Welcome to Gaia! ::

I couldn't think of what to name my thread, so let me know if you think of a better name. XD As most of you probably know, I'm studying to become an archaeologist in university so I thought I would give people the option of discussing less "hot button" issues. Not to say this issue isn't intense, as it is (some archaeologist have recieved death threats and the like because of it). I'm also probably going to start another thread later with different arcaeological ethical problems. I thought they might be a fun discussion topic. For me at least! =P

A huge part of archaeology is bioarchaeology/physical anthropology and what human remains can tell us about the past. We can learn a lot about different cultures from physical remains of a person, including what they ate, their height, their average lifespan, diseases of the time etc. The problem with this of course is people's aversion to disturbing the dead. Generally speaking, now, most archaeologists will ask permission from the family is lineage can be traced, however it is more difficult to know what to do in cases where no family can be traced.

In some places, such as the United States the native people's have been given full rights over the bodies that are found because according to their beliefs they inhabited the area "since the beginning." Now historically speaking this is probably not true, as well it's very unlikely that bones which date back 9000 years, are from the same "tribe" as the natives, or had the same customs as them. However that doesn't mean the person who died would want their bones disturbed either, but in some cases this is simply unknown.

In other cases the Natives allow for the archaeologists to remove the bones for a certain period of time, and then rebury the bones, so that everyone wins. In one instance there was a grave site which was becoming damaged due to erosion and so the Native people's asked archaeologists to excavate the area, in order to preserve the cultural knowledge before it was destroyed. The bones were then later reburied.

In some cases it is possibly for archaeologists and the Native people's to work together, in cases such as the ones noted and in many other instances. However there are also cases such as "Kennewick Man" where both butt heads and the issue is taken to the courts.

This conflict is not reserved to North America, either. Other countries are having the exact some ethical delemma. Obviously I am conflicted about this. On one hand it would be of immense value to all parties to try and uncover the cultural history of the people. I think many of these people would be honoured to know that we are trying to find out more about them and how they lived. On the other hand, the wishes of these people should also be taken into consideration, and the wishes of their decendants.

That being said I don't agree that remains should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of a specific Native band, simply because they're in a certain area. I understand that their beliefs are important, however that doesn't mean they're correct.

Though I agree with you, the problem in quite a few cases, is that if the person being studies subscribes to a known cultural group, a lot of the time those cultures are very much against disturbing the dead. What that means is the person who we would like to study would probably not like their body disturbed. In cases such as that do we have the right to disturb their body for the knowledge?

This is a really heated topic in places such as Israel where disturbing remains is extremely frowned upon. It's gotten to the point in some instances where excavation sites have been vandalized and archaeologists have recieved death threats.

The problem here, in North America is that the different Native bands are given rights over the remains, based on where they are found. So for instance if remains are found in an area where the Mohawk traditionally resided, the remains would be considered the property of the Mohawk band. The issue with this is, if we find 9000 year old remains the chances that, that individual was a Mohawk Indian and held the same cultural beliefs as them is extremely low. However because according to their belief system they resided in that area since "the beginning" they are given rights over the remains in accordance with their beliefs. Even though there is no historical justification for this.

With Kennewick man, the scientists actually took the tribes to court over the right to study the remains. In some cases the Natives have even taken it so far as to demand naturally shed strands of human hair.

And not all the tribes even plan on reburying the dead, even though they're demanding them back. Some are planning on opening up their own museums. So in a lot of cases it seems to be an issue of ownership.

The problem lies moreso in the gray area though. In some cases bones are simply too old to know what their customs were and what they would have wanted. In other cases, what about situations where someone has died and not had a proper burial to begin with? The expressed wishes of the individual, in many cases, cannot and will not ever be known.

The other thing is that in situations where a lot of historical information has been lost about a culture, would it not be better for the decendants to know about their culture as living people?

There was one situation, in New Mexico, where the indiginous people did not want the archaeologists touching or handling the bones, but did allow for them to take photographs and notes in order to study them.

Not to be nit picky, but doctors couldn't really use the organs from someone who died 9000 years ago... or more.

I understand what you're saying, and to be quite truthful I don't have a fully formed opinion on this topic as of yet. I do believe there should be a respect for people's wishes, and religious beliefs (though I may not agree with them) however in some cases, such as gray area cases I don't really see it as, as bad.

I mean yes there could be issues, however we aren't going to know and throwing away invaluble information by letting bones of someone who may not have had any qualms with people studying their bones, decay because of the chance that 9000 years ago, their customs may have been such that they didn't want their bones disturbed, seems... well pointless to me.

Though I probably have a fairly biased opinion on this because I don't have any issues with people doing whatever they want to my dead body. Nor do I understand why people get so worked up over piles of bones. Well... I understand on an intellectual level, but not on a personal level.

I disagree with the idea that if we don't know the wishes of the deceased, we should leave them alone, based on the culture of the tribe that lived in that area. Our culture isn't very "into" digging up and studying dead bodies and graves. But, if I were to be buried (I want to be cremated because human bodies aren't allowed to rot and become part of the earth anymore - so I want my ashes scattered on a meadow or woods and used by plants), I wouldn't care if people in a few thousand years dug me up and learned things from me - in fact I would rather enjoy that (were I not dead and so unable to enjoy anything as "me"). You never know how a given individual might have felt about something.

I think it's very important to understand our past. Understanding how humans got to be where we are teaches us so much about exactly what humans are, that I feel going against the wishes of someone a thousand years dead, or even a current tribe that they might have belonged to, justifies the "ends".

I'm pretty sure that this is about respecting the wishes of the current tribes who claim the bodies. After all, the Pharaohs would have been horrified to find that their mummies were disturbed and moved to museums (and not just moved when needed to protect them from invaders), but because the people in Egypt feel that knowledge and history is more important, they are carefully moved and preserved. Some sort of compromise needs to be reached here in the States, like the photograph deal or the dig up and reburial for preservation deal.

I also sort of think that it isn't fair that so many people die not organ donors (unless they are donating their bodies to science, like my Grandpa did) - because of the lives they could have saved -- it isn't as though they are using those organs, after all. I understand the legal aspects of why people have to own their organs even in death, but I think that everyone should choose to be an organ donor!

In some places, I believe, they are, as long as they aren't infectious or contaminated somehow.