1. Discussion of Ethics in Archaeology in Context of Damage on Highland Beach
and Margate Blount Remains
Nathaniel A. Hevenstone
In 1996, the Principles of ArchaeologicalEthics were developed and accepted asissuessurrounding the
practice of Archaeology began to surface.Archaeologistsstarted to become“in demand”in professions
outsideof academia.This precipitated a need forethical guidelinesoutlining how artifactsand corpses
should betreated and used.Only five yearsbefore,in 1990, the NativeAmerican Graves Protection and
Repatriation Actwaspassed into lawin the United States,with numerousrevisionssince.These
measureswereintended to protecthistory and create an expectation of respectforthe dead. Arethese
acts enough,oraremore guidelinesrequired to ensurethe protection of remainsfound atarchaeological
sites?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have beentryingtofigure outa universal standardof ethicsfora longtime,overhow we treateach
otherand howwe treat the dead.Differentcultureshave differentideasaboutethics.Thiscanoften
cause a clashinhow twoor more culturesinteractwitheachother,especiallyoverthe unearthingof
humanremains.Thisisbecause differentcultureswillhave differentwaysof treatinghumanremains,
basedupontheirownbeliefsandtheirideasof whatconstitutesrespect forthe dead.
One of the smallerside-effectsof digginguphumanremainscomesfromdamage fromthe toolsusedto
do the digging.The skullsof boththe HighlandBeachpopulationand,toalesserextent,the Margate
Blountpopulations,housedatFloridaAtlanticUniversity,show potential evidence of thisdamage.It
raisesthe questionof whethersome amountof damage isinevitable,orwhethermore stepscanbe
takingto ensure the properhandlingandcare of the bonesretrievedata dig.Then,of course,it mustbe
decidedwhattodo withthose bonesaftertheyare exhumed.Dowe studythemandplace themin a
museum, ordo we returnthose remainsbackto the earth?
In 1906, PresidentTheodore Roosevelt signedintolaw the AntiquitiesAct.Itwasthe firstlaw designed
to protectthe landsand resourcesownedbythe UnitedStates,aswell asestablishanational historic
preservationpolicy.Itestablishedpenaltiesforunauthorizedexcavationof asite on US land,and
institutedasetof guidelinesforthe propercare and handlingof resources,artifacts,andhuman
remainsfoundatdifferentArchaeologyandheldinmuseums.Then,in1935, the HistoricSitesActwas
signedintolaw,enforcingthe preservationof so-called“historicsites”,determinedbythe Secretaryof
the Interiortohave Archaeological significance.Followingthat,in 1960, the Archeological andHistoric
PreservationActwassignedintolaw.Thismade the federal agenciessetupbythe previousactsin the
UnitedStatesresponsible forminimizingthe damage causedatarchaeological siteswithinthe US.Then,
in1966, the National HistoricPreservationActwassignedintolaw.Thisactcreatedthe National
Registerof HistoricPlaces,where archaeological sitescanbe registeredtobe grantedadditional federal
protections.
Withthese lawsinplace inthe UnitedStates, the spotlightturnedonthe restof the world.The
Conventiononthe Meansof ProhibitingandPreventingthe IllicitImport,ExportandTransferof
Ownershipof Cultural Property1970, adoptedbythe UnitedNationsinNovember1970 at the 16th
sessionof UNESCOinParis, startedprotectingculturesworldwide. Thisconvention made itillegalto
import,export,ortransferownershipof cultural propertywithoutfollowingthe guidelinessetforthin
the convention.Italsoestablishedalistof guidelinesforthe creationof national serviceswithineach

2. 2
countryto regulate andprotecthistorical and archaeological landmarksandsitesaccordingtothe
convention.
Thishelpedtokeepthe debate overarchaeological ethicsgoinginthe UnitedStates,andin 1979, the
Archaeological ResourcesProtectionActbecame law.Thisactwas necessitatedbythe continuing
destructionof archaeological sitesbydigsrunbythese federal agenciesandlargelycausedbythe sites’
commercial attractiveness. Itestablishedthatthese sitesanddigsare partof the Nation’sheritage,and
theyare protectedbystrongerguidelinestoensure theirsafetyfromcommercial interests.
The questionof ethicsinArchaeologytookaturn in1990 whenitbecame focusedonthe sitesof Native
Americanburialsandlands.Toaddressthe issue directly,the Native AmericanGraves Protectionand
RepatriationActwassignedintolaw.ThisspecificallyaddressedNative Americanburial digs,andset
special protectionsforNativeAmericancultural patrimonyobjects,sacredobjects,funeraryobjects,and
humanremains.Itoutlinedpenaltiesforthe illegal traffickingof artifactsandremainsfoundat any
archaeological site,andforcedanyandall publicmuseumstodoinventoryontheirholdingsinorderto
make it easierforfederal agenciesandnative tribestoworktogetherinidentifyingandreturninghuman
remainsandburial objectstothose tribes.Alsoin1990, Curationof FederallyOwnedandAdministered
Archaeological Collections Actwassignedintolaw.Thisestablishedthe guidelinesforcurating,
preserving, andprotectingarchaeological collections.
Finally,in1996, the SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyadoptedthe Principlesof Archaeological Ethics.
These ethical guidelinessetuprulesinstewardship,accountability,commercialization,publiceducation
and outreach,intellectualproperty,publicreportingandpublication,recordsandpreservation,and
trainingandresources. Itrecognizesthe destructive nature of archaeological digs,aswell asthe extra
destructive layerof the commercializationof such,andsoinsistsona code of conduct at eachdig and
howartifactsand remainsare to be treatedwhenunearthed.
At FloridaAtlanticUniversity,we have anumberof populationsdugupandbroughtto the school.The
skullsfromtwoof those collections,one fromHighlandBeachandthe otherfromMargate Blount,as
I’ve alreadymentioned,show potential damage fromthe digs.Inthispaper,Ilookat that damage and
determine whetherornotthe currentethical guidelinesandlawsinplace are the bestprotection
available,andif suchdamage isevenavoidable.

3. 3
Methodsand Observations
I startedby observingthe skullsof the HighlandBeachpopulation.Ifound,onnearlyall of them, minor
to majornicksand cracks. I was unable todetermine exactlywhatcausedthese,althoughtheyappear
to be more artificial thannatural.
StartingwithNN4 – 1 HB:
While notmajor,these chipsandscratchesappearto be the resultof trowelsorperhapscleaningtools.
Theyprobablyoccurredeitherwhen theywere beingdugupor whentheywere beingcleanedof dirt
and mud.
NextisNN4– 2 HB:
Figure 4
Here we see a scratch (top) anda chip creatinga hole (bottom).The hole itself maysimplybe aresultof
natural damage,but the chipitself againappearsartificial.Like withall the scratches,thismaybe caused
by cleaning.The chip,however,doesappeartobe a consequence of the dig.
Figure 1 - Left parietal Figure 2 - Frontal,
right, along coronal
suture
Figure 3 - Occipital

4. 4
Andhere we have NN4 - 3 HB:
The damage in figure 5 appearsto be damage fromthe dig,because of the directionof the surrounding
area of the hole (pointingdownin),whichsuggeststhatsomethingpusheditswayin.Infigure 6,we
have anotherscratch, possibly,again,causedbycleaning.
NN4 – 5 HB seemstohave beenpickedat:
In thiscase,the damage mightbe natural,especiallyinfigure8,where the placementcouldsuggesta
small wormianbone that’sbeenlost.Buttheydoappearto be holesperhapsfromthe edge of a shovel
or the tip of a trowel ora cleaningtool.
Figure 5 - Right
parietal, just above
temporal
Figure 6 - Right
parietal, near top, just
above the frontal
Figure 7 - Frontal, right, near temporal Figure 8 - Parietal,
back, along the sagittal
suture

5. 5
NN4 – 8 HB isa little more ambiguous,because of the nature of the damage:
The two scrapes(topand middle) are probablyfromcleaning.The hole atthe top(whichmayhave been
a wormianbone),andthe bottompoint,where boneshasclearlycrackedoff,are bothprobablythe
resultof natural wearand tear afterburial overthe time itwas buried.The hole atthe bottomleft,
however,maybe anotherone causedbya trowel or cleaningtool.
NN4 – 9 HB is,like NN4– 8 HB, an alreadyverydamagedskull,soitwasinfact quite hardto tell what
damage was natural and whatdamage was human-caused.
AlthoughI’msure the scrapesand chipsare artificial,the hole nearthe bottom-center-leftof figure 10
may verywell simplybe the brokenbone havingworndown,thuscreatingahole where the pieceswere
gluedbacktogether.
At leasta couple of the Margate Blountskulls,specificallyMB1 and MB 2, appearto be inmuch better
condition.However,theyalsoexhibitsome,if minimal,seeminglyhuman-causeddamage.
Figure 9 - Frontal
Figure 10 Figure 11

6. 6
Figure 12 - MB 1 right
parietal/temporal
You can see a scrape or chipinfigure 12, probablyfromcleaning,butthisseemstobe the extantof
human-causeddamage toMB 1, witheverythingelselikelyacause of natural,post-burial damage.
The damage on MB 2 all appearsto be natural,withthe exceptionof apossible nickonthe backof the
skull,onthe occipital.
Now,that these examplesof damage are human-causedisatleastpartlyspeculation,basedupona
basicunderstandingof whatdamage fromtoolsandothermishandlingof fragileitemscanlooklike.
These couldalsobe more natural marks, causedbypredationsorwearingdownof the bone duringthe
time itwas buried.However,the shape of the highlightedholesandthe colorof the highlightedscrapes
and chipsdoessuggestmore human-causeddamage.

7. 7
Historical Outline
Listedbeloware the Principlesof Archaeological Ethics,adoptedbythe SocietyforAmerican
ArchaeologyonApril 10, 1996. Theyrepresentaboutfive years’worthof study,research,andworkin
puttingthese together.
Principle No.1:
Stewardship
The archaeological record,thatis,insituarchaeological material and
sites,archaeologicalcollections,recordsand reports,isirreplaceable.It
isthe responsibilityof all archaeologiststoworkforthe long-term
conservationandprotectionof the archaeological recordbypracticing
and promotingstewardshipof the archaeological record.Stewardsare
bothcaretakers of andadvocatesfor the archaeological recordforthe
benefitof all people;astheyinvestigate andinterpretthe record,they
shoulduse the specializedknowledgetheygaintopromote public
understandingandsupportforitslong-termpreservation.
Principle No.2:
Accountability
Responsible archaeological research,includingall levelsof professional
activity,requiresanacknowledgmentof publicaccountabilityanda
commitmenttomake everyreasonableeffort,ingoodfaith,toconsult
activelywithaffectedgroup(s),withthe goal of establishingaworking
relationshipthatcan be beneficial toall partiesinvolved.
Principle No.3:
Commercialization
The SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyhaslongrecognizedthatthe
buyingandsellingof objectsoutof archaeological contextis
contributingtothe destructionof the archaeological recordonthe
Americancontinentsandaroundthe world.The commercializationof
archaeological objects - theiruse ascommoditiestobe exploitedfor
personal enjoymentorprofit- resultsinthe destructionof
archaeological sitesandof contextual informationthatisessential to
understandingthe archaeological record.Archaeologistsshould
therefore carefullyweighthe benefitstoscholarshipof aprojectagainst
the costs of potentiallyenhancingthe commercial valueof
archaeological objects.Wheneverpossible theyshoulddiscourage,and
shouldthemselvesavoid,activitiesthatenhance the commercialvalue
of archaeological objects,especiallyobjectsthatare notcurated in
publicinstitutions,orreadilyavailable forscientificstudy,public
interpretation,anddisplay.
Principle No.4:
PublicEducationandOutreach
Archaeologistsshouldreachoutto,and participate incooperative

8. 8
effortswithothersinterestedinthe archaeologicalrecordwiththe aim
of improvingthe preservation,protection,andinterpretationof the
record.In particular,archaeologistsshouldundertake to:1) enlistpublic
supportfor the stewardshipof the archaeological record;2) explainand
promote the use of archaeological methodsandtechniquesin
understandinghumanbehaviorandculture;and3) communicate
archaeological interpretationsof the past.Manypublicsexistfor
archaeologyincludingstudentsandteachers;Native Americansand
otherethnic,religious,andcultural groupswhofindinthe
archaeological recordimportantaspectsof theircultural heritage;
lawmakersandgovernmentofficials;reporters,journalists,andothers
involvedinthe media;andthe general public.Archaeologists whoare
unable toundertake publiceducationandoutreachdirectlyshould
encourage andsupportthe effortsof othersinthese activities.
Principle No.5:
Intellectual Property
Intellectual property,ascontainedinthe knowledge anddocuments
createdthroughthe studyof archaeological resources,ispartof the
archaeological record.Assuchitshouldbe treatedinaccord withthe
principlesof stewardshipratherthanasa matter of personal
possession.If there isacompellingreason,andnolegal restrictionsor
strongcountervailinginterests,aresearchermayhave primaryaccessto
original materialsanddocumentsforalimitedandreasonable time,
afterwhichthese materialsanddocumentsmustbe made available to
others.
Principle No.6:
PublicReportingandPublication
Withina reasonable time,the knowledgearchaeologistsgainfrom
investigationof the archaeological recordmustbe presentedin
accessible form(throughpublicationorothermeans) toas wide arange
of interestedpublicsaspossible. The documentsandmaterialsonwhich
publicationandotherformsof publicreportingare basedshouldbe
depositedinasuitable place forpermanentsafekeeping.Aninterestin
preservingandprotectinginsituarchaeological sitesmustbe takeninto
account whenpublishinganddistributinginformationabouttheir
nature and location.
Principle No.7:
Recordsand Preservation
Archaeologistsshouldworkactivelyforthe preservationof,andlong
termaccess to, archaeological collections,records,andreports.Tothis
end,theyshouldencourage colleagues,students,andotherstomake
responsible use of collections,records,andreportsintheirresearchas
one meansof preservingthe insituarchaeological record,andof

9. 9
increasingthe care and attentiongiventothatportionof the
archaeological recordwhichhasbeenremovedandincorporatedinto
archaeological collections,records,andreports.
Principle No.8:
TrainingandResources
Giventhe destructive nature of mostarchaeological investigations,
archaeologistsmustensure thattheyhave adequate training,
experience,facilities,andothersupportnecessarytoconductany
program of researchtheyinitiate inamannerconsistentwiththe
foregoingprinciplesandcontemporarystandardsof professional
practice.
("SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyPrinciplesof Archaeological Ethics",
1996)
Thisis part of the longefforttoinstill asense of ethicsatarchaeological digs,toensure the protectionof
cultural itemsandbodies.Butitbeginswayback.The pursuitof an ethical frameworkforscience isas
oldas science itself.Butacodifiedsetof ethicsforarchaeologyreallybeganin1906, whenPresident
Theodore Rooseveltsignedintolawthe AntiquitiesAct.Itsmainpurpose wasgivingthe Presidentthe
abilitytouse the powersof Presidential Proclamationtorestrictthe usage of publiclandsandcreate
national parks.
Section1
Anypersonwhoshall appropriate,excavate,injure,ordestroyany
historicor prehistoricruinormonument,oranyobjectof antiquity,
situatedonlandsownedorcontrolledbythe Governmentof the United
States,withoutthe permissionof the Secretaryof the Departmentof
the Governmenthavingjurisdictionoverthe landsonwhichsaid
antiquitiesare situated,shall,uponconviction,be finedinasumof not
more than five hundreddollarsorbe imprisonedforaperiodof not
more than ninetydays,orshall sufferbothfine andimprisonment,in
the discretionof the court.
Section2
The Presidentof the UnitedStatesisauthorized,inhisdiscretion,to
declare bypublicproclamationhistoriclandmarks,historicand
prehistoricstructures,andotherobjectsof historicorscientificinterest
that are situateduponthe landsownedorcontrolledbythe
Governmentof the UnitedStatestobe national monuments,andmay
reserve asa part thereof parcelsof land,the limitsof whichinall cases
shall be confinedtothe smallestareacompatiblewithpropercare and
managementof the objectstobe protected.Whensuchobjectsare
situatedupona tract coveredbya bona fide unperfectedclaimorheld
inprivate ownership,the tract,orso much thereof asmaybe necessary
for the propercare and managementof the object,maybe relinquished
to the Government,andthe Secretaryof the Interiorishereby

10. 10
authorizedtoacceptthe relinquishmentof suchtracts in [sic] behalf of
the Governmentof the UnitedStates.
(AntiquitiesAct,1906)
Nowthe Presidenthadthe powertoidentifyandprotecthistoriclandmarks,structures,andartifacts.It
alsoattemptedtopushprotectionsforhistoricartifactsfoundonprivate land,butdidnotallow fora
meansof enforcingit.Soif somethingof importwasfoundonprivately-heldland,there wasno
obligationforthe ownerof the landto relinquishthe findingstothe governmentandthustothe
archaeologists.Thisactalsoestablishedarequirementforpermits,tobe givenoutbythe Secretariesof
the Interior,Agriculture,andArmytoany institutiontheydecide isqualifiedtoconductthe digup to the
standardsof the lawitself.
The historyof the Antiquitieswentwellbackintothe 19th
century.The interestof immigrantAmericans
inNative Americanantiquitieswasgrowing,butthere wasnothingtoprotectthemat thatpoint.Then,
in1889, on January3, a congressmanbythe name of George Frisbie Hoarpresentedapetitionto
congressto declare CasaGrande in Arizona.It’spassed,andCasaGrande became the first formal
national archaeological reservation inUSHistory.Thiswasthe sparkthat reallyjump-startedthe move
to the AntiquitiesAct,whichwassignedintolaw byPresidentTheodore RooseveltonJune 8,1906.(Lee,
2001)
About29 yearslater,in1935, the HistoricSitesAct wassignedintolaw.
Section1
It isherebydeclaredthatitisa national policytopreserve forpublicuse
historicsites,buildings,andobjectsof national significance forthe
inspirationandbenefitof the peopleof the UnitedStates.
Section2
The Secretaryof the Interior(hereinafterinsections1to7 of thisAct
referredtoas the Secretary),throughthe National ParkService,forthe
purpose of effectuatingthe policyexpressedinsection1of thisAct,
shall have the followingpowersandperformthe followingdutiesand
functions:
(HistoricSitesAct1935)
Thisact allowedforthe organizationof all historicandprotectedsites,parks,monuments,etcunderthe
National ParkService.Italsoestablishedthe government’sdutytopreservehistoricsites,whichthe
AntiquitiesActonlyhintedat.Thisactalso establishedthe National ParkSystemAdvisoryBoard.
In 1960, the Archeological andHistoricPreservationAct wassignedintolaw.
Section1
It isthe purpose of thisAct[16 U.S.C. 469-469c-1] to furtherthe policy
setforth inthe Act entitled,“AnActtoprovide forthe preservationof
historicAmericansites,buildings,objects,andantiquitiesof national
significance,andforotherpurposes,”approvedAugust21,1935
[HistoricSitesAct,asamended,16 U.S.C. 461-467] by specifically

11. 11
providingforthe preservationof historical andarcheological data
(includingrelicsandspecimens) whichmightotherwisebe irreparably
lostor destroyedasthe resultof (1) flooding,the buildingof access
roads,the erectionof workmen’scommunities,the relocationof
railroadsandhighways,andotheralterationsof the terraincausedby
the constructionof a damby any agencyof the UnitedStates,orby any
private personorcorporationholdingalicense issuedbyanysuch
agencyor (2) any alterationof the terraincausedasa resultof any
Federal constructionprojectorfederallylicensedactivityorprogram.
(Archeological andHistoricPreservationAct 1960)
Withthe passage of thisact, the governmentcouldnow protecthistoricsitesfromdamage causedby
constructionprojects.Sonow,inorderfor dams,roads,or railwaystobe built,theyfirsthave tocheck
theirplansagainstthislawto ensure thattheirconstructiondoesnotdisruptahistoricsite.6 years
later,in1966, the National HistoricPreservationActbecame law.Thiscreatedthe National Registerof
HistoricPlaces,whichprovidedaplace where archaeologicalsitescouldbe registered,providingeven
more protections.(McManamon NRHP)
Worldwide,theftsatmuseumsandarchaeological siteswere growing,whichnecessitatedthe United
Nationstoholda conference inParis.There,theyadoptedthe Conventiononthe Meansof Prohibiting
and Preventingthe IllicitImport,ExportandTransferof Ownershipof Cultural Property.Thisprotects
archaeological digsandmuseumsamongstall the countriesthatare partof the UN, enforcingharsher
penaltiesaroundthe worldfortheftof historical artifactsandbodiesandsites.("1970 Convention | United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization")
So far,withall these acts inthe US inplace,and withthe UNESCOconventioninplace,archaeological
digswere protected,atleastbylaw.But strongerregulationsstill neededtobe putintoplace,especially
inthe UnitedStates.Here,government agenciesthemselves,througharchaeological digoperations,
were still causingdamage.Itbecame apparentthata needforstrongerregulationswereneeded.And
withthisinmind,the Archaeological ResourcesProtectionActbecame law in1979.(McManamon ARPA)
This
act establishedthat“archaeological resourcesonpubliclandsandIndianlandsare anaccessible and
irreplaceablepartof the Nation’sheritage”,that“these resourcesare increasinglyendangeredbecause
of theircommercial attractiveness”,andthat“existingFederal lawsdonotprovide adequateprotection
to preventthe lossanddestructionof these archaeological resourcesandsitesresultingfrom
uncontrolledexcavationsandpillage”.
The purpose of thisAct is to secure,forthe presentandfuture benefit
of the Americanpeople,the protectionof archaeological resourcesand
siteswhichare on publiclandsandIndianlands,andto fosterincreased
cooperationandexchange of informationbetweengovernmental
authorities,the professionalarchaeological community,andprivate
individualshavingcollectionsof archaeological resourcesanddata
whichwere obtainedbefore October31,1979 [the date of the
enactmentof thisAct].
(Archaeological ResourcesProtectionAct1979)

12. 12
The act servedtostrengthenthe alreadyexistinglaws,andcreate greaterincentive forprivate land
ownerstoshare discoverieswithmuseumsandarchaeologists.Itstrengthenedthe powerthe
governmenthadatthat pointto establishhistorical landmarksandsites,andkeepacloser,strongereye
on artifactsand bodies.(McManamon ARPA)
Many of these actsmentionedNative Americansites,andtheydidapply,butthere wasstill an
importantconcernnot yetmet.Basicallyall archaeological sitesinthe Americasare Native American
sites,andNative Americansconsiderthesesitessacred,notleastbecausemostNative American
religionsare baseduponthe worshipof theirancestors.Sothe bodiesthatgetunearthedatAmerican
archaeological sitesare verysacredtoNative Americans. There hasalwaysbeentensionbetween
ArchaeologistsandNativeAmericansoverthe sitesandthe artifactsandbodiesfoundatthose sites.So,
withthat inmind,in1990, the Native AmericanGravesRepatriationAct wassignedintolaw,thus
codifyingacompromise of sortsbetweenNative Americansandthe governmentonhow tohandle
archaeological sitesandartifactsandbodies.(McManamon NAGPRA)
The firstpart of the act establishedthatanyremainsandartifactsfoundbelong,firstandforemost,to
the lineal descendantsof the personfound.If suchcannotbe established,thentheybelongtothe tribe
that livesonor comesfromthe landwhere the digwas located,orhas the closestcultural tiestothat
land.Andevenwhennosuchtiesat all couldbe found,the act still establishedthatNative Americans
basicallyhadfirstclaim,andthat the governmentandthe teamshadto workwithNative Americansto
decide whattodo withthe findingsof the dig.(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990)
Under thisact, museumsandfederal agenciesthatalreadyhadartifactsandremainsfrom
archaeological digsfrombefore the actwentintoeffecthadtocatalog andinventorywhattheyhad,
and make thisinformationavailablenolaterthanfive yearsafterthe act wassigned.Then,if anyNative
Americantribe knowntobe lineallyorculturallyaffiliatedtothe artifactsand/orremainsrequeststhat
theybe returned,the act grantedthisoutright,enforcingthe repatriationuponrequestof the
associatedtribe.The actalso establishedpenaltiesforanyfederal agenciesormuseumsfailingto
complywiththe provisionsinthe actinterms of paymentof damagesandfees,andestablished
penaltiesforthe illegal traffickingof suchitems.(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990)
1990 alsosaw the signingof the Curationof FederallyOwnedandAdministeredArchaeological
Collections Actintolaw.The purpose of thiswasto,specifically,setupguidelinesforthe safe curationof
the artifactsand remainsfoundatany archaeological digatany site inthe UnitedStatesor at any dig
beingfundedbythe US government.(NPS Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections Act)
It was six
yearslater,in1996, that the SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyadoptedthe Principlesof Archaeological
Ethics,quotedat the beginningof thissection.
All of these acts,and the final Principles,existtoprotectartifactsandremainsfoundatdigsconducted
inand fundedbythe US, as well as,underthe UNESCO 1970 convention,aroundthe world.Butdothey
go far enough?

13. 13
Discussionand Conclusion
The skullsIsurveyedfromthe HighlandBeachandMargate Blountpopulationsshowedsignsof damage.
Much of that damage waslikelynatural,causedbycenturiesof erosionovertime frombeingburied,
unprotected,inthe ground.Remainsdugupat archaeological sitesare rarelycomplete,andevenwhen
the majorityof a body can be found,itis ofteninpiecesandfragmentsthatare quite hardto put back
together,andwill still have holesindicatingmissingpieces.
The discussionof ethicsoverthe decadeshave dealtwithhow toorganize andworkarchaeological digs
to ensure thatartifactsand remainsare not furtherdamagedbythe work of the archaeologistsatthe
digs,andto protect digs,artifacts,andremainsfromcommercial venturesandtrafficking.Butperhaps
some human-causeddamage isstill inevitable.
I lookedatthe skullsspecificallybecause of whatIfeltwasthe ease of beingable toidentifyahuman-
causedscratch, scrape,or breakcomparedto otherbones,likelydue the flattersurfacesof largerskull
bone.However,itwasstill inconclusive andwasbasedonmyearlierunrelatedstudiesof whathappens
to boneswhenburiedinthe ground,throughprocessesof fossilization,aswell aspredationandgeneral
erosionandwearand tear.
Whenremainsare dug up at archaeological sites,specifictoolsare usedtoget themoutof the ground,
and thengetthemcleaned,both immediatelyon-siteandlaterat labs.Toolsare alsousedto study
bones,aswell.Accidentscanhappenandpeople canonlybe socareful before the verynextstepisjust
leavingthe remainscompletelyalone.Toolsused,suchastrowels,usuallyhave sharperedgesand
points,andwhenremainsare dugout of the ground,attemptingtoremove the eartharoundthe bones
can cause some unintentionalscrapingandchipping.Cleaningthe bones,bothimmediatelyon-siteand
laterinlabs,can have similareffects.
I do recall,however,hearingaboutone skull amongstthe collectionatFAUthat was droppedand
shattered.Thismade me think,again,aboutthe regulationsalreadyestablishedandthe ethicstaught
and impresseduponwhendealingwithremains,andwhethertheycango further.
Perhapspoliciesof wearingglovesandusingsofter-edgedtoolsmighthelp,assumingthose tools
wouldn’tsignificantlyhurtefficiency.More protectionsonlabfloors,suchasmemoryfoamfloorsor
somethingalongthose lines,thin enoughtobe comfortable towalkandstandon,solidenoughto
accommodate chairsand desksandtables,butjustsoftenoughto protectbonesandotherfragile
objectsfromshatteringwhendropped.Butitshouldalsobe easilyswept,vacuumed,andsteamed.
Of course those are justa couple of suggestions,andstill,it’ssafe toassume thatnomatterhow many
regulationswe putintoplace,accidentswill still happen.Minimizinghastobe the goal,and sothe
conversationaroundthe largerpicture of ethics inthe Archaeologicalcommunity,aswell asthe more
specificthingsthatcan be done to minimizedamage,shouldcontinue.What’sinplace alreadyis
adequate,butwhetherit’senoughisthe questiontotackle now.Whatmore can be done?Can we go
too far?Or isit possible thatwe’vegone asfaras we can, and that the nextstepissimplytoleave the
remainsalone?

14. 14
Bibliography
1970 Convention|UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCultural Organization.(n.d.).Retrieved
November30,2014, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-
property/1970-convention/
AntiquitiesAct, Pub.L.59–209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. § 431–433 (1906)
Archeological andHistoricPreservationAct,16 U.S.C. 469–469c-2 (1960)
Archaeological ResourcesProtectionAct, Pub.L.96–95 as amended,93 Stat.721, codifiedat16 U.S.C.§§
470aa–470mm (1979)
HistoricSitesAct, 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467 (1935)
Conventiononthe Meansof ProhibitingandPreventingthe IllicitImport,ExportandTransferof
Ownershipof Cultural Property1970. Nov17, 1970.
Lee,R. (2001, January1). The Storyof the AntiquitiesAct.Retrieved November20,2014, from
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/Lee/
McManamon, F. (n.d.).Archeological andHistoricPreservationAct(AHPA).RetrievedDecember1,2014,
fromhttp://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/AHPA.htm
McManamon, F. (n.d.).NPSArcheologyProgram:The Archaeological ResourcesProtectionActof 1979
(ARPA).RetrievedDecember2,2014, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/ARPA.htm
McManamon, F. (n.d.).NPSArcheologyProgram:The Native AmericanGravesProtectionand
RepatriationAct(NAGPRA).RetrievedNovember14, 2014, from
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/NAGPRA.htm
National HistoricPreservationAct, Pub.L.89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. (1966)
Native AmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriation Act,Pub.L.101-601, 25 U.S.C.3001 et seq.,104
Stat. 3048 (1990)
NPSArcheologyProgram:Curationof FederallyOwnedandAdministeredArcheological Collections(36
CFR 79). (n.d.).RetrievedNovember9,2014, from
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/36CFR79.htm
SocietyforAmericanArchaeologyPrinciplesof Archaeological Ethics.(1996). American Antiquity,61(3),
451-452.
Researched but not Directly Used
Goldstein,L.,&Kintigh, K.(1990). Ethics andthe Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity,55(3),585-
591.
Lynott,M. (1997). Ethical PrinciplesandArchaeological Practice:Developmentof anEthicsPolicy.
American Antiquity,62(4),589-599.