CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Conservation Techniques and StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesCultural Heritage Management and Preservation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Ethical Dilemma Facing Conservation: Care and Treatment of Human Skeletal Remains and Mortuary Objects

McGowan, Gary S., LaRoche, Cheryl J.·1996·Journal of the American Institute for Conservation
DOI 10.2307/3179991
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ethical treatment of corporeal materials is confounded by the dual cultural and scientific values ascribed to human bone. The cultural concerns for the sacred significance of human remains often come into direct conflict with scientific investigation. The authors have been involved in a number of difficult situations between the professional communities who have responsibility for the scientific investigation of human remains and the lay communities who have been concerned for the sacred and spiritual aspects of these materials. This paper addresses a variety of professional approaches to the treatment of human skeletal materials and the need for interdisciplinary cooperation among the professions that study and care for these materials. It also addresses the need for AIC to recognize human remains as a discrete material deserving of considerations that are distinct from any other materials we treat as conservators. /// [French] Le traitement éthique des matériaux corporels se heurte à la double valeur culturelle et scientifique attribuée aux os humains. L'importance culturelle du sens sacré des restes humains entre souvent en conflit direct avec l'investigation scientifique. Les auteurs se sont déjà trouvés dans un certain nombre de situations difficiles entre les communautés professionnelles responsables de l'investigation scientifique des restes humains et les communautés profanes, plus concernées par l'aspect sacré et spirituel de ces matériaux. Cet article discute diverses approches professionnelles pour le traitement des squelettes humains, ainsi que les besoins d'une coopération interdisciplinaire entre les professions qui étudient et prennent soin de ces matériaux. En outre, les auteurs soulignent la nécessité, pour l'AIC, de reconnaí tre les restes humains comme un matériel différent qui mérite des considérations qui sont distinctes de tout autre matériel traité par les restaurateurs. /// [Spanish] El tratamiento ético de restos humanos se enfrenta a una compleja dualidad: una, los valores eminentemente cientificos y la otra, los valores eminentemente culturales que se le atribuyen a los huesos humanos. El elemento cultural que atribuye valor sacro a los restos humanos entra frecuentemente en conflicto directo con aquellos intereses que son unicamente de investigación cientifica. Los autores han estado involucrados en algunas de situaciones dificiles entre las comunidades profesionales, responsables por la investigacion cientifica de los restos humanos, y las comunidades laicas preocupadas por los aspectos sagrados y espirituales de estos materiales. Este ensayo enfoca una variedad de acercamientos profesionales con respecto al tratamiento que se le debe dar al material oseo humano y ademas llama la atencion sobre la necesidad de que exista una cooperación interdisciplinaria entre los profesionales que investigan y los que cuidan de estos material. Igualmente, se discute la necesidad que el AIC reconozca este material como un material distinto y que merece consideraciones diferentes de las otorgadas a cualquier otro material tratado por nosotros como conservadores.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1179/019713696806124548

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Geberth V, 1990, Practical homicide investigations
  2. GSA, 1993, Comments on the draft design for archaeological, historical, and bioanthropological investigations of the African Burial Ground and Five Points sites
  3. Howard University and John Milner Associates, 1993, Research design for archeological, historical, and bioanthropological investigations of the African Burial Ground
  4. Inouye D. K, 1994, Battlefields and burial grounds: The Indian struggle to protect ancestral graves in the United States
  5. Johansson L, 1987, In situ archaeological conservation, 132
  6. Lewis P. H, 1986, New York Times
  7. McKeown C.T., 1994, Federal Archaeologist, 7
  8. Monroe D. L., 1991, Museum News, 70, 55
  9. Peer Review Committee. 1992.African Burial Ground project. New York: General Services Administration, Region 2.
  10. Pye E., 1987, Recent advances in the conservation and analysis of artifacts, 355
  11. Robinson P. A., 1985, Cultures in contact, 107

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
McGowan, G. S., & LaRoche, C. J.
Venue
Journal of the American Institute for Conservation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1996-01
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
109-121
ISSN
  • 0197-1360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-2330
DOI
10.2307/3179991
OpenAlex
W1978821054
Cited by
19
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (publishedVersion)
Funders
Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Conservation Techniques and Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Keywords
skeletal remains, conservation ethics, interdisciplinary collaboration, professional ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review