[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
heirs, or that his ashes should be scattered at the North Pole), the
default position should be one of compliance.
Should archaeologists therefore adopt a working maxim of
when in doubt, stay out ? (Could archaeology even survive as a
major social science if they did?) Or are there any arguments that
might warrant a more liberal and permissive policy with regard to
archaeological disturbance of the dead?
It is worth, to begin with, reminding ourselves that former people
are not the only bearers of morally relevant interests. Currently liv-
ing people, including practising archaeologists, have morally signifi-
cant interests too. Furthermore, in recent decades, representatives
of indigenous peoples in North America, Australia, New Zealand
DEALI NG WI TH THE DEAD 145
and elsewhere have become more forceful than previously in their
demands that archaeological and anthropological research should
be responsible not just to scientific imperatives but to the ethical
imperative to respect alternative cultural traditions. Many of these
traditions are deeply opposed to any interference with ancestral
graves or sacred sites, and legislation in a number of countries (of
which the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatria-
tion Act in the USA is the best-known example) has placed tight
restrictions on the activities of archaeologists. The third principle
of the Vermillion Accord holds that respect for the wishes of the
local community and or relatives and guardians of the dead shall be
accorded whenever possible, reasonable and lawful . There are thus
three distinguishable sets of moral stakeholders in the archaeologi-
cal enterprise: researchers (and their audience), the dead themselves
and their genetic or cultural descendants.
It would be a mistake, though, to suppose that the interests of
these three groups are always entirely discrete. Descendants of the
subjects of archaeological research often see themselves as guardians
of the dead (whom they may regard as retaining a presence as spirit
members of the community). But they may also themselves take an
interest in the research being carried out, particularly where archae-
ologists have taken the trouble to discuss their purposes, methods
and results with the local community. In the USA there has been rapid
growth in research projects involving close cooperation between
archaeologists and local people, where the ethical approval of the
latter is sought before any intrusive excavations or other procedures
are carried out, and where the pooling of scientific and traditional
knowledge enables a richer picture of the past to emerge than would
be likely to issue from the unaided efforts of the former.
By working in close association with members of communities
who may have a considerably better idea of what the subjects of the
research would or would not have tolerated than they can frame
from their external viewpoint, archaeologists reduce the risk of
morally offending against the dead. Further, it is often possible to
take a light-touch approach to excavation without seriously jeop-
ardizing the prospect of obtaining the desired scientific data. For
example, an archaeological team wishing to excavate an important
cemetery in a sensitive area might reach an agreement with the local
people that only a small section of the site should be disturbed,
146 DEATH
under the supervision of community representatives, and that the
minimum of damage should be done and the maximum of respect
be paid to the uncovered remains. In that way the interests of the
living parties and of the dead receive consideration, but no single
party s interests dominate.
In the past few years the stereotypical view of archaeology as
focused on the advancement of knowledge has been tempered by
an increasing tendency to look on its practitioners as stewards of
the archaeological record. Archaeologists who see themselves in a
custodial role, responsible for protecting and preserving materials
in situ along with collections and records, are, one would hope, less
likely than those who do not to engage in unnecessarily destructive
or intrusive fieldwork. They will apply a principle of diminishing
marginal returns and avoid exhuming a hundred skeletons where a
small number will supply most of the information they need. In this
way, they can justifiably claim to be stewards serving the interests
not only of present and future generations but of past ones too.
Finally, there is a reply of a different kind to the objection that
exhumation of the dead, even where practised on the most minimal
scale consistent with the achievement of reasonable research objec-
tives, will tend to conflict with the interests of the subjects concerned.
If archaeologists exploit the remains of the dead, it is possible to
argue that they do one thing for them in return. Recall Browne s
observation that Oblivion is a kind of Annihilation, and for things to
be as though they had not been is like unto never being (1969: 242).
Archaeology is one highly effective way of keeping in mind the
reality of past lives, and so, arguably, of holding absurdity at bay. It is
a plausible claim that the revelations by archaeologists of the details
of past lives are a stronger counter to oblivion than the preservation
of dead bodies intact in their graves. Theseus would not relish the
thought of some future archaeologist measuring his cranial capacity
or extracting DNA from his bone marrow but, just conceivably, he
might find it an acceptable price to pay for a degree of posthumous
remembrance. So if oblivion is itself a form of indignity, we may be
forced to take a more subtle view of the bearing of archaeology on
the dignity of the ante-mortem subjects of its researches. Some of
those subjects might have preferred to be recalled via the examina-
tion of their burials than to lie forever forgotten; although admittedly
we cannot know which these are.8
DEALI NG WI TH THE DEAD 147
Therefore we should not be too quick to assume that archaeo-
logical disturbance of the dead always disserves its subjects. Even
if it sometimes does, there are other relevant interests than need
to be weighed alongside those of past people. To refuse to conduct
investigations that disturb human remains could be held to harm
living people who see knowledge about the past as a valuable good;
they too are ends in themselves with interests that matter. Never-
theless, it is hard to see by what neutral standard these potentially
conflicting interests could be weighed against one another. And
without such a yardstick to determine which, or whose, interests
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]