Ethics in Osteoarchaeology

While the term “ethic” has variable definitions by different authors, what they share in common is a sense that it provides a system of accepted beliefs that control behavior, based on morals (Peters 2013). Ethics in archaeology and anthropology is an area that has been discussed progressively more over time in recent years (González-Ruibal 2018; Turner, Wagner, and Cabana 2018). This piece explores thoughts on the need for and application of ethical guidelines in osteoarchaeology, how they can be helpful and constructive, but also how there might be differences in opinion among populations in different parts of the world. As for all areas of science, we need a robust set of ethics for how we should study and interpret excavated skeletal material to avoid fraudulent publications or misleading claims from unsound methodology or fabricated data (D'Angelo 2012; Waddington 2016). However, the elements of ethics that apply to human osteoarchaeology go far beyond those of some other branches of the sciences, when the focus of that osteoarchaeological research is the remains of our own species (Clegg 2020; Clough 2020; Squires, Errikson, and Márquez-Grant 2020). Regarding osteoarchaeology, ethical views associated with human remains are generally distinct from those held about the study of nonhuman animals. The perspective that the remains of our own species are different and more important to us than are the remains of those of other mammals is one that is found in many different populations (see for example AAPA 2003; BABAO 2019).

Ethical norms regarding human remains will not be the same for all populations in different regions of the world. This will depend upon religious beliefs, cultural values, and traditional behaviors for each population (Márquez-Grant and Fibiger 2011; Scarre and Scarre 2006). For example, we might expect populations from countries subjected to colonialism in recent centuries to rightly push back to regain autonomy over their cultural heritage, so having differing views to their colonizers. Countries with a more homogenous integrated population might show less variation in views to those with many distinct minority groups speaking different languages and expressing their unique cultures. Ethical views about human remains may also vary depending upon whether the remains are skeletonized or mummified, or of children as opposed to adults (Squires, Davuidson, and Piombino-Mascali 2024).

Europe has a long history of the display of relics or even entire bodies of saints at religious shrines and processions, one which persists on saints days in countries such as Greece and Spain today (Freeman 2011). We also see the open display of human remains in churches in countries such as Italy, which can be visited by all (Zenou 2023). In contrast, people from some cultures feel that human remains should either not be on display at all or should just be viewed by the descendent community of the deceased individuals. For this reason, some populations, such as indigenous communities from Australia and North America, have asked for the return and reinterment of human remains of their ancestors curated in museums (Clegg 2020; Turnbull 2020). Due to this complexity, some professional organizations have compiled ethical guidance for how we might handle and care for the remains of human ancestors found in archaeological contexts (AAPA 2003; BABAO 2019).

In 2023, the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology added a section to the journal author guidelines entitled Ethics, Human Remains, and Engagement with Culturally Affiliated Descendent Communities (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10991212/homepage/forauthors.html). Our aim was to avoid situations where papers are submitted to the journal presenting the analysis of skeletal material from those indigenous communities where they have strong views about their ancestors but where those communities have not been consulted or given their permission. This could happen if human remains were collected by explorers in the 1700s or 1800s and brought back to the explorer's country of origin or in situations today where a government may have a different ethical perspective regarding human remains to those of some of its indigenous minority communities. Our guidance ensures that for such a paper to be accepted by the IJO, evidence must be given to show that those indigenous communities have been consulted, given their permission for the remains of their ancestors to be studied and the results published, and that new knowledge has been shared with the affiliated descendant community so they benefit from the increased understanding. Comparable guidance in their author guidelines can also be found in our sister journal in the field, the American Journal of Biological Anthropology.

Some have advocated going further with regard to ethics, proposing that it should be standard practice for research published in the field of human bioarchaeology to have been assessed and approved by a research ethics committee before the study commences and that papers contain an ethics statement detailing a range of information relevant to the field, such as for destructive sampling and use of illustrations of the human remains (Squires, Roberts, and Márquez-Grant 2022). This is standard for medical research on living patients and works well where participants can choose to give or withhold their consent to take part in a study (Coleman and Bouësseau 2008). However, not all undertaking research on human skeletal remains have access to an ethics committee. Furthermore, the applicability and implications of a similar approach for those who cannot give consent for research on their bodies as they died hundreds or even thousands of years ago is a complex issue with the potential to trigger a range of views.

Recently, a thought-provoking paper entitled “Cremated Bone in Archaeology: Ethical Considerations in the Excavation, Analysis, Storage and Display of Cremated Bone in the United Kingdom” was published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (Squires et al. 2025). This highlighted that even though the remains are highly fragmentary and no longer having the appearance of a human body (for example if placed in a ceramic pot when interred) the fact that they are the remains of a human means that from an ethical perspective they should be regarded with the same level of respect as is given to skeletalized or mummified human remains. The authors go on to share their recommendations for how we might better apply ethics to all aspects of interactions with cremated remains in Britain, from excavation, processing, analysis, storage, curation, and display. We at the IJO very much welcome this contribution to the field.

One key challenge with defining and creating a set of ethical standards for osteoarchaeology is that the views of different members of the same population will not all be the same, even before we consider the differences noted above between populations in different regions of the world. We need to develop an approach that deals with the issue where some people may be really interested to see their ancestors and hear about the scientific research undertaken on those remains, while others in the same population may feel that the dead should be left in the ground and not studied at all, let alone displayed in museums. Should we follow the view of a simple majority, or does it require 60%, 80%, 90%, or 100% of the population to share a view before it should be a requirement for everyone? One way to incorporate flexibility and choice in order to avoid those seeing human remains in a museum when they would prefer not to is to have signs explaining where human remains are displayed so people can plan to avoid that part of a museum if they wish (Squires, Davuidson, and Piombino-Mascali 2024). However, to some the mere fact that the remains are on display in the museum might cause them upset, whether or not they themselves actually see the remains.

Having considered how different members of the same population will have different views, and populations in different regions of the world vary even further depending upon their cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and social identities, this would suggest that there cannot be one correct ethical view for everyone regarding osteoarchaeology. There will of course be some ethical perspectives shared by all, but there will be other aspects for which a local consensus viewpoint may be the best way forward. Future ethical guidelines will benefit from flexibility incorporating the choices made by cultures and populations across the world. In this regard, the Squires et al. 2025 paper sensibly focuses its recommendations on one region (Britain), as the populations of North America, Australia, Italy, or Greece might each have their own viewpoints on what they would wish to include in their own ethical guidance applying to osteoarchaeology.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.