Organisations responding to the consultation have been identified along with their responses. Individual respondents are only identified by the first segment of their post-codes (where known). You can also download the full PDF of Responses (415KB).
I think it would be excellent to have a new advisory panel covering all burials over 100 years old.
If religious groups are represented on the panel, then there should be representatives of both sides of the reburial versus retention-for-study debate. The panel should certainly include osteologists, archaeologists and museum staff; and perhaps a sociologist of religion who has studied the various religious perspectives on this issue.
I represent Pagans for Archaeology, which has 201 members who have all signed up to the statement of what we stand for and 440 "fans" on Facebook (who have not explicitly signed up the statement, but presumably agree broadly with our position).
Thanks for including Pagans for Archaeology in this consultation. Would you like me to pass on your email below to other members of the group?
Definite yes to that!
The track record of the statutory organisations in coping with changes both in legislation and in public sentiment has not always been 100% perfect, and in my view it would therefore be beneficial if the panel included individuals who could represent the interests particularly of those organisations and professional bodies most likely to be impacted by changes in burials legislation. This would include minimally the museum representatives and professional/curatorial archaeologists. There is an argument that osteologists have rather too much of a vested interest in keeping remains above ground - I don't necessarily subscribe to that view, but it may be the perception, and in these emotive times it is perceptions that carry most weight. I think that most osteologists are happy to just get on with their work once they can rest assured that the statutory bodies and curatorial institutions have an effective and comprehensive set of procedures for handling the discovery, storage and disposal of ancient human remains.
Some particularities:
Amongst the consultees, the main burying religions are represented, and I presume the interests of the minority Christian groups (nonconformists, Roman Catholics etc) are sufficiently convergent with the CofE to not require separate representation. What about the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association? These bodies have views that may well be relevant, particularly the NSS which I believe has more of a campaigning stance and almost by definition might disagree with positions held by CofE. Is the 100 year rule to be a 'moving wall'? If so then there may be buried remains that are currently outwith the consideration of the Advisory Panel but will become so as time passes, and it would be as well to advise cemetery organisations if this is to be the case.
I have three comments:
Please don't leave it to the CofE to speak on behalf of Christians in Britain. Dissenters, Roman Catholics and the rest have burial grounds and the Anglican Church should be encouraged to take an ecumenical stance.
Please consider taking people from the archaeology and museum worlds onto the panel so that the views of these communities are fully represented.
When the Christians have a coherent view then a panel representing a wider range of view points should be created.
Thank you for circulating the document on proposals to form an advisory panel on the archaeology of burials in England.
I think that the formation of a single panel for advice on ancient burials would be useful. I think having one panel rather than two would help to ensure that issues did not get overlooked, and that issues arising relating to both ancient and Christian burials of various dates would inform the approach taken to both categories of burial.
I think it would also be useful to have a representative on the panel from a commercial field unit. Having a representative from a museum is more difficult, largely because so few human bone specialists are employed by museums in the UK, if the remit of the post could be extended so that the post holder could be somebody with responsibility for human remains within a museum collection, rather than having to be a specialist this might help, although it could also raise a number of issues.
Thank you for sending this Consultation document for a New Advisory Panel. I fully endorse the move to dissolve the existing APACBE and replace it with the APABE to represent all burials in England over 100 years. In answer to your specific points:
I am responding to your consultation on the formation of a new Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England, to supercede APACBE, on behalf of Herefordshire Archaeology and (therefore) Herefordshire Council.
At our recent annual meeting for (and with) the seven archaeological contractor organisations who are members of our county-based registration scheme and are actively engaged in fieldwork here, we discussed issues around the treatment of human remains, burial licences and the reburial issue. We agreed that each case deserved consideration in its own right (and determination on its own merits), especially in reference to the nature and timing of reburial (including taking into account the scientific arguments for long-term curation). However, we were also in agreement that it is useful to have a framework of reference material, case law and practice, and best practice guidance, to inform discussion of the issues bearing upon any individual case.
I am therefore of the view that a national Advisory Panel is – and will continue to be – useful. Moreover, I think that it should be inter-denominational, and should include members able to apress 'pre-denominational' contexts and issues, and scientific community concerns.
In further reference to your second question, it may be useful for the panel, when apressing questions of best practice and precedent, to have available to them some specialist legal advice actually among the membership.
Thank you for consulting the Museum of London over the suggested creation of a new, single sourse of advice covering all burials in England over 100 years old, to replace the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England.
This response is from the Museum of London, including Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA).
The Museum of London welcomes the extension of the role of the advisory panel as a single consultation audience to encompass all burials in England.
We consider that great care should be taken to ensure that all members of the new panel are able to make constructive contributions and that there should be a balance of faith groups, If any proposed member or group has principles or agendas which are at odds with the even-handed promulgation of good practice, then we consider that they should not be included on the panel. For example, we understand for example that Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD) disapproves of exhumation of human remains by archaeological excavation, the display of human remains and the used of human remains for scientific research, advocating reburial instead. Thus a panel including HAD would automatically face a divergence of view which could hamper its capacity to advise.
One measure the panel would presumably consider would be to rank suggested options for resoluUon of an archaeological dispute in order of preference, or at the least to record any minority reports.
We also consider that in creating APABE, care should be taken to avoid a significant expansion of the number of advisors, which could make the new body unwieldy.
We note that the Human Remains Advisory Service (HRAS), set up by DCMS late in 2005 following the issue of Guidance for tha Care of Human Remains in Museums, had an inaugural meeting, but there were no further actions except for the thwarted advisory panel on the proposed reburial of Anglo-Saxon skeletons excavated from Melboum, Cambridgeshire. On 9th April 2008 Mark Caldon of the Cultural Property Unit, DCMS, announced the winding-up of HRAS. There is considerable overlap in the membership of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burial Grounds in England (APACBE) with the original team of HRAS advisors.
You asked about our views on membership. We strongly support the proposal to increase representation by archaeologists, and see strength in a (slim) Panel with a good balance of archaeological practitioners and museums, libraries and archives. On this issue, we observe that most excavation of cemeteries is performed by commercial organisations – most notably, Museum of London Archaeology, Oxford Archaeology and Wessex Archaeology, as well as many other practitioners. We distinguish between commercial archaeology practices and curatorial bodies, and with regard to our own institution would wish to see representation both from the Museum of London, and from Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA).
Other suggestions for inclusion in the panel are: Bradford University (whose Biological Anthropology Research Centre (BARC) has large holdings of archaeological skeletons and has previously sought advice from APACBE), and the Quaternary Research Group.
Thank you for consulting us on this proposal.
In my view, a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be very useful indeed. This is a complex area, and to have a forum at which those with expertise can meet and agree on strategy, advice and good practice would be very beneficial. It definitely makes sense to include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff.
Would a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England be useful?
That this question refers to 'burials' and not human remains implies that the remit of such a body would be to offer advice concerning the protection of burial sites, decisions about whether or not excavation were appropriate and acceptable, and the process of archaeological excavation.
As to what happens to human remains and related artefacts after excavation, it is implied in the consultation invitation that such a body would look to provide guidance as to the care of human remains in museums, interpreting and updating the 2005 DCMS Guidance on the Care of Human Remains in Museums document. English Heritage, the Church of England and the Ministry of Justice are not museum organisations and do not have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to take the lead in providing such advice, nor to be responsible for any revisions or updating to the DCMS Guidance. Indeed, we would question whether they are in the best position to propose what such an advisory body should be.
Given that decisions are currently made by individual authorities, with the only archaeological advisory body being APACBE whose work focuses on Christian burials, having one single source of guidance could indeed ensure a useful consistency for burials, irrespective of their age, provenance and cultural or religious context.
The remit of this proposed body does, however, need to be clarified. It should focus exclusively on decision-making about burial sites and the archaeological process of excavation, and avoid attempting to extend into museum issues. Its criteria for offering advice would need to extend beyond the scientific and archaeological value of burial sites and human remains, and acknowledge their religious, spiritual and emotive value to many communities, including HAD. With such a clear, focused but inclusive remit, such a wider body might be useful, providing that its membership and representation were sufficiently broadened. The museums' sector does in fact already have a functioning source of advice, the Human Remains Subject Specialist Network (HRSSN). This provides guidance to museums, not on the basis of discussing and offering a single recommended course of action, but with a range of options being offered by the various HRSSN members, each bringing to the table their own expertise, perspective and experience. The questioner can then adjust guidance given to their own particular circumstances. HAD understands this process to have been found to work effectively.
In addition to representatives of the three national organisations with statutory responsibilities for archaeological burials, should any new panel include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff? It would be helpful to learn whether there may be other groups or organisations whose representation on the panel would assist in providing relevant, well-informed, advice to the archaeological sector.
The only way such a body could be acceptable, having any validity and moral authority, would be to have representation from all those with a significant interest in burials and burial sites within the United Kingdom.
It would be essential, needless to say, to have representation from archaeologists and osteologists, together with social anthropologists, to provide comprehensive professional advice to such a body. Museum representation, including from the HRSSN, would add the necessary input about the interface between this body's remit and what happens to human remains afterwards.In terms of religious understanding, the Church of England cannot be seen to be representative of all faiths. Not being subjectively informed, it cannot deal with issues relating to other Christian or religious beliefs or sensitivities. Representation from Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Pagan communities would be essential, these being the largest seven religions (ONS 2001 Census). Given the percentage of the population without religious faith, representation from the National Secular Society or British Humanist Association may be appropriate.
In terms of the Pagan community, HAD's remit as an advocacy group for ancient human remains of British provenance, specifically seeking dialogue with the archaeological and wider heritage sector, would make it an appropriate representative body for British Paganism. Further, it is broadly recognized to be a mainstream organisation without bias towards either mandatory reburial or retention of human remains.
Of equal importance, for this body to have validity and reflect genuine understanding of any situation, it must acknowledge that actual decisions will be made at a local level, and will therefore need to take into account distinct local sensitivities. This body would therefore need to be reflexive. In any situation, it would need proactively to seek the input of all affected local stakeholders, to include them in the discussion and consultation, such as parish councils and local historical societies.
We would acknowledge that being so inclusive, this would create a large body, and as a result it would be difficult if not impossible to reach agreement on one course of action in any given situation. However, this is not felt to be necessary; it is rare for there to be only one option for action. As a non-statutory source of advice, such a body could function effectively in much the same way as the HRSSN, giving a range of advice from many different and relevant perspectives,which local decision-makers could adapt and adopt as they saw fit.
Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD) is a British network organisation that advocates respect for ancient pagan human remains and related artefacts. Its Statement of Intention can be found online. This response has been put together following consultation with HAD's council, advisors and volunteers. April 2009
We acknowledge that there is a need for an advisory panel to provide similar source of advice as APACBE but covering non-Christian remains. We note that the proposal is for a new combined advisory group covering both Christian and Non-Christian remains (APABE).
My name is Frank Somers, I am a Druid actively in service at Stonehenge, I run the Stonehenge Druids website, and I am a founder member of the British Druid Association. I submit my response to this consultation on behalf of myself and these groups.
The Loyal Arthurian Warband have asked that I also respond on their behalf in this instance.
Our need to take an interest in the matter of human remains became apparent to us when last year a dig at the sacred ancestral site of Stonehenge by the Riverside archaeological project team resulted in the removal of many ancestral remains with the possibility that these will not be returned for reburial at Stonehenge.
The failure to rebury these ancestors at Stonehenge would be a matter of great concern to many of the Druids who believe that these are both revered ancestors and guardians of the place.
It should be pointed out that we are not opposed to archaeology, or in principle to the study and testing our ancestral remains and that we do not seek to block such investigation, however it has become clear to us that there is inadequate protection or consideration given by the current legislation or guidelines surrounding the legislation for taking account of the dignity and cultural significance of retention of such ancient remains in-situ or towards the beliefs of those who revere these remains as ancestral cultural and spiritual ancestors.
Our experience of examining the issue as it relates to Stonehenge has illustrated that in order to achieve a reasonable and fair outcome for our ancestors there, we must and should take an interest in establishing agreements and protocols that achieve a fair and agreeable solution generally.
In considering only the Christian period of remains when drafting current legislation and guidelines we believe that the present laws and guidelines, and processes wrapped around these, are wholly inadequate and inappropriate to the situation regarding ancient and pagan human remains.
The proposed process and groups inputting to the process We are uncomfortable with the idea of a single advisory body comprising all three of the statutory bodies you quote in respect of Ancient Pagan remains, and wish to question the appropriateness of the Church of England being involved in advising in respect of our Pagan ancestors.
The CofE have already had considerable input serving their own perspective and interests. They do not recognise our religion and they have a history and doctrine opposed to our continued existence with a theological and cultural outlook very different and traditionally hostile to our own. We hope for a more positive and mutually respectful relationship with the CofE in the future, but in a matter of such spiritual and cultural importance to ourselves as this we have to declare this concern clearly for it is most relevant.
We welcome the interest from other religious groups and individuals who have responded to your consultation thus far, but again have some qualified concerns should this lead to the fate of our cultural and spiritual ancestors being decided by those with no historic, cultural or spiritual relationship to them or any direct understanding of their meaning and importance to us.
I'm quite sure that situation reversed many other groups would rightly question our ability to provide appropriate guidance on the fate of their ancestors given similar circumstances, and we would not presume to do so.
Whilst recognising that most Archaeologists are seeking truth and behave honourably and respectfully, we have in the course of our own investigations uncovered allegations of gross misconduct and breaches of trust by archaeologists, both in recent times and in the past which lead us to believe that existing guidelines are not always followed and that some process of governance and audit is required going forward.
This will be necessary to ensure that such trust can be established between our communities as to make further archaeological privilege and access to ancient remains of our ancestors a viable possibility, without which we believe we will see a lot more instances of protest, legal challenges and loss of cooperation and goodwill.
We also have concern that after permission to dig is granted, little is done to track what happens with artefacts and human remains and we believe that a national database is required so that no further 'finds' are lost or kept in poor conditions.
You ask if we believe that individual Archaeologists should be consulted by the proposed advisory group. We do not agree with this idea as they are already represented via their professional bodies and educational establishments and are thus accessible and adequately represented currently.
It should be noted that in contrast to these well represented interests and well funded interests, our voice is not yet represented by powerful funded institutions and for balance to be achieved this should be factored in.
We would like to suggest a solution which we believe would meet everyone's need;
If APABE as a single entity is established, that it has a 'full committee' to oversee integrated guidance, governance and legislation; making use of the skills of all interested parties to the full including representation from the Archaeological professional institutions and three specialist 'sub committees' each with a specific scope and responsibility.
The first sub-committee to include the CofE and excluding ourselves would continue offering guidance on Christian remains, The second, excluding the CofE but including only Pagan Groups to offer guidance on ancient Pagan remains, The third to look at the interests of other faith groups in respect to any remains they may have in Britain with the additional remit of offering global cultural perspective to the other two sub committees on request.
In addition to providing guidelines, the APABE should have the funding and means to audit museums, universities and archaeological companies reporting back to the committee to ensure that guidelines are being followed and with a remit to seek redress if they have not been followed.
We would also like to see a national database to track all finds, human remains, their conditions of storage, who is responsible for their care, when inspected etc. As yet no single group exists with an 'authority or mandate' to speak for the whole pagan community and the generally non hierarchical nature of our system of faith makes a single widely representative group unlikely in the near future, so we strongly recommend to you that a number of credible groups be consulted.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the formation of a new Advisory Panel. My comments are made as an individual and do not necessarily represent any organisation with which I am associated, including Durham University. I also make these comments with a long experience of working with human remains (25 years) of all periods from a wide variety of archaeological sites both within the UK and elsewhere, including North America. Increasingly in the UK archaeology is facing criticism from various groups about the excavation and post-excavation treatment of human remains from archaeological sites. Thus, a Panel that can deal with issues relating to all burials of over 100 years old would be real asset for all people who deal with archaeological human remains, including those that excavate them, those that analyse them, and those that curate/care for them if they are retained for future work. Having such a Panel would also display to all a consolidated and well thought out approach to the situation in which we find ourselves.
I recognise that in 2005 the Church of England, English Heritage and the Home Office (all of whom have statutory obligations for issues regarding the archaeology of burial) agreed to the setting up of the initial Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England (APACBE) as a source of consensus professional advice on the archaeological treatment of human remains in Christian graves. Of course, this did not cover non-Christian graves. I also recognise that this panel has proved to be very successful in promoting a consistent approach to the relevant issues, but that there is a lack of a similar source of advice covering non-Christian remains. Logically, therefore, there is a need for a consultation now to consider this gap in provision and how it may be addressed. I also feel that the creation of a single source of advice covering all burials in England over 100 years old would be appropriate and timely, but it would be essential for all interested parties to be represented on that Panel. The aim of this new Panel would be to support curators, practitioners and others in interpreting the guidance documents issued by the DCMS and EH/CofE.
Would a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England be useful?
Yes, I believe this would be and it is of course a logical step to take; having one Panel that deals with issues relating to any ancient burials would make processes and practices more streamlined and straight forward In addition to representatives of the three national organisations with statutory responsibilities for archaeological burials, should any new panel include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff?
Yes I believe strongly that any groups of people who deal with human remains from archaeological sites should have a representative on the Panel. Each group will be dealing with human remains, but the processes through which they are dealing with them will be different. For example, excavators excavate the remains and place them in appropriate containers, to be later processed (cleaned) by others, analysed by bioarchaeologists, and then museum (and other institutions) curators will accession them to museums and provide access to bona fide researchers (who have different research agendas using different methods). They each deal with different parts of the whole process and have different experiences.
If you agree, it would be helpful to learn whether there may be other groups or organisations whose representation on the panel would assist in providing relevant, well-informed, advice to the archaeological sector.
I hesitate to suggest this but there are increasingly other groups who claim to speak for human remains from a spiritual viewpoint (including from different faiths). Perhaps they should be included. It may well be advisable to also include a member of the public, although how that person would be selected is debatable. The problem is that there are so many different groups of people (age, sex, backgrounds etc.) who 'have an interest' in these issues, and who might be able to provide different perspectives to the issues being faced by the Panel with respect to archaeological human remains. My feeling is that the Panel should be seen to be democratic.
Thank you for asking the MLA to respond to this consultation.
Our feeling is that you have two choices here. Simply extending the role of APABE to cover the archaeology of burials from non Christian burials would be welcomed and straightforward. We would suggest that you would need to be slightly more open, transparent, and inclusive in your dealings to acknowledge the large number of interest groups and that APACBE as currently formulated is quite limited in its range of views.
Extending the group to offer wider advice on burials beyond the burial context, to give advice on DCMS 2005 and to "curators" – I assume you mean museum curators here not curators in the old IFA sense of planning archaeologists – is more contentious.
It could be argued that there are a number of groups already available to give this advice (MA, MLA, DCMS, Human Remains SSN), and most certainly APACBE as it is at present does not have the breadth of expertise or experience for this role. It could be argued that to give yourselves the necessary breadth of experience you would dilute your current undoubted primacy in giving advice on burial archaeology.
Therefore, if you choose simply to extend the role of APACBE to take in non-Christian burial archaeology you would have MLA support. If you wish to extend the range of your influence over curated museum collections in their widest sense we would want far more detailed discussions with key organizations, such as those noted above, to demonstrate firstly a need, and secondly that there was a right balance of expertise, experience and opinion on the group.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on your proposal.
RESCUE welcomes the opportunity to comment on this issue. Human remains dating back to the earliest settlement of Britain are regularly encountered during archaeological excavations and form an important part of the evidence which we use to understand and interpret the past. We believe that the information gained from their study is of great importance for archaeology and also for allied disciplines including historical and medical sociology, the history of disease and of medicine and studies of demography and public health. There are excellent and sound reasons for facilitating the academic study of human remains and this is reflected in the numbers of universities which are currently offering popular and well-subscribed courses in palaeopathology, osteology and the archaeology of death and burial.
The formation of a single advisory panel to address the particular issues associated with the excavation and study of human remains seems a sensible step forward from the current situation, where the existing panel, and associated guidance only deals with Christian burials. However, we provide this approval for the proposed new measures with some caution attached.
The debate on the status of human remains in archaeology has become increasingly confused in recent years by input from religious and pseudoreligious groups, who seek to establish their intellectual primacy over remains which, in many cases, they cannot prove kinship with. This is unfortunate, as the issue has overtaken the wider concerns regarding the proper academic study of human remains, and their respectful but necessary curation as artefactual material in museums.
Should the formation of the proposed broader advisory panel proceed, RESCUE would therefore request that wherever religious groups are involved in providing advice, their remit is restricted only to those remains which are demonstrably those of former members of the same religion. This of course would restrict the permanent Church of England representatives on the panel to commenting only on Christian burials, but should this consultation result in a wide-ranging panel being formed, with members representing other faith groups such as Muslims, Sikhs or Jews for example, we believe that their remit should be similarly restricted. In this way, the panel would not be subject to the opinions of a number of faith groups whose views on the status, treatment of the body (and soul?) of an individual after death may conflict not only with each other, but also with established academic investigative practice.
RESCUE would also advise that where remains are those of individuals whose particular religious beliefs in life cannot be accurately determined with any confidence (a category into which the majority of Prehistoric and early historic period burials and cremations would fall) that the nature and quality of recovery and handling techniques (equating to a basic minimum respect for the remains as those of human beings) and the requirements of academic investigation should be the primary considerations. In this case, any members of specific faith groups appointed to the panel or offering advice to the panel should be restricted to commenting on these matters alone. There should be no theological clouding of the important issues of archaeological and palaeopathological best practice and academic study which are the primary objective of the disinterment of such remains.
With regards the suggested composition of the panel, RESCUE believes that a smaller panel would be advantageous, and that the members of the panel should reflect not only the relevant national and statutory policies regarding human remains, but also archaeological best practice and academic research. We would recommend that the panel's contingent from English Heritage should include a member of the scientific staff (perhaps one of the Regional Scientific Advisors with a background in palaeopathology or the archaeology of death and burial), in order to ensure academic interests are adequately addressed. Selected representatives from the archaeological, osteological and museums community should also be involved, most notably a representative of the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO), the study group most concerned with the issues that the panel will be concerned with. It does not appear necessary for membership to necessarily include representatives of other amenity or professional groups and the primary requirement is that the members of the panel should be properly and appropriately qualified to debate the issues fully and without prejudice.
RESCUE will be happy to provide additional comments and clarification of any points, should this be required.
You contacted my colleague Craig Kennedy back in February requesting comments from Historic Scotland on the above consultation. As Historic Scotland and Scottish Ministers have no remit to become involved in operational historic environment matters outside Scotland it would not be appropriate for us to comment in this way. However, we do appreciate being kept us abreast of discussions and issues as they evolve.
I am sorry that we are not able to be of more assistance in this matter.
York Archaeological Forum met on 25th March 2009 and discussed the consultation document on the formation of an expanded advisory panel on archaeological burials.
Our view was that a single panel for advice and promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be both useful and desirable.
We also agreed that representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff could make a useful contribution to the panel.
We were surprised that the Roman Catholic church was not listed amongst the consultees or already included on the panel since many of the Christian burials excavated by archaeologists would have been buried under the rites of the RC church.
Thank you for your invitation for comments on the proposal to create a new body, the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. I have discussed this proposal with colleagues across the Museum in my role as Chair of the Museum's Human Remains Working Party.
1. The Museum would support to creation of a single panel for advice and the promulgation of best practice on issues connected with ancient burials in England. However, the Museum would suggest that there needs to be a clear definition about the scope and role of such a single panel.
While there is clearly a need for a single panel for advice about the archaeology of burials in England, the Museum is concerned to avoid confusion in the scope of a possible APABE from that of the existing Human Remains Subject Specialist Network that might arise with the suggestion that the proposed APABE might provide advice on the interpretation of the DCMS Guidance on the care of Human Remains. This guidance not only covers human remains from burials in England but all human remains (archaeological, ethnographic, medical, social history etc.) in the care of Museums and similar collections.
The Museum sees the current Human Remains Subject Specialist Network as the appropriate body for representing the collective interests of Museums and other collections with human remains all kinds, not just those from burials in England. This group already provides support, advice and promulgation of best practice in interpreting the DCMS Guidance on the care of Human Remains.
2. The Museum would suggest that the membership of any new panel needs to balance the importance of representing the wide range of stakeholders concerned with this area with establishing a group of a size that can work effectively.
There certainly would need to be representation from Museums given the challenges caused by calls for reburial, long term storage and increasing research on human remains from English burials in their collections. If there is only space on the panel for one Museum representative, it probably should come from Museum with large numbers of English human remains in their care (such as the Museum of London or the British Museum etc.). If there is space for more than one Museum representative, then we would argue for representatives from a regional museum and a large or national museum with large numbers of English human remains in their care, as there are different problems and issues facing Museum's of different sizes and funding. It would also certainly be useful if Museum representatives also regularly attended the Human Remains Subject Specialist Network for effective liaison.
The panel certainly would need representation from ALGAO. There is also a clear need to have representation from faith communities or Christian denominations with burials in England other than the Church of England. There should be serious consideration of representation from the Pagan community.
If you need further comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. The Museum would also agree to being represented on the new panel, if asked.
Please find below the response from the Managing Committee of the Association for Environmental Archaeology regarding the proposed establishment of a new Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE).
We would be interested in being kept up-to-date on any developments relating to this issue.
Would a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England be useful?
A single panel would be useful. It would provide a consistent approach in dealing with both Christian and non-Christian remains. Separate panels can duplicate effort, and may potentially result in conflicting advice and approaches.
Should any new panel also include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff?
It would be sensible to include representation from archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff. These groups are amongst those that most often deal with human burials/remains. They are therefore in a position to be able to offer advice and the benefit of their experience. These groups would then also receive helpful feedback during Panel discussions.
The Royal Archaeological Institute is grateful to have been consulted on the proposed formation of a new Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. The RAI has been in existence since 1844, and is established by royal charter to examine, preserve and illustrate the ancient monuments, past history, manners, customs, arts and literature of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and other countries. Our membership comprises people from all walks of the archaeological profession as well as many with a non-specialist interest in the subject.
The formation of a proposed Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England was discussed at our Council meeting on 11 March 2009. Council welcomed the proposal and felt that the creation of such a body would be of great benefit. It was hoped that its formation would help to resolve some of the uncertainties which have surrounded the treatment of non-Christian human remains over the last couple of years.
Council was of the opinion that, in addition to representatives who sit on the present panel, it would be advantageous to include others to provide a wide range of relevant advice. It was felt, in particular, that someone with extensive fieldwork experience would be an asset. Council also suggested that the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), the Forum of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME, formerly SCAUM), the Council of British Archaeology and the Society for Museum Archaeologists should be consulted.
I hope that this response will be of help in the formation of the new body, to which we extend our best wishes.
The Human Remains Subject Specialist Network is a network providing mutual support and information transfer between individuals representing accredited museums in the United Kingdom that hold accessioned collections of human remains. Thirty museums are represented on the group. They include institutions holding human remains in archaeological, ethnographic, medical and social history collections. Through its elected chair and steering group the SSN provides advice to DCMS and other agencies on an ad hoc basis as well as providing a forum for individuals and institutions responsible for the care of human remains in museums.
The Human Remains SSN welcomes the invitation to comment on the proposal by English Heritage, the Church of England and the Ministry of Justice to replace the current Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England with one covering non-Christian sites. The SSN has the following specific comments:
1. The SSN has significant concerns with the proposal that the new panel should be responsible for interpreting or developing the DCMS Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums. This conflates two largely distinct issues: the one governing excavation of burials (remains from which may or may not end up in museum collections); and the other concerning care of human remains by museums (given that UK burial excavations are only one potential source of such remains).
While there are institutions whose concerns overlap, we feel it is unlikely that that a single body would be adequately placed to advise on both areas. We feel that the existing SSN already performs the broader function relating to museum collections of human remains on an ad hoc basis. The remit of the SSN includes museum acquisition, disposal, storage, public display, programming, consultation and related ethics around human remains from all contexts. The group could be developed to take on these issues as a formal responsibility, and would provide a more suitable context within which to discuss the range of issues and concerns relating to different types of museum collections.
2. The SSN nevertheless believes that a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be useful. This group should be responsible for implementing and developing the EH/CofE Guidance for Best Practice for Treatment of Human Remains Excavated from Christian Burial Grounds in England, and produce new guidance where necessary. That is, their remit would encompass statutory, legal and related ethical issues – including consultation between archaeologists and community groups around excavations - concerned with new excavations of human remains in the UK.
3. Within this more defined remit, museum representation on the proposed APABE panel would be desirable. This would ensure that any standards developed or promulgated by APABE regarding the care of excavated remains from English burial sites were consistent with the broader standards of the current DCMS Guidance and any subsequent revisions. This representation should include the SSN Chair, and also at least one museum representative with experience of managing relevant collections. The SSN already has established links with APACBE, and some reciprocal representation of APABE on the SSN would also be desirable.
The Council for British Archaeology is an educational charity working throughout the UK to involve people in archaeology and to promote appreciation and care of the historic environment for the benefit of present and future generations. We have a statutory role as one of the national amenity societies consulted on listed building proposals. We have a membership of 620 heritage organisations and c 10,000 directly subscribing individuals of all ages. Our institutional members represent national, regional and local bodies encompassing state, local government, professional, academic, museum and voluntary sectors.
The CBA is pleased to respond to this consultation by the Church of England, English Heritage and the Ministry of Justice on the formation of a new Advisory Panel on the archaeology of burials in England. This is a welcome opportunity for the sector to contribute its views on the groups that should be represented on the Panel.
We strongly support the proposal to revise the terms of reference of the existing Advisory Panel on the archaeology of Christian burials to include consideration of the treatment of non-Christian burials and to extend the representation on the Panel accordingly. Burials from early, non-Christian societies and from other faith communities can be of very significant archaeological research value and public interest. The treatment of human remains, whatever their archaeological context, raises a wide range of religious, ethical, legal and scientific issues on which it will be valuable to have a broad spectrum of advice.
The CBA suggests that the following groups should be represented in the new Advisory Panel (in alphabetical order):
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute our views to this consultation.
View the CBA News item for this Consultation.
I'm writing to you in my role as Conservation Coordinator for The Prehistoric Society to offer comments from the Society on the 'Consultation on the formation of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England'.
The consultation was discussed at a meeting of the council of The Prehistoric Society on 18 February and details were distributed to all council members by email. All the council members who expressed an opinion on the consultation supported the creation of a new, single advisory panel on issues connected with all ancient burials in England, and they also all agreed that any new panel should include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff. There were no specific suggestions of other groups or organisations that might be included on the panel.
We look forward to hearing about the results of the consultation in due course.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers for England (ALGAO:England) is the national body representing local government archaeology services at County, District, Metropolitan, Unitary and National Park level in England. ALGAO:England co-ordinates the views of its member authorities (93 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association (LGA) on archaeological matters. The range of interests of our members embraces all aspects of the historic environment including archaeology, buildings and the historic landscape.
ALGAO is of the view that a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be very helpful. We recognise that it is useful to have a framework of reference material, case law and practice, and best practice guidance, to inform discussion of the issues bearing upon any individual case, and in this context a national advisory panel would be useful.
However, whilst welcoming the idea in principle, the efficacy of the body would depend on its Terms of Reference and perceived remit. The terms of reference and remit of the Human Remains Advisory Service were not sufficiently precise, leading to difficulty when called upon to provide advice. We would see the proposed APABE as being the appropriate body to deal with all casework concerned with archaeological burials in England, including 'repatriation' of remains to the place from which they were excavated, but the terms of reference will need to be drafted with clarity.
Advice panels are of most use where they meet regularly enough to give actual advice. The panel should not solely be a body producing generic national guidance; it should have both a proactive 'overview' commitment and a very firm commitment to being able to give, through devotion of sufficient time and resources, reactive advice to ongoing projects, similar to the specialist advice that the English Heritage Regional Scientific Advisors provide at present.
Each case to do with burial archaeology merits consideration and determination in its own right, especially in reference to the nature and timing of reburial (including taking into account the scientific arguments for long-term curation). Local Authority Historic Environment> services would welcome access to experienced individuals who can provide practical and authoritative advice for specific issues/cases by phone or e-mail, and/or on a site visit.
We believe that the panel should also be prepared to provide advice in relation to human remains in English waters. The maritime context is one where there is little clarity as to procedure or responsibilities, other than in relation to military remains.
A panel should indeed include a wide range of representatives from not only the national organisations with statutory responsibilities for archaeological burials but also representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff. We suggest that the panel should comprise a small core of members, mainly from the statutory agencies and main organisations, together with a wider consultative forum; this should be inter-denominational, and include members able to address 'pre-denominational' contexts and issues, and concerns of the scientific community. The main denominations and other faith groups should be represented. We would also suggest that the English Heritage representation not be limited to the scientific side but also include the Places of Worship Policy Team. It may be useful for the panel, when addressing questions of best practice and precedent, to have available to them some specialist legal advice from amongst the membership.
Many decisions about the excavation and subsequent treatment of human remains are initiated through advice and recommendations given by ALGAO members in the planning context, and the expanded remit of the revised panel will mean that a greater proportion of referrals are likely to originate outwith the system of Faculty jurisdiction. The consultative forum should therefore be expanded to include representation from ALGAO.
We trust that these comments will be helpful.
The British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) represents practitioners from across the Higher Education, Museum and Heritage sectors working in the field of human skeletal remains analysis from archaeological sites. BABAO would like to lend its support for the formation of a revised advisory panel (Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England) with an enhanced remit to succeed the existing Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England. With specific reference to the expectations and questions asked, we:
Agree that, in addition to representatives of the three national organisations with statutory responsibilities for archaeological burials, the new panel should include representatives of archaeologists, human osteologists and museum staff to ensure broad ownership and representation across the sector.
The consultation document requests comment on two questions. Here are those of Manchester Museum:
In our view it would be useful to have a single panel dealing with the archaeological excavation of all ancient burials; however, we do not see how it could also include a remit for all human remains in museums. The sorts of issues that such a panel would generally be dealing with – ie statutory and legal issuesc oncerned with new excavations – do not apply within the museum context or to the curation of human remains outside the excavation context. That remit should go to the Human Remains Subject Specialist Network (HRSSN), which has now been set up with a formal elected chair and a steering group, and a website, and is regularly called upon both within and outside the museum sector to give advice. It is in the HRSSN that curatorial expertise on issues of acquisition, disposal, storage, public display, programming and ethics around human remains resides, and it is to that group that Manchester Museum and other museums would be looking to for advice. We would nevertheless recommend cross-representation between the two groups to ensure information exchange and consistency.
A new, single panel with a remit for new excavations of human remains would be satisfactory on condition that its representation is wide and consultative. Included must be representatives of a wider range of religious organisations – Christian (not only CofE), Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan – and some form of community representation. Although the proposed new panel's remit is advice to the archaeological sector – and not to the museum sector where the issues are quite different – nevertheless it needs representation from the museum sector to advise where the issues are different. The consultation document suggests that the proposed new panel might produce new guidance where necessary. In our view this is not a task this panel could undertake on its own. The DCMS Guidance, in particular, is aimed largely at museums, and APABE is unlikely to have predominant representation from the museum sector and thus the expertise to carry out this task appropriately – indeed, none of the three national organisations with statutory responsibility for archaeological burials, currently represented on APACBE, is a museum institution. Any drafting of new advice should be led by the HRSSN in consultation with the new APABE, and probably more widely within the museum sector.
York Archaeological Trust (YAT) supports the proposal for a single Panel to advise on ancient burials, and strongly endorses the view that archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff should be represented.
The York Bones Forum which consists of representatives of the main holders of human bone collections in York - York Minster, YMT, and YAT – and advisors met yesterday and discussed the proposed new panel. In brief:
Yes, a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be very useful.
It was felt that in addition to the Statutory bodies the group should be fairly tight but with the possible addition of Representatives of the CBA, ALGAO, BABAO and the Museums Association.
I would like to make a response on behalf of Lincolnshire County Council:
I would say that it would be good to have one panel which could represent all types of burials whether demonstrably Christian or not; in archaeological situations it can be impossible to determine religion, especially in early medieval cemeteries which are not linked to known churches or where associated chapels might have vanished as well as burials found on prehistoric sites. There would be no reason for differing treatment and all should be treated with the same degree of respect.
It is important that ALGAO as the body representing local authority archaeological curators are included in any advisory panel, as they are the officers who generally monitor excavation of burials which occur as a result of either archaeological evaluation to determine the impact of development or archaeological recording of burials which have to be excavated in advance of development.
It is similarly important that the IfA who represent archaeological contractors excavating such burials is also represented. Not sure how academic excavators could be represented unless they are IFA members as well.
It would also be useful to have osteologists who may advise on best methods of retrieval and conservation.
The Natural History Museum (NHM) holds approximately 20,000 sets of human remains which represents many other parts of the world along with the British Isles. The NHM has set up within its Palaeontology Department a dedicated unit to deal with matters relating to human remains repatriation within its collection alongside existing curatorial and research staff. This unit has responsibility for dealing with repatriation claims from initial approach through to implementation of the Trustees decision and to help existing curatorial staff ensure day-to-day compliance with DCMS guidance on the care of human remains.
The NHM welcomes the invitation to comment on the proposal by English Heritage, the Church of England and the Ministry of Justice to replace the current Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Christian Burials in England with one that will also encompass non-Christian burials and has the following comments on the proposals.
The Archaeology Forum is a grouping of the key, non-governmental organisations concerned with archaeology in the UK. Its members include the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers UK (ALGAO), the Council for British Archaeology (CBA), the Institute of Conservation (ICON), the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), the National Trust (NT), the National Trust for Scotland (NTS), RESCUE, the Society of Antiquaries of London (SAL), the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, the Forum of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME, formerly SCAUM), and the Society for Museum Archaeologists UK.
The Archaeology Forum is pleased to contribute to the consultation by the Church of England, English Heritage and the Ministry of Justice on the formation of a new panel to advise on the archaeology of burials in England. The Forum's comments on the two questions set out in the consultation are as follows:
Thank you for this opportunity for the Forum to offer its views on the consultation.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is the professional body for archaeologists and related professions concerned with the study and care of the historic environment. It promotes best practice in archaeology and provides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves.
The IfA has over 2,700 members and more than 60 registered practices across the United Kingdom and abroad. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation, finds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation, survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial and financial sectors.
Yes. The IfA is strongly supportive of APACBE and its work and, building on the success of that body, welcomes the proposal to create a single source of advice concerning all burials in England over 100 years old.
In the Institute's view it is crucial that archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff are represented on the new panel in order to ensure that relevant, well-informed advice is available. Indeed, whilst the membership of any newly-formed panel must reflect the wider issues and interests involved, we are concerned to see that the makeup of the new body, at least in part, reflects the membership of the current panel (which currently includes a representative of the IfA upon its consultative forum).
In addition, we endorse the suggestion made in Dr Gill Chitty's submission dated 30 April 2009 on behalf of the Archaeology Forum (a grouping of the key, non- governmental organisations concerned with archaeology in the UK) that its constituent members (of which the IfA is one) would be appropriate organisations to nominate representatives to the Panel.
The IfA looks forward to contributing further to the development of this initiative.
1.1 The Museums Association (MA) is an independent membership organisation representing museums, galleries and heritage organisations in the UK and people who work for them.
1.2 The Association has over 5,000 individual members and 600 institutional members. These institutional members encompass around 1500 museums in the UK ranging from the largest government-funded national museums to small volunteer-run charitable trust museums.
1.3 Formed in 1889, it is a charity, receiving no regular government funding, which seeks to inform, represent and develop museums and people who work for them in order that they may provide a better service to society and the public.
1.4 This response has been informed by comments made by the MA's ethics committee.
1.5 The MA supports the promotion of informed debate on issues concerning human remains and therefore welcomes this consultation. Our response makes some general comments and then focuses on the two areas highlighted in the consultation, the usefulness of an advisory panel and appropriate representation on the panel.
1.6 In this response the term "museums" is used to refer to all UK public museums, galleries and heritage sites unless indicated otherwise.
2.1 The MA published the latest edition of the Code of Ethics for the museum sector in 2007. This document sets out ethical principles for people working in or governing public museums to help them fulfil their ethical responsibilities to society. The Code of Ethics can be accessed via the MA website.
2.2 The MA has a long-running interest in human remains and has contributed to the work of Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Church of England (CofE) in this area, including the DCMS 2005 'Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums'.
2.3 The MA's role is to advise museums on ethical matters, issuing guidance and promoting best practice to help museums make appropriate ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis. We expect museums to use the Code of Ethics and other relevant material as part of a wider process of consultation and research. In cases concerning human remains we promote the use of the 2005 DCMS guidance and the 2005 EH/CoE 'Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated from Christian burial grounds in England' where appropriate.
2.4 Museums seek to represent a range of stakeholders including among others the scientific community and groups with different religious and non-religious beliefs. They do this by maintaining public trust and maximising public benefit from any ethical decision. More specifically for museums responding to requests for repatriation or reburial of human remains, the Code expects museums to take into account "the law; current thinking on the subject; the interests of actual and cultural descendents; the strength of claimants' relationship to the items; their scientific, educational, cultural and historical importance; their future treatment" (MA, 2007:18).
3.1 In principle the MA supports the creation of a single panel to give advice on the archaeological excavation of burials in England. However there is concern among our members that the aim of this panel is unclear and seems to conflate two separate issues, the archaeological excavation of human remains and the care of human remains once in museum collections.
3.2 According to the consultation, the aim of the existing APACBE is to provide "consensus professional advice on the archaeological treatment of human remains in Christian graves." As the consultation highlights the need for "a similar source of advice covering non-Christian graves", it is surprising that the aim of the proposed new panel (APABE) is so vastly altered from the original; "to support curators, practitioners and others in interpreting the guidance documents issued in 2005 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and by English Heritage and the Church of England, and to produce new guidance where necessary". The care of human remains in museums, of which burial excavations in England is only one potential source, and the development or interpretation of relevant guidance is a distinct issue requiring input beyond the scope and expertise of the panel.
3.3 There is already an established source of good quality advice for the care of human remains in museums. The Human Remains Subject Specialist Network (SSN) has been successfully providing museums and individuals with clear consistent advice and has contributed to the work of APACBE and DCMS. The MA works closely with the Human Remains SSN and strongly supports its expertise in this area. It should be noted that unlike many issues around the archaeological excavation of human remains in England that are covered by legislation, most decisions pertaining to the care of human remains in museums are made by individual museums on behalf of the public, as defined by their legal and ethical responsibilities.
3.4 We would strongly advise that the aim of the APABE is revised to focus on the archaeological excavation of human remains in England, providing advice to archaeological curators (rather than museum curators) and practitioners. This would reflect the statutory responsibilities and core expertise of EH, CofE and the Ministry of Justice but also include non-Christian burials. The care of human remains once they enter a museum is therefore beyond the scope of the APABE and is covered by the Human Remains SSN.
If the APABE wish to extend their remit beyond this, a more substantial consultation is necessary including discussions with the MA, Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), Human Remains SSN and DCMS.
4.1 We agree that a single source of advice on issues connected with the archaeology of the excavation of human remains from burial sites in England would be useful. However, we do not believe the proposed aim of the APABE reflects this for the reasons stated above.
4.2 In addition, an APABE that included non-Christian burials could make a useful contribution to discussions about the care of human remains in museums alongside other key stakeholders such as DCMS, MLA, Human Remains SSN and the MA.
4.3 There are significant advantages to having several panels/groups, providing advice and guidance on human remains. This promotes high quality discussion and debate and ensures checks and balances are in place. It would be useful to clarify and publicise the remit and boundary between each of these panels/groups; MA, MLA, Human Remains SSN and APABE. The MA would welcome a meeting to discuss this.
4.4 It is essential that APABE adopt a transparent collaborative approach to their working practice. Diverse views must be sought to adequately represent all relevant stakeholders and promote robust consultation and decision-making. This is particularly important for ethical issues not covered by legislation or where the interests of more than one group may come into conflict.
5.1 The involvement of practitioners with up-to-date knowledge of relevant professional practice is essential. We recommend that the MA ethics committee and the Human Remains SSN each nominate a representative to the panel. We would also advise that a member of the APABE is nominated to the Human Remains SSN and that joint working practices are adopted between the two groups.
5.2 Representatives on the panel should be expanded to reflect its revised remit, however we are not in a position to comment which non-Christian groups should be included. Because absolute representation is impossible, the panel must embed transparency and openness into its nomination process and working practices.
The Battlefields Trust welcomes this consultation on graves.
Many British battlefields have burial sites associated with them and current planning arrangements do not give them as full a recognition or status as they deserve. A particular issue is burials from earlier periods outside hallowed ground or religious sites, and sometimes of people who were not Christian. The need to preserve and commemorate burial sites is an urgent one with the growing pressures on land use. It is all too easy for developers to press on without heed to this aspect of a site and for planning authorities to be anxious to meet other national targets as a higher priority than preserving burial sites rather than commission the necessary archaeology.
The Trust asks that a representative expert on battlefield archaeology be included on the Panel.
In principle this is a sensible idea, but it would depend entirely on the Terms of Reference and perceived remit of such a body. The Human Remains Advisory Service was previously established to fulfil this function but because it was founded on problematic assumptions, it proved unable to deal with the issues of archaeologically excavated human remains, as we found to our cost. We would hope than any successor body was careful in its establishment and avoided repeating previous errors.
We would suggest that the panel comprise a small core of staff mainly from the statutory agencies and main organisations (including curators, archaeologists and osteologists), but also maintained a 'contact list' of representatives from potential interested organisations who could be approached if necessary. Since the list currently includes the Church of England, and consideration is being made towards the involvement of pagan groups such as Honouring the Ancient Dead, we would recommend the inclusion of other Christian and Non-Christian faiths who have interests in burial, in particular the Quakers, Baptist Union, URC and Methodist churches, Jewish Heritage UK and the Roman Catholic Church. We would also suggest that the English Heritage representation not be limited to the scientific side but also include the Places of Worship Policy Team.
Thank you for inviting Heritage Burial Services (HBS), on behalf of Oxford Archaeology, to comment on your proposal to dissolve the existing APACBE panel and replace it with a new body, the APAPE.
HBS welcomes this proposal. In addition, HBS agrees that a single panel for advice and the promulgation of good practice on issues connected with all ancient burials in England would be useful. HBS also agrees that, in addition to representatives of the three national organisations with statutory responsibilities for archaeological burials, any new panel should include representatives of archaeologists, osteologists and museum staff.
Given the current climate regarding the treatment of ancient burials, and the uncertain future that this poses for cultural heritage and science, the creation of an all inclusive panel is now critical.
Compiled by Simon Mays, English Heritage.
APABE Home | Consultations | Terms of Reference | Members | Casework Advice | Minutes | Links |