Letters: British Archaeology 105, March/April 2009

Star Letter

Kevin Leahy

The debate over human remains has become polarised between science and sentiment, with caring people with sensibilities taking the moral high ground and attacking the cruel, unfeeling, archaeologists. However, the point needs to be made that Druids are not the only people who have feelings about human remains.

Many years ago I was directing the excavation of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery before its destruction by ploughing. We were working on the grave of a child, a little girl, with a brooch and some beads, when one of the team asked me if I thought that it was a shame to disturb her. I paused to think. "No", I told him, "she has been forgotten for 1,400 years but now she is back with us, we remember her again".

This spur of the moment thought led me to consider the issue. We don’t know much about the religious beliefs of these people, but know that they wanted to be remembered, their stories, mounds and monuments show this. Their families have long gone, taking all memory with them, and we archaeologists, by bringing them back into the world, are perhaps the nearest they have to kin. We care about them, spending our lives trying to turn their bones back into people. We look at the things they made and used, and, by enjoying things that they enjoyed, human hands and minds touch over the centuries. Their bones give us direct evidence of who they were, where they came from, how they lived and even what they looked like. The more we know the better we can remember them.

Reburying human remains destroys people and casts them into oblivion: this is at best, misguided, and at worse cruel. Perhaps we archaeologists have been wrong to argue our case purely on scientific grounds and not admit that we, too, care. We must recognise that dead people are still part of the human race and should be cared for and respected.

Kevin Leahy, Brigg

By permitting a New Age pseudo-religious group to hold a "healing ceremony" outside Avebury Museum (News, Jan/Feb 2009), the National Trust has set an unfortunate precedent by dignifying such nonsense. Whilst it would be understandable if we were talking of the recently deceased involving identity and personal remembrance, ancient remains are, by their very nature, beyond that. If we allow it otherwise, where does it end? Our museums are filled with Romans in their coffins and Saxons in their urns. All are no less "ancestors" than the Avebury remains – or do only those imbued with "Celtic" mystique qualify? Taking this to its logical conclusion, we would have to consign fossil remains to scientific oblivion as well.

Ancient humans, including those from America and Australia, are the common ancestors of all mankind, and no single modern ethnic group or cult should be allowed to appropriate our ancestors for their own agendas. It is for the international scientific community to curate such remains.

It has been a long hard struggle to get from the fires of Smithfield to something approaching modern enlightenment, and to let that slip away through "politically correct" acquiescence to superstition would be a real betrayal of our ancestors.

The Celtic population of pre-Roman Britain believed in reincarnation. This is well established and given credence by the fact that they were so fearless in war, knowing that if they should die their spirits go on. For modern Druids to say that we must not study or keep their bones in museums therefore becomes somewhat of a paradox. If they truly believed as the Celtic Druids did, then they would realise that the bones we dig up are a little more than just our ancestors, they are actually us! And study of our bones of the past is of prime importance to our well being in the present and the health of our children of the future. I have strong suspicions that there were very astute and knowledgeable "healers" amongst the ancient Celts, and the recent study at Stonehenge supports that theory.

Aston's excursions

It's always good to see coverage of Dartmoor's archaeology (Mick's travels, Jan/Feb 2009). The undated photographs show highly visible remains, but in recent years much of Dartmoor's archaeology has been smothered by gorse and purple moor grass (Molinia) due to calamitous decisions in the 1990s by MAFF/DEFRA and English Nature/Natural England to reduce the number of grazing sheep and cattle by 50% or more, and to limit the amount of vegetation burning (swaling). Dartmoor's archaeology is now less visible than at any time in the past 40 years. The detailed fieldwork carried out by Andrew Fleming and others in the 1970s would not now be possible.

I enjoyed the article about Iona (Mick's travels, Nov/Dec 2008). However, Aston describes the Dal Riata as the people of Irish descent living in... Argyll. That may be technically correct, but no Scottish historian would put it in those terms. The Dal Riata were the Scots, and they had indeed established the foundation of their new kingdom in Argyll – Dunadd to be precise. These Gaelic speaking Scots gave what would become the eventual larger kingdom of Scotland its name, its line of kings and its beginning. Ancient Ireland was called Scotia. The article mentions that Scottish "leaders", not "kings", are buried at Iona. Most of the early Scottish kings (AD800–1100) are buried there. Indeed, Dunadd and Iona are very special places to the Scots and I think proper and respectful descriptions are necessary.

Colour of War

It is not my custom to join "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" by writing to editors, but I would draw your attention to the feature headline of Archaeology that matters (Jan/Feb), where the flag of the Federal Republic of Germany appears! If a connection is intended with the wartime occupation of the Channel Islands, it was the red, white and black flag of the Third Reich that is associated with the Nazi regime. The black, red and gold colours were originally those of the early 19th century liberal constitutional movement in the then multi-state Germany, and were adopted by the post-war republic. A caption on page 21 refers to "the Guernsey crest," for a carving of Guernsey's arms: the crest is the symbol displayed above the shield.

Sutton Hoo 70

The 70th anniversary of the discovery of the Sutton Hoo ship burial is approaching. In 1939 Rhoisia and Bridget Coppinger-Hill realised that a good downpour would destroy the ship, preserved only as an impression in the sand. They organised local people and spent a Sunday uprooting grass sods and throwing them into the trench. They showed us several clenchnails (ship-rivets) which they had "recovered" from the vessel.

Their action was justified late in the war when the Sutton Hoo estate was taken over as a live range by the army. Bren gun carriers were driven through the ship trench, mortar bombs were aimed at it, and though the upper strake impressions were destroyed, the bulk of the ship was not too damaged.

In the 1960s Rupert Bruce-Mitford of the British Museum and Paul Ashbee led teams to reveal the ship again. A plaster impression was taken, and by the middle of August 1967 it had been completely excavated away.

I read The Dig by John Preston (Books, Jul/Aug 2007), who attempted to rehabilitate Basil Brown at the expense of Charles Phillips. Brown deserves the credit as discoverer, but his published reports show that even by the standards of 1939 he was not a good archaeologist. In the new National Trust visitor centre, Bruce-Mitford's work on the ship itself is not mentioned. Why is the story of a complete dig airbrushed out?

Benefits of divers

The penultimate paragraph of your piece on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (News, Jan/Feb) made me very sad. Most divers these days want to dive on wrecks to take photographs, see the wreck as an artefact, or look at the marine life. Yes, there are some who take wreck – but perhaps the law encourages salvage (for so it is in the context of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995), and divers do what the law requires by declaring the finds to the Receiver of Wreck.

The current Receiver of Wreck has an MA in maritime archaeology from Southampton University, and is uniquely placed to understand wreck and wreck material as part of her duties under the MSA. Hundreds of divers survey and record wrecks at their own expense, often under the guidance of archaeologists.

I would argue for proportionality. Dredging, aggregate extraction, and the law of the land also have a part to play in the preservation of underwater archaeology. There is a major gap in the protection of underwater sites – and the heritage protection bill, that could have plugged that gap, is now on the back burner. Wrecks can be protected under specific circumstances. It is much harder to protect underwater, non-wreck, archaeological sites.

Divers are an easy target. But we see what is underwater, we care about our heritage, and in the main don't take wreck. Responsible archaeologists should harness our skills and talents for a common benefit.

Through the fence

I was one of the thousands of women who protested against Cruise missiles at Greenham Common (feature, Jan/Feb). Many years later I visited the base as historic buildings officer for the CBA to assess its significance as a cold war site and to explore options for its future including that of possible tourist venue! This time I was allowed inside the perimeter fence.

ANYA RACZYNSKI: I was a student of archaeology. DEXTER: Not much bloody use.
BBC1 drama Survivors (after "a virus wipes out most of the world's population, how would any of us cope?") passes judgement, Dec 22

Please send your ideas for the magazine: we may not publish them all, but we will read and take notice. Ed

We welcome letters from readers. They may be emailed to Mike Pitts the Editor at editor@britarch.ac.uk or faxed to 01904 671384. They may be edited.

British

Archaeology

The voice of archaeology in Britain and beyond

Issue 105

Mar / Apr 2009

Contents

news

features

spoilheap

requiem

on the web

letters

Archaeology in Britain

letters

Human Remains

Star Letter

Aston's excursions

Colour of War

Sutton Hoo 70

Benefits of divers

Through the fence

CBA web:

British Archaeology

CBA Briefing

CBA homepage