Tuesday 26 October 2010

Sacred Ancestors


There was a story in the Telegraph and the Guardian yesterday concerning the display of ancient human remains in museums. They report the findings of a new book by Dr Tiffany Jones that museums are removing or partially covering mummies, skeletons and other human remains for fear of protests by neo-pagan organisations, the chief among which seems to be Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD), an advocacy group founded by Emma Restall Orr, a neo-druid, poet and author.

There is certainly considerable sensitivity over this issue, particularly when some of the remains in question were removed from traditional burial grounds without consultation, something that might be defined as anthropological imperialism, a corollary of political imperialism. Many of these artefacts have subsequently been returned to the rightful communities

But is it right to be equally concerned over remains such as mummies and bog bodies, where no cultural or tribal continuity can be established? The examination of such things is, after all, an essential part of archaeological research, helping to establish a better understanding of the past, of past lives and past cultures.

Speaking personally I approach this question from two dimensions. As a scholar and as a historian I have to welcome anything that throws a greater light on the past, which I love. As a pagan, as an admirer of the ancient ways and ancient customs, I believe that we have to approach human remains, the remains of our ancestors, with a high degree of sensitivity. How could I possibly celebrate Samhain (Halloween) and not feel a link with the spirits of the dead, no matter how ancient?

Sensitivity, that’s the key word, to show things always in context, not to display the dead, many of whom were buried with reverence, simply to be gawped at as objects of idle curiosity. After all, how would you feel if your own ancestors were taken from consecrated ground and put on public display? Ah, but time, the removal of time, excuses such things, does it not? Perhaps, then again, perhaps not.

Jenkins may have a point, though the story seems to me to be about undue sensitivity on the part of museum authorities. I can see no evidence at all that they are threatened with protests for displaying human remains. I’ve had a look at the HAD website. Here are the main points made on the issue of display;

2.1 A display should primarily seek to emphasise the remains’ personhood, i.e. not treat the remains as specimens, nor imply them to be objects, instead presenting the remains as individual human beings and subjects in their own right. Thus even where the remains are of scientific value, this should be expressed entirely within the context of the individual’s life.

2.2 As much information as possible about the human being should be expressed in any display, including what is known of their people, their way of life, and individual story. Where there are various possibilities, it is preferable to offer this information rather than to avoid giving any.

2.3 Displays should not remove human remains from the context of the landscapes within which they were thought to have lived and from which they were exhumed. Displays should provide such information, thus preserving the importance of a person’s connection with the environment. Where possible, this should be enhanced by an understanding of that landscape and its landowners and/or community in the present day.

2.4 Any goods disinterred with the human remains should be displayed with the remains. If this is genuinely not possible, quality replicas should be considered. Best practice would entail every item being referred to and explained, possibly with details as to where more information can be found.

2.5 Dignity should be restored to the individual where possible. For example, where a skeleton is found intact but with the skull not in its correct anatomical position the display should place the skull at the top of the spine, and not as found within the grave. In most instances it is not possible to know the reasons for the original burial configuration; however, restoring the remains to a normal configuration expresses respect for the individual as an ancestor, recognising their part within the human story. The position of bones within the grave can be presented with graphics in a display, or using photographs taken at the time of excavation.

2.6 Care should be taken with the use of nicknames for human remains. While using a name can ensure the remains are not perceived as specimens or objects, doing so can imply a level of familiarity that allows a lack of adequate respect. The giving of a nickname is often a part of the remains’ ongoing story and should be explained as such.

2.7 Remains from different individuals should not be muddled up. Where displays of human remains do contain more than one individual, this must be absolutely clear and justified by the individuals’ stories.

2.8 Best practice would entail the story of the excavation and exhumation of the individuals being told within the display, together with reasons as to why the remains were disinterred and retained, however briefly. The views of those who found the remains could also be included, further adding to the personal relationship between the ancestor and the present community or that contemporary to his or her exhumation.

2.9 Funerary urns should be displayed with explanations of their purpose, together with acknowledgement of the individual and where their remains may now be. They should not be displayed simply as pots.

2.10 Low lighting should be employed at all times on human remains. If this does not allow for detailed viewing, graphics or reproductions should be used to illustrate necessary points. This is as true for isolated bones as it is for skulls or entire skeletons.

2.11 Visitors should be warned that human remains are on display, before they approach them, so that they can make an active choice whether or not to view them.

2.12 Information about the eventual disposal of the remains should be considered as a respectful and valid part of the display, including whether any decision has been made about reburial, if this is under review or not currently under consideration. If the remains are to be retained within a collection, justification for this should be made clear.

2.13 If space does not allow for presentation of sufficient information immediately alongside the display, separate leaflets, information on websites or audio guides could be used.

2.14 Best practice would include providing seating near the display so that those who wish to are given the opportunity of sitting with the dead. In some cases, and in consultation with Pagan and local community groups, the opportunity to leave offerings could also be considered. This may be as simple as a box for monetary gifts with clarity as to which charity the offerings were to be given to; without adequate explanation, however, such a box is unlikely to be used.


By and large this seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if a little eccentric at points. There is no suggestion of any kind of extremism, or automatic protests if remains are displayed. It’s all a matter of context. Either Jenkins is being disingenuous – sensation sells books – or the museums authorities are being stupid. We can honour or ancient ancestors and understand them by making them part of our lives and study. There is no contradiction.

49 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I did say it the statement was perfectly reasonable, by and large. It's just typical of you Adam; you push things to laughable extremes. To try to compare a small pagan pressure group to Hamas or the Taliban completely destroys any serious point you may have. Personally I could not give a damn if you respect the pagan tradition or not, or that you would make a fetish out of science.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, what's the point? They are not hostile to science, not that I can see. I am hostile to science, to your intrusive notions of science. I had never heard of HAD until this story came up. HAD speaks for HAD. Pagans are an amazingly diverse range of people, with an amazingly diverse range of views. There is no church, no hierarchy, no bishops, no leaders, no spokesman, no spokeswoman. I've written in the past about witchcraft, which has nothing at all to do with druidism, answered questions you have put to me, though I now think you have understood nothing. To say you despise paganism is the intellectual equivalent of saying you despise people with blonde hair. I wish you would reflect a little more before you write. Now, that's my last word.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really feel uncomfortable with the use of human remains as display material. We have an ugly history on this topic in Australia and I always look at it from the point of view that the dead are not entombed for the benefit of future scholars but to lie in their tombs until the end of time. Is it practical to accomodate this in all cases? Of course not. But where they can be left in peace, I believe they should be. If that slows the advance of knowledge, so be it.

    Got any good incantations ready for the festival?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I added Emma Restall Orr on Facebook last week (after seeing her interview with Julie Etchingham, that Muse-Goddess of 'News at Ten' on an old clip on Youtube). I have forwarded the link her the link to your blog. This came up briefly in an unrelated discussion with my brother when he asked "We're not allowed to dig up people's graves, are we?" And I thought for a few seconds (in which this time-span question and others skimmed my brain) and replied "No." I'm unsure of what Islam would say to the archeological argument. I was actually explaining to my sister how lots of London graveyards were up-dug during the building of the underground lines.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jelena Bekvalac works in Human Osteology at the Museum of London. She gave a talk on 19 about the 'Royal Mint plague pits.' I found out about this later but like me, interested parties can listen to the audio here: http://vimeo.com/16087251

    I have just received the following reply to this blog from Emma Restall Orr:

    I don't know how to post a comment on these blog spots. My comment would be :

    The point HAD asserts, as accurately described in The Guardian, is that all parties who feel that specific human remains are important - whatever their believe system or concept of value - have a voice in decision-making when it comes to their future. Simple.

    Thanks. /|\

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In my time as a volunteer archaeologist - roughly 15 years - I dug up dozens and dozens of skellies and cremation remains in Britain: neolithic to late Mediaeval. Later, while designing museum displays, I handled many more.

    In recent years I have been involved in nation to nation consultations between several different American Indian tribes and a federal agency. The topic of human remains and cultural artifacts arises a lot. There is no simple viewpoint, and the arguments are as much about power and politics as they are about spiritual matters. There is no single tribal opinion - Indians vary in their attitudes just as non-Indians do. I'm sure people are just as variable across the globe. But don't imagine that the sensitivity is mere political correctness. There is abject fear involved in some cases. Some tribal peoples are as afraid of human remains 'improperly handled' as the Department of Homeland Security is afraid of dirty nukes - and for about the same reasons.

    There are other reasons for their concern. By federal law, tribes are recognized as sovereign entities with specific rights that are entailed upon their establishing continuity of ownership of specific lands ab origine. There are plenty of American Indians - especially in Alaska - who do not enjoy federal recognition and the money and influence that goes with it because they cannot establish their connection to specific land parcels. In the Lower 48, when pre-Columbian human remains dated more than 10,000 years BCE are discovered in Kennewick, WA or Spirit Cave, NV that have non-Indian features, the tribes' legal status is threatened.

    Add to this mix well-meaning anthropologists, archaeologists, and self-appointed 'friends' of native peoples and you have a fairly volatile recipe.

    Like Adam, I am a scientist and an atheist. I don't care a lick what happens to my remains after I die. I don't believe that the beliefs of others should weigh any more highly than mine when it comes to how to handle parts of dead people. But they are entitled to those beliefs. The question really is: whose cultural traditions should dominate when there is an argument over disposition? That is politics. Frankly, I prefer not to pander to the relicts of failed cultures, but we are currently misled by jellyfish who are incapable of recognizing the magnitude and importance of their ancestors' achievements or the issue would never even arise.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The list is long indeed but I do like the part about contributions. They should be in envelopes addressed to me and I will see to the distribution of funds. There have been similar issues in America with indigenous peoples .The Egyptian culture also has been all but raped for some time.It is about culture clash as the dominant culture will try to eradicate the cultures of conquered peoples. They will impose their language, religion and laws etc. and in many instances deliberatly destroy books or artifacts that may contradict their beliefs. Now as for atheism and sience, I have come to the conclusion that religion is the invention of man but that spirituality is a very real concept. For everything that exists to just be a series of random events I think not. There is just too much order in the scheme of things to be random . Everything on the cosmic level interacts like the timing of a clock, The ancients were well aware of this. I think the problem is man trying to explain what he does not fully understand using human analogies. We are energy turned to matter which returns to energy to manifest again. There is a spirit realm and the veil between worlds is thin again, the cycle of life will start anew (Samhain).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Adam, apologies; so you did I'll amend that: to hell with paganism - note no caps - and to hell with blondes. After all, it's more or less the same thing. :-))

    ReplyDelete
  22. Retarius, I saw a documentary about the impact of gathering remains in nineteenth century Australia. There was reference in particular to a German anthropologist, a woman, who saw a particularly fine specimen of an Aboriginal skull. The problem was it happened to be on a living man. No matter, her lobbying ensured that the skull finally appeared in her collection to take back home for the ‘enlightenment’ of Europeans.

    Yes, I do. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rehan, how delightful. Please thank her for me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Adam, this is part of what you wrote, tub-thumping, sabre-rattling and irrational;

    Whilst it is shocking that what I thought was a rather docile Pagan community should plunge to the moral depths of Hamas or The Taliban who famously destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan in an act of archaeological terrorism ; it is perhaps more shocking that museum officials have been so acquiescent to the demands of these religious extremists.

    The state of the scientific community is indeed an ill one if a small group of archaeological terrorists can voices their threats in so loud a voice so as to win the censorship of beautiful ancient artefacts. We are all familiar with groups like Hamas and The Taliban, but now it seems British Pagans have a wing of their faith that is no better than these vile groups.

    It was you who drew my attention to this story but rather than simply accept things at face value I decided to do a spot of research. I repeat HAD’s policy on the question display is perfectly reasonable, with none of the ‘religious extremism’ you allude to, none of the ‘archaeological terrorism.’ To try to compare this organisation with Hamas or the Taliban on any level, moral or otherwise, is bizarrely inappropriate. Besides, you have a wholly artificial and ill-informed view of the pagan community, which follows no single agreed policy or central dikat. Pagans are the most varied group of people you could ever imagine; there is even a pagan archaeological group that takes a different view here from HAD.

    I honestly don’t know where issue of intolerance comes from. As far as I can see, on the basis of their own published statement, HAD are simply looking for some balance; that remains displayed for scientific purposes are still worthy of some respect in the way they are displayed. I have no argument with that whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Calvin, it's a complicated issue, in North America more than anywhere else. But there are real questions over past practices that have had contemporary political implications. It's interesting to see the contrasting views that you and Retarius have here, though the circumstances, generally speaking, are pretty much the same. I don't think any of us can make judgements on the basis of personal perceptions. There are so many factors to be taken into account, not least the impact of advanced civilizations on 'failed cultures', specifically the way in which failure was amplified and humiliation the prevailing experience.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I’m getting tire of repeating myself, but HAD did not try to speak for the entire pagan community, a practical absurdity; it spoke for itself. My goodness, I would have thought we would have leaned by now that the ‘scientific community’ is not all powerful or beyond reproach; that it is a gross error to make a fetish out of scientific practice. We are taking besides about museum displays, about the best way of presenting such displays, and organisations such as HAD have a right to express a view without being accused of ‘religious extremism’ simply because it happens to be run by pagans. I remember on one of the episodes of Time Team the remains of a woman buried by a bridge in the Middle Ages, a sign of an outcast, were reinterred in consecrated ground with all due solemnity. There is no contradiction so far as I am concerned between scientific inquiry and respect for the ancient dead.

    I don't honestly know what my position on male 'genital mutilation' has to do with anything raised here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anthony, yes, I agree: spirituality is one of the most important dimensions of human experience.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Circumcision is an ancient Semitic practice, increasingly adopted in gentile societies for reasons of personal hygiene. It’s certainly not something I would take a stand over, or refer to it as ‘mutilation’ in the way that female circumcision is so obviously mutilation. All I will say is that the evidence is that the rates of cervical cancer among women are that much lower in societies that do practice circumcision than those that don’t. I would hardly describe, say, loving Jewish or Muslim parents as "fanatical child molesters". No sane government is ever going to legislate against the practice.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. No loving parent of any fait or none would amputate and perfectly healthy part of a child's body.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete