This document discusses the field of osteoarchaeology, which involves the scientific study and analysis of human skeletal remains found in archaeological contexts. It examines the debate around whether the excavation and study of human remains is still necessary today given ethical concerns. As an example, it outlines how isotopic analysis of the remains of the Amesbury Archer revealed that he had migrated to Britain from continental Europe, demonstrating the value of osteoarchaeological research in addressing archaeological questions. While some view disturbing human remains as disrespectful, museums have historically held and studied remains to further scientific understanding and education.
This document discusses the field of osteoarchaeology, which involves the scientific study and analysis of human skeletal remains found in archaeological contexts. It examines the debate around whether the excavation and study of human remains is still necessary today given ethical concerns. As an example, it outlines how isotopic analysis of the remains of the Amesbury Archer revealed that he had migrated to Britain from continental Europe, demonstrating the value of osteoarchaeological research in addressing archaeological questions. While some view disturbing human remains as disrespectful, museums have historically held and studied remains to further scientific understanding and education.
This document discusses the field of osteoarchaeology, which involves the scientific study and analysis of human skeletal remains found in archaeological contexts. It examines the debate around whether the excavation and study of human remains is still necessary today given ethical concerns. As an example, it outlines how isotopic analysis of the remains of the Amesbury Archer revealed that he had migrated to Britain from continental Europe, demonstrating the value of osteoarchaeological research in addressing archaeological questions. While some view disturbing human remains as disrespectful, museums have historically held and studied remains to further scientific understanding and education.
Osteoarchaeology - grave robbing or scientific necessity?
This essay will discuss the benefits of scientific studies carried out on human remains within the field of osteoarchaeology. In addition it will assess how useful this scientific approach is to the field of archaeology. It will also consider the ethical and religious concerns surrounding the subject which, over the years, has been raised by numerous individuals, organisations and religious sects, challenging the necessity of such practices. Ultimately it will assess whether the ehumation and study of human remains is still necessary in the !" st century. #arvill $!%%&' (!)* defines osteoarchaeology as +the study and analysis of human and animal anatomy, especially s,eletal remains, in the contet of archaeological deposits-. .rchaeologists, as well as their anti/uarian predecessors, have been ecavating the material remains from past cultures for hundreds of years. These ecavations, in turn, inevitably involved the handling and removal of human remains. 0owever, a clear distinction was drawn within the discipline of archaeology as there was deemed to be something fundamentally different about the ecavation of a human body than that of other material culture $1oberts !%%2' "*. This is probably because we, as human beings, can relate better to human remains as opposed to other finds from an archaeological site. Ta,ing this fascination and empathy with the dead into account, human remains and their ecavation generate much public and professional interest. This interest has, over the years, manifested itself through many emotions, from curiosity to disgust, and this reaction is heavily influenced by the country in which the remains have been ehumed. That is to say that socio-cultural and religious beliefs are a variable in the perception of the treatment of human remains $1oberts !%%2' "3*. Investigations through ecavation are underta,en for a number of reasons. 4ut the underlying motivation for all investigations, scientific or otherwise, is curiosity5 curiosity about our origins as a species, as a culture and as a society. The range of studies and analysis that can be underta,en within the disciplines encompassed in scientific archaeology is vast. It encompasses studies on the analysis of stable isotopes present in the teeth, to palaeopathology, the study of diseases $6ays !%%&' "2!*. Information gathered from such studies can enable scientists and archaeologists to reconstruct part of the life of a deceased individual, from their diet, where they grew up and why they died. 7cientific data li,e this is 1 1021117 invaluable when archaeologists are attempting to reconstruct and understand the lives of individuals and cultural groups. In 8gypt, there have been several instances where a mummy has been de-contetualised, removed from its original tomb in anti/uity or more recently, and as a result, its identity lost. In the case of Thutmose I, the mummy had, been removed from its original tomb in the 9alley of the :ings :9(&, relocated to his daughter 0atshepsut;s tomb and then removed and reinterred at #eir el-4ahri $<icholson and 7haw !%%&' (!3* . The mummy was unmar,ed and undistinguished from other mummies in the same chamber. It was only when scientific testing was underta,en, to trace the mitochondrial #<. $mr#<.*, that the mummy could be identified as the lost pharaoh $<icholson and 7haw !%%&' (!3*. This case study is one of many eamples of the use of mr#<. se/uencing, to trace the identity of the individual, and without such tests, the remains of many important individuals would still be missing. . more detailed demonstration of how studies within human osteoarchaeology can be used is for the 4ron=e .ge burial of the .mesbury .rcher. The burial was ecavated in !%%! and !%%(, and has been identified as an adult male who died in the latter part of the ( rd millennium 4>. The subse/uent osteoarchaeological studies, which included strontium and oygen isotope analysis, came up with somewhat surprising results as to the origins of this individual buried within wal,ing distance of 7tonehenge $?it=patric, !%""' p."&@*. Oygen isotopes are derived from isotopic values of the ground water at different locations, which in turn is ingested by humans living in that area. 7imilarly, strontium isotopes are present in the food growing in a particular geological area, which is also consumed. 4oth isotopes are tested independently of one another, but in doing so allow two separate constituents for discovering an individual;s origin and any migrations they may have made throughout their lives. 4oth oygen and strontium isotopes are fied in tooth enamel at the time of tooth formation, during early infancy $?it=patric, !%""' p."&@*. <either of the isotopic signatures alters during a human;s lifetime or post-mortem, so the teeth of ecavated remains can be tested to derive if the remains are close to the deceased;s place of origin, or moved to the location of burial after infancy. In the case of the .mesbury .rcher, these analyses resulted in an unepected conclusion. .lthough the burial was situated on 7alisbury Alain, the individual;s isotopic analysis came bac, with levels of isotopes too low for an origin of the U:, but was consistent with isotopes from the =one running through southern <orway B 7weden through to eastern Cermany 2 1021117 $?it=patric, !%""' p."&&*. ?urthermore, analysis carried out on the grave goods deposited at burial, revealed other mystifying origins. The ,nives present in the grave can be traced bac, to both ?rance and 7pain, an indication that this individual was either well-travelled or was an elite member of society in 4ron=e .ge 4ritain, of high enough ran, to trade with or receive gifts from cultures abroad $1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' p.)(%*. This clearly indicates that the .mesbury .rcher had travelled between 4ritain and >ontinental 8urope, and further scientific analysis on burials in the surrounding area has indicated that a small number of those people had also made this journey. .ccording to archaeologists this may also be an indicator of the origins of a new pottery and material culture group, termed the D4ell 4ea,er; group, its presence in 4ritain previously a mystery $?it=patric, !%""' p"2!*. This study has been important to archaeologists as it has shown that during the 4ron=e .ge, 0omo sapiens were much more mobile than previously thought. .lthough this study only demonstrates a limited number of the analyses that can be performed within the discipline of osteoarchaeology, it is a significant eample of research on 4ritish archaeological remains. In this case, ecavation and osteoarchaeological study was entirely necessary from the perspectives of the scientific and archaeological communities because the research was able to show the migration pattern of a small group of individuals, and subse/uently addressed some previously unanswered /uestions on the origins of a particular subassemblage of artefacts located in their graves. One of the primary institutions that retain and study human remains are museums. The principle function of these establishments is to preserve and study material culture and to educate the general public in regards to their findings $#arvill !%%&' p.!2E*. 0uman remains are an integral part of museum collections, particularly in the Festern world, with many 4ritish museums having held, researched and displayed human remains since the eighteenth century. The use of these remains as research objects and indeed for educational purposes is common practice $Gen,ins !%""' p.!*. 0owever, in recent years museums have come under scrutiny due to the way in which some collections have been ac/uired, and it became clear that previous owners may have come into possession of objects illegally $Gen,ins !%""' p.@)*. Fhat is more, many would argue that to disturb, study and display the dead is morally wrong, citing reasons such as disrespect of the dead and disregard for the descendants of the dead 1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' p.@@"*. These anti/uities dealers of the past had no such /ualms and would ecavate burial sites without consulting authorities or contacting possible descendants, as would be the practice today. Objections were voiced in many instances as, for some5 3 1021117 respect for the dead is a vital part of their culture and religion. One such eample of these concerns arose during the early "23%s in the United 7tates5 regarding the removal of human remains from the cemeteries of the <ative .mericans $Harsen "223' p.()"*. The beliefs of many <ative .mericans involve the eistence of a spiritual lin, to all other <ative .merica people, including those who are physically no longer alive. This connection also involves a duty of care and respect towards the dead, and encourages the living to ensure the spiritual well being of their ancestors. The consensus amongst the <ative .merican people was that all native human remains should remain out of the control of institutions such as museums, and bac, into the control of the native people. >ommon beliefs amongst the <ative .mericans include the view that to retain such specimens, interfere with the afterlife and in separating the dead from the living, upset the spirits of the dead further $1oberts !%%2' p.(@*. Once the objections were raised, the issue concerning the holding of indigenous remains became a significantly important issue within the archaeological and political communities. This inspired 4ritish-based .nthropologist Aeter Uc,o, along with others including those who studied under him such as >ressida ?forde, to launch a campaign to call into /uestion the legality of holding these collections of human remains $Gen,ins !%""' p.")*. ?forde researched many elements for the campaign, including the +...circumstances of the ac/uisition and collection of human remains, eamining various separate collections- $Gen,ins !%""' p.")*. The efforts of many campaigners belonging to both <ative .merican tribes and Festern communities, was rewarded with legislation being passed in "2&2, "22% and "22", including the <ative .merican Craves Arotection and 1epatriation .ct. 6any accompanying regulations were also passed at various stages through the "22%s, and has resulted in many human remain specimens being returned into the care of their decedents. This is an elo/uent argument that demonstrates that despite the genuine academic intentions of modern scientists, anthropologists and archaeologists, there are many legitimate objections to consider as far as the removal, study and display of human remains. #ebates on more contemporary eamples of the holding of human remains in universities and museums, reveal that this is still a controversial issue. #uring one such debate at the Institute of Ideas, Tristram 4esterman $!%%(* asserted the claim that +the collections in our Festern museums derive, at their most innocent, from grave-robbing, and at their worst, from wholesale slaughter-. 4 1021117 0owever, this view is consistently challenged, as through campaigns made by many individuals and groups belonging to the discipline of archaeology, archaeologists, anthropologists and osteoarchaeologists have attempted to correct past wrong doings. In 6arch "22(, the whole month;s issue of the 6useums Gournal was dedicated to the /uestioning of the validity and morality of displaying and holding human remains in 6useums. The front cover of the issue read D1eburying 0uman 1emains' ma,ing amends for past wrongs;, and the issue itself contained five opinion articles, a news article and an editorial addressing different issues within the campaigns to return the remains of indigenous peoples bac, into the care of their decedents $Gen,ins !%""' p."3*. In an attempt to atone for corrupt past practices several organisations have been established. The principle aims of these are to regulate archaeological practices, including human osteoarchaeological practice, as well as ta,ing any opposition to projects into account. One such organisation is the Forld .rchaeological >ongress $F.>*, which was fully established by "2&E. F.> is a non-government organisation which convenes every four years to discuss archaeological theory and practice $Gen,ins !%""' p."(*. It was during one of these conferences, where concerns were raised in regards to the holding of the s,eletal remains of indigenous groups such as .borigines and <ative .mericans, and resulted in large amounts of remains being returned to their cemeteries of origin $Gen,ins !%""' p.")*. Fhen deliberating the validity of such objections, it must be ta,en into account that historically, many concerns regarding the ecavation, study and overall treatment of human remains, to an etent have been justified. There are many eamples where the ecavation of human remains has been abused and used as a means to Dtreasure hunt;, stealing the grave goods and discarding the bodies. The most well-,nown 4ritish eamples include the ecavations of 4ron=e .ge and Iron .ge cemeteries $1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' p.@E(*. These burials became ,nown for yielding rich burial goods and as such, were ecavated without any form of recording, the grave goods sei=ed and the body either left eposed or removed to be put on displays in Dcabinets of curiosities;5 rooms dedicated to the display of wonders of the natural world as well as objects from anti/uity $Gen,ins !%""' p.(*. One of the most shoc,ing eamples of grave desecration and subse/uent disrespect of the dead occurred in 8gypt5 where people were not only brea,ing into tombs in search of the rich bounty that the noble dead possessed, but also the mummies themselves. These were used in 4ritain and other western nations in the early modern period for many reasons, two eamples of which were for train fuel and medicine $#awson "2!3*. 5 1021117 This in particular is a poignant eample disproving the claims of >hamberlain $"22)' p.@3* who asserts that although ethics and values vary from country to country concerning the ecavation of human burials and the handling of the remains, it is most certainly +universal for people to treat their dead with respect-. Fith a history such as this, is it possible to justify the disturbance of the dead for the sa,e of the living? .nd if so, can archaeology as a discipline +reconcile a respect for the people of the past with deliberate disturbance of their remains...against the wishes of modern groups who for religious or other reasons see themselves as the living representatives of the deceased?- $1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' p.@@"*. To summarise, this essay aimed to provide a critical discussion on whether osteoarchaeology should be deemed Dgrave-robbing; or a scientific necessity. 8ven though the discussion provided was able to address several issues, a full analysis on the necessity of osteoarchaeology and the ethical concerns and objections surrounding it, would have undoubtedly have re/uired several thousand words more. <ow that past conflicts have mostly been resolved, and the discipline of archaeological science has laws and regulations relating to the ecavation, study and retention of human remains, does the term Dgrave robbing; still apply to social and scientific archaeology at all? 6any religious sects and individuals may still disagree with this claim, some >hristian groups being some of them, as they believe that the dead must remain in their sanctified place of burial so that they may be resurrected upon the return of their messiah $1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' @@"*. Using modern techni/ues, osteoarchaeologists are able to study human remains without destruction, as well as preserving specimens and protecting them from further decay. 6uch archaeology is lost to us through both >-transforms, such as land development, and <- transforms, including elements of climate change such as rising sea levels $1enfrew and 4ahn !%%&' @)@*. 6any archaeologists would argue that it is the more noble intention to study, record and preserve such specimens before they are lost to science, archaeology and society forever? In conclusion it can be suggested that the case for osteoarchaeology, being a scientific necessity, is etremely strong. 8ven when studying material culture in contet, there is never a way to reconstruct so much from the life of an individual and the people who buried them, than through simply ecavating the grave. 6 1021117 Crave goods are a reflection of how society saw the person, because after all, the dead do not bury themselves. In fact, according to 4rothwell $"2&"' p.i* +...in fact no social reconstruction can be complete without eamining the physi/ue and health of the community-. 0owever, the s,eletal remains, tell a different story, not just about the culture that the dead belonged to, but provide the most basic information about the person' their gender, how old they were, how tall they were, any diseases they had, their diet, how they died and it occasionally provides the means to trace their family line through mr#<. se/uencing. In the past, such practices have been deemed Dgrave robbing;, and to an etent, this view was justified, as past practices were not regulated by law or supervised by impartial organisations such as the Forld .rchaeological >ongress. In modern times, however, bones are not simply used for entertainment purposes, neither are they allowed to decay or to be lost to science forever. Osteoarchaeology is not only a scientific necessity, but a socio-cultural necessity too, as it is this practice of ecavating, studying and retaining human remains that allow us to learn more about our past as a species. 7 1021117 4ibliography 4rothwell, #. "2&". Digging up Bones: the Excavation, Treatment, and Study of Human Skeletal Remains $( rd 8dition*. <ew Ior,' >ornel University Aress. >hamberlain, .. "22). Human Remains Hondon' 4ritish 6useum Aress. #arvill, T. !%%&. !xford "oncise Dictionary of #rchaeology. Oford' Oford University Aress. #awson, F.1. "2!3. $ummy as a Drug Aroceedings of the 1oyal society of 6edicine. JonlineK. .vailable at' http'BBwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.govBpmcBarticlesB A6>!"%"&%"B. J.ccessed' !@ th ?ebruary !%"!K. ?it=patric,, ..A. !%"". The #mes%ury #rcher and the Boscom%e Bo&man Fesse' Fesse .rchaeology. IoI. !%%(. !%'ects to Bury or #ncestors to Study( #ebate transcript, Hondon' Institute of Ideas. JOnlineK. .vailable at' http'BBwww. instituteofideas.comBtranscripts BhumanL remains. pdf. J.ccessed' !@ th ?ebruary !%"!K. Gen,ins, T. !%"". "ontesting Human Remains in $useum "ollections The "risis of "ultural #uthority <ew Ior,' 1outledge. Harsen, >.7. "223. Bioarchaeology )nterpreting Behaviour from the Human Skeleton >ambridge' >ambridge University Aress. 6ays, 7. !%"%. 0uman Osteoarchaeology in the U: !%%"M!%%3' . 4ibliometric Aerspective. )nternational *ournal of !steoarchaeology !%' "2!M!%). <icholson, A. and 7haw, I. !%%&. Dictionary of #ncient Egypt $! nd edition*. Hondon' 4ritish 6useum Aress. 1enfrew, >. and 4ahn, A. !%%&. #rchaeology: Theories, $ethods and +ractice $@ th edition*. Hondon' Thames and 0udson. 1oberts, >... !%%2. Human Remains in #rchaeology: a Hand%ook >ambridge' >ambridge University Aress. 8