May 1

Dear Division 17 and 18,

I’m sorry to be assigning you another blog assignment about bones this week, but check out this really interesting article!

It touches on what a lot of you spoke about in your responses to last week’s assignment.

For your homework tonight, please comment on ONE of the following question:

  1. Do think that archaeologists ought to be considering historical artifacts as human remains or objects of science? Explain your thinking.
  2. Besides Indigenous peoples, who else should archaeologists be consulting with regarding archaeological discoveries?

We look forward to your responses!

J&T

 

23 comments

  1. Santiago

    (#2). I think the scientist’s should also consult with law enforcement members because you might be doing something illegal without knowing it so that is good to always know. Also you should check in with (if possible) the closest related people to the human remain (I say closest related person(s) because its not like a 6,500 year old mummified person will have a living sibling or parent). And that is my answer.

  2. IM_PICKLE_RICK!!🥒

    1~
    I think that archaeologists could consider about human artifacts not just their skeletons. They could do old antiques. But archaeologists could often just focus on one like the bones. Not just human bones 💀 they could also do animal bones.

  3. The phantome blade

    I think that we shouldn’t use skeletons without using the permission of any of their living realitives because it might be against their ways of life or culture but as soon as you get permission then research away.

  4. hockey101

    I was thinking that if an archaeologist finds any remains of humans, they should talk to people that live in that area or Aboriginal people near that place so that they don’t get thrown around to different spots and are taken care of and so that those people know where their family or their family friend went.

  5. game master 2018

    2)
    First I think they should consult police and detectives to see if the body was involved in anything criminal (our was a victim)
    second I think they should scientists study the skeletons DNA and see if they can trace it back to a family or specific historical figure. If they can link it back to a family then the remains should be retuned to that family. And if it can be linked back to a historical figure then it should be given to historians. if the skull can not be linked to any of these things then I am shure another use could be found.

  6. Smeagaleater10

    #1 I think that there should be a comprise between the scientists and indigenous people. There should be a set amount of time that scientists have then after discovering the bones, then they have to hand it over to whatever group of aboriginals it came from. The scientists can also petition to keep a skeleton longer if there is something particularly important or interesting about it. This way, both groups are satisfied.

  7. domoking101

    1. i think that scientists should look at ancient artifacts as human remains so that the remains in question are not ignored their pride. (it would do them justice)

  8. Flying pinguin

    #1
    I think archeologists could learn from human remains not only from indigenous people. With science we can learn many thing of our history.

  9. Narwhalz

    1.
    I think it depends how old it is, and if that culture still exists like the first nations. The older it is the more likely that less people will protest. Over all I think the public should decide.

  10. Day Dreamer

    1.
    I think historical artifacts ought to be considered as objects of science. I think they ought to be objects of science because if it is a object of science more things would probably be found out about the artifact.

  11. chiefblobfish

    #1. I think that if you find ancient human remains on a indiganous territory the indiangous people have a choice to let them do experiments on the body.

  12. Amythest

    1. I think that human remains should be considered as “objects of science” because while they are human remains they are also a big part of science studies. Also not everything archaeologists find/ discover are going to be from humans, they could be from an animal as well.

  13. the engineer

    I think skeletons should be human remains because there is not a lot we can learn from them any more I think. Also they were real people and I don’t think they would approve of being in a lab.

  14. Spirit Heart

    #1
    I think that scientists should also look at not only skeletons/bones but old artifacts,for any finger prints to see how old it could be.and archaeologists shouldn’t just keep the bones to them selfs they should bring it to the science lab,to see what gender it is and how tall it was etc. i also agree with amethyst human remains should be “objets of science”.

  15. Do it for da Hwin

    1.
    I think that it should used and called science because I think that we need to learn about the past more. I also think that everyone deserves a proper resting place an that the skeletons latest relative should have a say in this.

  16. Awesomeness

    #1
    I think that they should be considered human remains. I think that because we want to treat the remains carefully and appreciate that you have real remains to learn from, because without them we would not have come this far into learning. Although I do think that they should be considered human remains I do side with the fact that it should be considered as objects of science too. I guess it depends, if someone did not ask to use someone’s body for research when they pass then I think they should be considered as objects of science. But they should still feel grateful that they have something to learn from, and treat it with respect.

  17. Arty-choke

    2.
    I think that it would be good to study important people’s archaeological remains, as well as local-not-well-known people. It would be cool to study a human’s skeleton if you knew about their past better. For example maybe if you knew they were a doctor that helped discover a cure to a sickness. Or a scientist who studied the history of earth. Or even if they were a farmer who grew crops to feed their family.

  18. blackcircle

    #2
    they should probably consult with the government if they find some kind of priceless ancient artifact so that the archaeologists don’t sell it to someone untrustworthy. if it was a settlement then the descendants of that settlement should be contacted as well.

  19. mistacheeseman

    ~1 I think that archeologists should consider ancient artifacts as human remains because I don’t think that the family the skeleton belongs to would be happy if you took their relatives skeleton without them knowing.

  20. Snort

    #1
    I think that we could learn from human remains and we would treat the remains with respect because there is a lot we can learn from it and we should appreciate that we would get to use them. Also human remains can be known as objects of science as well.

  21. Snapshot1178

    #1
    I think that they should use human remains for research of crimes only. They should make a thing to sign that when you die they have permission to use your remains in lab.

  22. narutoshippudenfanboy1769

    i think they should check in with the police first to see who that person was and how they died. I also think they should check with the locals of the area other from indigenous and maybe with the great great great great great great great grandchild and see what they know about the person. I overall think they should check with a vast amount perspective from people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s