Digging up human remains in the UK

[Marc Berger]

dignity bound and tied up in gravitas. Where to next? How about the Valetta convention and how the bodies got dug up in the first place. Not something that was considered in this world of the moj http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.u...policy.pdf. That valetta expects suitably qualified archaeologists to do the digging up which is what we do but then find that we have another law concerned with the opposite of excavation: "rebury". So what was the point of having suitably qualified archaeologists doing the digging up. Is it that when archaeologists "rebury" we have a special way. Is it that we should use all the pictures and measurements that we took to precisely align the remains in an identical burial environment so the remains may carry on their journey into taphonomy. Is excavation supposed to be a total destruction event used to justify all manner of expenses?

Reburying kind feels like we are not supposed to do the digging up in the first place-preservation in situ. The burial acts dont mention archaeologists which kinda means its licences are intended for anybody with a right to the reburial ceremony. That we should leave it to somebody who has been granted a licence and they have been granted a licence because that is part of the ceremony of eventual reburial and a journey of the body into oblivion (which obviously wasn't accomplished the moment when they died). That we might notice the angle of the hip and the fusing of some cusps and the severe case of anthrax is cause us archaeologists are odd and very rude.

Graveyards are funny things. Society wants to bury bodies in them to disappear, dust to dust so to speak, yet archaeologists or rather the hangers on to archaeologists like to go around claiming them as archaeological resources, sticking on preservation orders, listing, scheduling and claiming all manner of archaeological significances. Yet the very human archaeology was put there probably as not to decay to dust.....but unfortunately some of the buggers like bits to fossilise or dodge the slings and arrows of solution and mineralisation...and it has concerned me why some cremation practises went out of their way to burn the bodies just so they still had a few bits of bone amongst the ashes and then contain them in a pot and then bury the pot in the ground to...conserve them so maybe society does want the remains to ...remain. bizarre.

Oh and I am a commercial archaeologists, no salary, no pension, no contingency, dependant on what turns up. I have to find a living from this. Folks what I want to know is should you clean the soil from out of the skull or leave it there. I am a leave it there unless somebody pays me type of a archaeologist and don't get to leave it up to the site director/supervisor to ignore or at best make up a philosophy . Remember with dignity and gravitas.

[Dinosaur]

By the time the average archive has been moved off site, back to office, shipped about to various specialists, stored in various locations, re-packed umpteen times and finally dumped on a museum, in practical terms it's usually better to remove the heavy soil, you'll be archiving larger bone fragments that way. Just remember to sieve the soil that comes out for ear bones, bits of bead necklaces and the like.

If you're going to keep the skull full of soil, store it in a separate box from the rest of the skelly, it'll act like a battering ram every time the box is moved unless packed absolutely immobile. And make sure the soil is dry right through, leave it exposed in a warm room for at least a month if you don't want stuff growing in the box...

[Dinosaur]

Richard III can presumably be used as a blueprint for how to deal with skellies on commercial projects? ....barring the mattock, paper suit etc... so you should be using someone to cradle each skull in their lap during transit anyway, and of course remove the unsightly soil }

[Marc Berger]

you forgot to mention that you can get it out quite efficiently if its not too clayey with a high pressure hose pipe.

[Dinosaur]

Shhhhhhh!!!! :0

[archaeologyexile]

one final point....there is no UK practice as there the law in Scotland is different to England.....start with HS's operational paper...
http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/human-remains.pdf

[Marc Berger]

the jist of which, buried within the slavery of Bona vacantia that everything lost belongs to the queen and lord treasurers Remembrancer and the question within corporeal moveables whether skeletons and property buried with a dead person could be regarded as ownerless and therefore ultimately the property of the Crown like any other lost object as all objects that were once owned can only stay owned or lost and if lost then they belong to the crown has meant that reburial is not the automatic choice but something which they can use the archaeologists as an excuse not to rebury and though the scots also don't seem to have a qualified archaeologist defined and as in archaeologyexile document like to go on and on about what an imaginary archaeologist would like. They kinda get to the result that I like that reburial is ridiculous but for all the wrong reasons.

Presumably reburial would be an attempt to lose something-is it legal to lose something that belongs to the crown in Scotland?
.

[archaeologyexile]

the jist of which, buried within the slavery of Bona vacantia that everything lost belongs to the queen and lord treasurers Remembrancer and the question within corporeal moveables whether skeletons and property buried with a dead person could be regarded as ownerless and therefore ultimately the property of the Crown like any other lost object as all objects that were once owned can only stay owned or lost and if lost then they belong to the crown has meant that reburial is not the automatic choice but something which they can use the archaeologists as an excuse not to rebury and though the scots also don't seem to have a qualified archaeologist defined and as in archaeologyexile document like to go on and on about what an imaginary archaeologist would like. They kinda get to the result that I like that reburial is ridiculous but for all the wrong reasons.

Presumably reburial would be an attempt to lose something-is it legal to lose something that belongs to the crown in Scotland?
.

Reburial is the proffered with Christian assemblages. With regard to finds grave goods recovered as part of an assemblage, there tends not to,be manymodern Christian cemeteries dug most grave goods are pagan. With regard the bodies you can't own a body in Scotland it's against the anti-slavery laws!

[Marc Berger]

by Christian do you mean found in a cemetery or can it be defined by period or demarked by an archaeologist. and what is meant by reburial.

its still out standing can a dead person lose their remains...

[kevin wooldridge]

With regard the bodies you can't own a body in Scotland it's against the anti-slavery laws!

Not sure its anything to do with anti slavery laws, but in English law there is 'no property in' nor 'ownership' rights to a dead body. I'm pretty sure this complements Scottish legislation.......in the few modern cases of so called 'grave robbing' in the UK, conviction isn't based upon possession of the body remains but other considerations (trespass, criminal damage etc etc). Interesting to know if anyone has ever heard of a case being pursued against anyone who failed to obtain the relevant 'burial licence' either from the Home Office or more recently the Ministry of Justice...?