Letters: British Archaeology 99, March/April 2008

Remains of the dead

Simon Mays

We welcome the recent statement (Opinion, Jan/Feb) that Manchester Museum would accession scientifically important human remains. To a lesser extent we also welcome its stance that the museum will involve "all interested parties" in discussions and decisions about human remains, provided that science gets a fair hearing.

However, in the current climate, where indigenous groups from overseas, and some modern Pagans in the UK, are pressing for reburial of remains, this does not get at the nub of the matter.

The key point is what weight to attach to the views of different groups who may demand reburial of remains or some other say in their future? In our view, this should depend on the strength of a group's links with the remains. To our knowledge, all policy documents regarding the treatment of human remains acknowledge the value of scientific research on them, so it is right that any claimant who may potentially wish to rebury or otherwise remove remains from the reach of research be required to demonstrate strong links with them. The relevant criteria in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (2005) are clear, and involve genetic links and cultural continuity with the remains in question.

Manchester says it wishes to step beyond the "narrow definitions" of the DCMS guideline, but has presented no intellectually coherent framework to put in its place. Manchester says it wants to treat human remains in a consistent way, but without clear criteria for assessing claimants, equitable and transparent decision making is impossible.

We are also disturbed by the statement that Manchester Museum is unsure whether research on human remains is of benefit to anyone other than archaeologists. Greater understanding of our past enriches us all, and helps us to understand the world we live in. Human remains have a central role to play in this as they are our most direct archaeological evidence concerning earlier people. That a museum, part of whose aim is presumably to aid public understanding and enjoyment of our past, professes to be unsure on this point seems absurd.

Simon Mays, the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology

See Manchester Museum's own site for their full policy. www.museum.manchester.ac.uk/collection/humanremains

Spiked

Reading your In view section on television formats (Jan/Feb) reminded me that when I was director of the Council for British Archaeology, I learned one day that the comedian Spike Milligan subscribed to our newsletter, the precursor of today's British Archaeology. I contacted him and we began a series of hilarious telephone conversations. We came up one day with the idea of a television series in which one of Spike's manic characters (no, not Eccles) would visit excavations and elicit interpretation in his inimitable style about the sites from startled directors. Barry Cunliffe went along enthusiastically with the idea and we settled upon Danebury for the pilot. Spike had cajoled and browbeaten the then head of features at the bbc and he and I were just about to start work in earnest when one of those frequent BBC palace revolutions took place and our man was out – and so was the project. Just think of it – a Time Team with Spike Milligan instead of Tony Robinson.

Antiquities scheme support

I was astonished to read that the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council believes that "core costs" of the Portable Antiquities Scheme need to be cut (News, Jan/Feb). I am sure I am not alone amongst archaeologists in admiring the extraordinary success of the PAS. I say this as one who was initially sceptical about its value. I also see that it is a very lean organisation, with a small and very effective central staff and an overall budget of only £1.4m in 2007–8. This appears to contrast with £16.6m spent on running the MLA. Perhaps it would offer better value to cut some of the core costs of the MLA to provide the money to continue the PAS's excellent work? I would for instance contrast the five core national staff of the pas with more than 20 MLA staff who just deal with publicity.

Martin Millett, Laurence professor of classical archaeology, University of Cambridge

• At the launch of the PAS annual report at the British Museum last November 22, the editor raised the writer's last point when Roy Clare, MLA chief executive, had suggested that the PAS could benefit from trimming "backroom staff ". As chief executive of an organisation that listed contact details on its website for 27 marketing and advocacy personnel, where, he asked, did Clare see opportunities for the PAS to make such savings? Clare replied that he was unaware of such staff at the MLA (they were listed on the website that morning), and, now famously, that all the PAS staff could expect "a happy Christmas". See News, this issue

Montserrat heritage

David Miles and Julian Munby are, I think, aware that the Montserrat National Trust and the government of Montserrat have taken steps to protect Montserrat's heritage and to address issues of slavery on the island (feature, Nov/Dec 2007). In 2005, the MNT invited Lydia Pulsipher to initiate a project at the Carr Estate at Little Bay, a site to which she had sought to draw attention as early as 1980. Pulsipher in 2005 contacted me to serve as lead archaeologist on the project, and we conducted exploratory excavations in 2006 and again in two campaigns in 2007. The early, exploratory efforts were funded by the MNT and by the government; the project team has been seeking funding from off-island sources to extend our efforts.

The government of Montserrat has deeded land containing the heart of the Carr plantation to the trust in perpetuity, going against the wishes of the developers who are planning the new town at Little Bay. The heritage site will provide a focus for tourism and education on the island, and our excavations will provide both training to Montserratians and information to the MNT for restoration and interpretation of the plantation and its worker village.

The project team at present consists of myself and PhD students from Boston University and Lydia Pulsipher, Conrad M Goodwin, and Barbara J Heath of the University of Tennessee, in collaboration with staff of the Extramural Campus of the University of the West Indies, all under the sponsorship of the Montserrat National Trust. Montserratians do care, very much, about their heritage, and their commitment to the Little Bay Archaeology & Heritage Project is only one example of the intensity of their concern.

More old iron

I am writing to you about the feature by Rachael Hall entitled 'Putting the iron into iron age' (Jan/Feb). It is gratifying to learn that research into the late iron age and Roman iron working industry in Northamptonshire is continuing and producing good results. However having read the article I am prompted to write to you because I feel it is to some extent misleading.

In your introduction to the report you say the furnaces excavated at Priors Hall, Corby are the first substantial remains of Britain's prehistoric smelting furnaces, and in the article itself Hall implies the story began to be revealed in 2006. Moreover she states that it has previously been presumed that sunken shaft furnaces are indicative of Romano-British technology.

This is not true, as the sunken shaft furnaces we excavated at Wakerley in the 1970s, and published in Britannia 9 (1978), were clearly of late iron age date – although we were not emphatic in stating this because of the possibility of the prehistoric pottery being residual in what might have been Roman furnaces. The number of furnaces on the site was also substantial.

Between 1968 and 1985 I excavated various sites on the ironstone quarries near Corby, whilst working for the Department of the Environment and Northamptonshire county council. We excavated a number of unique furnace types, including the massive Roman examples at Laxton. The new sunken shaft furnaces excavated at Priors Hall are further proof of the importance of iron working in the Rockingham Forest area of Northamptonshire in the late iron age.

Regarding early furnace sites, in 1976 I found the remains of an iron smelting furnace at Great Oakley, on the outskirts of Corby, on a site with radiocarbon dates of around 800BC. Scientific analysis and a study of the ore sources by Stephanie Fells revealed the ore used in the furnace came from the Ironstone Junction Band and was not the ore being quarried in the 20th century, ie the Northampton Sand Ironstone. In the 1970s the nearest source of the nodular ore being used in the iron age was 1km from the furnace site.

Joyce McQueen: If you could live and work as a designer in any era, which one would it be? Alexander McQueen: Let's stick to the past... I'm thinking cavemen and loincloths. The fashion designer is interviewed by his mother, Guardian 2004

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 99

March / April 2008

Contents

news

features

on the web

letters

CBA correspondent

letters

Remains of the dead

Spiked

Antiquities scheme support

Montserrat heritage

More old iron

CBA web:

British Archaeology

CBA Briefing

CBA homepage