Archaeology, human remains and the media

[sniper]

but there should at least be a minimum standard at which all burials should be excavated and recorded. What is not judged to be important to one person may be very important to someone else. Not taking a photo of a burial in situ because it is judged to be a "bog standard" medieval burial by one person may mean important info is lost to someone else for example. And there should be a minimum standard for lifting them as well. The nature of the burial and presence of grave inclusions, soil conditions etc etc may mean techniques would be different for dealing with it, but the outcome should always be the best possible compromise between speed, retrieving objects properly and getting the human remains out in as good a state as possible

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[mercenary]

I have mixed feelings about TT and some of my negative feelings relate to how they deal with human remains. I worked for them long ago on a site producing late Saxon burials. Staff were rushing to remove these using very poor technique and not allowing me to record them properly. When I complained I was told by the television director that "we were not doing archaeology, we were making a TV programme".

As regards MoLAS technique I also worked a Spitalfields, and the system worked well in the circumstances. The lack of universal photography bothered me, and it was not just limited to the burials, but to all archaeological features. I feel that the photographic record should be a balance to drawn records, which always have an interpretative element.

[vulpes]

Your must have worked on a different Spitalfields (SRP9:face-thinks: to me then because I distinctly recall every one of 'my' skeles being digitally photographed and penmapped. However, as the largest archaeologically recorded group of burials ever (over 10,500) - maybe 1 or 2 got missed? Either way, I don't think that project lowered standards - quite the opposite - and with 2 qualified and experienced osteoarchaeologists in constant attendance how could it?

[ross_k]

Thanks to all for your comments. I had a feeling (and hoped) that the topic would stimulate some varied commentary and I'm grateful to you all for your viewpoints. As an osteo without a huge amount of field experience (particularly one that had some dealing with Native American archaeology), I personally tend to err on the side of the overly cautious when dealing with the excavation and curation of human remains. But I can certainly understand the necessity of methodology used at cases such as at Spitalfields. I'm glad that we had archies and osteos with varying viewpoints weighing in on the debate. Fascinating stuff!

[ross_k]

Hopefully that doesn't close the thread - more opinions would be great!

[mercenary]

Vulpes,

Not a different Spitalfields just probably a different area. Was not personally digging graves as we were dealing with post-med dwellings, during my brief time there, while other areas were down to the graves. Will admit that I have probably drawn the wrong conclusions about photography of skellies, but did have an argument with supervisors about photography for other features which was simply not being done except for 'publication' photos. I have not before or since seen a unit that has this practice

[vulpes]

Yeah Merc, sorry not a personal dig. You're right about the general photography though, and I found this a bit weird myself. Then again when I did personally feel something merited a photo I was allowed to go get the cameras. That said the 'pro' photos that were taken across the site, were done regularly and were bound to be of a consistently higher standard than those in the average archive - showing endless nondescript pits in poor light conditions. The selective approach to site photography is outlined and reasoned well in the MoLAS manual. The v expensive (at the time) digital SLR was used by a trusted few to record all the skeles, in my recollection - and was purchased with this in mind. I'm still not convinced by the 'photograph every feature' approach - and have found (despite training people) that wide ranging use of SLR film cameras leads to disappointing archives.

[mercenary]

quote:wide ranging use of SLR film cameras leads to disappointing archives

Perhaps so, but it is still an archive that can be referred to if need be. Many is the time during post-ex that I wished for a poor SLR photo to help resolve a problem. Drawings are interpretive, while photos are less so. (I would argue that photos are completely objective, but I'm sure someone out there will 'correct' me)

[vulpes]

Just to clarify, by 'wide ranging' I meant a 'free for all' where each digger takes his/her own photos and records them. Despite training people, I found that the larger the team the more inconsistent the archive when this approach was taken. The MoLAS manual approach is to take photographs of 'problematic' features and relationships and when applied well it should inform the post-ex process and the difficulties you speak of. It shouldn't be used just as an excuse to save film and money though!

Not really a 'pot person'.

[monitor lizard]

We are having a related discussion with the curators down here - is it now/will it every be acceptable to ditch SLR shots altogether, and only use digital formats. Our response is no (reliability of storage, print and paper quality in real time, etc), but would be curious to hear thoughts.

ML