The 5,500 year-old skeleton of a man excavated in 1863 from a long barrow close to Stonehenge. Now on show next to Swedish forensic sculptor Oscar Nilsson’s reconstructed bust of the man
Image: The Heritage Trust
How do our readers feel about the question of reburial – as in the reburial of human remains from archaeological excavations?
Last year saw the reburial issue highlighted in Britain as perhaps never before. On the 4 February 2013 the University of Leicester confirmed that the human remains found in August 2012, under a car park close to Leicester Cathedral, were indeed those of Richard III. Richard’s remains will eventually be reinterred, no doubt with due ceremony (although exactly where has yet to be decided). In contrast, and with some controversy, a 5,500 year-old male skeleton, excavated from a long barrow close to Stonehenge in 1863, went on show at the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre in December last year. Also in December 2013 the Wallingford Museum in Oxfordshire, England, was in the news for its decision to rebury the remains of 500 medieval and Saxon residents of the town in a formal and moving ceremony arranged by the Museum and local archaeologists (see our feature here). And again, last October, the Mildenhall Museum in Suffolk, England opened its doors to a refurbished gallery dedicated to the remains of a 5th century Anglo-Saxon warrior discovered at Lakenheath in 1997 (see our feature here).
Human remains are on show in many museums, both in Britain and elsewhere, but why? Do they really add anything to our understanding of the person displayed before us or are they just there to titillate and attract visitors? Is it acceptable to put on show the remains of a 5th century Anglo-Saxon warrior but not the remains of a 15th English century king? Is it acceptable to put on show the remains of a man who was familiar with Stonehenge 5,500 years ago but not the remains of a soldier familiar with the fields of Flanders 100 years ago? Does ‘social standing’ or the timespan between them and us make a difference? Do their belief systems and ours make a difference? Does it really matter one way or the other?
Much can, and is, gained from the examination of human remains, and the knowledge those examinations produce helps immensely in the understanding of the past and the people who occupied it. It seems a very long way however from gaining such knowledge to displaying its source in a museum case – ie treating the remains as if they were no more than other relics from the past instead of the remains of a human being who once lived, worked and perhaps influenced that past. Should our Anglo-Saxon warrior, a human being buried with love and respect and surrounded by the objects he most cherished, now be displayed in a glass case or should the wishes and beliefs of those who buried that man continue to be respected?
We’d like to hear your views on the question of reburial – especially if you’ve worked with human remains or you belong to a culture, or follow a belief system, where their display is considered unacceptable.
The Heritage Trust 
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
08/01/2014 at 5:50 am
gravettiangoddess
Yes, good issue to raise. What is the cutoff between when grave exhumation constitutes sound archaeological practice, and when it equals burial violation?
LikeLike
08/01/2014 at 7:26 am
Carl
I believe that once any scientific information can be gathered from the remains the skeleton should be re-buried with appropriate respect, hopefully somewhere close to the original burial site.
By all means put an exact replica skeleton on show. Who would know the difference and more importantly, what difference would it make?
LikeLike
08/01/2014 at 8:38 am
Roy Goutte
I am totally against removing any human remains from their last resting place and displaying them in museums and the like. Personally I find it extremely distasteful and akin to a freak show and if we are to get ‘modern’ about it, against their human rights. Replicas are perfectly acceptable and made so well today that nobody would know the difference. It may be a slightly different matter for scientific reasons but it should be done swiftly, with reverence and the total remains returned to that final resting place, or somewhere more suitable ASAP.
There must have been hundreds, if not thousands, of skeletons exhumed over the years and you have to question exactly how many are needed for scientific research? I wonder just how keen archaeologists would be to remove the remains of their own close relatives and put them on display?
LikeLike
10/01/2014 at 6:22 pm
LS
“Replicas are perfectly acceptable and made so well today that nobody would know the difference.”
I’d go even further and ask why even have a replica skeleton on display? We all know what a skeleton looks like (even young schoolchildren know what one looks like!) so what’s the point? Far better to commission a fleshed-out replica (as was done for the Stonehenge man and the Neanderthal and early Homo sapien as shown in the Trust’s feature above). At least then we’d be given the chance to see what these people may have actually looked like instead of being subjected to yet another macabre Victorian-syle freak show.
LikeLike
16/01/2014 at 5:38 pm
m kilroy
The bones of King Richard III are still languishing ‘somewhere’ in Leicester. At one point we were informed that they were providing temporary shelving space for a ‘dead kettle’. Mercifully, a proposal to put the bones on public display was over-ruled. I am totally against displaying anyone’s remains – king or ‘commoner’. I admire those people, Native Americans and Maoris, who have been successful in obtaining their ancestors’ remains for religious burial.
LikeLike
16/01/2014 at 11:31 pm
Draj Hibbard
The exhumation of king Richard III in 2012 in Leicester raises a number of vexing issues.
Firstly, the license. The original license (expired 31 Dec 2012) was granted for the removal of the “remains of persons unknown.” And called for the remains to be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum, at St Martins Cathedral or a burial ground in which interments may legally take place. The application for exhumation emphasized that the site to be excavated was that of a Franciscan Friary, but it also stated the purpose was to “also potentially locate the burial place of Richard III whose remains were interred here in 1485, although these may subsequently have been exhumed and thrown into the nearby River Soar after the Dissolution in 1538. It is proposed to exhume up to six sets of human remains for scientific examination.” If king Richard’s remains were found, St Martins was singled out as the expected site of re-interment. Despite the ULAS archaeologists’ skepticism, this project was widely reported in the media during the course of the excavation as the Richard III dig. It is also questionable whether a significant portion of the funding would have been secured from the Richard III Society, if the intent had not been to find the king’s remains. Nor is it likely that permission for the dig would have been granted by Leicester City Council if the intent had been merely to uncover what was left of Greyfriars, since the Council was then looking for one-time investments that might have a large ROI in order to compensate for cutbacks in national funding.
Secondly, the way in which the dig was conducted. The king’s leg bones, so we are told, were uncovered in the first trench (perhaps even the first scoop of the digger) on the first day (either 24 or 25 August 2012), then covered over again, since the team conducting the dig did not expect to find him in that location, based on their evidently flawed ideas of how Greyfriars was oriented. The application for exhumation is said to have been made some 10 days later, & was granted on 3 Sep 2012. As has now been seen by many people around the world, the actual uncovering of the skeleton was performed by a junior member of the team, an osteologist, who readily admitted having put a new hole in the skull because she was not expecting to find it where it was. The remains were then housed, as stated by the acting head of the department of archaeology and ancient history in a radio interview, in a “nice long box” under a “dead kettle” in her office. The University now vigorously denies this. And while the remains may now be in secure storage in the University’s keeping, the fact that such arrangements were not made before the dig even started signifies that the team had not seriously planned for all the possible outcomes of their excavation.
Thirdly, who “owns” human remains, & what if, any limits, may be placed on their use. The original license is now under Judicial Review, to the probable consternation of archaeologists who feel that existing procedures are sufficient, and any further amendment to the current process will complicate their professional work. It was initially advertised that, given the unique situation of the recovery of the remains of an identified individual of historic significance, a wider consultation would be taken. Such consultation has not occurred, possibly because the Minister of Justice declared that the remains belonged in Leicester. This despite the expressed interest of the Council of the City of York, where king Richard had extensive involvement during his lifetime, and where some academic historians believe he himself intended to be buried. Some articles in the press have also hinted that the Queen believes her predecessor should stay in Leicester. The Leicester press has repeatedly referred to “ownership” of the king’s remains, but since the first hearing of the Judicial Review, now uses the word “custody.” The University has privately stated that testing is now complete on the king’s remains, while publicly stating as recently as 10 January 2014 that testing is ongoing. What exactly are the procedures for approving research on human remains? Does an individual or committee within a given institution holding them have unlimited rights? Or is there some external oversight by individuals who are not influenced by the interests of said institution? The University of Leicester still carries this statement on its website “Not all archaeologists feel that Richard III should be reinterred, because future developments in archaeological analytical techniques could eventually provide us with more information about this important find.” The University requests for a re-interment that would allow future access to the king’s remain has reportedly been rebuffed by Leicester Cathedral.
Fourthly, what, if any, are the rights of the individual to whom remains originally “belonged” (for want of a better word). In the United States (& presumably many other countries) there are strict limitations on what uses can be made of cadavers, and who may give permission. Consent for organ donation is also strictly limited as to who may legally give consent on behalf of the deceased individual. Someone who has been dead as long as king Richard is clearly a different matter. However, we do know what his religious beliefs were, & can infer that he expected a christian burial in consecrated ground, the likely location either to be Westminster Abbey or York Minster. The fact that king Richard’s plans are not explicitly known may be due to the destruction of records during the reign of his successor. Academic historians expert in king Richard’s era find it highly unlikely that he, like other men of his time going to battle, did not leave a will. It is also worth mentioning the situation of the high-status lady who was also uncovered as part of the car park dig, it is said that she will be re-buried in the municipal cemetery, effectively taking her from a place that was consecrated to one that is not.
Fifthly, philosophical issues. A human being has now been reduced to the status of an “important find.”
LikeLike
17/01/2014 at 10:54 am
Patricia Rice-Jones
It is my firm belief that human remains should be treated with respect and dignity. Where they are found in consecrated ground, and assuming they were placed there by their relatives out of choice, then they should be reinterred as close as possible to the original site. However, as in the case of King Richard III, where the remains are found in a place chosen merely for its convenience, they should be reinterred in a place far more suitable, and given the rites and respect they lacked at the time of burial. King Richard fell fighting manfully in battle, his body was treated despicably by the victors, and as he was found with neither coffin or shroud and his hands still tied, in a grave that was little more than a pit, it is doubtful he was given any funeral rites at the time. This is an important issue as Richard was a Roman Catholic and for his soul’s sake such rites would have been important. Like any soldier killed during combat, King Richard (and other warriors of the past) deserve to be repatriated to the place they considered home. In King Richard’s case, this would be York, and reinterred with due respect and dignity accordingly.
Human remains are not scientific ‘finds’, though ethical testing can enlighten us and tell us much about the person they were, but once this is done, let us remember that we are dealing with a person and grant them the respect and burial they deserve.
LikeLike
19/01/2014 at 5:21 pm
Frances
The statement about repatriation of soldiers killed in combat is untrue. After the two World Wars the vast majority of the dead soldiers were buried where they fell. My uncle, killed in Sicily, remains there and was not brought home.
I would also question the fact that Richard called York home, considering he never lived there. He died as king of England so I would suggest anywhere in this country is home whereas my uncle and many thousands more lie in a ‘foreign field’.
Richard would not have been considered a Roman Catholic, there being only one Christian faith at the time. As he was buried in a sanctified place and in consecrated ground it is doubtful if prayers for the repose of his soul were not said.
LikeLike
20/01/2014 at 4:21 pm
Patricia Rice-Jones
Frances, I realise that during the 2 WW’s many soldiers were indeed buried where they fell. However, where there has been archaeological digs for this period and identification has been possible, these remains have been repatriated accordingly. Your comment concerning Richard not living in Yorkshire is completely inaccurate. It is well documented in both primary and secondary sources that Richard was educated in Middleham from about the age of ten. As Lord of the North he was based in Yorkshire, between Middleham, Sheriff Hutton and Pickering from the age of 18yrs to his accession to the throne at the age of 30yrs.
LikeLike
17/01/2014 at 12:08 pm
Roy Goutte
Patricia and Draj…I compliment you both on your excellent comments and Draj in particular for the extent of his. I would have no hesitation in believing that most decent, sensible and responsible people would support both of your views and all the other comments thus far with complete support.
Roy
LikeLike
24/01/2014 at 2:01 pm
Frances
Patricia I know full well where Richard lived in Yorkshire. My comment was about the City of York where he never had a residence.
I suggest you read more recent literature about the dates concerning his time at Middleham. Baldwin, Wilkinson and Jones are of the opinion, based on documentation, that Richard didn’t enter the household of Warwick until late 1465 making him nearly 13.
As for being Lord of the North at 18 that is not based on the chronological record at all and you are wrong. That would make the date 1470 when Edward was still securing his throne after Tewkesbury. As Richard inherited his northern powerbase in Yorkshire with his marriage to Anne Neville in 1472 that will surely be the earliest he would have taken possession. The title Lord of North has never been credited in the documented record either but was likely coined by such writers as Paul Murray Kendall from whom you seem to have acquired your history. Much of his detail has been discredited in the light of new research.
As for my uncle who died in Sicily and lies in a marked grave I say no, soldiers were not repatriated in the numbers you suggest. Visit the numerous cemeteries maintained by the War Graves Commission worldwide. There are hundreds of thousands of such graves.
LikeLike
26/01/2014 at 3:17 pm
Patricia Rice- Jones
Frances
Thank you for your response. I would be more than happy to continue the debate on Richard III and the value of different sources, but this is not the platform for such a debate.
I am aware Richard never had a residence in York but his links to the city were stronger than to anywhere else. So much so that in writing to the Mayor and Alderman of York in 1483, Richard himself referred to his forthcoming visit there as ‘my homecomyng’. The Planned Chantry for 100 priests to pray for the souls of himself and his family (unprecedented in size) that he commissioned for the Minster is generally believed to be his intended burial place. by most historians, although it is true this cannot be proved conclusively since no will survives.
As for the very brave soldiers of of both the 1st and 2nd World Wars, I am also aware that thousands still remain in marked graves. I am sure they could be repatriated however, should their families wish to have this arranged personally. I was referring to the unidentified soldiers who have been found during archaeological digs. These have, wherever possible, been returned to their homeland for reburial.
LikeLike
27/01/2014 at 7:09 pm
Frances
Patricia
I would imagine if we debated until the cows came home we shall have different views and interpretation of the surviving ‘evidence’.
I am aware of the ‘homecoming’ letter which, as you quite correctly state, was written to York and not about York. I would suggest it referred to his residence at Middleham. It is a natural expression to use when returning to a domicile and really shouldn’t be given any more significance than that. As his places of residence changed he may have referred to them similarly.
As for the chantry in York, another interpretation can be put forward. Instead of a mausoleum it could equally have been a planned reminder to the north of Richard’s authority. The north had been his powerbase which helped to secure his throne. As becoming king necessitated his removal southwards, what better way to keep the north loyal than a huge chantry praying for the new royal family?
As you say there is no evidence so ‘most historians’ are replying on conjecture alone and I’ve come across some who discredit the view entirely. Again a matter of interpretation.
LikeLike
30/05/2014 at 5:05 am
Sarjana Lastname
Hope that Egyptians go and dig that body up, and put it to show to Egyptian museum at Cairo. For further investigation rip it to pieces, and analyses every bone and molecule what can be found, then write about, report, English genes and lifestyle. Then they clue it together again for show, museum visitors.
LikeLike