Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:37:08.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reburial issue in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Gabriel Moshenska
Gabriel Moshenska*
Affiliation:
*Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dead are back. Like a horde of irritating poltergeists the human remains of the ancients have returned to harass us in the form of the reburial issue; perennial source of postcolonial guilt and undergraduate seminar material. Only this time there is an unusual twist: the remains in question are British. The Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) has requested the reburial of a specific group of prehistoric human remains from the collection of the Alexander Keiller Museum. In response English Heritage have carried out a consultation, amidst considerable publicity and public debate (Hole 2008).

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 321 , September 2009 , pp. 815 - 820
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aburrow, Y. 2007. Finding a compromise: keeping places. Available at http://www.honour.org.uk/node/64.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. 1984. Do not disturb? Archaeology and the rights of the dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1(2): 213–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: making space. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
English Heritage. 2009. Consultation on the future of human remains in Avebury museum. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.14782Google Scholar
HAD. 2004-2008. Frequently asked questions. Available at http://www.honour.org.uk/faq.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56(2): 155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, B. 2008. The debate at Avebury. Current Archaeology 225: 43.Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. 2008a. ‘The Bible in Stone’: pyramids, lost tribes and alternative archaeologies. Public Archaeology 7(1): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshenska, G. 2008b. Community archaeology from below: a response to Tully. Public Archaeology 7(1): 52–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall Orr, E. 2004. Honouring the ancient dead. British Archaeology 77: 39.Google Scholar
Restall Orr, E. 2005. A theology of reburial. Available at http://www.honour.org.uk/node/31.Google Scholar
Sayer, D. 2009. Is there a crisis facing British burial archaeology? Antiquity 83: 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarre, G. 2003. Archaeology and respect for the dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy 20(3): 237–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schadla-Hall, T. 2004. The comforts of unreason: the importance and relevance of alternative archaeology, in Merriman, N. (ed.) Public archaeology: 255–71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schöpflin, G. 2000. Nations, identity, power: the new politics of Europe. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
Wallis, R. & Blain, J.. 2004. No one voice. British Archaeology 78: 10–13.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1954. Archaeology from the earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar