I have no opinion whatsoever about what should happen to the body. I just know that the article is rather thin in detail. "...relationship to a presently existing tribe or people, or culture" is pretty f-ing broad. How does this body NOT fit that description? That's all I want to know, since that's essentially the only important fact upon which the court had to rule.
Want to tell us why it *DOES* have a relationship to a modern tribe or culture other than a coincidence of location that doesn't logically translate across nearly 10k years?
The law states that unless such a relationship is shown, the body does not fall under that act, and is open to scientific study. No such relationship has been made, and it will require DNA analysis to prove is pretty much the opinion of the scientists... which is what they wanted to do in the first place.
Want to tell us why it *DOES* have a relationship to a modern tribe or culture other than a coincidence of location that doesn't logically translate across nearly 10k years?
The law states that unless such a relationship is shown, the body does not fall under that act, and is open to scientific study. No such relationship has been made, and it will require DNA analysis to prove is pretty much the opinion of the scientists... which is what they wanted to do in the first place.
That's what I'm asking that the article show. What evidence do the Indians have to support their claim? What evidence is against them? Jesus Christ you guys are paranoid. You fight like dogs to protect your point of view without thinking.
I couldn't care less about where this body ends up. If you don't like that fact, stuff it and quit getting defensive. It's pathetic to see you all running around chasing your own tail. If you're all so certain that the body SHOULD be studied, support your claim. My claim is that the article doesn't hold enough information to know either way.
All this article says is "The court ruled to give the body to science." They don't give any more useful detail. I want more useful detail before I answer any of the questions raised by the original poster. The article doesn't even link to the original written decision.
Unfortunately (for better or worse), the tribes have no claim other than locality. And, since the First People's claim is taken *very* seriously (rather like fundamentalists looking at evidence of localized flooding in regions of the Middle East and saying it proves all of the Bible - most native genesis stories have the peoples being the first inhabitants of the land), any other possibility is anathema.
It's truly unfortunate. \
Sorry, I've been pretty steeped in this story since it started, given my regional upraising. I tend to think that it's pretty basic information, yet I forget most people have no reason to have that background.
Now, if it turns out that DNA supports any one or more tribe's claims, then turn it back over to them, the law has been satisfied.
Hence, do the DNA analysis last. :}
Back about '83 or so I was a lab technician at a local community college in my hometown, working in the anthropology lab. A dig site found remains, but they were kept secret for MONTHS so they could keep digging the rest of the site, then 'woah! look what we just found!', and the site was immediately reburied under tribal observation and consecrated. If they'd announced the find immediately, they wouldn't have been able to finish the dig. This is pretty normal, unfortunately.
Now, if it turns out that DNA supports any one or more tribe's claims, then turn it back over to them, the law has been satisfied.
Although I understand your point, the law doesn't require anything as stringent as DNA samples. Oral history would be enough (albeit unlikely in this scenario.)
Ok, I just got done watching the southpark episode "All about Mormons" and it made me wonder why Mormons aren't going nuts on this. If their claim is that that the first Americans were really white people, you'd think this would help support that.
Personally, I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that there is some intriguing evidence that pre-historic people got around more than we would suspect. I believe there was some evidence of nicotine and cocaine in egyptian mummies suggesting some trade with the americas way back.
As for studying the the bones, hell yes they should be studied.
Ok, I just got done watching the southpark episode "All about Mormons" and it made me wonder why Mormons aren't going nuts on this. If their claim is that that the first Americans were really white people, you'd think this would help support that.
Personally, I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that there is some intriguing evidence that pre-historic people got around more than we would suspect. I believe there was some evidence of nicotine and cocaine in egyptian mummies suggesting some trade with the americas way back.
As for studying the the bones, hell yes they should be studied.
I did a project on Kennewick man for my Native Americans Anthro class. In the end I had to make a massive poster with all my research and such. I got a B just for the name: Who Killed Kenny? A study of Kennewick Man.
Does anyone still care? Court has a revised ruling here.
Quote:
The parties dispute whether the remains of Kennewick Man constitute Native American remains within NAGPRA's meaning. NAGPRA [the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act] defines human remains as "Native American" if the remains are "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9). The text of the relevant statutory clause is written in the present tense ("of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous"). Thus the statute unambiguously requires that human remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered Native American._._._.
In the context of NAGPRA, we conclude that Congress's use of the present tense is significant. The present tense "in general represents present time." R. Pence and D. Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English 262 (2d ed. 1963). Congress, by using the phrase "is indigenous" in the present tense, referred to presently existing tribes, peoples, or cultures. We must presume that Congress gave the phrase "is indigenous" its ordinary or natural meaning. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. at 357. We conclude that Congress was referring to presently existing Indian tribes when it referred to "a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9)
Excellent. Reaffirms that the link between the remains and any modern tribes is tenuous at best, and the body is worthy of anthropological study independent of any particular culture's beliefs.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
You may not agree but the courts reason is clear.
Yup.
Originally posted by Scott
You may not agree but the courts reason is clear.
I have no opinion whatsoever about what should happen to the body. I just know that the article is rather thin in detail. "...relationship to a presently existing tribe or people, or culture" is pretty f-ing broad. How does this body NOT fit that description? That's all I want to know, since that's essentially the only important fact upon which the court had to rule.
The law states that unless such a relationship is shown, the body does not fall under that act, and is open to scientific study. No such relationship has been made, and it will require DNA analysis to prove is pretty much the opinion of the scientists... which is what they wanted to do in the first place.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Want to tell us why it *DOES* have a relationship to a modern tribe or culture other than a coincidence of location that doesn't logically translate across nearly 10k years?
The law states that unless such a relationship is shown, the body does not fall under that act, and is open to scientific study. No such relationship has been made, and it will require DNA analysis to prove is pretty much the opinion of the scientists... which is what they wanted to do in the first place.
That's what I'm asking that the article show. What evidence do the Indians have to support their claim? What evidence is against them? Jesus Christ you guys are paranoid. You fight like dogs to protect your point of view without thinking.
I couldn't care less about where this body ends up. If you don't like that fact, stuff it and quit getting defensive. It's pathetic to see you all running around chasing your own tail. If you're all so certain that the body SHOULD be studied, support your claim. My claim is that the article doesn't hold enough information to know either way.
All this article says is "The court ruled to give the body to science." They don't give any more useful detail. I want more useful detail before I answer any of the questions raised by the original poster. The article doesn't even link to the original written decision.
That would probably help matters.
Doesn't the appeal court put such material online ?
Aqua
It's truly unfortunate.
Sorry, I've been pretty steeped in this story since it started, given my regional upraising. I tend to think that it's pretty basic information, yet I forget most people have no reason to have that background.
Now, if it turns out that DNA supports any one or more tribe's claims, then turn it back over to them, the law has been satisfied.
Hence, do the DNA analysis last. :}
Back about '83 or so I was a lab technician at a local community college in my hometown, working in the anthropology lab. A dig site found remains, but they were kept secret for MONTHS so they could keep digging the rest of the site, then 'woah! look what we just found!', and the site was immediately reburied under tribal observation and consecrated. If they'd announced the find immediately, they wouldn't have been able to finish the dig. This is pretty normal, unfortunately.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Now, if it turns out that DNA supports any one or more tribe's claims, then turn it back over to them, the law has been satisfied.
Although I understand your point, the law doesn't require anything as stringent as DNA samples. Oral history would be enough (albeit unlikely in this scenario.)
Personally, I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that there is some intriguing evidence that pre-historic people got around more than we would suspect. I believe there was some evidence of nicotine and cocaine in egyptian mummies suggesting some trade with the americas way back.
As for studying the the bones, hell yes they should be studied.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ok, I just got done watching the southpark episode "All about Mormons" and it made me wonder why Mormons aren't going nuts on this. If their claim is that that the first Americans were really white people, you'd think this would help support that.
Personally, I'm in agreement with an earlier poster that there is some intriguing evidence that pre-historic people got around more than we would suspect. I believe there was some evidence of nicotine and cocaine in egyptian mummies suggesting some trade with the americas way back.
As for studying the the bones, hell yes they should be studied.
I did a project on Kennewick man for my Native Americans Anthro class. In the end I had to make a massive poster with all my research and such. I got a B just for the name: Who Killed Kenny? A study of Kennewick Man.
The parties dispute whether the remains of Kennewick Man constitute Native American remains within NAGPRA's meaning. NAGPRA [the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act] defines human remains as "Native American" if the remains are "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9). The text of the relevant statutory clause is written in the present tense ("of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous"). Thus the statute unambiguously requires that human remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered Native American._._._.
In the context of NAGPRA, we conclude that Congress's use of the present tense is significant. The present tense "in general represents present time." R. Pence and D. Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English 262 (2d ed. 1963). Congress, by using the phrase "is indigenous" in the present tense, referred to presently existing tribes, peoples, or cultures. We must presume that Congress gave the phrase "is indigenous" its ordinary or natural meaning. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. at 357. We conclude that Congress was referring to presently existing Indian tribes when it referred to "a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9)