Resolving the human remains crisis in British archaeology

Human remains are a fundamental part of the archaeological record, offering unique insights into the lives of individuals and populations in the past. Like many archaeological materials human remains require distinctive and specialised methods of recovery, analysis and interpretation, while technological innovations and the accumulation of expertise have enabled archaeologists to extract ever greater amounts of information from assemblages of skeletal material. Alongside analyses of new finds, these advances have consistently thrown new light on existing collections of human remains in museums, universities and other institutions. Given the powerful emotional, social and religious meanings attached to the dead body, it is perhaps unsurprising that human remains pose a distinctive set of ethical questions for archaeologists. With the rise of indigenous rights movements and the emergence of post-colonial nations the acquisition and ownership of human remains became a divisive and politically loaded issue. It became increasingly clear that many human remains in museum collections around the world represented the traces of colonial exploitation and discredited pseudo-scientific theories of race. In the light of these debates and changing attitudes, some human remains were returned or repatriated to their communities of origin, a process which continues to this day. Recently a new set of challenges to the study of human remains has emerged from a rather unexpected direction: the British government revised its interpretation of nineteenth-century burial legislation in a way that would drastically curtail the ability of archaeologists to study human remains of any age excavated in England and Wales. This paper examines these extraordinary events and the legal, political and ethical questions that they raise

Participatory Augering: A methodology for challenging perceptions of archaeology and landscape change

Public engagement is a significant feature of twenty-first-century archaeological practice. While more diverse audiences are connecting with the discipline in a multitude of ways, public perceptions of archaeology are still marred by stereotypes. Community excavations of ‘sites’ to discover ‘treasures’ which tell us about the ‘past’ overshadow other forms of public research output and hinder the potential of the discipline to contribute to contemporary society more widely. This paper proposes participatory augering as an active public engagement method that challenges assumptions about the nature of archaeological practice by focusing on interpretation at a landscape-scale. Through exploration of recent participatory augering research by the REFIT Project and Environmental Archaeologist Mike Allen, this paper demonstrates how the public can contribute to active archaeological research by exploring narratives of landscape change. Evaluation of the existing case studies reflects the potential of the approach to engage audiences with new archaeological methods and narratives which have the potential to transform perceptions of the discipline and, through knowledge exchange, drive community-led contributions to contemporary landscape management

When a local legend is (mis)appropriated in the interpretation of an archaeological site

Context permitting, should public archaeologists allow ‘‘archaeologically incorrect’’ accounts of the past? In this paper I discuss this question through a case study based on the experience of myself and my colleagues at the excavation of the Villa of Augustus in Somma Vesuviana, Italy. In 2003 and 2004, we became aware that some visitors to the excavation interpreted the site by reference to a legend of the tunnel of Queen Giovanna, which had existed in Somma Vesuviana over the centuries. Although initially interested in this phenomenon, we soon realised that we needed to make certain judgements as to how to respond to local people asking whether the tunnel had been discovered in the excavation. We presented two different ways of interpreting the site, one based on archaeology and the other on the legend, and both as equally meaningful, while at the same time stressing what we as archaeologists believed, based on what we had found. In this process we decided to adhere to the principles of archaeology, even in embracing the multivocality of material remains