Indigenous and autochthonic religions

There is often considerable overlap between indigenous and autochthonic religions, but the two terms are used differently in the study of religions.

An indigenous religion is one where its symbolism and mythology largely relates to the culture of the people with whom it originated.

An autochthonic religion is one which 'sprang from the earth' - in other words it is based on a relationship with the land from which it came; it is not revealed from on high.

An example of an indigenous religion which is not autochthonic could be Judaism, because it is very much connected to being Jewish, but you can be Jewish anywhere, you don't have to be in Israel (though apparently it helps) and it is based on revelation from on high.

An example of an autochthonic religion which is not indigenous could be pantheism, because it is not revealed, but emerges from a relationship to the earth, but is not specific to a particular people. It's also not very organised, but there is a community of pantheists online, so it just about qualifies as a religion rather than just a belief.

Secular bigotry

• National Secular Society's 'seasonal message'
• Ekklesia's excellent analysis of it
• Church Mouse blog: And a miserable Christmas to you too

What the National Secular Society doesn't seem to realise is that the rise of religiosity is very different from previous such resurgences, as it's much more about individual spirituality and building community and being compassionate than the bigotry which is actually increasingly the preserve of a noisy few. For example: Stonewall did a survey recently and found that most Christians were far more tolerant of gays and lesbians than the doctrines of their churches would suggest. Needless to say this received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, whereas Lilian Ladele etc got loads of coverage.

Research has shown that most people think in terms of "occult" concepts like reincarnation and karma, rather than traditional Christian ones like salvation. Much of the renewed interest in religion and spirituality has gone into non-Christian practices, and even Christians do stuff like yoga and meditation and crystals.

Academic perspectives

Most of the academic perspectives are on the issue of reburial of indigenous American human remains, but people are starting to address the concerns of druids and others in Britain, especially Jenny Blain and Robert Wallis.

Druids and neo-shamans as marginalised voices - some have argued (e.g. Wallis 2000) that druids represent marginalised perspectives and that mainstream archaeology is a hegemonic perspective as it identifies with science. This argument has also been put forward by various authors about Native Americans. I certainly feel that there are some in the archaeological community who dismiss other perspectives out of hand, but by no means all. Wallis (2000) points out that we should not dismiss marginalised voices or fail to take their spiritual perspective seriously just because they are outside the rationalist paradigm. Indeed not, but realistically, there will probably have to be a compromise on this issue.

Ethics of reburial - these revolve around remembering the dead, respecting their last wishes, not undermining their life's project. One very interesting article examines the ontological status of the dead, and concludes that they are less than human but more than objects - they are former human beings, and as such, worthy of more respect than mere things. We need an ethical code that understands and includes other cultural perspectives. The issue of reburial is not an ethical conflict but a conflict of cultural values (Goldstein and Kintigh 1990). The veneration of the dead is highly variable and culturally determined. For example, in the Neolithic, people put bones in burial mounds and got them out regularly to interact with them in ritual.

Cultural affiliation and genetic descent - the basis for claims upon bones in America and Australia and other colonial and post-colonial contexts is that the current indigenous people are genetically descended from and culturally affiliated with the ancestors whose bones they are. In Britain, this is different - both the archaeologists and the druids can claim equally to be descended from the ancestors, so cultural affiliation comes into play, along with ethical issues as outlined above. But (as Cantwell 2004 points out) cultures are not unchanging monolithic structures; they morph over time, and the idea of cultural affiliation implies that they do not. Also, even though claimants are primarily motivated by respect for the ancestors, other political and cultural factors and outcomes are inevitably brought into play, some of which may be positive and some of which may be negative.

Scientific & medical benefits of excavating human remains (Randerson 2004) - analysis of bones excavated at Wharram Percy showed that osteoporosis was just as prevalent in the Middle Ages as it is now - which suggests that we need to look beyond lifestyle factors for the causes of this disease. It was also discovered from the Wharram Percy remains that there was a higher incidence of left-handedness - probably because it was a pre-literate culture. Both of these findings were due to new techniques.

Cultural benefits of excavating human remains - we can discover our ancestors' lives - arguably this benefits them (de Baets 2004), as then they are remembered, and it benefits us (Cantwell 2004), as it may enable to us to live more harmoniously and sustainably.