"The Earth Does Not Want to Keep Secrets": Vasily Grossman and Rachel Auerbach in the Fields of Treblinka

Before and after passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by the United States Congress in November of 1990, many archaeologists' and physical anthropologists2 lamented that the act and its mandate to consult with Native Americans about the treatment and disposition of human remains recovered from archaeological sites would have dramatically negative effects on the science of archaeology and on paleodemographic, paleopathological, and paleogenetic research. Since NAGPRA was passed, the Hopi Tribe has been involved in consultations concerning the human remains identified in four large developmental projects within the Southwest. These projects include the Transwestern Pipeline, El Paso Gas Pipeline, the Roosevelt Dam Platform Mound Study, and the proposed Fence Lake Coal Mine and Transportation Corridor. To date, more than 1,000 burials have been recovered or disturbed by these projects and the possibility of doubling that number in the near future is very real. The tribe's involvement has caused the Hopi people to evaluate the benefits that analysis of prehistoric human remains can offer them. This has generated perspicacious dialogue between the Hopi Tribe and members of the archaeological and physical anthropological communities. This dialogue results in a research agenda beneficial for all parties. With NAGPRA's passage the furiously debated scientific and ethical issue of repatriation and reburial became a legal mandate. Consequently, physical anthropologists and archaeologists, both in academic settings and in federal agencies, are compelled to work in an environment that is far from the ways they conducted research before NAGPRA. Some archaeologists and physical anthropologists find the changes implemented by NAGPRA hard to swallow. They assert that the treatment of human remains and associated funerary objects recovered from an archaeological context should revert to the conventional method ofcuration without consultation. Some of these arguments are based on the perceived necessity to maintain permanent collections for future study in the advent that new techniques of analyses are developed., Others acrimoniously assert that this

Moral and philosophical conceptions of dignity hold that a human being is entitled to receive ethical treatment, and to be respected and valued in all phases of life and even through death. Notwithstanding this truism, a single, agreed-upon definition of human dignity in the scientific and legal contexts is difficult to achieve due to societal complexities and traditions associated with various cultures and practices. Many scholars and healthcare professionals support the notion that all individuals have a right to die with dignity—and that all people should be allowed to die comfortably and naturally and, to the extent possible and in compliance with applicable laws, have their final wishes honored and protected.[1] But it is less evident whether and to what extent the concept of dignity should be applied or extended to the remains of deceased individuals and even their next of kin. In recent history, several notable events have called into question the treatment of human remains. A review of these circumstances bears scrutiny on the dilemma, signaling that dignity—and perhaps even a strengthened legal protection of some kind—should extend to the remains of the deceased.[2] In the United States, some laws do recognize and protect the interests or dignity of the deceased. For instance, physicians are required to obtain consent from the deceased’s next of kin before using a cadaver to instruct medical students, though whether to notify the next of kin first has been a topic of ethical and legal debate.[3] On the federal level, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (i) requires federal agencies to return Native American human remains to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and (ii) provides greater protection for Native American burial sites as well as more careful control over the removal of Native American human remains.[4] Furthermore, a number of statutes exist to penalize the desecration of grave sites, but criminal tampering with human remains—e.g., grave robbing and defilement of interment spaces—remains fairly common. Just this month, a casket with human remains was dumped onto a street in Brooklyn, New York; and several vaults were vandalized in a historic cemetery in New Orleans.[5] According to the International Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association, no cemeteries are immune to vandalism and serious acts of desecration, since many states have virtually no statutory provisions addressing cemetery vandalism or desecration.[6] Most states do, however, have regulations that explicitly prohibit the unlawful disturbance, removal, or sale of human remains—but what happens when the sanctity of human remains is potentially compromised beyond this criminal context? Are the current laws sufficient in protecting the dignity of the deceased? A controversy of this nature surfaced in 1995, when European anatomist Gunther von Hagens premiered BODY WORLDS—The Original Exhibitions of Real Human Bodies. In BODY WORLDS, von Hagens gathered and plastinated real human bodies to make them more malleable and prevent their decay. Some of the bodies’ inner organs were exposed and then positioned in playful, lifelike poses. While supporters of the exhibit recognized its potential educational value—including the moral and ontological standing of plastinates—critics vocalized that the display fell short of respecting the dignity of human remains. For instance, bioethicist Lawrence Burns noted that “some aspects of the exhibit violate[d] human dignity,” and medical ethicist Carol Taylor remarked, “My major objection stems from the belief that there’s an innate dignity to humans that extends to our bodies.”[7] Other criticisms indicated that the bodies were denied a proper burial and did not give consent to be on public display.[8] The exhibit has toured Europe, Africa, Asia, and even America—though it did not enter the United States until 2004, after an ethics advisory committee of the California Science Center addressed the exhibit’s ethical issues and mandated that domestic displays require consent of the bodies.[9] More recently—this month—a cemetery in Sacramento, California, informed a woman that her son’s buried remains must be moved to another location. In 2014, April Robinson’s son, Maurice, passed away, and his cremated remains were buried near a small tree at St. Mary’s Catholic Cemetery & Mausoleum. Even though it has been a year since the burial, cemetery officials just realized that they assigned Maurice to the wrong location and indicated that the remains must be dug up and relocated, since another family owns the plot. Trying to protect her son’s remains, Robinson believes that Maurice’s burial plot is sacred and should not be touched. While it is uncertain when St. Mary’s plans to move Maurice’s remains, Robinson plans to take legal action to prevent the move from occurring.[10] Though California Health & Safety Code (7052(a)) provides that the unlawful disinterment of human remains is a felony, there are no existing provisions addressing cemeterial mistakes that potentially endanger the sanctity of human remains.[11] Theories of human dignity ought to consider the value and inviolability of a human being after personhood. Without these proper considerations, ethical treatment of the deceased may be jeopardized. Additionally, stories like the Robinsons’, coupled with the trajectory of case law, should help to promote further dialogue and protections concerning the treatment of human remains.

Human remains interred in parish churchyards or in consecrated portions of local authority cemeteries are within the faculty jurisdiction of the consistory courts of the Church of England. A faculty is required for the disturbance of human remains lying within the faculty jurisdiction. This article will examine the law surrounding consecrated burial grounds in England and the disinterment of human remains therefrom and what this demonstrates about the principles of the ecclesiastical law of England relating to their protection. If ecclesiastical law provides for the protection of human remains, what is the justification for that and how adequate is the protection? The article will compare the consistory courts’ treatment of human remains with the regulation of remains outside the faculty jurisdiction, and attempt to relate canonical principles towards human remains with the legal character of consecrated ground. It will investigate whether the modern treatment of human remains is different from the treatment of remains in the past. By these comparisons I hope to better explore what justifications exist for the approach the consistory courts have taken in regulating disturbance of human remains.

The treatment of human remains has become a very contentious issue, with a range of legal, moral and political pressures now weighing on archaeologists and museum curators. Attempts to respond to this changing cultural context have often tried to show an increased respect for the dead, though it is argued here that these have sometimes had counter-productive results. This paper discusses some of the complex ways in which living people have a stake in human remains, considering particularly the ideas of respect and empathy, and noting the ways in which the treatment of human remains may have changed significantly since they were originally collected. The distinction sometimes made between Western and indigenous practices is queried, with their entanglement being highlighted. It is also argued that the duality between the body and culture prevalent in archaeological accounts and museums is unhelpful. This is followed by a consideration of museums and archaeology as containing sacred practices, while a comparison of ‘art’ and ‘heritage‘ with the Maori idea of taonga is suggested as offering a way of viewing material that recognises its sacred quality. The potential social value of displaying human remains by archaeologists and in museums is also explored. Finally, it is suggested that the debate about the treatment of human remains by archaeologists and in museums is an opportunity to engage with a profound interest in a way that could lead to a more considered interest in the material world.

Treatment of human remains is an emotive issue, as well as at times a complex legal, scientific and practical problem. New guidance on remains from Christian burial grounds (2005) by the Human Remain Working Group (HWRG) convened by the Church of England and English Heritage for remains dating between the seventh and the 19th centuries at last gives clear guidelines for hard-pressed clergy and archaeologists faced with providing appropriate treatment for the great number of human skeletons that come to light each year in this cultural group. These skeletons range from fragments disturbed during routine works in churchyards, to several thousand bodies at Spitalfields, and include sites such as monastic cemeteries lost after the Reformation which are not under Faculty jurisdiction. The aim of the working party was to combine ethical and Christian considerations with the ethics of science and archaeology, especially in the vexed question of reburial versus storage. Archaeologists take a great deal of responsibility for dealing with human remains, so it is important to have guidance and back up for the approaches we need to take, whether in the field, laboratory or the museum/ storage context. Technical issues and theological considerations were considered in detail. As Simon Mays outlined above, recommendations include provision of long-term storage in buildings such as redundant churches; this alone could resolve a lot of pressing problems.

This paper is an introduction and review for the special issue of AJBA on the Curation and Use of Human Skeletal Remains for Teaching and Research, which emerged from an organized session at the American Association of Biological Anthropologists in 2022. The authors of this special issue describe the ethical challenges surrounding the collection, curation, and use of human skeletal remains in biological anthropology, focusing particularly on the historical exploitation of marginalized communities, such as Indigenous and African American populations. These remains were often acquired without consent through colonial exploitation and unethical practices like grave robbing. This introduction presents a historical review of the dehumanization of these remains, which have been treated as scientific specimens rather than as individuals with complex histories. We highlight the ongoing misuse of human remains in academic settings and the perpetuation of structural violence. The papers in this special issue call for the development of ethical guidelines that emphasize transparency, respect for descendant communities, and the consideration of non-destructive research methods. The authors advocate for rehumanizing these remains, fostering collaboration with descendant communities, and supporting efforts for repatriation. This special issue aims to encourage biological anthropologists to pause and critically reflect on the discipline's colonial and racist foundations, taking meaningful steps toward a more ethical and just treatment of human remains in teaching and research.

A growing number of studies related to human remains in Korea highlight the need for developing professional ethics codes and laws that govern disposition and treatment of human remains. In order to provide models for developing ethics codes and regulations relevant to the field of biological anthropology in Korea, the current paper presents a review of ethics codes in the United States related to the procurement, curation, and study of human remains. In the first half of the paper, we provide a full treatment of ethics codes of major professional organizations, including code definition, development, and revision. The latter half of the paper is dedicated to discussions of ethical issues surrounding a United States federal law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and a high-profile case of the Kennewick man, the Ancient One. These two examples will demonstrate the difficulty in anticipating ethical issues and unintended misconduct in the course of research. NAGPRA and the Kennewick Man further emphasize three simple yet important take- home points for biological anthropologists and other professionals working with human remains: 1) to be reflective about potential ethical issues related to their research, 2) to be collaborative and encourage involvement of descendant communities at all stages of research, and 3) to be respectful of different worldviews of death between (sub)cultures. Finally, we close our discussion with possible sources of ethical conflicts in Korea to help prepare biological anthropologists as more excavations of human remains take place in Korea.

Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of the Canine Surrogacy Approach in the Great Lakes

On the 17th April 1975, the Communist Party of Kampuchea, colloquially known as the Khmer Rouge, marched into Phnom Penh and took control of Cambodia. During their rule of three years, eight months, and twenty days, an estimated 1.7 million people died. Their remains were buried or abandoned across the country. Since the deposal of the regime in January 1979, the human remains of those who died have been central to memorialisation and political rendering of the Khmer Rouge regime. This chapter offers a case study of the treatment of these remains, outlining the Khmer social, political, and religious frameworks affecting their treatment. By doing so it offers a consideration of ethics and human rights related to the location, identification, and treatment of human remains from the Khmer Rouge regime in contemporary Cambodia.

General confusion concerning the proper treatment of human remains of archaeological significance prompted the Church of England and English Heritage to co-ordinate a working group which produced a document called ‘Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated from Christian burial grounds in England’, published in 2005. This established best practice for dealing within the current secular and ecclesiastical legislation with Christian burials, but also with wider application. It also led to the eventual formation of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE, see http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ apabe/). At this time the Home Office (later the Ministry of Justice) was working on revision of the secular legislation. During this process, concerns were raised that the current system of granting licences might not be lawful, and in 2008 an interim system was introduced whereby licences could be granted to archaeologists to hold human remains for two years, which could then be renewed on application. It was intended that these two years would allow time for the legislation to be amended. There is no doubt that this interim arrangement caused a certain amount of confusion and disquiet, with some people referring erroneously to a “Burial Act 2008”. No such piece of legislation exists. However, this planned legislative overhaul was dropped by the government in 2010, causing more concern among archaeologists. Following pressure from various organisations including EH, the IFA, ALGAO and APABE, the Ministry of Justice introduced a new licencing system in the summer of 2011, which allowed for the retention of human remains by archaeologists, putting the responsibility for justification and control for such retention on the local authority. This is a good resolution, which archaeologists should be happy to support.1

During the colonial period, museums did not just passively benefit from the plunder of human remains and culturally sacred items. When Britain sent a punitive military expedition to Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1863, it was accompanied by Richard Holmes, a staff member of the British Museum, whose purchase of loot from the expeditionary force institutionalised the plunder of cultural heritage. His inclusion in the expeditionary force was carefully planned, though the belongings he took — mainly manuscripts, religious items and emblems of power belonging to the Ethiopian royal family — were not the intended focus of his participation. Whilst the UK’s 2004 Human Tissue Act had a beneficial impact on the treatment of human remains in museums, objects belonging to colonised people are often still positioned as artworks or artefacts, evidencing ignorance of the deep personal and spiritual links that connect them back to their communities of origin. This article draws on our professional experience of curation and research in museums and libraries, as well as the impact of ICOM’s new Museum Definition on our practice. Joint research on the Maqdala expedition led us to question assumptions about the legacy of empire in museums and to scrutinise unexpected connections in the history of museum collections. This article addresses the problematic relationship between collecting and imperial power, the false dichotomy between ‘artefacts’ (belongings) and ‘human remains’ (ancestors) and the need to decolonise collections through further research and the recognition of ongoing cultural and physical violence.

This paper uses a case study of a shaft in Surrey, England, to illustrate the potential of traditionally overlooked material for increasing understanding of Romano-British minority mortuary rituals. Taphonomic analysis of a substantial assemblage of disarticulated human remains from a first-century a.d. quarry from the Nescot Former Animal Husbandry Centre in Ewell, Surrey, showed evidence of multi-stage post-mortem processing. This included decomposition of the remains within a protected environment followed by removal of certain skeletal elements. The assemblage is then contextualised against the treatment of human remains in other Romano-British shaft and well deposits. Finally, the material is compared to Iron Age examples of post-mortem processing, revealing the Nescot shaft is unlikely to be a direct continuation of pre-conquest practices.

Recent key federal and tribal legislation often has proved inadequate for dealing with human remains. Because of this the Navajo Nation, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has developed a policy establishing a working set of procedures for cultural resource managers and developers to follow in the identification, verification, and ultimate disposition of human remains on Navajo Tribal Trust land. These procedures attempt to address legal and human concerns of next of kin, local residents, the Navajo Tribe as a whole, and the federal government. The policy does not expressly advocate the scientific study of human remains prior to or instead of reburial, but this alternative is allowable under the policy, given the acquisition of appropriate consent. This paper discusses the procedures (formally adopted by Navajo Tribal Resolution) along with suggestions for their modification for use elsewhere and under other circumstances.

The mail bag

Iron Age (c. 700 BC–43AD) funerary practice has long been a focus of debate in British archaeology. Formal cemeteries are rare and in central-southern Britain human remains are often unearthed in unusual configurations. They are frequently recovered as isolated fragments, partially articulated body parts or complete skeletons in atypical contexts, often storage pits. In recent years, taphonomic analysis of remains has been more frequently employed to elucidate depositional practice (e.g. Madgwick, 2008, 2010; Redfern, 2008). This has enhanced our understanding of modes of treatment and has contributed much-needed primary data to the discussion. However, only macroscopic taphonomic analysis has been undertaken and equifinality (i.e. different processes producing the same end result) remains a substantial obstacle to interpretation. This research explores the potential of novel microscopic (histological) methods of taphonomic analysis for providing greater detail on the treatment of human remains in Iron Age Britain. Twenty human bones from two Iron Age sites: Danebury and Suddern Farm, in Hampshire, central-southern Britain were examined and assessed using thin section light microscopy combined with the Oxford Histological Index (OHI). Results suggest that diverse mortuary rites were practised and that different configurations of remains were subject to prescribed, varied treatment, rather than resulting from different stages of the same process. Practices that may be responsible for these patterns include exhumation followed by selective removal of elements and sheltered exposure prior to final burial. Only one sample provided evidence for excarnation, a practice that has been widely cited as a potential majority rite in Iron Age Britain.