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,
looking at cases from both countries over time can show how the change in opinions and ethics. When looking at laws and the governments involvement with regulating the claims on archeological remains, one also must look at the past instances where the government and academics have treats such remains. Underlying all this is the ethical issue of how to approach human remains that are believed to belong to an existing people. At this point, how we approach gaining information is important to think about. Should archaeologist value the information that remains hold, or should they be give up to a proper burial? Or besides that are there ways to fulfill the want for knowledge and be respectful? Whatever the matter, it is still an issue dealt with today.
The Royal Alberta Museum holds a sacred object of the First Nations groups of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Manitou Stone. This sacred object has a vast history to the Aboriginals but also has much controversy that surrounds it. Hundreds of years ago the object was removed from its original spot and was moved back and forth across the Canada, eventually ending up in Edmonton at the Royal Alberta Museum. This sacred object was said to have many powers for the First Nations people and when it was taken it brought great hardship to the First Nations groups that believed in the power of the Manitou Stone. This is only the beginning of the issues that surround this sacred object. Many different Aboriginal groups claim to own the piece but no decision has been made as to where the object should be placed. With the Manitou Stone now in the Royal Alberta Museum issues arise about the proper housing of the item and whether or not it should be retained in a museum or if it should be on First Nations land. Where the Manitou Stone is placed brings many complications and struggles for the Aboriginal people that claim ownership of the sacred object. When researching this object I was initially unaware of the significance that a museum could have to groups of people and the struggles that this could bring to these groups. This paper will explore the significance of the stone, the various viewpoints on why the object was moved originally from Iron Creek, who claims ownership to the object, and whether or not a museum is the proper place for sacred objects like the Manitou Stone to be kept.
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.
“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
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.
Official Plan: Archaeology and First Nations Policy Study. Toronto: Archaeological Services Inc., Web. 14 Nov. 2013. .
2. Brothwell, Don R., (1963) Digging up Bones, the Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remain’s. London British Museum of Natural History.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Colson, E. (2006). Case 21: Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Responsibilities. Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology.
"Opinion On Ethical Issues Raised By The Use Of Corpses For Preservation Or For Exhibition
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.
These leading anthropologists paved the way for Lewis Binford and his absolutely influential paper titled Archaeology as Anthropology in which Binfo...
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.