I wish to explore the ethical issue of human archaeological remains and the problems with the treatment and claims to these remains by various parties. Expanding on that I want to look at various academic’s opinions, specifically in the Archaeology sphere, of what should be done when living humans stake a claim on the ancient dead. I would also then like to look at how various tribes deal with and interact with the archaeological community in terms of remains, and even how they interact with each other if there are opposing claims. To future enrich the understanding of the problem, laws that are established in the U.S and Canada should be looked at to see the legal limits both Archaeologist and Native tribes are bound to. Expanding upon that,
“Skeletons in the Closet”, written by Clara Spotted Elk, is a well-built argument, but it can be enhanced to become immensely effective. Firstly, Elk’s position is effective in obtaining her purpose and connecting her audience to it, because she includes a broad scope and background of the problem in the first few paragraphs. She describes the amount of Indian skeletons preserved and contained by American museums, through the use of data and statistics. For instance, Elk states: “we found that 18,500 Indian remains…are unceremoniously stored in the Smithsonian’s nooks and crannies” (13-15). By using this data, the background of the argument is illustrated to assist the audience in understanding her argument. Now, by knowing this statistic, readers can connect with Elk and her assertion, since we realize that there are plenty of skeletons that
One of the major task that needs to be taken care of before anything could proceed was to get a consent from the family of the individuals that were missing or had been considered dead. Since in some of the cultures it is considered very disrespectful to dig up the burial ground even if it is to find out the truth about what had happened. When and if the bodies are found the anthropologists try to the best of their ability to be careful and respectful of the remains that they found.
Both parties the Coalition of the tribes and NAGPRA and the scientists believe that they are doing the right thing by this discovery. In this paper I will introduce the Kennewick case and discuss the parties and their personal views that have made this such an important case along with thought of my own to add to the criticisms of the professionals that were involved.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
Suzan Harjo uses ethos, pointing out how digging up and selling bodies and artifacts of a human culture is ethically wrong or immoral; pathos, telling how there are no words to describe the shame that Indian families feel when their ancestors and relatives are dug up, decapitated, and experimented on; and finally logos, showing us how illogical digging bodies up is, what if it was some culture doing this to, say, white burial sites. What would we do, we would feel like starting a fight, right?
Official Plan: Archaeology and First Nations Policy Study. Toronto: Archaeological Services Inc., Web. 14 Nov. 2013. .
For years on end, countries have been fighting with big museums from other countries for ancient artifacts that belong to the original countries. The argument of whether or not the museums should be able to keep them still remains. It is the right of the country to have their own artifacts. It is imperative for countries to be able showcase their historical artifacts, therefor museums should return them to their rightful owners.
Colson, E. (2006). Case 21: Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Responsibilities. Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology.
The antiquities market is a system that has always been met with resistance, especially among those within the scholarly community of archaeologists. Many archaeologists and scholars have argued against this market, stating that it is a detriment to archaeology. On the other side, those in favor of this market have provided reasons to show why they believe it to be a solid system. Both sides have their merit in regards to this controversial issue. However, when looking at the antiquities market as a whole, it has shown to be an effective system that can actually work hand in hand with the scholarly community, rather than against it. The key takeaway from the antiquities market is that it helps to preserve the past, something which all archaeologists strive to achieve.
2003Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona. Pp 2-32. Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Twelfth Annual Meeting.
2. Brothwell, Don R., (1963) Digging up Bones, the Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remain’s. London British Museum of Natural History.
"Opinion On Ethical Issues Raised By The Use Of Corpses For Preservation Or For Exhibition
In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity.
I shall gather various types of archaeological publications dealing with deviant burial. It is important to include differing types of publications to see if it affects the way in which deviancy is dealt with. I will then determine if any common patterns are apparent within the study of deviant burial. If common patterns are found, each one will be explored individually. Searching for specific statements within the texts, I will attempt to determine how the patterns relate to the interpretation of deviant burial. As I have not previously dealt with deviant burials, I will also briefly convey my interpretations – as a simulated intended audience reader – of the way in which deviancy is conveyed through the material. This will give a distinctive perspective as to how the true intended audience of the publications may view the evidence as presented by the archaeologists. A discourse analysis is never complete as there are too many aspects to ever fully dissect a subject (Dijk 2001; Phillips and Hardy 2002). However, it is my intent to try to examine deviant burial as thoroughly as this thesis permits, as well as to bring a unique point of view to the
According to The Society for American Archaeology, the definition of Archaeology is, “to obtain a chronology of the past, a sequence of events and dates that, in a sense, is a backward extension of history.” The study of ancient civilizations and archaeology is rather ambiguous due to the primitive nature of the time period. With little imagery and even less textual evidence, professionals in the field must work diligently when studying their subjects. Naturally, archaeologists cannot see or communicate with those whom they are studying, so they must be extraordinarily meticulous when analyzing past cultures. This relates to all aspects of the ancient world including; foods, raw materials, artifacts, agriculture, art work and pottery. All of these elements can collectively provide new and innovative information to curious archaeologists who may wish to gain a better understanding of those who came before us. This information is equally beneficial for both historians and archaeologists who plan to compare the histories of societies from all around the world. In the world of archaeology, archaeologists strive to better explain human behavior by analyzing our past. Therefore, the study of archaeology is a key element in understanding a time before our own.