Osteo Archaeology

8/10/2019 Osteo Archaeology

1/8

1021117

Osteoarchaeology - grave robbing or scientific necessity?

This essay will discuss the benefits of scientificstudies 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 seletal 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. Taing 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 undertaen 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

undertaen 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 deceasedindividual, from their diet, where they grew up and why they died. 7cientific data lie this is

1


2/8

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 $


3/8

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 4eaer;

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 $Genins !%""' 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 $Genins !%""' 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


4/8

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


5/8

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' maing 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 $Genins !%""' 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 taing 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 $Genins !%""' p."(*. It was during one of these

conferences, where concerns were raised in regards to the holding of the seletal remains of

indigenous groups such as borigines and


6/8

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 sae 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. 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


7/8

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 seletal 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#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


8/8

1021117

4ibliography

4rothwell, #. "2&". Digging up Bones: the Excavation, Treatment, and Study of

Human Skeletal Remains $(

rd

8dition*.

!"%"&%"B. Jccessed' !@thebruary !%"!K.

it=patric, .A. !%"". The #mes%ury #rcher and the Boscom%e Bo&manFesse'

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. Jccessed' !@thebruary !%"!K.

Genins, T. !%"". "ontesting Human Remains in $useum "ollections The "risis of

"ultural #uthorityambridge University Aress.

6ays, 7. !%"%. 0uman Osteoarchaeology in the U: !%%"M!%%3' 4ibliometric

Aerspective.)nternational *ournal of !steoarchaeology!%' "2!M!%).

.. !%%2. Human Remains in #rchaeology: a Hand%ook >ambridge'

>ambridge University Aress.

8

Osteo Archaeology

Documents

Transcript of Osteo Archaeology