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.
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment