I am of course aware of the great deal of controversy circulating the ethical maelstrom of the display of human remains and indeed culture-specific materials in the modern archaeological sphere. It is exceedingly hard not to be, if at all self-aware, but I have recently learned more as to the seeds of this discussion which began far earlier than I expected. Further to this, discussions involving debate over not only the ethics of maintaining material culture collections but also who is best situated to discuss or publish on culture-specific topics have begun to have some frequent presence in my own practice. This has presented me with some ethical dilemmas, as I do on the heart of the matter agree, and yet because of long-term inequalities there is an obvious demographic dominance of Europeans in regard to studies of any/all cultures. The majority of these experts are not occupying their research arenas maliciously and are truly inspiring people who now face the same ethical dilemmas which I am considering. Can I truly ethically, research or claim expertise in a culture which is not my own? The basic answer is yes, but there are now areas of research which are potentially not ours to theorize upon. Even archaeologically this presents issues, our museum collections are frequently colonialist, this is something we can discuss and debate, it is our history, however bleak. In discussion on The Flipside podcast November episode this became a point of discussion, as it has become fashionable to attempt to identify the hidden voices within collections, which is so often the native peoples who were colonised. These are not our stories to tell, it is arrogant to think otherwise, of course, we must acknowledge that these individuals are missing from our collections, but it is not us who should then speak their truths and thereby re-colonise even their stories. We cannot draw lines and isolate cultural studies, such as archaeology, on lines such as race, because in doing so we would lose an understanding of each other. There is a tendency to uplift with our own voices such stories, but in doing so, we so often drown out those of the cultures we project. I do think it is sometimes done out of some sense of ancestral guilt, this should not be the case, yes, we should acknowledge, but the heavy burden of that guilt is not ours to shoulder. By approaching cultural study and defence of equalities in this capacity we distort why we should all be engaging with these aspects in the first place, to create a more diverse, sympathetic and interesting research environment and in doing so through how we do research (i.e., open access) influence a trajectory for a better more equitable world. There are teams and collaboratives already achieving this, for example, Prof R. Parkinson and Dr D. Rosenow, who were guests in The Flipside podcast November episode, and have recently curated an exhibition entitled ‘Tutankhamun: Excavating the Archive’ which enacts some of the aforementioned principles in a museum context. As researchers we are always reaching for all the information and every possible line of narrative in order to feel secure in our research, as if, if we miss something it invalidates our works. But we cannot do this, there is something inherently freeing in noting that our research is not infallible, that we did not follow every line of information because that does not make our research negligent, and it does not invalidate it. Sometimes we must just accept that telling some parts of the narrative is someone else's prerogative, their right, not least in part because they would tell it better.
There is a long history of protest over archaeological engagement with human remains and there is benefit to this in terms of querying the way in which we do archaeology. In July of this year, I attended an online conference run by the University of Oxford entitled ‘Magic and the Sense of Place’, the conference was a wonderful interdisciplinary forum of discussion. One of the presentations given by Prof R. Sutton, focussed on the events at Stonehenge and Avebury in regard to disinterment and display of human remains, it has stayed with me. In 2013 English Heritage were in the process of constructing a new visitors centre at Stonehenge, as with anything which involves Stonehenge this was big news. One important aspect of this new visitor centre was intended to be the display of a number of human remains, specifically three individuals, recovered from the Stonehenge landscape. This was vehemently opposed by druid groups in the region, with a leader of one such group writing to UNESCO directly and suggesting that artificial copies as opposed to the real remains be displayed. As it was UNESCO re-directed responsibility for this decision to the country in which the world heritage site was situated, in this case the United Kingdom. English Heritage suggested that the remains of the three individuals would be displayed with ample explanation and with accompanying archaeological artefacts, and indeed that the remains in question had been outside context for at least a decade in the storage of scholarly institutions. This is within the guidelines for treatment and storage of archaeological human remains as determined by the United Kingdom, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This not the first instance of pagan/druidic involvement in protest of display of archaeological human remains, in fact, the modern approach to display of human remains in the United Kingdom is heavily influenced by an event termed the Avebury Consultation. The Avebury Consultation was instigated by the National Trust and English Heritage in response to requests by pagan groups in 2006 for the reburial of high-profile remains at the Alexander Keiller Museum in Avebury. This was intended as a consultation process between groups to determine a conciliatory strategy which would satisfy the majority; however, the default of discussion seems to have been emphasis on scientific value with dismissal of the emotional reactions and spiritual views of pagans. The result reflects this directly with the human remains not reinterred. The disinterment of ‘pagan’ i.e., non-Christian remains, and subsequent display has been a point of contention for modern pagan groups for some time. In the late 1990s, druid Paul Davies labels excavation and storage practices as a direct desecration of ‘places of rest’ equivalent to grave-robbing and museum exhibition as fundamentally voyeuristic.
‘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.’. (Davies 1997).
More recently pagan voices have been more sympathetic and open to collaborative approaches, as in 2004 druid priestess Emma Restall Orr established the ‘Honouring the Ancient Dead’ organisation. This collaborative was established with the purpose of ensuring respectful approaches to ancient pagan remains through the promotion of thoughtful interactions between archaeologists, landowners, historians, museums, and the pagan community. This has resulted in tangible collaborations between heritage industries and the pagan community such as the 2006 conference organised by the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ‘Honouring the Ancient Dead’ and the Museums Association entitled, ‘Respect for Ancient British Human Remains: Philosophy and Practice’. A lot is owed to the pagan community regarding the approach we take to human remains, whilst individuals are still displayed in museum contexts often the way in which this is done is more sympathetic. The Manchester Museum for example, always a trailblazer organisation, within its ‘Policy for the Care and Use of Human Remains’ states that human remains ‘will be displayed in a culturally appropriate, sensitive and informative manner’ and ‘accompanied by explanatory and contextual interpretation’. Previously the Manchester Museum has also taken the step to cover its Egyptian Mummy displays with a shroud out of ‘respect’, this caused quite significant backlash from the general public. The Manchester Museum also where possible, as with the Lindow Man bog body, often chooses to reconstruct the burial context within an exhibit in order to in a sense reinter the body whilst still maintaining a valuable educational resource. In the end, all that matters is our motivations, do we maintain such exhibits to essentially be ‘voyeuristic’, this is a cynical perspective, or do we do so because we know that the easiest way to engage learning is through a human face.
The question of why the pagan community believes it can speak for or has some form of ownership over pre-Christian remains is also difficult. The practices of modern pagans are dislocated from the past because no written record exists of so-called ‘ancestral practices’. Indeed, returning full circle one of the most impactful points of The Flipside podcast November episode, was the notion that we cannot know the dead, especially the ancient dead, that it is hubris to try to know the thoughts and humanity of past peoples when most of the time we cannot even understand or know our contemporaries. Simply, we cannot know who a person was because in attempts to do so we are ascribing thoughts to someone without a voice. This is perhaps the modern mode of colonisation. It is now a minefield of ethical discourse out there and I’m sure that on numerous occasions I will not get my expression of this in my own practice exactly right. This is a unique period of learning for all of us and I hope that we will be patient with each other along the way.
Stay safe in the big wide world.
Signing off,
Leia Tilley
References
Thackray, D. & S. Payne (2009). Report on Consultation on the Request for Reburial of Prehistoric Human Remains from the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury. REPORT ON CONSULTATION ON THE REQUEST FOR REBURIAL OF PREHISTORIC HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE ALEXANDER KEILLER MUSEUM AT AVEBURY (historicengland.org.uk)
EGYPTMANCHESTER (2008). Covering the Mummies. Covering the mummies | Egypt at the Manchester Museum (wordpress.com) NOTE: Some of the responses to this article are particularly interesting.
The Manchester Museum (2017). Policy for the Care and Use of Human Remains. Policy for the Care and Use of Human Remains-1a.docx (live.com)
Besterman, T. (2003). Human Remains: Objects to Study or Ancestors to Bury? Debate Transcript - Royal College of Physicians. Human Remains: Objects to Study or Ancestors to Bury (academyofideas.org.uk)
Honouring the Ancient Dead - Organisation - Honouring the Ancient Dead – Promoting Respect & Dignity for Those Who Have Gone Before
Davies, P. (1997). Respect and Reburial. The Druid's Voice: The Magazine of Contemporary Druidry, 8. 12-13.
FLIPSIDE Podcast --- The Flipside (archaeologypodcastnetwork.com)
Comments