Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by Brock (U1600628) on Saturday, 11th April 2009

  Archaeologists have learned a huge amount from human remains and these remains continue to attract lots of interest from museum visitors.
  
  However, some people believe it is undignified to put human remains on display.
  
  Some within the contemporary Pagan community have asked for pre-christian remains to be reburied in the same way that most later burials are.
  
  I'm wondering what people think about this issue.
  Should human remains be on display, reburied or archived?
  Why do people feel the way they do on the subject?

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  The older the skeleton is the less emotional people are.
  
  Personally despite being generally against our traditions, I do not find undignified the exposition of a skeleton if there is some valid reason for that and if that reason still respects the human being. It can be done for study purposes or in the case of an extremely well known man - say you found the skeleton of Alexader the Great... what would you do with it? Bury it underground?
  
  What would be undignified is to let a recently dead human being rot in full view or to mumify him for... artistic reasons... I had seen an eexposition of dead mumified people from China (done initially for medical studies) which were taken by an artist and reassembled for... artistic reasons. There are few things that can shock me, so I was not shocked at all but I found it highly distasteful and disrespectful on these humans.

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  Hi Brochfael_Canwrtir,
  
  Fortunately the majority of archaeological excavations don’t involve human remains but some historical periods, like early Medieval England, depend almost entirely on cemetery evidence. The treatment of the remains themselves varies: some are re-buried, some are retained for study and a few, a very few, are used for museum display. Artefacts found with the remains (grave goods) are usually retained in an excavation archive unless they are worthy of display.
  
  My experience within the UK is that most people in the majority community would not object to current archaeological practice providing that the graves concerned are pre-19th century. This implies that the individuals concerned have no identifiable children, grand-children or even great grandchildren living.
  
  However in our multi-cultural society it will be increasingly important to consider the views of minority communities. I can't imagine that excavation would be possible within a recognisably Jewish or Muslim cemetery, without causing great offence. There are also places outside the UK where consent must not be assumed. It is well known that Native Americans take a very different view over the treatment of ancestral remains.
  
  The ‘indignity’ shown to the grave occupants is balanced by the huge increase in cultural knowledge obtained by their study. Consider how the artefacts from Sutton Hoo transformed our appreciation of the Anglo-Saxons.
  
  It is also worth considering how graves are treated by non-archaeologists. Grave robbing is a virtually world-wide industry and has been since antiquity. The past is simply regarded as a source of plunder, which diminishes the world’s heritage.
  
  Please correct me if I am wrong but would I be right in assuming that the Pagan community in the UK worships Iron Age deities (rather than Pagan Norse ones for example). Do you believe that there has been continuity of belief since that time, or does modern Paganism owe something to 18th century antiquarianism?
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP
  

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  Personally I have no objection to skeletal remains being on show, but I suppose a concensus on such an issue will never be possible.
  
  Fifty years ago I was fascinated to see shrunken heads on display in a certain museum, but about twenty years ago I heard that the authorities had given in to pressure from the Aborigines and handed them back.
  
  The most extreme example of body display I can think of is Jeremy Bentham in a glass case at (I think) Oxford. It was done at his own request.

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  I must confess I find Egyptian mummies very creepy. Others, I know, get quite excited about them.
  
  I have seen bog bodies but my interest is more about how and why they have died. The ritual aspects fascinate. Their preservation is also remarkable.
  
  I am sorry to have to say it but when you are dead, the essence that is you has gone and all that is left is a cadaver. Now where your essence has gone I leave to you and to your beliefs. However, the body of the recently deceased should be treated with respect and due ceremony applied according to that person's beliefs.
  
  The question is whether the bones of the long-time dead should be on display? I think this is quite proper if they are being displayed within a learning context which accords both purpose and value to the artefacts. This is in itself a form of sanctification. They should not be displayed for reasons of pure spectacle.
  
  With regard to the religious beliefs of various doctrines, I treat these with a certain ambivalence. Nobody is digging up recent graveyards. In the early decades of the nineteenth century Christian burial in London was a scandal as there was not enough space in the churchyards. This meant that graves were doubled up and often rotated with coffins complete with corpses removed into crypts and charnel houses. This was known but never talked about. In the end they had to open the big suburban (then) cemeteries at Kensal Rise and elsewhere. After that cremation became the norm which actually is contrary to traditional Anglican teaching.
  
  I tend to feel that this issue is nonsensical as nobody has come back from the dead to complain.
  
  Or have they?

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  LairigGhru
  
  As far as I know Jeremy Bentham is in a cupboard at University College, London. I was shown him some fifty years or so ago by my parents. I can still remember watching my father opening the cupboard door.

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  Hi LairigGhru,
  
  I fancy you'll find Jeremy Bentham is at University College London, unless they've moved him!
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th April 2009

  Hi stanilic,
  
  Very sorry. It would be good discipline if I read all the posts before rushing in.
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 14th April 2009

  
  Should human remains be on display, reburied or archived?
  Ìý
  
  This decision is largely made for the archaeologist by the law, and where the law is vague, by "best practise". A licencing system is in the process of being agreed upon which will remove even more of the ambiguity which remains (pardon the pun).
  
  Reburial is a requirement where the remains are situated in a burial ground still recognised as such. If the remains merit long-term retention for purposes of research this is agreed with the authority recognised as administrators of the burial ground and the religious authority under whose designation the site is "consecrated". In the bulk of cases this is a christian church authority in the UK, and in the vast majority of cases this authority will insist on reburial, be it eventual or immediate.
  
  If the remains are found in other areas then the default practise is to consult the same authorities. If an express desire is communicated for reburial then it is normally honoured. Some, but not all, local authorities have a policy of proactively notifying potentially interested religious authorities.
  
  If the remains are pre-christian then the decision rests with the authority which issued the licence to excavate, normally a local authority. Under a new licencing structure the excavators will have to apply for a licence to retain the remains. It is not envisaged that this will lead to much of a difference in how many such artefacts are reburied, but it will remove some of the variation in how individual local authorities adjudge the issue.
  
  "Contemporary pagans" are not recognised as a religious authority - and rightly so since within this group lies a spectrum of belief and a consequent variety of perceptions (not always based on fact) regarding the circumstances of the burials and how such remains should be subsequently disposed.
  
  All such research - regardless of subsequent interment or not - is archived. Retention of human remains by academic institutions etc is by far the rarer event, and subsequent display of such artefacts even rarer again.
  
  All in all the law (and best practise) as pertains in the UK is pretty much as fair and as sensitive as it can be without representing either a gross interference to archaeological research or alternatively a wilful disregard for current religious beliefs. Neither standpoint would necessarily be served better through the introduction of "blanket legislation" regarding disposal of excavated remains which would, by definition, over-ride assessment of individual finds' archaeological uniqueness (and they all share that quality) or local sentiment. Licencing of remains will introduce a "trackability" element which is lacking today in some circumstances, and will therefore allow potential violations of either the law or accepted procedure to be redressed quicker.
  
  
  Why do people feel the way they do on the subject?
  Ìý
  
  Whatever the reason might be for however they "feel" it is vital that sentiment alone not dictate the potential for furthering knowledge, especially adversely. Having said that, the treatment of skeletal remains etc will always impact emotionally - whether this is expressed religiously or not - and the archaeologist must be sensitive to that aspect of their work. In my own experience they are just that - and indeed treat human remains with a deference not extended to other artefacts. If this is not generally known or understood outside archaeology then it represents a failure of communication, but again I have not found this to be generally the case - and especially in recent years when programmes such as Time Team etc have demonstrated standard archaeological practise to a wide audience.
  
  Those, such as from the "contemporary pagan" groups, who still insist that not enough "respect" is being shown are - in my view - pursuing more a self-publicity agenda than one of increasing their knowledge of the very subject in which they proclaim to be chiefly interested.

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

  Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:01 GMT, in reply to Brochfael_Canwrtir in message 1
  
  I studied the archaeological treatment of remains in the UK as part of my Museum Studies MA, and the subject is a minefield.
  
  Personally, I feel that all burials should ideally remain in situ (unless leaving them there would result in the destruction of the grave - for example, due to building work).
  
  The main exception is where exhumation and examination of the remains provides valuable historical and/or scientific knowledge. Even then, in the majority of cases, reburial as soon as possible once the relevant data has been obtained is the preferred option. The display of remains in an educational context, however, is acceptable.
  
  Last year I attended the opening up of an grave in a church to see if the supposed occupant was at home. This was not because we expected him to have risen from the dead, but a result of the shocking mistreatment of graves by the Victorians and their predecessors. Extensive restoration and reordering work is being carried out on the church in question. Part of the plans involved extending the chancel over this grave. A reordering in the 1860s had made it doubtful the grave existed. Most of the markers had been ripped up and replaced with paving, monuments had been moved and all sorts of chaos had ensued. As the grave was that of a figure of some importance, it was considered important that the grave was located properly, and left accessible and properly marked once the new reordering was complete. The grave was indeed there, in a lovely brick vault. Between the paving and the vault, however, was infill which contained all sorts of rubbish - earth, stone, tiles... and a human toe. This is apparently far from unusual when carrying out excavations in medieval churches. It was once common for tenants to be evicted to make way for new residents, and no-one seems to have been too concerned if the previous occupier remained in one piece. Stray bits of people turn up all the time (more mysterious is the skull which someone embedded high up in the wall in the 16th century, also recently uncovered).
  
  The idea that pre-Christian remains should be buried according to modern Pagan rites is dubious at best. Even assuming (which would, IMO, be very wrong) that modern Paganism has any serious continuity with ancient religions, Paganism was such - if you'll pardon the expression - a broad church, with any number of gods, goddesses, spirits, cults, sects etc etc, that it is usually impossible to know exactly who or what the deceased believed in. I'm not volunteering to throw myself on the next solstice bonfire to honour some bloke in bog. Ultimately, unless you know what you're dealing with, a generic, a-religious respect is the best you can offer.
  

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 19th April 2009

  TP Message 8
  
  No worries. Though I do think it time that Mr. Bentham came out of the closet. The cupboard could then be used in a more utilitarian way than as a coffin.
  
  Or am I labouring the point......

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Brock (U1600628) on Wednesday, 2nd December 2009

  Thank you all for your informative and useful replies. Would anyone else care to comment?

  Link to this forum: Human Remains - Excavation, Archiving, Display, reburial

  Report message12

Back to top