17th February 2009, 12:32 PM
Hi Steven,
"It is not feasible to record bones in a database"
When a specialist is contracted to produce a report on human remains, do they not keep all their analysis on a database? and can then refer to it for future refence? once the analysis is done they don't then need to phsycally keep the bones- similarly, pathologists who deal with the recent dead don't need to retain the bodies and they can be released back to families etc for burial/cremation.
"Or make plastic models"
Medical students used to use real skeletons, and as that is illegal they have to use plastic models.
"The question goes right to the heart of whether we as archaeologists accept the responsibility that once we intervene in a site we HAVE to ensure the preservation of the archive"
No disrespect to you Steven, but I think the real question is; should we view human remains as just 'archive material' and treat them in the same way we would animal bone,pottery,metal,glass etc? and as such just another type of artifact to be retained for study or archiving.
I asked a New Zealand archaeologist what happens to Maori remains when found on sites, he said that after they have been examined/recorded they are returned to Maori Elders-and are not kept as 'archive material'-shouldn't we have the same policy for all human remains?
Hi Bier Keller,
"Artefacts being retrieved from cists while the remains were chucked out,maybe just keeping the skull"
In recent years we have seen the scandal of some hospitals seeing it as their right to keep back body-parts from children for further study and only releasing part bodies back to families for burial/cremation. A question that needs to be asked is; where do we draw the proverbial line between when deceased humans are to be treated with full respect and when do they become just artefacts?
"It is not feasible to record bones in a database"
When a specialist is contracted to produce a report on human remains, do they not keep all their analysis on a database? and can then refer to it for future refence? once the analysis is done they don't then need to phsycally keep the bones- similarly, pathologists who deal with the recent dead don't need to retain the bodies and they can be released back to families etc for burial/cremation.
"Or make plastic models"
Medical students used to use real skeletons, and as that is illegal they have to use plastic models.
"The question goes right to the heart of whether we as archaeologists accept the responsibility that once we intervene in a site we HAVE to ensure the preservation of the archive"
No disrespect to you Steven, but I think the real question is; should we view human remains as just 'archive material' and treat them in the same way we would animal bone,pottery,metal,glass etc? and as such just another type of artifact to be retained for study or archiving.
I asked a New Zealand archaeologist what happens to Maori remains when found on sites, he said that after they have been examined/recorded they are returned to Maori Elders-and are not kept as 'archive material'-shouldn't we have the same policy for all human remains?
Hi Bier Keller,
"Artefacts being retrieved from cists while the remains were chucked out,maybe just keeping the skull"
In recent years we have seen the scandal of some hospitals seeing it as their right to keep back body-parts from children for further study and only releasing part bodies back to families for burial/cremation. A question that needs to be asked is; where do we draw the proverbial line between when deceased humans are to be treated with full respect and when do they become just artefacts?