Why is it that we are allowed to unearth these remains, but when it comes to remains of e.g. native Americans, or Indigenous Australians or Canadians, there is a push to have them reburied? Seems like a double standard to me.
Yes, sometimes they’ll study a find then rebury it under protective layers of sand/gravel or a concrete cap. It can be due to the research being finished and the find is too delicate to lift.
Another difference is that in the UK there isn't nearly as much of a history of recent oppression of the decedents of the anglo-saxons the way there is a very recent and on going issue of oppression of the indigenous Americans and Australians. So there isn't the issue of the excavations being yet another example of an empowered people overriding the wishes of a dis-empowered people.
To put it another way, a large majority of the indigenous people of the Americas have expressed a wish that their ancestors not be excavated. And that wish has been ignored time and time again until recently (though it frequently still is ignored).
Here, no clear majority of the descendants have expressed such a wish, there's no history of it being overridden or ignored, and the excavators (for the most part) are descendants.
Incidentally a group known as the "diggers" did seek some redress from their successors.
In any event, bones are bones. I feel that after certain cut-off point, they become historical and are fair game for archeology. It's another story if it's an active or tended to graveyard --but if it's not known and is forgotten, then I think it's a fair archeological site.
Is the 11th century too recent to qualify as "ancient"? We're going back ~950 years here...
In the case of indigenous Americans/Canadians/Australians it's also a bunch of Anglo-Saxons digging up the remains, and that rubs some people the wrong way :-)
Assuming that every archeologist is a descendant of Anglo-Saxon heritage is pretty funny.
It's true that there have been many waves of immigration, but over time they mix so most of us can claim Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, etc somewhere in the family tree.
The representatives of 'native' Anglo-Saxons currently living in the UK don't seem to be too bothered and aren't pushing for it in the same way as the representatives of other native peoples.
I guess a lot of people have the wish to be buried and left alone once they die. How do we deal with ethical questions regarding archeology? If you had an ancient burial site with clear writings on the entrance like "PLEASE DON'T UNEARTH US" :)), would that be honored?
That also makes me wonder - do you fellow hackers feel connected to your ancestors? Are generations that lived hundreds and thousands of years ago just fun stuff to look at when you visit a museum, or they're something more to you?
I'm getting off-topic now, but just like the vastness of the universe can make you feel small and insignificant, time may even be worse in that regards.
* Treat human remains with respect
* Consult with descendent communities
* Follow the law
In the UK, the government usually combines #2 and #3 in one entity.
It seems they should just have some standard way to deal with this.
But if Sweden or Italy cared, yes it might be a good idea to give them a call and let the interested parties sort it out between themselves.
She was reburied with something approximating Roman funeral rites, and the new grave is marked with an inscription including the traditional Roman phrase "Dis Manibus" (To the Spirits of the Underworld) [0].
[0]https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tomb-of-the-unknown-lond...