Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
I'm undertaking a research trip to London (4th to 19th April) and Norfolk (21st to 23rd) researching attitudes to reburial and relations between the Contemporary Pagan and Heritage Industry and Archaeological community.
If anyone is in these areas and would like to meet with me, please email me on pg186@lamp.ac.uk
Singer of dodgy songs, teller of tall stories, maker of pretty things and prehistoric performer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Hi Brochfael,
I'm curious about this research you are undertaking on the issue of reburial, and have a few questions:
Will you be talking to to non-members of the groups mentioned? (i.e members of the public).
How will you conduct this research? will it be like a questionaire/poll?
Would it be possible for you to post any results you gather on this topic at a later date?
Maybe even an article for Past Horizons? what do you think Hosty?:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Hi Brochfael,
Why don't you draw up a questionnaire with all your points on it and post it on here or ask groups like the IfA, CBA and ALGAO to circulate it around their members? You'd get a wider response.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Tim
We could record the bones on a database. We just need to scan them with a laser scanner (for extenal physical uses) and an MRI scanner (for internal physical uses). The resultabnt 3D scans/models can be examined very easily. Resin models can be created using drip resin casting and CNC cutting tools to "finish off". This technique was used to recreate the flint arrowhead in Otse the Iceman's back. Only willingness and money is stopping us doing it, the techniques and equipment already exist.
There is a new technique, well - not that new, whereby you can effectively thin-section the bone that looks otherwise healthy/normal and identify degenerative changes leading to various different pathologies.
As is clear from the above posts and others elsewhere, the treatment of human remains is a sensitive issue and I think we are all in agreement that they should be treated with respect. With regard to reburial, and to rehearse old arguments, a genetic link with the deceased has to be demonstrated to request reburial of human remains under current legislation. The Human Tissue Act also only applies to human remains and tissue that is 100 years old - this is a rolling date.
With respect to religious beliefs, the assertion that current pagans/druids have any connection with Prehistoric religious beliefs and practices is entirely false, being in essence a religion 'invented' by 18th century romantics, although I respect their view that their beliefs, however erroneously I believe them to be constructed, are as valid as any other belief system. Nonetheless, the appropriation of the dead for cultural or religious reasons should be resisted. Anyone remember Kossina?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
quote "Nonetheless,the appropiation of the dead for cultural or religious reasons should be resisted"
As opposed to the appropiation of the dead for scientific reasons? why do you think any one side should have less validity than another?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Because policy (of whatever kind, not just reburial) should be determined based on evidence, not ideology. Once you depart from evidence when setting policy, you no longer have a clear thought process or any means of justifying your decision making. You may end up with a situation like this:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/metas...-2009.html
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
Because policy (of whatever kind, not just reburial) should be determined based on evidence, not ideology. Once you depart from evidence when setting policy, you no longer have a clear thought process or any means of justifying your decision making. You may end up with a situation like this:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/metas...-2009.html
Precisely.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Interesting story, but a bit of an extreme example as to why all remains should be kept-even those that are from Christian burial grounds in this country :face-confused:.
Using the excuse, that unless a person can prove a genetic link with an excavated body, that they then have no connection, puts all the onus of reburial on people who favour such an approach and not on the people who removed them from the ground.
It is almost a 'finders-keepers' attitude, 'does any one living have any claim to these bodies?,nope! so we can keep them and do what we like'.
A couple of years ago, I was on a project which turned up some bodies inside a Church,the remains were kept on-site and reburied straight away (the Vicar said a service) on backfilling of the footings trench. Using the above arguement this shoudn't have happened, and the bodies would now be residing in boxes somewhere.
The debate over reburial or retention is one that needs opening up to the whole population, and should not be confined to small interest groups to debate.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Dave,
I didn't say that all bodies at all times should be retained. I said that policy should be determined by evidence. In your example, the evidence points to the bodies in question being Christian, so that should be a factor in determining what to do with them. I also didn't say that unless someone has a genetic link, there is no connection. There are cultural connections, including religion, which are probably more meaningful. Everyone is genetically related, that is the thing about genes.
I'm not sure that I'd hold with the idea of immediate reburial on site. Surely that means no osteoarchaeological report, no post ex analysis. This means an incomplete archive, and a censored site report. Surely one of the duties of an archaeologist is to provide as complete an archive as is reasonable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
I think the difference is purely jurisdictional.
The C of E take responsibility, legal and otherwise for the bodies that are on its property. They don't have to be Cof E bodies, and most weren't, given the length of time England was Catholic. However, the C of E has the say over what gives as they can prove a jurisdictional (if not necessarily apostolic) succession over them. THis direct (i.e. documented) jurisdictional link is what is missing from any claims of modern Pagans and Odinists and the liek to what they see as 'their' ancestors. A Similar consideration pplies to Jewish burials (even the medieval Jewish cemetery in York), modern Roman Catholic burials and those in municipal cemeteries- effectively the cemetery manager decides what goes. In the absence of a successor authority, most pagan (i.e. pre-Christian) burials in England's fates are decided by the archaeologists. Think of possession being 9 tenths of the law.
|
