Human Remains- Retention or Reburial?

[Steven]

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

[Bier Keller]

When we look back on the work of early antiquarians and proto-archaeologists, sometimes it is difficult not to cringe. Artefacts being retrieved from cists whilst the remains were just chucked out, maybe just keeping the skull, picking out the gold and silver coins from a hoard and chucking the rest away etc...and yet these folk believed that they were enlightened and that they were cutting edge in their approach. Are we any different, any less arrogant if we believe we are as good as it gets when it comes to the business of archaeology? In a 100 or 200 years time will people look at us and wince? "We could have done sub-phrotrengic linear-Spock analysis if they had not chucked out [read "re-buried"]those remains...what were they thinking...bloody vandals"

On another note, if we have a concensus that reburial is the way to go, where does it stop? Perhaps we could look forward to seeing Lucy being reunited with the mother earth that she was so cruelly ripped from.

Beer is your friend

[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?

[Windbag]

Hi Dave,

Bones cannot be recorded on a database. Certain characteristics of bones (e.g. length, maximum circumference, bicondylar breadth etc) are recorded on a database during bone analysis as a matter of course. But plenty of other information -measurements, chemical analysis, C-14, aDNA, isotopes- to name a few for starters- won't be possible without the bones themselves, plus any future ones.

Medical students still use real skeletons. Plastic models are increasingly used for teaching gross anatomy ("this is a femur, look how it is different from a humerus"). Plastic models have their place as a reference and teaching guide. But you can't use them to replace the real thing.

As to the references to Alder Hey and the Maoris, they are both situations that are very different from the situation with archaeological bone from British sites. Regarding Alder Hey, there is no way of tracing an archaeological skellys' family to request consent for retention of remains. Regarding the Maori, the issue there is also one of family but also of group identity- there is the issue of the colonizers coming in and digging up the remains of the colonized.

So the issue about full respect is a tough and personal one. Personally, I would like to see my body be used to benefit mankind, and am not too bothered how - if this means being dissected by spotty medical students then so be it. I'm not going to be around to complain. I can appreciate that people have strong personal feelings about human bone as opposed to other material- it's natural. Respectful treatment of human bone to me means appreciating its future potential as well its special status as the remains of a former person. So no horseplay, no joking around, no needless destruction.

?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb

[Steven]

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

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Hi Steven,

The reason I posted this topic was to engage people in discussion/debate over the issue of human remains,and to have various viewpoints aired,you can't beat a good debate:face-approve:
You ask a very good question-so i'll try and answer as such; from an archaeological point of view the archived material IS more important than the report,why? because whoever has written the report could be wrong,and for various reasons;their phasing of the site might be proved to be out as new wares of pot are classified (a good example was Goltho,Lincs dug in the late 60's),and the wrong conclusions drawn up. So, without being able to revisit archived material, revisions cannot be made.
That is the archaeologist in me speaking and I readily accept the need for such-the quandary I find myself in is recconsiling this need for keeping human remains as archive with a growing Christian conviction. Though I am in favour of reburial for human remains, that is just my own belief and I hope that in whatever I have written in this topic I haven't implied people who disagree are being disrespectful.

[RedEarth]

I always got the impression that Prehistoric people (Bronze Age and Neolithic at least) had a fairly rough approach to their own dead - bodies being excarnated so that they could select the larger bones for burial later, earlier remains being pushed aside in a cist or burial chamber so new ones could be added. Not to mention the occassional body dumped in a ditch or buried under a collapsed rampart. I seem to recall that there has been some suggestion that certain types of burial chamber were designed so that at certain times bones could be viewed or even removed and 'displayed' to the populace; it could be argued therefore, that putting them in a museum is essentially the modern continuation of this form of ancestor worship! Some of them might actually be quite flattered to think that they were still being remembered after so long - surely the point of some burial rights (ancient Egyptian for example) was to try and live for ever and be remembered. If you stick them back in the ground that isn't going to happen.

(This probably has more to do with the other thread)

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

Hi Steven,

The reason I posted this topic was to engage people in discussion/debate over the issue of human remains,and to have various viewpoints aired,you can't beat a good debate:face-approve:
You ask a very good question-so i'll try and answer as such; from an archaeological point of view the archived material IS more important than the report,why? because whoever has written the report could be wrong,and for various reasons;their phasing of the site might be proved to be out as new wares of pot are classified (a good example was Goltho,Lincs dug in the late 60's),and the wrong conclusions drawn up. So, without being able to revisit archived material, revisions cannot be made.
That is the archaeologist in me speaking and I readily accept the need for such-the quandary I find myself in is recconsiling this need for keeping human remains as archive with a growing Christian conviction. Though I am in favour of reburial for human remains, that is just my own belief and I hope that in whatever I have written in this topic I haven't implied people who disagree are being disrespectful.

Dave
You have been respectful and the debate is both good natured and I believe heartfelt so don't worry. If any of my posts have been robust, that's just the way I am, I love a good discussion and appreciate that I can be a little forthright!

Your post brings up a theological issue. It seems to me that the christian faith does not place any emphasis on the body after death. Indeed there seems to be pretty much universal agreement that the body is just a shell made for life and that a new body is created for the soul after death (see I Corinthians 15, verses 15-53 and associated translations). So in terms of christian beliefs, the body has no spiritual identity and will be replaced. This is why the guidance notes allow retention of remains if they have research potential.

It is because this is a difficult issue that I adopt my stance from a scientific and professional rational rather than a more emotive or social one.



Steven

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

"This is why the guidance notes allow retention of remains if they have research potential"

If the bones haven't already degraded to the point where no rearch was possible-either now or in the future-then this arguement would apply to a vey great many bodies, potentialy are we talking of thousands? or tens of thousands? what are the logistics of archiving that many?

Hi Steven,
Did you mean verse 15? or did you mean 51 to 57?

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

"This is why the guidance notes allow retention of remains if they have research potential"

If the bones haven't already degraded to the point where no rearch was possible-either now or in the future-then this arguement would apply to a vey great many bodies, potentialy are we talking of thousands? or tens of thousands? what are the logistics of archiving that many?

Hi Steven,
Did you mean verse 15? or did you mean 51 to 57?

Hi Dave
Sorry not really used to quoting the bible!

Try 1 Corinthians 15:53 which goes something like this,

"This body that decays must be changed into a body that cannot decay. This mortal body must be changed into a body that will live forever."

Of course there are different translations but most theologians agree the meaning is that mortal bodies are sort of disposable as the spiritual body will house the soul after death.

Steven