Human Remains
Overview
We evaluate the archaeological study of human remains in terms of the
kind of information that can be gained, as well as the potential controversy
surrounding this work. Students consider different cultural attitudes
(including their own) to the treatment of the dead and how these attitudes
can conflict with scientific studies. We review how past archaeological
and anthropological practices clashed with Native American concerns
and rights, leading to the NAGPRA legislation, and evaluate future prospects
for the treatment and study of archaeological human remains. The question
“who owns the past” and who benefits (or doesn't) from archaeological
research is raised; it is further explored in the next module on history
and heritage.
Lesson Objectives/Reading Journal Topics
By the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
- Describe the kinds of information that can be gained from studying
human remains and identify those who benefit from the studies.
- (If reading the Gould article) Explain how archaeology can be applied
to mass disaster sites. Identify other applications of forensic archaeology.
- Describe the kinds of conflicts that can arise between those who study
human remains and those who have a connection with the remains (e.g.,
as relatives or descendants).
- Define NAGPRA and discuss how it has changed the practice of archaeology
in North America.
Matrix Principles
Ethics and Values and Diverse Interests (students consider the very
different attitudes toward the study of human remains that descendant
groups might have from researchers, and evaluate archaeologists’
responsibilities to different “stakeholders”).
Instructional Procedures
Class 1
Readings
Landau, Patricia M., and D. Gentry Steele
2000 Why Anthropologists Study Human Remains. In Repatriation Reader:
Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah,
pp. 74-94. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
IN ADDITION, READ ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
Robb, John
2002 Time and Biography : Osteobiography of the Italian Neolithic Lifespan.
In Thinking through the Body : Archaeologies of Corporeality,
edited by Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik, and Sarah Tarlow, pp. 153-172.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Gould, Richard A.
2002 WTC Archaeology: What We Saw, What We Learned, and What We Did
About It. SAA Archaeological Record 2(5):11-17. (Complete issue
available at http://www.saa.org/publications/thesaaarchrec/nov02.pdf.)
Format
Landau, Steele, and Robb clearly lay out the different kinds of research
questions that archaeologists address with human remains (disease and
demographic histories, evidence of violence and conflict, migration,
nutrition, life histories) and the different techniques that are used
in these studies. We also discuss how osteological evidence is combined
with other lines of evidence to address a range of questions on human
biology, economics, and social and political life (e.g., the study of
bodies and associated artifacts to understand sex and gender, as discussed
in the gender module). The use of archaeological
and biological anthropological techniques in forensic studies is also
addressed, including the study of catastrophe sites (Gould) and the
excavation of mass graves to locate and identify the remains of victims
of atrocities, which are then reburied or returned to relatives.
We explore the different and often very powerful cultural attitudes
towards human remains and the treatment of the dead; students consider
the strong emotions associated with the recovery of bodies from disaster
sites as well as the outrage generated when cemeteries are desecrated.
We consider how these sentiments might extend to bodies buried long
ago, where living people feel a connection with the dead. We also talk
about how some groups or societies may encourage or be interested in
the study of human remains because of scientific or historical interest.
Class 2
Video: Bones of Contention
Format: View video and discussion
This film, produced by the BBC, presents the history and context of
Native American conflicts with anthropologists over the study and treatment
of Native American remains. Examples of cooperation between descendant
groups and anthropologists are also shown. For many students, the film
drives home the strength of the sentiments associated with questions
of reburial, repatriation, and ownership of the past. A range of perspectives
are given in the film, providing ample opportunity for students to begin
to develop their own ideas and positions while hearing the opinions
of others; these responses form the core of the brief discussion that
follows. Information and ideas from the film are repeatedly brought
up in subsequent classes on human remains, heritage, and public outreach.
Class 3
Readings
Hall, Teri R., and Jeanette Wolfley
2003 Working Together: A Survey of Tribal Perspectives on NAGPRA: Repatriation
and Study of Human Remains. The SAA Archaeological Record 3(2):27-32.
(Complete issue available at
http://www.saa.org/publications/thesaaarchrec/mar03.pdf.)
Dongoske, Kurt E.
2000 NAGPRA: A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis—A
Hopi Perspective. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian
Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 282-293. University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Zimmerman, Larry J.
2000 A New and Different Archaeology? With a Postscript on the Impact
of the Kennewick Dispute. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American
Indian Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 294-306. University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Format: Discussion
In this final class on human remains, we review three articles that
provide information and insights on the possibility of greater cooperation
or partnerships between archaeologists and Native Americans. The recent
survey by Hall and Wolfley presents tribal perspectives on NAGPRA. They
emphasize that there is no pan-Indian or Native Alaskan perspective,
nor is there a pan-anthropologist perspective (a point demonstrated
in Bones of Contention). Their survey presents statistics on
the repatriation of remains and their subsequent treatment (reburial,
storage, continued study) and interest in and acceptance of osteological
analyses. They conclude that for partnerships to occur, researchers
need to consider what is meaningful to descendants and to better explain
their work while respecting descendant wishes for the treatment of remains:
NAGPRA does not mark the end of all osteological analysis, a point further
illustrated by the Hopi case presented by Dongoske.
Zimmerman suggests that the solution is not simply partnerships, but
greater indigenous control over indigenous heritage (e.g., the Vermillion
Accord of the World
Archaeological Congress), and that an archaeology needs to be developed
that includes different ways of knowing and interpreting the past that
are meaningful to descendants.