HAD, an acronym for “Honouring the Ancient Dead”, emanating from Druid, Emma Restall Orr’s ruminations on the treatment of human remains, excavated or otherwise discovered, has attracted interest from a variety of people both of pagan and non pagan leanings, some of recognised achievement in the fields of archaeological, historic and scientific studies. Ranked high amongst these, and noted for his academic excellence and authorship of many books, including several on aspects of British pagan history, is Professor Ronald Hutton, of Bristol University, and commissioner on the board of English Heritage, who, although he believes it to be a “worthwhile organisation, which does useful things”, disagrees, both intellectually and emotionally with its basic premises. The organisation is in every respect, a free association of those who have anything to say on the subject and official statements issued in its name from the website www.honour.org.uk represent a synthesis of views sent in by interested parties, but not so every message posted on it.
It is worth mentioning that the word “pagan” is derived from the Latin pagus meaning a village/small town in which Roman taxes were collected, as well as the surrounding locality, and eventually became associated with people living in a rural environment, whose life and seasonal celebrations accorded with annual agricultural/herding practises. (Cf French paysan, Italian paesano, etc). The word was demeaned by the 14th century Medieval Christian Church to represent someone/thing/practice to be abhorred, and during the Victorian era, to be treated as an object of curiosity, pity or condescension.
Human beings with our unique ability to examine our own species, have from time immemorial had a predisposition to wonder at the mysteries of birth and death and the recognition of the important roles played by the sun and moon in our daily existences, factors which have in fact been backed up by scientific advances! However here is not the place to pursue this line of thought. What is relevant is our continuing need to mark the deaths of family, and loved or respected ones, with special rites, according to our religious beliefs - or lack of them. Are we not shocked and appalled by any desecration of cemeteries? Many of us still experience a certain horror at the thought of “body snatchers” who robbed graves for monetary gain, albeit for the benefit of medical advance. (Thankfully we can now opt to donate our body parts, prior to or post death to help the living.) Moreover the very law of the land currently dictates how and where burials may be carried out, and special permission must be sought for exhumation. The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981allows a period of two years for the study of ancient excavated remains (deceased for over 100 years), before mandatory reburial, although an extension of this time limit may be applied for (1).
Consternation has been expressed by archaeologists, however, over the Cross Rail Act (which became law on 27th July 2008) since it has reduced the time allowed between excavation and mandatory reburial to only two months, clearly insufficient time for efficient study of any human remains which might be found in an area of London likely to reveal pre-Roman, Roman and Anglo-Saxon remains. A “we’re all right up here, Jack” response is not really acceptable since it could possibly set an unwelcome precedent. Once reburied, the opportunity of re-accessing remains or the find site, would be an impossibility and David Miles, Chief Archaeological Adviser to British Heritage expressed his concerns at the impact on post excavation work (2).
HAD recognises the needs the needs of archaeologists to examine scientifically the remains of our ancestors, but demands that they be handled as respectfully as we do our own diseased family members and preferably not put them on public show. Should this happen HAD “recommends that human remains be displayed in a context that supports and reflects the dignity and relationships of the individuals involved”. The organisation sent a questionnaire to English museums known to have human remains in their custody to ascertain how many they have and what access to them is available to the general public, whether adequate information on the history and background of the deceased is supplied and what, if any, ultimate plans they have for them. They also inquired whether the opinions of local people, of whatever religious persuasion, had been sought regarding how such remains might best be displayed to add to our understanding of human development whilst ensuring a respectful attitude towards those who had been interred, and (in many cases, but by no means all – see below) intended to be left in peace.
The first HAD conference, held at Leicester Museum (17.10.2009) “aiming to explore issues around value and custody of human remains”, included a wide range of themes: The Matter of Bones – and how we are affected by them ,(Dr Joost Fontein & Dr John Harries, University of Edinburgh); Consultation and Display, (Philip Wise, Heritage Manager, Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service); The Issue of Custody and Practical Respect (Prof. Piotr Bienkowski, Museum of Manchester); The Pagan Voice (Emma Restall Orr, HAD); The Legal Issues around the Excavation and Custody of Human Remains (Charlotte Woodhead, Barrister, University of Derby.) Full accounts of these addresses are available on the HAD website, as shown above.
Although Emma, in a private conversation, explained her misgivings about it, an example of what many people consider good practise, was found in Manchester Museum’s exhibition of Lindow Man (2008-9). His peat blackened, mummified body, which at the British Museum had been exposed in the middle of a brightly lit gallery, was now afforded a dimly lit, secluded section of his own, the partition walls of which bore the hand written reactions of those who gazed upon him. This presentation resulted from the Curator of Human Cultures, Bryan Sitch and his team’s consultations with local people (incidentally winning a design award for a temporary museum display (3).) Although I am aware that this does not pertain to modern Yorkshire it should be remembered that he may well have been a Brigantian, as were most of the pre-Roman tribal people of the present day northern counties.
Nearer home is an example of what now is considered poor practice, at the Thackray Museum, Leeds, where the standing skeleton of the executed Mary Bateman, is displayed with a ghoulish waving hand. This exhibit is on loan from the Centre of Human Biology, University of Leeds, since the Thackray Museum has a policy of not keeping human remains. The temporary senior museum curator, Emma King, replying to the HAD questionnaire (26.8.2008) considered the display “dated and not up to current museum practice“. It should be noted, however, that full documentation of Mary’s life and times does accompany the exhibit and it appears not to have incurred any public criticism. The present, permanent, senior curator, Jim Garrets, had not, at the time of writing, (autumn 2009), made any changes to the presentation.
Pagans hit the headlines in the spring of 2009, when one or two groups of vociferous Druids demanded the reburial of ancient British cremated remains removed from an “Aubrey Hole” at Stonehenge. Their particular style and apparent claim to exclusive connections with the site, alienated many other pagans sympathetic to the tenets of HAD for most of whom reburial of “ancestors” nevertheless remains an ultimate goal. It is, therefore, of interest to note that Tom C Lord, (farmer, archaeologist and Research Fellow of Lancaster University) who runs an educational centre on his farm, Winskill, near Settle in the North Yorkshire Dales, was filmed by the BBC1 “Inside Out” team, returning the partial skull of a Romano-British woman to the cave in east Yorkshire where it had been found. The cave was then sealed but can still be re-opened for future examination (4).
Rawthey Cave, situated in a former area of Yorkshire prior to its annexation to the “upstart county of Cumbria” as my informant Professor Chamberlain of Bradford University expressed it, was the repository of “a few human skeletal remains”, probably prehistoric, placed in his care and which were returned to their original location in 2008. This was contrary to the Archaeological Sciences Department’s regular policy as reburials risked the “destruction of material of potential future scientific and historic value” but in this case it was decided that the conditions within the closed cave “provide a stable environment for the preservation of remains so they are available for future study“. Still in the care of Prof. Chamberlain are a few other, prehistoric(?), disarticulated human remains from a couple of Yorkshire caves, besides six hundred and fifty human skeletons, of which seven date from the Roman era, excavated at the Barbican site, York, by On Site Archaeology (2007-8), with no plans for their disposal.
Another example of re-interment has occurred following a dig jointly directed by (the now) Dr Peter Halkon (Hull University) and (the now) Prof. Martin Millett (Cambridge University) at Hayton, East Yorkshire, in which this author took some part. A 4th century Romano-British male skeleton (excavated over two successive seasons, 1996-97) was reburied “near to” his original grave, along with a skull and several infant remains, all of early Iron Age date, from the Romanised Parisi settlement (5). He had been affectionately nicknamed Arfur, since only half of his remains were originally accessible. The simple reburial, organised by the local farming community which had shown great pride in its early history, was performed, quite properly in the author’s opinion, without any attempt at ritual which would have been alien to their deceased ancestors.
The archaeological curator of Leeds museums, Katherine Baxter, replying to the HAD questionnaire in September 2008, reported c.100 records of human remains in her curacy, of which about ten are believed to be of British provenance, and expressed her hope that by 2009, after the reorganisation of the Discovery Centre, following the opening of the new Leeds museum, to have the remains examined by experts with a view to possible reburial, “where appropriate.”
Dr David Marchant, (Museums Registrar, East Riding of Yorkshire Council‘s Museum Service) reported (6) some Iron Age/Romano-British material from the 1990s and later excavations, including those at Swaythorpe Farm, Kilham and Stamford Bridge (NNA). None of these are currently on display but at the Treasure House, Stamford Bridge, “images of burials” are used in the explanatory panels. Dr Marchant has in the past exhibited “some skeletal / cremation material” and can only recall “one visitor comment about a Romano-British child burial, many years back” and thinks a warning notice was put up to avoid any possible future upset to visitors. The E R Museums Service has no policy in place regarding the display of human remains which Dr Marchant would only display should he feel it appropriate to the story of an excavation and “not simply to create a dramatic effect”. No plans exist for reburial or disposal of material – moreover their “Acquisition and Disposal Policy would not allow it.”
At Masham, North Yorkshire, The Yorkshire Post reported (5.10.2009) that the previous day, fifty seven human remains had been given Christian reburials at St Mary’s Church. During the building of public toilets, in 1989, rescue archaeology carried out by Kevin Cale of Community Archaeology Ltd had excavated what proved to be an Anglo-Scandinavian cemetery having called in members of Bradford University who radio-carbon dated the remains to AD679 – 1011. The lack of grave goods and the east-west alignments of the original burials strongly supporting the probability of a Christian graveyard, prompted the vicar David Cleeves, with the encouragement and participation of the local populace, to lead a service which included the Lord’s prayer in Anglo-Saxon, Latin and “Prayer Book English”, plus a prayer written by Archbishop of York Egbert (d.776) and a blessing from an Anglo-Saxon prayer book written between AD 820 – 40.Individual caskets were placed in a mass grave and sprinkled with holy water. A memorial stone dedicated to the ancestors of many of the present day parishioners was planned.
In March, 2001, during preparatory work for a housing development at Wetwang, a square barrow, of the type associated with the Iron Age Parisi (whose territory encompassed somewhat more than present day East Yorkshire), was located by the director of the excavations, Rodney Mackey along with Kate Dennett (7). It turned out to be one of the iconic “Chariot Burials” and, moreover, possibly that of a Parisian Queen, dating from the 3rd/4th century BC. Unfortunately, discussions, between Dave Evans (LPA) and Keith Miller (English Heritage) with the site owner, Hogg the Builder of York, had ruled out the possibility of leaving the grave, itself “partially overlain by a substantial medieval timber-framed building“, in situ. Mr Hogg, however, who throughout the various excavation stages had manifested sympathetic respect for the enormity of the discovery, set up a commemorative stone at the burial site. This excavation was filmed by BBC2 Archaeological Services, for “Meet the Ancestors” and broadcast in the 2002 series. The female skeleton, along with all other “chariot burial” human remains, is in the curacy of the British Museum which undertook the excavation work in conjunction with the Guildhouse Consultancy and with the aid of British Heritage funding. Dodi Joy, curator of Iron Age material at the British Museum reports (8) that while the Wetwang grave goods are on display, along with detailed information panels, human remains are kept out of sight in suitable laboratory conditions, where isotopic analysis is being applied to determine the Iron Age diet, while other valuable research is being undertaken from samples into the beginnings of multiple sclerosis in Western Europe.
The British Museum Policy on Human Remains (available on the BM website) although allowing transfer from its “Collection any human remains of a person who died less than one thousand years” prior to 3rd October 2005, (when section 47 (para. 4.1) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, came into force), according to section 4.3 of its Policy forbids the trustees to “transfer any human remains from the Collection in contravention of a trust or condition to which they hold them.” The Museum, therefore does not rebury or otherwise dispose of ancient British remains. (Different conditions may pertain to human remains of other nations, for example Egyptian or Australian).
It must be stressed, however, that the sanctity of the undisturbed grave is a modern concept, relative to the millennia-long history of mankind. The British Isles - most notably the Islands of Orkney- have yielded numerous instances of collections of body parts grouped by kind, (skulls, finger bones etc) and the periodic removal and substitution of excarnated human bones was common practice in the Neolithic era (9). In the Yorkshire Dales similar rituals took place in Sewell’s Cave, sited on Tom C Lord’s land, which he personally excavated. It contained remains of “physically deviant people”, considered by Dr. Stephany Leach (Winchester University) to have been “blessed by the gods,” including a particularly deformed female skull. Dr Leach reported the cave as being typically reopened every 2-300 years when “newer” bones were substituted (10). Excavations at Duggleby Howe – revisited by J R Mortimer in 1905 – also revealed multiple human deposits made over centuries during the Neolithic period, amongst which Alex Gibson and Alan Ogden (11) (Bradford University) found particular interest in a skull, of a female (or gracile male?) aged c. 20yrs which had been placed at the foot of a mature male, (c. 60yrs old). The skull, lacking its lower jaw, showed evidence of violent execution while a healed broken nose, suggested ill-treatment during life, possibly as an enslaved captive, victim of the inter-tribal warring, typical from the Neolithic to the late Iron ages – a state of affairs only ended by the Roman occupation. Such types of peri-death trauma have also been noted by Gibson and Ogden, as likely contributory factors to selection for special burial conditions. Similar activities occurring in the Ryedale Windy Pits are described by Dr Leach in the PRS Bulletin, no. 43 pp.17-20, where periodic depositions, every 200-300years spanned a period of up to 2,000 years. Intriguingly, a paper by Angela Boyle, (Oxford Archaeology), presented by Sonia O’Connor at Bradford University (12), records a great feast being held at the site of a male “chariot burial” (found just south of the Ferrybridge M62 - A1 Link excavations ) some 300 years after the original interment”.
Numerous other caves in Yorkshire have been repositories for selected human burials or parts thereof and amongst the most iconic must be the three skeletons of Ebolton Cave, found sitting upright, supported by stones to preserve their articulation .They had been left outside the cave in order to be stripped of flesh and viscera, by wild animals, in order to leave the bones dry. This form of “mummification”, explained by Tom C Lord, at the BCRA Science Symposium, University of Sheffield 7.3.2009, was thought by him to be a special treatment reserved for the bodies of the infirm or crippled. Reporting on the same finds at a day school organised by PLACE “The Prehistory of the Yorkshire Dales” in Grassington (31.10.2009) in contrast to Dr Leach’s opinions noted above, he interpreted the burying of the deformed deep below the earth, as a measure to prevent their evil spirits from wreaking harm upon the livestock and crops of the living, a measure supplemented by the interventions of “witchcraft”: an example of the “ugliness equals malevolence” syndrome.
Over millennia skulls appear to have had a particular significance for many people worldwide and heads were important as Iron Age “Celtic“ warrior trophies, perhaps because, as the receptacle of the soul, they endowed the owner with power over the enemy. J L Brunaux (13) writes of Gaulish defended settlements or “oppida” having ramparts studded with skulls. This author is tempted to consider that the killing by decapitation of victims, thus separating them from their souls, intensifies their humiliation, especially when denied ritual burials. We may possibly compare recent beheadings of hostages in Iraq. It is also noteworthy that news reports from Zimbabwe, supported by the graphic details related by anthropologist Dr Joost Fontein at the HAD conference, told of the victims of massacres in post colonial Zimbabwe, by the troops loyal to President Mugabe, haunting both him and their own relatives to whom they appealed for proper burials. This led Dr Fontein to explain the problems of identifying bodies thrown into mass graves and mine shafts, thus preventing individual funerals and appeasement of the “ghosts”.
His colleague Dr John Harries, expressed a need to rethink anthropological approaches to human remains and to seek alternatives to storage in cardboard boxes. He made specific reference to some skulls of the Boeothuk, ethnic, hunter-gatherer people of Newfoundland, brought to Edinburgh University by their discoverer, William Epps Cormac, who, despite his action, had great respect for their culture and welfare. He deeply regretted that their people had been rendered extinct by the early 19th century due to European diseases and violence inflicted by the Anglo-Irish settlers. Dr Harries described the recent recreation, near Red Indian Lake, New Foundland, of a burial ground, destroyed during the construction of a housing project, where the bodies of the man, Nonosabasut, and his wife, Demasduit, (contrary to their tribal custom of interment in caves facing the sea) had been placed in a “house” of wood and bark, and informed the meeting that plans were afoot for the repatriation of their the skulls.
The discovery at the Trentholme cemetery York (14) of dozens of decapitated males, of the early 3rd century, shown by isotope analysis to originate from Western and Mediterranean, Europe and Africa, may well have been victims of vicious revenge attacks by Caracalla on the armies of Geta, (his rival brother) in their struggle to gain the throne of their father Severus. Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded Caracalla’s “killing spree”. It is thought, however, that Romans believed decapitation prevented haunting by the ghosts of the deceased. (Alison Taylor writes at length on superstitions associated with death in “Burial with the Romans”, British Archaeology, issue 69, March 2003).
An alternative view, probably showing great reverence for the receptacle of the soul/spirit may be witnessed in the number of carved stone heads that have turned up around West Yorkshire. Many of these have been catalogued by Sydney Jackson in his self published booklet “Celtic Stone Heads” 1973,(available at YAS HQ, Claremont) which contains a foreword by Dr Anne Ross who comments on their frequent appearance close to springs and wells, associated in prehistoric times with rituals of access to the Underworld. (A comprehensive index of stone heads by Professor John Prag of Manchester Museum also exists at that museum.)
The changing contents of caves, and ancient barrows etc. leads to the postulation, that the act of digging up whole or partial human remains might not in itself be desecration since not all ancient peoples necessarily intended their deceased ancestors’ bodies to rest permanently in peace. Herodotus (485? - 425? BC) recounts the procession of a wagon-borne corpse round every settlement in an area of Siberia, so that bits of the body could be torn off amid scenes of self mutilation! (15) Professor Parker Pearson, of Sheffield University, informed me (by email), of a ritual “called Famadihana in highland Madagascar where the Merina (ethnic group)and others honour the dead by opening family tombs to display and rewrap the corpses, generally once a decade.” These celebrations still occur to this day (16). It is worth mentioning that, as this is being written, (October 2009) a reliquary casket containing a few bones of St Therese of Lisieux is on tour around Yorkshire resting a night each at York Anglican Minster, Middlesbrough Catholic Cathedral and that of St Anne, Leeds (17), gathering huge crowds anxious to touch and be blessed by it. Albeit considerably less violent or gruesome scenes!
The initial provision of grave goods, in addition to providing sustenance for the deceased to make his/her journey to the underworld, was perhaps also to ensure that the status of the deceased would be permanently recognised and respected in the afterlife – thus once the spirit had moved on to the next world the physical remains would be thereafter of lesser importance. It is even conceivable that being on display in some museum along with one’s finery, might, in itself, constitute a kind of afterlife and that the growing practice of cremation, in Britain, is more than compensated for, regarding evidence of our existences, by the plethora of records - letters, photographs, videos, films, paintings etc that we leave to posterity.
In general a sea change has been taking place over the last couple of decades in the atmosphere of museums, making them more “user friendly”, supplying ample historical and personal information (where appropriate) and (some complain) more child friendly, besides offering questionnaires to ascertain visitor reactions. Many archaeologists and anthropologists are being seen to be more sensitive in their handling of the deceased and to regard human remains as more than mere archaeological artefacts. It transpires that Manchester Museum is currently (Nov–Dec 2009) conducting a public consultation (18) about what to do with 370 human remains in its collection, most of which lack any associated information or provenance to merit display or research. HAD in turn is consulting its members before giving its “considered response” to the questions posed by the options available.
While this paper was never intended as an endorsement of HAD, its concepts are well worth considering. Despite variations of ritual expressions in honouring their dead, it is clear, that people, worldwide, regardless of religion or nationality, have always shared, and continue to share, many of the concepts held by HAD which have provided the inspiration and spring-board for this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks to Paul Ansell, (Dept Of Justice), Prof. Piotr Bienkowkski, Prof. Andrew Chamberlain, Dr Peter Halkon, Prof. Ronald Hutton, Dodi Joy, Tom C. Lord, Dr David Marchant, Prof. M P Parker-Pearson, Bryan Sitch, and Charlotte Woodhead for their welcome information, plus Liz Gatti of the BM information desk, and Catherine Hagan of Crossrail information desk. Particular thanks are due to Mike Fletcher and Emma Restall Orr of HAD, not forgetting Karl Berlin for technical assistance to his mother along with Dr Willi Riha.
END NOTES
1 coroners@justice.gsi.gov.uk
2 Report in The Observer 02.03.2008
3 Design Week Awards, 03.03.2009
4 Broadcast 11.04.2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/-/hi/england/northyorkshire
5 Personal statement from joint director of the excavation, Dr Peter Halkon
6 Personal email
7 Eras News, no.51, 2002July
8 Personal email
9 Henshall;1985, 99-105
10 Tom C Lord: on site talk 17.8.2008 and M. Berlin, YAS Prehistory Research Bulletin, no.46, 2009
11 YAS Journal:vol.80 , 2008, pp1-13
12 Day School “Iron Age Chariots: New Sites - New Insights”, University of Bradford, 30.4.2005 and M Berlin, PRS Bulletin, n no. 43, 2006, p 41
13 Brunaux, J L, 1988, The Celtic Gauls - Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries, Seaby, London
14 Timewatch, BBC2 ,21.4.2006 and widely reported elsewhere.
15 Tim Taylor; address at Day School “Iron Age Chariots, New Sites New Insights”. University of Bradford, 30.4.2005
16 John Mack, “Madagascar: island of the Ancestors” (1986)
17 http://saintthereserelicsleeds.webeden.co.uk/#/visiting-st-therese-in-leeds/4532805864
18 http;//www.museum.manchester.ac.aboutus/ourpractice/humanremains
Sunday 27 December 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
