21st February 2009, 01:52 PM
[/quote]
The problem (as far as I see it) is that, as an archaeologist my professional ethics mean that I cannot in all conscience allow finite evidence concerning the past to be destroyed through inaction after a decision has been taken to excavate. It comes down to stewardship, and as a professional employed to steward archaeological evidence it would be remiss of me to sanction a policy that advocated deliberate decay.
In the CoBDO request the question of improving techniques is not addressed, it is discounted. Isn't this a little disingenuous considering the proof that new techniques have been and will continue to be developed?
Steven
[/quote]
Peace Steven. All good points.
The Human remains of our Avebury ancestors have enjoyed the embrace of the earth for thousands of years. The soils at Avebury assisted in the skeletal remains remaining, and will continue to do so for thousands of years in the future. Reburial threatens no one's jobs or authority. In this way, our reburial request sets a precedent for the Avebury complex. In comparison, the ancestors at Sutton Hoo decayed very quickly, leaving only stains upon the lower stratigraphy. They have been fully blessed into the Earth.
Science does a fantastic job in its 'stewardship'. Druids, and pilgrims to Avebury represent the spiritual site. Council believe that many (but not all) Avebury pilgrims agree.
Retention on the basis of non-existent research techniques that may or may not be developed is a weak argument for dis-respecting the spiritual beliefs of Council (we have NEVER claimed to speak for anyone else. This is very different from 'discounting research'.
Despite years of study in academe, and the many benefits I read concerning archaeological research, I never fully understood ancestral landscapes until I went into the field, stood by a burial mound and called to and honoured the pregnant Goddess and her children. This, I believe is the best way to understand the relationship between ourselves and the ancestral landscapes.
Peace /|\
Oddie
The problem (as far as I see it) is that, as an archaeologist my professional ethics mean that I cannot in all conscience allow finite evidence concerning the past to be destroyed through inaction after a decision has been taken to excavate. It comes down to stewardship, and as a professional employed to steward archaeological evidence it would be remiss of me to sanction a policy that advocated deliberate decay.
In the CoBDO request the question of improving techniques is not addressed, it is discounted. Isn't this a little disingenuous considering the proof that new techniques have been and will continue to be developed?
Steven
[/quote]
Peace Steven. All good points.
The Human remains of our Avebury ancestors have enjoyed the embrace of the earth for thousands of years. The soils at Avebury assisted in the skeletal remains remaining, and will continue to do so for thousands of years in the future. Reburial threatens no one's jobs or authority. In this way, our reburial request sets a precedent for the Avebury complex. In comparison, the ancestors at Sutton Hoo decayed very quickly, leaving only stains upon the lower stratigraphy. They have been fully blessed into the Earth.
Science does a fantastic job in its 'stewardship'. Druids, and pilgrims to Avebury represent the spiritual site. Council believe that many (but not all) Avebury pilgrims agree.
Retention on the basis of non-existent research techniques that may or may not be developed is a weak argument for dis-respecting the spiritual beliefs of Council (we have NEVER claimed to speak for anyone else. This is very different from 'discounting research'.
Despite years of study in academe, and the many benefits I read concerning archaeological research, I never fully understood ancestral landscapes until I went into the field, stood by a burial mound and called to and honoured the pregnant Goddess and her children. This, I believe is the best way to understand the relationship between ourselves and the ancestral landscapes.
Peace /|\
Oddie