Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
14th October 2010, 12:47 AM
A bit of a digression, but the only example of public complaints I have come across involved contractor (non-archaeological) clearance of part of Woodgrange Park Cemetery, Manor Park in East London back in 2000. This refers to it - can't locate any primary sources at the moment. It mentions public in nearby flats being able to see over the screens placed around the site - they did not like what they saw.
http://www.pats-towerhamlets.ch/cemeteri...gepark.htm
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
16th October 2010, 12:29 PM
When they built the Centre For Life in Newcastle on an old 18th/19th century infirmary cemetery (always thought that was a bit ironic!) the cemetery got dug by the old Newcastle City Unit only because the tender for archaeology was actually lower than those from various commercial cemetery clearing outfits....interesting dig and the remains were treated with considerably more respect than they would have been otherwise (the remainder of the site was cleared using, ahem, a big seive....) :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
4th February 2011, 10:48 AM
This story rumbles on. Today's
Guardian has a letter signed by assorted academics and a small article reprising its oriignal story of Oct 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/f...rchaeology
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/f...bury-finds
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
4th February 2011, 10:55 AM
.... Of course one solution to the dilemma of 'time/resource management' might be to deploy any number of the archaeologists who are currently twiddling their thumbs looking for any form of paid work.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
4th February 2011, 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 4th February 2011, 06:14 PM by Madweasels.)
It should be, of course, possible for stores containing human remains to be blessed/consecrated in the same way that chapels of rest in hospitals are. I imagine that thos could be done in a multi-denominational way. Arguably, the remains are likely to be better cared for in these stores (if also under the creation of any religious group that wishes to oversee them) than in the ground. Perhaps those whose religious sensibilities are being disturbed by these remains being out of the ground should be brought into the care and curation of the 'asset' as preserved ex situ rather than being seen as on the other side of the fence to the academics. (Not surprisingly, we archaeologists think that we know best again!) 'Consecrated/blessed' stores with access observed in an agreed fashion by academics and the faithful (i.e. faiths recognised by whatever law in this country recognises faiths as legit - does such a thing exist or is it to do with charity status or something) should be a working compromise, I would have thought. Remember, remains in cemeteries and catacombs can be exhumed for study (forensic) - the same principles (though streamlined) could apply to human remains in my new blessed stores. Simples, as my Meerkat cousins might say.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
4th February 2011, 06:44 PM
Madweasels Wrote:It should be, of course, possible for stores containing human remains to be blessed/consecrated in the same way that chapels of rest in hospitals are.
I think this is missing the point slightly and would this mean every unit, museum, lab, amateur group store and so forth end up being consecrated? And I would certainly object to any notion of 'pagan' consecration for facilities used to house/store prehistoric remains due to the complete absence of what they actually believed in rather than what we believe they believed in (but that is another debate and thread).
The issue is the Justice Department dragging its feet. Mike Pitts was just on PM (Radio 4) explaining what the problems are and that applications for extensions to licenses just isn't enough. Just think what would have happened if we had this legislation 40 years ago? One area that would have been seriously and adversely affected would be isotope analysis. The list can go on and maybe we should actually make such as list. So here goes to start it....
Negative impact of the legislation
a) would prevent the application of new techniques on previously excavated material
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2010
4th February 2011, 08:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 4th February 2011, 08:14 PM by Madweasels.)
You would object to ANY notion? So, no compromise then. That's a very useful negotiating position...
And why not have a dedicated area for human remains? The units should already have such a thing if they are storing human remains with care and attention, shouldn't they? Or do they store human remains alongside animal bone and pottery sherds? So, sensitive store, records store, human remains store. It can be done - likely to be the archaeologists who complain about such a compromise.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
5th February 2011, 01:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th February 2011, 01:32 PM by Talisien.)
Irrespective of age and religion (known or otherwise) all human remains should be appropriately excavated, stored, in appropriate facilities, and treated with respect by all of us, regardless of profession. The point I wanted to make was such storage facilities do not require to be consecrated or sanctified in some manner. Lets remain focused on the issue - but I accept that my previous post could have been better phrased and tempered with my own sense of probity.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
5th February 2011, 03:15 PM
Talisien Wrote:Lets remain focused on the issue
Well indeed and nice as that little puff on PM was for one aspect of archaeological research, there are of course much greater dangers at present to the whole principle of archaeology and archaeological research both as an academic discipline and as a paid profession.
Having siezed the day so to speak and recognised that one aspect of our subject is worthy of publisicising in the national press and on BBC radio, can we now expect the great and good who signed this letter to widen their campaign and protest the damaging effects of cuts and deprivations being felt by many archaeologists at present. I would be happy to stand behind 40 or so archaeology professors in such a campaign.... (to borrow from Tommy Docherty's famous comment on the subject of football directors 'I rather have them in front of me where I can see the ---------, instead of behind my back)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2010
7th February 2011, 01:01 PM
Not a just a puff Kevin, this has gone around the world.
Starting in the article in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/04/archaeologists-forced-to-rebury-finds
The article was discussed on the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 Friday morning.
It was picked up by the Daily Mail's online news site
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1353620/Law-requiring-reburial-ancient-remains-threatens-future-archaeology.html
And Past Horizons -
http://www.pasthorizons.com/index.php/ar...bury-finds
Mike Pitts was interviewed on the PM news program on BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw 04/02/2011 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw%2004/02/2011> - interview starts at 26.20.
It also achieved some international coverage -
Professor Martin Bell was interviewed on the Canadian show As It Happens a CBC news show.
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/20...ry-4-2011/ <http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2011/02/04/friday-february-4-2011/> interview on part 3 - 6.08 –
And Duncan Sayer was interviewed on the BBC World Service show - Europe today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w558 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w558> - Interview starts 48.55
