Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
manner of death via analysis of trauma and archaeological context. The new conceptual
framework discussed above also applies a strong biocultural emphasis to not only the biolog-
ical profile, but also the environmental context, emphasizing individual agency and the inter-
action of the two. Future research in forensic anthropology, forensic taphonomy, trauma, and
forensic archaeology will incorporate the aspects of theory discussed above while improving
upon current methods and creating population-specific standards.
Ethical Considerations
The ethics of working with human remains must not be overlooked. Moral principles are
culturally bound, i.e., what you consider ethical may not be considered ethical by someone
else, and therefore making informed and proper decisions about research with human skel-
etal remains when different parties have an interest (i.e., descendant communities, scientists,
local communities, the media, etc.) is complicated but crucial (
White et al., 2012
).
Research that uses human skeletal remains is not under the purview of most human
subjects institutional review boards (IRB), as the subjects are no longer living. However,
that does not mean that analyzing human skeletal material is free from ethical concerns.
For example, the interests of all parties must be carefully considered. While biological anthro-
pologists feel a responsibility to record for posterity the history of the human condition via
analysis of skeletal remains, descendant communities may have certain beliefs about the
dead, including prohibitions against outsiders touching the remains of the ancestors. A
respectful balance needs to be reached between descendants and scientists, as in addition
to the sacred and emotional significance of remains, there is also educational and scientific
benefit (
Larsen and Walker, 2005
).
For forensic anthropologists,
Walsh-Haney and Lieberman (2005)
recommend that three
tenets should always be strived for: (1) do no harm (i.e., handle the remains with care and
respect); (2) avoid deception andmisrepresentation in data collection, presentation, and publi-
cation; and (3) act impartially so that all parties are treated equally. For bioarchaeologists,
fostering collaborations with indigenous groups can serve to avoid the political fallout that
has occurred in the U.S. in the form of NAGPRA and other countries as well (e.g., Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Peru, and elsewhere) (
Larsen and Walker, 2005
). Giving the
descendants/survivors respect and a voice has even resulted in the donation of human
remains to bioarchaeological or modern skeletal collections (
Larsen and Walker, 2005;
Walsh-Haney and Lieberman, 2005
). White and colleagues (2012:357
e
378) include a detailed
discussion of ethics in human osteology with suggested readings to which you should refer
for more information. Also refer to the discussion in DiGangi and Moore (Chapter 2), this
volume.
FORMAT OF THIS BOOK
This topic is divided into four sections. Each chapter within the four sections is geared
towards an audience of advanced undergraduates or new graduate students in biological
anthropology whose knowledge level of the discipline is at or above that of an undergraduate
anthropology minor or major. Each chapter includes a literature review of its particular topic
