Ministry of Justice U-turn on Ancient Remains
The latest issue of British Archaeology (No 118 May/June 2011) reports that after reviewing the 1857 Burial Act, the Ministry of Justice has decided that archaeologists in England and Wales will not now routinely be required to rebury all excavated human remains, as has been the case since 2008 when the guardianship of burial law moved from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice. Archaeologists would normally apply for licences to excavate human remains, but the whole matter became confused when the Ministry of Justice then declined to issue them.
British Archaeology magazine, the flagship publication of the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) launched a campaign last year requesting re-interpretation of the law, and in February 40 professors of archaeology wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice seeking long-term retention of remains. British Archaeology commenced its campaign in November 2010 with the sensationalised headline “THE HUMAN REMAINS CRISIS” plastered across the front cover of Issue 115 (November/December 2010) with archaeologists excavating human remains in England and Wales being required to hide their fieldwork from public view, and re-inter the remains in a legal burial ground, normally within two years.
In February the decision was made to change the process and the matter now appears to have been resolved with newly issued licences stipulating that archaeologists may retain the remains in suitable facilities after immediate study is completed. The Under Secretary of State for Justice, Jonathan Djanogly, stated that the department had “come to the conclusion that there is no room to apply the provisions more flexibly than previously seemed the case.” Djanogly added that “a more satisfactory way forward can be found which will allow the retention of human remains in appropriate circumstances,” adding that he had directed any new licence applications to be considered on this more flexible basis.
This appears to be a complete turn-around by the Ministry of Justice as in November 2010 a victory was declared for the Stonehenge Druids on the Reburial Issue stating that although a decision had been made to grant an extension to the re-burial condition for five years, in accordance with the application made on behalf of the Stonehenge Riverside Project, instructions for said licence to be amended had been issued with the provision that once the work has been completed the religious views of the Pagans and Druids will be respected and the remains of the Stonehenge ancestors removed from Aubrey Hole 7 would be re-interred.
In August 2008 the Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP) re-opened Aubrey Hole 7 deliberately targeting some 50,000 bone fragments, that had been placed in the hole in 1935. The remains of Aubrey Hole 7 were due to be re-interred after 2 years but SRP applied for an extension to allow for further study. This extension was approved for a further 5 years to 2015. Under this new decision by the Ministry of Justice it seems unlikely the remains will be returned at all.
Who owns our Antiquity?
The Druids claim for the return of the ancestors seemed to be gaining momentum when in October 2010 it was announced that Druidry is to become the first pagan practice to be given official recognition as a religion after the Charity Commission accepted that Druids' worship of nature spirits could be seen as religious activity. An official religious body requesting the return of the remains of their ancestors would at first glance appear to have a reasonable case, but it has been argued that the Druids have no more legitimate claim on the remains than the archaeologists with no historical basis for the Druids links with Stonehenge until the antiquarians of the 16th and 17th centuries conceived the notion of the monument as a Druidic temple.
Be that as it may, but it if the Druid organisations had not entered the arena with the archaeologists over the return of the ancestors who else was going to claim them? What gives the archaeologists any more rights over these remains than the Druids, or you or me. This raises the issue of who owns our antiquity?
Perhaps we should not be too surprised at the outcome in Big Society Britain of 2011. In 2006 a claim was lodged by the Council of British Druid Orders for the reburial of Charlie and seven other human remains. ‘Charlie’ is the name used for the remains of a 3 year old baby excavated from Windmill Hill, Avebury in the 1920s and currently on display at the Alexander Keiller Museum.
Charlie has been on display since the Avebury museum opened. She was carefully laid to rest on a hilltop nearly 5,000 years ago, carefully buried as if she had been put to bed, only to end up on display in a glass cabinet as the star attraction at a museum.
English Heritage and The National Trust held a public consultation on the future of 'Charlie'. Many archaeologists were disappointed and angered that English Heritage and the National Trust were giving the druids' claim serious consideration. The public consultation was launched in 2008 by English Heritage who stated:
“We respect the beliefs that have led to this request, and we have taken the request seriously. These remains are important for our understanding of the past.
“We found that the public overwhelmingly support the retention and display of prehistoric human remains in museums, and that there is no clear evidence for genetic, cultural or religious continuity of a kind that would justify preferential status to be given to the beliefs of the group which requested reburial.”
In a public opinion poll of 1,000 people, conducted in June 2009 by English Heritage, 90% of respondents said they were comfortable with prehistoric human remains being kept by museums. This is hardly a surprising result from a poll conducted from a select number of visitors to the Museum and cannot by any measure be considered “overwhelming support.”
In April 2010 the decision was made to keep the remains of the 3 year old neolithic child on public view. Of course if Charlie's remains had been re-interred it would have set a precedent for the remains of many other museum exhibits to be removed from their hideous glass coffin display cases and reburied also and that would never do.
English Heritage’s decision was based upon the principals set out in the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, published in 2005, claiming that the benefits of having the skeleton on display in the museum far outweighed any harm. No mention here of public decency or respect for our ancestors.
Across Britain the drawers and cupboards of museums and scientific establishments are stuffed full of the human remains of our ancestors. Why do we need to keep so many? Many of these remains were purposefully placed at ancient sites, in the henge ditch, under a megalith, in the centre of the monument along the axis or either side of the entrance, not simply as burials as we think of them but placed in the earth at specific points to sanctify these sites.
I don't think we will ever fully understand the Neolithic mind but it was on a vastly superior level to our own 21st century values shaped by our modern plastic world. The ancients shared a unique relationship with the landscape and on burial effectively becoming a part of it. By taking them away they are removing the very soul of the site.
I don't think we will ever fully understand the Neolithic mind but it was on a vastly superior level to our own 21st century values shaped by our modern plastic world. The ancients shared a unique relationship with the landscape and on burial effectively becoming a part of it. By taking them away they are removing the very soul of the site.
 | |
| The sun goes down over Barclodiad y Gawres on the west coast of Anglesey (pic: Author) |
* * *
