Getting Started

Hello all,

This is my first blog so I am still getting things figured out. I am a fourth-year Greek and Roman studies major, anthropology minor and I have started this blog as part of my archaeology of death class. My interests lie primarily in classical archaeology, gender archaeology and osteology however I am excited to learn about the varied traditions surrounding death from across the globe and throughout (pre)history. Since this blog will be addressing death I thought I would begin on a more serious note.

Dealing with human remains regardless of how separated we are from them in time or how valuable they might be to scientific inquiry requires the utmost respect and gravitas from the person(s) engaging with them. This week I have been pondering the ethics surrounding archaeology that deals with human remains and trying to figure out how I feel about this controversial topic. I read an interesting article for another class about the legal battle over the remains of the Kennewick man:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169901-1,00.html

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Kennewick man he is a partial skeleton over 9,000 years old who was discovered in Washington in 1996. He has been the center of much controversy because he was initial described as having ‘Caucasoid features’ which some people took to mean that Europeans actually colonised the Americas first. He is in fact not European and is thought to have come from Asia. He is important not just because of his great age but because he may represent a separate group of people than the Native Americans we recognize today as the first to colonize the Americas which would support the hypothesis of multiple waves of colonization. Immediately after his discovery Native American groups began to petition for his repatriation without the desecration of scientific study. After much legal dueling some study of Kennewick has been allowed (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169905-5,00.html).

The Kennewick man is just one example of what seems to be an alarming polarization between scientists, who wish to study archaeological human remains to increase the knowledge of humanity, and the advocates of the deceased individual(s) spiritual/cultural needs. I find myself torn between the two sides. As an avid consumer of knowledge with a love of history I certainly appreciate the desire to increase our knowledge of the past however I also understand that the study of human remains can be in direct violation of certain cultural beliefs surrounding the treatment of the dead. I realize there is no easy answer and as far as I can tell the best thing to do is try to reach a compromise and work on a case by case basis. For me personally the biggest problem I see in addressing ethical considerations in this field is how we can possibly know what the deceased would have wanted? This is particularly true the further we go back in time.  Perhaps we just have to accept that after we die we ultimately have very little say in what happens to our remains and even if we believe in an afterlife after a couple thousand years will we really care what happens to our earthly remains? I find myself wondering what would the Kennewick man have thought if he could see the controversy his skeleton has caused 9,000 years after his death? Would he approve of the name we have given him? Would he wish for us to know his story or would he just like to be left in peace?
If you have thoughts or ideas you would like to share on this topic or anything else please do!