11th February 2009, 12:44 PM
Hi digital
Sorry if my questions appeared abrasive.
My questions were making the point that an excavation archive should be a full and complete record. When a decision is made to excavate along with that comes the responsibility of securing the complete archive. The CoBDO request includes reburial of artefacts associated with burials because they have decided what those artefacts meant to the individuals. I don't make that assumption; I accept that there are many interpretations of the symbolic or even practical reasons for grave goods.
If a church with a provable connection to ancient burials has accepted that academic research is a valid reason for retention (and does condone exhibition for educational purposes) then I expect a much more reasoned and accurate argument for reburial than just a modern belief system.
I actually have no problem with responsible archiving of burials but I cannot agree that simply burying archaeologically retrieved human remains to enable those remains to decay is responsible. I believe it?s a dereliction of our responsibility as recorders, preservers and researchers of evidence of the past.
On a slightly different point:
There is NO archive for digital data except DAS and that is a grant-aided organisation which enables digital access and is not therefore an archive. If the funding stops (lets all hope it doesn't) so does DAS. At present HERs/SMRs/museums/record offices cannot archive digital data in a permanent state. So although digitising is a very laudable concept it is NOT archiving. The only real archive is the assemblages, B&W photos/negatives and paper records which are deposited with the receiving museum and or record office for storage in controlled environments. I do of course agree that archaeological records etc should be made available digitally but that is a question of access not archiving.
Hi Oz
Windbag's point does raise another issue, if you look at 1960's (for example) reports on human remains they do not necessarily contain the type of information that more recent reports have. If "normal" recording methods and unforeseen scientific (especially approaches such as Strontium isotope and DNA) can change so rapidly then reburial would in effect deny a fuller interpretation in a rapidly changing academic environment. The CoBDO has already dismissed this point despite the obvious evidence that new techniques are a reality.
Steven
Sorry if my questions appeared abrasive.
My questions were making the point that an excavation archive should be a full and complete record. When a decision is made to excavate along with that comes the responsibility of securing the complete archive. The CoBDO request includes reburial of artefacts associated with burials because they have decided what those artefacts meant to the individuals. I don't make that assumption; I accept that there are many interpretations of the symbolic or even practical reasons for grave goods.
If a church with a provable connection to ancient burials has accepted that academic research is a valid reason for retention (and does condone exhibition for educational purposes) then I expect a much more reasoned and accurate argument for reburial than just a modern belief system.
I actually have no problem with responsible archiving of burials but I cannot agree that simply burying archaeologically retrieved human remains to enable those remains to decay is responsible. I believe it?s a dereliction of our responsibility as recorders, preservers and researchers of evidence of the past.
On a slightly different point:
There is NO archive for digital data except DAS and that is a grant-aided organisation which enables digital access and is not therefore an archive. If the funding stops (lets all hope it doesn't) so does DAS. At present HERs/SMRs/museums/record offices cannot archive digital data in a permanent state. So although digitising is a very laudable concept it is NOT archiving. The only real archive is the assemblages, B&W photos/negatives and paper records which are deposited with the receiving museum and or record office for storage in controlled environments. I do of course agree that archaeological records etc should be made available digitally but that is a question of access not archiving.
Hi Oz
Windbag's point does raise another issue, if you look at 1960's (for example) reports on human remains they do not necessarily contain the type of information that more recent reports have. If "normal" recording methods and unforeseen scientific (especially approaches such as Strontium isotope and DNA) can change so rapidly then reburial would in effect deny a fuller interpretation in a rapidly changing academic environment. The CoBDO has already dismissed this point despite the obvious evidence that new techniques are a reality.
Steven