Science & Spirit 9(5)

Whose Heritage? The Conflict Within Archaeology

Kevin Sharpe and Helen Fawbert

All humans have rights – do the dead have rights and should we uphold them? Can the past will of the remains in a tomb be deemed a rational will? Are their rights are still valid?

Whatever the scientific and historical loss, I hope you and the general public will appreciate our paramount concern for the reverence due to the mortal remains which once bore the incomparable hallmark of the Divine image and which, we believe, have an inalienable right to rest undisturbed. We are convinced that the dignity shown to humans even centuries after their death can contribute more than any scientific enquiry to the advancement of human civilization and the enhancement of the respect in which human beings hold each other.

The words of the Chief Rabbi of York, UK encapsulate the ethical dilemma that archaeologists face, when attempting to reconcile the needs of science with the needs of personal and public belief. The Jewbury excavation, conducted in York during 1983, became a lesson in the reconciliation of archaeological, scientific, religious, and ethical issues.

In the many publications concerning method and theory of archaeology, little attention has been paid to the conflict of interests – but this is an area that the modern archaeologist must address. The traditional approach has often been purely scientific or classificatory – as this traditional archaeological joke suggests:

If I should die, think only this of me

that I am an extended inhumation

with grave goods of phase B.

Early “archaeologists” were often little better than plunderers. Accounts exist of mummies being trampled in order to remove the gold and papyri from their wrappings – and Tumuli were often prey to disturbance, particularly 19th century. Contradictions abounded – claims were made of reverence and yet one gentleman, in the same account, illustrated the good preservation as proven by the fact that the bones “would bear being thrown for a considerable distance without breaking.” The professionals of today cannot be classed with the plunderers of the past, and frequently the disturbance of burials is purely accidental. Those that turn up unexpectedly on archaeological sites often cause annoyance by slowing down the excavation or causing budgeting problems.

We can only infer the beliefs of prehistoric cultures, but the act of burial suggests a belief system encompassing an afterlife – and the presence of grave goods reinforces this. Ironically, the disturbance of prehistoric tombs is the only way to learn about the beliefs of their occupants. Burial practices have changed demonstrably and it is debatable whether beliefs have remained static – the same today, as thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, what right do we have to disturb them?

The legal and political aspects of the issue – public relations or the sensibilities of the direct living relatives – seldom encompass the ethical issues. Where old remains are concerned, the process is complex. Should there be a cut-off-date? Two British sailors who died in 1846 and were buried in the Arctic had their graves opened in 1984 by Canadian Anthropologists. Though the aim of the expedition was to carry out a late autopsy followed by reburial, it caused an outcry. Color photographs of the bodies were widely published and the question was asked – did the expedition really need to have gone ahead at all? A contrast was illustrated by the study of a 2,500-year old body discovered in a peatbog in Cheshire, UK, in the same year; though there have been criticisms following his display at the British Museum. The Arctic graves were recent and deliberately opened. The body was an accidental discovery in a bog, where it had been deposited after being violently executed, 2,500 years before. His identity is unknown, he was not found in a grave, and the beliefs of his time can be only inferred. The issue is rife with hypocrisy and confusion.

The Smithsonian has since agreed to return this skull, but the argument is still current. One positive development in American state legislation is an Equal Rights Amendment, which extends the traditional protection of Christian burials to those of Indians. Compromises have also been formed between archaeologists and various tribal councils, where bones are returned after an agreed period of study. But attitudes to death and the reburial issue are varied. Some groups value their archaeological heritage. Others, like the Chumash, would prefer to see the bones destroyed by erosion or other natural forces, than allow an excavation.

control seems to be a common petition. Some are disposed to look favorably on analysis of remains before reburial, some are not; and each case must be viewed individually.

European archaeology rarely faces strong opposition to the disturbance of burials. In Australia and North America, the situation is different. The Australian Aborigines and Native American Indians have generally remained as distinct ethnic groups; therefore, their affiliation with their ancestral remains is much stronger – though the cultural and genetic connections between modern-day Aborigines and Late Pleistocene remains are tenuous. The Aborigines must have been as a dynamic and constantly evolving culture as those in the rest of the world. To deny this, is to deny them the basics of cultural evolution. However, their present belief system respects the ancestors and their right to rest – this is the crucial issue.

The contribution to our knowledge of the past that has been made by burials is immense and priceless. But what are the rights of the dead? Additionally, what are the rights of those from cultures where the dead are an important part of everyday life? Archaeologists do respect the dead, but frequently their scientific zeal can be misguided. We are often prone to forget that many present-day cultures consider the dead as part of their everyday experience. The dead must be respected, appeased and can be as fickle and temperamental as the living.