Since they are physical traces of people who were once living, human remains are quite different from other types of archeological evidence. Human remains attract ethical considerations over and above those that are given to other materials. The management of collected human remains has always been a complex area where decisions need to balance the needs of scientific inquiry and broader public interest against the wish of many parties, including the claimants. Debates have raged on for a long time regarding the study of human remains that have been repatriated. Different museums differ in the interpretation of that debate, and while many of them argue it is ethical, some of them maintain that the study is unethical (Marshall).
The study of human remains that have been repatriated is ethical as long as there are no claimant groups that demonstrate close genealogical links with the remains. However, it would be unethical to study them without the permission of claimants that have proven close genealogical links with the remains.
Archeologists have always been conscious of the fact that the treatment of human remains is an essential area of consideration. In the past, there were no ethical questions regarding the study of repatriated human remains. Debates on the ethicality of the practice started in the mid-20th century. There is no doubt about the value of the study of human remains in the fields of archeology, forensic sciences, and medical history.
The importance of such evidence has been summarized in many policy documents (Solly). When the remains are excavated from archeological sites, they are examined by an osteologist. After that, they prepare a scientific report about them.
There is a common misconception that the report prepared is a definitive scientific work on the remains. Some people also believe that it is essential for the reburial of skeletal remains after the report has been made. However, those who hold such beliefs do not understand the work of the report. The primary role is addressing research questions about the site from which the remains have been excavated (Solly). Also, the report discusses the specific population of which the remains are a sample. The secondary work of the report is to ensure that data is available to the scientific community. It is worth noting that the research conducted on the remains cannot predict the kind of data that future researchers might require. Therefore, regardless of how carefully the report has been prepared, it cannot substitute the need to retain the remains in the long term.
The need to retain remains is illustrated on a broader scale by the broad range of osteological records that were initiated on the remains found in North America in the early 90s. It was in response to the threat of repatriation and subsequent reburial of skeletal material that was under Native American Graves. Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and other related laws (Marshall). Data from the recording has been available to scholars for a long time.
However, scientific journals indicate that the impact of the data on osteological research has been minimal. Research in the field of osteology relies on collections from skeletal material of data that have been curated. The data helps in solving problems in human society, meaning that the study is not unethical.
Retention of collected human remains is unethical because it allows future generations to learn from them and also solve a wide range of problems. Reburial of repatriated remains denies future generations a chance to gain knowledge. Besides, it makes it hard for future scientific communities to solve problems using scientific evidence collected from the remains. Destruction of such evidence is not ethically desirable because it restricts knowledge and scientific-problem solving. However, the need to gain understanding and solve problems is set against the wishes of certain groups or individuals who have relationships with the remains (Westaway and Dumbard). The links between these people and the repatriated remains may confer them the right to dispose of them. These people may prefer the reburial of those remains. Besides, there are several subsidiary considerations. These include the scientific value of the remains, their age, and how they were acquired initially.
One of the most challenging duties of a museum is ascertaining the status of the groups that claim human remains and their link to them.
Museums cannot merely give remains to anyone that asks for them without any proof of a relationship. As a result, there should be formal criteria for evaluating the claimants. The approach is essential because it enables the equitable treatment of cases and ensures transparency. If a claimant group demonstrates a reliable genealogical link to remains, their wishes have a lot of weight (Westaway and Dumbard). It would be unethical to study the human remains that have demonstrated close genealogical links with a claimant group without their permission. If the group or individuals wish to rebury the remains, museums must respect that wish. Should they grant permission for study, then there is nothing unethical about it.
In a situation where claimant groups have been unable to prove a close link with the remains, then the museums have a right over those remains (Westaway and Dumbard). Furthermore, they can decide what to do with them. If they feel they do not have any scientific value, they can dispose of them. However, it would be unethical for them to rebury remains that can provide data for future knowledge and problem-solving. Therefore, it is ethical to study human remains that do not have claimants with close genealogical links.
The ethicality of studying repatriated human remains depends on several factors. These include the genealogical links with claimant groups, and the wishes of such groups should group demonstrate a secure connection. The study of human remains that have been repatriated is ethical so long as no claimant groups or individuals show a close genealogical link with the remains. However, it would be unethical to study the remains without the permission of claimants that have demonstrated a close genealogical relationship with them. The wishes of such claimants have a lot of weight, and museums should consider them. If the claimants permit scientists to use the remains in their research, then the process is ethical. A museum can decide how to use unclaimed repatriated remains. It can also determine how it should use those that claimants have failed to demonstrate a close link with them. It can choose to rebury them or use them for research. It would be unethical for a museum to destroy remains that have a scientific value.
Works Cited
Marshall, Alex. “British Museum Kept a Statue for 150 Years. Now, Easter Island Wants It Back”, NY Times 16 August 2018. Web 23 February 2020
Solly, Meilan. “This Replica of a Tlingit Killer Whale Hat Is Spurring Dialogue About Digitization." Smithsonian, 17 September 2017. Web 23 February 2020
Westaway, Michael, and Arthur Dumbard. “Mungo Man returns home: there is still much he can teach us about ancient Australia." The Conversation, 14 November 2017. Web 23 February 2019
