Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton

M. Anne Katzenberg, Anne L. Grauer, M. Anne Katzenberg, Anne L. Grauer

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781119151630
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Antropologia fisica

An Indispensable Resource on Advanced Methods of Analysis of Human Skeletal and Dental Remains in Archaeological and Forensic Contexts

Now in its third edition, Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton has become a key reference for bioarchaeologists, human osteologists, and paleopathologists throughout the world. It builds upon basic skills to provide the foundation for advanced scientific analyses of human skeletal remains in cultural, archaeological, and theoretical contexts.

This new edition features updated coverage of topics including histomorphometry, dental morphology, stable isotope methods, and ancient DNA, as well as a number of new chapters on paleopathology. It also covers bioarchaeological ethics, taphonomy and the nature of archaeological assemblages, biomechanical analyses of archaeological human skeletons, and more.

• Fully updated and revised with new material written by leading researchers in the field
• Includes many case studies to demonstrate application of methods of analysis
• Offers valuable information on contexts, methods, applications, promises, and pitfalls

Covering the latest advanced methods and techniques for analyzing skeletal and dental remains from archaeological discoveries, Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton is a trusted text for advanced undergraduates, graduate students, and professionals in human osteology, bioarchaeology, and paleopathology.

PART I
THEORY AND APPLICATION IN STUDIES OF PAST PEOPLES

CHAPTER 1
BIOARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHICS: PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE AND VALUE OF HUMAN REMAINS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

PATRICIA M. LAMBERT and PHILLIP L. WALKER

In the first and second editions, this chapter was prepared by PLW. In the current edition the chapter has been revised and updated by PML.

INTRODUCTION

The rapidity of technological and cultural change in current times is forcing us to confront a myriad of moral dilemmas over issues as wide ranging as the ethics of human tissue donation (Hamdy 2016), the ownership of our genetic material, the meaning and limits of “informed consent” in relation to stored biological samples (Radin 2015; Smith‐Morris 2007), the ethical use of social media (Gray 2017), and the rights of animals relative to those of humans. These ethical issues concern the very nature of what it means to be human and our relationships, not only to other people, but also to the plants and animals that sustain us. In bioarchaeology, we confront many of the same ethical issues found in medicine and other fields involving human subjects because we work with the remains of once‐living people, and with their living descendants. Added to these are ethical issues associated with the collection, handling, and curation of the remains of the dead, primarily emerging from differing value systems concerning concepts of death and the afterlife, appropriate treatment of the dead, and the nature of the relationship between the living and the dead. These are the ethical dilemmas we must be mindful of and prepared to deal with as we pursue our studies of human skeletal remains.

The enormous strides we have taken toward human equality in the last century mean that formerly disenfranchised and enslaved members of minority groups have begun to gain power and control over their lives. In many countries there has been a decline in the political dominance and moral authority of organized religions. Notions of multiculturalism and a growing acceptance of the moral principle of not discriminating against people based on gender, ethnicity, or religious beliefs mean that there is no longer a predominant set of cultural values we can use to guide us in dealing with moral issues (Cottingham 1994). In this context, the growing recognition of differing belief systems about the dead has raised important questions concerning the treatment of human skeletal remains, especially those from archaeological contexts.

The increased tolerance of cultural diversity poses ethical dilemmas because, as the range of value systems and religious beliefs that are considered socially acceptable increases, so does the probability of social conflict. To deal with these issues, many scientific associations have begun to reevaluate the ethical principles that underlie their research activities. Ethics in bioarchaeology are especially problematic because the field is positioned between medicine, with its ethical focus on the generation of scientific knowledge that is helpful to individual patients, and anthropology, with its ethical principles shaped both by a deep belief in the power of cultural relativism to overcome ethnocentrism, and profound commitment to the preservation of our collective human past.

It is in this context that skeletal biologists are increasingly required to adapt their activities to the value systems of the descendants of the people they study. Human skeletal remains are more than biological materials of value for scientific research. For many people, they also are the subject matter of religious veneration of great symbolic and cultural significance (Sadongei and Cash Cash 2007). Over the past thirty years, formerly disenfranchised groups such as Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have increasingly been able to assert their claims of moral authority to control the disposition of both the remains of their ancestors and the land their ancestors occupied (Howitt 1998; Lambert 2012; Scott 1996; Walker 2004). This trend toward repatriating museum collections and granting land rights to indigenous peoples is most readily understood within a broader social and historical context.

To provide this historical perspective, we describe the evolution of religious beliefs about the proper treatment of the dead and the conflicts that have arisen over the centuries between these beliefs and the value scientists place on the empirical information that can be gained through research on human remains. This is followed by a discussion of the generally accepted ethical principles that have emerged in recent years in the field of bioarchaeology. Finally, some practical suggestions are offered for dealing with conflicts that arise when these ethical principles are at odds with those of descendant groups.

THE HISTORY OF BELIEFS ABOUT THE DEAD

Early in the history of our lineage, ancestral humans began to develop a keen interest in the remains of their dead kinsmen. At first this was likely simply a response to the practical considerations of removing the decaying remains of a dead relative from one’s domicile or preventing scavengers from consuming their body. More elaborate patterns of mortuary behavior soon began to develop. Cut marks on the crania of some of the earliest members of our species, for example, show that as early as 600,000 years ago people living at the Bodo site in Ethiopia were defleshing the heads of the dead (White 1986). It has been suggested that such practices reflect a widespread belief among our ancestors concerning the role of the brain in reproduction (La Barre 1984).

By 50,000–100,000 years ago, mortuary practices had evolved into elaborate rituals that involved painting bodies with red ochre and including food or animal remains with the body as offerings (Mayer et al. 2009). Through time these cultural practices became associated with increasingly complex religious beliefs that helped people cope with the uncertainties of death. Depositing utilitarian items and valuables such as ornaments in graves became commonplace in the Upper Paleolithic period. Such practices suggest continued use of these items was anticipated in the afterlife (Giocabini 2007). Expressions of such beliefs can be found in some of the earliest surviving religious texts. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, for instance, provides spells and elaborate directions for use by the souls of the deceased during their journeys in the land of the dead (Allen 1960; Ellis N. 1996).

The belief that the soul persists in an afterworld has deep roots in Western religious traditions. The ancient Greeks held elaborate funeral rituals to help a dead person’s soul find its way across the River Styx to a community of souls in the underworld. Once in the underworld there was continued communion between the living and the dead. For example, the soul of a dead person could be reborn in a new body if their living family members continued to attend to their needs by bringing them honey cakes and other special foods on ceremonial occasions (Barber 1988). By medieval times most people continued to view death as a semi‐permanent state in which the living and the spirit of the dead person could maintain contact with each other. Folktales about ghosts and corpses coming to life were widespread and contributed to the idea of the dead functioning in society with the living (Barber 1988; Caciola 1996). The issue of the integrity of the corpse and its importance to the afterlife dominated medieval discussions of the body: salvation became equated with wholeness, and hell with decay and partition of the body (Bynum 1995:114).

After the Reformation, conservative Protestant groups continued to emphasize the profound significance of a person’s physical remains after death. In fact, one of the more troublesome issues facing Protestant reformers after the abolition of purgatory in the early sixteenth century was the need to provide a rational explanation for the status of the body and soul in the period intervening between death and resurrection (Spell...