Resolving the Human Remains Crisis in British Archaeology: A Reply with Insight into Related Issues in Finland

Abstract

Mike Parker Pearson, Tim Schandla-Hall & Gabe Moshenska’s paper raises issues around the meaning and implication of reburial for the archaeological community. The question of whether all human remains should be reburied as well as those of indigenous people or minorities affects efforts to maintain the balance between ensuring the future of scientific study and answering the need for communities to claim back their ancestral remains. Archaeology is often seen as an ethically challenging field of study because of its interest in life and death: the purpose of archaeology is to study the life of previous generations through the material artifacts they have left behind. That often includes the actual physical remains of those people. However, past generations do not exist without the meanings given to them by their descendants: previous generations are attached to the living through different factors such as biological and social, cultural and mythical ties. Thus, archaeology doesn’t only produce information about lives of ancient people but also about the lives and history of the currently living. Therefore, how people and the material associated with them are presented has become a major ethical issue in archaeology especially if that material is thought to be of a sensitive nature. I am approaching the issue by giving examples of Finnish legislation and a discussion in the Finnish scientific community about repatriation and reburial. With a few examples I hope to give a picture of the situation in Finland and the compromises made by legislators and the scientific community with the general public.