Discussion of Ethics in Archaeology in Context of Damage on Highland Beach and Margate Blount Remains

Nathaniel A. Hevenstone

In 1996, the Principles of Archaeological Ethics were developed and accepted as issues surrounding the practice of Archaeology began to surface. Archaeologists started to become “in demand” in professions outside of academia. This precipitated a need for ethical guidelines outlining how artifacts and corpses should be treated and used. Only five years before, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed into law in the United States, with numerous revisions since. These measures were intended to protect history and create an expectation of respect for the dead. Are these acts enough, or are more guidelines required to ensure the protection of remains found at archaeological sites?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have been trying to figure out a universal standard of ethics for a long time, over how we treat each other and how we treat the dead. Different cultures have different ideas about ethics. This can often cause a clash in how two or more cultures interact with each other, especially over the unearthing of human remains. This is because different cultures will have different ways of treating human remains, based upon their own beliefs and their ideas of what constitutes respect for the dead.

One of the smaller side-effects of digging up human remains comes from damage from the tools used to do the digging. The skulls of both the Highland Beach population and, to a lesser extent, the Margate Blount populations, housed at Florida Atlantic University, show potential evidence of this damage. It raises the question of whether some amount of damage is inevitable, or whether more steps can be taking to ensure the proper handling and care of the bones retrieved at a dig. Then, of course, it must be decided what to do with those bones after they are exhumed. Do we study them and place them in a museum, or do we return those remains back to the earth?

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Antiquities Act. It was the first law designed to protect the lands and resources owned by the United States, as well as establish a national historic preservation policy. It established penalties for unauthorized excavation of a site on US land, and instituted a set of guidelines for the proper care and handling of resources, artifacts, and human remains found at different Archaeology and held in museums. Then, in 1935, the Historic Sites Act was signed into law, enforcing the preservation of so-called “historic sites”, determined by the Secretary of the Interior to have Archaeological significance. Following that, in 1960, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act was signed into law. This made the federal agencies set up by the previous acts in the United States responsible for minimizing the damage caused at archaeological sites within the US. Then, in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act was signed into law. This act created the National Register of Historic Places, where archaeological sites can be registered to be granted additional federal protections.

With these laws in place in the United States, the spotlight turned on the rest of the world. The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970, adopted by the United Nations in November 1970 at the 16 th session of UNESCO in Paris, started protecting cultures worldwide. This convention made it illegal to import, export, or transfer ownership of cultural property without following the guidelines set forth in the convention. It also established a list of guidelines for the creation of national services within each

country to regulate and protect historical and archaeological landmarks and sites according to the convention.

This helped to keep the debate over archaeological ethics going in the United States, and in 1979, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act became law. This act was necessitated by the continuing destruction of archaeological sites by digs run by these federal agencies and largely caused by the sites’ commercial attractiveness. It established that these sites and digs are part of the Nation’s heritage, and they are protected by stronger guidelines to ensure their safety from commercial interests.

The question of ethics in Archaeology took a turn in 1990 when it became focused on the sites of Native American burials and lands. To address the issue directly, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was signed into law. This specifically addressed Native American burial digs, and set special protections for Native American cultural patrimony objects, sacred objects, funerary objects, and human remains. It outlined penalties for the illegal trafficking of artifacts and remains found at any archaeological site, and forced any and all public museums to do inventory on their holdings in order to make it easier for federal agencies and native tribes to work together in identifying and returning human remains and burial objects to those tribes. Also in 1990, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections Act was signed into law. This established the guidelines for curating, preserving, and protecting archaeological collections.

Finally, in 1996, the Society for American Archaeology adopted the Principles of Archaeological Ethics. These ethical guidelines set up rules in stewardship, accountability, commercialization, public education and outreach, intellectual property, public reporting and publication, records and preservation, and training and resources. It recognizes the destructive nature of archaeological digs, as well as the extra destructive layer of the commercialization of such, and so insists on a code of conduct at each dig and how artifacts and remains are to be treated when unearthed.

At Florida Atlantic University, we have a number of populations dug up and brought to the school. The skulls from two of those collections, one from Highland Beach and the other from Margate Blount, as I’ve already mentioned, show potential damage from the digs. In this paper, I look at that damage and determine whether or not the current ethical guidelines and laws in place are the best protection available, and if such damage is even avoidable.

2

Methods and Observations

I started by observing the skulls of the Highland Beach population. I found, on nearly all of them, minor to major nicks and cracks. I was unable to determine exactly what caused these, although they appear to be more artificial than natural.

Starting with NN4 – 1 HB:

While not major, these chips and scratches appear to be the result of trowels or perhaps cleaning tools. They probably occurred either when they were being dug up or when they were being cleaned of dirt and mud.

Next is NN4 – 2 HB:

Figure 4

Here we see a scratch (top) and a chip creating a hole (bottom). The hole itself may simply be a result of natural damage, but the chip itself again appears artificial. Like with all the scratches, this may be caused by cleaning. The chip, however, does appear to be a consequence of the dig.

3

Figure 1 - Left parietal Figure 2 - Frontal, right, along coronal suture

Figure 3 - Occipital

And here we have NN4 - 3 HB:

The damage in figure 5 appears to be damage from the dig, because of the direction of the surrounding area of the hole (pointing down in), which suggests that something pushed its way in. In figure 6, we have another scratch, possibly, again, caused by cleaning.

NN4 – 5 HB seems to have been picked at:

In this case, the damage might be natural, especially in figure 8, where the placement could suggest a small wormian bone that’s been lost. But they do appear to be holes perhaps from the edge of a shovel or the tip of a trowel or a cleaning tool.

4

Figure 5 - Right parietal, just above temporal

Figure 6 - Right parietal, near top, just above the frontal

Figure 7 - Frontal, right, near temporal Figure 8 - Parietal, back, along the sagittal suture

NN4 – 8 HB is a little more ambiguous, because of the nature of the damage:

The two scrapes (top and middle) are probably from cleaning. The hole at the top (which may have been a wormian bone), and the bottom point, where bones has clearly cracked off, are both probably the result of natural wear and tear after burial over the time it was buried. The hole at the bottom left, however, may be another one caused by a trowel or cleaning tool.

NN4 – 9 HB is, like NN4 – 8 HB, an already very damaged skull, so it was in fact quite hard to tell what damage was natural and what damage was human-caused.

Although I’m sure the scrapes and chips are artificial, the hole near the bottom-center-left of figure 10 may very well simply be the broken bone having worn down, thus creating a hole where the pieces were glued back together.

At least a couple of the Margate Blount skulls, specifically MB 1 and MB 2, appear to be in much better condition. However, they also exhibit some, if minimal, seemingly human-caused damage.

5

Figure 9 - Frontal

Figure 10 Figure 11

Figure 12 - MB 1 right parietal/temporal

You can see a scrape or chip in figure 12, probably from cleaning, but this seems to be the extant of human-caused damage to MB 1, with everything else likely a cause of natural, post-burial damage.

The damage on MB 2 all appears to be natural, with the exception of a possible nick on the back of the skull, on the occipital.

Now, that these examples of damage are human-caused is at least partly speculation, based upon a basic understanding of what damage from tools and other mishandling of fragile items can look like. These could also be more natural marks, caused by predations or wearing down of the bone during the time it was buried. However, the shape of the highlighted holes and the color of the highlighted scrapes and chips does suggest more human-caused damage.

6

Historical Outline

Listed below are the Principles of Archaeological Ethics, adopted by the Society for American Archaeology on April 10, 1996. They represent about five years’ worth of study, research, and work in putting these together.

Principle No. 1:StewardshipThe archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record. Stewards are both caretakers of and advocates for the archaeological record for the benefit of all people; as they investigate and interpret the record, they should use the specialized knowledge they gain to promote public understanding and support for its long-term preservation.

Principle No. 2:AccountabilityResponsible archaeological research, including all levels of professional activity, requires an acknowledgment of public accountability and a commitment to make every reasonable effort, in good faith, to consult actively with affected group(s), with the goal of establishing a working relationship that can be beneficial to all parties involved.

Principle No. 3:CommercializationThe Society for American Archaeology has long recognized that the buying and selling of objects out of archaeological context is contributing to the destruction of the archaeological record on the American continents and around the world. The commercialization of archaeological objects - their use as commodities to be exploited for personal enjoyment or profit - results in the destruction of archaeological sites and of contextual information that is essential to understanding the archaeological record. Archaeologists should therefore carefully weigh the benefits to scholarship of a project against the costs of potentially enhancing the commercial value of archaeological objects. Whenever possible they should discourage, and should themselves avoid, activities that enhance the commercial value of archaeological objects, especially objects that are not curated in public institutions, or readily available for scientific study, public interpretation, and display.

Principle No. 4:Public Education and OutreachArchaeologists should reach out to, and participate in cooperative

7

efforts with others interested in the archaeological record with the aim of improving the preservation, protection, and interpretation of the record. In particular, archaeologists should undertake to: 1) enlist public support for the stewardship of the archaeological record; 2) explain and promote the use of archaeological methods and techniques in understanding human behavior and culture; and 3) communicate archaeological interpretations of the past. Many publics exist for archaeology including students and teachers; Native Americans and other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups who find in the archaeological record important aspects of their cultural heritage; lawmakers and government officials; reporters, journalists, and others involved in the media; and the general public. Archaeologists who are unable to undertake public education and outreach directly should encourage and support the efforts of others in these activities.

Principle No. 5:Intellectual PropertyIntellectual property, as contained in the knowledge and documents created through the study of archaeological resources, is part of the archaeological record. As such it should be treated in accord with the principles of stewardship rather than as a matter of personal possession. If there is a compelling reason, and no legal restrictions or strong countervailing interests, a researcher may have primary access to original materials and documents for a limited and reasonable time, after which these materials and documents must be made available to others.

Principle No. 6:Public Reporting and PublicationWithin a reasonable time, the knowledge archaeologists gain from investigation of the archaeological record must be presented in accessible form (through publication or other means) to as wide a range of interested publics as possible. The documents and materials on which publication and other forms of public reporting are based should be deposited in a suitable place for permanent safekeeping. An interest in preserving and protecting in situ archaeological sites must be taken in to account when publishing and distributing information about their nature and location.

Principle No. 7:Records and PreservationArchaeologists should work actively for the preservation of, and long term access to, archaeological collections, records, and reports. To this end, they should encourage colleagues, students, and others to make responsible use of collections, records, and reports in their research as one means of preserving the in situ archaeological record, and of

8

increasing the care and attention given to that portion of the archaeological record which has been removed and incorporated into archaeological collections, records, and reports.

Principle No. 8:Training and ResourcesGiven the destructive nature of most archaeological investigations, archaeologists must ensure that they have adequate training, experience, facilities, and other support necessary to conduct any program of research they initiate in a manner consistent with the foregoing principles and contemporary standards of professional practice.

("Society for American Archaeology Principles of Archaeological Ethics", 1996)

This is part of the long effort to instill a sense of ethics at archaeological digs, to ensure the protection of cultural items and bodies. But it begins way back. The pursuit of an ethical framework for science is as old as science itself. But a codified set of ethics for archaeology really began in 1906, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Antiquities Act. Its main purpose was giving the President the ability to use the powers of Presidential Proclamation to restrict the usage of public lands and create national parks.

Section 1Any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Section 2The President of the United States is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected. When such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby

9

authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in [sic] behalf of the Government of the United States.

(Antiquities Act, 1906)

Now the President had the power to identify and protect historic landmarks, structures, and artifacts. It also attempted to push protections for historic artifacts found on private land, but did not allow for a means of enforcing it. So if something of import was found on privately-held land, there was no obligation for the owner of the land to relinquish the findings to the government and thus to the archaeologists. This act also established a requirement for permits, to be given out by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Army to any institution they decide is qualified to conduct the dig up to the standards of the law itself.

The history of the Antiquities went well back into the 19th century. The interest of immigrant Americans in Native American antiquities was growing, but there was nothing to protect them at that point. Then, in 1889, on January 3, a congressman by the name of George Frisbie Hoar presented a petition to congress to declare Casa Grande in Arizona. It’s passed, and Casa Grande became the first formal national archaeological reservation in US History. This was the spark that really jump-started the move to the Antiquities Act, which was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906. (Lee,

2001)

About 29 years later, in 1935, the Historic Sites Act was signed into law.

Section 1It is hereby declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.

Section 2The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in sections 1 to 7 of this Act referred to as the Secretary), through the National Park Service, for the purpose of effectuating the policy expressed in section 1 of this Act, shall have the following powers and perform the following duties and functions:

(Historic Sites Act 1935)

This act allowed for the organization of all historic and protected sites, parks, monuments, etc under the National Park Service. It also established the government’s duty to preserve historic sites, which the Antiquities Act only hinted at. This act also established the National Park System Advisory Board.

In 1960, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act was signed into law.

Section 1It is the purpose of this Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469c-1] to further the policy set forth in the Act entitled, “An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes,” approved August 21, 1935 [Historic Sites Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 461-467] by specifically

10

providing for the preservation of historical and archeological data (including relics and specimens) which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as the result of (1) flooding, the building of access roads, the erection of workmen’s communities, the relocation of railroads and highways, and other alterations of the terrain caused by the construction of a dam by any agency of the United States, or by any private person or corporation holding a license issued by any such agency or (2) any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any Federal construction project or federally licensed activity or program.

(Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 1960)

With the passage of this act, the government could now protect historic sites from damage caused by construction projects. So now, in order for dams, roads, or railways to be built, they first have to check their plans against this law to ensure that their construction does not disrupt a historic site. 6 years later, in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act became law. This created the National Register of Historic Places, which provided a place where archaeological sites could be registered, providing even more protections.(McManamon NRHP)

Worldwide, thefts at museums and archaeological sites were growing, which necessitated the United Nations to hold a conference in Paris. There, they adopted the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This protects archaeological digs and museums amongst all the countries that are part of the UN, enforcing harsher penalties around the world for theft of historical artifacts and bodies and sites. ("1970 Convention | United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization")

So far, with all these acts in the US in place, and with the UNESCO convention in place, archaeological digs were protected, at least by law. But stronger regulations still needed to be put into place, especially in the United States. Here, government agencies themselves, through archaeological dig operations, were still causing damage. It became apparent that a need for stronger regulations were needed. And with this in mind, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act became law in 1979. (McManamon ARPA) This act established that “archaeological resources on public lands and Indian lands are an accessible and irreplaceable part of the Nation’s heritage”, that “these resources are increasingly endangered because of their commercial attractiveness”, and that “existing Federal laws do not provide adequate protection to prevent the loss and destruction of these archaeological resources and sites resulting from uncontrolled excavations and pillage”.

The purpose of this Act is to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data which were obtained before October 31, 1979 [the date of the enactment of this Act].

(Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979)

11

The act served to strengthen the already existing laws, and create greater incentive for private land owners to share discoveries with museums and archaeologists. It strengthened the power the government had at that point to establish historical landmarks and sites, and keep a closer, stronger eye on artifacts and bodies.(McManamon ARPA)

Many of these acts mentioned Native American sites, and they did apply, but there was still an important concern not yet met. Basically all archaeological sites in the Americas are Native American sites, and Native Americans consider these sites sacred, not least because most Native American religions are based upon the worship of their ancestors. So the bodies that get unearthed at American archaeological sites are very sacred to Native Americans. There has always been tension between Archaeologists and Native Americans over the sites and the artifacts and bodies found at those sites. So, with that in mind, in 1990, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act was signed into law, thus codifying a compromise of sorts between Native Americans and the government on how to handle archaeological sites and artifacts and bodies.(McManamon NAGPRA)

The first part of the act established that any remains and artifacts found belong, first and foremost, to the lineal descendants of the person found. If such cannot be established, then they belong to the tribe that lives on or comes from the land where the dig was located, or has the closest cultural ties to that land. And even when no such ties at all could be found, the act still established that Native Americans basically had first claim, and that the government and the teams had to work with Native Americans to decide what to do with the findings of the dig.(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990)

Under this act, museums and federal agencies that already had artifacts and remains from archaeological digs from before the act went into effect had to catalog and inventory what they had, and make this information available no later than five years after the act was signed. Then, if any Native American tribe known to be lineally or culturally affiliated to the artifacts and/or remains requests that they be returned, the act granted this outright, enforcing the repatriation upon request of the associated tribe. The act also established penalties for any federal agencies or museums failing to comply with the provisions in the act in terms of payment of damages and fees, and established penalties for the illegal trafficking of such items.(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990)

1990 also saw the signing of the Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections Act into law. The purpose of this was to, specifically, set up guidelines for the safe curation of the artifacts and remains found at any archaeological dig at any site in the United States or at any dig being funded by the US government.(NPS Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections Act) It was six years later, in 1996, that the Society for American Archaeology adopted the Principles of Archaeological Ethics, quoted at the beginning of this section.

All of these acts, and the final Principles, exist to protect artifacts and remains found at digs conducted in and funded by the US, as well as, under the UNESCO 1970 convention, around the world. But do they go far enough?

12

Discussion and Conclusion

The skulls I surveyed from the Highland Beach and Margate Blount populations showed signs of damage. Much of that damage was likely natural, caused by centuries of erosion over time from being buried, unprotected, in the ground. Remains dug up at archaeological sites are rarely complete, and even when the majority of a body can be found, it is often in pieces and fragments that are quite hard to put back together, and will still have holes indicating missing pieces.

The discussion of ethics over the decades have dealt with how to organize and work archaeological digs to ensure that artifacts and remains are not further damaged by the work of the archaeologists at the digs, and to protect digs, artifacts, and remains from commercial ventures and trafficking. But perhaps some human-caused damage is still inevitable.

I looked at the skulls specifically because of what I felt was the ease of being able to identify a human-caused scratch, scrape, or break compared to other bones, likely due the flatter surfaces of larger skull bone. However, it was still inconclusive and was based on my earlier unrelated studies of what happens to bones when buried in the ground, through processes of fossilization, as well as predation and general erosion and wear and tear.

When remains are dug up at archaeological sites, specific tools are used to get them out of the ground, and then get them cleaned, both immediately on-site and later at labs. Tools are also used to study bones, as well. Accidents can happen and people can only be so careful before the very next step is just leaving the remains completely alone. Tools used, such as trowels, usually have sharper edges and points, and when remains are dug out of the ground, attempting to remove the earth around the bones can cause some unintentional scraping and chipping. Cleaning the bones, both immediately on-site and later in labs, can have similar effects.

I do recall, however, hearing about one skull amongst the collection at FAU that was dropped and shattered. This made me think, again, about the regulations already established and the ethics taught and impressed upon when dealing with remains, and whether they can go further.

Perhaps policies of wearing gloves and using softer-edged tools might help, assuming those tools wouldn’t significantly hurt efficiency. More protections on lab floors, such as memory foam floors or something along those lines, thin enough to be comfortable to walk and stand on, solid enough to accommodate chairs and desks and tables, but just soft enough to protect bones and other fragile objects from shattering when dropped. But it should also be easily swept, vacuumed, and steamed.

Of course those are just a couple of suggestions, and still, it’s safe to assume that no matter how many regulations we put into place, accidents will still happen. Minimizing has to be the goal, and so the conversation around the larger picture of ethics in the Archaeological community, as well as the more specific things that can be done to minimize damage, should continue. What’s in place already is adequate, but whether it’s enough is the question to tackle now. What more can be done? Can we go too far? Or is it possible that we’ve gone as far as we can, and that the next step is simply to leave the remains alone?

13

Bibliography

1970 Convention | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2014, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/1970-convention/

Antiquities Act, Pub.L. 59–209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. § 431–433 (1906)

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 469–469c-2 (1960)

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Pub.L. 96–95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa–470mm (1979)

Historic Sites Act, 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467 (1935)

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970. Nov 17, 1970.

Lee, R. (2001, January 1). The Story of the Antiquities Act. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/Lee/

McManamon, F. (n.d.). Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/AHPA.htm

McManamon, F. (n.d.). NPS Archeology Program: The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/ARPA.htm

McManamon, F. (n.d.). NPS Archeology Program: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Retrieved November 14, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/NAGPRA.htm

National Historic Preservation Act, Pub.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. (1966)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Pub. L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048 (1990)

NPS Archeology Program: Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 CFR 79). (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/36CFR79.htm

Society for American Archaeology Principles of Archaeological Ethics. (1996). American Antiquity, 61(3), 451-452.

Researched but not Directly Used

Goldstein, L., & Kintigh, K. (1990). Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity, 55(3), 585-591.

Lynott, M. (1997). Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity, 62(4), 589-599.

14