Burial excavations usually occur as a result of construction, when contractors accidentally discover a gravesite. Sometimes the graves are part of a forgotten family cemetery, as in the case of a site discovered recently in Northern Virginia when a theater complex was under construction. Sometimes they are part of a Native American burial ground.

According to Virginia law, remains found in unmarked graves must be analyzed to determine, where possible, the age, sex, stature, pathology and cause of death. If a descendant claims the remains, they must be reburied within two years of discovery. When remains with which the Boyds work are unclaimed, they curate them and keep them in the lab. If a legitimate descendant later claims the bones, they give them back for reburial.

The Boyds are keenly aware of the tension between ethical considerations and the goals of science. Occasionally they find themselves caught in the middle, as in the case of the recently discovered cemetery of one of Alexandria’s founding families. A descendant had given permission for the remains to be brought to Radford for detailed analysis, but after publicity about the excavation, another set of descendants identified themselves and temporarily blocked further analysis. The conflict has since been resolved, and the remains will soon come to the lab for analysis.

Donna and Cliff treat the human remains they study with respect and teach their students to do the same. “I would never walk across campus with a human skull under my arm,” says Donna. “I don't show slides of human remains except for teaching purposes — never for any exploitative purpose.” Callous or disrespectful behavior in the lab is not tolerated.

Maintaining the balance between ethics and science is more complicated than that, however. Many people don’t see a reason for anyone to be studying human bones in the first place. Most significantly, in recent years there has been pressure to rebury all Native American remains, and as a preliminary step the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act called for a complete inventory of all museum curated skeletal remains. Donna remembers visiting the Smithsonian Institute when hundreds of Native American skeletons were displayed, to the exclusion of any other group, so she is sympathetic with the indignation of present-day Native Americans. But she also expresses an urgency to learn as much as possible and to educate others on the benefits of continuing to study and curate some skeletal remains.

Because skeletal analysis can reveal clues about such things as diet, work habits, diseases, fertility and longevity, studying the remains of pre-historic and historic members of an ethnic group can provide important health information for the descendants of that group.

DNA analysis can be useful to groups who are trying to trace their ancestry. For example, the state-recognized Amherst County Monacan tribe, which is seeking federal recognition, wants DNA samples to be taken from burials found in that area.

Small samples of bones or teeth can be enough for that purpose, although Donna advocates curating entire skeletons and skeletal populations from significant sites and sites for which there is no clear ethnic affiliation. However, some Native American tribes, particularly in the West, won’t allow any bone or tissue samples to be retained. This is unfortunate to Donna and Cliff, who say that new techniques are developed every year that can be applied to existing collections and add to current knowledge. If the collections are buried, the source is lost.

Donna is quick to point out that “we don’t just study Native Americans,” They have added to understanding about the physical manifestations of slavery by studying two populations of antebellum African Americans and one post-Civil War population. They’ve studied historical and modern Caucasian remains. As a researcher, says Donna, “it’s especially exciting to compare historical records with the physical evidence we find.”

Besides adding to the body of research on human history and pre-history, the Boyds are vitally interested in what field work means for students. “Without human bone, teaching osteology would be impossible,” says Donna, pointing out that working with models would not teach them what they need to know. For example, in training students to identify homicide victims, “they need to become familiar with the way bone feels and weighs in their hands. They need to be able to distinguish human bones from animal bones, and you can’t learn that by using models and pictures.” She adds, “Studying 400-500 year-old remains will teach what you need to know to identify a person who died last year.”

Cliff points out that learning archaeological field methods is important to students, whether they plan to be archaeologists or law officers. “Archaeological methods of excavating and recording finds are part of standard operating procedure in criminal evidence collection,” he says.

Field finds, whether they be pottery relics or bones, are almost always fragmentary, adds Donna. “Sometimes all that’s present in a grave is a stain in the earth. If that is touched or disturbed, it’s gone.” Bones are rarely intact, and fragments may be crushed or disintegrating. Inferring the height of a person by the length of his or her femur, for example, is like working a complicated puzzle. The challenge of working such puzzles is part of what draws both Donna and Cliff to their work, and it is essential training for students.

he Boyds are aware that many people have misconceptions about their fields. “Some people think you can learn nothing from looking at bone,” says Donna, “and some think you can learn everything.” In reality, you can learn a great deal about the health and lifestyle of an individual or group, within a range of probabilities. The degree of acceptable accuracy varies. “If I’m discussing scientific theories, 80 percent accuracy may be acceptable. But if I’m testifying in a homicide case, I only state what I know to be true.”

For Cliff, an opportunity to dispel misconceptions about archaeology is welcome. “I don’t do dinosaurs,” he states unequivocally. He would also like people to know that if they find an object and wish to have an archaeologist evaluate it, they should first record precisely where they found it. “Without the spatial context, the object can be meaningless.”

Then there’s the Indiana Jones myth. “Archaeologists are not treasure hunters,” says Cliff. “They don’t keep arrowheads on their mantles. The objects they find are only important for what they tell them about the behavior of the people who used them.” As one of his colleagues puts it, “It’s not what you find, it’s what you find out.”

Both enjoy their work because they love learning and solving puzzles and because they love sharing what they know with students, who get jobs because of the experience they provide them. They also feel the rewards of giving back to the groups they study, to localities and the state through promoting archaeology-related tourism, and to law enforcement and victims’ families by helping solve crimes.