114 CHAPTER 5 | Field Methods in Archaeology and Paleoanthropology
in forensic, bioarchaeological, and paleoanthropological
contexts. While a CT scan cannot substitute for an autopsy
in forensic contexts, it is useful for identification after
mass disasters. It can provide evidence of past trauma
that might not be revealed from an investigation aimed at
determining the immediate cause of death.^6
In archaeological contexts, CT technology has been
particularly useful for determining whether damage to re-
mains took place during excavation or whether it preceded
death. For example, after the remains of Egyptian King Tut
were scanned, scientists uniformly agreed that the young
king did not die of a head injury as previously thought;
some suggested that a broken femur may have been the
cause of his death.^7 To minimize handling, these rare fossil
specimens are scanned one at a time so that researchers
can study the digital images.
Recently, skeletal analyses have become more dif-
ficult to carry out, especially in the United States, where
American Indian communities now often request the
return of skeletons from archaeological excavations for
reburial, as required by federal law. Anthropologists
find themselves in a quandary over this requirement. As
scientists, anthropologists know the importance of the
information that can be gleaned from studies of human
skeletons, but as scholars subject to ethical principles, they
are bound to respect the feelings of those for whom the
skeletons possess cultural and spiritual significance.
New techniques, such as 3D digital images of Native
American skeletons, help to resolve this conflict as they
allow for both rapid repatriation and continued study
of skeletal remains. But globally, aboriginal groups are
questioning the practice of digitizing remains of their
people without permission. For example, the University
of Vienna in Austria has been challenged by representa-
tives of the Ju/’hoansi people of southern Africa because
the remains that its ethnological museum has in its pos-
session were not donated; rather, they were taken early
in the century by Rudolf Pöch, a Viennese anthropolo-
gist whose writings about racial hierarchies were used as
part of Nazi Germany’s eugenics movement. According to
Roger Chennells, the South African legal advisor for the
Ju/’hoansi, their position is: “We have not been consulted,
and we do not support any photographic archiving of our
people’s remains—we are opposed to it.”^8
By the standards of the 1990 Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Ju/’hoansi
would have legal decision-making authority over the fate of
these remains; but the equivalent of NAGPRA has not yet
been codified as international law. Even with NAGPRA in
place, the handling of remains is still often controversial.
Scientists and American Indians sometimes have been un-
able to move beyond their conflicting views as seen with
Kennewick Man, a 9,300-year-old skeleton that was dis-
lodged by the Columbia River in Washington State in 1996.
This chapter’s Biocultural Connection focuses on how this
controversy has been playing out in the federal courts.Dating the Past
With accurate and detailed records of their excavations in
hand, archaeologists and paleoanthropologists are able to
deal with a crucial research issue: the question of age. As
we have seen, analysis of physical and cultural remains is
dependent on knowledge about the age of the artifacts or
specimens. How, then, are the materials retrieved from
excavations reliably dated? Calculating the age of physical
and cultural remains is an essential aspect of interpreting
the past. Because archaeologists and paleoanthropologists
often deal with peoples and events from long ago, the tra-
ditional calendar of historic times is of little use to them.
Remains can be dated by noting their position in the
earth, by measuring the amount of chemicals contained
in fossil bones, or by association with other plant, animal,
or cultural remains. These are known as relative dating
techniques because they do not establish precise dates for
specific remains but rather their relationship to a series of
remains. Methods of absolute or chronometric dating
(from the Latin for “measuring time”) provide actual
dates calculated in years “before the present” (bp). These
methods rely on chemical and physical properties such as
rates of decay of radioactive elements, which may be pres-
ent in the remains themselves or in the surrounding soil.
Absolute dating methods scientifically establish actual
dates for the major events of geologic and evolutionary
history. By comparing dates and remains across a variety
of sites, anthropologists can reconstruct human origins,
migrations, and technological developments.
Many relative and chronometric techniques are avail-
able. However, most of these techniques are applicable only
for certain time spans and in certain environmental con-
texts. Bear in mind that each of the chronometric dating
techniques also has a margin of error. Ideally, archaeologists(^6) Leth, P. M. (2007). The use of CT scanning in forensic autopsy. Forensic
Science, Medicine, and Pathology 3 (1), 65–69.
(^7) Handwerk, B. (2005, March 8). King Tut not murdered violently, CT
scans show. National Geographic News, 2.
(^8) Scully, T. (2008). Online anthropology draws protest from aboriginal
group. Nature 453, 1155. doi:10.1038/4531155a.
relative dating In archaeology and paleoanthropology, desig-
nating an event, object, or fossil as being older or younger than
another.
absolute or chronometric dating In archaeology and
paleoanthropology, dating recovered material based on solar
years, centuries, or other units of absolute time.