Druids and Avebury Reburial

[onlooker]

My research projects are not relevant to this thread, they relate to tropical human diseases.

[Oxbeast]

Onlooker may not wish to reveal his identity, Digitaldigging.
Interesting points, onlooker, and I am glad that you are so open and friendly with CoBDO. However,

"One thought i had was that was that each generation of archaeologists is potentially ruining a site for the next generation. But of course that means that no one would ever be able to do any archaeology. Digging up artifacts and remains is essentially a destructive process even using today's 'advanced techniques'. Perhaps one day the scanning technologies will be so advanced that material can be examined in situ without excavating sites at all. "

Most archaeology in this country is development led, not research led, and the job that archaeologists generally do is to mitigate this destruction. Preservation by record is definately prefereable to just machining it all out and building road or whatever, as used to happen not too long ago. Though I do agree with you about scanning technology becoming so advanced, you would still need to excavate to check how accurate your interpretation was, or to remove a burial from a development site, for example. technology can certainly do wonders now, but I am sceptical about it removing the need for excavation. At the last few conferences I have been to, for example, there is always someone who gives a paper about lidar, saying that automatic shape detection algotithms will remove the need for human interpretation, and massively speed things up. Then they demonstrate by detecting features that the OS have mapped for 150 years....but I digress.

I would not object to skeletal remains being archived in some kind of climate stable environment, which could for example be a big modern chambered tomb. However, I would object to them being permanently beyond use, and presumably you may wish to try out some new reserrch techniques on them in the future. I really can't see any reason for putting artefacts permanently beyond use.


p.s. I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with you not wishing to reveal your identity, onlooker.

[Oddie]

Interesting debates.

As expected, I?m unmoved by arguments for retention.

1. The chalk soils of avebury have protected Charlie and the Kennet Avenue ancestors for thousands of years. They are more or less intact, and will remain so for thousands of years in the future. Reburial will not destroy anything here.

2. CoBDO have never claimed to represent anyone but ourselves, and our request for reburial should be considered on the socio-political and spiritual metta-narratives of our request.

3. The size of a group making a request is unimportant in relation to the issues.

4. If more advanced research techniques are developed, then destructive sampling and excavation should be reconsidered while the bodies of our greater family are re-united with the chalk soils.

Sorry if I?m repeating myself.


Oddie

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Onlooker does make some very good points.
If (about) 95% of people who post on BAJR are against reburial lets try putting the debate in a wider context: archaeologists as a group are very much a minority grouping in this country due to the small numbers of people engaged in this science, compare that number to how many people hold some form of religious belief and it is still vastly outnumbered. And yet the arguement is used that the wishes of the minority in the name of science should take precedence, why? have archaeologists been appointed the custodians of everyones ancestral remains? or is it a case, that archaeology is the science that deals with said remains and therefore have taken responsibility for them? but does that still give us the right to retain them indefinately?

[onlooker]

I think its difficult to get a perspective on these subjects when you have been working within your area of specialization for many years. You cant see the wood for the trees. What you regard as a reasonable and responsible action may be seen quite differently by someone outside your field of expertise. For example, in my personal field of work i do gene cloning and may be perceived to be undertaking some Frankenstein-like activities.

I guess it always comes back to education and dialogue alongside the patience and good nature to listen to others.

[tmsarch]

quote:Originally posted by Oddie

Interesting debates.


1. The chalk soils of avebury have protected Charlie and the Kennet Avenue ancestors for thousands of years. They are more or less intact, and will remain so for thousands of years in the future. Reburial will not destroy anything here.

Hi Oddie,
the above is a statement that has been made a couple of times through this thread, however I remain unconvinced that this is the case. Stating something does not make it fact - do we really know that this is the case? What proof is there that reburial will not result in significant decay either to the structure of the bones or to the genetic data which they contain? Just because the bones had survived up to the point of being excavated does not imply they will continue to do so in the future. A bone that looks robust may still have suffered significant decay of genetic data.

Arguments based on future research techniques have been termed 'weak' as there is no proof that these future techniques will be developed. However you seem to be able to make statements regarding future decay as fact - this seems inconsistent and I suggest that unless you have firm proof otherwise statements such as "Reburial will not destroy anything here" are disingenuous.

quote:2. CoBDO have never claimed to represent anyone but ourselves, and our request for reburial should be considered on the socio-political and spiritual metta-narratives of our request.

Whilst this may have been your intention by using phrases such as "Reburial back into the Earth from where our ancestors were taken is the most favourable wish of the ancestors..." seems to suggest that you are representing and speaking for ancient peoples who's views cannot be known.

I entirely agree with point 3 of your post regarding size of the group making the request. I am not aware of any posts which have suggested otherwise.

I am unclear as to what you were trying to say in your fourth point - perhaps I am being dumb - and would welcome clarification.

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by Oddie

Interesting debates.

As expected, I?m unmoved by arguments for retention.

Hi
Interestingly I find myself even more convinced that scientific enquiry and the responsibility of heritage professionals for the protection, preservation and promotion of archaeological and historical material should not be compromised by non-evidential faith based dogma.

Dirty Dave in answer to your questions,

"have archaeologists been appointed the custodians of everyones ancestral remains"

I have been employed by democratically elected members to be a custodian of archaeological/historical material and remains. I can only act on their mandate, which in a political democracy means that I carry out the policies of those people appointed by the public to be their representatives. If however, rather than democratically achieved appointments their was a theocratic system then things might be different, but all in all I think I'll stick with a rationalist democracy.

"but does that still give us the right to retain them indefinately"

It behoves us to ensure as complete an archive of our interventions and to carry out our jobs in the highest professional standards with the inherent knowledge that the non-retention of material will lessen the ability of future researchers.

Steven

[Digitaldigging]

"Onlooker may not wish to reveal his identity, Digitaldigging."

But does not object to pointing to research on these grounds. Onlooker states the lack of relevence to the topic as his reason for not pointing us to his researches.
If you don't mind revealing your identity, Onlooker, would you point me to some of your projects?

[Digitaldigging]

An additional point - seeing as temporal matters may or may not concern the dead, and all bones, including our currently flesh-covered ones, will perish when the sun expands in 4 billion years time, isn't the waiting game the safest option?

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

4 billion years?- what makes you think we have that long left?