6 ms·

Why is it that we are allowed to unearth these remains, but when it comes to remains of e.g. native Americans, or Indigenous Australians or Canadians, there is

Why is it that we are allowed to unearth these remains, but when it comes to remains of e.g. native Americans, or Indigenous Australians or Canadians, there is a push to have them reburied? Seems like a double standard to me.

DC-3 4y ago
One important reason is that the archaeologists excavating this site are by-and-large the direct ethnic descendants (and cultural inheritors) of the Anglo-Saxons, which is likely not the case for excavations in North America.
- mc32 4y ago
  What if the diggers are instead descendants of Celtic tribes, or Pictish or Jutes?
  - dbingham 4y ago
    Well all of the various tribes merged together for the most part. Most people in the UK are probably descendants of multiple of those old tribes. Another difference is that in the UK there isn't nearly as much of a history of recent oppression of the decedents of the anglo-saxons the way there is a very recent and on going issue of oppression of the indigenous Americans and Australians. So there isn't the issue of the excavations being yet another example of an empowered people overriding the wishes of a dis-empowered people. To put it another way, a large majority of the indigenous people of the Americas have expressed a wish that their ancestors not be excavated. And that wish has been ignored time and time again until recently (though it frequently still is ignored). Here, no clear majority of the descendants have expressed such a wish, there's no history of it being overridden or ignored, and the excavators (for the most part) are descendants.
    - mc32 4y ago
      True not recent. But the Angles and the Saxons had their lands taken away, their language subverted and were repressed by the Norsemen... So not "recent" but also not "ancient". Incidentally a group known as the "diggers" did seek some redress from their successors. In any event, bones are bones. I feel that after certain cut-off point, they become historical and are fair game for archeology. It's another story if it's an active or tended to graveyard --but if it's not known and is forgotten, then I think it's a fair archeological site.
      - Tagbert 4y ago
        And 600 years before the Norman invasion it was the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons invading and displacing the Britains.
        mc32 4y ago
        Yep, and Cornish and Manx... So, you know, it's just human activity. Which is why I think bones are bones and they should be treated the same.
      - M2Ys4U 4y ago
        >So not "recent" but also not "ancient. Is the 11th century too recent to qualify as "ancient"? We're going back ~950 years here...
        mc32 4y ago
        Medieval, I would say. "Ancient" to me ends more or less with the fall of Rome (Not Constantinople).
- Amezarak 4y ago
  Orders of magnitude more Native Americans assimilated into the colonial population than chose to live on reservations.
CalRobert 4y ago
If memory serves, native American groups choose to do what they like with remains. NAGPRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protect... - covers how to handle remains and cultural artefacts in the US.
the_biot 4y ago
Well, technically it's a bunch of Anglo-Saxons digging up their ancestors' remains, so that's ok. In the case of indigenous Americans/Canadians/Australians it's also a bunch of Anglo-Saxons digging up the remains, and that rubs some people the wrong way :-)
- laputan_machine 4y ago
  That's probably incorrect. Britain is a diverse place with historical cultures of Celts, Jutes, Picts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, plus an influx of recent immigrants from various countries. Assuming that every archeologist is a descendant of Anglo-Saxon heritage is pretty funny.
  - the_biot 4y ago
    Hence the smiley.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Genetic studies have shown that most people in England who aren't descended from recent immigrant populations have a large component of Anglo-Saxon ancestry because there's been so much mixing and internal migration over the centuries. It's true that there have been many waves of immigration, but over time they mix so most of us can claim Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, etc somewhere in the family tree.
  - OscarCunningham 4y ago
    The number of ancestors is exponential in the number of generations. Anyone whose ancestors lived in Britain at the time of those cultures will be descended from all of them.
mc32 4y ago
One bone is no more sacred than another. So, from that PoV, I think archeology should come up with some guidelines as to how to treat human archeological sites evenly rather than having a mish-mash of different rules for different bones.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  They have. Everyone is expected to follow something similar to the SAA guidelines: * Treat human remains with respect * Consult with descendent communities * Follow the law In the UK, the government usually combines #2 and #3 in one entity.
  - mc32 4y ago
    So in the UK, if they find a "Viking" burial site they have to consult with whom? Sweden or Denmark? And Roman, Rome does not exist, but I guess Italy is arguably the closest political entity, do they consult with Italy? It seems they should just have some standard way to deal with this.
    - AlotOfReading 4y ago
      The "descendent community" is the UK government, which claims all the lands within its borders and a few sites outside. That bit can also be interpreted as applying to the local landowners as well. But if Sweden or Italy cared, yes it might be a good idea to give them a call and let the interested parties sort it out between themselves.
      - mc32 4y ago
        Fair enough, though I don't think it would make much sense to involve indirect descendants of expired political entities.
    - Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
      During the excavations to build 30 St Mary Axe- better known as "the Gherkin"- in London, the grave of a young girl from Roman Londinium was found. She was reburied with something approximating Roman funeral rites, and the new grave is marked with an inscription including the traditional Roman phrase "Dis Manibus" (To the Spirits of the Underworld) [0]. [0]https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tomb-of-the-unknown-london-girl https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tomb-of-the-unknown-lond...
dagw 4y ago
Seems like a double standard to me. The representatives of 'native' Anglo-Saxons currently living in the UK don't seem to be too bothered and aren't pushing for it in the same way as the representatives of other native peoples.
markozivanovic 4y ago
I just thought of a similar thing when reading the article. My question was more in the direction - will someone unearth my remains in a few hundred years? How many years does it have to pass for your bones to become something that might end up in a museum? I guess a lot of people have the wish to be buried and left alone once they die. How do we deal with ethical questions regarding archeology? If you had an ancient burial site with clear writings on the entrance like "PLEASE DON'T UNEARTH US" :)), would that be honored? That also makes me wonder - do you fellow hackers feel connected to your ancestors? Are generations that lived hundreds and thousands of years ago just fun stuff to look at when you visit a museum, or they're something more to you? I'm getting off-topic now, but just like the vastness of the universe can make you feel small and insignificant, time may even be worse in that regards.
lkramer 4y ago
They quite often rebury remains from more recent burials in the UK (100-200 years ago), for instance if the land of an old cemetery is repurposed (there have actually been several examples of this on HS2 as well). I don't quite know what the criteria is, but I think if there is little scientific value in the find, they will tend to rebury it. What will happen is they exhume the graves, categorise everything, and then rebury the remains.
- tobylane 4y ago
  The namer of Australia was moved to build HS2. https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2-triggers-the-final-voyage-for-australia-explorer-33723/ https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2-triggers-the-final-... Yes, sometimes they’ll study a find then rebury it under protective layers of sand/gravel or a concrete cap. It can be due to the research being finished and the find is too delicate to lift.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
globalise83 4y ago
These people are the ancestors of modern English people and in our culture we don't have particularly strong feelings about unearthing the remains of people who died beyond living memory. Other cultures do for a variety of religious or spiritual reasons.

DC-3 4y ago

One important reason is that the archaeologists excavating this site are by-and-large the direct ethnic descendants (and cultural inheritors) of the Anglo-Saxons, which is likely not the case for excavations in North America.

mc32 4y ago
What if the diggers are instead descendants of Celtic tribes, or Pictish or Jutes?
- dbingham 4y ago
  Well all of the various tribes merged together for the most part. Most people in the UK are probably descendants of multiple of those old tribes. Another difference is that in the UK there isn't nearly as much of a history of recent oppression of the decedents of the anglo-saxons the way there is a very recent and on going issue of oppression of the indigenous Americans and Australians. So there isn't the issue of the excavations being yet another example of an empowered people overriding the wishes of a dis-empowered people. To put it another way, a large majority of the indigenous people of the Americas have expressed a wish that their ancestors not be excavated. And that wish has been ignored time and time again until recently (though it frequently still is ignored). Here, no clear majority of the descendants have expressed such a wish, there's no history of it being overridden or ignored, and the excavators (for the most part) are descendants.
  - mc32 4y ago
    True not recent. But the Angles and the Saxons had their lands taken away, their language subverted and were repressed by the Norsemen... So not "recent" but also not "ancient". Incidentally a group known as the "diggers" did seek some redress from their successors. In any event, bones are bones. I feel that after certain cut-off point, they become historical and are fair game for archeology. It's another story if it's an active or tended to graveyard --but if it's not known and is forgotten, then I think it's a fair archeological site.
    - Tagbert 4y ago
      And 600 years before the Norman invasion it was the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons invading and displacing the Britains.
      - mc32 4y ago
        Yep, and Cornish and Manx... So, you know, it's just human activity. Which is why I think bones are bones and they should be treated the same.
    - M2Ys4U 4y ago
      >So not "recent" but also not "ancient. Is the 11th century too recent to qualify as "ancient"? We're going back ~950 years here...
      - mc32 4y ago
        Medieval, I would say. "Ancient" to me ends more or less with the fall of Rome (Not Constantinople).
Amezarak 4y ago
Orders of magnitude more Native Americans assimilated into the colonial population than chose to live on reservations.

CalRobert 4y ago

If memory serves, native American groups choose to do what they like with remains. NAGPRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protect... - covers how to handle remains and cultural artefacts in the US.

the_biot 4y ago

Well, technically it's a bunch of Anglo-Saxons digging up their ancestors' remains, so that's ok. In the case of indigenous Americans/Canadians/Australians it's also a bunch of Anglo-Saxons digging up the remains, and that rubs some people the wrong way :-)

laputan_machine 4y ago
That's probably incorrect. Britain is a diverse place with historical cultures of Celts, Jutes, Picts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, plus an influx of recent immigrants from various countries. Assuming that every archeologist is a descendant of Anglo-Saxon heritage is pretty funny.
- the_biot 4y ago
  Hence the smiley.
- Veen 4y ago
  Genetic studies have shown that most people in England who aren't descended from recent immigrant populations have a large component of Anglo-Saxon ancestry because there's been so much mixing and internal migration over the centuries. It's true that there have been many waves of immigration, but over time they mix so most of us can claim Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, etc somewhere in the family tree.
- OscarCunningham 4y ago
  The number of ancestors is exponential in the number of generations. Anyone whose ancestors lived in Britain at the time of those cultures will be descended from all of them.

mc32 4y ago

One bone is no more sacred than another. So, from that PoV, I think archeology should come up with some guidelines as to how to treat human archeological sites evenly rather than having a mish-mash of different rules for different bones.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
They have. Everyone is expected to follow something similar to the SAA guidelines: * Treat human remains with respect * Consult with descendent communities * Follow the law In the UK, the government usually combines #2 and #3 in one entity.
- mc32 4y ago
  So in the UK, if they find a "Viking" burial site they have to consult with whom? Sweden or Denmark? And Roman, Rome does not exist, but I guess Italy is arguably the closest political entity, do they consult with Italy? It seems they should just have some standard way to deal with this.
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    The "descendent community" is the UK government, which claims all the lands within its borders and a few sites outside. That bit can also be interpreted as applying to the local landowners as well. But if Sweden or Italy cared, yes it might be a good idea to give them a call and let the interested parties sort it out between themselves.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Fair enough, though I don't think it would make much sense to involve indirect descendants of expired political entities.
  - Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
    During the excavations to build 30 St Mary Axe- better known as "the Gherkin"- in London, the grave of a young girl from Roman Londinium was found. She was reburied with something approximating Roman funeral rites, and the new grave is marked with an inscription including the traditional Roman phrase "Dis Manibus" (To the Spirits of the Underworld) [0]. [0]https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tomb-of-the-unknown-london-girl https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tomb-of-the-unknown-lond...

dagw 4y ago

Seems like a double standard to me. The representatives of 'native' Anglo-Saxons currently living in the UK don't seem to be too bothered and aren't pushing for it in the same way as the representatives of other native peoples.

markozivanovic 4y ago

I just thought of a similar thing when reading the article. My question was more in the direction - will someone unearth my remains in a few hundred years? How many years does it have to pass for your bones to become something that might end up in a museum? I guess a lot of people have the wish to be buried and left alone once they die. How do we deal with ethical questions regarding archeology? If you had an ancient burial site with clear writings on the entrance like "PLEASE DON'T UNEARTH US" :)), would that be honored? That also makes me wonder - do you fellow hackers feel connected to your ancestors? Are generations that lived hundreds and thousands of years ago just fun stuff to look at when you visit a museum, or they're something more to you? I'm getting off-topic now, but just like the vastness of the universe can make you feel small and insignificant, time may even be worse in that regards.

lkramer 4y ago

They quite often rebury remains from more recent burials in the UK (100-200 years ago), for instance if the land of an old cemetery is repurposed (there have actually been several examples of this on HS2 as well). I don't quite know what the criteria is, but I think if there is little scientific value in the find, they will tend to rebury it. What will happen is they exhume the graves, categorise everything, and then rebury the remains.

tobylane 4y ago
The namer of Australia was moved to build HS2. https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2-triggers-the-final-voyage-for-australia-explorer-33723/ https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2-triggers-the-final-... Yes, sometimes they’ll study a find then rebury it under protective layers of sand/gravel or a concrete cap. It can be due to the research being finished and the find is too delicate to lift.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

globalise83 4y ago

These people are the ancestors of modern English people and in our culture we don't have particularly strong feelings about unearthing the remains of people who died beyond living memory. Other cultures do for a variety of religious or spiritual reasons.