“After 87 Years At The Smithsonian, Bones Of Alaska Natives Returned...”
My question is this: How have cases like this changed how archaeology is conducted? Does digging & studying just progress without the removal of remains? If no one claims the burial, can removal for study happen, on the grounds that remains will/may be returned, if later claimed? Where does archaeology "stop" and "desecration" begin? I realize this is an extremely fine line. Digging burial sites seems wrong but humans have learned a tremendous amount from this practice.
Most of the time, we try to avoid disturbing possible burial sites at all. The vast majority of archaeology in the U.S. happens because someone is planning on developing the area, and they are legally obligated to perform a cultural survey first. The developing company is on the hook for any costs involved, and the time and expense involved in dealing with burials (especially Native burials) is often prohibitive, so some developers will opt to relocate their project, rather than deal with the expense and logistics involved.
Where Native burials are concerned, local tribes are always involved in determining what will happen -- in the areas where local tribes still exist, which is sadly not everywhere. When I was excavating burials in downtown Miami, we worked with the Seminole tribe, though the burials themselves were Tequesta, who unfortunately no longer exist. Because the site was in the middle of downtown Miami, there was no option to just leave it undisturbed; the real estate there is too valuable. We came to an agreement with the Seminole that the burials would be removed, we would have two years to study the remains, and then they would be repatriated to another location.
You can read more on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which are the two pieces of legislation that govern most archaeology in the U.S.
