Objection Raised to Display of 3,000 Year Old Human Remains

I don't understand why any credence is being given to the request for reburial. Is it because the bones are a child's that makes their display in a museum objectionable? Then what of those of adults? If the objection is a moral claim based on respect for the dead and the sensibilities of those still living, isn't displaying the remains of any once living person or animal equally objectionable? Would that not be the logical outcome of applying such a moral objection? And since when are the Druids an "order?" Do they have legal standing in England to make such a request, like Native American tribes do here in the USA? Avebury skeleton debate heats up 6:28pm Tuesday 3rd February 2009 (story from Gazette & Herald) By Nigel Kerton » The eyes of archaeologists across the nation are on the outcome of a consultation that has just ended into what should be done with the ancient skeleton of a child displayed in the Alexander Keiller Museum in Avebury. Experts from English heritage and the National trust will spend the next two or three months examining all the views put forward about what should be done with Charlie, the name that has been given to the skeleton of a four year old girl. The child was buried at Windmill Hill by the primitive people who inhabited the Avebury area 5,000 years ago. Her remains were excavated in the 1920s by archaeologists led by marmalade magnate Alexander Keiller who financed much of the Avebury explorations. The Council of British Druid Orders has asked English Heritage and the National Trust to have the skeleton reburied as close as possible to the site where it was found. The request by CoBDO is seen as something of a test case that could have a bearing on every other ancient skeleton in British museums and universities. In 2006 Paul Davies, the reburial officer for CoBDO wrote to English heritage and the National Trust requesting that Charlie’s remains – which have been displayed in the Avebury museum for 50 years – should be reinterred. At the time Mr Davies said: “It is morally abhorrent that the long dead child’s remains should be used in this way.” His views are countered by British Humanist Association spokeswoman Naomi Phillips who said: “These remains are of undoubted scientific, historical, educational and archaeological value and they are vital for future scientific and historical research.”