16th February 2009, 06:56 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln
Burial grounds that have been extensively used for a long period of time will inevitably have truncated bodies in them, as new graves quite often cut through older ones.
But that should still have no bearing on what we in the present and future do with said remains when they have to be removed prior to modern intrusive activities.
I do not ask this in regards as to whichever religious group should do the reburying, but what should be the standard policy for ALL human remains? some do end up being reburied, but a lot just end up in boxes on museum shelfs and elsewhere for storage. Is this right?
Some people have said on other topics that they wouldn't care if their remains end up on display in a museum or being studied by scientists- I would say,that is their right to dictate how they would like their OWN remains to be disposed off, but that right surely does not extend to what should happen to others.
Hi DD
I think you are tying yourself up in knots a little because some of your points are not exactly correct. For example it is not feasible to record bones in a database or make plastic models as neither are suitable for scientific analysis or represent a suitable archive.
I'm sorry but I do not understand the position of:
"just for the sake of what we 'might' learn from them with future, better ways of scientific research."
Are you aware of the recent work carried out by Durham Uni on isotopes as evidence of ancient diets of Iron Age people? Or the DNA testing of Mesolithic people in Cheddar? Its not a question of "might" learn its a proven fact that techniques rapidly advance meaning we can and WILL discover more.
Part of your argument for reburial relies on the phrase "storage". However, this term is incorrect. Remains are "archived" or "conserved" or "preserved" so that future research can take place, if that was not the case then why would anybody argue with reburial?
I worry slightly about an attitude that we can discard archaeologically retrieved material from periods from we lack records because we can "record on a database". 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. If we don't do that we should not have intervened at all!
Steven