13th February 2009, 05:32 PM
From the 'Honouring the Ancient Dead website:
http://www.honour.org.uk/node/281
"In its role as a body representative of the spectrum of Pagan thinking, HAD cannot assert that this particular Request would be supported by all Druids or Pagans. While the majority of responses received from HAD?s council of theologians were in favour of reburial in some form or another, some Pagans on its team of advisors expressed a conviction that remains should remain accessible for scientific research. Furthermore, HAD?s work of talking to and listening to responses within the Pagan community as a whole leads us to be confident in stating a more general Pagan view: human remains of significant cultural, social and scientific value are usually considered too important to rebury, and should be stored with respect for their status as ancestors (not objects), while poorly documented human remains of negligible context should be candidates for reburial. In this respect, some Pagans would support any guidance that encouraged museums, archaeological units and other heritage organisations to store or display the human remains in their care in ways that allowed Pagans access for spiritual communication and communion.
As a result, and on the basis of being a representative voice for British Paganism, HAD cannot therefore fully support CoBDO?s Request for reburial. However, it is noted that CoBDO does not claim to be fully representative. CoBDO is an organisation whose remit is to challenge conventional and complacent thinking from the edge of the Pagan community, rather than to declare themselves a part of the centre ground. Where their views are respected, it is on this basis"
also (and sorry if you feel that this is not anyone's business, Oddie)
"While the Appendix to the Request includes a history of CoBDO, this document omits important details of internal fragmentation: at around the time when the Reburial Committee was established, disagreements split the Council of British Druid Orders into two non-cooperating factions. The Reburial Committee is effectively part of the breakaway faction and not supported by the core extant group. It might be noted, too, that published minutes stating how the Reburial Committee was unanimously voted list the attendance of individuals with no voting rights. While use of the term ?the Council of British Druid Orders? implies a large, representative and functional body, the reality is far from this.
This being said, HAD is concerned about the way in which the DCMS Guidance and the outcome of this consultation is likely to be used. CoBDO?s lack of comprehensive Pagan backing, the fragmented nature of the group itself, and the conflicts provoked by its approach, will weaken the validity of the Request. What HAD does not want to see is the current DCMS Guidance and the result of this Request being used as a justification for museums, archaeologists and other heritage and government bodies believing there is no need to engage ? or no value in engaging - with groups expressing deeply-felt, non-scientific interest in the human remains in their care."
Also,
"In the Request, such words are only used once, yet even here the exact meaning is unclear. In 3.2 of the Draft Report, CoBDO state that ?like all people indigenous to Europe, [they] have a ?close genetic? claim for reburial?.
HAD perceives CoBDO?s Request to have validity only as an expression of special interest, based on sincere and profound religious sensibilities. This interest, however, does not afford a right to authority. What it does justify is a clearly sounded call for such perspectives to be heard."
So, these pagans seem to want to retain the status quo, but with more emphasis on inclusiveness and respect.
Apologies for the long quotes. I've just had a long day smashing tiles off the bathroom wall: great fun for the first half hour, but then you need some general procrastination. Good lurking, Tom.
http://www.honour.org.uk/node/281
"In its role as a body representative of the spectrum of Pagan thinking, HAD cannot assert that this particular Request would be supported by all Druids or Pagans. While the majority of responses received from HAD?s council of theologians were in favour of reburial in some form or another, some Pagans on its team of advisors expressed a conviction that remains should remain accessible for scientific research. Furthermore, HAD?s work of talking to and listening to responses within the Pagan community as a whole leads us to be confident in stating a more general Pagan view: human remains of significant cultural, social and scientific value are usually considered too important to rebury, and should be stored with respect for their status as ancestors (not objects), while poorly documented human remains of negligible context should be candidates for reburial. In this respect, some Pagans would support any guidance that encouraged museums, archaeological units and other heritage organisations to store or display the human remains in their care in ways that allowed Pagans access for spiritual communication and communion.
As a result, and on the basis of being a representative voice for British Paganism, HAD cannot therefore fully support CoBDO?s Request for reburial. However, it is noted that CoBDO does not claim to be fully representative. CoBDO is an organisation whose remit is to challenge conventional and complacent thinking from the edge of the Pagan community, rather than to declare themselves a part of the centre ground. Where their views are respected, it is on this basis"
also (and sorry if you feel that this is not anyone's business, Oddie)
"While the Appendix to the Request includes a history of CoBDO, this document omits important details of internal fragmentation: at around the time when the Reburial Committee was established, disagreements split the Council of British Druid Orders into two non-cooperating factions. The Reburial Committee is effectively part of the breakaway faction and not supported by the core extant group. It might be noted, too, that published minutes stating how the Reburial Committee was unanimously voted list the attendance of individuals with no voting rights. While use of the term ?the Council of British Druid Orders? implies a large, representative and functional body, the reality is far from this.
This being said, HAD is concerned about the way in which the DCMS Guidance and the outcome of this consultation is likely to be used. CoBDO?s lack of comprehensive Pagan backing, the fragmented nature of the group itself, and the conflicts provoked by its approach, will weaken the validity of the Request. What HAD does not want to see is the current DCMS Guidance and the result of this Request being used as a justification for museums, archaeologists and other heritage and government bodies believing there is no need to engage ? or no value in engaging - with groups expressing deeply-felt, non-scientific interest in the human remains in their care."
Also,
"In the Request, such words are only used once, yet even here the exact meaning is unclear. In 3.2 of the Draft Report, CoBDO state that ?like all people indigenous to Europe, [they] have a ?close genetic? claim for reburial?.
HAD perceives CoBDO?s Request to have validity only as an expression of special interest, based on sincere and profound religious sensibilities. This interest, however, does not afford a right to authority. What it does justify is a clearly sounded call for such perspectives to be heard."
So, these pagans seem to want to retain the status quo, but with more emphasis on inclusiveness and respect.
Apologies for the long quotes. I've just had a long day smashing tiles off the bathroom wall: great fun for the first half hour, but then you need some general procrastination. Good lurking, Tom.