21st October 2005, 12:11 PM
To stick to Snipey`s thread...
I find it incredulous that universities working abroad seem to view Human remains as a negligable artefact category and seem blissfully unaware of just how much such studies can enhance research designs and pose new and largely unpredicted questions. There does seem to be something of a cultural/political element to the varied ethical stance on Human remains abroad-just how we begin to approach this is an interesting question in itself. I would argue (and I think this may be the main thrust of Snipey`s point) that as European archaeologists, we already have standards and guidelines in place and when working abroad-we should have no excuse for abandoning our codes of practise simply because the host nation allows for it. Quite the contrary, without arrogance/imperialism/malice or ill-will, surely we should be encouraging the adoption of ethical treatment of Human remains abroad through example. Political/cultural dimensions aside-surely, by demonstrating the research potential of osteo studies within an archaeological/anthropological framework-would`nt ethical/professional standards follow as a logical progression? I`ve seen some hideous practises/assumptions relating to the treatment/storage of skeletal remains abroad and so far, without exception, those responsible have been European and non-European universities indulging in their jollies.Anyone from the British Association of Bioanthropology and Osteoarchaeology care to join our dialogue here? EAA members? INFORCE? There are oodles of forensic and osteo types out there with much more to offer than little old me on this issue....what do you think?
I find it incredulous that universities working abroad seem to view Human remains as a negligable artefact category and seem blissfully unaware of just how much such studies can enhance research designs and pose new and largely unpredicted questions. There does seem to be something of a cultural/political element to the varied ethical stance on Human remains abroad-just how we begin to approach this is an interesting question in itself. I would argue (and I think this may be the main thrust of Snipey`s point) that as European archaeologists, we already have standards and guidelines in place and when working abroad-we should have no excuse for abandoning our codes of practise simply because the host nation allows for it. Quite the contrary, without arrogance/imperialism/malice or ill-will, surely we should be encouraging the adoption of ethical treatment of Human remains abroad through example. Political/cultural dimensions aside-surely, by demonstrating the research potential of osteo studies within an archaeological/anthropological framework-would`nt ethical/professional standards follow as a logical progression? I`ve seen some hideous practises/assumptions relating to the treatment/storage of skeletal remains abroad and so far, without exception, those responsible have been European and non-European universities indulging in their jollies.Anyone from the British Association of Bioanthropology and Osteoarchaeology care to join our dialogue here? EAA members? INFORCE? There are oodles of forensic and osteo types out there with much more to offer than little old me on this issue....what do you think?