Those of us in the field of physical anthropology are both anthropologists and scientists; humanists and data collectors. We navigate a tightrope of beliefs, on the one hand respectful of other cultures (the anthropologist in us) whilst on the other hand, delighted with new data and new avenues of thought and investigation into the workings of the human skeleton (our “physical” side).  

 

Does the pursuit of knowledge trump belief? Where does scientific necessity stop, and ‘grave-robbing’ begin? How can we honour the past and living descendents and yet follow the very human instinct to understand how things are and how they work? The papers in this session will explore issues that affect the physical anthropologist but we will also explore the deep need to honour the dead, looking at legislative responses such as NAGPRA and the Human Tissue Act 2004.  

 

We look forward to a lively panel of debate, discussion and even professional disagreement, and I implore all of us to approach this session with an open mind. 

 

Speakers:

 

Contesting dead bodies in museums: The emerging cultural meanings of human remains

Tiffany Jenkins, University of Kent

 

There is a long tradition of displaying and researching bodies and body parts in museums. After the Enlightenment they were presented as part of scientific, ethnographic, archaeological or medical museums. Today the old thinking which allowed human remains to be used for research and displayed in museums is changing, in America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand and in particular, in Britain. In the UK, human remains are increasingly treated less as objects and a new 'respect' is emerging in practise which attributes human properties to them. It is possible to note the development of new cultural meanings ascribed to dead bodies. This paper shall outline these changes and will raise questions about this development.

 

 

All Quiet on the Western Front?   Excavating Human Remains from the Great War 1914-1918

Martin Brown, Environmental Adviser

 

In the years following the First World War the Missing became a community within the fatalities of war.  Exploded by shells or sunk in the mud of the Western Front thousands were lost.  While some were recovered from the battlefields and buried in the cemeteries across the former Front many more still lie in the Flanders' Fields.  Since 1918 bodies have periodically been discovered and recovered by farmers or during building works but in recent years archaeologists have begun to study the conflict and explore its physical remains.  Inevitably excavations on the battlefields have encountered the remains of the Fallen.  However while excavation processes for these people may be similar  to those for human remains of other periods the background against which they are excavated is very different because here one is excavating the Missing.  They are described above as a community and they are still regarded as such by Great War interest groups, all of whom have agenda and opinions on the exhumation of the dead.

 

The archaeological investigation of the Fallen of the Great War has attracted a good deal of recent attention in recent years, partly because major development projects have unearthed bodies but also because of the development of archaeological research in the period coinciding with renewed interest in the history of the conflict.  This archaeological work has been the focus of television programmes (Finding the Fallen and Trench Detectives), it has been hotly disputed in government, it has been the focus of regimental pride, caused the pouring of vitriol on archaeologists, and has reunited families.  Politics, emotion and national pride converge and sometimes collide and it is against this background - and aware of it - that the archaeologist tries to work rationally, ethically and professionally.  This paper will explore issues surrounding the discovery and recovery of human remains from the war in archaeological contexts, including recent work at Serre, Loos, Ploegsteert and Fromelles, where a mass grave has become hotly contested ground.  

 

Human Remains in the UK: Ethics, beliefs, values, and policies

Myra Giesen, Newcastle University

 

Thinking about human remains in collections requires a multi-disciplinary approach and a global perspective. The range of stakeholders interested in human remains is diverse and dynamic, being influenced by many factors; such as, where the human remains currently reside, where they originally were placed or buried, their scientific importance, and/or their cultural relationship with living and past communities. Balancing the concerns of stakeholders is difficult. This paper will look at existing professional codes of ethics, some religious beliefs about the treatment of the dead, and emerging shared values pertaining to the dead. I will use these topics as a backdrop, along with my 15 years experience with NAGPRA compliance in the US, to assess whether the balance is being achieved in the UK.

 

NAGPRA: A ‘Case Study’ in Atonement

Rose Drew, University of York

 

On November 16 1990, President Bush approved Public Law 101-601, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, more familiarly known as NAGPRA. The law directs all museums, laboratories and university collections in the United States to inventory their human skeletal collections, determine cultural affiliations, and contact relevant Tribal communities; if requested by a federally recognized Tribe, these remains must become available for repatriation, which means to ‘return to one’s own country’. Public Law 101-185, enacted in 1989 to enforce similar compliance from the Smithsonian Institution of Washington DC, provisioned funds to cover costs. However, NAGPRA as it applies to all other facilities in the States is an unfunded mandate. A grant and technical advice may be available, but must be actively sought; and compliance is compulsory. This presents a very real hardship for Universities and also museums, especially small museums. I will discuss some of the political reasons why NAGPRA was enacted; viewpoints of skeletal biologists who regard reburial as a loss to scientific study are compared with those of Native groups who regard excavation as desecrating burials and ‘grave robbing’; and, scientists who have learned to work within the guidelines of NAGPRA will be discussed as well.