Unearthing an ethical problem

When there are rules for ethics, “It’s nice to haveguidelines, but it’s better to have guardrails,” Dr.Michael Adler said.

Tuesday night, Adler gave the annual Maguire Center for EthicsPublic Scholars lecture entitled “Who is the Past?”

In his lecture, Adler spoke of the archaeological research he,his students and colleagues are doing on the Chavez-HummingbirdPueblo and the ethical dilemmas that arise in the course of thisresearch.

Adler and his team were originally investigating the identitiesof the former occupants of the pueblo and studying the artifactsthese cultures left behind.

Now Adler is aiming to work with local tribes in order to morefully understand the link of the Native American cultures of todayand those of the “tumultuous 1200s.”

In a move unusual for archaeologists, Adler is collaboratingwith four local tribes – Hopi, Zuni, Acoma and Laguna —out of volition rather than government mandate.

Adler views this collaboration as “not just ethical, butnecessary” in order to apply knowledge about present culturesto past ones.

Adler has also received a grant from the National ScienceFoundation to continue his research for the next two years.

Cultural Resource Advisory Teams from the tribes are chosen bythe tribes for their expertise.

They visit sites, museums and sacred landscapes “to try tolocate and test the relevance of the information we are allsharing,” Adler said.

By working with teams of anthropologists and archaeologists, heCRATs help to recognize and dismiss errors.

“To do this sort of research and to understand pastidentities — it can’t be done … alone,”Adler said. “I can’t tell what’s relevant to thepueblo and experts unless I ask, nor can they tell what’srelevant to me unless they ask.”

This team of experts relates directly to the Native AmericanGraves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA.

According to the law passed in 1990, Native Americans mustestablish an affiliation between their tribe and objects that arebeing excavated if they wish to reclaim them.

This law is especially important because of the significancetribes tend to attach to human remains — they are sacred andnot to be disturbed, much less studied.

There are nine areas of evidence that are considered to proveaffiliation: geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological,anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral traditions orhistory.

A 10th “catch-all” is the last category of expertopinion. If an expert declares a link, the excavated objects aretheirs by law.

According to Adler, “the onus is on the Native Americangroup to prove affiliation.

“NAGPRA essentializes today’s tribes as units thatare unchanging that should have ancestral units that are somehowunchanging.

“My hope is that those lines for ‘affiliation’are expanding, are modifying.”

Steve Denson, a member of the Chickasaw Nation and an adjunctprofessor of organizational behavior in the Cox School of Business,attended the lecture and had mixed feelings on the subject.

Although he believes NAGPRA is “destructive anddisrespectful,” he agreed with Adler’s cooperativeapproach to excavation.

“They’re not disturbing the human remains, which Ithink is important. They’re honoring the wishes of the tribesand of the elders. If they say don’t touch the remains, thendon’t touch the remains.”

As a former representative for the Chickasaws, Denson has hadextensive experience with researchers trying to find any waypossible to look into their research topics, no mater what therestrictions.

“I’ve dealt with so many archaeologists who try tofind the gray areas, so they can get in a month’s worth ofresearch or two years’ worth of research to try to make aname for themselves,” Denson said.

“I tend to have different opinions as far as NAGPRA.[Adler] is a bit simplistic in his approach, but … overall,I liked it,” Denson said.

Dr. Richard Mason of the Maguire Center for Ethics shared hisviews.

“I think this is a very important topic; I think a lot ofpeople aren’t aware of the law … and how laws andpolicies are restricting what they can do in terms ofarchaeological research which ultimately limits what we can knowabout the past,” he said.

“One of the thoughts he raised is that there are truedifferences of opinion about this, so part of the ethics issue isyou have different values and different belief systems between theresearchers who are trying to further science and the NativeAmericans who believe in the sacredness of remains.

“You have a clash of value systems. Even within thoseparties there are substantial differences of opinion,” Masonsaid.

Time will tell what Adler will discover and if his proposedmethods are effective.

“I don’t have the answer [to ethical questions] yet.But in two years, hopefully I will,” he said.