DOCSLIB.ORG

Kent A. Schneider Anthropology, Archeology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kent A. Schneider Anthropology, Archeology 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 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pottery Technology As a Revealer of Cultural And
    Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis (3100–1600 BC, Western Switzerland) Eve Derenne, Vincent Ard, Marie Besse To cite this version: Eve Derenne, Vincent Ard, Marie Besse. Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis (3100–1600 BC, Western Switzerland). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Elsevier, 2020, 58, pp.101170. 10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101170. hal-03051558 HAL Id: hal-03051558 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03051558 Submitted on 10 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 58 (2020) 101170 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa Pottery technology as a revealer of cultural and symbolic shifts: Funerary and ritual practices in the Sion ‘Petit-Chasseur’ megalithic necropolis T (3100–1600 BC,
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Balkans Arthur Bankoff
    1 The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Balkans Arthur Bankoff The earlier part of the Bronze Age in temperate southeastern Europe (c. 2200– 1500 B.C.) presents a confusing picture to the unwary archaeologist. Although over the years more publications have appeared in English, German, and French, many basic site reports and syntheses are only fully available in Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, or other indigenous languages. Often the names of apparently identical archaeological cultures change with bewildering abandon as one crosses modern national borders or even moves between regions of the same country. This part of the world has a history (beginning in the mid–nineteenth century) of antiquarian collecting and detailed specialist typological studies, especially of ceramics and metal objects, with far less effort expended on the more mundane aspects of prehistoric life. Only since the 1980s have studies become available that incorporate the analysis of plant and animal material from Bronze Age sites, and these are far from the rule. To some extent, this is due to the nature of the archaeological record, that is, the sites and material that have survived from the Early and Middle Bronze Age. With the exception of habitation mounds (tells) and burial mounds (tumuli), both of which have a limited distribution in the earlier part of the Bronze Age, most sites are shallow, close to the modern ground surface, and easily disturbed. Farming and urban development has been more destructive to these sites than to the more deeply buried sites of earlier periods. The typically more dispersed settlement pattern of the Bronze Age in most of this region results in smaller sites, more vulnerable to the vagaries of history than the more concentrated nucleated sites of the later Neolithic or Eneolithic (sometimes called Copper Age) of the fifth and fourth millennia B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Adorning the Dead a Bio-Archaeological Analysis of Ochre Application to Gravettian Burials
    Adorning the Dead A Bio-Archaeological Analysis of Ochre Application to Gravettian Burials Sierra McKinney; University of Victoria ©2016 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Theoretical Orientation ...................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 5 History of Ochre Use: ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Gravettian Burials and the Archaeology Record: .................................................................................. 6 Methods of Ochre Application ...................................................................................................................... 8 Established Gravettian Regional Variation: ......................................................................................... 11 Material and Methodology ............................................................................................................... 14 Burial Database .............................................................................................................................................. 14 GIS Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 18 October 2018 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Caswell, E. and Roberts, B.W. (2018) 'Reassessing community cemeteries : cremation burials in Britain during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 16001150 cal BC).', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society., 84 . pp. 329-357. Further information on publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2018.9 Publisher's copyright statement: c The Prehistoric Society 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, page 1 of 29 © The Prehistoric Society. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis
    THE GRAVE GOODS OF ROMAN HIERAPOLIS AN ANALYSIS OF THE FINDS FROM FOUR MULTIPLE BURIAL TOMBS Hallvard Indgjerd Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History University of Oslo This thesis is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts June 2014 The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis ABSTRACT The Hellenistic and Roman city of Hierapolis in Phrygia, South-Western Asia Minor, boasts one of the largest necropoleis known from the Roman world. While the grave monuments have seen long-lasting interest, few funerary contexts have been subject to excavation and publication. The present study analyses the artefact finds from four tombs, investigating the context of grave gifts and funerary practices with focus on the Roman imperial period. It considers to what extent the finds influence and reflect varying identities of Hierapolitan individuals over time. Combined, the tombs use cover more than 1500 years, paralleling the life-span of the city itself. Although the material is far too small to give a conclusive view of funerary assem- blages in Hierapolis, the attempted close study and contextual integration of the objects does yield some results with implications for further studies of funerary contexts on the site and in the wider region. The use of standard grave goods items, such as unguentaria, lamps and coins, is found to peak in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Clay unguentaria were used alongside glass ones more than a century longer than what is usually seen outside of Asia Minor, and this period saw the development of new forms, partially resembling Hellenistic types. Some burials did not include any grave gifts, and none were extraordinarily rich, pointing towards a standardised, minimalistic set of funerary objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Grave Goods, Hoards and Deposits ‘In Between’I
    Spectrums of depositional practice in later prehistoric Britain and beyond: grave goods, hoards and deposits ‘in between’i Anwen Cooper, Duncan Garrow and Catriona Gibson Paper accepted for publication in Archaeological Dialogues 27(2), Dec 2020 Abstract This paper critically evaluates how archaeologists define ‘grave goods’ in relation to the full spectrum of depositional contexts available to people in the past, including hoards, rivers and other ‘special’ deposits. Developing the argument that variations in artefact deposition over time and space can only be understood if different ‘types’ of finds location are considered together holistically, we contend that it is also vital to look at the points where traditionally defined contexts of deposition become blurred into one another. In this paper, we investigate one particular such category – body-less object deposits at funerary sites – in later prehistoric Britain. This category of evidence has never previously been analysed collectively, let alone over the extended time period considered here. On the basis of a substantial body of evidence collected as part of a nationwide survey, we demonstrate that body-less object deposits were a significant component of funerary sites during later prehistory. Consequently, we go on to question whether human remains were actually always a necessary element of funerary deposits for prehistoric people, suggesting that the absence of human bone could be a positive attribute rather than simply a negative outcome of taphonomic processes. We also argue that modern, fixed depositional categories sometimes serve to mask a full understanding of the complex realities of past practice and ask whether it might be productive in some instances to move beyond interpretatively confining terms such as ‘grave’, ‘hoard’ and ‘cenotaph’.
    [Show full text]
  • Burial and Identity in the Late Neolithic And
    Burial and identity in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age of south-east Europe Susan Stratton Thesis submitted in candidature for the degree of PhD Cardiff University March 2016 CONTENTS List of figures…………………………………………………………………………7 List of tables………………………………………………………………………….14 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 16 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 17 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 18 2 Archaeological study of mortuary practice ........................................................................... 22 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Culture history ................................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Status and hierarchy – the processualist preoccupations ............................................ 26 2.4 Post-processualists and messy human relationships .................................................... 36 2.5 Feminism and the emergence of gender archaeology .................................................. 43 2.6 Personhood, identity and memory ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic England – Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds
    Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary Historic England’s Introductions to Heritage Assets (IHAs) are accessible, authoritative, illustrated summaries of what we know about specific types of archaeological site, building, landscape or marine asset. Typically they deal with subjects which have previously lacked such a published summary, either because the literature is dauntingly voluminous, or alternatively where little has been written. Most often it is the latter, and many IHAs bring understanding of site or building types which are neglected or little understood. This IHA provides an introduction to prehistoric barrows and burial mounds - mounds of earth and/or stone of various shapes and sizes that are characteristic earthwork monuments of the prehistoric periods from about 5,800 until 3,400 years ago (3800-1400 BC). A small number are later, the practice ending around AD 800. While barrows are often isolated, many occur in groups, sometimes of just two or three, but occasionally of up to thirty or more. Groups of barrows are sometimes found in association with other monuments that are also often assumed to have served a ceremonial or ritual purpose during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. A list of in-depth sources on the topic is suggested for further reading. This document has been prepared by Dave Field and edited by Joe Flatman, Pete Herring and David McOmish. It is one of a series of 41 documents. This edition published by Historic England October 2018. All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated. Please refer to this document as: Historic England 2018 Prehistoric Barrows and Burial Mounds: Introductions to Heritage Assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Britain
    Prehistoric Britain Plated disc brooch Kent, England Late 6th or early 7th century AD Bronze boars from the Hounslow Hoard 1st century BC-1st century AD Hounslow, Middlesex, England Visit resource for teachers Key Stage 2 Prehistoric Britain Contents Before your visit Background information Resources Gallery information Preliminary activities During your visit Gallery activities: introduction for teachers Gallery activities: briefings for adult helpers Gallery activity: Neolithic mystery objects Gallery activity: Looking good in the Neolithic Gallery activity: Neolithic farmers Gallery activity: Bronze Age pot Gallery activity: Iron Age design Gallery activity: An Iron Age hoard After your visit Follow-up activities Prehistoric Britain Before your visit Prehistoric Britain Before your visit Background information Prehistoric Britain Archaeologists and historians use the term ‘Prehistory’ to refer to a time in a people’s history before they used a written language. In Britain the term Prehistory refers to the period before Britain became part of the Roman empire in AD 43. The prehistoric period in Britain lasted for hundreds of thousands of years and this long period of time is usually divided into: Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic (sometimes these three periods are combined and called the Stone Age), Bronze Age and Iron Age. Each of these periods might also be sub-divided into early, middle and late. The Palaeolithic is often divided into lower, middle and upper. Early Britain British Isles: Humans probably first arrived in Britain around 800,000 BC. These early inhabitants had to cope with extreme environmental changes and they left Britain at least seven times when conditions became too bad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Yamnaya Impact North of the Lower Danube: a Tale of Newcomers and Locals, Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Française, 117, 1, P
    Preda-Bǎlǎnicǎ B., Frînculeasa A., Heyd V. (2020) – The Yamnaya Impact North of the Lower Danube: A Tale of Newcomers and Locals, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 117, 1, p. 85-101. The Yamnaya Impact North of the Lower Danube A Tale of Newcomers and Locals Bianca Preda-Bal ˘ anic ˘ a, ˘ Alin Frînculeasa, Volker Heyd Abstract: This paper aims to provide an overview of the current understanding in Yamnaya burials from north of the Lower Danube, particularly focussing on their relationship with supposed local archaeological cultures/socie- ties. Departing from a decades-long research history and latest archaeological finds from Romania, it addresses key research basics on the funerary archaeology of their kurgans and burials; their material culture and chronology; on steppe predecessors and Katakombnaya successors; and links with neighbouring regions as well as the wider southeast European context. Taking into account some reflections from latest ancient DNA revelations, there can be no doubt a substantial migration has taken place around 3000 BC, with Yamnaya populations originating from the Caspian-Pontic steppe pushing westwards. However already the question if such accounts for the term of ’Mass Migrations’ cannot be satisfactorily answered, as we are only about to begin to understand the demographics in this process. A further complication is trying to assess who is a newcomer and who is a local in an interaction scenario that lasts for c. 500 years. Identities are not fixed, may indeed transform, as previous newcomers soon turn into locals, while others are just visitors. Nevertheless, this well-researched region of geographical transition from lowland eas- tern Europe to the hillier parts of temperate Europe provides an ideal starting point to address such questions, being currently also at the heart of the intense discussion about what is identity in the context of the emerging relationship of Archaeology and Genetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Views of Wealth, a Wealth of Views: Grave Goods in Iron Age Attica
    Views of Wealth, a Wealth of Views: Grave Goods in Iron Age Attica Susan Langdon University of Missouri Introduction Connections between women and property in ancient Greece have more often been approached through literary sources than through material remains. Like texts, archaeology presents its own interpretive challenges, and the difficulty of finding pertinent evidence can be compounded by fundamental issues of context and interpretation. Simply identifying certain objects can be problematic. A case in point is the well-known terracotta chest buried ca. 850 BC in the so-called tomb of the Rich Athenian Lady in the Athenian Agora. The lid of the chest carries a set of five model granaries. Out of the ground for thirty-five years, this little masterpiece has figured in discussions of Athenian society, politics, and history. Its prominence in scholarly imagination derives from the suggestion made by its initial commentator, Evelyn Lord Smithson: “If one can put any faith in Aristotle’s statement (Ath. Pol. 3.1) that before Drakon’s time officials were chosen aristinden kai ploutinden [by birth and wealth], property qualifications, however rudimentary, must have existed. Five symbolic measures of grain might have been a boastful reminder that, as everyone knew, the dead lady belonged to the highest propertied class, and that her husband, and surely her father, as a pentakosiomedimnos, had been eligible to serve his community as basileus, polemarch or archon.” The chest, she suggested, symbolized the woman’s dowry.1 Recent studies have thrown cold water on this interpretation from different standpoints.2 As ingenious as it is, the theory rests on modern assumptions regarding politics, social organization, inheritance patterns, mortuary custom, and gender that need individual consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • 14 from Grave Goods to Democratic Ownership, an Engraving of The
    14 From Grave Goods to Democratic Ownership, an Engraving of the Trebbia Tomb and the Hamilton Vase Geoffrey Stone Abstract: This paper provides a case study of two objects, an ancient vase and an engraving illustrating the opening of an Etruscan tomb dating to the third century BCE. Both illustrate the reception of antiquity into the modern world and, in parallel, this essay contextualises them. Grave goods in the Trebbia Tomb date from circa 420 BCE while the Hamilton Vase was created some 75 years later. The creation of the artefacts and the nexus of trade and culture between the Greeks and Etruscans are examined. The means of accessing vases from antiquity in the eighteenth century CE is explored, whilst a detailed examination of the two artefacts demonstrates their symbiosis. It concludes by exploring the changing values ascribed to the Hamilton Vase and the Trebbia tomb through a 2,400 year period. __________________________________________________________________________ The art historian, Sir E.H. Gombrich (1901-2001) wrote that: We cannot write the history of art without taking account of the changing functions assigned to the visual image in different societies and different cultures1 This paper considers Gombrich’s observation in relation to the two artefacts. It is multidisciplinary and, whilst retaining the focus on the two objects shown as Figures 1 and 2, it encompasses ancient technology, art history, religious belief, the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and the rise of the democratic museum. Figure 1: (above) The engraving of the opening of an Etruscan tomb at Trebbia from d’Hancarville’s “Antiquités étrusques, grecques et romaines” (1766–67).
    [Show full text]