The British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) promotes the study of the biological remains of past peoples.
Although, in common with most of the UK academic community, we endorse the value of scientific research on human remains, we acknowledge that for contested remains, repatriation may sometimes be a more correct response than continued retention.
We also support the recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, which provides a framework for handling claims and evaluating the status of claimants.
However, what we find more problematic are several letters and articles in publications such as Museums Journal and New Statesman advocating reburial and/or 'repatriation' of British prehistoric human remains, which museums are accused of failing sufficiently to respect.
We are troubled by the claims of modern pagan groups, such as Honouring the Ancient Dead, that they have special status as claimants for the repatriation of prehistoric British human remains. Modern pagans have little valid status as claimants.
For example, a key criterion for assessing the validity of a claimant's link with contested human remains is that continuity in customs and beliefs can be demonstrated.
Modern pagans fail to satisfy this, as well as other criteria set out in the DCMS framework, which has been endorsed by professional organisations including the Museums Association. In any event, the concept of repatriation is inappropriate in this context.
Techniques such as stable isotope analysis have shown us that prehistoric people often travelled long distances during their lives. This raises the question as to where remains could practically be 'returned' to.
Should the Amesbury Archer's bones be sent to Switzerland, as isotopic analysis shows that this is where he spent his childhood and so is therefore his 'tribal homeland'? Similarly, the fact that Lindow Man was found in Cheshire does not automatically mean he was a 'Cheshire man'.
It is sometimes suggested that remains might reasonably be reburied 'once research has been undertaken'. This indicates a complete misunderstanding of the nature of research. Research is an ongoing process in which old conclusions are re-evaluated and new techniques are applied.
Re-analysing and building upon the work of past scholars gives us a more complete understanding of our past. Important museum collections are examined time and again, and the extensive curated collections of human remains in the UK make it a leading centre for research.
There is a high level of interest in research on skeletal remains among the public, and the contribution to the public good made by the research, teaching and display of human remains is recognised by the government.
Reburial results in irretrievable loss of information about the past. The unjustified reburial of prehistoric British remains is intellectually indefensible and incompatible with museums' professional mission of curation, research and education.
We disagree with the idea that scientific investigation is incompatible with respect for the dead. Statements such as 'to pagans, all ancestors are important', or 'the communities for whom [the human remains] are important are advocating . . . respectful treatment' wrongly imply that ancestors are regarded as less important by others.
One way of showing respect for another person or culture is to take an interest in them and to try to understand more about them. Research and respect for human remains are not incompatible and there is no reason why they should be seen as conflicting.
The claim that there is now increasing engagement of museums with groups representing modern pagan faiths is grossly exaggerated. We suspect that most museums recognise that modern pagans' claims to special status with regard to prehistoric archaeological remains are bogus.
The contradictory assertion that pagans are excluded by museums is equally unfounded. The point is not that pagans have no claim, but that they have no greater claim than anybody else. The prehistoric remains in museum collections are the ancestors of us all. No single group or individual can assert greater authority than any other with regard to how they are cared for.
Government bodies are obliged to consult widely in formulating new policies and to acknowledge anyone claiming special interests in relation to major development projects.
This does not equate to conferring upon any such group specific authority or special status in relation to such activity; for example, the proposals for Stonehenge or the consultation for the DCMS guidelines. Implying that such acknowledgement signifies any special role in the decision-making process amounts to little more than 'spin' by the groups concerned.
Anyone who cares about our prehistoric ancestors and wants to understand rather than romanticise the past should support our museums, and should reject attempts to portray them as discriminatory and disrespectful because they hold human remains.
Obviously, it is right to question how we treat human remains. But to do so, people need access to facts, rather than false premises and misinformation.
Martin Smith and Simon May are commenting on behalf of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology
Although, in common with most of the UK academic community, we endorse the value of scientific research on human remains, we acknowledge that for contested remains, repatriation may sometimes be a more correct response than continued retention.
We also support the recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, which provides a framework for handling claims and evaluating the status of claimants.
However, what we find more problematic are several letters and articles in publications such as Museums Journal and New Statesman advocating reburial and/or 'repatriation' of British prehistoric human remains, which museums are accused of failing sufficiently to respect.
We are troubled by the claims of modern pagan groups, such as Honouring the Ancient Dead, that they have special status as claimants for the repatriation of prehistoric British human remains. Modern pagans have little valid status as claimants.
For example, a key criterion for assessing the validity of a claimant's link with contested human remains is that continuity in customs and beliefs can be demonstrated.
Modern pagans fail to satisfy this, as well as other criteria set out in the DCMS framework, which has been endorsed by professional organisations including the Museums Association. In any event, the concept of repatriation is inappropriate in this context.
Techniques such as stable isotope analysis have shown us that prehistoric people often travelled long distances during their lives. This raises the question as to where remains could practically be 'returned' to.
Should the Amesbury Archer's bones be sent to Switzerland, as isotopic analysis shows that this is where he spent his childhood and so is therefore his 'tribal homeland'? Similarly, the fact that Lindow Man was found in Cheshire does not automatically mean he was a 'Cheshire man'.
It is sometimes suggested that remains might reasonably be reburied 'once research has been undertaken'. This indicates a complete misunderstanding of the nature of research. Research is an ongoing process in which old conclusions are re-evaluated and new techniques are applied.
Re-analysing and building upon the work of past scholars gives us a more complete understanding of our past. Important museum collections are examined time and again, and the extensive curated collections of human remains in the UK make it a leading centre for research.
There is a high level of interest in research on skeletal remains among the public, and the contribution to the public good made by the research, teaching and display of human remains is recognised by the government.
Reburial results in irretrievable loss of information about the past. The unjustified reburial of prehistoric British remains is intellectually indefensible and incompatible with museums' professional mission of curation, research and education.
We disagree with the idea that scientific investigation is incompatible with respect for the dead. Statements such as 'to pagans, all ancestors are important', or 'the communities for whom [the human remains] are important are advocating . . . respectful treatment' wrongly imply that ancestors are regarded as less important by others.
One way of showing respect for another person or culture is to take an interest in them and to try to understand more about them. Research and respect for human remains are not incompatible and there is no reason why they should be seen as conflicting.
The claim that there is now increasing engagement of museums with groups representing modern pagan faiths is grossly exaggerated. We suspect that most museums recognise that modern pagans' claims to special status with regard to prehistoric archaeological remains are bogus.
The contradictory assertion that pagans are excluded by museums is equally unfounded. The point is not that pagans have no claim, but that they have no greater claim than anybody else. The prehistoric remains in museum collections are the ancestors of us all. No single group or individual can assert greater authority than any other with regard to how they are cared for.
Government bodies are obliged to consult widely in formulating new policies and to acknowledge anyone claiming special interests in relation to major development projects.
This does not equate to conferring upon any such group specific authority or special status in relation to such activity; for example, the proposals for Stonehenge or the consultation for the DCMS guidelines. Implying that such acknowledgement signifies any special role in the decision-making process amounts to little more than 'spin' by the groups concerned.
Anyone who cares about our prehistoric ancestors and wants to understand rather than romanticise the past should support our museums, and should reject attempts to portray them as discriminatory and disrespectful because they hold human remains.
Obviously, it is right to question how we treat human remains. But to do so, people need access to facts, rather than false premises and misinformation.
Martin Smith and Simon May are commenting on behalf of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology
I strongly agree with the views expressed here by Martin Smith and Simon May.
I am the founder of Pagans for Archaeology. We’re Pagans who love archaeology and believe that it has contributed hugely to our knowledge of our ancestors and the religions of the past.
Without archaeology, people would still think ancient peoples were fur-clad smelly cannibals and that ancient paganism involved frequent human sacrifice.
In addition, we are opposed to the reburial of ancient human remains, and want them to be preserved so that the memory of the ancestors can be perpetuated and rescued from oblivion, and the remains can be studied scientifically for the benefit of everyone.
Of course we want human remains to be treated with respect, but respect does not automatically mean reburial. Respect should mean memory, which involves recovering the stories of past people.
We are also opposed to people leaving tealights, candles, crystals and other non-biodegradable “offerings” at sacred sites.