Yes / Over the past two decades, archaeology has been confronting an ethical crisis with regards to the past treatment of human remains by specialists and institutions. From the creation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the United States (McManamon 2000), to further calls for the repatriation of remains and artefacts to colonised communities from European countries (Fforde 2003), the archaeological community has been actively attempting to become more respectful in their approach to the handling and curation of human remains. However, there has been less consideration to the ethics of handling and curating faunal remains. This is arguably due to the inherent anthropocentrism of archaeology as a discipline, which automatically "others" animals and, in some cases, literally "objectifies" them as "artefacts" rather than the remains of a once-living creature. This can be observed in the process of handling faunal remains post-excavation, the lack of legal procedures regarding the ethicality of remains, and even the emotional reaction to remains on display (Fitzpatrick 2018). This paper utilises recent work in social zooarchaeology and post-humanist studies (Russell 2012; Overton and Hamilakis 2013) to critically examine the role of ethics in zooarchaeology, specifically from a non-anthropocentric perspective. By drawing comparisons with ethical concerns for human remains, this paper will further explore the possible reasons that cause such a different ethical approach for animal remains, as well as propose alterations to the currently accepted form of ethics in zooarchaeology.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BRADFORD/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/19023 |
| Date | 22 March 2022 |
| Source Sets | Bradford Scholars |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Conference paper, Accepted manuscript |
| Rights | (c) 2019 The Author., Unspecified |
Page generated in 0.008 seconds