|
||||||||
HUMAN REMAINS at Tara
|
Human Remains
|
||
|
|
so far the bodies of a total of -- individuals have been found in the path of the M3 through the Tara Skryne valley we do not yet have Lab reports from all of them , but these are some Please sign the Tara Reburials petition HERE |
_,.+*^*+.,__,.+*^*+.,__,.+*^*+.,__,.+*^*+.,__,.+*^*+._
|
and please sign and circulate the Tara Reburials petition |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
new petition http://www.indymedi
http://www.petitiononline.com/taraeire/petition.html
|
Dé Luain Iúil 21, 2008 15:14
by Muireann Ni Bhrolchain
related
http://www.sacredsites.org.uk/index.html
|
An International discussion on reburialsStatement by the 'Sacred Sites, Contested Rights/Rites' ProjectDr Robert J Wallis, Department of Archaeology, University of SouthamptonDr Jenny Blain, School of Social Science and Law, Sheffield Hallam University 2 December 2001 This research project supported by the Centre for Research on Human
Rights, Copyright © R.J. Wallis and J. Blain, 2001 'Reburial' has been a central issue for archaeologists and anthropologists in the USA, Australia and elsewhere where the lobbying of indigenous communities for the repatriation and/or reburial of human remains and artefacts held by museums (and other institutions) has met increasing successes (e.g. Biolsi & Zimmerman 1997; Dongoske & Anyon 1997). In the USA, NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990), and in Australia the 1988 South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act mark examples of policy which have enabled some indigenous communities to make legal claims on 'their' pasts. For archaeologists and anthropologists the ramifications have been immense, with opinion varied; from those who largely support the indigenous claims (e.g. Zimmerman 1997), to those, particularly osteoarchaeologists and physical anthropologists, who argue vital scientific data is being irretrievably lost (e.g. Jim Chatters in Radford 1998). Within the UK, a working group has been set up to examine 'the current legal status of human remains within the collections of publicly funded Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom', and make recommendations for proposals 'which might form the basis of a consultative document' [1]. But such issues are not only controversial in indigenous contexts: the reburial issue is now on the agenda in Britain. Arguably, and perhaps as a matter of common sense, there are no indigenous communities remaining in Britain ‚ the current multicultural milieu, largely an after effect of colonialism, is only the most recent result of a diversity of ethnic groups choosing the British Isles as 'home', a process in action since prehistory: from the so-called Bronze age 'beaker people' whom were thought to have conquered Neolithic peoples, to more recent Anglo-Saxon 'invaders' who, it has been claimed, pushed the Iron Age 'Celts' to the fringes of these Isles. Archaeologists now approach such ethnic engagements in more subtle ways, and the focus on 'invasions' no longer predominates, but still 'indigeneity' in the sense claimed by peoples of Australia or the Americas would be misplaced and misguided. Contemporary Britain is a postmodern melting pot of cultures and traditions (and some, especially on the political left, might argue this makes Britain a truly cosmopolitan nation). To claim indigeneity here would at the very least be suspect and certainly politically and/or religiously motivated. Nonetheless, increasing numbers of people, particularly contemporary 'Pagans' (loosely put, adherents of new 'nature religions' among modern Western peoples, e.g. Harvey 1997, 2000), 'feel' they are native to the British Isles. They may claim to be 'Celtic' even if they have no immediate Scots, Irish, Cornish or Manx parentage (e.g. MacEowen 1998 [2]). Just as there are 'wannabe' Indians (Green 1988), these are Wannabee Celts, or 'cardiac celts' as Bowman (1995,) terms them, who 'know in their hearts' they are Celtic (e.g. Bowman 2000). Some may indeed go to considerable lengths to study cultures and languages, so that their involvement becomes cultural rather than merely 'cardiac'. There are also Pagans, contemporary Heathens in particular, who make ceremonies to honour Anglo-Saxon 'ancestors' (e.g. Blain 2002). Others, however, feel they can relate more directly with prehistoric peoples whose monuments are extant in the landscape, particularly of the Neolithic and Bronze age, but also Romano-British, Iron Age, etc. And it is at these monuments that Pagan understandings and engagements with them confront those of heritage managers: Pagans not only interact with ancient 'sacred' sites in their rituals (which may result in ritual litter such as flowers and tea-lights and even have destructive effects including 'ritual' fires which damage megaliths), but also and increasingly, through these rituals they are identifying themselves as spiritually allied with the prehistoric peoples who built the monuments. Closeness to the sites (frequent engagement is conducive to a feeling of closeness to the builders) denotes, for them, an affiliation with the prehistoric communities which constructed the monuments. Rites at megalithic tombs involving (perceived) direct communication with prehistoric 'ancestors' in particular, prompt these Pagans to feel a responsibility to ancient peoples once interred there and the 'sacred sites' (as many prefer to call them) themselves. In turn, not only have contemporary Pagans been collaborating with site managers in site welfare, such as picking up litter and removing chalk graffiti, but they have also, now, begun to address issues of 'ancestor' welfare; i.e. concerns over the archaeological excavation and storage and of human remains and artefacts, even challenging the excavation process itself [3] (Wallis 2000). Concerns over what archaeologists do with human remains is not just an issue for 'alternative' Pagans, however: a recent British Archaeology news article (November 1997:5) discusses the 'Public Disquiet Over Digging of Graves', referring specifically to an excavation at an Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Suffolk. One remark is rather striking,
How short a time do we have to be buried before it is permissible, even acceptable, for grinning archaeologists to dig out our bones, prod among our teeth, disperse our possessions, take the head off our horse and lay us, not to rest, in boxes in museums? Indeed, 'When does sanctity, afforded to graves, cease to be an issue?'. In the article this criticism is levied at 'Britain's planning culture which appears to treat cemeteries, especially out-of-use non-Christian cemeteries, with little respect'. It seems people other than Pagans express a sense of responsibility to these 'ancestors'. Even so, it is Pagans who are most vocal on the issue of reburial ‚ increasingly so ‚ and are taking active roles in effecting change. Such interests seem to have been directly influenced by the indigenous claims to the past, particularly the high public profile of Native American repatriation and reburial of human remains and artefacts ‚ only last year (2000) Glasgow's Kelvingrove Museum returned a Wounded Knee massacre Ghost Dance shirt to the Lakota Sioux. Drawing on such a precedent, Pagans have framed their approaches to British reburial in language similar to that of Native Americans. The words of British Druid Order member Davies are particularly striking in this regard:
Every day in Britain, sacred Druid sites are surveyed and excavated, with associated finds being catalogued and stored for the archaeological record. Many of these sites include the sacred burials of our ancestors. Their places of rest are opened during the excavation, their bones removed and placed in museums for the voyeur to gaze upon, or stored in cardboard boxes in archaeological archives...As far as archaeologists are concerned, there are no cultural implications to stop them from their work. As far as Druids are concerned, guardians and ancestors still reside at ceremonial sites such as Avebury and the West Kennet Long Barrow...I believe we, as Druids, should be saying "Stop this now. These actions are disrespectful to our ancestors. These excavations are digging the heart out of Druidic culture and belief." When archaeologists desecrate a site through excavation and steal our ancestors and their guardians, they are killing me as well as our heritage. It is a theft. I am left wounded. My identity as a Druid is stolen and damaged beyond repair. My heart cries. We should assert our authority as the physical guardians of esoteric lore. We should reclaim our past (Davies 1997:12-13) Davies's view clearly has an indigenous-inspired tone to it. Given that many Pagans, neo-Shamans in particular, actively engage with indigenous spiritual practices ‚ however contentious this may be ‚ such rhetoric is not surprising. His view also compares with the so-called 'New Age traveller' opinion that archaeologists are contemporary society's 'looters of graves' (Bender 1993:271), just as contemporary archaeologists see some early antiquarians. Whatever the influences, such Druidic claims to the past may, at first glance, appear laughable. Indeed, archaeologists and others often write off such 'fringe' claims outright. This reaction, while understandable, is short-sighted and in no small way arrogant: the example of Kennewick Man in the USA illustrates how the claims of contemporary Pagans ‚ however controversial ‚ have been included alongside those of archaeologists and indigenous groups (e.g. Radford 1998). In this famous case, not only were claims made on prehistoric 'ancestral' remains by both local Native American communities and a local right-wing Asatru (or 'Odinist') organisation, the Asatru Folk Assembly, but also both groups were granted access to the remains to perform ceremonies which honoured the 'ancestral' remains, while the archaeologists had their scientific analyses halted by law. Clearly, British archaeologists must be mindful of such (albeit exceptional) cases: simply put, the current British reburial issue will not go away, cannot be ignored; Pagans are prepared to act on their intentions. To Davies, reburial of these looted bones 'makes perfect sense; bones are living people and should therefore be respected and ceremonially reburied' (Davies 1998/9:11), and he outlines how Pagans can get directly involved in this issue:
I speak for the ancestors and guardians of the land, those spirits not currently represented in the archaeological record...The Druid or Pagan shaman can use their gifts as 'harmonic bridges' to communicate between the realities of archaeology, land developers and Pagan Druids...Druids should join together and encourage debate between archaeologists and museums in the reburial issue (Davies 1998/9:10-12). At first glance, individual Pagans and Pagan groups do not have agreed core beliefs or practices let alone centralised spiritual beliefs concerning disposal of the dead. Nonetheless, in the 'time of tribes' (Maffesoli 1996), the reburial issue is gathering momentum and coherency. Protests at certain archaeological sites are protracted and ongoing, such as against quarrying stone adjacent to the Nine Ladies stone circle, Stanton Moor, Derbyshire, indicating Pagans are prepared to take direct action to protect sites: here while the (obvious) stone circle is outside the proposed quarrying area, the Moor holds many bronze age burials. Stonehenge with the present tunnel proposals is currently hotly debated. In the context of reburial, Philip 'Greywolf' Shallcrass, Joint-Chief of the British Druid Order states that:
The question of respect for our ancestors has been very much to the fore with me lately...My interest is personal, in that I've worked with the spirits in and around Stonehenge. I also find the display or shoddy storage of human remains a source of pain and sorrow. Given that obviously Christian remains are almost always given a Christian reburial when disturbed, it seemed reasonable that the same courtesy should be accorded our pagan ancestors. I'm aware of the increasing notice museums and others are taking of the reburial issue where it concerns native people in America and Australia. There's a small but growing voice within the pagan community calling for similar respect for our own ancestors. Greywolf, along with other Druidic and Pagan representatives such as King Arthur and George Firsoff (Stonehenge Reconciliation Committee) and groups including the Order of Bards Ovates and Druids, has been heavily involved over the last five years in discussions with English Heritage concerning access to Stonehenge at the summer solstice [4]. The 'Stonehenge Masterplan' has also been under discussion at these meetings, particularly proposed changes to the landscape that will inevitably detrimentally affect the archaeology [5]. Initial field surveys show that the cut and cover tunnelling work will damage or destroy 16 archaeological sites of which 11 are ploughed out (virtually nothing remains), only two of the remaining five have any visible trace above ground, and of these, approximately four burials will be disturbed. Concerned about this disturbance, Greywolf asked a National Trust representative:
...if there was any possibility that priests used to working with the spirits of our ancestors could get access when such burials were uncovered and could make ritual for the spirits of the dead. He said that he knew re-burial was an issue in Australia and the US, but didn't know it was over here. I told him that it is a 'live' issue amongst the pagan community and was likely to become increasingly so. He expressed his personal sympathy to the idea. Inspired by this initial contact, I wrote a letter to some appropriate folk in English Heritage and the National Trust. In it, I expressed my concern that any burials found might simply end up in boxes in a museum basement. I asked for access to burials on site when they were uncovered, for permission to make ritual before burials were removed, and also whether it would be possible to re-bury the ancestral remains after a suitable period of study, preferably within the Stonehenge area. The latter seems important since our ancestors clearly didn't select their burial places at random and I felt they should be returned to the earth as close to the original grave sites as possible. Both English Heritage and the National Trust replied very promptly and favourably. The National Trust are putting my letter forward to the next meeting of the Stonehenge Archaeology Group and I'm awaiting developments. More recently, negotiations have moved forwards. A liaison group has been established to discuss the future of Stonehenge. This group includes representatives from the Highways Agency, National Trust, English Heritage, Friends of the Earth, Pagan Federation, Ramblers Association, CPRE, local government, farmers, etc. After an initial meeting in March 2000, and a second in September 2001, Greywolf had this to say:
With this new round of meetings, I'm hoping to see sympathetic noises translating into action and will keep plugging away until it happens. From being involved in discussions about the road plans for Stonehenge and from making ritual and spirit journeys in and around the site, I've come to focus on respect and reburial as my primary reasons for being involved in the talks. I don't like the idea of any remains that may be uncovered during the work ending up either in a museum display or filed away in a cardboard box in a storeroom. I have been, and will continue asking for any remains that are found to be treated with respect and then returned to the earth as near as possible to their original burial sites, preferably with any accompanying grave goods and with suitable ritual. So, while contests over access and rights to sites at one time graphically led to violent confrontations, such as the 'battle of the beanfield' near Stonehenge in 1985 (e.g. Bender 1998), archaeologists and site custodians have, over the last fifteen years or so, increasingly engaged with and accommodated Pagan viewpoints. Without doubt, there is a plurality of views, ranging from Pagans and archaeologists who refuse to acknowledge either side's perspectives, to those who actively, dialogically, engage. And, in future work we will be addressing this diversity of perspectives, interviewing a wide variety of both Pagans and heritage managers. But at this stage in our research, the sort of interaction between Pagans and site custodians illustrated in Greywolf's account looks towards good relations in the future (see also Bannister 1998).
ConclusionsMeanings inscribed in ancient 'sacred' sites are complex; sites have meanings for people which are spiritual, emotional, and political; and construction of meaning cannot be separated from political or pragmatic circumstances surrounding sites. Pagan claims to the past, particularly those which deploy such terms as 'ancestors' and which call for the 'reburial' of human remains and artefacts, are as much politically motivated as they are spiritually so. But archaeologists cannot claim scientific immunity here since their interpretations of the past are also constructions. Ucko, with indigenous claims on the past in mind, suggests that a challenge for archaeologists today is to avoid being seen as the enemy by insisting 'they have the right to disturb and desecrate burial sites and to make decisions about the disposal of other people's dead' (Ucko 1990:xvi). While indigenous communities can demonstrate genetic or cultural links to satisfy the law, addressing the extent to which Pagans can claim British prehistoric remains are 'theirs' is to miss the point, for two reasons. First, it is interesting that the issue here is one of respect and reburial rather than repatriation. Pagans, whatever their claims on the past, generally do not claim to be exclusively related to the 'ancestors'. And second, the issue here - rather than being one solely of divergent or competing perspectives, of academic discourse versus public understanding, of authenticity versus inauthenticity (following papers in Bromley & Carter 1996), or validity/invalidity (e.g. De Mille 1976) - is of multivocality and forms of knowledge and power. More conservative archaeologists may assume they have the power to make such charges because 'scientific' archaeological claims are perceived to be more objectively substantive. But the positivist dichotomies (of authenticity/authenticity, validity/invalidity, etc) constructed, and empiricist approaches taken, by some of Paganism's academic critics (e.g. Kehoe 2000) are incompatible with contemporary archaeologies, and with current social research methods generally. In the current 'post-processual' climate, there is need for archaeologists, heritage managers and others to be reflexive, transparent, and open up their research/data to external scrutiny. So the issue is really whether archaeologists should be prepared to embrace such pluralities and engage with them dialogically, rather than dismiss them as 'fringe' and 'eccentric'. In this light, we think it imperative that the reburial issue in Britain, voiced primarily by Pagans, is examined, as well as guidelines offered which pragmatically address issues of respect and reburial vis-ý-vis conservation and academic study. We will address these issues in forthcoming research.
Footnotes[1] From a Call for Contributions, Working Group on Human Remains, on the email list Britarch,. 14 September 2001. It appears from the initial remit that this group addresses only the issues involving repatriation elsewhere, not the situation of remains and artefacts found within Britain. [2] And also see Blain, 2001, for a deconstruction of this particular claim based on 'celtic' ancestry. [3] A session at the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) meeting 1999 (Ethics and the excavation and treatment of human remains: A European perspective) discussed the European reburial issue. Unsurprisingly, the 'alternative' voices of Pagans and others with spiritual concerns over the past were not discussed because the session organisers either hadn't heard of such concerns, or if they had, they were not seen as a serious threat to archaeology. A paper by Wallis did raise this issue, but in a different session, 'The archaeology of shamanism' (Wallis 2001). [4] The diversity of opinions must be emphasised: not all Pagans are prepared to negotiate with the management bodies or are sympathetic to their preservation ethic. [5] A web site opposing the Stonehenge Masterplan but offering views from both sides of the argument, Stonehenge Under Threat! World Heritage Site Threatened by Road Building Scheme, can be found at http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk
References:Bannister, V. 1998. The Colchester Druid. The Right Times 3 (Autumn Equinox): 26-27.Bender, B. 1993. Stonehenge - Contested Landscapes (Medieval to Present Day). In: B. Bender (ed.) Landscape, Politics and Perspectives: 245-280 Oxford: Berg. Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg. Biolsi, T. and L. J. Zimmerman (eds) 1997. Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Blain, J. 2001. Shamans, Stones, Authenticity and Appropriation: Contestations of Invention and Meaning. In: Wallis, R.J. and Lymer, K. (eds.) New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore: A Permeability of Boundaries? 47-55. BAR International Series 936. Oxford. British Archaeological Reports. Blain, J. 2002. Nine Worlds of Seidr-Magic. London: Routledge. Bowman, M. 1995. Cardiac Celts: Images of the Celts in Paganism. In: G. Harvey and C. Hardman (eds) Paganism Today: Wiccans, Druids, the Goddess and Ancient Earth Traditions for the Twenty-First Century: 242-251. London: Thorsons. Bowman, M. 2000. Contemporary Celtic Spirituality. In: A. Hale and P. Payton (eds) New Directions in Celtic Studies: 69-91. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Bromley, D.G. and L.F. Carter (eds) 1996. The Issue of Authenticity in the Study of New Religions. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc. Davies, P. 1997. Respect and Reburial. The Druid's Voice: The Magazine of Contemporary Druidry 8 (Summer):12-13. Davies, P. 1998/9. Speaking for the Ancestors: The Reburial Issue in Britain and Ireland. The Druid's Voice: The Magazine of Contemporary Druidry 9 (Winter): 10-12. De Mille, R. 1976. Castenada's Journey: The Power and the Allegory. Santa Barbara, California: Capra Press. Dongoske, K. E. and R. Anyon. 1997. Federal Archaeology: Tribes, Diatribes and Tribulations. In: N. Swidler, K.E. Dongoske, R. Anyon and A.S. Downer (eds) Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground: 197-206. Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press. Green, R. 1988. The Tribe Called Wannabee. Folklore 99(1): 30- 55. Harvey, G. 1997. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism. London: Hurst & Co. Harvey, G. 2000. Boggarts and Books: Towards an Appreciation of Pagan Spirituality. In: S. Sutcliffe and M. Bowman (eds) Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality: 155-168. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kehoe, A.B. 2000. Shamans and Religion: An Exploration in Critical Thinking. Illinois: Waveland Press. MacEowen, F.H. 1998. Rekindling the Gaelic Hearthways of Oran Mor. Shaman's Drum 49 (Summer): 32-39. Maffesoli, M. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage. Radford, T. 1998. Equinox: Homicide in Kennewick. London: Channel Four Television. Ucko, P.J. 1990. Foreword. In: P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal (eds) The Politics of the Past: ix-xxi. London: Unwin Hyman. Wallis, R.J. 2000. Queer Shamans: Autoarchaeology and Neo-shamanism. World Archaeology 32(2): 251-261. Wallis, R.J. 2001. Waking the Ancestors: Neo-shamanism and Archaeology. In: N. Price (ed). The Archaeology of Shamanism: 213-230. London: Routledge. Zimmerman, L.J. 1997. Anthropology and Responses to the Reburial Issue. In T. Biolsi and L. J. Zimmerman. (eds) Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology: 92-112. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Copyright © R.J. Wallis and J. Blain, 2001 Contact: Dr Robert J. Wallis Lecturer in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology Dr Jenny Blain Course leader, MA in Social Science Research Methods
Page last modified 10th January, 2002
|