26th July 2009, 10:02 PM
according to current conventions we must recognise the rights and wishes of those with a claim on remains in the manner by which they are treated.
adversely we must also respect the preservational storage, once removed from the ground in an apporiate storage manner.
some redepeosited remains have been found to have been damaged beyond acceptable treatment through that process being conducted in the past.
the cultural heritage convention would wish that we should consider even a claim to be relevant and equal.
conventions would also like us to equally recognise in mutual consideration the wishes of other interested parties.
so someone who is interested in, say charlie's remains in the keiller museum, should be considered but how much value is gleaned from the presence of the said remains within the museum.
the only principle issuewould be down to how muchg respect do we provide for the scientific and cultural value of the remains within the case, by being held within an archive.
is the physical display not respecting those remains?
does excarnation violate the respect we should show the remains of those removed from the west kennet long barrow.
even recognising the curatorial aspects of limb separation and ordering.
these are not of the same time frame but given the atemporal issues arising from interprative conections with a material remain then we must consider these elements as comparable within the monuments within their monumental landscape settings.
I would suggest the remains are not done justice in the said case, however the removal for reburial would devalue the survivability of the remains which we have taken responsibility for through their remooval.
we as the heritage profession and interest group have in the past taken this responsibility and have accepted the continual responsibilites that come with the considerate and respectful duty of care to the remains.
the keiller museum woyuld loose a valued asset from display, but if these were replaced with cast copies the retention of the display would be kept as an educational resource, but the repatriation of these remain on the same grounds would destroy any further value or direct connection with this display.
in effect we would be producing a copy and passing it off for vistors.
if this is the case then we are proliferating an archive of falsified manufacture, without any point of direct integrity comparison.
this in itself would be a violation of the remains in that these remains would be dupliacted like dolly the sheep and the subsequent ethical issues that ensue would make it necessary totake further responsibility for the pursuit of such a course of action as we do not know the implications that will ensue from this approach, especially if future interested groups wished to directly communicate and interact with a given interpretive cultural heritage.
this is a circular argument unless we consider the issues arising from due diligence resulting from the consciencous study of past cultural heritages'.
txt is
Mike
adversely we must also respect the preservational storage, once removed from the ground in an apporiate storage manner.
some redepeosited remains have been found to have been damaged beyond acceptable treatment through that process being conducted in the past.
the cultural heritage convention would wish that we should consider even a claim to be relevant and equal.
conventions would also like us to equally recognise in mutual consideration the wishes of other interested parties.
so someone who is interested in, say charlie's remains in the keiller museum, should be considered but how much value is gleaned from the presence of the said remains within the museum.
the only principle issuewould be down to how muchg respect do we provide for the scientific and cultural value of the remains within the case, by being held within an archive.
is the physical display not respecting those remains?
does excarnation violate the respect we should show the remains of those removed from the west kennet long barrow.
even recognising the curatorial aspects of limb separation and ordering.
these are not of the same time frame but given the atemporal issues arising from interprative conections with a material remain then we must consider these elements as comparable within the monuments within their monumental landscape settings.
I would suggest the remains are not done justice in the said case, however the removal for reburial would devalue the survivability of the remains which we have taken responsibility for through their remooval.
we as the heritage profession and interest group have in the past taken this responsibility and have accepted the continual responsibilites that come with the considerate and respectful duty of care to the remains.
the keiller museum woyuld loose a valued asset from display, but if these were replaced with cast copies the retention of the display would be kept as an educational resource, but the repatriation of these remain on the same grounds would destroy any further value or direct connection with this display.
in effect we would be producing a copy and passing it off for vistors.
if this is the case then we are proliferating an archive of falsified manufacture, without any point of direct integrity comparison.
this in itself would be a violation of the remains in that these remains would be dupliacted like dolly the sheep and the subsequent ethical issues that ensue would make it necessary totake further responsibility for the pursuit of such a course of action as we do not know the implications that will ensue from this approach, especially if future interested groups wished to directly communicate and interact with a given interpretive cultural heritage.
this is a circular argument unless we consider the issues arising from due diligence resulting from the consciencous study of past cultural heritages'.
txt is
Mike
txt is
Mike
Mike
These last few posts have cheered up a wet and gloomy morning.