Should Human Remains Be Displayed?

A topic that we've been grappling with in class has been the ethics of displaying and uncovering human remains. Ethically, it is ok? What are our moral obligations? If we choose to display, how do we? I've found all of these questions very compelling, and somewhat unanswerable.

In class our professor drew us to this following quote:

"We do no harm to those poor chaps. When I am dead you can dig me up ten times for all I care"

-Sir Mortimer Wheeler

From my understanding, these sentiments used to be fairly common place in archeology. Today, however, discourse on topics of digging human remains, studying human remains and displaying human remains has become incredibly more complex and intricate. So many voices are involved today: the people claiming ownership to the remains, the research team that wants to study the remains, the public that has varying opinions on the remains, and the museum that wants to display the remains. Everyone seems to have a vested interest in how the remains are treated, and coming to a solution which takes an understanding of all interests seems impossible. I find this issue especially interesting in the context of Native American remains. The Native American people believe that a dead person should not be disturbed - that is, they should not be dug up, and they should certainly not be studied upon. And if a person is unburied, then they should be reburied expediently. This belief is meaningful in a greater context of their world belief systems, and their ideology. Scientific inquiry directly challenges these beliefs, unfortunately. But, on the researchers' side, not studying or digging up the remains would represent a huge loss to the body of scientific knowledge that they are building. Studying these remains would tell scientists about the environment, culture, and diet of ancient North American civilizations. This all becomes more muddeled up when you look at the legal context of which you are operating in. In Canada, matters of reburial and study are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In America, there is NAGPRA, the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, that legally states that remains are to be given to the North American populations, and scientific inquiry is only to be employed upon permission by that particular Native group.

I can't decide how I feel about this - it's something that I have been struggling with the past week. I don't want some groups to see archeology as destructive to belief systems, or disrespectful to ideologies. But I also don't think it's right to forgo scientific inquiry. There is so much more left to know!

Last semester, I took a really great course about the peoples of the Amazon. In one class, we were discussing the contradictory origin beliefs between the peoples of the Amazon and of the archeologists studying in the Amazon. My professor noted that as an archeologist, you need to remember that there are multiple ways of knowing something. You don't need to employ binary definitions of right and wrong on difficult topics like origins. There can be a spiritual way of knowing something, and a scientific way of knowing something. And they don't need to be ranked - one way of knowing something is not better than another. Although this concept is somewhat abstract, and difficult to employ, I think it's meaningful to think about when considering the problems of remains human repatriation that are currently occurring in North America.

Giving Back

Although this blog is technically supposed to be about mortuary archeology, I'm going to talk about something a little different today. In class we have been talking about the ethics and obligations of archeology. Additionally, we've discussed the context of archeology - the impact that it can have, and the importance of interpretations. I really love this topic - I often forget the everyday importance and significance of archeology. It's easy to, it's not usually discussed in most of my classes. For me, discussions on ethics like the ones we've been having in class really help me remember that archeology doesn't occur in a vacuum - it holds social, cultural, political and economic significance for certain interest groups, or perhaps for entire nations.

About two summers ago, I had the wonderful opportunity to spend about three weeks in Greece. It was an incredible trip - Greece is an amazing country. There's so much history everywhere! What really interested me about contemporary Greece was the importance of their ancient history. Although I cannot speak for every Greek individual, I was given the impression that contemporary Greek identity was strongly informed by ancient Greek identity. Notions of the Greek "Self" were strong.

In particular, I was struck by Greek discourse of the Elgin Marbles. The Elgin Marbles have continued to be a controversial topic in repatriation discourse. The Elgin Marbles are greek sculptures that were originally part of the Parthenon in Athens. When Greece was under Ottoman Rule, they were (supposedly) given to Lord Elgin, a British Ambassador. However, the legality of the Ottoman's "gift" to Elgin has been questioned. The marbles are currently housed at the British Museum, much to the Greeks dismay. Greek politicians and museum officials have repeatedly requested the repatriation of the marbles. To them, the marbles were taken illegally, and the marbles represent an important feature of Greek identity. Of course, the issue is more complex than I am describing it, but it is not within the scope of this blog to fully delve into the nuances of this controversy.

A Frieze of the Marbles.

Image via content-time.com

The East Pediment

Image via wikipedia

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, the British Museum has refused to repatriate the marbles. They claim that the marbles have come to inform British identity, they were obtained legally and that Athens does not have the infrastructure to properly hold the marbles. Recently, in regards to the British Museum's suggestion that Athen's does not have the proper infrastructure to hold the marbles, the Greek government funded the building of the "Acropolis Museum". It's state of the art: there are numerous preservation technologies in place.

Image via mytimes.com

When I was in Athens, I visited the "New Acropolis Museum". It was really beautiful - part of it is laid out in the plan of the parthenon. In a way, it almost feels like you are walking throughout the Parthenon as you make your way through the museum. The museum has recreated duplicates of the Elgin marbles in the new museum. They were incredibly poor duplicates. A large part of me wonders if this is on purpose - perhaps they feel that it draws attention to the missing gap in their museum, and attracts greater awareness to the controversy. It was an obvious sore thumb - and it certainly made you sympathize with the Acropolis museum. Symbolically, I suppose you could have perceived it as a missing part of Greek identity.

The Acropolis Museum, Athens

The Elgin Marbles represent more than the ethics of repatriation - arguably, they've come to represent debate of colonialism, and identity. Although I don't necessarily think that the marbles will make it back to Athens (the British Museum is really digging their heels in), I hope that inroads can be made for perhaps rotational ownership, or at least a temporary Marble visit to Athens.

Let's get ethical

Throughout my anthropology course-work, a topic that has particularly piqued interest is the ethics of archeology. I find it fascinating - to me, topics of archeological ethics represent the collision of the past and the present, and settlements on ethical disputes can have a large impact on the resulting interpretation of the archeological site.

 Mortuary archeology presents an incredibly interesting field of ethical study. Almost always, mortuary archeologists are dealing with human remains. Depending on the area that they are studying in, the age of the remains, or the context in which the individual died there can be dramatically different ethical ramifications which can alter potential scholarship and interpretations of the remains. Aside from doing research on remains, the ethics on how to display remains is incredibly provocative. You're dealing with a person's remains! How do you represent them in a way that both respects the deceased, but also aids in creating an educational and informative display? It's a very difficult question, and I don't really think that there is a right answer. I know I really struggle answering any of these questions - my morals, emotions, and respect for academic research collides, and makes quite the convoluted mess. 

I think my favourite ethical case-study revolves around the Kennewick Man. This seems to be the classic archaeology ethics case-study, but I find it fascinating. The interplay of religious belief, academic scholarship and legal climate make for a very engrossing to me. So many interests are represented! Developing and understanding the relationships between these interest groups presents enormous challenges.

But back to the Kennewick Man. Discovered in Washington State in 1996, the Kennewick Man was deemed to date to pre-European contact. The remains are considered to be some of the oldest complete skeletal remains found in the Americas! What makes this case so compelling and controversial is that the archeologist that initially studied the remains claimed that the Kennewick Man may not be of Native American descent. This notion was hugely controversial - it implies that aboriginal people may not have been the first people in the Americas. Whether this is true or not, the implication holds enormous political and social ramifications. It also creates a large rift into scientific notions of being and Native notions of being. In this case, the two contradicted each other, which again has both political and social implications.

Facial Reconstruction of the Kennewick Man

Image via www.ancient-origins.net

The Kennewick Man, to archeologists, represents a huge piece of the "peopling of the Americans" puzzle. But, to the Umatilla, the aboriginal group that hold claim to the land that the Kennewick Man was found upon, the remains represented those of an ancestor - and under the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, if the Kennewick Man is proven to have cultural affiliation with the Umatilla it is within their right to refuse scientific study on the Kennewick Man's remains, and lay claim to the remains. Unfortunately, a lengthy legal battle ensued. It provoked questions of how to treat remains, and who owns the past. Ultimately, following a 9 year legal battle (!!) it was decided that the Umatilla did not have a cultural link to the Kennewick man. It wasn't until 2005 that researchers were able to study the remains. 

Time Magazine cover about the Kennewick Man

Image Via Time Magazine Archives

I find this really fascinating. I'm not completely sure what I think about it either. I shudder at the thought of legal battles ensuing over remains - of course, I'd much rather a case where parties could compromise and come to an agreement that all are happy with. I completely understand that the Kennewick Man represented a crucial piece of study to researchers. It's hard to know what to do when the research you are producing will undoubtedly challenge beliefs and norms. It becomes even more convoluted when your finding have huge implications on the everyday lives of living individuals. I don't know what the right thing to do is - how to marry social concerns with scientific concerns - but I'm sure like many things, there is no one right answer.

Further Reading on the Kennewick Man:

http://www.burkemuseum.org/kennewickman

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/11/nation/la-na-nn-kennewick-man-20121011

http://archaeology.about.com/od/kennewickman/a/introduction.htm

You shall find me a grave man

Throughout my mortuary archeology course I have been introduced to a wide variety of how different cultures, and different people within one culture, choose to treat the deceased. In some cases, I have been admittedly weirded-out (but in a good way!), awed, and saddened. This week, I’m going to compile 5 different mortuary rituals, or particular mortuary events  that have interested me. I’ve either learned about these mortuary practices in class, or come upon them on my own internet research.

1)      Cremation Diamonds

I was in complete awe when I heard about these. Right away I texted my mom and my boyfriend and told them that if anything happened to me I wanted to be turned into a diamond (Sidenote: is it just me or am I perhaps far too comfortable with talking about death after taking this course). I don’t think they were super impressed, but at least they know! In short, there are several companies that will take carbon extracted from the cremated ashes and GROW A DIAMOND. Admittedly, it’s quite unnatural and perhaps somewhat forced, but you can’t deny that it would be pretty cool to be a diamond.

2)      Rosalia Lombardo

Ok, this one broke my heart. Rosalia was an Italian girl that died when she was 2. Her father, wracked with grief, took her body to embalmers to preserve her. Her preservation is remarkable – in the photos that I have seen of Rosalie, she looks as though she is sleeping. Apparently, her father came to visit preserved Rosalie every day . If that doesn’t break your heart you are probably made of stone.

3)      Tibetan Sky Burial

When I first learned of Tibetan sky burial, it made me feel somewhat uncomfortable. The thrust of this practice is that the deceased, after being dismembered, is left outside (in a natural place, not near homes or whatnot) to be consumed by birds of prey. I felt uneasy when first learning this because of my conventionally western upbringing – it’s a particularly western notion to conceive a connection between the “self” and the “body”. To Tibetan monks that practice sky burial, it represents providing sustenance to nature, and the acknowledgement that the body is nothing more than a “shell” for the “self”. Sky Burial acts as a meaningful reminder for me to look past my per-conceived notions of mortuary practice and self-conception.

4)      Viking Burials

In class Viking burials have been discussed on a couple of occasions. Although it’s difficult to create a full, accurate picture of what a Viking burial would have looked like (and as usual, it’s usually the noblemen or upperclassmen that have a greater presence on the archeological record), sources indicate that it was a dramatic affair. Ibn Fablin and archeological findings indicated ship-burning, sacrifices, numerous grave goods, and feasting. 

5)      Green Burials

So it turns out that western burials and cremation practices are actually incredibly bad for the environment. In particular, traditional burial practices (embalming, pouring concrete around the grave borders, un-biodegradable casket materials) are damaging to the environment. In Canada and the U.S. there has been a recent movement to “green burials”. This means not embalming the deceased individual, using a biodegradable casket which result in the deceased decomposing into the ground. In a way, I would argue that green burials are somewhat similar to sky burials – there is an acceptance of the destruction of the body and a wish to be connected to the earth.

Paleo Schmaleo

Recently, in order to address some of my possible food sensitivities, I have been following a strict "Paleo Diet". I'm only doing this for the short term - the idea is that by cutting out non-Paleo compliant foods for 30 days, I'll be able to "heal" my digestive system, and then while slowly re-introducing non-Paleo foods, I'll be able to gauge my food sensitivities. I'm not going to get into the nutritional aspect of the Paleo diet here (I do feel better than ever though!), or necessarily the legitimacy of the modern-day Paleo diet (Paleo eaters eat things like coconut pancakes and cauliflower-pizza -- they don't seem to be emulating our Palaeolithic ancestors whole-heartedly). But I am really interested in how archeological findings are construed and interpreted by the public. First, I'll quickly explain exactly what the Paleo-diet is, and then I'll dive into the "culture" that has been constructed around a pre-occupation with the Palaeolithic era.

The Paleo diet is somewhat of a new diet fad. Technically, it's not really "new" since the crux of the diet is to eat how Palaeolithic ancestors ate. A "hunter-gatherer" diet (without actually hunting and gathering) is considered, by Paleo-dieters, to be the best diet for humans*. Hard core Paleo eaters believe that our bodies are not equipped or developed to consume any post-agricultural foods. This means that processed foods, grains, legumes**, dairy, sugar, alcohol, and soy are no-nos. Animal proteins, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds and fats (avocado oil, olive oil, coconut oil, ghee) are a-ok. It sounds pretty limiting, but I have learned that Paleo-eaters are some of the most creative cooks out there: they can pretty much "paleo-ify" anything.

What's interesting is that most descriptions of the Paleo-diet really skim over the biological and archeological evidence for the Paleo-diet being the most healthy diet for us - all of the Paleo-diet books and websites that I've read allude to these studies, but none cite the scientific legitimacy of the diet outright. Nor do any seem to account for the variation of diet in the Palaeolithic period - it is as if there everyone in the Palaeolithic period followed the exact same diet in these books!

To me, the Paleo-diet isn't even really a Palaeolithic diet. I've almost gathered a nostalgic aspect from diet-books and websites about the Paleo-diet: what happened in the past was better and we've lost our way. It seems to romanticize the past, but perhaps construct it in a way that it wasn't. For instance, "Paleo chocolate cake". Of course our ancestors didn't eat chocolate cake. We've repackaged what was a very simple diet into something far more complex (and something that may miss the point). I'm not sure what this says about us as a society - the need to take the wholesome ingredients that make up the Paleo-diet, and repackage them into cakes, pizzas, pancakes and other decidedly junky foods.

To an archeology student, some of the publications on the Paleo-diet are quite amusing. To see the diet of Paleolithic person be surmised in titles like "NomNom Paleo", "OMG, Is That Paleo?" and "The Paleolista" seems hare-brained. But people really love it -- I suppose it is a way of making making something like the incredibly-far past relevant today. We will in a very fast-paced stimulating world - there is a certain appeal for the simplicity of a hunter-gatherer society. I don't think the modern Paleo-diet will fade out anytime soon. Paleo-eaters love the Paleo-diet with the same ferocity that Vegans love their diets. I understand why - I feel amazing while eating Paleo. I cringe though, when reading recipes online that make reference to eating the way our ancestors ate.



* The idea that the Paleo-diet is the healthiest for humans is hugely contested. HUGLEY CONTESTED.

**From what I can tell, legumes seem to be a sticky-issue in the Paleo-diet world. You can read more about it here: http://whole9life.com/2012/09/the-legume-manifesto/