Are archaeologists justified in exhuming human remains, when it is otherwise highly taboo and illegal? Why?

Question

To illuminate the topic, let's imagine two scenarios.

Scenario A:

An archaeologist exhumes remains in an ancient Mayan city in Belize. The exhumation leads to significant scientific and/or historical knowledge. The archaeologist is heralded, receives recognition from her peers, and grant money flows to continue her research. The discovery also helps her secure tenure.

Scenario B:

Some college kids dig up a grave as part of an initiation or hazing. They're arrested, spend some time in jail, and pay fines. They now carry criminal records.

Is there really a fundamental difference between these two scenarios? Sure, each exhumer has a different motive. However, the underlying moral reasons that form the basis of the taboo and illegality of digging up a grave hold true in BOTH scenarios.

Thanks for your answers!

Answer 1

While it's easy to build a theoretical scenario, real life isn't as simple.

Here's a couple of real cases.

The cemetery at Ft Craig New Mexico was found to have had 20 graves looted. Once the grave robbing was discovered, archaeologists removed some 67 remains. Was there a moral issue or taboo in the removal?

What should be done with the Kenniwick Man and the other of the earliest human remains found in America? K Man was discovered in the Columbia River and his bones, like the other earliest remains found in America, are not that of  Native Americans.

Do you let his bones wash away? Do you give them to a group that never had any link to him? (one of the tribes in the lawsuit are known to have moved into the region in historical times) What about a group that might have harmed him? (He had a projectile point in his body)

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC 3001 et seq.(NAGPRA ) does provide for the return of remains and cultural items. What was legal and acceptable in prior centuries isn't accepted today.

That said, the issue of Kenniwick Man wasn't covered by NAGPRA. The claimants are required to prove a cultural affiliation between the remains and their tribe. With K man, there was no physical link.

To repeat, real life doesn't have the easy answers that some want.

Answer 2

Most modern digs where human remains are uncovered tend to be rescue operations -when a cemetary has been discovered in an area of road building or house construction for instance. it is very rare nowadays for archaeologists to deliberately go around searching for rich burial mounds to loot!

   As someone else mentioned, the technique  used and the treatment of the bones would be completely different between the professional and warped college kids. i do not know one archaeologist who does not have respect for the remains he might have to deal with in his field. (Btw most of them hate it when they do find a burial,because of the various problems and delays it brings to the dig!)

We must remember too that ancient people's attitude to the dead MAY NOT BE OURS! Our idea of 'disrespect for the dead' is based mainly on a Christianised ideal,mainly dating back a hundred years or so,in which all 'nastiness'must be forever hidden away and hence taboo. However, in many ancient cultures bones were excarnated before burial (ie the corpse was on a platform in full view) and various bones,mainly skulls and long bones were often taken from graves to be used in rituals and then returned.

Answer 3

First off the college kids are not using equpiment that prevents the grave and body from being damaged.  The archelogist is required to use special tools and brushes before excavating.  

Secondly, the archaeologist has to get permission to excavate.  Because some areas are generally forbidden or living relatives of the deceased may have an objection, the archaeologist and forensic crew cannot just go in and dig up a gravesite or the like.  They will go to jail for it.

Thirdly the question of it being taboo doesn't hold, otherwise we woulnd't have archaeolgists.  If excavating as a whole were taboo, the degree wouldn't exist and the like.

Fourthly by digging up the grave the college students have not gained any useful knowledge for the public about history, medicine, culture, language development, ancient archetecture, etc.

Fifthly, archaelogists are not digging up a grave with the intent of destoying the remains or the crypt.  They are doing it (aside from being given grants to by muesems) with the intent on providing information to benefit the world.  Failure to do so leads to them being out of a job.

Answer 4

In scene one, there are no immediate family members to face the trauma of a loved one's peace being disturbed, and it is a window into the past. It helps us to understand our selves and our history.It also requires permission by a governing body and conditions are set on the dig, plus control is kept in the hands of that government.             In scene two, The college kids are vandalizing someones precious memories, personal property, and have no permission to do this act.There are laws reguarding this type of intrusion on current history.         So yes the difference is huge, and shows the character of the college kids, twisted.