 |
 |
Dear All [Please repost] Last weekend was the bi-annual meet of HAD, this time in Oxford. Lots of issues - most recent below: Incidentally the honour website is becoming an important resource and database for this subject. BTW please note that contrary to what it sometimes reported - HAD is not in favour of compulsory reburial but more focussed on respectful display. HAD is organising is own conference (the previous was done in conjunction with Manchester Museum) this one as guests of Leicester Museum - date August Please do consider inviting HAD representatives to your events - it makes for an interesting debate. HAD also needs more volunteers as the work is far beyond its existing "membership" == EH / NT / CoBDO Reburial Consultation has arrived and this is a final call for submissions from you. If you are also submitting a response as an individual or through another organisation, please don't let that stop you adding your voice to our shared submission. If HAD's voice is to have validity, I need to hear from you. http://www.honour.org.uk/ <http://www.honour.org.uk/node/273> or direct to: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.19820 which is another very informative website with all the relevant documents F. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS 1. HAD fully supports the appropriateness of CoBDO making its Request for reburial of these ancient human remains on religious and spiritual grounds, fully acknowledging CoBDO’s position as a valid Pagan perspective based upon genuine, experiential, spiritual connection and the profound duty of care which such a deep connection evokes. 2. HAD fully supports CoBDO making this Request, because the DCMS Guidance and heritage organisations should take into account spiritual (and not only scientific) interests in their decision-making. From that point of view, the DCMS Guidance should include practical guidelines and criteria for how this could be achieved. 3. However, because CoBDO is not fully representative of the Druid or Pagan community, and indeed has no valid right to claim authority over these remains, HAD cannot support its call for reburial. Further, HAD’s more broadly reaching representation of Paganism informs that there is not a unanimous call for reburial of iconic remains such as Charlie. 4. HAD queries the language of the DCMS Guidance, proposing that the language of ‘claims’ is inappropriate and has put CoBDO in a no-win situation. If a British organisation such as CoBDO had been given the option to use the language of ‘expressions of interest’, the relevance and value of their input would have been immediately heard, supported, understood and of value. It is essential that an inclusive language be offered that is more appropriate for the British situation. 5. Emphatically then, HAD asserts that use of the current DCMS Guidance is inapplicable for human remains of British provenance Mogg Morgan