and then we lost our IPB Free forum into the ether,company and thousands of free forums gone let alone our three years work disappeard, luckily you had the good sense to have a PhpBB! If this is in the wrong section, do please move this, thought you may be interested in this though, although I know some dont care where ancestoral bones are
Relating to the challenge by many pagans, druids etc of the refusal by the archaeologists to agree a time for the Stonehenge reburial of ancient human remains uplifted in 2008 from the Aubrey hole where many cremated ancestors' bones had been replaced in one hole during the '20s - 2015 is the earliest suggested, we have had until the beginning of Aug to object, so we are just in time!
Please see our official Response to Sheffield Uni and Dept of Justice, you may wish to add your own quickly as the Dept of Justice decision is imminent!
People to write to are Mike Parker Pearson at Sheffield Uni, Dept of Justice Andrew Tucker and Amanda Chadburn at English Heritage amanda.chadburn@english-heritage.org.uk; andrew.tucker@justice.gsi.gov.uk ; M.Parker-Pearson@sheffield.ac.uk;
" Overview Response
On the whole, with respect to those of us who find uplifting human remains abhorrent, and also to those who take a view that bones are just one aspect, as a group we are content that research needs to be carried out on the human remains taken from Stonehenge in 2008.
The recent two year's research resulted in the respectful separation of the individuals, whose human remains were removed originally from their resting places and then scandalously dumped together in one hole.
We now respectfully request that they be returned directly to Stonehenge for reburial separately as the ancestors undertook, and after consulting with each other, we offer the following reasons for that request:
Research implications for continued retention without release
We have been informed that post graduate doctorate research will be carried out by a member of the Riverside Project, namely Ms Christie Cox Willis, who will be supervised, we gather, by Jacqui McKinley and Mike Parker Pearson, University of Sheffield.
Two years' research have already resulted in the separation of the numerous male/female/child groupings and considering/evaluating much of the previous research carried out prior to their being deposited in a communal pit wherein they were found in 2008.
We have a few questions and comments to put to the Dept of Justice if we may, and trust you will consider these when making your decision whether or not to allow further tranches of bi-annual reviews, or to allow the extension to continue past any review until 2015 at least. Namely:
1. The timescale of subsequent research is critical to those who objected to the removal of the bones in the first place; this was mooted at the time and consequently by ourselves, Honouring the Ancient Dead and many other organisations. Why was there no updating of the expected timeline, bearing in mind nobody outside the University would have known that a doctorate by a pregnant student would obviously entail a legally applied [and rarely refused] opportunity for nearly a year's absence on statutory maternity leave from the research project?
2. Why has a part time post grad student been given no greater assistance over the past two years to research what in Parker-Pearson's own description is a highly significant and prestigious archaeological analytical opportunity?
3. Why had the Riverside Project not made arrangements for eminent and skilled researchers to be available at the predicted end of the time-limited dig as per the licence from English Heritage?
4. Bearing in mind the essence of all prime academic research is to ensure it is carried out as effectively and efficiently as possible, in order to resist later criticisms by peer reviews that opportunities for preservation of raw data prior to qualitative or quantitative [or a mixture of both] research and analysis - we are disturbed that such an eminent department that is part of the University of Sheffield seems to have failed to ensure that timely research was more effectively enabled. Would the Dept of Justice consider approaching the departmental head of post graduate research relevant to this project, namely Prof Paul Halstead, 0114 22 22905
E-Mail: P.Halstead@Sheffield.ac.uk in order to request answers as to why one part time student will undertake such a prestigious task?
5. Forensic anthropologists use sawn slivers, relative to PIXE [particle induced x ray emission] analysis, so could not this process be utilised effectively so that the bones can be returned/reburied as soon as possible? You may find useful this paper on a similar project proving tiny fragments yield adequate data, especially where ancient cremated remains have been badly preserved. http://tinyurl.com/2ubsk3s
Lack of Respect To the Dead
Whatever the reason, whoever carried out those acts of burial, they were our ancestoral and cultural predecessors living, working, and dying in these islands and the ritual and ceremonial duties to the dead which they carried out should be honoured by us, their descendants and stewards of the land they shared with us.
How much more research can be carried out, beyond assessment of age, sex and stature, any pathological conditions from which the individuals may have suffered etc?
With constant academic peer reviews [without which a doctorate is nigh worthless] to be considered there is little chance these bones will ever be returned to Stonehenge - unless pertinent slivers only are taken prior to reburial!
Lack of Respect To the Living
It was most evident in the summer of 2008 that English Heritage,[ regardless of its historically close involvement and co-operation with senior druids/members of the Stonehenge Round Table/HAD and other such interested parties], missed a valuable opportunity to enhance and progress those partnerships by omitting to warn either them or any other pagans/druids/travellers/members of the public who regularly attend and are known to customarily use Stonehenge as a sacred ceremonial gathering site.
The request to continue to hold these human remains is also in direct opposition to the signatures of many foreign visitors to Stonehenge and indigenous residents of the Western Isles [UK] amounting to over 5,000 [at June 2010] it is known that approximately 40 diverse belief paths and religions are represented in those signatories, all adverse to the retention of human remains that had purposefully been placed inside the Stones in a particular fashion and selected burial holes.
Conclusion
We are sure you are aware that we are only able to resort to what may amount to be emotive or cultural or religious/belief induced objections to any extension of time for retention of the human remains taken from Stonehenge in 2008.
Therefore, as declared non-professionals and incompetent in the science of osteology-archaeology, we can only ask you to kindly and justly consider the above questions in relation to our request not to grant additional research time allowed to be spent on this project.
Many of us taking part in this debate may not live to see its fruition, but the torch will be passed on when we pass, for these bones were not placed in a communal grave by our ancestors, nor alone on a hillside barrow, they were carefully, thoughtfully and particularly placed in separate holes, in a circle, within the Stones of Stonehenge - they need to be returned.
Yours sincerely
Lois Lloyd BSc(Hons)
Scribe to Sacred Grove Western Isles
http://sacredgrovewesternisles.co.uk "
If you need more info, please see and follow Discussions on this subject and other environmental interests here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=31454579048
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/sacred ... ternisles/
