Exposed Skeleton story in Daily Mail

[BAJR]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...posed.html

Local are furious after archaeologists unearthed the remains in the grounds of a former chapel, then left them uncovered.

I thought I better get in here first.

There is some bad reporting here
http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/news/melton...p_1_825259

and one has to say that the graves look like they are to be left in situ. there seems to some disingenuous information in there.

I just want to get in first and say, remember the AUP, and remember that all the facts are not known. The graves are on land not accessible to the public - and so not visible, unless you enter the property.

anyway.

[J.McGraw]

I'm surprised they left some of the graves uncovered (unless you count heras fencing as a cover, which I don't). If they've been open over winter, the very least they should have done is protect the skeletons from snow and rain. I'd have thought nighthawkers would be a problem as well if the graves were left visible, even on private ground.

I'd quite like to hear another side of this story, but Google won't supply me with one, so I'll just have to wait. Still, I thought this comment was quite thought-provoking...

We’re not talking about medieval graves – these are from the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Would it be opening too large a can of worms by asking why this should make a difference?:face-stir:

[BAJR]

I decided to look at the story and the images with an archaeologists eye... it was then that several inconsistencies appeared, and also another story emerged, one that is more plausible.

Consider the images of the skeletons... do they look like they have been open to the elements for 2 months? No neither did I! Then note the leaves... if this was done in December and open for 2 months, then how did these leaves get in? Plus, lets not forget what a winter we had... or was this area untouched? The herris Fence and tarp over the grave is just eh sort of thing I would do during excavation ( if it went over a couple of days ) planks as well I used on a horse burial last November. So it look like a normal excavation site that has been left at the end of a days work.

Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes ( lets see how they heard about it) : Ah, when they had Tree surgery carried out on their property... so the person was high up and looking into a property that belonged to a developer. So how did the photographs get taken then? Did Reg trespass on someone else's private property and take images of skeletons ? Hmmm... Why is one tarp pulled back.... not blown back, but definately pulled back, you can see where a hand has held it and dragged it over the fence to expose the skeletons.

Now lets consider the story more... a developer gets in an archaeological company to carry out works from a condition placed on a planning application for houses... the next door neighbour objects... Lets see... ah.... Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes They like their property without a new development next door. Do you see where I am going...

If you want to know if Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes did object... guess what!

Think about the whole story... use you archaeological abilities to question and the whole thing falls apart.

A shame on them for using archaeologists as the scapegoats in their own personal battle. !

The graves are believed to date from the 19th and 20th Centuries and belong to doctors who worked there.

[BAJR]

I should add, that I don't mind having a pop at people who do bad work, I do mind when it is not fair though. And in public as well! Good grief

[gonetopot]

Allow me to add some details...

A (widened) trial-trench was put into the ground adjacent to the former church to a lunatic asylum. The purpose was to assess the density and survival of unmarked graves. It was never intended to lift the skeletons at this stage of investigation. On the advice of an independent osteoarcheologist, and approved by the county archaeologist, the graves were covered with canvas and fencing until specialist acid free coverings could be delivered (deemed nessecary only once the skeletons had neen exposed and assessed). The graves had temporary covers for 3-4 weeks, not two or several months. They were never visible to the public and the approved materials have been now been delivered and used.

Now, Reg and Bee Holles-Perkes happen to live next door in the million pound house and object to the development of more million pound houses, a fact they made abundantly clear during works. So after the archaeologists left they illegally entered the site through the perimeter fence, removed all the temporary (and secure) coverings and snapped away before inviting the local rag in, after which did they replace the coverings...did they hell.

The site is acutally very interesting relating to the asylum, and it has not yet been decided whether full excavation will go ahead or not by the county mountie. Ironically this is one of the most closely regulated TTs i've seen, and although i've seen people cut corners in the past, this was done to the absolute letter! Its actually quite scary how this story was reported, distorted and then escalated. !!!

[BAJR]

It looks like my suspicions were right then. Thank you for adding details to this. I too was horrified by teh way a) it was reported and b) how some people decided to make some rash assumptions without knowing the story. For me it is no surprise about the reasons behind this story. The worry is that it then gets used to bash archaeology. Knowing quite a bit about the treatment of human remains and the way tthat the county, the archaeological company etc would have dealt with this, the story lacked credibility - hence my desire to head off any other comments. It is now abundantly clear that the people who should be worried are those that illegally entered and removed the covers. Which was quite obvious from the pictures.

Once again thank you.

Let us hope that the Daily Mail and the local papers take this on board.

Angry.. you bet I am. !

[Madweasels]

Who is telling the DM and the Local papers?

[BAJR]

Am trying to ... if they will listen. will they? They will not care now... story done

[GPStone]

Is your version of the facts the correct one (i.e. that this is actually related to the opposition to a planned development and the local residents who are supposedly in uproar actually misrepresented the facts, trespassed and interfered with the graves and the tarpaulin etc themselves - something that seems contemptably hypocritical and disrespectful)?

If it is then this constitutes an attack on archaeology and leaves all of us open to this kind of manipulation. As such I believe a number of us should write to the various media concerned to either question the facts or complain at the misrepresentation and the slight on archaeologists.

It is entirely fair to question archaeological best practise if the public are concerned about the treatment of, for instance, human remains, but to take advantage and deceive people on this matter for what amounts to financially motivated reasons should be met with a robust response from the archaeological community, in some form or another.

That said, perhaps it isn't wise to stir up a storm where one didn't already exist. Has anyone heard of any feedback from members of the non-archaeological public about this story or has it gone largely unnoticed?

[gwyl]

Am trying to ... if they will listen. will they? They will not care now... story done

How about a formal complant to the PCC. Toothless dogs that they are sometimes alleged to be by a certain magazine with a less than admiring stance on the yellow press, nevertheless, it is worth it to raise the issue. Perhaps AS have something to say about it?
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html