Here's a story about a dispute over the remains of a neolithic kid; some druids want one thing done with the bones, while English Heritage wants to put them on display.Druids reburial appeal rebuffed This raises an interesting question.  Should the druid group have any say in this matter to begin with?  After all, the connection between the modern group and any ancient people seems to be in name only.  In other words, there seems to be no continuous or semi-continuous link between the modern group of druids and the ancient druids.  The modern group is actually secular in nature, and I don't even think they know for sure that the child was part of a druid tribe to begin with.Isn't it like if a left-handed person asserted a right of claim over an ancient tomb containing a left-handed person?  Seems to me like it is.  

This case reminds me about the Kennewick Man controversy: The discovery of Kennewick Man, the vast amount of public confusion over what he represents, the Federal government's attempt to settle the case out of court, the suit pressed by scientists, the objections raised by the Native American community, the rulings of the court and, eventually, the analysis of the remains. About these new druids, because The Council of British Druid Orders feels it has a cultural link with pagan ancestors in the British Isles, this doesn't proove any right over any remains found in any particular aera.Just like the Kennewick Man: even if found on Native-american lands, these remains are not automatically linked to them, unless proven by datation or cultural link in this case. http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/

Here's a story about a dispute over the remains of a neolithic kid; some druids want one thing done with the bones, while English Heritage wants to put them on display.Druids reburial appeal rebuffed This raises an interesting question.  Should the druid group have any say in this matter to begin with?  After all, the connection between the modern group and any ancient people seems to be in name only.  In other words, there seems to be no continuous or semi-continuous link between the modern group of druids and the ancient druids.  The modern group is actually secular in nature, and I don't even think they know for sure that the child was part of a druid tribe to begin with.Isn't it like if a left-handed person asserted a right of claim over an ancient tomb containing a left-handed person?  Seems to me like it is.  

This case reminds me about the Kennewick Man controversy: The discovery of Kennewick Man, the vast amount of public confusion over what he represents, the Federal government's attempt to settle the case out of court, the suit pressed by scientists, the objections raised by the Native American community, the rulings of the court and, eventually, the analysis of the remains. About these new druids, because The Council of British Druid Orders feels it has a cultural link with pagan ancestors in the British Isles, this doesn't proove any right over any remains found in any particular aera.Just like the Kennewick Man: even if found on Native-american lands, these remains are not automatically linked to them, unless proven by datation or cultural link in this case. http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/

You beat me to it Aeth.  This sounds very similar to the Kennewick Man disaster.  All sides were tarred in that episode.  The Indians look like tools for insisting a corpse from several thousand years ago is one of their own and the government and scientists look like uncaring types who only want a lab specimen.  Perhaps one day reasonable people will be able to sit down and discuss things like this.  the rpobelm is one sides argues from emotion whil the other uses logic, which are generally incompatible when used as debating tools against each other.