Format: Paper presentation with discussion
Convenors:
Michael C. Westaway, Archaeology, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia, m.westaway@uq.edu.au
Michael L. Blakey, Institute for Historical Biology, Dept of Anthropology, William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, mlblak@wm.edu
Judith Littleton, Anthropology, University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand, j.littleton@auckland.ac.nz
Some of the most informative and personal insights in reconstructing past societies are derived through bioarchaeological research. Whether these are single case studies/osteobiographies, or detailed studies of larger samples of individuals representative of populations, they provide insights into the human past that cannot be obtained through other types of archaeological evidence. With the emergence of higher resolution molecular studies, we can now gain a deeper understanding of ancient diet, the movement of people and relationships with neighbouring groups. A significant legacy issue continues, stemming from the theft and unethical treatment of ancestors and a failure to engage and consult with Indigenous people and descendant communities. The sensitive nature of bioarchaeological research, dealing with the ancestors of living people, requires the development of meaningful partnerships with descendant communities. In this context we have seen emerge more empathetic approaches to studying people of the past, where new methodological approaches such as the bioarchaeology of care have been developed, emphasising how people were cared for and nursed by their societies in the past. Bioarchaeology has great potential to help communities engage with their past in very powerful ways when undertaken collaboratively and with respect. In this session we will explore a series of studies that highlight the importance of ethical research in bioarchaeology, providing insights into how work can continue through new ethical approaches to human remains from the past and how when developed in collaboration and partnership can provide results of importance to Indigenous and descendant communities. The session will start with a keynote discussing the African burial ground excavation in Manhattan, one of the world’s most informative case studies on conducting community based bioarchaeological research through what can be defined as a clientage model, where community ownership and decision making generated globally significant insights.
Papers:
The WAC at the Origin of the New York African Burial Ground Project
Michael L. Blakey, Institute for Historical Biology, Dept of Anthropology, William & Mary, USA
The First World Archaeological Congress (1986) and Inter-Congress (1989) facilitated conversations among archaeologists and Indigenous peoples that would inspire change in archaeological practice. The African Burial Ground Project carried forward specific ideas of that encounter, joined with the activist scholarship and interdisciplinary habits of the African diaspora. The African Burial Ground Project (1992-2016) followed the first ethical bioarchaeology in the United States (enforced by NAGPRA in 1990) but concerned populations worthy of ethical treatment which were left uncovered by the law. By force of public pressure and scholarly cooperation, it became the first large and most visible example of publicly engaged archaeology. The results were affection between its scientists and ‘descendant community,’ an international conversation about slavery, national linguistic transformation, sophisticated bioarchaeological reports, new methods, and a National Monument.
Reflecting on Developing Bioarchaeology Research in a Foreign Land
Caitlin Smith and Judith Littleton, Anthropology, University of Auckland
In Bahrain, and the wider Arabian Peninsula, it is often assumed that contemporary people do not have a strong connection to the human remains, especially if pre-Islamic. This assumption has shaped how bioarchaeology is undertaken in this region, often by foreign national teams, and with limited community engagement beyond the heritage institutions. The legacy of colonial and extractive archaeology remains to this day, where the production and consumption of the knowledge derived from burials is frequently directed at academic audiences, often international and not local.
While developing a research project in Bahrain, and writing grant applications, we have been reflecting on our own understandings of how to conduct research in Bahrain and whether we could incorporate what we had learned working with Indigenous communities elsewhere. In this paper, we draw on our experiences working with descendant communities in Aotearoa (NZ), Australia, and Bahrain to share some of the successes and stumbles we have had in community engagement embedded within bioarchaeological research projects. While we do not have a recipe book to follow, a few key lessons have stuck with us: the importance of long-term reciprocal relationships, flexibility, local expertise, and ‘research that matters.’
Indigenous Bioarchaeology Should be Guided by Indigenous Bioarchaeologists
Norma Johnson, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council and Centre for Indigenous Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA
Ryan Harrod, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA
Kaelyn Nutukninoun Schenkenberger, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA
A significant portion of the human skeletal remains used by academic institutions for human osteology courses prior to 1990 were Ancestral remains from the Americas. In the U.S. the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) changed this practice (mostly). It forced bioarcheologists to minimally engage with Indigenous communities, but loopholes have allowed researchers to conduct research on culturally unaffiliated Ancestral remains with only museum or repository permission. On Wednesday December 6, 2023, President Biden and Secretary Haaland announced changes to NAGPRA that eliminate this exemption. Looking to the future we argue that bioarchaeology needs to focus on a collaborative and community-based approach with the Indigenous communities. In this presentation we argue that the best approach to eliminating the traditionally colonial approach is to train more Indigenous students who have expressed an interest in bioarchaeology. We suggest that our subdiscipline develop a training resource and community support platform similar to the Summer internship for Indigenous peoples in Genomics (SING) Workshop, which has been very inclusive and supportive of Indigenous scholars including one of the authors of this presentation.
Collaborative Bioarchaeological Research in Mithaka Country
Christopher van der Westhuizen, Converge Heritage and Community, Australia
Fletcher Hood Withey, Social Science University of Queensland, Australia
Joshua Gorringe, Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation, Australia
Justyna Miszkiewicz, Social Science University of Queensland, Australia
Shevan Wilkin, Institute of Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Doug Williams, Access Archaeology, Australia|
Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation, Australia
Michael C. Westaway, University of Queensland, Australia
Mithaka Country is an extensive cultural landscape incorporating a rich archaeological record, including unique mortuary landscapes with elaborate burial mounds and individuals adorned with kopi mourning caps. In partnership with the Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation we have investigated a series of at-risk burial sites. Mithaka Country is a highly erosive landscape, where many burial sites are exposed and destroyed as a result of wind erosion and sandblasting, but also as a result of other factors such as the impact of the pastoral industry, which threaten the long term preservation of these site types. The Mithaka People identified the value that bioarchaeological investigation could add “as a way of understanding the complexity of their past.” In addition to standard bioarchaeological methods, various techniques were employed including histology, geochemistry, and proteomics; that have not previously been applied in the Australian context. Insightful new osteobiographies have emerged as a result, and we believe illustrates how such research can be an important way to help Aboriginal communities reconnect with Country. This research represents a best practice community-engaged bioarchaeology, where the Descendants have both driven the research undertaken, and have been engaged in the outcomes.
Changing Curation, Changing Conversation: New Repatriation-led Research at Cambridge
Trish Biers, Duckworth Collections, Dept of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, UK
This paper presents an overview of the current repatriation work happening in the UK and Duckworth Collections (biological anthropology) at the University of Cambridge, and more specifically introduces a community-led, collaborative research project titled, “Bringing the Ancestors Home: how Cambridge collections can support repatriation using osteobiographies”. With the support of the Collections, Connections, Communities Strategic Research Initiative and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, we hosted six collaborators from Australia and Papua New Guinea to Cambridge to develop a more meaningful approach to the repatriation of Ancestral Remains curated at the Duckworth Laboratory. In the first session for what is hoped to be an ongoing initiative, the delegation members and Duckworth staff had discussions around provenance, archival research, osteoarchaeological techniques, and colonial collecting practices in relation to affiliated human remains cared for in Cambridge. This visit culminated in a very well-attended public talk given by our guests, who highlighted different aspects of Indigenous archaeology and repatriation, particularly from their local areas. The repatriation conversation is often misunderstood, and this talk presented a rare opportunity for members of the public and the wider academic community to hear about their repatriation efforts including the often difficult and sensitive negotiations with foreign institutions.
Community-led Bioarchaeology on Muralag Island, Torres Strait
Jaime Swift, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford
Enid Tom, Kaurareg Aboriginal Rangers, Australia
Jason Kariwiga, Archaeology, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Australia
Sally Wasef, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Kelsey Lowe, Up and Under Services, Archaeology, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Australia
Michael C. Westaway, Archaeology, School of Social Science University of Queensland, Australia
In 2022, the ancestral remains of a young woman were exposed by extreme tidal activity on Muralag Island, Torres Strait. A salvage excavation was carried out at the request of Kaurareg Elders and in partnership with the Kaurareg Native Title Aboriginal Corporation. We present the findings of this community-led bioarchaeological investigation. Osteological analysis revealed perimortem trauma indicative of interpersonal violence, possibly connected to known local and regional conflict. New aDNA and strontium isotope analyses are also adding to the narrative of ancestry and mobility, with the ongoing research contributing to a broader discussion around lifeways, identity, and conflict in the late Holocene Torres Strait Islands.
This case study, framed within the Clientage model, is an example of how descendant communities can direct the research agenda to explore their ancestral narratives. With the ongoing threat of rising sea levels to cultural sites in coastal areas, a collaborative relationship between descendant communities and researchers is continuing for Muralag Island. Through the lens of this model, we continue to explore how bioarchaeology can be practiced ethically and meaningfully in a postcolonial context and how integrating Indigenous knowledge with scientific approaches can transform our understanding of the past and our responsibilities in the present.