Report on Consultation on the Request for Reburial of Prehistoric Human Remains from the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT ON CONSULTATION ON THE REQUEST FOR REBURIAL OF PREHISTORIC HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE ALEXANDER KEILLER MUSEUM AT AVEBURY David Thackray, National Trust, and Sebastian Payne, English Heritage, 2009 CONTENTS 1: Introduction 2: Analysis of respondents 3: Analysis of responses 3.1: Responses relating to process (Questions 5-7) 3.1.1: Question 5: Appropriateness of DCMS process 3.1.2: Question 6: Appropriateness of the moratorium on sampling 3.1.3: Question 7: Appropriateness of consultation 3.2: Responses relating to the request (Questions 1-3) 3.2.1: Connection and continuity 3.2.1.1: Question 1: Genetic connection 3.2.1.2: Question 2: Cultural and spiritual continuity 3.2.2: Age, history and legal status 3.2.3: Question 3: Research history and potential 4: Question 4: The future of the Avebury Museum human remains 5: Conclusions References Appendix 1 Letter of invitation to comment Appendix 2 List of those to whom the letter of invitation was sent Appendix 3 Reply pro-forma Appendix 4 Groups and organisations which responded to the consultation Avebury Consultation Report 2009 1 1: Introduction In 2006, English Heritage (EH) and the National Trust (NT) received a request from Paul Davies, Reburial Officer of the Council of British Druid Orders, for the reburial of prehistoric human remains from archaeological excavations in the Avebury area, which are currently in the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury. As this request raises wider and sensitive issues, and the way in which it is resolved will set precedents, as Avebury is a World Heritage Site, and as the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has recently issued Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums which included recommendations for responding to requests for return of human remains (DCMS 2005), EH and the NT decided to follow this guidance in responding to this request, assembled the relevant information, and produced a draft report setting out the available relevant information as recommended by the DCMS Guidance (Thackray and Payne 2008). As there are potentially many groups and individuals who have an interest in and views on this request, we felt that it was important that this draft report and assembled information should be made available for comment by other interested parties before EH and the NT make any decisions. The draft report was therefore placed on the English Heritage and National Trust websites at the beginning of November 2008 with an invitation to comment, and letters of invitation to comment were sent to a number of groups and individuals who were also encouraged to pass on information about the consultation to other interested parties. Copies of the letter of invitation and of the list of those to whom it was sent are attached as Appendices 1 and 2. A pro-forma asking for replies to a number of questions was made available on the website, and is attached as Appendix 3. Respondents were encouraged to use this pro-forma as it was felt that this would make it easier to handle and analyse replies; but in order to make it possible for those without web access to comment, it was made clear that we were willing to receive replies in any other form, and to send out paper copies of the draft report and the pro-forma on request. We also made it clear that the same weight would be given to uninvited comments as to invited ones. The value of a consultation of this kind is that it allows groups and individuals who feel strongly about the issue to come forward, say what they think, and to produce any relevant evidence that they feel may have been overlooked and which may contribute to better-informed decision-making. But as respondents are self-selected, it does not give a reliable guide to what the public in general think; we have in parallel taken other steps to assess public opinion.. The consultation period closed on 15 February 2009. During the course of this period we received 567 individual responses and 73 responses from groups and institutions. The purpose of this report is to summarise, analyse and comment on these responses. Avebury Consultation Report 2009 2 2: Analysis of respondents Table 1 shows that most of the individual respondents were UK-based; it gives a breakdown by UK region where information is available (usually from postcode). Avebury is in the South-West Region but close to South-East and West Midlands; as would be expected, response was particularly strong from the South-West and South-East regions. The table also shows that there were clusters of responses from some cities and towns; a cluster of 38 replies from Sheffield is noteworthy, and this and several smaller clusters appeared to include groups of replies from particular universities; but no single cluster made up more than a small proportion of the total response. Table 1: Individual responses; by UK region Region Number % South West 111 20 Bristol 21, Swindon 18, Bath 14, Plymouth 11 South East 99 18 Oxford 14, Southampton 13 London 43 8 West Midlands 35 6 East Midlands 11 2 East of England 33 6 Cambridge 14 Yorkshire and Humberside 63 11 Sheffield 38, York 10 North West 30 5 North East 43 8 Durham 27, Newcastle 11 Wales 8 1 Scotland 32 6 Edinburgh 15 Ulster 7 1 Channel Isles 1 Foreign 24 4 Not stated 27 5 Total 567 A list of the 73 organisations and other groups that replied is given in Appendix 4. They are all UK-based, though several have wider scope; they include Druid and pagan groups, academic institutions and societies, museums, amateur archaeological societies, and Avebury Parish Council. 3: Analysis of responses The first part of the consultation (Questions 1-4) asked a number of questions in relation to the draft report, invited comment and further evidence, and then asked people whether they thought the Avebury remains should be reburied or kept in the Museum: ¾ Q1 asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the view taken by EH and the NT that the genetic relationship between members of CoBDO and the Avebury human remains is not a “direct and close relationship” in the sense meant in the DCMS Guidance. ¾ Q2 asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that EH and the NT recognise and respect the importance of the Avebury landscape and these human remains to CoBDO and other Druid and Pagan groups, and at the same time recognise and respect the cultural and spiritual significance to many others as well. Avebury Consultation Report 2009 3 ¾ Q3 asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that the human remains have contributed and will continue to contribute in an important way to our understanding of our past. ¾ Q4 asked whether respondents thought that the Avebury human remains should be reburied, reburied with continuing public and research access, or retained in the museum with access where reasonable for CoBDO and other groups. The second part (Questions 5-7) asked respondents to comment on whether the DCMS process was appropriate, and whether the request had been handled appropriately: ¾ Q5 asked whether respondents thought that the DCMS process was appropriate for use in this case. ¾ Q6 asked whether respondents thought that the limited moratorium on destructive sampling was appropriate in the circumstances. ¾ Q7 asked whether respondents thought that the form of consultation was appropriate. Most of the respondents used the pro-forma (534 individuals out of 567; 53 groups out of 73). 3.1: Responses relating to process (Questions 5-7) We start with these as the appropriateness of the DCMS process is a key starting issue. 3.1.1: Question 5: Appropriateness of DCMS process At an early stage, EH and the NT agreed with CoBDO that we would in principle follow the process set out in the DCMS Guidance (2005). Though this was designed primarily to provide museums with a process for considering requests for the repatriation of human remains in UK museums which had come from parts of the world such as Australia during the colonial period, the working group that drew up this Guidance were very aware that it might be used for other claims and requests, and felt that it should be appropriate for wider use, suggesting that it could be used as “an overarching set of guidelines for claims regardless of their origin”. EH and the NT felt, and CoBDO agreed, that in the absence of any other more appropriate process, the basic approach of the DCMS process was reasonably appropriate in providing a structured way to consider the locus of the party making a request and of other interested parties, and to consider different kinds of harm and benefit, in order to assess and try to balance these in relation to each other in an open and evidence-based way so that the reasons for any decision were clear to all interested parties. Question 5 in the consultation asked whether respondents thought that the DCMS process was appropriate for use in this case. Replies to Question 5 are tabulated below: Avebury Consultation Report 2009 4 Question 5: Is the DCMS process appropriate for consideration of this request? Don't Very Very know/ Q5 appropriate Appropriate Inappropriate inappropriate Uncertain no reply Total Individuals 131 186 33 25 127 65 567 % 23 33 6 4 22 11 100 Groups 17 20 3+(2) 3 11+(2) 15 73 % 23 27 7 4 18 21 100 (Numbers are given in parentheses where the response was similar but not expressed precisely as in the pro-forma. Individual cell percentages sometimes add up to 99 or 101 because of rounding.) About five times as many respondents thought the DCMS process was appropriate or very appropriate (56% of individuals and 50% of groups), than thought it was inappropriate or very inappropriate (10% of individuals and 11% of groups); however quite large numbers were uncertain or did not reply (33% of individuals and 39% of groups).