Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:07:57.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anthony L. Klesert  and
Shirley Powell
Anthony L. Klesert
Affiliation:
Navajo Nation Archaeology Department, P.O. Box 689, Window Rock, AZ 86515
Shirley Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is our opinion that archaeologists have no inherent right of access to human remains, grave goods, or objects of cultural heritage; that respecting diverse cultural views does not amount to an abdication of academic freedom; that historically archaeologists have been unanthropological in their approach to living populations and inconsistent in their treatment of indigenous peoples; and that archaeologists are fighting a losing battle when they ignore public opinion and clash with indigenous groups in the name of science. We offer some guidelines that we feel will alleviate much of the current tensions between archaeologists and indigenous peoples. A professional ethic must be devised that is consciously anthropological, values the rights of those studied and their cultural descendants in their own terms, and places academic pursuits in their proper context.

Resumen

Resumen

Según indican las declaraciones recientes de la Sociedad Americana de Arqueología (SAA) y de otras fuentes, las cuestiones de repatriación y de re-entierro son serias. Son asuntos que la SAA quisiera resolver para beneficio de la profesión. Desgraciadamente, la profesión parece decidida a retener sistemas pasados de moda en la conducción de estudios arqueológicos en vista de los cambios que existen hoy en día, incluyendo una insistencia a los derechos de acceso a objetos de estudio. En nuestra opinión, los arqueólogos no tienen derecho inherente al acceso a restos humanos, objetos encontrados en sepulturas ni a objetos de herencia cultural. El hecho de respetar los diversos puntos de vista culturales no significa el negar la libertad académica. Historicamente, los arqueólogos han procedido de una forma anti-antropológica en su enfoque de poblaciones existentes y han sido inconsistentes en su trato de poblaciones indígenas. Los arqueólogos estan perdiendo la batalla al ignorar la opinión pública y al chocar con grupos indígenas en nombre de la ciencia. Se debe crear una ética profesional que tenga una conciencia antropológica, que valore los derechos de los sujetos estudiados y sus decendientes culturales tales como son, y que aceptan los estudios académicos como una expresión de la cultura euroamericana y no como a los progenitores de una verdad universal.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 348 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Adams, E. C. 1984 Archaeology and the Native American : A Case at Hopi. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 236–263. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Adams, R. E. W. 1974 Report of the Secretary. American Antiquity 39 : 666–668. Advisory Council on Historic PreservationGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. E. W. 1985 Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
American Anthropological Association 1983 Professional Ethics : Statements and Procedures of The American Anthropological Association. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. 1981 A Specialist in Ancient Cemetery Studies Looks at the Reburial Issue. Early Man 3(3) : 26–27.Google Scholar
Deloria, V., Jr. 1992 Indians, Archaeologists, and the Future. American Antiquity 57 : 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deming, J. 1993 Competition and Cooperation in Archaeological Consulting. Practicing Anthropology 15(1) : 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, T. J. 1984 Archaeological Ethics and Values in a Tribal Cultural Resource Management Program at the Pueblo of Zuni. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 224–235. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Givens, D. R. 1992 Alfred Vincent Kidder and the Development of Americanist Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L., and Kintigh, K. 1990 Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity 55 : 585–591.Google Scholar
Green, E. L. (editor) 1984 Ethics and Values in Archaeology. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hubert, J. 1989 A Proper Place for the Dead : A Critical Review of the “Reburial” Issue. In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, edited by Layton, R., pp. 131–166. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. 1973 Professional Responsibilities and the American Indian. American Antiquity 38 : 129–130.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1990 A Perspective on Reburial and Repatriation. SAA Bulletin 8(2) : 6–7.Google Scholar
Klesert, A. L. 1992 A View from Navajoland on the Reconciliation of Anthropologists and Native Americans. Human Organization 51 : 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klesert, A. L., and Downer, A. S. (editors) 1990 Preservation on the Reservation : Native Americans, Native American Lands and Archaeology. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 26. Window Rock, Arizona.Google Scholar
Layton, R. 1989 Introduction : Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, edited by Layton, R., pp. 1–21. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
Lipe, W. D. 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39 : 214–245.Google Scholar
Lipe, W. D. 1977 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. In Conservation Archaeology : A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies, edited by Schifler, M. B. and Gumerman, G. J., pp. 19–42. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
McGimsey, C. R., III 1971 Archaeology and the Law. American Antiquity 36 : 125–126.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. 1989 The Sanctity of the Grave : White Concepts and American Indian Burials. In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, edited by Layton, R., pp. 167–184. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. 1992 Archeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94 : 816–836.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1984 Archaeology : Science or Sacrilege? In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 208–223. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1986 Archaeology and Anthropological Ethics. Wormwood Press, Calabasas, California.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1992 Some Scholars’ Views on Reburial. American Antiquity 57 : 704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, D. L., Klesert, A. L., and Anyon, R. 1989 Ancestral Sites, Shrines and Graves : Native American Perspectives on the Ethics of Collecting Cultural Properties. In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property, edited by Messenger, P., pp. 27–38. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. D. 1990 The Indian Point of View : Exhumation and Reburial. In Preservation of the Reservation : Native A mericans, Native American Lands, and Archaeology, edited by Klesert, A. L. and Downer, A. S., pp. 397–408. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 26. Window Rock, Arizona.Google Scholar
Powell, S., Garza, C. E., and Hendricks, A. 1993 Ethics and Ownership of the Past : The Reburial and Repatriation Controversy. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Schif Fer, M. B., pp. 1–42. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Quick, P. McW. (editor) 1985 Proceedings of the Conference on Reburial Issues. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Rosen, L. 1980 The Excavation of American Indian Burial Sites : A Problem in Law and Professional Responsibility. American Anthropologist 82 : 5–27. Society of Professional ArchaeologistsGoogle Scholar
Rosen, L. 1981 Code of Ethics and Standards of Performance. Directory of Professional Archaeologists, pp. 3–6. Washington University, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Sprague, R. 1974 American Indians and American Archaeology. American Antiquity 39 : 1–2.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989 Archaeology as Socio-Political Action in the Present. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A., pp. 104–116. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Turner, C. G. II 1986 What is Lost with Skeletal Reburial? I. Adaptation. Quarterly Review of Archaeology 7(l) : l-3.Google Scholar
White, T. D. 1991 Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Wood, J. J., and Powell, S. 1993 An Ethos for Archaeological Practice. Human Organization, in press.Google Scholar
World Archaeological Congress 1991 First Code of Ethics. World Archaeological Bulletin 5 : 22–23.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, L. 1989 Made Radical by My Own. In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, edited by Layton, R., pp. 60–67. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar