Openness and the study of archaeological human remains
I work in the field of Biomedical Egyptology or as it is probably better known Mummy Studies, a field that should be at the forefront of open knowledge. The general public after all know so much about ancient Egyptian mummies based on a seemingly endless parade of documentaries, popular books and museum exhibitions. This is not restricted solely to interested amateurs and school children either — researchers from areas such as medicine, anatomy, biological sciences and the humanities have all undertaken studies on ancient human remains. Can we really be considered ‘open’ though? Do we as university researchers share a correspondingly large amount of research data about ancient human populations in comparison to other research areas? The unfortunate answer upon reflection is no, we don’t. Whilst colleagues in archaeology are openly discussing and debating the importance of openness going forwards, researchers in physical anthropology, palaeopathology and mummy studies have not followed suit.
I would like to share some of my own experiences that provide an insight into the challenges of data sharing in this field and the barriers to openness that I have encountered.
The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Project
I have been an outspoken supporter of openness in research for the last 12 years, driven by my involvement in a research project focusing on the excavation of several thousand bodies from Egyptian Nubia during the early 1900s. The collection of skeletons and mummies had, following excavation, become dispersed throughout the world as a consequence of colonial attitudes towards the collection and purchase of human remains from Egypt at this time. The project aim was to locate as many of these bodies as possible and make all research data obtained from them openly available in perpetuity. Mark Lake (2012) highlights the fact that there is a difference between the sharing of articles or research findings which is more common across archaeological subjects to the sharing of complete data sets which is much rarer. We aimed to do both through a bespoke website and database.
Despite the good intentions, it became clear very quickly that the academic leads for the project did not really understand the term ‘open’. Discussions around releasing data and images in particular under a Creative Commons license (CC) caused a sense of panic to those who had never attempted this before. A summary of openness in all of its forms, such as that provided by Vitae would have been very useful! Ideas such as transparency with research results and allowing others to freely use your data do not come easily to many academics. Clare Huish (2018) drew my attention to an article on ’16 Reasons Why People Don’t Share Their Knowledge’. Many of the fears of my colleagues are encapsulated here; they also go a long way towards explaining reticence across the subject as a whole.
Like Lianne Smith with her experiences of openness in archival research, I too had assumed that the barriers to openness in my research area were practical. Almost all areas of archaeology-related subjects are poorly funded in the UK -this makes the availability of equipment for digitization of research resources and photography limited. The development of bespoke hosting sites for research data and the availability of technical staff to provide support are also rare commodities. There is now a lot of advice and support available from the Library about research data sharing and repositories such as Figshare offer a secure way to do this. However, back in 2009 stand-alone systems were much more common. For my project, all of these aspects were funded as part of the research grant; naively, I assumed this would allow for greater openness in Biomedical Egyptology.
The need for open public access to archaeological research data (and that of related fields) is well testified. Authors such as Lorna Richardson (2013) have discussed the importance of this for progressing beyond a simple dissemination exercise to something more accountable. Archaeological interpretation is often multi-vocal, involving a range of experts and communities. Open access encourages the sharing of these voices especially online, which promote greater discussion, understanding and interpretation of ancient populations. It is however this very element that can cause concerns where the study of human remains is concerned. Ethical debates about the location of human remains in collections away from their community of origin, the ways in which mummies and skeletons were obtained and whether scientific study is acceptable are all very prevalent. Many of my colleagues were, and still are, wary of allowing open access to research data for fear of being heavy criticised, especially on social media and have expressed the feeling that they would ‘lose control’ of their data.
The differing opinions of the research team for this particular project eventually led to a far from ideal hybrid arrangement, where basic excavation data and photographs were made available but access to information such as raw CT-scan data of bodies was restricted. The decision to share photographs of the bodies found during this series of excavations was not without its problems however, highlighting the fact that many academics are not familiar with legalities surrounding image copyright and cultural institutions. The museum or institution where an ancient body is located assumes the role of a legal guardian. As the dead are not able to provide consent for the use of their body in research, the guardian makes these decisions where appropriate on their behalf. Unfortunately, many of the bodies studied were located in museums not directly involved with the project. Obtaining consent to use any research data and photographs of those bodies and make them freely available under a CC BY-NC-SA license was complex, given different institutions’ policies on the sharing of images.
Although human remains may added an additional dimension to discussions around openness, they are not unique as Jane G discusses in relation to her own experiences in archival research. As Jane says it is important to make the ‘building blocks’ of research available, not just the outputs. Historical and archaeological subjects can often present a challenging set of ethical considerations especially given discussions around decolonisation and colonial bias that are reflected in many of these materials. Understanding what openness really means and why it is important are the cornerstones to the future of research into Biomedical Egyptology, but I feel significant barriers to this still remain.
