Archaeologists and the dead: mortuary archaeology in contemporary society

486 Pages·2016·13.94 MB·English

by  Howard Williams, Melanie Giles

ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND THE DEAD

Archaeologists
and the Dead
Mortuary Archaeology in Contemporary Society
Editedby
HOWARD WILLIAMS AND MELANIE GILES
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©OxfordUniversityPress2016
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2016
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015954519
ISBN 978–0–19–875353–7
PrintedinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Foreword
Mike Parker Pearson
Inthepastdecade,archaeologistsworkingintheUKhavehadtoreviewtheir
relationshipswiththedead—andtheliving—mainlyasaresultofthelegisla-
tive ‘crisis’ in burial archaeology (see Pitts and Sayer 2010). They have been
working with the legacy of Victorian burial legislation never intended for
archaeologicalcases,andasystemoflicensingexcavationsofhumanremains
that grew out of the discipline’s professionalization and bureaucratization in
the1990s.TheMinistryofJustice’sannouncementofarequirementtorebury
allsuchremainswithintwoyearsofexcavation—regardlessoftheircondition,
origin, or date—sparked a vigorous and successful national campaign reas-
serting the importance of the long-term curation of ancient human remains
(ParkerPearsonetal.2013).
Liaison between the profession and the Ministry of Justice seems to have
resolvedthelicensingcrisisfornow,buttherearecontinuingproblemsinboth
policy and practice. In my own work, I have had to accept the Ministry of
Justice’srequirementthattheexcavationof5000-year-oldNeolithiccremation
deposits at Stonehenge be screened from the view of thousands of bemused
visitors(inaccordancewiththeconditionsofthearchaeologicallicence)whilst
simultaneouslybeingfilmedfortelevisiondocumentariesthatreachedaglobal
audience. This contradictory situation is all the more ridiculous given that
public audiences are exposed on an unprecedented level to both real and
fictionalcorpsesthroughtelevision,film,andothermedia.
This situation regarding the archaeological dead must be set against a
background in which most individuals in the UK and Western Europe have
neverbeenmoredistancedfromtheactualprocessofdealingwiththeirown
dead.Atpresent,however,thereislittlepoliticalappetiteforwiderreformof
legislation or guidance for mortuary archaeology, which would be needed to
address holistically these contradictions in policy and practice (Ministry of
Justice2011).
Otherissuesthathaverecentlyfacedthediscipline,andoccasionallycaught
thepubliceye,includecallsforreburialandrepatriation,questionsofowner-
shipandresponsibility,conflictsinmuseumethicsandheritagepractice,and
discussionsoverwhenandhowwedisplaythedeadtothepublic.Itistimely
and good to see many of these topics touched on by papers in this volume.
British archaeologists have also profitably reached out to colleagues in other
vi Foreword
countries to explore how their legislative frameworks, cultural beliefs, and
disciplinary attitudesshapearchaeologists’relationswiththelivingaswellas
thedead,andotherpapersinthiseditedbookmakeanimportantcontribution
tosuchconversations.
What emerges from the research and debates in this book is the need for
archaeologiststodefendrobustlythevalueandsignificanceofhumanremains
andmortuaryarchaeology:theirscientificimportanceforlong-termstudiesof
diseaseandthehealthofthepopulation(e.g.RobertsandManchester2005),
questions of ancestry and mobility (analysed through DNA and isotope
studies), as wellas transformations in culturalbeliefs andmortuarypractices
overthemillennia.Someoftheseareasofresearchwillinevitablyprovetobe
something of a Pandora’s box (especially those touching on questions of
identity and origin) but these are issues of global importance that cannot be
ignored. We need to make a critical contribution to such debates, and not
leaveittojournalistsorotherswithonlylimitedperspectivesorunderstanding
ofthedata,andappropriatemethodsandinterpretativeframeworks,tospeak
onourbehalf.Anotherpriorityforusisthecontinualdevelopmentandtesting
oftechniques,alongwithevidence-baseddiscussionofourresultsinwaysthat
capturethepublic’sattentionandimagination.
However, we also face an additional problem: recent years have seen a
growing compartmentalization of expertise, with a massive growth in public
archaeologyandheritagepromotionthatcansometimesappearquitediscon-
nected from scientific analysis. In promoting the study of the past, we must
notlosesightofthecontentandcomplexityofresearchresults,andwemust
educate a new generation of archaeologists in the best ways of presenting
thoughtfulanalysisandempiricallysoundinterpretationstothemedia.When
donewell,scientificresultscancaptivateanaudienceandinspiredebate—the
AmesburyArcherisagoodexamplehere(Fitzpatrick2013).
We should also have the courage of our convictions. Some recent exhib-
itions that shield the general visitor from viewing human remains have done
sooutofaconcernnottocauseoffencetoasmallminority.Yetcuratorsmust
considercarefullywhethersuchgroups—atenthorlessofthepopulation,on
thebasisofsurveys—actuallyform evenaminor proportionof theirvisitors.
Results of these surveys undertaken as part of the Avebury consultation
(Thackray and Payne 2010) suggest that museum-goers are already a self-
selectedpublic,mostofwhomarefascinatedbyhumanremainsandexpectto
seethemondisplay.Hidingthemfromtheviewofthecuriouswhowishtobe
informedcreatesaproblemthatwouldnototherwiseexist.Thepublicexpects
us, as expert professionals, to lead the way on these debates. The apparent
crisis in curatorial confidence that Jenkins sees as symptomatic of a loss of
nerve more widely in the humanities (Jenkins 2011) therefore also needs
addressing. The explicit showmanship and shock factor of Gunther von
Hagens’‘BodyWorlds’,forinstance,remindsusthat(despitethecontroversy
Foreword vii
surrounding the exhibition) a certain proportion of the general public are
readytobeconfrontedinnewwaysbythevisceralrealityofthehumanbody.
Weneedtobeconfidentaboutourroleandboldinourremit.Afterall,human
remainsandmortuarycontextsgiveusunparalleledinsightsintowhoweare,
andwherewecomefrom.Theyalsoinformusofhowpastliveshavediffered
radicallyfromownaswellasconnectingustothosepastlivesotherwiselong
forgotten.Theygiveusauniqueperspectiveonthehumanconditionandon
whatitmeanstobehuman.ItisinthisspiritthatIlookforwardtonewareas
ofdiscussionofourrelationshipswiththedead,exploredbythisvolume.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2013. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen: Early Bell
BeakersatBoscombeDown,Amesbury,Wiltshire,GreatBritain.Volume1,Salisbury:
WessexArchaeology.
Jenkins, T. 2011. Contesting Human Remains in Museum Collections, London:
Routledge.
Ministry of Justice. 2011. Statement on the exhumation of human remains for
archaeological purposes. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20130128112038/http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/burials-and-co
roners/statement-exhumation-human-remains-archaeological.pdf (Accessed 14
July2014).
Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., and Sayer, D. 2013. Changes in policy for excavating
human remains in England and Wales, in M. Giesen (ed.) Curating Human
Remains:CaringfortheDeadintheUnitedKingdom,147–58,Woodbridge:Boydell.
Pitts,M.andSayer,D.2010.Thehumanremainscrisis,BritishArchaeology,115,34–5.
Roberts, C.A. and Manchester, K. 2005. The Archaeology of Disease, Stroud: Sutton
Publishing.

Preface
This book developed from two conference sessions co-organized by Melanie
GilesandHowardWilliamsin2010.ThefirsttookplaceatEaster2010aspart
oftheSouthportIfA(InstituteforArchaeologists,nowtheCharteredInstitute
for Archaeologists) annual conference, the second in December 2010 at the
Bristol TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group) conference. Attracting a di-
verse range of heritage professionals and archaeologists as speakers and
audience,thesessionsprovidedtheinspirationandfoundationforthisbook.
Chapters were commissioned from the presenters and further contributions
were commissionedbetween 2010 and2012. Together, this bookpresents an
Introduction, eighteen case studies evaluating current debates, practices, and
challenges regarding the archaeological excavation, study, display, and inter-
pretationofmortuaryremains,andaconcludingcommentary.
The range and character of this book collection set it apart from previous
works and make it a valuable contribution to the study of mortuary archae-
ology’smanyinteractionswithcontemporarysociety.Thegeographicalrange
of the papers spans the UK, Northern, Western, and Central Europe, and
NorthAmerica,thuscontrastingwithpreviousstudiesthatareeitherBritish-
focused or dedicated to the treatment of human remains in post-colonial
contexts such as North America and Australasia. Still, given the venues of
the conference sessions and the expertise and networks of the editors, there
remainsaUKfocustomanydimensionsofthebook,includingtheIntroduc-
tion.Whilenotdenyingthevariabilityinpublicperceptionsandengagements
with the archaeological dead worldwide, the distinctive strengths of the vol-
umeremainevidentbydrawingtheemphasisawayfrommuseumsinisolation
and away from post-colonial contexts where most literature has tended to
focus. Hence, the range of environments and practices covered by the book
alsomakeitdistinctive;thisisabookaboutmortuaryarchaeologyinthefield,
in the lab, in the media, and in academic publications as much as it is about
museumsandrepatriation.
The book alsopresents newperspectives andmethodologies in interrogat-
ing well-trodden debates; from the discussion of art, variability in the treat-
ment of human remains between localities and regions, and discussion of
humanremainsinthemedia.Thechaptersdealwithhowandwhypeoplein
contemporarysocietythinkandfeelabout,andengagewith,mortuaryarchae-
ology, but equally it situates the archaeologist within contemporary society
and part of contemporary mechanisms for identity-creation, memory repro-
duction, and ontological consolidation. In these different regards, the book