Exhibiting respect: Investigating ethical practice for the display of human remains in museums

Museums have long displayed human remains from archaeological and other contexts to educate the public about human health, spiritual beliefs, and customs, and to encourage reflection about death and dying. However, since the 1950s, repatriation movements and decolonizing dialogues have inspired global discussions about who has the right to retain and display human remains. Subsequent changes in attitude are now reflected in international ethical guidelines and accords that emphasize “respect” for human remains and for originating communities. Most museums will no longer display Indigenous Ancestors, but whether and how to display other human remains presents an unresolved ethical dilemma. Should other archaeological human remains be exhibited without consent? If so, how can they be displayed respectfully? Do visitors wish to see human remains in museums? This dissertation is a pilot study that examined three dimensions of these ethical challenges: 1) how has the display of human remains changed over time—particularly in Anglo-North America and Western Europe?; 2) how does the public in North America feel about the display of human remains?; and 3) how can human remains be displayed “with respect”? I focused on Anglo-North America and Western Europe as instrumental case studies to illuminate these emerging issues due to their accessibility, recent ethical dialogue, and changing museum practices in these regions. My research explored these questions using the principles of New Museology and radical transparency: i.e., proactively engaging the public and encouraging them to participate in ethical decision-making. In this work, I: 1) explore ethical changes and challenges for museums in relation to the display of human remains; 2) facilitate public engagement with ethical discourse about the display of human remains; 3) explore the concept of “respectful display” of human remains; and 4) make recommendations for museum professionals deciding whether to display of human remains. These issues are particularly important as museums strive to decolonize and become more inclusive

Clothing and the replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans

Between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, during the cold, dry period known as Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (OIS 3), modern humans migrated into Europe and replaced Neanderthals. In this study, I investigated whether clothing could have played a role in this event. To begin with, I carried out a cross-cultural analysis to identify mammalian taxa whose presence in archaeological deposits may indicate the use of clothing. Subsequently, I tested for differences in the frequencies of such taxa in Neanderthal versus modern human occupations in OIS 3 Europe. The analyses suggest that both modern humans and Neanderthals may have made clothing. However, they also suggest that modern humans made clothing out of a wider range of taxa than Neanderthals, and that clothing made by modern humans was more thermally effective than that made by Neanderthals. These findings are consistent with the idea that clothing played a role in the Neanderthal replacement

Faunal evidence for a difference in clothing use between Neanderthals and early modern humans in Europe

MC is grateful to Karen Lupo and Brian Codding for the invitation to participate in the symposium honouring Jim O’Connell at the 2015 annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in San Francisco, and for the invitation to contribute to this special issue of the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. We thank Conrad Brimacombe, Kate Britton, Keith Dobney, Mana Dembo, Marina Elliott, Ian Gilligan, Brian Hayden, Trenton Holliday, Vance Hutchinson, Steve Kuhn, Dana Lepofsky, Lee Lyman, Luseadra McKerracher, Kim Plomp, Bernard Wood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Ian Gilligan’s comments in particular resulted in major changes to the interpretation of the results. MC is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, and Simon Fraser University. LT work on the study reported here was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (award no. 755-2011-0406). We are grateful to all these funding bodies. Last but not least, MC would like to express his gratitude to Jim O’Connell for his friendship and guidance over nearly 20 years. Thanks Jim. You’re the dog’s bollocks.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprin