Kennewick Man Can Be Studied, Court Rules

[Khephra]

Kennewick Man Can Be Studied, Court Rules

Associated Press
Thursday, February 5, 2004; Page A19


PORTLAND, Ore., Feb. 4 -- Scientists may study the Kennewick Man -- 9,200-year-old remains found in Washington state -- despite the objections of some American Indian tribes, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Northwestern tribes consider the bones sacred and want to bury them. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with a lower court that found that federal grave-protection law does not apply because there is no evidence connecting the remains with any existing tribe.

Kennewick Man has drawn scientific interest because it is one of the oldest skeletons found in North America, with characteristics unlike modern Indians. The nearly complete set of bones, found in 1996 on the north bank of the Columbia River, is housed at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington in Seattle.

more................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13901-2004Feb4.html

[hlthe2b]

1. I truly respect Native American rights and the Federal grave- protection

law should be strictly enforced. However, I've followed this story for several years and am very glad that the court made this ruling. From what I know of the case, I agree that it is highly questionable that these remains are the ancestor of known tribes. I think it imperative that it be studied.

Good move, courts. Now, how about sending the FBI to raid Yale's S&B for return of Geronimo's remains!

[Maddy McCall]

4. I disagree with you

Think about it this way: Your great grandma's remains are in a city cemetery, and conquerers of another race invade, take possession of the land, and you can't provide paperwork to show that your ancestors had claim of her burial plot. Therefore, the invaders dig her up and study her bones, her wedding rings, and her coffin. You wouldn't be pissed?

You know, American Indians did NOT keep written records, and the BIA fucked them over again and again, drawing maps with arbitrary tribal land boundaries that suited the white government--"fuck the savages." Early explorers were so Eurocentric that they failed to note many features of American Indian groups, including land usage (there was no such thing as individual ownership to them--maybe tribal holdings of hunting grounds, but in many cases, they shared these with other groups). Therefore, they have great difficulty in proving, in a way that the white government will accept, that they occupied lands in the past.

This decision reeks--it is as bad as using poll taxes to disenfranchise black and poor white voters in the late 19th century. If you didn't have the receipt to prove that you paid poll taxes, you couldn't vote.

There should be an Indian council that decides tribal affiliation of remains--not Eurocentric judges.

[kayell]

6. Comparing to ones great grandmother is misleading

These bones are 9000 years old. If some one were to discover an interesting burial in County Kerry Ireland (where most of my ancestors are from), I can think of no reason to object to the study of those bones. Although it is quite possible that someone found in that area could be related to me, the possible relation would be incredibly distant, and not within memory of stories of that person. My great grandmother is a real person to me. The 9000 year old bones have no personal connection.

[Spentastic]

7. That's your problem

Belief systems differ. I actually couldn't care less if people dug up my parents bodies to study them after they die. As far as I'm concerned they have no need for them. However, it would appear that these people feel differently. That's their perogative.

[brainshrub]

16. That's a good point!

I hadn't considered that.

I'm glad I wasn't the judge on this case...it would have driven me crazy ince both sides seem to have good points on this issue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Belief systems notwithstanding

They should not limit scientific research.

[Spentastic]

25. Says who?

It's not scientific research for the people objecting it's sacriledge.

If I believe I can experiment on your living relatives does that give me the right to do so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. What a bogus comparison

By this definition, we can't investigate ANY fossils since we are all descended from the same African roots. After all, one tribe and all that. Who cares about science?

Not only that, but the initial investigation showed no link.

[Spentastic]

39. Just as bogus

as you "beliefs notwithstanding" comment.

Surely it's a question of balance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Actually, it's not a question of balance

There are two conflicting desires here. One is scientific research. The other is an attempt to block such research.

[Spentastic]

42. That's fine

Then. Ethics should not effect research.

Is that what you are seriously advocating?

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Ethics?

It's unethical to research the origins of man?

[Maddy McCall]

43. No, actually some tribes allow research but within a limited, reasonable

time period.

Don't try to paint these Indian groups up as selfishly attempting to prohibit research.

Again, the dominant culture thinks it can mandate to the lesser how it should think and feel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Not mandated how they think or feel

The dominant culture is simply mandating what occurs. They are welcome to be upset by it.

[Maddy McCall]

70. Actually, according to NAGPRA, they are empowered to do more than

be upset. The law is on their side. Sad that the 9th didn't follow the law in this case.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. If the 9th didn't

Do you really think any other court will?

[Maddy McCall]

41. Thank god that the first President Bush saw things different than you!

As much as I detest the Bushes, he is to be credited with signing NAGPRA into law.

Yours is a silly extension of logic. It is safe to assume that any prehistoric human skeleton found in the United States is indeed ancestral to some Indian group here; thus, they have more right to decide the disposition of said remains than white scientists. And, on this one subject, the first President Bush and I agree.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Cool

I am NOT in the same company as the Bushes.

No, it is NOT safe to assume anything. Research is how we find those things out. Lacking any identifiable markings or gravestone that tells us the information, we need to investigate.

[Maddy McCall]

71. Read the NPS article I posted below. Plenty of context to prove

American Indian relationship.

[Maddy McCall]

9. But you are seeing this through your own lens

instead of attempting to see it through the American Indian viewpoint.

American Indian oral history indeed goes back thousands of years. Just because they did not write it down does not mean that they have no history.

Evidently, the groups who laid claim to the bones have a connection to that person. Who are we to judge them on the authenticity of their feelings of connection.

Just because YOU wouldn't care if someone dug up your ancestor (remind yourself that you don't even live on the same continent, much less the same region where your hypothetical ancestral bones would be found), it doesn't mean that others should feel how you do.

It is ethnocentric to suppose you can relate to how they feel.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. But the point here is that the initial evidence

is that the bones are not identifiable ancestors of the tribes now in that area.

"Interior Department scientists concluded that the remains were unlike those of any known modern Indians but did not rule out some distant biological connection. "

9000 years is a hell of a long time. There's as much a chance of a connection to Amazonian Indians as to North American Indians. Or maybe to Siberians. That's why further study of the bones would actually help knowledge of how humans populated America.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. In Cheddar England

they found some bones that were thousands of years old. They did DNA testing on the skeleton and then on the local population. They found descendants of this ancient person still living in Cheddar. Happened a couple of years ago.

[Maddy McCall]

14. Yes, just like mDNA has determined that Africa was "the cradle of life"

[treepig]

15. mmmm, cheddar

[Seldona]

8. Deleted by poster.

[Coventina]

21. What is your take on stem cell research?

Should conservative Christians be able to stop stem cell research because of their belief that it violates human dignity?

[Maddy McCall]

24. My take isn't the issue. But let's discuss your question...

First, federal law mandates that any remains found inside the United States are subject to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. That means that bones that have sat in university labratories for decades or remains discovered, say, in the construction of highways, must be reported to the state historic preservation officer, who contacts tribes in the area so that they can make an argument for claim to the remains. It's LAW, not my opinion.

As far as your stem cell argument: I have no problem with stem cell research, BUT if someone from Johns Hopkins decided that they wanted to perform stem cell research on my fetus without my consent, then I would have a problem with people superceding my wishes.

We could learn more about osteoporosis by digging up granny and putting her bones under a microscope, but ya know, granny's family might not want that. :shrug:

And, as a professional ethnohistorian, I am aware of MANY cases where bones were repatriated with tribal authorities, whose claims were based solely on the fact that their ancestral grounds encompassed the region in which the bones were found.

This is a HUGE issue (and rightly so) with the American Indian Movement (AIM). AIM began threatening to dig up white cemeteries in the 1960s and 1970s--shortly thereafter, NHPA and NAGPRA were passed.

[MisterC2003]

45. Oh, man

PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but it's attitudes like this that really give the conservatives a shot at all of us -- it's like bending over and asking for it. C'mon, a 9,400 year old relative o mine is not my grandpa or grandma, it's a fucking fossil. Dig it up and study it so we all know more.

Jeebus.

[Maddy McCall]

47. Actually, the "conservative" first Bush signed NAGPRA

so it seems that "conservatives" respect American Indian views on this issue much more than many DUers.

[styersc]

55. I'm an archaeologist and this is a proper ruling-

Your "grandmother" analogy does not hold water as the laws now (federal) protect only Native Americans, Hawaiians, sometimes African Americans but not European Americans. My grandmother CAN be excavated and studied with very loittle difficulty.

In the mid-80's before any of these laws were in effect we were going to the southeastern coast to excavate a Woodland (roughly 2500 year old) burial ossuary (mass grave). In order to be culturally sensitive we first consulted the only organized group remaining in the near region which were the Cherokee in NC. They gave us permission with enthusiasm. We came to learn later that they gave us permission because they assumed that because the remains were so far away that they must belong to a historically rival group and they were happy to have us "desecrate" this burial. Seems like this band of Cherokee were intentinally malicious while us dumb, poor scientists, were trying to be considerate.

No way to tell who or to what racial group Kennewick belongs to without study. The remains belong to their ancestors but the information and data belong to mankind.

[Maddy McCall]

75. Actually, laws indeed protect African American graves...

Edited out of respect for a fellow archaeologist.

NAGPRA doesn't protect Euro graves, BUT all states have laws the prohibit desecration of graves, so indeed Euro graves are protected.

So who was the "historically rival group" that you excavated? I am a professional ethnohistorian (Southeastern specialty--dissertation on the Natchez) and I would LOVE to know.

[Maddy McCall]

2. If the bones were found in a region in which a tribe can prove

ancestral land claims, it indeed would have a valid claim to the remains.

This can be solved in a simple way: the archaeologist or physical anthro who studies the bones should be of tribal affiliation with the tribe who laid claim. There are many archaeologists of American Indian descent, so that would be the best compromise.

[hlthe2b]

3. Sounds reasonable...

Yes, although more than one tribe made claim based on where the remains were found which culminated in this 6-8 year epic of BIA hearings, appeals, and ultimately lawsuits.

[Maddy McCall]

5. Then the judges should defer to an intertribal council and let them

decide how to handle the remains.

[sybylla]

17. Prove how? You already said that they don't keep documentation.

All they would have to go on is the tribal history handed down from generation to generation. But that isn't fool proof. Just since the time of Columbus, tribes have moved around a great deal, partly because of pressure from neighboring tribes and partly because of pressure from Europeans. Unless there is recoverable DNA, there is no way to connect a tribe to a region 9000 years ago.

I fully support the "repatriation" act that requires the return of Native American remains to their tribes. In this case, I agree with the court. Until there can be solid determination of what tribe this person belongs to, how can it be returned? If it is given to one area tribe, will that not cause a neighboring one to complain? This issue isn't as black and white as you would like it to be.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Your ignorance on the subject of the validity of oral history is...

astonishing, as is your ignorance of what a "tribe" is.

As a professional ethnohistorian who is well versed in the validity of oral history, I can tell you that some groups have oral histories of actual geomorphic epochs, such as the (Wisconsin-edit) Glacier.

And, let's keep in mind that many "tribes" are historic, not prehistoric, constructs, where disparate bands, whose populations had been decimated by Euro-introduced diseases, came together and formed what we now know as tribes. The Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles are only a few examples.

Read the law...it explicitly explains how connections are made. By your assertion, NO REMAINS would be repatriated, because of the lack of written doccuments to "prove" that X group could claim X remains.

Linguistics experts, physical anthropologists, and ethnohistorians are often consulted to assist tribes in making claims, and MOST claims are respected.

Like I said, since several groups laid claim to these remains, an intertribal council SHOULD have been consulted and its decision respected by the federal judges, none of whom, I would bet, are American Indian.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. When was the Kentuckian Glacier/Glacial? (n/t)

[Maddy McCall]

36. The last epoch in the US was the Wisconsin Glacier

20,000 BCE +/-

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. No it shouldn't be consulted

Ultimately, we can only bow to fringe beliefs so far before we must continue on with life.

[Maddy McCall]

37. Fringe beliefs? You say this on DU?

Thank god that the constitution protects the rights of the minority, even if *some people* consider ancestral respect "fringe beliefs."

[minkyboodle]

53. Jchild

I agree with you. Unfortunately I have found that on the issues concerning Native Americans DU can be surprisingly callous and insensitive. Its disheartening sometimes.
Scott

[Maddy McCall]

58. Thanks, Minkyboodle

I agree...completely disheartening.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. They have rights

But their rights don't trump the rights of the rest of us.

[Maddy McCall]

72. Really? What are YOUR rights in this case?

The Corps of Engineers was preparing to hand over the remains to the claimants who had proved affiliation to the Corps' archaeologists and anthropologists satisfaction.

Then eight academics filed suit. If anyone's LEGAL RIGHTS were trumped, it was the Indian confederation claimants' rights.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Scientific rights

And I am for them. I want to know more. Thankfully, the courts agree.

[sybylla]

88. Ignorance?

FU. Your arrogance and race to make assumptions demonstrates far more ignorance than I ever could.

I have studied archaeology, anthropology and Wisconsin tribal formations, movements and oral histories quite seriously. Since you cited Wisconsin I'll give you a Wisconsin example. The Ho Chunk have several origin traditions. Which one do you accept? If you accept all of them, how do you decide the progression through time? Some of the traditions contradict history and what we know from their first contact with Europeans. Some of them contradict each other. Oral history and traditions are helpful in ascertaining the location of "tribes" over time. But it is not reliable enough to be the only factor.

You can make all the assumptions you want about pre-history based upon oral history of various "tribes". That is all it can ever be - an assumption. You can create a case for that assumption based upon a variety of evidence but PROOF, absolute, verifiable proof of anything that took place 9000 years ago is not possible. Do I think that means we can never repatriate, no. I value the repatriation act in the protection of native burial grounds out of respect for each groups traditions. And many of those traditions can be traced back an epoch or two. They deserve that protection. But I heartily disagree that the remains of Kennewick man need to be returned to anyone until his living relatives can be pinpointed. We do a grave disservice by guessing.

AND you still haven't addressed what happens when there is a conflict between oral histories and traditions of several "tribes". Who is to get the remains then? How do you reconcile the differences? How do you prevent endless court battles? You have already proposed a solution but unless the "tribes" who take these matters very seriously will accept your suggestion, it makes no difference.

In my ignorant opinion.

[andy12]

97. What if?

The remains are more closer to european man than to all the others who have been cited?

[Malva Zebrina]

11. Couldn't DNA studies determine at least a small part of the ancestry?

Suppose the bones are from not native Americans but say are bones of a person who travelled there from somewhere else--say Russia. Shouldn't the Russian descendants also have a say? The street would have to go two ways, I would think.

I guess in some respects we are all from one tribe and related if one cares to go back far enough. :-), The ruling though that the bones are not related to an existing tribe is a little specious, I think. Does that mean that there could be no ancestors at all because the tribe does not exist? There are tribes that have disappeared, yet were in existance when the Europeans landed on these shores. Those remaining in the dwindling tribe often joined another nearby tribe for survival.

[Maddy McCall]

13. Exactly!

I agree with EVERYTHING you said.

[sybylla]

19. DNA very rarely survives even half that long.

Last I knew, the only dna to be found in skeletal remains comes from the marrow. It decays relatively early, depending on the means of preservation of the remains. Unless they've discovered some since I last read about Kennewick man, there was no testable tissue found in his remains.

[FlaGranny]

20. It seems to me that

if one were to get DNA (extremely unlikely from such old bones) that would require scientists to "study" the bones - much about origin can be learned from the study of the skull, if there is one. On top of that, the bones might not even be from an ancestor of any native tribe. What if the remains were found to be from a quite unexpected source (like Europe, Egypt, China, etc.)? If scientists study the remains, and determine them to be "native," then they should be given to one of the tribes (but which one?) for burial. Anyway, that's my take on the issue.

[yellowcanine]

22. Right decision - Evidence is that the bones are not connected

to an existing tribe. The fact that tribes may live in the particular area now where the bones were found or even have been living there for the past 500 years is irrelevant. The bones are 9,200 years old. North American tribes migrated from place to place. There may not have even been any present day tribes anywhere near that area 9,700 years ago. I am with the scientists on this one. The characteristics of the bones don't match present day tribes. In terms of human evolution 9,700 years is nothing. If there were a connection it would show up in the bones.

[Onlooker]

23. Old beliefs are so tiresome

Wherever you find the word traditions, you often also find hate and bigotry. Science is right to want to study the bones, and if someone feels the spirit of their ancestor will be be harmed, they are probably reactionary. While there are some traditionalists who are progressive, in general whenever people cling on to old beliefs, they're carrying bigoted baggage. The charming customs of old are often coverups for murder and hate.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Murder and hate? Uh, yes, I would say that the way Euroamericans have

treated American Indians could be described as "murder and hate."

Ya know, let's go dig up some white graves from the 1930s so we can learn about malnutrition and parasytic diseases. All in the name of science.....

[Onlooker]

27. I'm wasn't just talking about American Indians

The Christians used their beliefs for among the worst travesties in history, especially against the Indians. I'm just saying that science should take precedence over religion and, yes, I think it would be fine to dig up some EuroAmerican graves, especially if it could help document some of their crimes and diseases. When I die, I'll be reincarnated as dirt. That's the best any of us can hope for!

[Maddy McCall]

30. Well, let's go get a shovel and dig up Dad, since you're all for it.

:eyes:

Again, the dominant culture rapes the culture they have so abused. It's indefensible, and I am amazed that so many DUers have no empathy for the people whose ancestors suffered greatly at the hands of white people.

[Onlooker]

32. That's not fair

I have enormous empathy for the victims of European culture, but that empathy manifests itself in how we treat the living and future generations. I'm not concerned with the dead and buried, and I think the sooner the world gets beyond such nonsense, the easier it will be to be responsible to each other, rather than to use religion as an excuse for our behavior.

[Spentastic]

35. Careful now Stalin

Personally I have little time for religion. But to deny its power is to tread a dangerous path.

[Maddy McCall]

44. Your ethnocentrism is astounding!

You belong to a culture that dictates forward-thinking. That's fine, as long as your culture doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

American Indian culture emphasizes the past. That is why this is an issue to them, and a valid issue. It may be "nonsense" to you, but it is NOT to them. They are concerned with "the dead and buried," and their traditional values reflect that. Who are you to tell them that that is "nonsense?"

[Onlooker]

79. Waitaminute

There are many qualities of American Indian culture I admire. Many tribes have attitudes towards children, homosexuals, and the earth that I wish were models for Judeo-Christian civilization. But, in any culture, there are going to be some things that I don't agree with. Do you like EVERYTHING about Indian culture? Do you like EVERYTHING about western European culture? Of course not. I have no objection to honoring the dead and worshipping one's ancestors as long as it does get in the way of advancing our scientific, cultural, and historical understanding. The more we know, the more easily we will deal with each other's differences. And I'm not ethnocentric. I can sure you there are just as many issues I have with western culture as I have with any other.

[FlaGranny]

38. I have complete empathy for the traditions of the

native Americans and I don't believe we have done enough to make up for past mistreatment. However, when speaking of a 9200 year old set of bones, there is no way to know for certain that they are native American bones. Some scientists even believe that there may have been commerce between Egypt (and other areas of the world) and the Americas thousands of years ago. Just because these bones were found where they were found, that does not mean they are ancestors of the tribes living in those areas even 1000 years ago. They only way to even vaguely have an idea of who those bones belong to is for the scientists to study them and find out.

On the east coast, there is an ancient settlement that has been determined to be of Norsemen. That also is in an area that had been populated by native Americans.

[Maddy McCall]

46. Really? Then, pray tell me which other people were inhabiting the

North American continent in 9,000 BCE??? There was not even continental trade in North America going on 9,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers live subsistence lifestyles, and have no surplus with which to develop trade networks--I know of NO reputable anthropologist who would even ponder Egyptians visiting this continent 9,000 years ago--much less leaving remains here.

American Indians often allow scientists to study remains of their ancestors--the key thing here though is that they are given the choice. And the federal court decided in this case not to give them a say, which is disgusting, considering that it's almost positively certain that the bones are American Indian origin. The remedy in cases where several groups lay claim is usually to allow said groups to council to decide how to handle the remains.

If this skeleton was 1,000 years old (there are plenty of those) then scientists wouldn't have been so interested, and would have probably let the remains go--but since it's 9,000YO, then scientists want to hold on to it because of its unique antiquity. They fought tooth and nail, and Amerian Indians lost.

However, MANY bones that date back thousands of years have been repatriated to American Indian claimants--no DNA proof was necessary. Again, read NAGPRA to learn more about the burden of proof.

[MisterC2003]

49. NAGPRA sound really bad

A real blow to science that will do little to help Amerinds generally.

[Maddy McCall]

51. LOL at you using the term "Amerinds"

That tells me enough about your beliefs on this issue.

Again, dig up your granny and offer her to science, and then I'll believe your sincerity.

Laws protect white burials and NAGPRA protects American Indian burials. Why is that such a problem to you?

By your logic, NO ONE should be buried. We should all become fodder for microscopes, since we are all potential scientific experiements.

:eyes:

[MisterC2003]

93. Amerinds, native americans, whatever, I don't care

what the current PC term is. Your problem, not mine. I'm comfortable using whatever term works for the whomever.

Your "dig up your granny" line is simply pathetic. There's a huge difference between digging up a 9,000 year old skeleton found in the wild and disinterring remains from a known recognized burial ground. I'll grant you people have looted Native American burial grounds. Hell, we used to kill Native Merikans wholesale. But that doesn't mean we have to let every last fossil -- which is pretty much what a 9,000 year old burial is -- get claimed as somebody's granpappy. I imagine some of my ancestors have been dredged out of peat bogs and studied, and I say, good on'em.

Hey, if there's a chance to advance science, I think we should all be fodder for microscopes. Might give our kids a chance of living better lives all told, and that's a lot more important than revering the bones of the dead.

[FlaGranny]

86. We really don't know what other people might have

been inhabiting the area. The only way to find out is by scientific study.

I have empathy for the beliefs of others and I believe that the remains should be turned over to native Americans, if that is where they belong. The trouble is, I don't know that they belong there. Some might be convinced that there is no possibility of any other people being in that area, but most scientists are not. If the ancestors of native Americans were able to migrate to this continent, why wouldn't another group be able to do the same, a group that no longer exists? Maybe those remains belong to one of MY ancestors' lineages. If they do, I certainly would like to know about it.

If any of my ancestors could be of benefit to humanity in some way, you can be sure I would be happy about it. Yes, even my parents and my children, but after they had served, I certainly would expect them to be returned.

Edit: Did some research and found out that scientists believe these remains to be Caucasian!! Found a forensic recreation of his face.

Second Edit: He looks like he could be an ancestor of Jimmy Durante.

[Malva Zebrina]

91. I don't like to be challenging this, but that reproduction ;looks

Native American to me. It is interesting that the eyes have no color.

[HereSince1628]

87. I think THAT is exactly the point, there may have been 2

peoples with different ancestral histories.

As I understand it the Amerinds have somewhat square eyesockets, wide cheek bones, etc. A trait that developed relatively late in central Asia...hence the earlier references to Amerinds as "mongolian."

Preliminary examination of the Kennewick man suggested anomolies with comparison to the mongolian morphotype. Indeed it shows similarity with a number of other very early remains found in various locations from North America to South America whose features include more rounded orbits.

Verification of that possibility has potential implications of Amerind culture and self-image.

[Coventina]

78. This is an insulting analogy!

How on earth do you justify calling the scientific research done today as "rape"?

I have empathy for the native people of America, and I support more being done for them. I do not follow how this is connected to this case.
Who is being harmed? There is no proof that he is an ancestor of ANYONE. He may have died without producing any offspring at all! If research shows that he is connected with current tribes, then by all means, he should be repatriated after that has been determined.

And you can get off your high horse about my ancestors because my MOTHER'S BODY WAS donated to science, because she died of a rare disease, and we WANTED science to learn as much as they could from her. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL HUMANS.

So go ahead and call me selfish and unfeeling and part of the rape culture. It will not make me feel one bit guilty.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Your mom sounds like a great person

Even in death, she helped others.

Sorry for your loss, but thanks for a very personal contribution both to science and this discussion.

[Coventina]

85. Thanks Muddle

:hug:

[yellowcanine]

29. Now I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment.

Most traditions of a culture are worthy of respect even when they can't or should not be maintained. The hate and bigotry you mention did of course exist, but it is neither accurate nor fair to generalize traditions as bigotry. To do so is itself bigotry regarding traditionalism.

[MisterC2003]

48. The bones may indicates that Amerinds weren't the only "native" Americans

I've read that skeletons have shown up in various places that show little or not linkage to Amerinds, and that THAT'S one of the big reasons that Amerinds don't want Kennewick man studied -- he's not likely of Amerind descent, and so destroys the Amerind "franchise" on being the ones who got here first. There's some evidence that Amerinds are just the latest wave of people to wipe out the people that got here before them.

[Maddy McCall]

50. Please tell me where you got this info.

Considering that reputable evidence proves that American Indians have been on this continent for at LEAST 20,000 years, please tell me your source that shows that they "wiped out the people that got here before them."

Now, if you want to talk about the possiblity of reverse migration or a South American evolutionary genesis, or if you have read any of Ward Churchill's books, I'll listen. But there is absolutely NO evidence of "other people" being wiped out before American Indian inhabitancy. Geesh...the desperation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Proof of 20,000 years inhabitancy?

We have proof that far back? What is it?

Maybe the poster was referring to Walter Neves' hypothesis. This might be your 'reverse migration', but doesn't that also include the possibility of the second wave "wiping out" the first?

[Maddy McCall]

60. For starters, look up Meadowcroft Rock Shelter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. but that's disputed

some put it as far back as 20,000 years ago; some just 13,000.

[starroute]

59. All we know is that *somebody* got here 20,000 years ago

The earliest skulls found in the Americas have all been of a long-headed type, more similar to the Ainu or Polynesians or even native Australians than to present-day Native Americans. Kennewick Man is very typical of that early type.

The present Native Americans are far closer to the round-headed peoples of eastern Asia -- the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Mongols. Their teeth display what is called "sinodonty," a pattern which first appeared in eastern Asia about 15,000 years ago. The earliest skulls of this Mongoloid/sinodont type show up in the Americas only about 9000 years ago, and even then the earlier type remained dominant until about 5000 years ago. After that, it essentially disappeared, except in a few isolated places like Baja California and Tierra del Fuego.

DNA evidence supports this same idea of population replacement. The native inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, a remnant group who retained an extremely ancient skull-type, were completely lacking in mitochondrial haplogroups A and B, which are widespread in the rest of the Americas. The B4 haplogroup in particular suggests a major influx of people from east Asia to North America some time between 12,000 and 6000 BC. Modern Japanese DNA shows especially close affinities with some Native American DNA.

I'm afraid that what's going on here is not natural family feeling but a kind of Native American religious fundamentalism. Their religions tell them that they have always been here, that they did not come from elsewhere and that there was no one here before them. Like all the other fundamentalists in today's world, they want to believe that rather than the evidence of science, and therefore they have to claim Kennewick Man as one of their own, purely on the basis of faith.

I can understand their feelings, but I'm not willing to give in to them, any more than I would give into Christian fundamentalists claiming that evolution should be banned from the schools because it is contrary to their beliefs and might upset their children.

[Maddy McCall]

66. Yeah, I've read the position papers on genetic diversity, too--big deal...

What about that primate jawbone found in South America that predates any primate jawbone ever found in Africa--that is proponed to support reverse migration, but it hasn't been proved. We can talk about genetic research all day long--what is at issue here is that the Corp of Engineers followed NAGPRA regulations and turned the remains over to the claimants, who the corps believed substantially proved their case. Only when 8 academic scientists heard about the transfer did they raise hell and file suit. Then government manipulation began.

Can't believe you would compare American Indian culture to fundamental Christianity, which is partially guilty for the distruction of American Indian culture: "Christianize them, civilize them, and if that doesn't work, the only good Indian is a dead Indian."

Ya know, science is not infallible--and it's really sad that some people here worship science as if it were the most fundamental of all religions.

[bubblesby2002]

94. Excuse me, the 8 scientists didn't just hear about the....

...transfer of the bones and then sue. They had been studying these bones until two different native bands laid claim to the bones and requested they be returned. The lower court ruled that the bones should be returned, and then the scientists took their case for study further to the next level of court. I do not know who the bones belong to and niether does anyone else. They do not have any connection to any known tribe around the area where they were found. In fact the original reconstructed face looked as if Jean Luc Picard had stepped out of the past.

And as a little jog to your memory here just in the last couple of years, some individuals who were white and who died from the flu outbreak in 1918 were dug up so scientists could study their remains and perhaps stop another flu epidemic from wiping out millions of people. That would be all colors, all races whose lives would be saved.

[bubblesby2002]

95. Sorry mistake

Not the lower court ruling that gave the bones back but a federal decision which the scientists appealed.

[DrWeird]

65. Sounds like your standard eurocentric revisionism to me.

No way the indians were civilized enough to build the mounds and Mississippian Civilization's pyramids. There must have been white people here first and they got wiped out by the savages.

:eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

69. Yes, or the lost tribe of Israel or the Phoenicians or extraterrestrials

Thanks for your comments, Dr. Weird. :hi:

[MisterC2003]

96. Kinnebunkport man

C'mon, it was an article in Discover or Scientific American or somewhere when all this stuff about Kinnebunkport man started to surface. It said in essence that scientists have been finding skeletons for a number of years that exhibit Polynesian rather than Amerind traits, and speculated that an earlier wave of Polynesian migrants might have preceded the Amerinds, and subsequently been wiped out by them, if not in wars then in conflicts over land and whatnot.

I don't have nearly as much emotional investment in this issue as you. But it seems a clear case of science vs. ignorance here, and yeah, I tend to side with science in these instances.

[Maddy McCall]

52. LINK: AMERICAN INDIAN CLAIMANTS' POSITION ON THIS CASE

http://www.friendsofpast.org/kennewick-man/news/030718news.html

Before any further debate of this issue, please read the position of the claimants of these remains. I won't discuss this issue further until those who support the government's position read the claimants' position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Is the Indian claimants' position on that site?

It seems to be supporting the scientists' desire for further investigation.

[Maddy McCall]

57. MORE MANDATORY READING TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND CASE

This National Park Service details the case very thoroughly.

Also, everyone needs to be aware that the Corp of Engineers, on whose land the skeleton was found, determined in accordance with the Federal NAGPRA law that the remains were American Indian and planned to turn them over to tribal claimants. Then, academic scientists heard of their plans, and that is where the suit originated.

In other words, the law was being followed by the COE and tribal groups, until a group of academics filed suit.

Read the evidence that supports the skeleton being of American Indian origin:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/encl_3.htm

[styersc]

73. jchild- I had forgotten that we had spoken on archaeology in the past-

so I'm embarassed if my post seem lecture-esque.

My problem with NAGPRA beyond its stifling effect on research is that it assigns western values regarding human remains to prehistoric cultures that we are just barely imn the process of understanding.

There were several hundred cultures on this continent well before we got here, many of which were extinct before Europeans set foot (whoops- preaching again). We can never know how they regarded human remains. Some cultures revered remains, other treated remains as hazardous waste (with harmful spirits attached). I hesitate to assign the western reverence for the body to cultures we don't understand, particulalry when it is an impediment to knowledge. What if Kennewick is the remains of an imperical people that would have been offended at the thought of impeding research to revere bones??? Can't know.

[Maddy McCall]

76. Point one, I agree. Point two, I agree (and yes I know)

But NAGPRA was enacted to consider the culture of American Indians, and though it isn't perfect, it was a step in the right direction.

Do you know that I can take you to ten homes here where American Indian remains are displayed in glass cabinets, picture frames, glass coffee tables--so forth? I know amateur archaeologists who have desecrated burials to remove associated burial items. Should we be allowed to visit historic cemeteries and dig up bodies so that we can have trophies to display.

NAGPRA and NHPA helped curb the enthusiasm to see American Indian remains as "collectors items." I see nothing wrong with that.

As an archaeologist, I respect science and the value of learning about the past. I sense a generational difference in you and me, but let me just say that as a scientist, I have NO PROBLEM in working with tribal authorities on this issue AND most allow research if they know they will receive the remains afterwards.

[styersc]

77. I'm aware of the site looting problem-

I excavated an ossuary on Camp LeJeune (USMC base-North Carolina) a couple of summers ago to get it out of the way of a construction project but the Marines had already beaten us to it by a few years. Removed lots of skulls but left long bones behind. There is lots of that going around, more so out west then east.

NAGPRA is a start that has to be refined.

If I remember correctly, I think that some of Kennewick's initial metric formulas indicated some European traits (despite dates which I think were derived of OCR, not C-14). If we maintain Naitve American input as the final say in such things, aren't we limiting research avenues? There are researchers working on non-Asian sources for some human inhabitants as well as pre-Paleo research.

I agree with cultural sensitivity and the itent of NAGPRA but I tend to want to err on the side of research until we can work out a solution.

[Jon Thompson]

90. Excuse me?

This guy is Polynesian, so why not dig him up? Do some research on him, that kind of thing. Clearly, we aren't totally sure how he got there, or what he was doing there, so I see no reason why researching his bones isn't a huge boon to science. Why should his bones be given to the Native Americans? This seems like the right decision to me.

[styersc]

92. NAGPRA Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act

was passed (during Bush I and strengthened during Clinton) because the Native Americans were fed up with having scared burial grounds looted. Native American input is required in cases involving Native American remains and in this case regional representatives balked at allowing studies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. That's evidence in support?

There doesn't seem to be anything there to tie the skeleton to any existing group in the area, but plenty to say that things have changed since, eg "Geographic and archeological evidence from the middle Columbia region indicate the development, between about 3000 and 2000 years ago, of a pattern of human culture resembling the cultural patterns of the Native American groups residing in the same area at about the time of European and Euroamerican contact."

[MrPrax]

68. Someone should message a MOD

and have this moved over to GD...

A great thread...

The Haidi Gwii consider it 'sacrilege' to preserve totem poles, but a aboriginal group in the same Cascadia region wants to preserve a 9000 year old 'grave'...

Don't know what to think....

[Ediacara]

80. Best news I've heard all day!

N/T

[toopers]

82. I am not taking sides on this issue, but I have a question.

Is there an issue of the separation of church and state, since the basis for opposing the study of the bones is related to one groups personal, religious beliefs? Again, not taking sides. I am just looking for some reasonable discussion on this issue.

[FlaGranny]

89. If anyone is interested,

this site has everything you ever wanted to know about all the scientific studies on Kennewick man. The study linked below is NOT written for the layman, but the last few paragraphs of this quite long report give a nice summary of the findings.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm