Yes, it matters when …… it hurts!!!

Research ethics and human skeletal biology: Indian scenario

Subhash Walimbe

Rtd. Faculty, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune

subhashwalimbe@gmail.com

For several weeks, in the UIAF WhatsApp group, discussions on complex and intricate issues involving ethics in biological, archaeological and social anthropological research has taken centre stage. Given my years of engagement with research on skeletal remains that requires painstaking field excavations, and handling of human remains with sensitivity, due diligence and dignity is necessary to sustain its legitimacy and vitality. In the past a fragment of paleoanthropological research has been marred by false claims of evolutionary continuity, that makes research ethics crucial for its sustenance.

In Indian archaeological context informed consent of the living descendants or communities does not matter legally (like the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act -NAGPRA). And, the dead cannot speak for themselves. Yet basic notions of recognizing the personhood of the deceased regardless of their chronological age, or condition needs to be followed. Proper attention and sensitivity are imperative in excavating, packing, transporting, and storing skeletal evidence, while doing scientific research. Human remains should be preserved according to ethical norms, using proper techniques to prevent further damage and ensure they can fulfil their intended academic or research purpose.    

In this context, I would like to discuss two issues:

• the scenario in Indian archaeological settings, and

• bone trade in India that dominates the global market. The Indian subcontinent provides an excellent spectrum of human skeletal evidence representing a wide temporal span of the last 10,000 years. (Fig. 1)

However, research on archaeological human skeletal remains was negligible in India till the 1950s. As per the official journal of the Archaeological Survey of India (Ancient India and Indian Archaeology Review), since 1944, evidence of human burials has been reported at more than 150 sites (Mushrif-Tripathy et al. 2016). This figure includes site reports that have unambiguously stated human skeletons recovered and lifted, even if their current location is unknown. There are several site reports that mention recovery of burned bones and fragments but the remains were apparently discarded at the site itself. For important sites located in Pakistan or bordering Afghanistan, that were excavated before independence (1947), the human skeletons are often stored in India. Sadly, despite India’s vast collection of skeletal material, with individuals numbering in the thousands, detailed anthropological reports are available for only about 40 skeletal series. Skeletons recovered from other sites still await careful anthropological attention or are lost forever.

Research potential of this rich evidence remained under-exploited till the 1980s.  Those days the main research objective was to ‘racially’ classify the sample based on phenotypic variations, i.e. physical characterizations like face or head shape, as whether they were dolichocranial (long headed) or brachycranial (broad headed), or is the face prognathous or orthognathous, etc. The protohistoric skeletal series, especially in the Neolithic-Chalcolithic of India, is characterized by the over-representation of sub-adults, accounting for almost 70% of the collection. (FIG. 2)

This population segment was of little use for calculating population distances in the conventional metric approach, hence ignored.  

The purpose of this blog is not to talk about the reasons for overlooking the skeletal evidence or under-exploitation of its research potential, but the unethical approach that prevails in handling the collected bones. As said, human skeletal research was focused primarily on complete adult crania, and infant and sub-adult bones were routinely discarded (barring a few examples), so also were the post-cranial bones, as these elements do not possess racially diagnostic features. While the archaeological evidence of burial is always sought for, no adequate post-excavation care was rendered to the bones themselves. In many cases, fragmentary bones were overlooked or not meticulously collected in the field.  

Storage conditions in many repositories are far below the desired standard. Excavations in India conducted before 1980 probably did take human bones too casually causing inadequate field and post-excavation treatment and poor to extremely poor storage facilities for bones. There are cases where human bones are kept in gunny-bags! Eminent palaeoanthropologist. Kenneth Kennedy (2003: 36) comments:

One element of lack of infrastructure and appointments of well-trained future personnel is a sense of individual ownership of archaeological and osteological specimens recovered during the periods of one’s active field research. …. Proper curation of specimens suffers as a consequence of this mindset as storage facilities (after their retirement) are not maintained for security and temperature control, and their availability and sound preservation for future investigators is compromised.  

Apathy and academic indifference to these skeletal remains is further elucidated in the following quote by eminent anthropologist S. S. Sarkar (1972):

I have felt that archaeologists of this country are not yet so interested in skeletal remains as they are with potsherds. I tried to ascertain in certain cases as to what happened with the excavated skeletal remains, their whereabouts, or the completion of their reports, but I failed to obtain a scientific answer from any quarter.

Kennedy (2000: 37-44) added: 

The osteological company is not always welcome at the archaeological banquet. Some excavators have left the burials unexhumed; others packed them off to a museum or other institution, where they linger unexamined for decades; and not infrequently the excavated skeletons were lost, purposefully destroyed, or reburied without scientific study.

As a result, despite trying personally during my official career, and using my personal network in those organizations/universities, several important collections remained untraceable, probably intentionally disposed of, and lost forever. They were ‘useless’ for the research priorities that existed then. Nonetheless, science and scientific research is an ongoing process. Research priorities also shift. Focus on understanding the past and skeletal remains buried in archives is being reignited. New technological tools have emerged for analysis. The skeletal series studied earlier need to be scrutinized again. We understand, what we are doing today will be ‘outdated’ tomorrow. It is our responsibility therefore to protect the study material for its future use.   

Unfortunately, the skeletal evidence continues to be neglected even in cemetery excavations, and sometime sadly treated unethically in the field. Skeletons are kept in exposed condition for months! They are often taken to have an ‘ornamental value’ to the excavation site. Well-preserved skeletons often get traumatized due to heavy rain. (FIG. 3, 4)

For a committed student of skeletal remains, it is disheartening and frustrating. It is ironic that lately only so-called ‘important’ parts of the skeleton are lifted, leaving the remaining skeleton unattended.

In the last 4 years, I know of at least five cases where just temporal bone is picked up, as the petrous portion presumably presents a good choice for specific high-tech laboratory analysis. (FIG. 5) 

Without questioning the relevance of these studies, assumption that remaining skeletal remains are just garbage is condemnable for being unethical and insult to the dead but also for being an immense loss to future research. Yes, it indeed hurts.

The second point I wish to raise is about the human bone trade that existed in India. These observations acquire immense significance given the fact that human skeletal remains from India have been extensively used in medical research for over two hundred years, particularly for anatomical studies and understanding disease patterns in the past. I am not sure if we should be proud of, or ashamed of it. I am a proud scientist sharing with you that these remains, often acquired during British colonial rule and even after Indian independence, have served as a primary source for global anatomical collections. However, ethical concerns regarding the acquisition and handling of these remains, especially those obtained illegally, have led to increased scrutiny and calls for better practices in research and curation.

Human skeletons from India for decades were the primary global source of human bone for academic research. Countless human skeletons were sent from India to various countries for educational purposes. These skeletons were acquired through questionable means, targeting and exploiting poor and marginalized communities. The story of how India came to be the largest producer and exporter of prepared anatomical human skeletal material is aptly described by Sabrina Agarwal of University of California, Berkeley in her recent publication “The bioethics of skeletal anatomy collections” (Nature Communications, 2024). She vividly narrates the complex history of the procurement of skeletal remains from India and how they became the primary source of anatomical collections around the world. The story started with the shameful robbing of graves, retrieval of unclaimed bodies including victims of the Bengal famine and disposed corpses in rivers, to supply skeletons for medical education in Europe[1]. When the demand for bodies continued to outstrip supply, the British colonial government created a policy to export anatomical material from India, a practice that continued until the late 20th century.

The famine in the Bengal province of British India (now Bangladesh, West Bengal, and eastern India) claimed the lives of nearly 3 million people due to starvation and disease caused by colonial neglect. (FIG. 6) 

The Britishers used members of a specific community for the procurement and preparation of bodies. Their heredity profession helped but, in addition, they were specifically trained to prepare skeletal remains in accordance with the research specification. They were made to work in the dissection rooms of hospitals and colleges.

Bodies were processed meticulously: corpses were often wrapped and anchored in rivers to be dismembered naturally by bacteria and fish; scrubbed and boiled in water and caustic soda to dissolve remaining flesh; and then sun and hydrochloric acid soaks would be used to produce medical-grade gleaming white skeletons with high quality distinguishable anatomical landmarks (Agarwal 2024).

The success of the bone trade in India was built on its ability to produce standardized specimens. In response to increasing concerns raised by several human rights groups over the unethical practices of how bones were being obtained, in 1985 the Supreme Court of India banned the export of human bones (and other tissues) under the National Import/Export Control Act. However, many international and national groups lobbied to end the ban, and illegal exports continued, and persist to some extent. Prior to the ban in 1985, it is estimated that up to 60,000 skeletons were exported out of the country every year. According to Agrawal (2024):

Following the independence of India, the export of human skeletons continued to grow exponentially with the demands from medical schools and students abroad. It is estimated that Indian exporters traded almost 1.5 million dollars’ worth of skeletons just prior to the ban in 1985, with other estimates as high as 5 or 6 million.  A conservative estimate of 40 years of exports of similar numbers from Indian Independence in 1947 to 1985 arrives at an estimate of 2.4 million Indian skeletons and skulls. This does not even account for bone specimens collected for pathological or phrenological studies in the hundred years prior to Independence, which are well documented in museum collections globally, or the use of skeletons within India itself.

These skeletal remains continue to train generations of biomedical practitioners and biological/forensic anthropologists globally, even today. Researchers for several years now are asking for the creation of ethical guidelines and policies to deal specifically with these museum collections. It is accepted that the Indian skeletons, commonly referred to as “teaching skeletons” were never willed or donated. Their continued use is being taken as ‘scientific opportunism’. By bringing these issues to the forefront, Prof. Agarwal (2024) advocates for the respectful treatment of the deceased and encourages a broader conversation about the ethical responsibilities of institutions and researchers in not only handling human remains, but also educating students on the history of acquisition of anatomical remains that are still being used in classrooms.  

We must realise, even with advanced technology, real human bones are irreplaceable for teaching because they offer a level of detail and natural variation untouched by synthetic models. Students can learn the variations in anatomy and existing pathologies found in real skeletal specimens. And India was a primary global supplier for these South Asian “teaching skeletons”, as they are commonly referred to. Let me ask the same question once again; should we be proud or, or ashamed of?

What hurts me is when I see a box with a label ‘skeleton of a 50-year-old leper who was begging in the streets of Kashi for 10 years’ or ‘skeleton no 5, in the set of ten famine victims’ in the basement repository of Museum of Natural History or Royal College of Surgeons of London. It is bewildering when some research group asks you to participate in their 3-D scanning project on ‘Indian skulls’. It brings back memories of colonial subjugation, when histories of deaths were written over support for survival because a former Prime Minster of British empire endorsed a statement made by his secretary of State that Indians are breeding like rabbits, and hence should be left to die of hunger, starvation and disease instead of being saved like equal humans. Skeletons are important for paleoanthropological research, but dignity of the dead is uncompromisable under any circumstances!!1 (FIG. 7) 

REFERENCES

Agarwal S. C. 2024. The bioethics of skeletal anatomy collections, Nature Communications, 15, 1692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45738-6

Mushrif, V., K.S. Chakraborty and S. Lahiri 2016. Where Are They Now? The Human Skeletal Remains from India, in A Companion to South Asia in the Past (G.R. Schug and S.R. Walimbe, Eds.), pp. 496-533. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kennedy, K.A.R. 2000. God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Kennedy, K.A.R. 2003. The Uninvited Skeleton at the Archaeological Table: The Crisis of Paleoanthropology in South Asia in the Twenty-first Century. Asian Perspective 42(2)-352-367.

Sarkar, S.S. 1972. Ancient Races of the Deccan. New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal.

[1] Anatomy Act of 1832 was brought in by colonial administration to provide legal sanctity for the supply of corpses for anatomical research.