KENT A. SCHNEIDER

ANTHROPOLOGY, ARCHEOLOGY, AND TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS

INTRODUCTION

It simply did not occur to me during my graduate training that I should consult American Indians before I excavated a site. And, I suspect that most of my southeastern United States colleagues are guilty of the same sin of omission. We excavated burial mounds and villages in the quest for knowledge, never intending to desecrate graves. So, when American Indians Against Desecration came to my office some twenty years later, demanding that the Forest Service cease and desist in the excavation and removal of human skeletal remains and artifacts, I was shocked! Why? I thought to myself. After all, I am an archaeologist and digging sites is the business of archaeology! How could we continue studying the changes in man's body, the diseases that afflicted him and the culture of these ancient societies without excavation! So began the transformation in my thinking about what archeology is all about and the role of the USDA Forest Service in its heritage preservation and management mission. This is the point of my paper today, archaeology and the treatment of the dead. I am uncertain what the impact of excavating human remains and associated grave goods has in the Caribbean basin, but I can assure you that elsewhere in the world the rights of the deceased of any age have assumed immense proportions in the politics of heritage management. In the United States, there are currently four bills before Congress (our law-making body) on human remains, any one of which if passed, will change the shape of archaeology as we know it today. These Bills, and the thinking behind them, challenges our 'right' as scientists to investigate grave sites. Our own thinking and behavior with regard to the deceased is being challenged and we've got to make changes within our profession. This is our choice. If we fail to do so, laws will be passed that make these changes for us. I want you to be aware.

HUMAN REMAINS POLICY IN TWO FOREST SERVICE REGIONS

I listened to Jan Hammil, Director of American Indians Against Desecration (AIAD). Her complaint was that we were displaying an indian body for interpretive purposes at Blanchard Caverns in Arkansas. She was correct. Indeed, at the Caverns we have a visitor center and on display were human skeletal remains and grave goods neatly exhibited for the public. The skeletal remains were of an indian who had wandered into the limestone caverns some several hundred years ago, got lost, couldn't get out, and there he died. We thought this was an interesting story, but we did not ask any descendants of that indian if such a story was appropriate. We did not question if using the actual human remains for display purposes was appropriate. At Director Hammil's request, we removed the display. And, we did

882 much more than that...... We listened to AIAD, to National Congress of American Indians, and to tribal leaders throughout the United States. We learned much about the culture of the American Indian from these living descendants. It was as if a large piece of the archeological puzzle had been discovered. And, we could kick ourselves for previously overlooking the customs and strong beliefs that link this culture with their ancestors. Working with colleagues throughout the eastern portion of the United States, we wrote and enacted a Treatment of Human Remains Policy which has sweeping effects on how we do business with regard to human remains. I want to share this with you today. Our policy states that all human remains, regardless of age or cultural affiliation, when this can be identified, will be treated with dignity and respect. The policy is based on the premises that include: 1. The values and concerns of all constituencies about the disposition of human remains on National Forest land will be considered when making land management decisions; 2. Preservation of human remains, in place, is the preferred management style. 3. Reinterment is appropriate when human remains must be moved because of a land management project. 4. Some level of analysis is appropriate when human remains are encountered. 5. In most instances, the Forest Service will bear the cost of analysis and reinterment. In the eastern portion of the United States, we manage about 30 million acres of land spread over 29 states. Each National Forest unit, about one per state, has written Action Plans which describe what will be done when human remains and associated grave goods are encountered. In addition to the Action Plans, each Forest unit has formed ad hoc groups who are consulted on a case-by-case basis when human remains are found. These ad hoc groups are made up of persons who have historical ties to the land, so each group includes American Indians, and, where appropriate, Blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic peoples.

ACTION PLANS

A typical Action Plan reads as follows: When human remains and associated grave goods are encountered during the normal course of Forest service business, any one of the following actions may occur as selected by the ad hoc group and approved by the Forest administrator: 1. No action. Leave the burial in place and move the project. This means timber sales, roads, watersheds or other impacting projects will be cancelled. 2. Recovery, no analysis, and reinterment. Because some people feel that analysis of human remains is desecration, this alternative is provided. Human remains will be taken out by an archaeologist and moved to an alternate location so the impacting project may proceed.

883 3. Recovery, analysis and reinterment This alternative provides for removal of human remains and associated grave goods, study by a qualified physical anthropologist or mortuary specialist, and reinterment at an alternate location. Specific time frames for analysis are required so that remains do not sit on shelves for years without study. 4. Recovery, analysis, and curation. This alternative may be selected when there is a compelling reason to analyze human remains and associated grave goods. Curation may be done but will be negotiated. The preference is reinterment at some specified future time.

DISCUSSION

Some of my colleagues have real problems with this Policy and the action items. They say it conflicts with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), which says human remains are archaeological specimens. They say the policy puts structures on mortuary research. They say it takes away certain digging rights which have always been the prerogative of the archeologist. I want you to consider the validity of these claims. I simply can't imagine that it was the intent of the Congress to give to archaeologists the exclusive right to dig up human remains and study and curate them. Human remains are not 'ours' to study. If we want access to them, we need to leam to negotiate for such access and whatever strictures that might entail in our scientific research. For those who fear whatever changes limited access to human skeletal remains may bring, let me remind them that we ar anthropologists and as such should be good listeners, skilled communicators and above all treat all people with dignity and respect.

884