Kennewick Man to be studied
The US federal appeals courts have ruled in favour of allowing scientists to study the remains of the controversial "Kennewick man ".
Native groups variously oppposed the study, wanting the bones to be returned to them for sacred burial.
The decision has been made.
Do you think it was the right one ?
Is our need to know more important than the need to repect the wishes of the first peoples.?
Could we have found a middle path that may have satisfied both parties ?
Aquafire
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...newick05m.html
Native groups variously oppposed the study, wanting the bones to be returned to them for sacred burial.
The decision has been made.
Do you think it was the right one ?
Is our need to know more important than the need to repect the wishes of the first peoples.?
Could we have found a middle path that may have satisfied both parties ?
Aquafire
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...newick05m.html
Comments
Are you sugesting that perhaps native indian groups didn't want this study to go on because it would prove there were other caucasian looking poeples in America before their arrival ?
Puzzled
Aqua
EDIT: Powerdoc, it's not that the Native Americans believe that the bones were originally buried in a sacred way, but that if they were bones of a Native American current Native Americans have the rights to re-bury those bones because they're sacred.
Originally posted by bunge
The article says that the bones don't fall under the protection act, but why not? Articles like this are more frustrating than helpful.
...
From the article.
But the appeals court wrote that the repatriation law "unambiguously requires that human remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe or people, or culture to be considered Native American."
Originally posted by Scott
9600 years of written and oral records?
Man, that'd be a lot of floppy disks.
Aries 1B
The argument that these extremely dated remains have a direct relationship with current Native Americans living in the region is somewhere between tenuous to ridiculous. From what we know of Native American history, these bones most likely belong to a people who long ago were displaced, wiped or assimilated out by a people, who in turn were displaced, wiped or assimilated out by a people, who in turn were displaced, wiped out or assimilated by a people?.etc. Archaeological evidence shows a history of migration and warfare, including the dying out of major civilizations. This closest genetic relatives of this ancient person may well be in South America, the Pacific Islands, or even in Asia.
These bones belong to all of humanity, or nobody. We all are descended from 'native' persons and our ancient relatives' bones are scattered around the earth. If these particular remains cannot be studied because they are 'sacred' bones of a previously living person, then no ancient human remains anywhere can be studied.
Native Americans in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere have many issues to raise in terms of current injustice. The studying of these archaeological remains is not one of them.
But yes, the fight to get the body reburied ASAP didn't really heat up until preliminary reports were released stating that the body had a surprisingly Caucasian feature set. As soon as that was announced, several tribes stepped forward to demand it be reburied. Odd. In the absence of political concerns, one would think that someone would want to know *more* about the possibility of where their ancestors did or *did not* come from. But I guess politics trumps that in many cases.
A body that is demonstrably of one tribe or another (or even just Amerind) I believe should be turned over for reburial with respect, but I also believe that much anthropological data is lost due to this, unfortunately.
But this body? Just because of the region it was found in? Nope. It's too old. Claims to any culture are yet to be proven.
Originally posted by Scott
The remains are 9300 years old. No one living today could claim it was a part of any known tribe in the US.
I agree with this. That aside, what is it precisely we are trying to study? Is it more an archeological curiosity or a paleontological one? Clearly it's too young to be of any interest in the latter regard, right? IOW, there is nothing to be learned from this fellow in terms of human evolution... only things related to his clothes, tools, etc?
The Seattle PBS stations had a good documentary on this, IIRC.
"First Nations", "Aboriginal", "Native", and/or "Indigenous peoples" are all loaded terms
by referring to modern Amerindians in these terms, the underlying assumptions
(that they were the first, or the original inhabitants of a given region)
carry substantial weight in negotiating Land Claims or otherwise leveraging Gov't.
British Columbia, for example, has more than half of its land area claimed by various Bands and Tribes.
Key to the legal and moral arguments of most Land Claims trials are ancestry.
If it was shown that Caucasians were ancestral dwellers in harmony with Amerindians,
or even that the purported "Original inhabitants" claim of Natives was incorrect,
much of the political and moral momentum behind many land claims would vanish.
That is not to say that injustices and brutality were not visited on these peoples by later arriving Europeans,
but that the fundamental claim that "We were here first, ergo you stole it from us"
would then have another tier of "ya, but you took it from somebody else so it wasn't 'yours' ".
But as has been mentioned, this only became news when it surfaced that the bones were Caucasian.
At that point, suddenly they became an ancestor issue, but more telling,
all of the contesting tribes demanded that all research stop.
Less interested in truth than preserving the status quo leverage, it seems.
Well I find such topics fascinating especially anthro-historical topics.
On a lighter note..( you know me ) I was looking at the Kennewick mans face wondering why it felt so familiar.?
Then it hit me.. I did know the face..
I could even identify who it might be.
The resemblance is astonishing.
I present my evidence below.
Aqua
He's probably his own ancestor.
and slightly OT but peripheral to the land claim issue,
the 'traditional village' Kennewick man is supposed to have come from is currently underwater
(offshore about 900 metres from the current Washington state coastline, IIRC).
The argument is that land bridges and sea surface levels have submerged and/or raised in the 9000 years since his time, and that archaeological studies in what are now offshore mud flats might reveal more evidence (conveniently avoiding claims of whose land it is now, since it ain't "land" anymore, hence less likely to cause a fuss about ancestral gravesites being disturbed)
That they could move from one continent to another either by foot or by boat is increasingly evident.
While we're on the topic, few people realise that there is an interesting connection between Australian Aboriginals and earlier human fossil records recently unearthed in South America.
How on earth did they get there ?
Did they migrate from Australia to South America or the other way around ?
No one knows.
Aqua
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3460773.stm
And some background info...
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/default.htm
Originally posted by Scott
From the article.
The article doesn't support it's claim, that's why it's useless.
Originally posted by bunge
The article doesn't support it's claim, that's why it's useless.
Just read.
But the appeals court wrote that the repatriation law "unambiguously requires that human remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe or people, or culture to be considered Native American."
You may not agree but the courts reason is clear.