, they are temporary and can be unreadable within years so do not form part of an archive. Therefore they cannot be a replacement for retaining the actual material.
A forensic (pathologists) examination has a particular set of questions regarding the circumstances of a of death and is restricted to answering those questions. 1. is the death suspicious, 2. if so what caused the death. It is not concerned with reconstruction of past diets, palaeopathological data, metric and non-metric dates, radiocarbon or other dating potential or any of the other hundreds of topics archaeology covers. So I don't really accept you example of a pathologist as appropriate to archaeological investigation as the study of the past isn't neatly sealed by a coroner or a judicial court.
In answer to your question, Yes we should treat human remains as evidence of the past and ensure we archive them properly for analytical study.
But you see that's not the question concerning reburial, its a question concerning dogma. The question is: what takes precedent a belief in the sanctity of human remains or the study of human development and then deliberate discarding of sources of evidence?
I'm sorry but your case seems to rely on the your belief that anything except reburial is disrespectful. That's not putting forward a case which can be debated is it? Its being dogmatic. My position is based on a review of the information obtained by retention of human remains and my stance that evidence of the past is a finite resource which as an archaeologist I have to protect. Because of that I cannot condone the complete discarding of extremely valuable information about past human activity.
I'm going to ask you a very important question as an archaeologist:
What is the final outcome of an archaeological excavation? Is it a report, or is it an archive? Is it a full and complete record which can be re-analysed? or is it just a monograph summerising the ideas of a few people's ideas who happened to be around at the time?
Steven