Experts may have found bones of English princess

[Jazzy]

LONDON – Experts say they may have found the body of England's Princess Eadgyth, more than 1,000 years after she was carted off to Germany to marry an ambitious Saxon duke.

Bristol University in western England said Wednesday that if scientific tests on the bones prove conclusive, it would make Eadgyth (pronounced 'Edith') the oldest member of the English royal family whose remains have survived. The bones were found in Magdeburg, Germany.

Story Link: Experts may have found bones of English princess - Yahoo! News

[spot]

Jazzy;1283773 wrote: The bones were found in Magdeburg, Germany.
That's rather a disingenuous comment. The bones were found wrapped in silk in a very ornate tomb inside Magdeburg Cathedral, where they might reasonably have been expected to lie peacefully undisturbed to await her resurrection by God rather than by bloody archaeologists.

[Clodhopper]

It's an interesting one, isn't it. When is it archaeology, and when is it desecration? I imagine from your reaction, spot, you see the Egyptian excavations as desecration?

Personally, should someone come across my remains in 1000 years time they can do what they like with them, but that isn't how most people felt until comparatively recently.

I think, for me, as long as it is done with respect, I'm ok with it.

[spot]

The Egyptian burial sites were lost and rediscovered by a completely different culture trying to learn about a long-dead society. Magdeburg Cathedral is a working place of worship with a continuous history since it was built. I think one needs that discontinuity of culture to make disturbance acceptable, though there are odd things like checking Napoleon's body for arsenic which perhaps occasionally override the issue. Outraging indigenous culture is something else to consider. I'm as Anglo-Saxon as she was, I'm fairly guaranteed to be her direct descendant, nobody asked me whether I minded. Neither Napoleon nor anyone called Amenhotep are represented in my ancestry.

[Clodhopper]

Discontinuity of culture is a good, solid basis on which to decide what is and isn't acceptable. It has the great advantage of clarity. But it would mean we couldn't look at any of our own early origins. If we see the Norman Conquest as a sufficient discontinuity then the Sutton Hoo excavation could be regarded as ethical, as would the study of Eadgyth. If the Norman Conquest is NOT a sufficient discontinuity, then we could learn nothing of our early Saxon/Angle/Jute/Whatever early origins. I think that's going too far. Perhaps a flat 200 year rule might be sufficient? Anyone know what the current ethical basis is? I know they can't excavate in consecrated ground, but beyond that, I have no idea.

If they put her bones on display like a Mummy I would think it - at best - in bad taste. If they test and put her back, that's fine by me.