Covell-Murthy Capstone Final

Home , Archaeological science, Collections management

Human Remains Policies for Museums: Who Needs One, Who Has One, and How Do You Create One?

Amy L. Covell-Murthy

A Capstone in the Field of Museum Studies For the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University Extension School

2 March 2021

Author’s Statement

As I took over management of the archaeology collection at CMNH and gained valuable experience with National NAGPRA, I began reaching out to other institutions with questions I had about stewardship of human remains. I was met mostly with silence. I found out that even though sacred and sensitive collections are something that many institutions have in common, I was answered with knee jerk reactions and immediate suspicion when trying to discuss them. I can only speculate as to why the subject has been distorted as taboo, but the result is a lack of professional resources that talk openly about the need for transparency, respectful dialogue, and policy specific to human remains.

My hope is that this capstone will provide a starting place for institutions of all sizes to create specialized human remains policies. I would not have been successful in this endeavor without the careful guidance of Michèle Morgan and Katherine Burton Jones, whose support and critiques helped me to confront my own biases, work harder, and really produce something that

I’m proud of. I am indebted to the professionals who made themselves available for interviews and Georgia Feild for the perfect drawings. Thank you. I am forever grateful.

I owe my friends and family thanks for listening to my incessant droning about policy, and extra thanks to Rob, Marques, Mags, Molly, Ash, and Stin for providing much needed distractions at all the right times. Everything was easier with the help of my HES buds for life, Iliana, Taylor, and Tara, and I owe my sanity to Brady and Marissa- the two best friends that anyone could possibly have. To my sisters- Leigh, you are the best editor and I can never thank you enough and

Anna, we did it! Mum and Dad, you are my heroes. And finally, Mahesh, your patience and support gave me the confidence to succeed. You are a trooper and I love you with all my heart.

Table of Contents

Author’s Statement ...... i

List of Tables ...... v

List of Figures ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1

History of Human Remains in Museum Collections ...... 2

Policy vs. Procedure ...... 4

Part One: Who Needs One? ...... 6

Types of Museums ...... 6

Laws Regarding Human Remains ...... 9

Identifying the Need ...... 11

Part Two: What Types of Policies Already Exist? ...... 12

Method ...... 12

Case Studies ...... 14

Analysis ...... 19

Part 3: How Do You Create One? ...... 24

Process ...... 24

Potential Components ...... 27

Introduction ...... 27

Statement of Authority ...... 28

Code of Ethics ...... 28

Scope of Collections ...... 29

Categories of Collections ...... 30

Acquisition/Accessioning ...... 30

Deaccession/Disposition ...... 30

Loans ...... 32

Objects in Custody ...... 32

Conservation/Care ...... 33

Insurance and Risk Management ...... 33

Documentation/Inventory ...... 34

Access ...... 34

Appraisals ...... 35

Legal Considerations ...... 35

Intellectual Property ...... 36

Review and Revision ...... 36

Glossary ...... 36

Exhibition ...... 37

Conclusion ...... 37

Appendix ...... 39

iii

Handbook: “How to Create a Human Remains Policy for Museums and Collecting

Institutions” ...... 39

Works Cited ...... 74

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of Museums for the Case Studies ...... 13

Table 2. Policy Components Suggested by the American Alliance of Museums (“Developing a

Collections”)...... 27

List of Figures

Figure 1. Museum Policy Count by Topic ...... 20

Introduction

Museums have collected human remains for hundreds of years, and despite the definition and intent of museums changing drastically over the centuries, many museum collections now serve as repositories for human remains. Because these remains were once living, breathing humans with familial and cultural ties, their sensitive nature necessitates special considerations on how they are cared for in collecting institutions. Policies must be created to manage the ethical conversations that these collections create. By acknowledging the past, present, and possible future treatment of human remains in museum and university collections in the United

States, and examining existing Collection Management Policies, guidelines will be established to provide the insight and tools needed to develop individualized human remains policies that adhere to the mission and vision of institutions with sacred and culturally sensitive collections.

The history of human remains in museum collections is a subject that has evolved quickly over the last four decades. Museums must face the truth behind where their osteology collections originated and must acknowledge this acquisition data in the creation of policies surrounding them. At an international symposium in London, March 2007, Hedley Swain, of the Museum of

London, explained, “The debate about the value of human remains in museums is developing rapidly. In the last 15 years there have been new developments across the world that have seen human remains move away from being simple display items and sources of archaeological and medical information to complex, often contested, cultural property” (193). This shifting focus from human remains as scientific objects to human remains as actual human beings has resulted in repatriation work happening around the world along with a realization that human remains require special attention for ethical stewardship.

History of Human Remains in Museum Collections

Human remains exist in institutional collections for many different reasons. They are used to educate the public about the past and to educate health professionals. They are necessary for scientific research regarding human variation, comparative morphology, growth and development, and as a comparison to ancestral species. They have been exhibited and researched for centuries. Charles Willson Peale established his cabinet of curiosities in Philadelphia in 1786, and it is considered one of the first museums to have been established in the United States. He filled it with objects that documented the history of the new nation and began the American tradition of collecting institutions (Mondello). These museums often featured human remains as macabre accompaniments to the other natural and cultural wonders that they exhibited. These morbid spectacles, as well as osteology collections used to educate, and cultural collections accessioned by museums and learning institutions, remain in use despite the seemingly unethical ways in which they were sometimes procured.

Classroom skeletons and others used for educational purposes are often comprised of actual human remains. These skeletons were sometimes unethically sourced from China or India and then sold for profit. India took advantage of families who were unable to afford cremation for their loved ones and cornered the market on human remains trade. This ended when a dealer was caught exporting more than one thousand child skeletons. China took over India’s role as global bone merchant, but they also took legal steps to ban exports in 2008 (Hugo). This is just one example of how human remains ended up in collections with murky provenience data associated with them. There are plenty of other means by which human remains were acquisitioned over the decades, including those donated for scientific study.

Archaeological investigations resulted in the systematic removal of human remains from

North American sites, beginning in the late 18th century. Archaeologists shifted from a biblical framework to a scientific one over the next decades and the formation of Radiocarbon Dating allowed archaeologists to place paleo cultures into clear timeframes (Schuyler 406). As museums and universities sponsored excavations to help understand how and why human behavior has changed over time, human remains were collected to enhance these studies. Many of these remains are still stewarded in collections across the united States.

Human remains were often considered objects to be studied, equivalent to lithics and ceramics. In the introduction of the book Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment, and

Study of Human Skeletal Remains, D. R. Brothwell, a pioneer of archaeological science formerly of the British Museum, the University of Cambridge, and the University of London’s Institute of

Archaeology, equates human skeletal remains with ceramics, metal, and architecture as far as importance to scientific study (xi). First published in 1963, this book predates most laws that are now in place to protect sacred and sensitive material in archaeological sites. The concept of cultural identity is never discussed in this book, proving that even into the 1960s some researchers continued to view human remains as only scientific objects. While some scientists continued to view human remains as objects equal to lithics, most professionals recognized the special circumstances surrounding human remains and exercised caution and respect when handling them.

There is a legitimate argument to be made for their continued existence in collecting institutions. It is possible to be respectful of human remains and descendent communities and still examine them to learn about human past, present, and future. Physical anthropologists can tell a person’s age, height, sex, diet, health, ancestry, and activity patterns, by using the same

methods of skeletal analysis used in forensic science (Bruwelheide and Owsley 9). These methods provide a glimpse into the lives of deceased individuals, without speculation. Physical anthropologists use our bones to paint a clear picture of human interaction with the world, throughout time.

Human remains continue to serve valuable positions in collections, but their ethical procurement is paramount. In the Epilogue of Bone Rooms, Samuel J. Redman, Assistant

Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, writes, “In the end, we learn that while the ideas about these skeletons are constantly evolving, some meaning tied to these bones transcends their justified use as objects for scientific study. Their essence is a humanity that surpasses changing historical contexts. In order to dignify them, we must confront this humanity at every level” (289). This confrontation necessitates the creation of separate human remains handling policies and procedures beyond the scope of existing collection management plans and codes of ethics

Policy vs. Procedure

To highlight the complicated nature of policy versus procedure, Stephanie J. Allen used the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History as a case study for creating Procedural

Policy for the ethnographic section of a natural history museum. While Allen never specifically mentions human remains, she explains the important differences between these guidelines. Allen defines a Collection Management Policy (CMP) as, “a CMP is a detailed document that articulates the overall outlook, approaches, and professional standards adopted by a museum or collecting institution” (37). She goes on to describe a Procedural Manual (PM) as, “At a minimum, a PM should include lines of responsibility, forms, and steps to inform staff about each individual process or action. The point of writing collection procedures for a collection is to

tailor the procedural document to an institution’s and collection’s specific needs and individualized processes” (43). A unique collection management policy for human remains is necessary due to the sensitive nature of the material and the ways in which museums acknowledge their existence and care. While procedural guidelines are also extremely important, policies must exist to ensure the procedures are carried out properly and consistently.

Collection Management Policies are established in museums to provide a framework for how to conduct operations and the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) provides a guide for creating this document. According to the AAM guide for developing a Collections Management

Policy, “Museums usually state that they comply with local, state, and federal laws that affect their collections or collecting activities. A Collections Management Policy should also address ethical issues related to the collections, including acquisition, deaccession, and preservation” (3).

This guide gives a very basic outline of the necessary parts of a holistic Collection Management

Policy, which can help an institution prevent problems with acquisition, deaccession, and curation. Human remains require special considerations for ethical stewardship and the clearest way to acknowledge this is by creating separate policies.

Examining the most widely used resources for human remains care in museums or similar academic institutions reveals the lack of structure and information on how to correctly form holistic policies around these ethically sensitive collections. While there are many good sources available for specific procedures, most of the literature lacks any details for policy creation. In Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions, the authors of this highly respected procedure book note that there are no clear guidelines set forth by many of the major professional museum organizations regarding human remains policy in museums

(Cassman et al 25). Just as AAM only briefly mentions the legality of human remains disposition

in its ethics proclamations, The International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics repeatedly states that human remains should be handled, “in a manner consistent with professional standards” (10). Both ICOM and AAM note the sensitive nature of human remains, but neither give clear advice on how they should be cared for. They stress respect, but do not elaborate on how to properly follow through.

Creating policy for human remains will be different for every institution. A goal should be to ensure that respectful stewardship is afforded to all human remains, regardless of their

NAGPRA eligibility. Proper policies can ensure that access is granted consistently for all human remains and that exhibition standards are met for all individuals being displayed. Policies will drive the procedures that implement the formal processes of care and curation. Without proper policies in place, procedures will not follow a structured path and some ancestors may receive preferential treatment.

Part One: Who Needs One?

Types of Museums

Any museum or institutional collection which holds human remains needs to have policy in place to ensure ethical stewardship. No matter how they were collected, policies must be implemented to maintain consistency in treatment. There are four specific types of museums that are most likely to hold human remains; science museums, natural history museums, state museums, and university affiliated museums.

Institutions using human remains to educate the public, promote scholarly research, and train medical professionals, need policies to ensure that they are handling them respectfully and consistently. Museums in the United States exhibit and steward a wide variety of human remains,

from mummified human remains to indigenous North American ancestors, and the existing policies governing human remains in these institutions vary just as widely as the collections.

While there is much to be learned from the bodies of our ancestors, their access, exhibition, and care should be regulated through policy to ensure professional standards.

Science museums, whether they are attached to universities, preserving national heritage, or are the product of legacy collections vary widely in scope and size. They all aim to present the history of science to a wide audience. Many of these museums were built around older scientific collections that include scientific instruments. Most use a hands-on approach to educate the public about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Bergers 370). These museums often exhibit bioarchaeological material, where forensic anthropology is used to explore pathology and anatomy. There is often opportunity to encounter human remains in these museums, whether they were used as educational tools or scientifically excavated.

While science museums are broad in scope, natural history museums tend to focus on the study and exhibition of the natural world. According to the Committee for Museums and

Collections of Natural History of the International Council of Museums:

The Committee for Museums and Collections of Natural History (NATHIST) of the

International Council of Museums (ICOM) comprises about 400 institutions and

individuals across the world. NATHIST supports the collection, preservation, research

and interpretation of diverse biological, paleontological and geological collections, the

scientific study of the world’s natural heritage and natural environments, and the

engagement of schools and the broader public in these and related subjects. (About

ICOM NATHIST)

Most of these institutions are the result of decades of collection. Their contents can be used for determining the past and future of human-altered landscapes and give a glimpse of the habitats of the Earth’s inhabitants for millennia (Prôa). Showcasing taxidermized animals, geological specimens, and dinosaur skeletons, these institutions often include anthropology and archaeology departments to help interpret how human life fits in to the natural world. Because of this, natural history museums hold human remains from cultures around the world in their collections and use cultural material in exhibitions.

Like science and natural history museums, state and university affiliated museums are usually products of many years of collecting. But instead of standing independently, state and

University museums are functioning arms of much larger institutions. Most universities hold teaching collections as well as research collections, which include human remains used to educate students about anatomy, pathology, and other subjects regarding human history. These collections were sometimes acquired under questionable circumstances, like the classroom skeletons that originated in India and China.

State museums are controlled by the government in the United States. They can function as repositories for archaeological excavations performed for cultural resource compliance. For this reason, many state museums hold indigenous ancestral remains temporarily, while repatriation consultations are organized and attended. Some universities also hold osteology collections but are not affiliated with a museum. No matter how they came to rest in each institution, there needs to be a policy written to maintain consistency in stewardship, improve collection documentation, and to ensure adherence to all pertinent laws.

Laws Regarding Human Remains

In the United States, laws have been enacted to protect the heritage of every American. In the early 19th century, concerns arose over the looting of heritage sites for antiquities, and the first law of this nature was created. The Antiquities Act of 1906 was put in place to protect archaeological sites from unapproved excavation and to ensure that any cultural material taken from state or federal lands ended up in a museum or other repository that was suitable to hold the objects for the public trust (Archaeology Program). While this law did help to protect sites on public lands from being looted, it did not cover any cultural heritage sites that exist on private property. This remains the case in the United States. Archaeological sites on private land are still considered the legal property of the landowner.

The next law regarding cultural heritage did not come about until sixty years later. In

1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to manage archaeology for environmental concerns. It also established the National Register of Historic Places

(Archaeology Program). This law advocates for the protection of culturally significant sites from disturbance due to construction or infrastructure. Buildings and Sites can be placed on the

National Register to receive protection from destruction. This includes the “Section 106 Law” that requires a review of federally funded projects which threaten any places on the list. This law was followed by a few others that deal with cultural heritage preservation, like the

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA), which mitigated damage done by federal agencies to archaeological sites and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of

1979 (ARPA), which required professional curation in reputable repositories for all cultural heritage material excavated during federally funded projects (Archaeology Program). While human remains were included in the archaeological material that came from these protected sites,

it wasn’t until the 1990s that a law specific to archaeological or inadvertent excavation of Native

American human remains was created.

In 1990, with the passing of The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) (NAGPRA), the shift in perspective of human remains in archaeological sites and museum collections from scientific objects to culturally significant ancestors became evident. According to the National Park Service’s (NPS)

Archaeology Program:

NAGPRA describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and

Native Hawaiian organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition

of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of

cultural patrimony, referred to collectively in the statute as cultural items, with which

they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation.

Through this legislation, human remains are being publicly acknowledged as ancestors with direct ties to modern communities. Human remains and their associated grave goods in the care of institutions that receive federal funding must be listed on a national register and then repatriated at the request of descendent communities. Because of this law, repatriation and reburial are not only a common option, but in many cases a mandatory result.

In May 2010, the Office of the Secretary of the Interior implemented a rule to NAGPRA that includes procedures for the disposition of culturally unaffiliated human remains and associated grave goods. In this amendment, consultation with indigenous tribes whose aboriginal territory covers the area where human remains were excavated is required (Native American).

These additional procedures make disposition possible, but the process remains complicated. It

took three years to implement this rule from the time of its proposal, which shows how long it can take for decisions to be made regarding NAGPRA issues. Both affiliated and unaffiliated human remains are required to be listed on a federal register as an inventory for human remains and associated burial goods and as a summary for any other culturally significant items.

While NAGPRA is the only federal law pertaining to human remains, each State has its own laws governing the treatment of human remains. These laws become complicated when courts are expected to address the concept of human bodies as personal property. According to

American University’s Washington College of Law, the state laws surrounding human remains vary widely, so they created a resource entitled the “Washington College of Law State Burial

Laws Project,” that compiles information about these laws by State. Legal professionals as well as non-legal professionals are encouraged to use this resource to discover the repercussions of mistreating human remains that fall outside of the purview of NAGPRA (State Burial). This web resource can be used to identify particular laws at the State level and should be taken into consideration when writing a policy.

Identifying the Need

According to the National NAGPRA Program, “Over 122,000 Native American individuals are still in collections and 93% of those have not been culturally affiliated with any present-day Indian tribe or National Hawaiian Organizations (NHO). Cultural affiliation studies and in-depth consultations could help resolve the rights to many of these individuals” (“Fiscal

Year”). Repatriation and disposition are only possible with collaboration between institutions and Indigenous communities. It will take a lot of time and effort to ensure that every voice is being heard and the right decisions are being made. In many cases, cultural affiliations can be made after extensive and careful study. NAGPRA has existed for thirty years and there are still

so many institutions out of compliance. This work is extensive and will take a very long time to execute properly. The respectful reinternment of human remains from museum collections demands a clear pathway for consultations and procedures and developing those must be a careful process. Without policies to lay the framework for these endeavors, the results will be inconsistent.

The National NAGPRA register does not include any indigenous remains that have failed to be reported to the program by those institutions that are out of compliance, nor does it include the non-indigenous human remains that also rest in museum collections. It is important to clearly note that NAGPRA only applies to institutions that receive federal funding, if a library holds human remains and has received federal funding, it is considered a “museum” under the law

(Archaeology Program), therefore many institutions may not realize that repatriation consultation is mandatory. No register exists for these remains, which means that there is no way to determine how many indigenous bodies await research projects and other educational programming. Potentially, these ancestors as well as those temporarily stewarded on behalf of descendent communities will remain in museum collections for a very long time. Any institution holding human remains, for any purpose, needs a policy that will ensure that these ancestors and relatives are treated with respect, in accordance with the mission and vision of the repository.

Part Two: What Types of Policies Already Exist?

Method

The starting point for creating effective policy is to examine existing policies in place in similar institutions. This capstone began with an internet search focused on museums with human remains policies in place and accessible online. Fewer than ten institutions appeared in this search, and most of them were in Europe. The focus turned instead to contacting collection

and curatorial professionals to request interviews. Emails were sent to twenty prominent institutions and only three responded. Dr. Michèle Morgan at the Harvard Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnography answered quickly and suggested that Dr. Helen Robbins from the

Field Museum be contacted, as they had interacted in the past regarding human remains stewardship. This led to more suggestions from Dr. Robbins and resulted in another five institutions offering research assistance. In the end, ten institutions were chosen to represent the four types of institutions most likely to steward human remains (see table 1). Each institution falls into one of the four categories, except for Arizona State which is both a State museum and a university museum and the Smithsonian Institute is in its own category since it is a national museum. They are all organized by their areas of focus, either anthropology, natural history, or science.

Table 1. Types of Museums for the Case Studies

From July 2020 through September 2020, curatorial and collections professionals from these prominent collecting institutions made themselves available for discussions about their

human remains policies and provided examples for this project. They were asked questions about the structure of each policy, and how that format was chosen. They discussed the process of policy creation in their institutions, particularly the steps they had taken for drafting and approving the policy. Each professional was asked about the contents of their policy and discussed who made the decisions. At the end of each interview, they were asked if they would do anything differently if given the opportunity and many offered advice for others about to undertake the task of drafting a policy of their own.

Similarities and differences were then analyzed to determine the most effective components of a policy. Showing a wide variety of possibilities will help other collecting institutions to determine what will work best for their own human remains policies, given their mission and the size and scope of their collections. The following section gives detailed descriptions of each institution and individual policy to give a better understanding of their purpose, size, and scope. This information will articulate how an institution’s resources and support come from a variety of places and help to focus on the unique missions and visions which will ultimately drive the development of policies.

Case Studies

Beginning with the institutions focused on Anthropology, the Arizona State Museum is unique on this list as it is not only the official state museum, it is also operated by the University of Arizona. They have a busy repatriation office, but they only receive material from the state of

Arizona. The museum collections do not contain human remains from anywhere else in the

United States or beyond. Due to the nature of active archaeological collecting for cultural resource management as well as university led excavations, their policies are heavily embedded in the state burial laws. These laws are listed in detail on their website in the Forms and

Guidance Section. There are additional documents that clarify procedures for reporting discoveries, repatriation, and publications pertaining to indigenous Arizona ancestors

(Odegaard). These policies serve to uphold the laws of Arizona and to ensure that the museum is properly stewarding human remains and associated grave goods as they await reburial.

The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology is an anthropology museum functioning as part of a university. Opened in 1932 as Albuquerque’s first public museum, it focuses on the South

Western United States, but also has cultural material from around the globe. They have an active osteology collection that is used to educate university students (“Mission and History”). The policy for human remains is integrated into the overall collection management plan, but there is a separate policy for the osteology collection. The collection plan explains that the material held by the Maxwell is split into two distinct categories; educational and teaching collections. The educational collections are used for public programming in the community and the teaching collections are used by the university students. The museum works in partnership with the New

Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator (Denning). To properly train students to aid in forensic excavations, the Maxwell Museum must allow access to ancestral remains in the teaching collection. Their policies clearly show that they have taken the time to attempt to be proactive in ethical issues that arise from a frequently used osteology collection.

Established in the 1800s, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at

Harvard University houses an enormous collection of cultural material. It is one of the oldest anthropology museums in the world (“About the Peabody”). The museum holds human remains from inside and outside of the United States and is committed to caring for them respectfully.

Their collection management policy includes information on the repatriation of human remains and associated burial goods and is accompanied by another document that elaborates on the care

and curation of sensitive materials. These policies highlight the need for respectful access to all the ancestors and other sacred or sensitive materials in the collection (Morgan). As an institution that is not only old, but well known for its vast assortment of cultural material, the Harvard

Peabody has acknowledged the ethical considerations for the sensitive collections it has always held. Its policies show that the museum is actively aware of how human bodies can be treated with respect in an educational environment.

Like the Harvard Peabody, The San Diego Museum of Us (SDMoU) is an institution focused on anthropology and the history of humans over time. The San Diego Museum of Man was established in 1915 and on June 21st, 2020 the museum changed its name to include ungendered and inclusive language. The museum is focused on decolonization initiatives, and inclusive representation in its decision-making efforts (“Decolonizing Initiatives). One of the first steps in this change of focus was establishing a human remains policy that would be proactive and adhere to their commitment to transparency by being available online. This functions inside of the larger collection management policy but is accompanied by a Frequently

Asked Questions fact sheet (Macdonald). This proactive approach to stewardship is perfectly aligned with the mission and vision of the institution.

While not a museum, the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory of the University of

Texas at Austin (TARL) is the largest archaeological repository in the state and a renowned archaeological research facility. Their mission is “to collect, preserve, and curate archeological specimens and records, train students, conduct archeological research, and disseminate information about Texas' archeological legacy” (The Texas Archeological). Their mission-based human remains policy focuses on access, curation, and repatriation, as those are the most important topics faced by institutions who do not maintain exhibitions. This policy was used as

an example for the Field Museum’s policy, due to its comprehensive nature and proactive approach to access (Robbins). The institution displays its policies and procedures for access to the human remains collection on the website, including forms required for research requests.

These transparencies help to keep access and consultation consistent by ensuring that everyone who makes a request is held to the same standards.

The next three institutions focus on natural history. The American Museum of Natural

History (AMNH) was established in New York City in 1869, and boasts scientific and cultural collections from around the world (“About the Museum”). In 2008, AMNH created a human remains policy separate from its collection management policy. This iteration was approved by the Collections Committee of the Board of Trustees and begins with a justification of the importance of the human remains in the collection. It clearly states its intent to respectfully steward all human remains, including steps for repatriation consultation with anyone claiming lineal descendance to any ancestors in the collection, not just those indigenous to North America

(American Museum). With the wide range of cultural material and human remains in this institution, it is necessary for a clear policy to ensure consistency.

The Field Museum in Chicago began collecting in 1894. Its mission is to “fuel a journey of discovery across time to enable solutions for a brighter future rich in nature and culture”

(“About the Field”). In the collection management policy of the Field Museum, it gives guidelines for repatriation of Indigenous North American material, as well as the possibility of repatriation to other descendent communities for material not covered by NAGPRA. An addendum to this collection management policy includes further specifications for the care of the human remains held by the museum (Robbins). This additional document clarifies the Field

Museum’s dedication to treating the human remains in its collection with the care they deserve, while upholding their commitment to present exhibitions rich in culture.

The Smithsonian Institute is the national museum of the United States of America. It is in

Washington D.C., and boasts nineteen individual museums as well as galleries, gardens, and a zoo. It is the largest museum, education, and research complex in the world (“About the

Smithsonian”). The vast collections of this national repository include human remains, mainly in the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), and the National Museum of Natural

History (NMNH). These museums are not subjected to the National NAGPRA law and follow their own repatriation logistics which are governed by the National Museum of the American

Indian Act (NMAI Act). The Smithsonian Institute has a massive policy that oversees the collection management of the entire organization, it is called the Smithsonian Directive 600

(SD600). Adherence to the repatriation of Native American or Hawaiian human remains as mandated by the NMAI Act is mentioned in the policy, but other human remains are not. The

SD600 gives power to collection managers and establishes a clear chain of command. Both the

NMNH and the NMAI operate repatriation offices, where their processes for consultation and transfer are well documented. Each museum has informal guidelines that they follow, but no fully articulated overarching human remains policy (Billeck). The care and effort put into the repatriation programs at the Smithsonian proves that the institution is taking the ethical implications of the collecting of indigenous ancestors very seriously. Being the largest institution and the nation’s representative in preserving cultural heritage, they need to be sure to have their policies in order, since they are under the most scrutiny.

The final two institutions primarily focus on science. The Denver Museum of Nature and

Science is an institution that provides on hands on learning through an inclusive platform. Their

website displays an inclusivity statement which explains that the museum is focused on diversity of staff at all levels of the institution. It specifically mentions its desire to foster opportunity and mutual respect in its policies and actions in the workplace (“About Us”). This commitment to mutual respect in policy and commitment to listening to diverse perspectives is what drives the institution to conduct repatriation consultations with the descendent communities of most of the human remains held in its collection. The museum’s human remains policies are mixed with its collection management policy and highlight their intent to steward sensitive collections with standards beyond the minimal requirements of the law.

The Science Museum of Minnesota is in St. Paul, on the bank of the Mississippi River.

According to its website, “the Science Museum began collecting specimens and artifacts in 1870.

Our collections come from the anthropology, biology, and paleontology sciences. In addition to public viewing, they’re also used for research and studies by Science Museum curators and visiting scientists” (“Our Collections”). The collection management policy for this institution includes a detailed appendix explaining the importance of adhering to National NAGPRA. It also includes instruction for consultations regarding human remains and associated grave goods for cultural remains outside of the NAGPRA law (Science Museum of Minnesota). As a museum whose mission is to, “turn on the science: Inspire learning. Inform policy. Improve lives,” it is clearly expressed how important policy is to the function of the institution.

Analysis

Examination of the policies from these institutions revealed that even though they have many things in common, each institution has unique needs that are driven by mission and vision, scope of collection, and strategic planning. According to AAM, “There is no one perfect template for any document. Each of the museum’s documents should be influenced by its unique

history, community, collections, and governance. Interrelated policies and plans contribute to a cohesive vision and mission” (“Developing a Collection”). While it’s true that no two policies are alike, similarities can be drawn from the topics covered by each version. The variance in human remains policy from the case studies is largely due to the type of institution and the purpose of their collections, as well as the decision of most places to integrate their human remains policies and special considerations into existing collection management policies. This variance provides examples of different types of policy and the different parts they can contain in each institution’s own language (see fig 1).

Figure 1. Museum Policy Count by Topic All ten of the case studies included language devoted to NAGPRA, this is not surprising as it is a federal law that all the institutions must comply with. However, 40% of the institutions do not have language in their policies regarding consultation or repatriation of non-NAGPRA

eligible remains. All the institutions curate human remains who could potentially be ineligible under NAGPRA. Except for Arizona State, each of the case studies steward collections from outside of the United States. Many hold extensive nonindigenous osteology collections.

Institutions can choose to extend consultations to descendent communities that fall outside of

NAGPRA purview. The absence of non-NAGPRA compliance language in some policies results from many institutions focusing only on following the law. A policy must reflect both types of repatriation, unless the institution does not intend to allow consultation from any interested descendent community stakeholders.

Again, all ten institutions included language regarding access to the collections. This is listed as a requirement for developing a collection management policy by AAM. It states that museums must give the public reasonable access to collections and collections records. In this section, the museum usually explains who has access to what and why, noting any restrictions and safeguards (“Developing a Collections”). While all the institutions mention access, only one acknowledged a difference between visitor access and researcher access. AAM allows for a museum to include restrictions and safeguards which can include special considerations for human remains and associated grave goods. The difference in the case studies is another indication of how important mission is to the creation of policies. Institutions with teaching collections will allow wide access for the purpose of education, while an institution focused on cultural relevance or decolonization will have more restricted access.

Of the case studies, 50% of the institutions included a human remains specific scope of collections and introduction. This number suggests that the collection is either described sufficiently in the collection management policy or an institution is not being entirely transparent. In order to provide clear guidelines, a policy must be forthcoming with this

information. An institution cannot provide ethical stewardship of human remains, if they fail to acknowledge their existence in the collection.

Despite the fact that each of these institutions continues to acquire human remains, only

40% of the policies contained language specific to acquisition or accession. Certain institutions chose to provide descriptions of the criteria required for the museum to accession incoming human remains. This is especially important for those institutions continuing to conduct archaeological investigations or those honoring agreements with federal agencies to curate human remains.

Mentions of curation and conservation were found in 30% of the policies. As human remains require special considerations for conservation and curation, they should be afforded special mention in these documents. The procedures for these topics are very different for human remains, yet they can be found lumped under vague guidelines intended for the entire collection.

The policies that did contain language specific to human remains stated that the collection was maintained at the highest professional standards, but did not offer any suggestions on where those standards could be accessed.

Only 20% of the case studies included language pertaining to the exhibition or display of human remains. All the institutions except for one have the capability of exhibiting the human remains in their collections, The TARL is a university research laboratory and not a museum, so it can be exempt from this potential part of a policy. Many institutions have exhibits that contain human remains and their display adds relevant content, which can help an institution align with its mission. This should be included in policy to maintain consistency in how they are to be displayed. Even if the governance of an institution decides that human remains will not be exhibited under any circumstance, it should be formally declared in a policy. Without explicit

language regarding display, curators may find themselves having to debate why certain parts of the collection cannot go on exhibit. A fully formed policy will help drive decision making to avoid this situation.

Again, only 20% of the case study’s human remains policies or addendums mention documentation and inventory specific to human remains. While this can be assumed to fall under the general collection management policy, special considerations are necessary to ensure ethical stewardship of human remains. NAGPRA requires inventory of human remains and associated grave goods to uphold compliance. Each institution is required to provide a list of culturally affiliated human remains and associated grave goods, as well as a list of culturally unidentified human remains and grave goods (Inventories). The creation of these lists incorporates consultation to determine affiliation. Institutions should take steps to ensure that proper protocols are followed while compiling these specific lists. Besides NAGPRA inventory, each institution will have its own procedures for recording human remains, and this can be solidified in policy to help maintain consistency in documentation. Since these types of inventories and documentation will be different for the rest of the collections, they need to be explained separately in policy.

Many of the topics found at the bottom of Figure 1 represent such small numbers because they rely on larger collection management policies to cover those areas. Especially, intellectual property rights and risk management. intellectual property rights are usually presented in generic terms to cover the entire collection. Risk management refers to the security of the collections and relies on studies of an institution’s facilities and their susceptibility to external and internal destructive forces, like fire or mishandling. Often an institution has a separate risk management plan and can provide access when necessary.

Since many of these institutional policies are parts of larger collection management policies or are attachments in another format such as an addendum, it is assumed that human remains are still grouped with non-human objects in the collection. The rest of the policy components are either integrated with the larger plan or explained in the additional documents.

These case studies show that the main purpose of each collection varies, and this is evident from the components they choose to highlight. Continuing to include human remains with the same guidelines laid-out for non-human material in the collection is dehumanizing and can result in disrespectful treatment. The case studies provide examples of how institutions are recognizing the unique ethical implications that accompany the stewardship of human remains and their associated grave goods.

While the conversation around human remains in museum collections has been changing drastically over the last twenty years, collection management policies have not caught up yet.

Acknowledging the troubling past of collection practices must be followed by pertinent policy to make sure consistency is achieved in the stewardship of human remains. This research has made it clear that stand-alone policies must be created to address the special considerations that human remains and their associated grave goods require separately from the other material in the collection. Part three of this capstone project will explain how to begin creating a human remains policy and will list the possible components it should contain.

Part 3: How Do You Create One?

Process

sources available for specific procedures, most of the literature lacks any guidance on creating pertinent policies. In Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions, the authors of this highly respected procedure book note that there are no clear guidelines set forth by many of the major professional museum organizations regarding human remains policy in museums (Cassman et al 25). Just as AAM only briefly mentions the legality of human remains disposition in its ethics proclamations, The International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of

Ethics repeatedly states that human remains should be handled, “in a manner consistent with professional standards” (10). Both ICOM and AAM note the sensitive nature of human remains, but neither give clear advice on how they should be cared for. They stress respect, but do not elaborate on how to properly follow through.

Without a consensus on what constitutes the highest professional standards as far as human remains are concerned, creating pertinent policy is wholly left up to the institution.

According to the Society for Human Resource Management, there are five steps to creating policy: identifying the need, determining the content, obtaining stakeholder support, communicating with employees, and revising and revision of completed policy (“How to

Develop”). If an institution decides it needs one, the next effort should be exerted to determine which similar institutions have one in place. Once similar policies are examined and analyzed, a museum or collecting institution can begin the process of creating one. This unique policy can then provide consistency in resolution of issues that concern human remains.

The first step to creating a unique human remains policy is to determine who will be involved. Many of the institutions from the case studies began with an individual or a small group of stakeholders who identified the specific needs to be addressed. These needs must adhere to the mission and vision of the museum. Depending on the type of collection and

institution, there will be a formal accreditation process, with a hierarchy of entities whose approval is needed to make it official. This must be decided before the process can begin to avoid confusion later. It works best if all stakeholders who will be affected by the final policy are included in the drafting process. Dr. Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director of the Field Museum, warns that it can be difficult if a policy is ratified by the Board of Trustees but has not been properly vetted by the curators or collections staff who are responsible for its implementation.

These people have experience working with the collections and are aware of logistical and procedural complications that can arise. Their input should be valued in the process.

The next step is to determine the style of policy that will serve an institution. Based on the research completed for this capstone project, the most clear and concise way to separate human remains and their grave goods from the rest of the collections is to implement a stand- alone policy, although some institutions may still choose to integrate their human remains policy within their collection management policy. If this is the case, each section of the collections document must contain specifics for human remains as well. Here this capstone project follows the eighteen-part structure set by AAM, with one addition (see table 2). Once style and approval steps are agreed upon, the specific components must be chosen, and the policy can be written.

Table 2. Policy Components Suggested by the American Alliance of Museums (“Developing a Collections”)

Potential Components

Introduction

According to AAM, the first part of an effective policy is a section that reiterates the mission, vision, and history of an institution (“Developing a Collections”). This section should be used as an introductory element and can discuss the general history of the institution, or the specific history of the collections. This can include a legal category for describing the museum, such as private, public, or non-profit. It may also be helpful to include a statement that describes the purpose of the policy, such as how it will help to ensure that all human remains will be

treated ethically in the collection (Simmons 26). Any important introductory information can be included in this section of the policy. The museum can make a statement about their values regarding human remains in the collection and acknowledge the known information surrounding the acquisition of the individuals. This is especially true if the museum’s mission and vision have changed significantly over time.

Statement of Authority

AAM suggests that the introductory section can include or is followed by a statement of authority (“Developing a Collections”). This section clearly lists museum officials who are responsible for the stewardship of the collection. It will also give information regarding the governance of the institution and who has approved of the policy. This is important for informing interested stakeholders whom they should contact with questions or concerns. In the spirit of transparency, museums should include this statement to show that they are aware of what the collection entails and have seriously considered the ethical, procedural, and day to day implications that enacting this policy will create. This is the best way to hold the decision makers accountable for the successful implementation of the policy into daily operations.

Code of Ethics

Each institution must have a code of ethics to become AAM accredited. This can then be restated in a human remains or collection management policy, or a link to the full code should be attached. These are the guiding principles adhered to at all levels of museum function, from the floor staff to the governing body (“Developing a Collections”). The San Diego Museum of US uses “informed consent” as the basis of their ethical stance on human remains stewarded by the institution. According to their policy, they only steward human remains when express permission is given by a deceased individual, their next of kin, or a designated member of a descendent

community. If this is not possible, the museum will also curate human remains who belong to a community where similar treatment is supported (San Diego Museum of Man). This ethical statement is the basis for all incoming acquisitions to the museum as well as how they retroactively deal with the ancestors already resting in their collections. This is also the approach taken by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (Nash). Both institutions curate and display mummified human remains from Egypt, where similar treatment has historically been common.

This forward-thinking approach is the most respectful way to handle the approval surrounding the access, acquisition, care, and exhibition of sensitive collections, but may not work for institutions whose educational success relies on granting access to ancestors whose provenance or affiliations are unknown. This can limit the access to teaching collections and even dictate traveling exhibitions in the future.

Scope of Collections

This section should address the contents of the human remains in the collection. It can describe the collection of human remains and how they are used (“Developing a Collections”).

This information can be added to the introduction or in a separate section. The Maxwell Museum is a good example of how this information can constitute its own policy component. Their scope of collections states that their skeletal collection includes archaeological and forensic material, a large portion of which originated in New Mexico and is stewarded on behalf of federal agencies.

The museum also curates human remains excavated prior to 1960. The collection holds the remains of over 240 individuals who donated their bodies upon death. The scope of collections also provides a description of the Maxwell Museum’s relationship with the Office of the Medical

Examiner, which relies on an agreement to curate forensic remains as part of ongoing work

(Maxwell Museum). This explicitly describes the contents of the osteology collection, including

all outside stakeholders who can impact the holdings of the institution. This section will look different for each institution and its specific collection but should be just as detailed.

Categories of Collections

This section can be used to state what type of collection the policy is talking about. You can differentiate between library, museum, education, or research (“Developing a Collections”).

As this policy is being written for a special collection to begin with, this section may not be necessary. This is often covered under the scope of collections.

Acquisition/Accessioning

This is a section that should be included in every policy pertaining to collections.

According to AAM, “Acquisition is the act of acquiring an item or object for any of the museum’s collections. Accessioning is the formal act of legally accepting an object or objects to the category of material that a museum holds in the public trust, or, in other words, those in the museum’s permanent collection” (“Developing a Collections”). The acquisition of human remains should fit the mission of the institution. They should not be acquired, if they do not enhance the museum’s collection positively. There should be specific instructions regarding the different reasons human bodies are accessioned into the collection. Whether through informed consent or cultural resource management, this should be clearly supported in the policy.

Deaccession/Disposition

The opposite of Acquisition and Accession, this section deals with the removal of human remains from a collection and the process by which this is approved. This section is important for ensuring that all ethical issues are addressed when transferring care of collections to descendant communities or other entities. This will include provisions for repatriation required by NAGPRA, and all other repatriation efforts. Dr. Stephen Nash, curator of archaeology at the

Denver Museum of Nature and Science challenges his colleagues with three questions, “Do you curate human remains? Is it morally defensible to do so? If not, what are you doing to rectify that problem?” The Denver Museum of Nature and Science took a radical and controversial approach to the disposition of human remains who were resting in their collection with no provenance. On

October 14, 2015, the museum held a non-denominational ceremony and reburied the remains of twenty people who had been a part of the collection for decades (Nash). This method removes any chance of future affiliation and should not be used to avoid difficult stewardship decisions.

Whether a museum intends to rebury human remains without provenance or to strictly stick to the NAGPRA law as the only avenue for disposition, this section should clearly state the institution’s intentions.

For all people to successfully share authority in the interpretation of museum collections, policies and procedures must be established that adhere to the mission of the institution as well as acknowledge the diverse cultural perspectives represented in sacred and sensitive material.

According to museum consultant Moira G. Simpson, it is important to, “discard the assumptions of dominant cultures which have shaped their treatment of the human remains of minority cultures and develop new codes of practice which accept and respect alternate world views and the wishes of Indigenous people with regard to the treatment of their dead” (185). When a museum begins to share authority over human remains with Indigenous communities, respect is paramount. Allowing for consultations and transparency in the policy proves that an institution is willing to work with descendent communities when possible and take their wishes into consideration.

Loans

Museums can loan human remains for research or exhibition purposes. AAM justifies this act as, “helping museums share information with each other and the communities they serve.

This section delineates the conditions covering the temporary transfer of collection objects (not their ownership) from or to the museum” (“Developing a Collections”). If an institution allows loans of human remains, their policy should include a process for approval. Some museums may require explicit permission of the descendants or descendant community of the individual to be loaned. This section will also describe any associated fees or insurance liabilities. It is also important to include requirements for security, climate control, and access to ensure proper care while away from the loaning institution.

Objects in Custody

According to AAM, this refers to objects that have been abandoned, unclaimed, or found

(“Developing a Collections”). This may apply to museums that are actively collecting material from cultural resource management projects. Any state museum in the United States must obey the state laws regarding historic preservation. Museums acting as repositories have no choice but to temporarily house human remains from affiliated cultures while repatriation is organized. The

Arizona State Museum dedicates an entire page of its website to this subject. Being the state repository, as well as the museum affiliated with the University of Arizona, they must ensure that all the laws are precisely followed (Odegaard). This section should not only cover laws for new acquisitions, but also can be used to explain the museum’s policy on human bodies discovered in the existing collections. It may make sense to include this section in the previous section regarding disposition.

Conservation/Care

Explaining the museum’s policy on conservation can look different for osteology collections. This section should describe the storage conditions and special considerations taken for care of human remains. Besides ensuring that the highest professional standards are reached, this section should include any other special provisions an institution has in place. Conservation of collections is necessary but can sometimes be counterintuitive to a descendent community’s wishes. In 2001, a conference was held by Harvard University’s Center for the Study of World

Religions and James Pepper Henry, then Head of Repatriation at the National Museum of the

American Indian (NMAI), spoke of the challenges of managing culturally sensitive collections.

He used pest management as an example to show how collection management best practices do not always agree with Indigenous conventions. Some Native nations would prefer that insects be allowed to run the course of destruction on a sacred object, while in a museum collection pest infestation is a serious problem that could damage all organics present (108). While this would be counter intuitive to conservation in a collection management plan, it is an important distinction to make for a human remains policy.

Insurance and Risk Management

According to AAM, this is where a museum can discuss plans to minimize the risks to the collection (“Developing a Collections”). Many institutions have disaster plans and can provide links. This is a place to discuss security issues facing a collection and any related insurance policies that cover a collection in case of fire or flood. Human remains are irreplaceable and that should be noted in a policy.

Documentation/Inventory

This section according to AAM, “captures an object’s condition, history, use and value. It is how a museum maintains physical and intellectual control over its collection. Without documentation, an object has no identity” (“Developing a Collections”). This definition takes on a new meaning when it is being used to describe human remains. While the term “object” is dehumanizing, “identity” connotes that the museum knows exactly who the person was. It is important to document human remains and their associated grave goods to make sure that everything is accounted for. As mentioned in the analysis of the case studies, NAGPRA inventories require specific information gathered to the best of an institution’s ability. This includes the origin of the remains, the minimum number of individuals represented, and their associated funerary objects.

There may be associated documents for any pathological studies or invasive or non- invasive procedures that the human remains have endured. This section should explain the institution’s requirements for those documents. It would benefit the policy to have examples attached in an appendix, so that there is no question about how the museum expects this to happen.

Access

Access can refer to documentation and archival records, as well as the physical remains.

According to AAM, “Although public access to collections and collection records is generally desirable, in practice museums don’t give everyone the right to access anything at any time”

(Simmons 130). This is generally the case with access to human remains. Access must be regulated to ensure that each interaction is carried out with the proper respect. This can be dictated by the purpose of each individual collection in institutions where informed consent is

mandatory, this may include policy on gaining proper permission from descendants. Many institutions will only allow access to human remains to professionals, religious stakeholders, and family or descendants. It should be clearly explained in the policy, if an institution does not allow visitor access to certain parts of the collection. This will dictate the possibility of human remains appearing in visible storage situations in museums who choose to allow total transparency.

Appraisals

AAM suggests that there are serious ethical and legal restrictions to offering monetary advice regarding objects from the public (“Developing A Collections”). This is especially true where human remains are concerned. This section is unnecessary for a human remains policy and can be covered in the legal considerations section.

Legal Considerations

This is the section where all laws pertaining to human remains will be described and policy will be written to ensure that the museum abides by these laws. This will vary from state to state in the United States. The only law that will remain the same and should be included in every policy is NAGPRA. As a federal law, it applies to all institutions in the country who have received any type of federal funding. Many of the case studies included language regarding consultation (see fig. 1). The law should be the bare minimum a museum aims for, so the policy should dictate how an institution takes it further. According to AAM, it is also important to consider the possibility of legal ramifications of unethical employee behavior, such as selling items from the collection or restoring things without permission (“Developing a Collections”).

Intellectual Property

According to AAM, this section addresses the acquisition of copyright for accessioned objects and the adherence to intellectual property laws. It also suggests that a museum include a statement regarding the circumstances surround the photography of certain collections

(“Developing a Collections”). While AAM does not specifically say this provision is for sensitive material, this would make sense in a human remains policy. Photography of human remains in museum collections is an issue that comes with ethical considerations. While photography of the dead is considered insensitive by many professionals, it is necessary to adhere to proper conservation and research techniques (Cassman 63). An institution must include provisions in its policy for visiting scholars wishing to use photographs of human remains in publications or presentations. Many indigenous tribal representatives discourage the use of images of human remains in non-academic publications. This will also include an institutions policy on the presentation of X rays or other invasive scans.

Review and Revision

AAM recommends that any policy document be reviewed and revised often. Some institutions choose to create a schedule for revisions. This is the section of the policy where that can be noted. The case studies had a mixed approach to this section, many institutions decided it fit their institution best to revise as needed, while others reviewed policies every three or five years. This runs the risk of not having an updated policy. This section can dictate who reviews and when.

Glossary

This is the last component suggested by AAM for the potential parts of a collection management policy. For a human remains policy, this is a good place for an institution to

formally acknowledge the language that is appropriate to use regarding human remains in the collection. Many of the staff members who do not work in the collection will find this useful.

The words used to describe human remains must avoid dehumanization. According to the authors of Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions, using terms like corpse, fossil, skeleton, or cadaver infer distance between the researcher and the human remains, whereas terms like person, ancestor, relative, or individual can convey closeness (Cassman 1).

While some of these terms are appropriate for documentation, they may not be welcome at a consultation. Flexible communication can help to determine what language is appropriate in specific situations. An institution must decide its preferential terminology and clearly express it, in order to maintain consistency in care and conversation. The glossary should be a place to unpack any discipline specific jargon that is used in the policy.

Exhibition

While not specifically addressed as a separate component by AAM, the case study policies show that exhibition should be considered when writing a new policy. Exhibition is a contentious subject where human remains are concerned. This will be dictated by informed consent by any institution who chooses to incorporate this structure. Each institution must create pertinent policy to match their scope of collection and exhibition capabilities. This may limit potential incoming travelling exhibits that do not originate within a museum’s own collection to those that do not feature human remains.

Conclusion

In order to maintain consistency in the ethical stewardship of all human remains, this capstone has shown that separate considerations in the form of a policy will be the most effective way to provide a foundation for curation. The human remains policies of the case studies varied

greatly in their form and content, but ultimately, they serve the same purpose, to provide the basic guidelines an institution must follow to successfully care for the human remains in the collections. These institutions have chosen to address these sensitive collections and have formed special considerations for their continued success as repositories. Curatorial and collections professionals have taken the time to reach beyond the walls of their institutions to contribute to this capstone, showing an awareness of the need for better standards across the United States.

This capstone includes a handbook that can be found in the Appendix. It contains instructions for creating institutionally specific human remains policies for museums or other collecting facilities of any size. In an easy-to-follow format, it guides policy makers through the steps to begin drafting these documents. Just as this capstone provided examples of the potential components of a human remains policy, the handbook also explains each section in detail. In addition, the handbook contains web resources, a policy outline, links for examples of existing policies, and templates for access and inventory documentation. This capstone should be used as a steppingstone to help streamline these policies, but also to allow each institution to maintain their unique identities by adhering to their missions and visions. Every institution tasked with the stewardship of human remains needs to create a policy to ensure consistency and respect and this capstone is a great place to start.

Appendix

Handbook: “How to Create a Human Remains Policy for Museums and Collecting Institutions”

Works Cited

“About ICOM NATHIST.” International Council of Museums, www.icomnathist.com/about-us/.

Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

“About the Field Museum.” The Field Museum, www.fieldmuseum.org/about. Accessed 13 Oct

2020.

“About the Museum.” American Museum of Natural History, www.amnh.org/about.

Accessed 13 Oct 2020.

“About the Peabody Museum.” Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard

University, www.peabody.harvard.edu/about. Accessed 13 Oct 2020.

“About the Smithsonian.” Smithsonian Institute, www.si.edu/about. Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

“About Us.” Denver Museum of Nature and Science, www.dmns.org/about/about-us/. Accessed

15 Oct 2020.

Allen, Stephanie L. “Down to the Nitty-Gritty: A Case Study of Collection Policies and

Procedures in the Ethnology Department at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural

History.” Collection Forum, vol. 29, no. 1-2, 2015, pp. 37–48.

“Archaeology Program: Archaeology Laws: A Guide for Professionals” National Park Service:

US Department of the Interior. www.nps.gov/archeology/public/publicLaw.htm.

Accessed 2 Oct 2020.

American Museum of Natural History Human Remains Policy. April 2008, New York.

Billeck, Bill, PhD. Smithsonian Institute, Personal Interview. 29 Jul 2020.

Brothwell, Don R. Digging Up Bones. The British Museum, 1965.

Bruwelheide, Kari, and Owsley, Douglas. “Written in Bone: Reading the Remains of the 17th

Century.” Anthro Notes, vol. 28, no. 1, 2007, p. 8.

Cassman, Vicki, et al. Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions. AltaMira

Press, 2007.

“Decolonizing Initiatives.” San Diego Museum of Us,

www.museumofus.org/decolonizing-initiatives/. Accessed 13 Oct 2020.

Denning, Alex. Maxwell Museum, Personal Interview. 3 Aug 2020.

“Developing a Collections Management Policy Reference Guide.” American Alliance of

Museums, www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Developing-a-CMP-2018.pdf.

Accessed 2 Oct 2020.

“Fiscal Year 2018 Report.” National NAGPRA Program, 2018.

www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/reports.htm. Accessed 8 Oct 2020.

Halling, Christine L, and Seidemann, Ryan M. “They Sell Skulls Online?! A Review of Internet

Sales of Human Skulls on EBay and the Laws in Place to Restrict Sales.” Journal of

Forensic Sciences, vol. 61, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1322–1326.

Henry, James Pepper. “Challenges in Maintaining Culturally Sensitive Collections at the

National Museum of the American Indian.” Stewards of the Sacred, edited by Lawrence

E. Sullivan and Alison Edwards, American Association of Museums, 2004, pp. 105-112

Hugo, Kristin. “Human Skulls are being Sold Online, but is it Legal?” National Geographic,

23 Aug 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/08/human-skulls-sale-legal-

ebay-forensics-science/. Accessed 7 Oct 2020.

“How to Develop and Implement a New Company Policy.” Society for Human Resource

Management, www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/how-to-

/pages/howtodevelopandimplementanewcompanypolicy.aspx. Accessed 5 Oct 2020.

“ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums.” International Council of Museums. Oct. 2004

www.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf. Accessed 2

Oct 2020.

“Inventory of Human Remains.” National NAGPRA Program. 14 Oct 2020,

www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/inventories-of-human-remains.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

Kozak, Zenobia R. “The Role of University Museums and Heritage in the 21st Century.” The

Museum Review, vol. 1, no.1, 2016. http://articles.themuseumreview.org/vol1no1kozak.

Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

MacDonald, Brandie. San Diego Museum of Us, Personal Interview. 28 Aug 2020.

Mauk, Ben. “What Was the First Museum?” Live Science, 13 Jan 2013,

www.livescience.com/32400-what-was-the-first-museum.htm. Accessed 2 Oct 2020.

Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Osteology Collections Management Policy and Procedures. 1

Oct 2019, Albuquerque.

“Mission and History.” Maxwell museum of Anthropology,

www.maxwellmuseum.unm.edu/about/mission-history. Accessed 14 Oct 2020.

Mondello, Bob. “A History of Museums, ‘The Memory of Mankind.” NPR All Things

Considered. 24 Nov 2008.

Morgan, Michèle, PhD. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology of Harvard university,

Personal Interview. 3 Aug 2020.

Nash, Stephen, PhD. Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Personal Interview. 10 Sept 2020.

“Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations-Disposition of Culturally

Unidentifiable Human Remains.” Department of the Interior, 15 Mar 2010.

Odegaard, Nancy PhD. Arizona State Museum, Personal Interview. 28 Aug 2020.

“Our Collections.” Science Museum of Minnesota. www.smm.org/collections. Accessed 15 Oct

2020.

“Public Archaeology in the United States- A Timeline.” National Park Service. 6 Oct 2020,

www.nps.gov/archeology/timeline/Time1.htm. Accessed 6 Oct 2020.

Redman, Samuel J. Bone Rooms: from Scientific Racism to Human Prehistory in Museums.

Harvard University Press, 2016.

Redman, Samuel J. “When Museums Rushed to Fill Their Rooms with Bones.” Smithsonian

Magazine, 15 Mar 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-museums-rushed-fill-

their-rooms-bones-180958424/ Accessed 2 Oct 2020.

Reid, Donald M. “Indigenous Egyptology: The Decolonization of a Profession?” Journal of the

American Oriental Society, vol. 105, no. 2, 1985, pp. 233–246. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/601703. Accessed 6 Oct. 2020.

Robbins, Helen PhD and Stacey Drake PhD. Field Museum, Personal Interview. 23 July 2020.

San Diego Museum of Man Collection Management policy. 25 Jan 2017, San Diego.

Schuyler, Robert L. “The History of American Archaeology: An Examination of

Procedure.” American Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 4, 1971, pp. 383–409. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/278460. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.

Science Museum of Minnesota Collections Management Policy. 12 mar2020, St. Paul.

Simmons, John Edward. Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies. American

Alliance of Museums, 2nd ed. 2017.

Simpson, Moira G. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. Routledge,

1996.

State Burial Laws Project. American University Washington College of Law, 2019,

www.wcl.american.edu/burial/. Accessed 7 Oct 2020.

Swain, Hedley. “The Value of Human Remains in Museum Collections.” Public Archaeology,

vol. 6, no. 3, 2007, pp. 193–197.

The Texas Archeological Research Laboratory of the University of Texas at Austin.

www.liberalarts.utexas.edu/tarl/index.php. Accessed 15 Oct 2020.