Druids and Avebury Reburial

[Digitaldigging]

"I would personally like the building to be in the guise of a neolithic long barrow, which would be secure & accessible"

I like that idea very much.

[Oddie]

"I would personally like the building to be in the guise of a neolithic long barrow, which would be secure & accessible"

interesting

Oddie

[BAJR Host]

ah.... the perfect compromise. though depends on your dating what you would have liked... as well as geographical location.. however a long barrow building would work on our current phyce to make us feel better... non denominational mortuary temple/research lab

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[achingknees]

How about a subterranean, multi-period necropolis in a Cheshire salt mine? Apparently wonderful dry, dark conditions for good archive storage.

[Oddie]

Hi folks,

I?m really torn by this fascinating debate. While CoBDO wish to promote knowledge, understanding and do not wish to restrict learning, we are specifically interested in decay as a process through which life and death are fully realised. So, while we consider the display and storage of our long dead ancestors as unethical, the decay process becomes the real issue in terms of spiritual belief. Council are suggesting this process of decay, along with reburial as a way of healing the heart of sacred landscapes, needs to be met. We hope other people will agree - real bones of contention and the focus of the potential conflicts.

The reburial request (not demand) may seem radical ? it?s certainly not militant, and I?m well aware there are many Pagans drawn to ancient landscapes through archaeology. As a student of archaeology and social anthropology, I assure you there are many who agree with our requests for rethinking of current thinking and practice in the field. I have met, both as a digger, and as a student, archaeologists, Drs and professors, who all try to avoid digging up the dead. Some simply refuse. Many do not voice their opinions due to the verbal violence voiced by some on this blog site.

Considering reburial and retention, I suggest we all put our minds and great abilities together to find a solution to the conflicts of interests here. The chambered barrow idea is a step toward this. Let?s not forget the beautiful process of decay, death and rebirth as a completion of the eternal cycle. We are the ancestors reborn ? me, you, everyone. /|\ O



Oddie

[vulpes]

quote:due to the verbal violence voiced by some on this blog site

???????? [?]

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by Oddie

Hi folks,

the decay process becomes the real issue in terms of spiritual belief.

Hi
Human remains aren't retained because people like myself get kicks from it. It is because new techniques such as isotope analysis, DNA testing, radiocarbon dating etc are continuously developing. These techniques offer amazing potential to answering really detailed questions concerning past people's lives.

These techniques have proved their potential and indeed have been carried out on remains retained from excavations decades ago showing that the policy of retention is a positive attribute.

Because decay is part of your spiritual beliefs you are requesting that human remains are not retained but allowed to decay. This means (and there's no getting round this) the potential answers concerning these people's lives cannot be realised.

The problem (as far as I see it) is that, as an archaeologist my professional ethics mean that I cannot in all conscience allow finite evidence concerning the past to be destroyed through inaction after a decision has been taken to excavate. It comes down to stewardship, and as a professional employed to steward archaeological evidence it would be remiss of me to sanction a policy that advocated deliberate decay.

In the CoBDO request the question of improving techniques is not addressed, it is discounted. Isn't this a little disingenuous considering the proof that new techniques have been and will continue to be developed?


Steven

[Oddie]

[/quote]

The problem (as far as I see it) is that, as an archaeologist my professional ethics mean that I cannot in all conscience allow finite evidence concerning the past to be destroyed through inaction after a decision has been taken to excavate. It comes down to stewardship, and as a professional employed to steward archaeological evidence it would be remiss of me to sanction a policy that advocated deliberate decay.

In the CoBDO request the question of improving techniques is not addressed, it is discounted. Isn't this a little disingenuous considering the proof that new techniques have been and will continue to be developed?


Steven
[/quote]

Peace Steven. All good points.

The Human remains of our Avebury ancestors have enjoyed the embrace of the earth for thousands of years. The soils at Avebury assisted in the skeletal remains remaining, and will continue to do so for thousands of years in the future. Reburial threatens no one's jobs or authority. In this way, our reburial request sets a precedent for the Avebury complex. In comparison, the ancestors at Sutton Hoo decayed very quickly, leaving only stains upon the lower stratigraphy. They have been fully blessed into the Earth.

Science does a fantastic job in its 'stewardship'. Druids, and pilgrims to Avebury represent the spiritual site. Council believe that many (but not all) Avebury pilgrims agree.

Retention on the basis of non-existent research techniques that may or may not be developed is a weak argument for dis-respecting the spiritual beliefs of Council (we have NEVER claimed to speak for anyone else. This is very different from 'discounting research'.

Despite years of study in academe, and the many benefits I read concerning archaeological research, I never fully understood ancestral landscapes until I went into the field, stood by a burial mound and called to and honoured the pregnant Goddess and her children. This, I believe is the best way to understand the relationship between ourselves and the ancestral landscapes.

Peace /|\


Oddie

[tmsarch]

My thoughts on the matter are (in no particular order)

- human remains should always be treated with dignity and respect.

- the excavation and treatment of human remains is one of the most complex and emotive issues which we as archaeologists face.

- archaeological remains, including human remains, are finite and irreplaceable.

- the disturbance of human remains is often unavoidable.

- where remains of people of known identity are found then the wishes of their direct living family members regarding retention or reburial should be sought. However many (most?) archaeologically excavated human remains are of long-dead persons who's identity is unknown and/or their religious/spiritual beliefs are unknowable.

- as archaeologist dealing with human remains we need to be answerable to any decisions we make and as such should always ensure that our decisions are informed and follow current best practice - if we rebury scientifically important remains now how will future archaeologists look back at us?

- human remains can be a valuable educational tool, as such their display in a museum is acceptable provided their is a genuine educational benefit.

- as well as being educational human remains are a valuable source of important scientific information about past peoples, their lifestyle, diet, genetic links, burial practice (and can sometimes provide information on their beliefs and attitudes?).

- some human remains are of greater scientific value than others, however most remains have a significant and valuable scientific worth.

- indiscriminate reburial of remains after excavation means that an important (and finite) information resource is lost. As such human remains should be carefully and appropriately curated to ensure their physical survival and the survival of important scientific data.

- reburial of human remains unless carefully controlled generally leads to the deterioration (often rapid deterioration) of bones and/or the genetic information they contain. Reburial in controlled conditions with the option to easily re-examine them is difficult to achieve and is often ineffective.

My personal opinion is that following archaeological excavation human remains form part of the archaeological record. They should therefore be appropriately curated - this will generally be in a suitable museum or archaeological store. Reburial should only occur in circumstances when there is an overwhelming need. In this instance I personally do not feel that CoBDO have demonstrated there is an overwhelming need for reburial.

[As an aside (and potentially equally contentious issue) I was recently involved in a discussion regarding the preservation in situ of burials. As bones naturally and gradually (sometimes rapidly and often unpredictably) degrade if left in the ground should we be preserving burials in-situ? Is this preservation in situ meaningful if in 100 years time there is significantly less information (including genetic information) surviving within the bone than there is now?]

[Arddhu]

I very much doubt that any consensus on this contentious issue will be reached on this somewhat biased (for obvious reasons) forum, as would a similar discussion on a pagan forum, lets just hope that those making the decisions about the future of our joint ancestral remains make a fair and unbiased one.