Due Date: Sunday, February 15 (by midnight)
Assignment: As in all your blog entries, we ask for your critical reflection on the themes discussed in lecture and in your readings. If you have strong personal reactions, critiques, or praise to offer one or more of the texts in question (or if you want to argue against a point made in lecture) please do follow your interests. Each week, however, we will be offering a suggested prompt that you may also choose to address.
Suggested Prompt:
The discovery of 9,400-year-old human remains—now known alternately as "Kennewick Man" or the "Ancient One"—eroding out of a river bank in Washington state in 1996 sparked a vigorous debate in North American archaeology. The skeleton is among the most complete and best preserved of those from the early occupation of the continent, and many archaeologists look upon the find as a rare opportunity to further our understanding of the Paleoindian period. Native American groups in the region (and many archaeologists), however, view the find quite differently; to them the Ancient One is an aboriginal ancestor in need of a proper reburial. The result of these conflicting viewpoints has been an often-heated debate over the conflicting rights of scientists and Native Americans to exert control over archaeological remains. As such, the Kennewick Man debate has become the foremost venue in which the revolutionary 1990 repatriation legislation known as NAGPRA has been examined and critiqued.
Should the remains have been reburied? How are we to draw the lines between the rights of archaeologists, the non-Native public, and Native America communities in this and future confrontations?
Please consult the two recommended readings in courseworks for Session 8 as well as the following link to the Umatilla Tribe: www.umatilla.nsn.us/ancient.html
Before the question of whether the remains should be reburied is answered, we must figure out who would do the reburying. It may seem like semantics in view of the larger question but I think it illustrates that this question isn't a simple case of winner and loser.
ReplyDeleteKennewick man has no identity beyond his age and I think this lack of information means an investigation should proceed. This should not be seen as a victory of science over Natives. For instance, crime scene photos broadcast over the media and invasive autopsies are not viewed as respectful in the strict sense but they're necessary in order to identify the dead. Although possibly traumatic, most relatives would rather have the invasion instead of the lack of closure.
Of course, the identity would probably not mean much since it's doubtful any link could conclusively be established between a current tribe and the body. In fact, the best scenario would be a connection to all tribes, since it would be from a time before various groups 'broke off.' In this case, however, at least some benefit would come from learning about the connections between various tribes and then a burial could take place. On the science side, more could be learned about the first Americans.
Of course, despite what I've said, there might be some who say that this identification defeats the purpose because the body is sacred. In which case I can only say that if the identity is not known, how can any one feel comfortable claiming the body? I feel that this is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, that being delaying burial not only for science but so that the burial can be more meaningful.
There is no doubt that there has certainly been a dig first mentality among those studying Native Americans. While much can be discovered this way, what has bee neglected is the oral traditions and the knowledge of the Native Americans about their own cultural heritage. In his chapter, “Anthropologists and Other Friends,” Vine Deloria lements about the curse of the anothropologist who compils useless knowledge “’for knowledge’s sake’” (94). While this is an issue that needs to be addressed further, the case of the Kennewick Man is not an instance of searching for knowledge that can be found in the oral tradition of Native Americans largely because we do not know who are the closest living ancestors. This discovery, which incidentally occurred without any digging, could tell us a great deal about the history of all humanity.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the key issue here is this question: When do human remains become artifacts? However, if you look a little more closely, it is evident that there is a lot more at stake than human rights after death and the pursuit of science. Politics, of course, is a major player.
The reason some Native American groups are fighting to get control of the archaeological remains of the Kennewick Man, for which no one should fault them when very few rights of ownership are willingly granted to them, is because of fear. I do not doubt that these groups believe that they have a valid claim on the remains, but I also believe that these Native American groups are taking a protective stance. They are afraid that the Kennewick Man could be used as a political tool, championing the white man and his ancestors as the true natives of North America. This fear is legitimate too. If it were discovered that whites were the first to populate North American much guilt would be alleviated and more rights, most likely, ripped from the Native Americans. Ultimately, then, it appears that what is at stake here with the Kennewick Man is the title of Native American.
The Kennewick Man, however, should unite us as a nation, as Americans, as human beings. When the issue is stripped of all of the politics, it is about learning where we came from, and I am referring to we as human beings. The remains can tell us about our past and the past of this country. Learning about and from the past helps us move forward with more purpose and knowledge. Just as we cannot change the way in which Native Americans have been treated in the past, the kind of treatment that invokes fear and protectiveness, we can learn from it and make sure of better future policies.
Caitlin Stachon
NAGPRA was intended (and foolishly perceived) to be a LEGAL protection against the degradation/exploitation, both past and present, scientific or otherwise, of American Indian artifacts and graves. When the legislation was drafted, non-native Americans had had their fill of American Indian issues/injustices and were willing to be rid of them; NAGPRA was drafted in part to soothe century’s old conflict(s). It was after all political. And, again, like the previous treaty of 1855 signed by the Umatilla and Nez Perce Tribes of Northeastern Oregon, NAGPRA was ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption and the accusation of fear, in spite of overwhelming evidence, that American Indians are wittingly preventing the truth about ‘ancient’ American lineage, has a whiff of hopeful revisionism. Kennewick Man/The Ancient One should be reburied.
What can we learn from the individual?
The narrative has told us now that there is a possibility of European descent. Speculation from one archaeological find is dominating our ideas about early America and revealing contemporary thinking.
From a legal point of view, NAGPRA was never recognized. After 12 years of scientific study on the remains, a compromise should be sought in this case and future cases. A reasonable period of study in conjunction with local tribal scientists followed by a burial is the only way to salvage NAGPRA.
-Mitchell Hulse
We are a nation supposedly with the ideals of a majority rule with the simultaneous protection of the rights of the minority. This latter part is the key. Indian nations are sovereign and, in my mind, have more claim to the bones. It is difficult not to sympathize with a group as oppressed (by my own people) as the Native Americans. On the one hand, I have a bias in the sense that I don’t really believe in the whole burying of bones; I see it as relatively pointless, but I also don’t care if people do it, and I certainly know and realize that people have the right to do it. Again, our country is supposedly tolerant toward all religions, treating everyone’s religious beliefs equally (within reason) and respecting the religious rights of everyone. In this vein, I believe the Native American groups involved have every right to want to bury the Kennewick man and perhaps more importantly have every right to do it.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the historian/scientist/curiosity in me wants Kennewick man to be studied. The only way to do so, in my mind, is to present a case, so to speak, to the groups involved in hopes of explaining and trying to persuade them (with the utmost respect) to allow study on the bones in question. First, assuming the fear of losing sovereignty is legitimate and felt by some Native Americans, we need to assure them that, should we be allowed to study and test the bones, and should we find the skeleton to be that of a Caucasian, the rights of all Native American groups will remain secure no matter what. In my mind, there is absolutely nothing that could be discovered about the Kennewick man that should change the way (for the worse) the nation treats Native Americans. If he is white, so be it, who cares? It will have just been a part of history, perhaps one of the most interesting discoveries in the Americas, but one that ultimately can have no bearing on policy today.
If we can assure these groups of their safety and of the respecting of their rights as Americans, then I feel we would be well on our way of gaining their support. Beyond that, we could make it known to them that after such testing and studying of the bones, they would be given back to such groups to have them do what they will with them. Such presentations and persuasions to the Native American groups involved should obviously be conducted in the utmost respect, carefully worded, and professionally planned out, so to speak. Either way, no matter what they chose to do after hearing such presentations and persuasions, scientists would have to respect their decision. Hopefully, in talking with them, the groups involved would see an attempt at working together with our fellow man, with the best intentions, but this is only possible if such feelings on the part of scientists are genuine (if they do actually hope to respect Native American rights and work together with their fellow man and not a different racial group). All in all, it is important to reiterate that what we find out about the past should not and cannot change how we view Native Americans today, except perhaps (and this may be hope beyond hope) for the better.
Joshua Szymanowski
The overkill theory is a notion in which the first people to reach the Americas over-hunted and over-killed many different species. The idea that the Native American, or the Paleoindian, could have been just as destructive to nature as we are today is problematic for many reasons. First of all, it destroys the modern image we have of our American ancestors and with it, some fundamental theories on human evolution and society.
ReplyDeleteIn The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau tells a tale of man’s evolution towards the formation of society. According to this theory, before committing to the social contract, men were “noble savages.” It is evident that he bases this pre-society model of man on the Indian, or the Native American. The noble savage is a peaceful creature who lives amongst nature in total respect and equality. Therefore, in our most basic natural state, we are basically one with nature. If however modern archeology comes to prove that the first men in America were responsible for the extinction of a huge part of the North American mega fauna, Rousseau’s theory of man before the social contract as a nature and peace loving creature would fall to pieces. The social contract would no longer be held responsible for the modern man’s hostility towards nature. Human nature itself would become the culprit.
Furthermore, we are currently in a time of great ecological change. We are finally realizing that our human effect on nature is destructive. It has taken us a long time to understand that the planet is not eternal and that it is our duty to protect it. For years we’ve had the image of our own ancestor, the Native American, as an ecologically responsible being. This perception of the Native American as a model of ecological friendliness has been a constant moral reminder of our own degeneration from responsible to negligent. But if we come to find out that our ancestors were actually just as irresponsible as we are, we discredit the moral model that keeps our guilt at rise and our ecological consciousness nearby. This finding would suggest that, as humans, we are fundamentally and naturally at ill with nature. We have always been and will always be. But most dangerous, we could come to conclude that since we are predestined by human nature to destroy our surroundings, why should we try to stop what is ultimately out of our control?
These are but a few problematic outcomes of the overkill theory. Both underline the fundamentals of human nature. But one causes us to blame ourselves for the destruction of nature and no longer the social contract or society as a whole, whereas the other gives us an excuse not to change the dangerous path we’ve taken in respect to our own planet. One is of guilt, the other of giving up and accepting a fate that is not necessarily meant to be. However, we could also use this overkill theory as an example of what not to replicate. We are often told that history repeats itself. Let us prove the contrary.
What is most confusing to me about this controversy is that it is not simply polarized, but instead fractionalized into a number of viewpoints and actors. Specifically, the Army Corps of Engineer’s decision to defy Congress and bury the Kennewick Man complicates the idea that this is a binary tug of war between the wills of American Indians and white scientists. The inter-US-governmental friction makes me wonder if there are also opposing viewpoints within the American Indian community. It makes me uneasy to assume that there are no Indians that value archeological study over cultural beliefs. This debate makes “scientist” and “Native American” mutually-exclusive, and even a progressive proposal, such as Zimmeran’s, which supports the notion that there could be a “compromise” between the two constituents, further exacerbates this distinction, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI am also intrigued by Chatters’ personality and role in this affair. While his reconstruction of Kennewick man’s face makes me suspicious of his unprejudiced claims, there is reason to think that he genuinely believes that the skeleton comes from a Caucasoid and not from an American Indian; he is displaying his true scientific conclusion and not trying to support a political theory. To his credit, Chatters first thought that the skeleton was recent and that it matched the structure of European ancestry (I don’t know if that is accurate)- he found out it was ancient after he had made this hypothesis. He also serves as an example of conflicting interests among the “white” world. In an interview with him I found online, he says “There have been many accusations -- that I violated various federal laws, that I intentionally tried to hurt Indian people by suggesting they weren't the first Americans, that I am somehow in league with white supremacists because I used the word Caucasoid in characterizing Kennewick Man's features. One of the most frightening aspects was when the Corps of Engineers fingered me when they discovered, more than a year after taking possession of the skeleton that some large bones were missing. I was, and may still be, under investigation by the FBI as a result.” What twists this scenario is considering whether this controversy is merely a theatrical display to appease skeptics. Thomas explains how the White House “sided with the Indians and secretly pressured the Corps to lock up the bones and prohibit further scientific study.” (Thomas, xxiii). The ability of the US government to belie their true motivations and actions makes it very difficult to map out this debate.
The fundamental problem undergirding the Kennewick Man debate is that of identity – i.e., how are we to define what a “tribe” is? Or, for that matter, what a “Native American” is? Both Indians and Americans have grappled with this issue, and it is essentially impossible to resolve. As Zimmerman explains, tribes are fluidly shifting groups that have never had distinct boundaries or definitions for membership; it was the Euro-Americans who created the notion of precise tribal identification, so that they could negotiate treaties and take away lands. Moreover, many Indians believe that the very process of defining Kennewick Man (or any other ancient skeleton) as Native American is inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteSo how is it possible, then, for NAGPRA to be enforced? It states that remains “shall be expeditiously returned where the requesting Indian TRIBE can show cultural affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence” (emphasis added). If the classification of distinct individual tribes is impossible, how can one tribe claim more “ownership” over the remains than another? Furthermore, as Owsley and Jantz contend, it is NAGPRA, not scientists, that “imposes a racial framework on museum and agency compliance because it requires that a skeleton be specifically classified as Native American and affiliated with a federally recognized tribe in order to qualify for repatriation.” It is thus markedly evident that the law is fundamentally flawed – but can anything be done about it?
The age of the Kennewick Man remains further confounds the situation – it is at least 9,000 years old. As Simic declared in a legal affidavit for the Kennewick case, “it is highly unlikely that any modern Native American tribe can have a ‘shared group identity’ with a population that lived 9,200 years ago … The folklore and oral traditions of a group that lived 9,200 years ago will invariably be very different from those of any group living today.” The consequences of this statement are enormous – it can establish a precedent for future remains that are at least 9,000 years old to automatically become part of the public domain, and thus given over to scientists for study without the “permission” of any Indian tribes.
Yet according to Owsley and Jantz, identities (even of skeletons that are 9,000 years old) can be established in part through morphology (especially of the cranium), for it reflects the long-term processes seen in genetic markers. And this is precisely what has been done in the Kennewick Man case. Cranial morphological studies have established that Kennewick Man is more similar to contemporary European populations than to Indian populations. Yet is this evidence enough? If not, what further evidence can be obtained, if folklore and oral traditions have been determined to be inconsequential, given the age of the skeleton?
There are no definite answers to these questions, but in the Kennewick Man case, reburial is no longer an option. I, however, believe that the Kennewick Man should not have been immediately reburied when it was discovered. Scientists do have the right to study ancient remains under NAGPRA, and they were precluded from doing so because of the COE’s haste to repatriate without following NAGPRA protocol. The COE should have consulted both scientists and Indian tribes to establish “cultural affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence” before giving the remains to the tribes.
We cannot draw lines between the rights of archaeologists, the non-Native public, and Native American communities, for each case is different. This is why negotiation and compromise is crucial. The arguments and evidence from all parties involved must be weighed, and a decision must be made collaboratively, under the framework of NAGPRA. As Zimmerman noted, steps have been taken toward achieving these collaborative efforts, which are commonly referred to as “indigenous archaeology” or “community archaeology” – community concerns drive research agendas, methods, and interpretations. This is not the perfect solution, because NAGPRA is a fundamentally flawed legislation, but it is the best solution under the present circumstances, for NAGPRA cannot be completely eradicated, or even amended. The notion of separate, individual tribes has been accepted by Indians, and it is the only means by which compromises can be made.
Arguments for reburial of the Kennewick man tend toward the more spiritual side, whereas the arguments against are more of the practical nature. The Umatilla and other Indian people want him to be reburied out of respect for the dead, as Zimmerman notes that non-Indians may not understand traditional Indian beliefs that failure to care for the remains of the dead may present danger to the living.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument against reburial seems to be in the name of science and discovering the true background of the Kennewick man. However, this argument only holds up only if we can guarantee that the research performed will be unbiased and lead to accurate results. James Chatters presented an image with no hair and a greenish skin tone as an “unbiased” representation of the Kennewick man, as we cannot be certain of his hair style or skin color. However, presenting the Kennewick man in fact in the image of Patrick Stewart will certainly lead one to associate the Kennewick man as a Caucasian, whether or not there is real evidence for that assumption. I am for delaying reburial as long as scientists are doing fair, unbiased research to reach a genuine conclusion.
Owsley and Jantz cite numerous ancient remains, such as the Minnesota Woman, Browns Valley, and Hourglass Cave that were reburied as a result of NAGPRA before analysis using new techniques could be done. This is where it gets tricky, because as time progresses, there will always be new scientific techniques coming about, and from a purely scientific standpoint, archaeological finds should never be reburied since there will always be new things that we can discover about them. There must be a middle ground we can reach that will be respectful toward Native American beliefs, yet also allow researchers to engage in their endeavors to a reasonable extent.
David Sims
“A complicated tangle”: global warming, human excess, extinction, and expanding the gaze of historical narrative so it can be proactive in contemporary society. I have been thinking about the ‘overkill’ hypothesis and its splinter effects which trickle into the stories we tell ourselves and cement our beliefs. I have tried to avoid a binary analysis of the situation. So far in class we have been presented with a theory that posits the first Paleo-Indians as voracious consumers of their environment leading to the extinction of large game mammals, whether this narrative is an accurate depiction of the past in not the focus of this blog. Rather, I am interested in how this information is received today, inside of a conversation about the current global environmental crises. To entertain the binary for a moment, on the one hand, we can interpret the overkill hypothesis as codifying some nebulous idea of ‘human nature’ (presumably some fixed collective entity) thus resulting in a sense of mass defeat and complacency towards the current global predicament; humans always have and always will exploit their environment. OR. We may interpret such a theory (regardless, once again, of it’s accuracy) as an enlightening precautionary lesson we may start to build creative solutions towards, successfully avoiding massive decent into Kant’s sublime; being so overwhelmed about the predicament we do nothing.
ReplyDeleteMy tone does not mean to diminish the importance of an accurate narrative of the past. It is simply urging a consideration of the importance of the present. I do not intend to suggest that the negative ramifications absorbed by the Native American community in popular imagination due to the overkill hypothesis are not significant. I am postulating that there exists another thought process that emancipates itself from right/wrong, guilt/blame, exploitative or conservative. One that fosters an engagement towards a path of learning lined with humility which would allow a conscience to learn from their surroundings in cooperation. So, in between the dual possible interpretations I am wondering what lies in between. Is there another mode of analysis that does not posit the two contemporary conceptions of the overkill hypothesis, and how it speaks to humanity, as mutually exclusive? And if so, where do those threads lie in order for us to weave them into a web of solutions for the future.
Chelsea Fairbank
Rifling through this week’s readings and pondering the issues at hand, I was afforded many more questions than answers. Among these: Does the North American archaeological record really constitute a public heritage? In light of the different claims as to “what Kennewick man would want”, which one is more valid (and is such a question even worth asking?)? Is the conflict a legal one, a battle over how to interpret NAGPRA? Is it, as Thomas proposes, centered on “political power and property rights”, or is it a matter of respecting indigenous beliefs versus uncovering the scientific truth? Clarity is by no means easy to come by.
ReplyDeleteThe one definite distinction that I took away from the argument is the one between the media portrayal of Kennewick man’s implications and his actual implications based on both scientific evidence and the legal standing of Native American tribes. The sensationalist headlines that appeared in the months after the discovery created the impression that probing Kennewick man’s identity could possibly discredit Native American claims to their lands and to tribal sovereignty. Jantz and Owsley take care to counter this exaggerated claim: “As Jantz has said, ‘It is absurd to argue about whether…Kennewick Man is Caucasian…But if we can ascertain that Kennewick is more similar to contemporary European populations, that tells us something.’” Their scientific stance is clearly different in tone and purpose from headlines that turn the issue into one of whether “whites got here first”, thus stripping Native Americans of their indigenous status. Thomas points out that no matter what discoveries are made regarding Kennewick Man’s origins, Native American tribal claims to land will not lose their legal basis. Rather, the real conflict lies between archaeological interests in uncovering what may be a new chapter in human history, not limited to one culture, and indigenous interests in burying their dead (which remains should be considered “theirs” is another whole story).
There is a deeper problem implied by the sensationalist media attention Kennewick man has attracted, however. James Chatters’ interview on 60 Minutes was specifically troublesome: By saying that Indian claims could lose credibility or legitimacy in light of potential scientific evidence, he deflected the contemporary political issue of tribal sovereignty onto the deep past. Not only was his portrayal of Native American concerns inaccurate, but his interpretations ignored the grounds on which the federal government grants tribal sovereignty. The ancient Kennewick Man may be of European origin, but the forceful overtaking of Indian lands was not all that long ago. Amidst all the controversy over Kennewick Man, we cannot lose sight of the fact that antiquity does not determine “rights” to land any more than do the events of recent history.
Ray Katz
I would firstly like to comment on the overkill theory that we discussed in class last week. After reading Martin’s article, I was left with little doubt in my mind that the Native Americans were responsible for the extinctions of some of these great mammals. However, I think that the use of this theory as a way to criticize and throw blame upon the Native Americans is both absurd and childish. In recent years humanity has been the cause of the extinction of so many other animals and yet because one particular race has not been directly related, the populations involved have not been fiercely attacked. I do find it interesting that even from their first arrival in North America, humans have been destroying nature. It seems to be an on-going repetitive pattern of humans abusing the environment. However, this is a phenomenon that involves all humans, not just Native Americans. I think it is criminal to taint Native Americans with the blood of these animals when humans have committed so many greater atrocities over time. We should strive to learn from history and to use it to understand better the things that happen in our lives today. We should not use history to foster animosity towards another people.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of history becomes important also in the discussion of Kennewick Man. Native Americans have claimed the body of Kennewick Man, insisting that he should be reburied as one of their relatives. However, these Native Americans do not seem to realize that Kennewick Man is not just simply a member of their tribe, but part of a greater historical puzzle that archaeologists have been trying to solve for ages. Whilst I do not generally support the idea of uncovering Native American remains for scientific study, I really do think that in the case of Kennewick Man, it is important that scientists are allowed to use the body to get as much information as they can. Kennewick Man is not just another corpse; he is the only evidence we have of a Caucasoid in the Americas 9,300 years ago. Close examination of his body could lead us to rewriting American history, to developing another perspective through which to view the concept of being American. Contrary to some opinions, I do not feel that the discovery of Kennewick Man should have anything to do with the way Native Americans are viewed in the United States.
It is very unfortunate that Kennewick was originally portrayed the way he was in the Media. Rather than viewing the discovery of Kennewick Man as a great achievement for Americans in general, it has created a rift between Native Americans and white Americans. White Americans look to Kennewick Man as an excuse to claim the Americas for themselves once again. They feel that the fact that the Europeans were there first, legitimizes the way that the Europeans treated the Native Americans later on, after the arrival of Columbus. It is important that these people know that there will never be any excuse for the atrocities that the Europeans committed then. The blame shall always be on the Europeans. What matters is not who was there first, but how we treat our fellow man.
When NAGPRA states the criteria for rights to skeletal and cultural materials, they site various cultural associations along with geographical and archaeological associations. Lastly is “other expert opinion.” When I read about Kennewick Man, only one solution seems obvious to me. That is that the skeletal remains need further study done by United States archaeologists and Native Americans together before any definitive claims can be made.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason that further inquisition needs to be done is that unless a tribe can say for certain that Kennewick man is an ancestor, then they have no more right than the United States government to study this man to determine where he came from.
There are a handful of things that make me suspicious of the Native Americans claiming rights to the skeleton. First, the fact that 5 different tribes immediately called for possession of Kennewick Man was a bit fishy. If 5 different groups can somehow claim ancestral back-round then that really diminishes the value in all of their past, present and future claims. How is anybody supposed to know now if they sincerely do their homework before attempting to reclaim bodies? Another thing is the fact that these tribes would like to “re-acquire” the body of a person that has not been properly identified aside from a carbon dating year. They simply assume he is their ancestor and want him back while nothing points towards him being a Native American? How do we know this man isn’t a very old pacific seafarer or pirate or somebody from Eurasia that fell off his boat, washed ashore and was buried on the coastline? Nobody can say for sure where he is from yet-so why are the Native Americans so eager to simply rebury the body before they are even certain he is of their origin? Possibly the hysteria following his discovery scared them into feeling as if they needed to act quickly. Wouldn’t they want to make sure they were giving a sacred burial to a member of their tribe and not some random skeleton?
The other thing that makes this solution of further investigation work for me is the fact that these remains were neither found on a reservation nor found by Native Americans, unless I am mistaken. Finders keepers for now until as NAGPRA says- once it fits into criteria that classifies it as a part of a tribe then it will be handed over.
I agree with the previous poster that said regardless of who Kennewick Man is, Native Americans will not lose their sovereign lands. The crazy headlines about “White Man Was Here First!” may scare some Native Americans into thinking their sovereignty and claim to land is at risk, further confuse the situation etc. but in no way should this affect anything. Why would Native Americans lose their land because of a different ancestor? Even if Kennewick Man and his brethren may have at one time been roaming, they weren’t in possession of the land before the European explorers came over. This means that they certainly hold their claim to their land-they were in power last. It doesn’t matter who was there first or for example- long island would still be a Dutch country (settled originally as New Amsterdam) -not the English colony that eventually became a United States possession.
So to answer the prompt in a sentence: No, I certainly do not think that the remains of Kennewick Man should be reburied until there is conclusive evidence in either case’s defense. I do think that a collective investigation would be the best way to go about it, this way both parties are involved and important until it can be said definitively who owns him… either science or a Native American tribe.
-Brendan Martin
I also want to add that I thoroughly agree with "Katherine"'s post. I couldn't have said it any better myself in terms of why Kennewick Man's investigation is so important to human and American history.
ReplyDelete-Brendan Martin
A quite amazing Native American quality is the ability to adapt to certain situations without abandoning cultural traditions. It seems that Native Americans have always been able to endure persecution in a way that allows them to at once adapt to the situation and to pursue cultural customs with comparable fervor. At the Museum of the American Indian I noticed that many of the dresses on display were from the late-19th century to the present, and that many of these incorporated certain trade goods that would not have been available until post-Columbian times. Many of the dress-makers described an uplifting pride in continuing in the same medium of art as their grandmother’s practiced. In this way Native American history can be found within native people themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe National Museum of the American Indian is itself a very interesting and highly educational place. The exhibits are largely prepared from a modern point of view and address the modern culture and accomplishments of a contemporary Native American population. This is a fantastic perspective for the museum to take because it represents the American Indian past through the retention of cultural traditions in a modern context. At this museum the past and the present are emphasized in concert, making it a more valid anthropological survey than those conducted by Vine Deloria Jr.’s infamous portrait of the anthro. Rather than native history being discovered through the scientific method, the Museum of the American Indian searches for the Native American past through the forms of art and traditions passed down throughout native history.
I would also like to comment briefly on the Kennewick Man controversy. This is a very sticky situation in which I can see and understand perspectives on both sides. In this situation a compromise would have best served the interests of both sides, but Native Americans cannot be expected to compromise when the scientists never will. On the scientific side of things I can see that Kennewick man is an ancient human and could possibly not be an ancestor of Native Americans or could have been an individual of different cultural beliefs and traditions than modern Native Americans. A study of Kennewick man could possibly help us to understand history of human-kind as a whole. However, this does not diminish the Native American claim that this COULD be an individual belonging to their culture as much as those individuals returned to Indians after NAGPRA.
Also, scientific intentions are not exactly honorable or unbiased. The immediate interpretation of Kennewick Man as a non-Native American, even a European, and all of the ensuing propaganda are positively offensive. This interpretation is a means for non-natives to justify the conquest of Americas and the subsequent persecution of their indigenous populations. The assumption that there were people (specifically WHITE people) in the Americas before the ancestors of Native Americans allows whites to validate the centuries of native persecution as revenge for an ancient white/native conflict. Not only is this idea petty and preposterous, but it increases the rift between whites and Indians and undercuts the validity of certain Native American rights. If the controversy of Kennewick Man had been approached with a genuine scientific curiosity to learn more about human-kind in an unbiased way, the scientists might have had a more justifiable case in my opinion. Since the remains of Kennewick Man were immediately interpreted in such a political manner, it is definitely understandable why Native Americans could neither suggest, consider, nor accept a compromise in the case.
Leah Sikora
Reading about Kennewick Man and the controversy surrounding the discovery of this ancient skeleton has made me think critically about the goals and morals that should be guiding the actions of every archeologist and anthropologist. It is hard to reconcile a desire to learn about the past and gain insights into our collective cultural habits today with what I view as an obligation to be sensitive to the history and traditions of a culture that one might be disturbing while doing so. Is it not completely selfish to expect that any artifacts or skeletons one comes across should be theirs to isolate and study? I think the cultural values of the archeologist, in which he believes that his ancestors’ graves should rest undisturbed, should be carried over when he discovers a skeleton belonging to the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteShould Native American archeologists be the only ones allowed to study their own history and report to us, perhaps? Native Americans have a unique way of knowing and learning about their histories, highly valuing oral traditions and the wisdom of elders. Archeologists and anthropologists working on Native American artifacts and skeletons must redouble their efforts to recognize the differences in cultural approaches to studying history - as is certainly their job. The goal of the profession is to learn about, study, be enlightened by cultures that are completely different from one the anthropologist is coming from, and one must be unbiased and objective without being insensitive. Tolerance is always an important value. Whether on a small scale, such as in Manhattan, or globally, cross-cultural contact and education is the key to mitigating hostilities.
Perhaps a good solution to the constant controversies over who has the rights to the skeletal remains of ancestral Native Americans is for Native Americans to collectively form a team of native archeologists with a desire to learn about the past and respected members of their communities each with a political and personal interest in repatriation and reburying. Such a collaboration could then serve to advise other archeologists and physical anthropologists with little native sensitivities or awareness when subsequent skeletal remains and important artifacts are discovered. Hopefully all interests would be represented and a plan of study, reburial, and media publication could be devised. Cooperation is key to having the most productive learning environment while still holding deep respect for traditions and beliefs. I realize that people do operate under strongly selfish motivations at times, but I also believe in the power to compromise and make solutions that can suit everyone.
Yes, the “Ancient One” should have been reburied for a variety of reasons. No matter the age or ethnicity of any human remains, it is at the very least slightly unethical and undignified to do anything but inter the remains in some fashion. NAGPRA is in some part meant to insure this. However, sometimes NAGPRA is seemingly not taken seriously. For example, it has been (in some cases) waived in order to accelerate the process of building a fence/wall along the U.S. and Mexico border.
ReplyDeleteOn page 226 of Skull Wars, Thomas remarks regarding NAGPRA guidelines that, “No priority is assigned to these very diverse criteria.” It places no greater or lesser value on scientific, historic, folkloric, etc. points of view. In theory, each type of information is equal to the other. In the long run and if future cases of remains considered so valuable to the scientific community arise, it is best to adhere to NAGPRA standards. Doing so would be a step towards better relations between Native and non-Native communities, as well as a sort of guarantee that the human remains in question were treated respectfully.
D. Sullens
The last post format was messed up so I'll try again...
ReplyDeleteThe "Skull Wars" reading for this week mentions the Red Power movement in discussing ways in which Native Americans were effective in passing legislation for returning remains. The group which was founded in the 1960?s was an effective movement of militant young people. This group had a strong pan-Indian front and their struggle was for all tribes. I had never learned before of this group, or their occupation of Alcatraz in 1969. The group consisting of members from many tribes occupied the prison for a year and a half, citing land claims from an 1868 Sioux treaty.
I am curious to how militant groups like the American Indian Movement, who are still active presently, reacted to the Kennewick Man debate. I am not sure how effective the group would be considering one of the biggest hurdles for the Natives in retrieving the body of the Kennewick Man, is that not individual tribe has been able to prove the body as one of their own. A pan-Indian approach might not do much.
-Sean Quinn
It seems that it has become a common practice for archaelogical discoveries, such as the discovery of the "Kennewick Man" or the "Ancient One," to be inflated with debate and ignited with politics, media, public and law, to name the least. What is the use of all these externalities? The story has been so overblown that it is hard to relate and put in place the remains of the human body back to its origin. Every agent, whether media, politics, or any other has its own views to serve its own purposes, in order to profit and gain recognition. The court is biased and will link the discovery to the white man, well because there are no Native Americans holding court positions. Among many things, skepticism in the identification of the "Kennewick Man" remains as Zimmmerman's article notes, "the primary evidence for Kennewick Man being other than Indian mostly came from the use and assessment of skull measurements... The issue of determining race from skeletal measurements is controversial at best, but the media rapidly shifted Caucasoid to Caucasian" or white. Such a claim does not reassure me about the identity of the Kennewick Man and suggests a feeling that this is some kind of media hype case. Furthermore, as the article notes, "media mostly weighed in on the side of science." But, where is proof of this scientific research? We need to SEE and WITNESS these tests to believe them, such as bodypart measurements, cranial comparisons, probability functions and population variation and words are just not enough for concrete proof. This leads onwards to the theme of white history and white supremacy. "On CBS Television's 60 minutes, correspondent Leslie Stahl surmised in a segment on K.M. that the Indians' fear of scientific study of the remains resulted from fear that their status as sovereign nations could be challenged... (270)"
ReplyDeleteThis creates lots of tension and perhaps fear for the Indians. This political and media-led controversy supports the idea that white (Caucasian) people and their ancestors are the first natives of the North American continent. The Indians have every reason to fear and reject this claim. With the limited power and rights that the Indians have, the "Kennewick Man" controversy is an agent that can cause the reduction of their existing rights! This leads onto NAGPRA, "that meant to redress what the United States Congress saw as wrongs done to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians and their ancestors" (Zimmerman, 271).
While it is true that archaelogists need to study and learn different cultures by analyzing found artifacts and remains, however, the process has to be more closed up to politics, law and media and the property found be returned to the Native Americans after quick and efficient study. In the future confrontations like this one, there shouldn't be an ubrupt news strike with headlines that have not yet been proved to be true facts. For example, headlines such as: "Was Someone Here Before the Native Americans?" or "When Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and set in motion the chain of events that lead to the decimation of NA's, was he unknowingly getting revenge for what was done to his ancestors thousands of years before?" are absolutely absurd, given their respective time frame. I side with the Indians on the idea that a body that is found needs a prompt burial and should not be considered a permanent artifact to be shared or become a fetishized commodity. How would you feel if someone related to your family or an ancestor was to be dug up, analyzed and studied throughout the world? The Indians demand respect and even if the "Ancient One" is not related to their kind, the remains still need a proper burial. "The Ancient One will not continue on the journey his spirit began at his death. For some Indian groups, the dead still live but on a different plane of existence..." (Zimmerman, 267) There is a spiritual obligation here and it makes sense as "the Ancient One probably believed that upon his death he would be buried and that his remains would stay buried until their journey was complete" (Zimmerman, 267). Article 13 of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People states, "Indigenous people have the right... to repatriation of human remains." Furthermore, if the "Kennewick Man" doesn't seem to resemble ancestors of modern Native Americans, why should he? The Natives would say that "groups were constantly mixing, and many assume that people who looked like the Ancient One were just absorbed into other groups (a possibility that some scientists also allow)" (Zimmerman, 272). Thus the issue and the remains of the "Ancient One" should be buried and put to rest.
-Yauheni "Eugene" Abrazhevich
In the prologue of Skull Wars, David Thomas states, “It is about politics. The dispute is about control and power, not philosophy. Who gets to control ancient American history – governmental agencies, the academic community, or modern Indian people?” (21). This question has been up for debate since Kennewick Man has been discovered and will continue until some sort of compromise can be met among scientists and Native Americans. I understand the Native American’s point of view and their reasons to keep the bones of the Kennewick Man buried, however, I think the only fair way is for a compromise to be met and agreed upon between both groups because I do not see the harm in taking the remains in for testing and research and then returning them promptly. The Native Americans are afraid of surrendering by giving up the remains to scientists and researchers because they feel that they are losing power and may even lose some of their past. To them, giving up these remains may lead to more research of their remains in the future that they will have no control over.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is fair of the Native Americans to claim the bones as their own when they could actually give us a great deal of knowledge about our past and our ancestors. They believe that they have full rights to the bones, but they should consider the fact that a great deal of new knowledge could come about from studying them, as it clearly already has. In chapter 23 of Skull Wars, it says, “Some just resent the power Indians have over them. Other say that the concept of Indian sovereignty – parallel nations within individual states – conflicts with the core concept of one country (237). I think that one way to solve these issues in the future is to immediately set up some sort meeting so that both sides have a fair chance to address their side of the story and reasons for either keeping the remains buried or conducting research. This idea seems a lot easier said than done, but it is better than scientists immediately taking control and beginning research on the remains without even addressing the issue to the Native Americans or having the Native Americans accuse scientists of invading their property rights. At least this way both scientists and Native Americans can present their arguments to each other whether or not an agreement is made.
Emily Brown
When one considers the infamy that surrounds (suffocates?) the Kennewick man, it is very easy to shrug one’s shoulders and shake one’s head. It is so bizarre that one can do nothing else. Because if one were to be serious for a moment and actually attempt to “right the ship” and steer it away from the lunacy of the scenario, it becomes fairly obvious that what is fueling the so-called debate between scientific truth and a culture’s right has nothing to do with those ancients remains. It has to do with control.
ReplyDeleteSince the discovery of the New World, Europeans have had a hell of a time processing what and where the hell they stumbled (floated?) on/to. For centuries, Europeans thought they had it all figured out and then oh snaps… wait a minute no one quite saw that one (one being: a whole half of the planet not yet “discovered”) coming oh wait… actually, someone was already there! After five hundred plus years, the Eurocentric mind still hasn’t been able to accept that fact. And, in some way or another, it has been searching and digging for some sort of clue that would help alleviate that emptiness.
Which brings us to the Kennewick man. No one is going to argue the potential magnitude for understanding that it represented. But rest assured, I pretty sure there are more Kennewickians down in the ground. So instead of debating what could have been learned, let’s discuss what blossomed out of the whole ordeal:
First off, do Indians have the right to demand the return of ancestral remains? Yes. I don’t think anybody will argue this. But do they have the right to demand the return of all remains found within their ancestral territory? Yes. Simply put, until another race can claim otherwise than, by default, remains are the ancestral remains of those that settled the land the longest and are still existent. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it was proven that another race did, in fact, arrive in the New World before the modern-Indian ancestors and the skeleton in question was, beyond refute, an ancestor of these prior inhabitants - would that fact alone give weight to allow scientists to become custodians/guardians of the decease? No. And this is why: just because a body is found in my backyard doesn’t, in any way, mean that that body predates my owning of that land. That is unless a decedent of that person happened to be alive and, by some legal decree, is proven to be the rightful owner of that land. A body is simply a body without some sort of link to the present. This is vital. But let’s say as some have argued that modern-Indians and those that originally settled the New World weren’t really that closely related, in fact, let’s go to the extreme and say they were related at all – does this fact change the right that modern-Indians have to the demand return of ancient remains? Yes. And why? Because, the truth is, Europeans did not kill those ancients, they kill the moderns. It was the so-called modern-Indian that annihilated not some group of people that happened to settle the land ten thousand years ago.
And it is this fact that seems to be forgotten when we debate the relevance of the Kennewick man. The sovereign rights of the Indian is that of modern-Indians not ancient Indians. To try to say otherwise is painting over the events of history and trying to walk away from it without feeling any kind of guilt because… what you do you know we were here first! Like that justifies actions for the past five hundred years.
What I find funnier is the notion that if a race of Patrick Stewarts did, in fact, find their way to the New World prior to Indians then one should ask the following:
1) how the hell did they get to Washington State and why?
2) why’d it take the rest of Europe nine thousand years to get here?
3) does this mean there are Spocks to be found?
In fact, one could say that, if indeed, it is ever proven that the European was here before us, then we can settle the overkill debate.
The conflict over the remains of Kennewick Man is just one piece of a longstanding struggle between Native Americans and Euro-Americans, between oral tradition and scientific evidence. While Larry J. Zimmerman points out that “there is a continuum of opinion among both archaeologists and Indians about Kennewick, just as there is about the entire repatriation issue,” there nevertheless exist two extreme positions on the matter (266). Many archaeologists view the bones of Kennewick Man as artifacts to be studied, while the Umatilla Tribe views them as ancestral remains to be buried.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the skeleton should be studied, since it is a hugely important source of information about the New World and its past inhabitants. For me, Kennewick Man is a vital part of North America’s prehistory that should be accessible to those who wish to learn more about the bones and the land from which they were found. Nevertheless, I do not intend to imply that other ideas about the treatment of the remains are invalid. If I had been raised to believe that Kennewick Man was my ancestor, I would probably want the skeleton to be buried. The ability or inability to define, to identify, the Ancient One as a human being seems to create this divide in opinions between Native Americans and Euro-Americans.
Although I side with the archaeologists, I feel that the Native Americans were slighted by the court’s interpretation of NAGPRA. Douglas W. Owsley and Richard L. Jantz state that “the concept of affiliation is the very heart of this legislation because the Native American tribes requested the return of their ancestors” (569). In the case of Kennewick Man, the court decided that the Umatilla Tribe could not claim cultural affiliation by oral tradition. NAGPRA almost seems pointless, since it was so easy for the court to ignore its intentions.
As Zimmerman puts it, “they essentially said that scientific information had greater validity” (269). For those who see the Ancient One as an artifact, this may be true. But for those who view Kennewick Man as an ancestor, science is not the authority.
Sarah Sommer
The dispute surrounding the issue of the Kennewick man is a convoluted and nuanced one that I have struggled to get my head around. On one hand, there has undoubtedly been damage done to the (grossly generalized) American Indian community as a result of the misrepresentation that the skeleton has undergone in the popular media. On the other, it seems to be a very ancient discovery with possibilities that have yet to be fully explored and could be of service in the realms of history, fact, and science. Yet, there are more than two sides to this dispute and various shades of gray. The Zimmerman article seems to delve into questions which Owsley/Jantz leave alone as self-evident. He seems to question whether archeology can be practiced against unprofessional wishes and he even seems to pit science against religion in an attempt to show his support for native peoples. These are such fundamental grievances that it is difficult to address them and appear at times to border on irrational.
ReplyDeleteWhile sensitivity is essential in matters that deal with the human race (and the broad spectrum of beliefs and practices that fit beneath that banner) I think we should concede that it is necessary to have distinct ties between a group of the living and the specific dead before the living’s ideas about the dead should be taken seriously. This is something that necessitates science—with science being defined here as an objective art of uncovering the truth via tangible, material evidence and educated understanding. Zimmerman implies that there is a question as to whether human remains should be studied at all: “I learned long ago that the wishes of scientists do not necessarily outweigh those of people who claim such remains as their ancestors” (266) While on a quick read this appears to be a solid point, if you stop and think about the word ‘claim’ it seems as though this idea could be extended to ridiculous lengths; as it appears to have been in his defense of the Umatilla w/r/t Kennewick Man. Zimmerman explicitly states that he “would like to see study done on most human remains, whether from recent deaths studied by autopsy, or ancient ones, where osteologists do the primary examinations” (266). Yet, if anyone (I know that seems like reductio ad absurdum, but isn’t it? Or as long as it is an Indian of some sort making the claim on old bones is there no problem?) makes a claim that the remains may have been their ancestors based on what we might term ‘superstitions’ (religious beliefs), do the remains get handed to them?
Sure, the Kennewick site was handled insensitively from the start, but at this point the bones are out and still there seems to be no indication that they can be linked to the Umatilla by anything more than geography (which seems to be a weak indicator after thousands of years). Zimmerman’s most ridiculous point, in my opinion, was when he wrote: “Except for Native American expressions of concern, the Ancient One’s wishes about treatment of his own remains have been utterly ignored by all levels of the judicial process.” He does then go on to address the fact that we can’t really know what Kennewick Man’s wishes would have been (obviously), but at the same time he seems to imply, and in fact nearly explicitly states, that we should superimpose contemporary Indian beliefs on the skeletal remains of more than 9000 years! This would be like finding a skeleton in Mesopotamia and claiming it deserves Muslim burial rights. What? Unless there is a connection that more closely ties the Umatilla or any other tribe to Kennewick man, shouldn’t the general consensus of people concerned (in this case those who have devoted their lives to these sorts of issues: scientists) be more closely listened to than a group of people barely even dubitably, distantly descended from the skeleton?
I found Zimmerman’s article to take on a condescending tone towards ‘non-Indians’ who didn’t think like he did and as a result found it, generally, un-compelling and distracting from his points. I was not completely sold by Owsley/Jantz, but thought their article to be more science appropriate and objective (at least as objective as it could be, given their goal). I am not completely convinced of the idea that repatriation of remains would deny the individual histories of ancient remains (though it may be true) but it seems like Science is necessary to avoid fraud and until Science is given a chance to at least legitimize the claims of groups claiming remains, the remains should stay with science. If the claims are found by scientists to be based in a scientific understanding of fact than the superstitions of the claimers should be indulged. This is especially true now when computer technology, I would guess, could keep a record of the repatriated remains that would be suitable for further analysis (as evidenced at the end of the Owsley/Jantz article).
In the future, I think these cases will be taken care of in a more appropriate fashion and Kennewick Man was a necessary example set to uncover many potential difficulties in dealing with such sensitive issues. But in similar instances (meaning: particularly those where links to living people are not factually evident) a scientific precedence should be implemented until such a link can be made or the scientific possibilities are exhausted.
-Liam Carney
Ultimately, whatever happens in this kind of situation is going to be resolved legally. The open ended nature of the Kennewick debate stems from some of the ambiguity in the NAGPRA, especially as it deals with defining cultural identity and property ownership of ancient objects and remains. Any kind of successful policy taken to resolve this issue needs to be general, consistent and applicable in any number of possible similar future issues. After all, the outcome of the Kennewick debate will likely resonate with any future findings of ancient skeletons of uncertain identity. Should another Kennewick man or two show up, it would be ideal to have a general format or policy to follow in deciding how to deal with the remains.
ReplyDeleteTo get at any kind of acceptable solution, you have to answer some fundamental questions: What criteria should we look for to decide what belongs to whom? How do you define Native American property rights, with respect to ancient objects and skeletons? What factors make an object belong to a specific group? Clearly, from the texts, they’ve already been debating these and similar issues. A large part of the debate continues because of discrepancies in their answers. To scientists, objects and remains which are sufficiently old can’t be considered tribal property because it’s questionable to consider continuity of a single tribe and culture extending back through those timescales. To the Umatilla tribe, objects and remains which are clearly old enough to be unquestionably Native American, which are found on their tribal grounds must belong to the Umatilla tribe, or else to another nearby group because their histories tell them that they have been residing on those grounds for at least 10,000 years.
While both groups use different sources of information, have different perspectives and use different reasoning, they highlight common factors which are important in deciding what to do with the remains. Both groups would agree that factors such as age and location are important in deciding what to do with the Kennewick remains, and use one or the other to justify their positions. I believe that to get anywhere with future Kennewicks, there needs to first be a consensus on the specific factors which are important in identifying identity and property rights. And while interpreting those factors is a whole other issue, any general policy taken to resolve these situations is going to have to identify key factors in deciding what to do with remains, at some point anyway.
As far as the Kennewick skeleton itself goes, while I doubt the legitimacy of the claims of one tribe to a nearly 10,000 year old skeleton, I also doubt that Kennewick man could really be a Caucasian if there was no other evidence of Caucasian presence on the continent around the same time. As such, I don’t see it as that much of a loss to archeology to not be able to examine this one skeleton directly, because it doesn’t have that much of an impact if the phenomena (of Caucasoid skeletons) isn’t replicable in other archeological sites.
-Samrat Bhattacharyya
The subject of the Kennewick Man and possible future discoveries like it is very controversial and sensitive. There are many legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue. The scientific community for the most part believe that the discovery of remains like this Kennewick man represent an unparalleled opportunity to learn about the past in a way that no other artifacts can. It as seen as a rare look into the past. This glimpse has historical implications, which can shed light onto the foggy history of the early inhabitants of our continent. Scientists feel that if they don’t take advantage of this opportunity to learn that the information that the Kennewick man could provide might be lost forever. On the other hand, Native American groups view the situation very differently. They see the Kennewick man as a person who could be their direct ancestor. He is their cultural connection to their history. They believe that because of this connection his remains not only deserve to be treated with the same respect as someone out of their own community but he also deserves a traditional burial in line with their spirituality and beliefs about the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteThese arguments are both very compelling and contradictory which makes a solution hard to find. I think the best way to draw the line between archeologists, the non-native public and the Native American community is to reach some sort of compromise. This will be very difficult to do because neither side feels that there is much wiggle room with what they feel should be done with the remains. The best solution that I could suggest is to give the archeologists some time to learn as much as they can about the Kennewick man and then turn the remains over to the Native American community for a proper reburial. While this solution doesn’t make anyone fully satisfied, it partially pleases all groups which is the most one can ask for with such a controversial and sensitive issue.
-Caroline Van den Berg
I have not made a definite decision about my feelings of Kennewick Man. I ran with a girl in this class earlier today and when we were discussing whether Kennewick Man should be reburied or not, we both concluded that we could not decide. Here is a look into my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought is that archaeologists should continue studying the remains. No one knows for sure its origin, so who’s to say that it is or is not Native American. Sure, it is easy to say that us Americans are just yearning for a “white origin,” but maybe, as Americans, we are just looking for the truth. Five tribes claimed Kennewick Man as their own, so why is no one claming that each of them want a “Yakima-origin” or “Umatilla-origin?” I know that America is filled with bad connotations, but it is necessary to take a step back and look at the facts. No one knows what the Kennewick Man really is, so what is it hurting by studying him further?
That is where my next thought arises. If he is in fact of Native American origin, then archaeologists are in fact opposing the beliefs of Kennewick Man. My religious beliefs are the most important aspect of my life, so if someone tried to take away the rituals and practices that coincide, I would be thoroughly opposed. With that said, I would want for Kennewick Man to be reburied. Zimmerman says that “the Ancient One probably believed that upon death he would be buried and that his remains would stay buried until their journey was complete,” and a big part of me yearns to respect their beliefs.
But then, Zimmerman brings up a thought that must be considered: “Can any group own the past?” (267) Just because Native Americans define its cultural heritage in the past, must archaeologists ignore findings because of a cultural belief of hundreds of years ago? How will we ever learn more about our heritage, if we are not allowed to?
Archaeologists and anthropologists enjoy the past and how it can be applied to the present and the future. The excavations and archaeological digs allow these groups to embark on a journey to the past and in the case of the "Kennewick Man" they took it step further. When the human remains were found of the "Ancient One", scientists were excited that they had uncovered such a wonderful preservation of a skeleton from a period that scientists do not have much information on. The way I see it the remains should be reburied to ensure the proper laying to rest of a Native American ancestor. To follow and respect the Native American culture, the scientists should forgo their ownership of the remains. Perhaps, the two groups could reach an agreement where the scientists can analyze the skeleton for their research and still allow for the proper reburial of the remains. Science and anthropological research is important, however, the civility and respect should most definitely be exercised in this case.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the non-Native public, their rights should end at the information drawn from the discovery of the "Kennewick Man". The public should not be able to view the original skeleton because there will be more human remains found in the future. I do not feel as if the public will be a total loss if this one skeleton is not put on display for the world to see. In the future, if a Native American skeleton is to be found again the NAGPRA should be notified about it first so that they may reach a mutual agreement on the cause. Relations with Native Americans have been strained in the past, the only way to have continue to display Native American history the bonds with the Native Americans should be strengthened so that they may be more be cooperative or understanding of what scientists would like to do.
-Shambreya Burrell
Kennewick man is a complicated situation. It’s hard to think of ways in which the situation could have been made better- only worse. Things first went wrong when Chatters contacted the press instead of the local tribes. Not only was this a total breach of NAGPRA, but because the newspapers were able to get ahold of it first, they were actively able to shape the politics of it- and not for the better. Instead they injected an element of sensationalism with their misinterpretation of the word: Caucasoid. As the Zimmerman article put it: “the media thrive on controversy and those community members or archaeologists new to the issue or who choose to remain intransigent about working with the other, the case will be raised at every opportunity and used to foment distrust.” (266). This was clearly a case of the media shaping the news in addition to reporting on it.
ReplyDeleteI suppose what it comes down to is how far back in our genealogy do we feel we are related to someone. For Euroepean Americans 10,000 would make a familial connection insignificant. But for Native Americans whose lore goes back indefinitely, someone 10,000 years is still and ancestor. As the Zimmerman also pointed out: Though many scholars, non-Indians, and even some Indians might claim that the whole matter is “identity politics,” for many Indians, being unable to return the Ancient One to the ground was the most profound impact of the court’s opinion.” (267). Though personally, I think it would have been great if the remains could be studied, then returned to their original resting place—it would still hinge on getting approval from the Umatilla and the other tribes of the area. I think in cases where scientific discoveries and culture clashes, compromise is ideal, but culture should never be overlooked. As Zimmerman pointed out, by giving the testimony of the archeologists credence over the Native Americans, they essentially sent the message that native culture is worthless to them.
As and additional note, I found the Zimmerman article a bit more balanced in its interpretation of both sides whereas the Owsley and Jantz article favored the scientists’ side. They write in response the to NAGPRA: “The agencies have repeatedly denied every request since 1996, and have made clear their anti-science bias by effectively nullifying the compromise originally envisioned when drafting NAGPRA.” (572). While I don’t doubt that scientists have considered the arguments of the Native America and that there complaints aren’t serious- because it does seem that NAGPRA needs additional editing as the Kennewick case has pointed out- I was struck by the words: “anti-science bias.” By lodging their complaint at American Indians’ perception of science they themselves reveal their own biases of Native American oral tradition and respect for science. Either way the courts swing, it seems one side will claim a bias.
Nora Machuga
When James Chatters first encountered the remains of the popularly dubbed “Kennewick Man,” he thought he was looking at the bones of an old 19th century pioneer. If it hadn’t been for the x-ray scan that revealed the stone point in his hip, or the radiocarbon dating that revealed the skeletons age, (forgive me for being indulgingly anachronistic here) everyone would have been perfectly contented to call him Kennewick Stewart. Thanks to modern technology, however, we know the skeleton was not from the nineteenth century. And thanks to nineteenth and twentieth century history, this knowledge sparked a major controversy.
ReplyDeleteThe issue, of course, is identity. Who is Kennewick Man? Who were the first Americans? Who are modern Americans? The Umatilla creation story says that their people were created in the Pacific Northwest over 10,000 years ago. Their religious beliefs dictate that the Ancient One, as they have officially labeled the skeleton, is their ancestor and subject to their burial customs. My own culture’s creation story, however, seems to place creation around 6,000 years ago, making the skeleton an utter impossibility. So I don’t personally give a lot of credence to creation myths, and it’s quite possible that not all the Umatilla (or Nez Perce, Colville, etc.) members do either. Let’s throw out a wholly new scenario just for fun: Kennewick Man was a Eurasian trader. He made his living sailing the Pacific Rim, exchanging goods and ideas, accompanied by his faithful dog. He sustained a number of injuries from encounters with Paleopirates, and finally passed away during a sojourn up the Columbia River. The local people buried him along the banks.
The point is, we have no idea who he was.
That doesn’t mean I can’t sympathize with the tribal stance on any points, though. On the contrary, I see at least two strong justifications for respecting their wishes. One is the idea of the remains being given unto the land, and meant to stay there. Owsley concluded upon investigation that the remains were intentionally buried parallel to the river about 2-3 feet below the ground. Whoever put them there, be it loved ones or strangers, probably didn’t intend the remains to be exhumed for research. (Nor did they probably realize it was an option.) To draw a drastically cross-cultural reference, the Circle of Life holds that when we die we become part of the Earth, and the Earth is sacred, so we should preserve it. But I suppose this also means we should never develop anything. Anyway, the other justification is the need to set a precedent following the NAGPRA legislation. With the lovely track record of archaeologists ignoring tribal wishes and digging up countless graves both new and old, it is only understandable that Native tribes would want to establish a clear hierarchy of rights to remains with themselves at the top of the totem pole (excuse the awful pun).
But the line has to be drawn somewhere. The legislation is over-broad and restricts our ability to critically study humanity’s shared past. We have no written records from that far back to tell us what life was like, what humans were accomplishing, learning, discovering. Even if we did, as in fact we do have oral histories of a sort, the time period concerned is simply too far back for such accounts to make up the entire extent of our understanding. I don’t have any hidden need to discover a white history of America, but I do have a human need to understand my identity as such, where we came from, where we have been, what we have done, as a species. Who knows what we’ll be able to determine from the remains in the future with enhanced technology and insight (diet? climate? what sports he played?) . As they say, Kennewick Man has a story to tell, and it would be a shame to silence him.
--Marina Cassio
Overall, I believe that legally, the bones should remain in the jurisdiction of Native Americans. Although the conditions of NAGPRA are somewhat flawed, even the possibility that Kennewick Man was an Indian ancestor should be enough to uphold its sacredness. NAGPRA aside, however, I believe that both scientists as well as Native Americans could benefit from further examination of the remains by learning about America’s past. Vine Deloria asks, “How can any scholar, no matter how well educated, possibly know more about the religious beliefs, feelings and practices than a practitioner of the religion?” Deloria is expressing his distaste for the study of Native American culture as a means of teaching Native Americans as well as white Americans. Yet this does not extend to the debate surrounding Kennewick Man. Although perhaps sacred, Kennewick Man is an unidentified archaeological artifact. If the remains were in fact Native American, than that information would likely be revealed through its testing, thereby securing Native American claims of their ancient American ancestry.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me a possibility that Aside from Kennewick Man being a sacred remain to Native Americans, they fear that if it were to be scientifically concluded as a “Caucasoid,” the people might loose some of their sovereignty within America. James Chatters has proposed that Native American claims of Kennewick Man’s sacredness are, “ based largely on fear, fear that if someone were hear before they were, their status as sovereign nations, and all that goes with it – treaty rights and lucrative casinos…could be at risk.” I think that this would be a valid fear, if it were true, not to mention the increasing ambiguity over NAGPRA conditions that would ensue. Yet my problem with the matter is that even if the remains proved Caucasoid, and Native Americans were not the first people to colonize the America, they have still lived on this last for the past 2,000 years. Regardless of who truly came first, 2,000 years is a tremendous amount of time considering when America became a sovereign state. Furthermore, Kennewick Man is a unique find; it is likely that there were not many other “white” people like him. Thus, even if the remains were from a man of European descent, Native Americans came to the Americas afterward and established themselves long before Columbus’ arrival. Their culture is deep-rooted, and the public should realize that if Europeans were here first and left, they cannot come back and collect the land they left behind thousands of years later. Similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East today, having a distant past in a land does not permit the reclaiming of the land. The fighting in the Middle East over land has been going on for over half a century, proving that there is no simple answer for the question of which people have the right to own a country. So much new information could be collected and released to the public – the narrative of the first immigration into America could potentially be rewritten – if only Kennewick Man could serve as a precedent for future excavations and would not interfere with Native American political sovereignty.
Hadas Margulies
I began reading about the Kennewick Man with a slight bias towards the side of science and reaping all possible knowledge from this nameless body. As I made my way through chapters 21 and 22 of Skull Wars, I found it difficult to determine where and how to draw the line in determining the treatment of ancient remains. In some cases that Thomas examines, NAGPRA is clearly relevant and the appropriate actions are easily resolvable. For example, in the instance of the Cheyenne repatriation, the lineage between modern Indians and their decapitated ancestors was evident and thus the living were decidedly appointed “to exercise their traditional responsibilities toward the dead”(Thomas 214). In this case, the ancestors were a mere 125 years apart from those delegated with the power to bury them (and in the same tribe), so it was reasonable to assume that they had similar religious practices and beliefs concerning the dead. Thomas associates NAGPRA with the Bill of Rights, in that it “awards equal protection of property rights already extended to other Americans” (Thomas 214). As I read this, however, conceived of it more so as granting freedom of speech and freedom of religion to the dead. When dealing with human remains rather than removed relics of a people, it is not an issue of property rights so much as an issue of treatment of the spiritual significance of the deceased person. If we conclude that NAGPRA restores the dead with freedom to practice their religion (essentially, to be treated in a means conducive to their spiritual beliefs of death), it is crucial that the religion of the deceased is actually known, and therefore the tribal affiliation (or lineage) of the deceased must be determined.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Kennewick Man, neither his lineage not his tribal affiliation are identifiable. To act in his honor in a way to restore his freedom of religion is simply not possible, as the scientific community and the Indian peoples are unaware of what his wants may have been. In this way, the Kennewick Man should not have been buried as a means of religious rectification. We cannot assume that the Kennewick Man would have wanted to be reburied (as Thomas shows us that some Polar Eskimo tribes would be averse to it), so no modern tribe has the right in this specific instance to claim him for burial for religious reasons. This is when we must determine if the only moral objective to unearthing and studying human specimens is one based on religious grounds. In this case Kennewick Man’s ancient age and physical dissimilarity to modern Indians is enough to make him unidentifiable and thus religion-less; if we today can not determine that he is expressly and morally opposed to being probed and analyzed by scientists, and no one has the right to claim his body as property, it seems that the greatest good would be for his body to be employed as a means of scholarship and a gain for science.
Zoe Feld
The case of the Kennewick Man is difficult to solve because of the conflicting interests of the various parties involved. On one side, there is the Native American community that wishes to rebury the Kennewick Man as a symbol of respect for an ancestor. On the other side, there is the scientific community that wishes to study and perform tests on the Kennewick Man to learn more about the origins and history of Americans as a whole. On yet another side, there is the public -- the rest of the country comprised of neither scientists nor Native Americans -- that, in my opinion, deserve a voice in the ultimate fate of the Kennewick Man. The government also plays a critical role in the battle by serving as a moderator or enforcer of rules, but it has difficulty playing this role in an unbiased way. In particular, I am referring to NAGPRA, which was undoubtedly created with good intentions, but has become too rigid in the face of changing ideas. The classification of remains as Native American or not, especially with regard to the Kennewick Man, needs to be redefined to allow for new concepts. As it stands, it preemptively prohibits the inclusion of any new ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe only resolution to the conflict surrounding the Kennewick Man is to find a compromise that all parties find acceptable. Of course, this is easier said than done. The scientific community must convince the Native American community that they have something to gain from studying the Kennweick Man, and the scientific community must respect the traditions of the Native American community when studying the Kennewick Man remains. Unfortunately, this requires the government to once again take on the role of negotiator between the two parties. The only way the government will do this is if the public expresses its desire for some action to be taken on the Kennewick Man remains. If there is no public interest, the government has no motivation to get involved in the conflict. The biggest waste would be to let the Kennewick Man remain locked up behind glass, where he fulfills none of the needs of any of the parties.
Personally, I would love to see the Kennewick Man studied, as I feel that he could teach us so much about the origins of the first Americans. I dislike the thought of religious beliefs getting in the way of science and knowledge. However, I understand and respect that the opinions of others have a right to be heard and considered as much as mine.
-Cindy Huang
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe case of the Kennewick Man, or more poetic the Ancient One, makes me think of all the artifacts and human remains that have been unearthed in our times but are nevertheless somehow denied scientific inquiry. So many “archeologist’s dream-objects” have fallen, legally or most often not, into private hands and have never been officially investigated. Grave robbery is after all not only a fictional Indiana Jones- or Lara Croft – enterprise, but a real contemporary problem. Sites in Egypt and Middle East are still excavated illegally in order to satiate the greed of private collectors. Sites in China are kept secret for political reasons. Since so many potential clues to the past, possibly magnificent cultural treasures, are kept secret and unavailable to scientific investigation, why is it so incredibly important to research the Ancient One? Could we (scholars and scientists) not just let him go and let him be reburied by those who revere him as their ancestor? After all, his remains may just as well have fallen into the hands of one of those “private collectors”, had they been found by someone else.
ReplyDeleteI see the Ancient One as a symbol, or a metaphor, of the power struggle symptomatic for a country of colonized and colonizers. The poor man has been elevated to a position of power to change the history, despite the fact that he probably was one of the “ordinary” Paleo-Indians unworthy of the interest bestowed on him by the neo-Nazi groups. James Chatter’s description of the skull features as “Caucasoid” has created an atmosphere of anticipation around the skeleton, was it to be THE find of the 20th century? Whether we can learn anything conclusive about the early Americans’ genetic affinity with any specific contemporary Indian group from the skeleton seems rather doubtful, should we trust Larry J. Zimmerman. In addition the Ancient One has become a subject used by both scientists and Native Americans to test the limitations of the NAGPRA legislation. It is quite telling that the oral histories of Umatilla people were dismissed by the court that ruled in favor of the curious scientists. The message seems quite clear: the so-called conservative ethnocentric Western science still holds the highest status.
The controversy surrounding the Ancient One cannot be easily solved by any court ruling or compromise. The way this case has evolved into an epic drama of legal and even racial tug-war in the public media, has ruined all future hope of objectivity of research results. Of course I would like to know more about this ancient man, but what would the cost of further research be? No matter what the conclusions of scientific investigation of the skeleton would be, the conspiracy theories would flourish the media once more making it impossible for the general public to acquire any reliable knowledge regarding this case. Therefore I would like to see the Ancient One reburied without further scientific investigation precisely because his skeleton has become some sort of “Pandora’s Box” and these should be left unopened!
Paulina N. Dudzinska
Conflicts between science and religion get more and more common as our society's technologies become more advanced and prone to ethical questioning. In the case of the Kennewick man, an issue of respect to the Native Americans' culture and religious/spiritual beliefs is a dominant aspect. There is no proof that the skeleton belongs to the Native Americans and so there is no justification in their preventing scientists to analyze it. The only way to know for sure would be a thorough analyis of the remains which the Native Americans would be against. However, on the other hand since there is no proof, and for all anyone knows, and what scientists suspect, the bones could have belonged to a Caucasian.
ReplyDeleteSo should the remains have been properly reburied? Since there is no foolproof evidence to justify taking away this 10,000 year old goodie from archaeologists and scientists, I would have to say no, the skeleton should not have been reburied. If anything, a compromise between both parties should be reached, perhaps deciding on a date on which the remains would be handed over to the tribes so they could perform a reburial; and before this date, scientists could perform as many tests and scrutinize as much as they had time to.
However, on a more ethical standpoint we should think about how this effects not only both parties, but the rest of humanity. If we consider the outcomes one seems to be more detrimental than the other. That is there is clearly a lesser of two evils. Outcome 1: scientists determine that the remains do in fact resemble Native Americans. This doesn't really change anything except reaffirm the tribes' belief that they were here first. Life will continue on for just about everyone with things remaining on the most part unchanged. Outcome 2: scientists discover that the remains are in fact very likely to belong to the ancestors of Patrick Stewart. Human rights that tribes have fought so long for dissolve, along with their lucrative casinos. Caucasians get to boast that they were here first, and also find glee in the fact that they now can claim Europe and North America as their own. Finally when they shout "go back to your own country!" to unsuspecting immigrants, they can mean it. The minuscule Native American population left here will slowly vanish... like all those people in the last few centuries kept saying.
These bones can potentially wipe out a race of people. And once we remember that we are actually all African in origin, can we really stand by and let that happen? Is the price of contribution to the academic world really worth the extinction of a race of people.
Of course, this is a logical fallacy because in the world of surprises that we live in where most people's motto has become "shit happens" a scientific analysis of the Kennewick Man could simply end up being wholly anticlimactic. Maybe he's unidentifiable, maybe he just proves our common African origins, maybe he was a drifter, the ultimate hitchhiker of long ago. and who was he anyway to be able to represent the North Americans from 9400 years ago? And is the identity of the Kennewick man really that significant? When Columbus arrived here, he saw, conquered, and killed off most of the Native Americans living here. So they were wronged, Europeans messed up, let Native Americans keep their reserves, skeletons, and casinos.
-Hannah Chang
The Case of the Kennewick Man has been given a great deal of attention in the media and rightfully so. It is, however, unfortunate that the event is spun by such foolish and biting headlines as “Europeans were here first” and comparisons to Star Trek characters. But the article chronicling the case of the “Ancient One” writes that some critics claim that the Kennewick Man has been given too much attention. I think that this is an important piece of evidence in understanding the history of this continent. This is a rare case in which race does matter because it can give us clues as to the happenings of the ancient inhabitants of our land. I think the undue attention that the critics may be referring to is the underlying clash between Caucasians and the Native Americans that is being brought out in the Kennewick man lawsuit. I agree that this needs to end and the remains need to be analyzed for scientific and historic purposes alone. Such foolish bickering as to who was here first is similar to placing blame on the Native Americans for the extinction of the mammoth. What if, for example, someone discovered remains that resembled an Ancient African? I don’t think this event would be spun and instead, people would be curious as to why it was there rather than jumping to conclusions. A previous poster made a good point that the claim citing NAGPRA could be a knee-jerk reaction to the way that the media jumped at the word “Caucasoid.”
ReplyDeleteLarry Zimmerman, brings up a good point as to the disrespect toward the Kennewick man as a human being and he very well could have wished to remain buried indefinitely. But since his wishes are indeterminable and he has already been unearthed, I think that his remains are worth studying because they have so much to offer as to the understanding of our past as humans. Why don’t the Native Americans have an equal desire to understand the history of this land? It seems as if any of this desire is outweighed by the unproven possibility that the Kennewick man is one of their ancestors.
In addition to the things that we can learn from studying the Ancient one, another reason against reburying him is the basis of the restoration act NAGPRA. One of the articles we read said that the Native American’s have rights to bury THEIR ancestors. Since the ancestry of this skeleton is indeterminable at best, the claim by the five Indian groups is tenuous. Therefore, I think that the amount that we stand to learn from the Kennewick Man outweighs his potential desire to remain buried, which is somewhat unfortunate, but since he has already been taken out of the ground, I don't see it as a huge issue.
Paul Corcoran
As a scientist, I must take the side of the scientists working on these remains because of the implications for possibly more questions to be generated by this skeleton. If the Kennewick man can be dated back to before the time of a possible land bridge across the Bering Straight, then which people’s were here before then? How did those people get there? Did they have similar customs and/ or structure to people’s around the globe who were populating the earth at the time? These are just a few of the questions that could be generated from this discovery.
ReplyDeletePracticality must take precedence over the political war being waged over these remains. If all parties were objectively look at this, they would realize that the best solution would be for the scientists to be able to inspect, run tests, etc on the remains they discovered and then return the body for reburial. They could set a time limit for this which would allow multiple archaeological sources to gain access to the remains but would also appease the tribes which claim the Kennewick Man as their own. In this way, both parties could be appeased and the issue could be laid to rest.
As to the claims by modern Native Americans to the Kennewick Man, I believe them to be fairly weak for a few reasons although I understand the history of the problem (i.e. fresh grave robbing for artifacts of the American Indian). First, the modern Native Americans did not know that the Kennewick Man even existed nor did they know where he was buried until the body was one day exposed. Second, genetic testing done on the Kennewick man shows no relation to any of the modern tribes trying to claim him. Now, I also do not agree with people trying to tie the Kennewick man based upon any genetic testing to a European or other descent as even this does not prove conclusive evidence but rather a possible correlation. Finally, they claim that their oral tradition proves their tie to the Kennewick man. Stories told orally get changed over time no matter how we try to perfectly preserve them and so after almost 12,000 years these have probably changed a great deal.
In this case, both sides have the right to the remains of the Kennewick man and I think that the real culprit causing the intensity of this battle is the media who became involved. In order to have this not occur again in the future, the media should not become involved and an objective answer should be sought from an outside source with more rights given to archaeologists to remains as long as they are no longer known to exist by the modern Native Americans.
Sorry I forgot to put my name at the end so I'm posting this again.
ReplyDeleteAs a scientist, I must take the side of the scientists working on these remains because of the implications for possibly more questions to be generated by this skeleton. If the Kennewick man can be dated back to before the time of a possible land bridge across the Bering Straight, then which people’s were here before then? How did those people get there? Did they have similar customs and/ or structure to people’s around the globe who were populating the earth at the time? These are just a few of the questions that could be generated from this discovery.
Practicality must take precedence over the political war being waged over these remains. If all parties were objectively look at this, they would realize that the best solution would be for the scientists to be able to inspect, run tests, etc on the remains they discovered and then return the body for reburial. They could set a time limit for this which would allow multiple archaeological sources to gain access to the remains but would also appease the tribes which claim the Kennewick Man as their own. In this way, both parties could be appeased and the issue could be laid to rest.
As to the claims by modern Native Americans to the Kennewick Man, I believe them to be fairly weak for a few reasons although I understand the history of the problem (i.e. fresh grave robbing for artifacts of the American Indian). First, the modern Native Americans did not know that the Kennewick Man even existed nor did they know where he was buried until the body was one day exposed. Second, genetic testing done on the Kennewick man shows no relation to any of the modern tribes trying to claim him. Now, I also do not agree with people trying to tie the Kennewick man based upon any genetic testing to a European or other descent as even this does not prove conclusive evidence but rather a possible correlation. Finally, they claim that their oral tradition proves their tie to the Kennewick man. Stories told orally get changed over time no matter how we try to perfectly preserve them and so after almost 12,000 years these have probably changed a great deal.
In this case, both sides have the right to the remains of the Kennewick man and I think that the real culprit causing the intensity of this battle is the media who became involved. In order to have this not occur again in the future, the media should not become involved and an objective answer should be sought from an outside source with more rights given to archaeologists to remains as long as they are no longer known to exist by the modern Native Americans.
Hannah Galey
Zimmerman asserts two love-hate comparisons as true, that “Americans love Indians because Indians have a history associated with the land, but hate them because they have a history associated with the land…[and that] Americans love Indians because they were here, but hate Indians because they are still here.” (p. 272)
ReplyDeleteA recent trip to the Museum of Natural History proved especially thought provoking in light of this statement. I first visited the Eastern Woodlands Indians and Plains Indians exhibits and then the Hall of Pacific Peoples. The contrasts in representation between Indians and Pacific Peoples were striking, perhaps in light of this love-hate paradox and previous discussions of Indians as a “vanishing race” (p. 271).
The most striking contrast was that the Hall of Pacific Peoples was teeming with full color photos of modern Pacific peoples, engaged in daily activities such as farming, shopping and commuting while the exhibits featuring the Indians made sparing references to modernity, keeping their culture and identity firmly situated in the past. The Pacific Peoples exhibition acknowledged the coexistence of traditional culture and modern, westernized culture through photos such as that of a traditionally-clothed aborigine waiting for a train in Australia or of a woman garbed in modern clothing driving a jeep. The only photo I saw in the Indian exhibits was a grainy sepia print of a house outline discovered underneath a mound in Georgia. Indians were instead represented by artifacts, floating head figures or stylized illustrations reinforced an idea of Indian culture situated in the past, of a vanishing people and culture in need of preservation and protection.
Only the language for the Woodlands Plains Indians actually acknowledged modern Indians, stating how “the transition from a nomadic-hunting culture to full participation in a modern industrial society has been difficult.” This could explain why Indian people “made the difficult choice to entrust their heritage to museums for long-term safekeeping.” (Skull Wars, p. 211)
Thus the love-hate paradox persists, with a beloved and valued “vanishing” Indian culture encased in glass and on display in museums.
-Monica Qua Hiansen
Thomas' discussion of Umatilla sovereignty and treaty rights struck me as particularly relevant to this debate (235-236). The Kennewick Man was found on land that was ceded to the federal government by the Umatilla tribe. However, while relinquishing certain rights to that land, the tribe retained certain others. Among the latter is the right to "continue religious practices on Federal lands within their traditional homeland" (Thomas 236). Thus, Kennewick Man falls under the purview of Umatilla religious beliefs. Those mandate that the skeleton be returned and buried.
ReplyDeleteAt its core, the Kennewick Man debate is not one of questionable tribal affiliation, but of equal protection under the law. Thomas' aptly notes that non-Indian graves are protected against desecration in all fifty states (210). Why should remains found in Indian territories be treated differently? Similarly, the Constitution provides for religious freedom. Why should the Umatilla people be forced to provide "evidence" for their religious beliefs (see Thomas 233)?
Despite this, it is unfortunate to think that such a unique archeological find will be lost. While the Kennewick Man controversy has likely created too much animosity to allow for a negotiated middle ground, Skull Wars abounds in examples where scientists and Native American worked together for their mutual benefit (209, 216). Surely, if both parties had entered into negotiations with respect for the demands of the other they would have settled on an appropriate solution. Scientists could have been given a period of time to conduct detailed measurements, 3D modeling and/or carbon dating before the skeletons were reburied.
In the future, it is my hope that scientists will treat Native American demands (and the rights in which they are grounded) with the respect they deserve. Human remains should not be subject to the same unfeeling scientific "objectivity" as clay pots and stone tools. Researchers must be sensitive to the beliefs and practices of the groups with which they are dealing. They must be willing to negotiate if they do not want to create animosity, which can ultimately compromise scientific inquiry much more than NAGPRA.
-Crystal Gonzalez
Being personally opposed to most infringement of matters of religion upon matters of science, I find the issue of Kennewick man rather foolish. I understand we would like to respect whatever personal or cultural beliefs Kennewick man held about death and burial, but we do not know these things. The closest we could come to knowing them would be determining whether he was of Native American or European ancestry. Even then, I would be hesitant to pretend that determining his ancestry could somehow tell us what his cultural beliefs about death would have been. If Kennewick man is of Native American ancestry, at that point the remains should be returned to the Native American groups who claim to have a tie to them, however tenuous the tie may be. However, the return should only happen after ancestry is determined. It would be incredibly valuable information for archaeologists and humanity in general to better understand our past, and if part of that past is an earlier than imagined settlement by Europeans, it would be a gain for everyone. Though the media and certain groups with their own interests might care to spin the matter into one where they mean to undercut the rights conceded to Native Americans, I believe it is just as foolish to imagine that a European Kennewick man is somehow culturally close to modern or even 15th century Europeans as it would be to say that a Native American Kennewick man is culturally close to the Native American populations that were devastated by violent resettlements, wars, disease, and other ravages brought on by colonization. To know that thousands of years ago settlers from Europe roamed the land does not in any way alleviate or justify the destruction wreaked upon the Native American populations that were present on the continent in 1492. The communities that inhabited America 9,000 years ago are ancestors to us all and in that way their history is relevant to us all. It does not belong to the Native Americans to bury and it does not belong to European Americans to use to rewrite history. Whatever happened, if there were “Europeans” in America in the past, they were no longer present when Columbus arrived. Perhaps they died out, leaving the land to the next settlers; perhaps they over time become integrated with the settlers arriving from the Bering Strait. These mythical Europeans cannot give us excuses for crimes committed in the past, and they do not give us any say over land which they probably did not “own” in the way we do today either.
ReplyDeleteTo follow our ties back into the past can teach us many valuable things, but to try and apply them to modern policy and try to excuse our past mistakes is foolish. Even if Kennewick man may have originated in Europe he is by no means the same sort of European who landed in America in 1492. And if he was Native American, he isn’t the same sort of Native American that existed in America in 1492 nor was he the same sort of Native American that exists today. It is as shortsighted to let notions of ritual and the sacred impede research as it would be to allow that research to somehow soften the edge on the crimes of America’s past.
Anastasia Lugo Mendez
The controversy over Kennewick Man seems to have repercussions not only for human remains being studied by scientists, but also artifacts being studied by archaeologists or displayed in museums for the general public. Both human remains and artifacts are important for studying the past, and no conclusions could be made about the past without archaeological evidence. On the flip side of the argument, it is disrespectful of the very cultures being studied to take artifacts and bodies out of their resting places and place them in settings where they are not intended to reside. I think it was in one of the Deloria readings where he points out that if the graves in a typical Western graveyard were exhumed the ‘grave robbers’ would be prosecuted and jailed, but anthropologists can dig up Native American bones and get PhDs from studying them. I think this encapsulates the whole problem with the situation: there is a double standard here. While the study of bones, like those of Kennewick Man, may be beneficial to science and educate the general public as a whole, denying the importance of cultural traditions and sensitivities seems to be contradictory to the study of ancient peoples in the first place. While archaeologists might argue that the study of the bones leads to greater appreciation for cultures that have disappeared, I think that this view suppresses culture by turning a shoulder to the requests of various Native American groups who argue that the study of their artifacts and bones goes against their cultural traditions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there needs to be a good balance drawn between the interests of scientists and Native Americans, as Owsley suggests in latter part of his article. When bones are just found, as in the case of Kennewick Man, as opposed to actively dug up, it seems morally upright to investigate the remains. It seems that a balance between interests could be made if the scientists were allowed to do initial, non-invasive investigation of remains and artifacts found before the materials were repatriated to whichever tribal groups claim them. This solution would meet the requests of both groups in some reasonable form. In Chapter 21 of Thomas’s Skull Wars he mentions Phillip Walker, working with the Chumash Indians. He writes that “the Chumash have long designated an individual as liwimpshit, a tribal member intimately familiar with the human skeleton…these traditional practices opened up some common ground between Walker and the Chumash, serving as a basis to insure that bioarchaeological research could be conducted within an environment showing proper respect for the dead” (Thomas 216). The designated Chumash individual creates another solution to the problem, where by both groups can work together in order to accomplish a mutual goal, thus mitigating some of the problems associated with ‘colonial archaeology.’
I attended the visit to the National Museum of the Native American this weekend, and I think that this museum handled the problem between scientific interests and Native American interests well by having both groups collaborate to create the exhibits. I think that the curator of the dress exhibit was a Native American, and the exhibits themselves presented firsthand views of the people whose cultures were being presented to the general public. It seemed to be a good way in which to save the construct of a museum anthropology exhibit from being a hotbed for misconceptions and impositions of outside viewpoints by one dominant culture upon another. I see this collaboration of interest groups as a happy solution to the problem of scientific study of Native remains, such as those of Kennewick Man.
The Kennewick case exposes two sides of archaeological study that sometimes seem to conflict each other: science and culture. Hard science seems to transcend the boundaries of culture with cold calculations and concrete observations, where as the study of human cultures appears to be a much murkier business. Archaeology requires a healthy mix of both approaches, and I think this line between science and culture is where the problems with control over Kennewick Man arise. I do not think that the two areas of study are all that far removed from each other however, and archaeologists must discover how to join cultural observations with scientific ones in order to create the most accurate picture possible of ancient peoples and their ways of life. I know that it is not really possible to create unbiased views of any ancient (or current for that matter) society, but an awareness of the problems seems to be a good place to start. Because archaeologists are studying past people, their cultures, and their environments I think that they must consider, and respect, the social relations of humans to material objects of the past, including human remains.
In conclusion, I am not taking any sides. As many have already stated in their blog posts, and as a friend of mine from this class said on our run this morning, the situation of Kennewick Man begs for further consideration. In this specific case the details become very important as to who owns what, etc. However, I will say that I think collaboration between interest groups could alleviate legal fights over ancient remains and artifacts in the future. Not only would collaboration save a lot of people legal trouble, it also seems that it would allow for better archaeological information for the benefit of scientists, Native Americans and the general public.
The remains of Kennewick Man ought to be reburied. NAGPRA as an act is set to provide a process and protection to items deemed culturally affiliated to Native American tribes. This is further explained in a memorandum from an archaeologist consulting for the United States Department of the Interior to the assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks: “As defined in NAGPRA, ‘Native American’ refers to human remains and cultural items relating to tribes, peoples, or cultures that resided within the area now encompassed by the United States prior to the historically documented arrival of European explorers, irrespective of when a particular group may have begun to reside in this area, and, irrespective of whether some or all of these groups were or were not culturally affiliated or biologically related to present-day Indian tribes” (http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm). As the results of the radiocarbon dating present, the Kennewick remains are older than the documented arrival of European explorers by thousands of years and for that reason alone the skeletal remains ought to have been returned to the confederation of tribes in the local area. The decision of the Secretary of the Interior to allow the scientific testing of the remains rather than the return to the local tribes seems to undermine the roots of NAGPRA and its attempt at respecting the sensitivity of native identity and history.
ReplyDeleteChatters’s belief that NAGPRA doesn’t apply in this particular circumstance seems to an excuse for the advancement of his own career. He seems to be judging racial affiliation and identity on certain characteristics and is dependent on biological identity, not diversity in native cultural and biological traditions. Additionally, the presentation of Chatters’s results seem to be biased, with the continual use of descriptors such as Caucasian and the imagery of a man who looks much like Patrick Stewart. The results seemed to be sensationalized and politicized to such a degree that the concept of tribal sovereignty seems to be continually denigrated. While I agree that the Kennewick remains present an important find in biological anthropology, it is my fundamental belief that not allowing the local tribes to maintain control of the skeletal remains belittles native beliefs and traditions especially when it has been legally decided what is defined as “Native American.”
-Laura Chippeaux
The text that I'm going to draw from is Thomas' Skull Wars. I particularly enjoyed the pro/con mapping with regard to the function of and effectiveness of NAGPRA. Historically, there has been a marginalization of Native American people, which is largely demonstrated in the name of archaeology. Thomas outlines the sentiment towards ancient burial sites from both parties and the importance of the reburial or examination for each. For me, there was a deep internal conflict. I could not help but side with the archaeologists in asserting their right, or rather duty to science in order to excavate these sites for the sake of a better understanding of Ancient American history. Sure, the historical marginalization plays a large role in American sentiment, but were it not for the efforts of scientists/archaeologists, it would be entirely difficult for present day American Indians to identify the past for which they embrace. The argument or speculation for the wanting of the Kennewick man's remains in order to conceal the illegitimacy of American Indians as the first people is undoubtedly irrelevant. As far as religious respect/observation, the American Indians have every right to fight to have their beliefs observed but I feel one must realize the benefits of such a find to progress the wheels of science.
ReplyDeleteBut another part of myself must side with American Indians. The total dissemination of a a people, the destruction of customs and way of life, came at the expense of European and subsequent American expansion. It is not their fault that much of their known history has become lost or their own identity has crumbled under the foot of American assimilation. Who are we to say that science overrides the ethical mandate to observe the culture of another to further ensure identification and understanding of their own history? NAGPRA has been essential in placing American Indians on somewhat equal footing with Museums in the arena of American legislature and politics.
Daniel Castillo djc2135
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Skull Wars, the Owsley and Jantz article, and the Umatilla tribes position I have gone back and forth in regards to where I stand on the issue, and depending on the persuasiveness of an argument I could flip flop yet again. After reading Skull Wars, I was definitely leaning in favor of the argument made by the archaeologists and anthropologists. It seemed like an important question for science and the general public to have answered, if there were people here in ancient times that did not come from Asia, that may have in fact come from Europe, it would be a fascinating investigation trying to figure out how and when that migration occurred. At first curiosity was the feeling that took predominance in my mind, coupled with indignation at the government's "cover up" (quite literally) of the excavation site that unearthed Kennewick man. In my mind, science tends to come first, because I feel as though it tends to be an non-arbitrary, true judgment that can combat bigotry and ignorance. This may seem like an 180 degree turn from my statements last time, but I in this instance I am talking about effective specific scientific studies, not broad, generalized "truths" that are the flavor of the week with regards to Native Americans. (as noted by Vine Deloria)
ReplyDeleteSadly, in class on Thursday, it became clear to me that science in the hands of the ignorant can do incredible amounts of damage to societies and peoples. Even unproved, Kennewick Man theories have provided more than enough fuel for racist extremists to bolster their ranks and give themselves "scientific" proof on which to base their hatred. For a while after class, I seriously considered if it wouldn't be better if we just left well enough alone and forgot all about kennewick man. The pain and suffering already endured by the tribes should be more than enough of a reason to pass this on. Even non-extremists could use this information to rationalize taking away what few rights of sovereignty the tribes still enjoy. That is something I would prefer to not see happen; the tribes deserve to be, at the very least, left alone. At least in my still fairly ignorant opinion.
While the latter sentiments of the last paragraph still hold true in my mind, the original issues I had with the Kennewick Man investigations changed again when I though about the break through that genetic testing had in once and for all ending the academic discussion about inherent natural inequalities of races. Perhaps this investigation could have brought the general public and science to less ignorant ideas about the "peopling" of the new world. The Owsley and Jantz reading had a lot to do with these thoughts and thoughts like them that crept into my head. In particular, the excerpts from the courts about the law suit filed by the archaeologists against the army COE. The judge's ruling that, "The agency assumed facts that proved to be erroneous" and "any decision in this matter was premature." was particularly enlightening. It is clear that the answer is not a simple one, but I believe that in the past science has helped to overcome the superficial boundaries of racism, and that by actively preventing further examination of this specimen the Native tribes look as though they are trying to hide something.
In conclusion, at this point, I feel as though Kennewick man should be studied. Knowledge, I believe is key to ending racism and bigotry, and if we allow this to not be tested we are setting a standard by which ignorance becomes acceptable. Secondly, this was not a body that was exhumed from an ancient burial ground by skull stealing archaeologists, it showed up in a river bank.
Thomas Nicholson
There is an ethical struggle that must be faced in all disciplines of science. The boundary between morally and ethically “right” and “wrong” becomes skewed when science is involved. Whether it be stem-cell research or The Kennewick Man; I feel as though there can be no definite “right” answer. However, with that said, in the archeological sphere, I feel as though ancient remains should belong to no particular faction. They should not belong to their future descendants, nor archeologists, nor the government, nor a country. I feel as though remains can only belong to the soil which they reside in. The land which they are discovered in. However, I do feel as though information that could be taken from the remains, which would contribute to mankind’s overall wealth of knowledge about the world, past and future, is valuable and should be allowed to be taken. However, something that I feel very passionately about, is the rights that the remains should have (not the arguing factions of “owners”), once they are used to benefit society as a whole, to be returned to the places that they were found. Once the remains of a disturbed archeological site are taken and placed in a museum or some other location, it becomes raiding and looting. I feel that it is in a way, stealing. But not stealing from any particular “owner.” I do not think that there can be a defined owner for ancient remains. People forget that ancient remains also have rights. It is selfish to try to place ownership in any way over something that can belong to no one.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of whether or not the remains should have reburied, in my mind, is somewhat tricky. If we're going to strictly adhere to NAGPRA, then the answer becomes easy (or, at the very least, straightforward)---the decision rested with the federal government. After all, the remains were discovered on federal lands, so according to the law, it is the property of the federal government. Perhaps a "compromise" could have been reached between the two parties, but I do not see how that would have been possible. Had the remains been reburied immediately, the archaeologists would have been unable to conduct their research. Had they been reburied after the remains had been analyzed, it's likely that members of the Umatilla tribe would have felt slighted, in that the remains would have still been exploited for the sake of scientific research. This was simply a case where neither party could have been completely satisfied.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it's somewhat (see: very) amusing to me that because the Umatilla could not produce "proof" that the remains were that of an Umatilla ancestor, the archaeologists involved in the lawsuit automatically felt that they were entitled to use the remains for the sake of their personal satisfaction. Perhaps this was not their true line of thinking, but this is what I gleaned from the two readings, particularly the Owsley and Jantz piece. Of course, to describe such research as the mere pursuit of personal satisfaction may seem rather patronizing. After all, studying such artifacts can help us ~learn about our history~ (that "our" being used very loosely, of course). But the question I have is, what then? What will such research truly accomplish? What is the real goal here? Who will this research benefit? Honestly, it seems like a series of ridiculous questions, but I'm truly skeptical of any notion suggesting that these archaeologists are doing this for any kind of public "good." As someone who will most likely spend the rest of her life creating research projects, I can sympathize with the desire to expand one's knowledge base. But in reality, or at the very least, as far as I'm concerned, nobody has the natural right to conduct research as they please---especially if this research comes at the expense of the cultural customs of another group---so to me, any discussion of the "rights" of the archaeologists is irrelevant. On that note, I find it very difficult to side with the archaeologists in this case, as they appear to be suffering from a severe case of entitlement-itis.
--->Nonye Madu
What is most glaring about the conflicting interests of archaeologists, the non-Native public, and Native America communities is a tension that exists between the past and the future. What makes the present so unique is that it is fully observable through the lens of our own eyes. The past and the future are both largely unknown and therefore leave themselves open to complete speculation and interpretation. As Owsley and Jantz point out, “inaccuracies continue to appear in print even after four years. With increasing frequency, critics freely impugn motives without the benefit of interview those involved.” (573)
ReplyDeleteA parallel can be drawn here between an issue brought up in class, the image of Native Americans as somehow more “historical” than European society. This interpretation of European relations to Native Americans can also be drawn to an important question about today’s interpretations and treatments of old remains or objects. Archaeologists, the non-Native public, and Native America communities who are fighting over the treatment and access rights to "Kennewick Man" are battling in the same social and legal sphere as one another and must find ways to simultaneously respect past traditions and rights and adhere to modern practices. This is dangerous territory considering that the future is so unknown. We have watched valuable archaeological sites be torn up by some of the first archaeologists due to insufficient and messy dig techniques. Will future archaeologists look back on today’s treatments in the same way?
In the case of Kennewick Man, it is quite difficult to say whether the archaeologists should have received studying rights, or whether the Native American groups in the region should have been allowed to repatriate the remains. At first, I was whole-heartedly on the side of the archaeologists, because the study of Kennewick Man could lead to major breakthroughs in the history of Pre-Columbian Native America, and the public has the right to receive the education from these finds. However, I must play the devil’s advocate here because the implications from the court decision are such that they devalue the oral histories and culture of all Native Americans. Visiting the American Museum of Natural History last Thursday has made me realize that Americans really do not value Native American culture and traditions highly enough. One of the exhibits was frankly appalling because it had not been updated since the 1950s, has very few explanations, and still has mannequins of Native Americans going about their daily work, some sporting mottled faces. Could you imagine going to a museum in some other part of America and seeing mottled mannequins in glass cases that are supposed to represent your grandparents or tribe members and what they did every day of their lives? I certainly could imagine this, and that is quite the scary part!
ReplyDeleteNot only does the court’s refusal for repatriation belittle the traditions and heritage of the Native American peoples, but it also shows an utter lack of respect for the individual being studied here. In America today, people get to decide if they want their body to be used in scientific experimentation. The Kennewick Man is unable to make such a choice. My last point for the opposing side is that, although Kennewick Man was an incredible find, not much can truly be determined from his remains alone. As Zimmerman states, “The issue of determining race from skeletal measurements is controversial at best”. One of the main reasons for studying Kennewick Man is to determine who first peopled the Americas, but I do not think that this can definitively be answered by one questionable skeleton alone.
Despite all of this, the archaeologist in me has to agree with the court decision. Most individual archaeological discoveries are small and do not change the histories of a people; however, each discovery is a jumping point or an arrow in the right direction, from which archaeologists can determine more about a past long gone.
I must add though, that any finds made by archaeologists should not change Native Americans claims to the land or current laws. To retroactively change Native American laws at this point would be a catastrophe, at best, especially for a people who already have been treated so harshly.
Camille Hutt
If any acceptable solution or compromise is to arise concerning the problems surrounding the Kennewick man or Ancient One's disinterment, the heart or hearts of the problem must first be identified. The question at hand, ‘what is to be done with this set of bones’ exists within a framework governed by various political and institutional documents such as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the Principles of the S.A.A., and primarily, NAGPRA. Unfortunately the very requirements set in place by NAGPRA to ensure a lawful repatriation of remains call into question the validity of the respective ontologies employed in the process of “proving” heritage. The problem is not one of abiding by a formal procedure, it is of reconciling two very different modes of historical and identity construction. Just as we cannot say, as sensitive citizens, that archaeologists have an inalienable right to study any property that may concern their human history, we cannot say that the cultural claims of Native Americans undeniably prohibit archaeological research. It is not anyone’s job to determine a correct relationship between ourselves and our history, but it is everyone’s job to appreciate the significant validity of ulterior cultural convictions. The Kennewick man has been removed from the Earth. He must be studied and he must be returned to the Earth. The results of these actions must not inform political identity but more importantly, they should establish a cooperative precedent. It is a mistake to attempt to isolate the groups we hold to be different from ourselves and decisions should always require concessions from both sides, otherwise favor will only deepen our perceived incompatibility. It is in cases like these that history must really be scrutinized in its applications. It must be observed in order to protect the rights of the Native Americans, but it must be placed aside to ensure that it does not define the nature of interaction.
ReplyDelete-Julius Tedaldi
The question of whether or not the remains of the Ancient Kennewickian (which I think is a nice compromise name) should have been reburied is one that cannot be answered easily in legal, ethical, or scientific terms. As I have learned from our readings on this case, there seems to be no solution that all parties would find completely satisfactory. While I agree with many archaeologists that his remains provide a crucial piece of information in the project of fully understanding the past of North America and its earliest inhabitants, the rationale behind scientists' desires in this particular case deserve to be intensely scrutinized. Just as some like James Chatters have imputed less than honorable motives among the Native Americans who fought to have the Ancient Kennewickian reburied without further study, the motives of many opponents of reburial can also be questioned.
ReplyDeleteAs Zimmerman argues, in many cases, inquiry into the the Ancient Kennwickian is informed by a persistent desire among Euro-Americans to uncover a white past for America, thus legitimizing the original conquest and genocide of Native peoples by European invaders. To many, the U.S. Court of Appeals's decision to allow further study of the Ancient Kennewickian went against the intended spirit of the NAGPRA legislation. It represented yet another case of scientists' interpretation of the past trumping Native peoples'. On the other hand, skeletons like the Ancient Kennewickian have the potential to change our long-held conceptions of what exactly it means to be Native American. What is important to understand is that for some Native peoples like the Umatilla, information culled by study of these remains will not change their fundamental understanding of their identity and the identity of their ancestors. The question of whether he is an ancestor of modern Indian people--one that anthropologists like Chatters believe they can answer through science and the Umatilla believe the can answer through their oral histories--demonstrates the extent of different between how many scientists and Native Americans conceive of their histories.
~Laura Schreiber
One aspect of this conflict I had not considered before reading the Zimmerman article is the role the media played. Is it possible that, in the eyes of the (colonialist) American public, the Native American tribes felt the need to reassert their claim to the land and the bones buried in it? I believe that the spiritual and cultural beliefs of the tribes were undoubtedly the basis behind the Umatilla’s claims to the Kennewick Man’s bones. Yet after the initial scientific study that showed the bones to be before the known beginning of their tribe, why would the Umatilla not back down? This was definitely a political power struggle in which our government came out on top.
ReplyDeleteScience is progress; spirituality is constancy. Our contemporary American society focuses on the former, as any pressured Columbia/Barnard student could tell you. We have been programmed to always want to push further in order to explore what is unknown to us. This approach to the world directly contrasts to the Native American tribes’ endeavors to preserve their cultural customs, including their strong spiritual traditions and beliefs. Their belief that death does not end existence clashes with many scientists’ principles that because a body is dead it is acceptable to study the life it had. The way I see it, the scientists who recovered the bones had every right to study them in a respectful manner, solely because the bones dated past the known beginnings of the tribes. Without knowing which tribe the man belonged to, no Native Americans could not rightly claim that the bones needed to be buried in accordance with tribal rituals. However, Zimmerman does talk about the possibility that men like the Kennewick Man could have assimilated into one of the tribes. That presents a cloud in my mind: what, truly, is the definition of a Native American? Can an existing ancestor of one tribe rightly claim the bones for a man who might have believed in their same tradition? Surely, the Native American traditions that the Umatilla continue to hold onto today are closer to what the Kennewick Man would have known. He showed signs of living close to the land, hunting and remaining closer to nature than our scientific society does. Clearly the Native Americans, who lived and toiled the land in a fashion unparalleled to European society (what our customs and ideals were founded upon), have much more of a connection to the Kennewick Man. In my mind, despite our present scientific concerns the lost bones of a man embroiled in customs and beliefs and habits closest to the Native Americans should return to the land, rather than be picked apart and mercilessly studied. Some people voluntarily donate their bodies to science after they die. Kennewick man did not, and if given the option he would most likely have deemed the idea barbaric. Despite what our science teachers may tell us, I think some things just aren’t meant to be known.
[Elissa Cashman]
Based on both the Owsley and Zimmerman readings, I personally believe that the Kennewick Man does not deserve a proper burial and should instead be seen as scientific property. While the Umatilla tribe cites their religious beliefs when arguing the cultural connection between the “Ancient One” and their tribe, they drive a hard bargain when threatening the government that denying the connection is a rejection of their faith. In Zimmerman’s article, the courts most recent opinion on the debate is described as stating that: “archaeological materials are a public heritage”. It goes on to say that scientific evidence overrules the oral tradition defended by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatratriation Act. I do not believe that the courts decision enforces a “White History of America” or disrespects the Ancient One as a human being.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Kennewick man is nothing but an artifact, a scientific and archaeological treasure. Of course I acknowledge that this Ancient one was part of a culture and represents an important part of Native American ancient history, but their religious arguments are ridiculous. The fact is that while the Umatilla tribe may claim that this man is culturally connected to their ancestors, who have lived there since the “Dawn of time”, there was no Umatilla tribe over 9 thousand years ago and religion or no religion, that is fact. We know from scientific evidence that the continent was still being settled and populated at that time and no Native American tribes existed in their modern incarnations. Scientific artifacts like the Kennewick man should be considered public heritage because it provides clues to the history of this continent. And regardless of whether your ancestors are European or Native to this continent, the fact is we all came from Africa at one point, so history matters to all of us.
-Benjamin Velez
Sunna`s Day, Horning 15, 2259 RE (date and time according to Neo-Nazi/ Norse Spirituality site)
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely important to recognize the rights of Native Americans and respect their wishes concerning the remains of their ancestors, but, even though my outsider’s guilt is pricking at my conscience, I believe that the Kennewick Man should be kept from reburial to be studied.
It seems like another case of religious imposition that is harmful to science.
I agreed strongly with Zimmerman’s article, especially when he wrote, “As an archaeologist, I would like to see study done on most human remains, whether from recent deaths studied by autopsy or ancient ones…At the same time, I learned long ago that the wishes of scientists do not necessarily outweigh those of people who claim such remains as their ancestors.” But I feel that the information science can be “read” in the remains of the Kennewick Man should not be hidden away and destroyed by the elements.
And who is making the claim? The Asatru group (Aryan Nation?) also wanted to bury the body according to traditional rites. While their claim was a bizarre product of racist wishful thinking, it is true that neither group presented scientific evidence of genetic connection. Without testing it is impossible to say to whom the body belongs, if anyone.
Zimmermann pointed out that we don’t respect ancient bodies as human, and that most people desire “that their remains will be treated respectfully and, if they are buried, that they will be left in the ground.” But most people’s cadavers are not at the core of an important scientific debate, and certainly not one that applies to the entirety of the Western Hemisphere.
Also, if one is dead, it is improbable that he or she will care what is done to their remains. It is the people left behind who are in danger of being offended, and in this case they, too, died about 9000 years ago.
The following stanzas are from “the Hávamál” I found on www.asatru.org. I thought they might be a prescient warning from the Norse past to Jim Chatters:
5
Who travels widely needs his wits about him,
The stupid should stay at home:
The ignorant man is often laughed at
When he sits at meat with the sage,
6
Of his knowledge a man should never boast,
Rather be sparing of speech
When to his house a wiser comes:
Seldom do those who are silent Make mistakes;
Mother wit Is ever a faithful friend,
7
A guest should be courteous
When he comes to the table
And sit in wary silence,
His ears attentive,
His eyes alert:
So he protects himself
Galen Boone
I do think that the body should ultimately be restored to the Native Americans, but it is hard to know which tribe it should be restored to. For this I think that more scientific testing should be done to determine which modern day Native American tribe should have a right to bury the Kennewick man.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the scientific testing labeled the Kennewick man a Caucasoid, it never said that he was “Caucasian”, that was a stretch made in many of the sensationalist news articles following the discovery. Just because his features were not stereotypically Native American, it doesn’t mean that he is not of Native American ancestry. Given the fact that he is 9,400 years old, it is very possible that genetic variability could have caused these features. I think it is important that we recognize that the Kennewick man controversy is more a battle over “who got here first” than it is about whether the archeological remains belong to the Native Americans or the archeologists. For this reason, I do think that more tests should be done to determine which tribe the Kennewick man is most closely related to. Such tests may violate the beliefs of the Native Americans but they seem necessary in order to determine who the body should be given too. This way the body could, eventually, have a proper burial.
Ariana Krieger
The question as to whether the remains will be reburied requires a clear black-and-white answer; they will either be reburied or not. Whether Kennewick Man should be reburied is another issue. There is not room for grey area in terms of action, but much grey area in terms of rationalization. In this increasingly secular time—and when I use the word secular, I don’t necessarily mean a decrease in religiosity, to use this word in its more spiritually-based connotation, but rather, I use “secular” referring to a society that places a greater emphasis on science, rationality and empirical evidence, rather than tradition, spirituality or myth—Kennewick Man is an invaluable tool towards understanding the migration, settlement and life of Native Americans. But as many previous posts aptly referred to, Vine Deloria’s position on “the anthropologist” reveals a certain sentiment towards the species, namely, that there is not much to gain from his studies, but very much to lose. And when the study of Kennewick Man becomes racialized, it further raises the stakes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that scientific study is important, and who can really say that Kennewick Man “belongs” to any of these tribes? Thousands of years passed between the peoples. At the same time, it’s hard to say that these tribes—despite not appearing to resemble Kennewick man the same way that Patrick Steward does—did not descend from him. Beyond that—what evidence do we have that his skin was white, as we associate white to be today? The number of assumptions and quick conclusions was astonishing; I was particularly horrified by the Santa Fe New Mexican’s coverage citing revenge. My final question: can science, can these anthropologists, definitively and conclusively answer any of these questions? No. We can study many different things about Kennewick Man, and I’m sure he will reveal a great amount of evidence as to the first Americans, but he brings with him so many unanswerable questions, that one must take all findings with a huge grain of salt.
So many arguments for the further study of Kennewick Man cite fear as a driving motivation of present-day American Indians to block these actions. But the mere idea that they should be afraid—afraid that they will lose their claim to land or rights—is the most ridiculous thing of all. There is no denying the oppression and marginalization of American Indians throughout America’s history, both within the newly-discovered territory and within the United States post-1776. Regardless of whether the present-day Native Americans’ ancestors wiped out Kennewick Man and his people, they should not be punished for that. We like to think of ourselves as a civilized society, with rule of law and property rights. Although the Native Americans lacked the same European system does not give us justification to usurp their lands. I find this argument, more than the question of reburial or not of Kennewick Man, the most compelling. To what other measures shall some people resort to in order to find rationalization for denying an entire people’s rights?
--Cristina Najarro
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery generally, some archaeologists want to study the bones, Indians want to bury the bones, and the non-Native public is ambivalent. While archaeologists claim general “American” interests in the history of the people of North America, the great differences in opinion on this matter should show that there is no absolute public interest. The principle interests remain archaeologists and Indians, though the general public may align with either or both sides.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the goal should be a compromise between the sides. Both sides have a legitimate claim to establishing a narrative for the people of North America, one through science and one through religion and oral history.
“Scientifically,” it would appear inconclusive that the Ancient One is a direct ancestor of five tribes claiming the remains. First, the archaelogists’ conclusions are very questionable concerning the direct lineage of the Ancient One to modern tribes. Assuming that cranial measurements are a valid tool, they would only be useful for comparing large groups, say, many ancient skeletons and many modern ones to determine a probability of relatedness. The relatedness of a single individual to modern groups would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine. (Of course, this may mean that we should collect whatever measurements we can in order to eventually amass enough data for a tentative conclusion). However, cranial measurements as a tool for determining lineage are simply problematic at best. Indeed, “Boas figured out and clearly demonstrated that skull shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change markedly from one generation to the next: skul1 measurements thus did not necessarily reflect enduring racial affinities (Thomas, xxx)”. Owsley and Jantz do not seem to compare the differences in morphology between the Ancient One and modern Indians to any other society. They do not demonstrate that there is a much vaster difference between the Ancient One and modern Indians than between other ancient skeletons and their modern counterparts. Finally, in searching for reasons to break the biological connection between the Ancient One and modern tribes, the archaeologists fail to consider the near total lack of evidence suggesting that the Ancient One could be white. Indeed, while claiming to avoid such a conclusion, Jantz confronts, and maybe accepts it, head on:
“…if we can ascertain that Kennewick is more similar to contemporary European populations than to any others, that tells us something”.
Jantz does not say what that “something” is, though his conclusion seems predetermined, or at least based on a selective review of bones only, ignoring all other mainstream evidence that does not point to a European source for Native populations. Thus, they fail to disprove the link between modern Indians and the Ancient One based on their analysis, but pose erroneous new theories with little evidence, a distraction from the issue at hand.
However, that failure to disprove a link does not mean that the link exists. It would be difficult—though not impossible—to accept that the five tribes claiming ancestry were the direct descendants of the Ancient One simply because it seems highly unlikely that even five tribes remained in that one place for so long. That is to say that it is more likely that over the course of nine millennia there were many groups entering and passing through the area, some gaining prominence or even dominance over others. A biological continuity is not too likely. However, contrary to what Owsley and Jantz claim, it is certainly possible that some sort of cultural continuity exists. Although we must believe that the beliefs and culture of whatever groups inhabiting the Northwest changed greatly over time, that conclusion in no way precludes some cultural continuity, be it linguistic, symbolic or otherwise. Indeed, though they are theologically quite separate, one must grant broad cultural continuity between the Ancient Egyptians and modern Coptic Christians. The same continuity, though not with absolute certainty, could be granted to the culture of the Ancient One and modern tribes.
Scientifically, therefore, the evidence is simply ambivalent based on examining bones, historic exploration of the Americas, and modes of cultural change. Importantly, though, NAGPRA does not rely solely on scientific evidence. In this case then, the oral and religious tradition of modern tribes should lead us to conclude that the Ancient One is the ancestor of the modern tribes, and deserves repatriation and reburial as such. Absolutely, the Ancient One must be reburied.
Yet there is a final caveat. These bones are very old, and could yield information about the people of this continent (Owsley and Jantz would do better, by the way, to pose important archaeological questions that could be solved by studying the Ancient One, rather than vague pronouncements of the “public interest”). Despite their belief in only one scientific truth, the archeologists are correct to a certain extent that some examination should be undertaken. Seeing as reburial should occur, that examination should be nondestructive, and seeing as cranial measurements have already taken, it seems as though the archeologists have already had their go and should be satisfied.
In conclusion, in any instance of bones being found, they should be first examined in case they are recent (related to a crime, etc.). If ancient, since it would be very hard to scientifically disprove their connection to modern groups, oral traditions should indicate their relatedness to modern groups. This relation should be respected and the bones reburied, though, since they are already out of the ground, quick, non-invasive studies should be allowed. This solution is pragmatic and not perfect for either side, but at least the scientists get to take a peek at the past, while the Ancient One can continue, despite a brief detour, on his journey through eternity.
-Jason Patinkin
The “Kennewick Man” or the “Ancient One?”
ReplyDelete“Who gets the body?” equally poses “Who wields the scepter?”
Considering the Kennewick debate and the apparent dismissal of NAGPRA, the non-Indian majority seems to be Who. I do believe the windy debate is about sovereignty. Not in the demeaning 60 Minutes fiscal sense, which Antone Minthorn so strongly resented, but the sovereignty called for by Don Sampson concerning religious rights and beliefs. The court’s opinion was the denial of sovereignty for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
The CTUIR see a modification of law, an alteration for the benefit of a few scientists. As Larry Zimmerman points out, the court views their decision to not bury the Kennewick Man as one for the public benefit, strangely, and too noted by Zimmerman, the decision seems to, at once, discount the Native American oral tradition and validate the superiority of science. Further, the court entered Merriam-Webster territory by defining who is and who is not Indian. This is problematic from the Indian perspective, and should be for non-Indians as well, because it contests the upholding of cultural heritage.
The tricky part: Can culture be reserved and for and by whom?
Scientists believe they’ve the right to study ancient skeletons to expose the truths of the past for the benefit of not just One but (every)one. They’ve given us impetus for such blockbusters as Jurassic Park, they’ve given us a past. But when should Their past be A Past instead of The Past? But when should their stories step aside to to make room on the stage for other stories. As Armand Mithorn says “We already know our history.” Although Indians are a minority their stories should be valid. The terminology employed by the CTUIR concerning the scientific approach to Kennewick Man is of the “desecration” and “dissection” sort. Whereas burial seems to be a “debilitation” and a “disservice” to scientific efforts to learn from skeletal remains about “diet, disease, trauma and… gene flow in a population” (Zimmerman, 2005:266) These two perceptions stand in stark contrast.
David Hurst Thomas brings up an interesting case in Skull Wars. In 1992, when the American Museum of Natural History chose to extend NAGPRA to Greenland with the burial of Eskimo skeletons, the local Qaanaaq Eskimos obliged though supposedly as a courtesy to the American and Danish burial guests. The Polar Eskimos’ approach to the deceased differs from “typical” funerary processes. They associate the dead with evil and prefer to be rid of the dead with celerity as opposed to protracted ritual. The accommodations made by the Qaanaaq Eskimos, eerily resembles the awkward use of politically correct terminology. The comfort of those with a pedantic temperament overrides those people P.C. terms supposedly protect, to the extent that it becomes offensive. It is insulting to call poor people “fiscally challenged” or whatever name-concoction currently floats about, snobby circles. Similarly, it’s irresponsible and disrespectful to be oblivious to the religious practices of a certain group while claiming to be acting in a way beneficial to them.
Cohesion of archaeological, non-Native public, and Native American interests is possible only through an educated understanding, trust, cooperation, flexibility and respect – arrows pointed in every which direction. I am for archaeologists who include and consult Native American communities in their research and believe this to be the best way to undertake future projects. Though, Indians and non-Indians alike should be careful to not allow a quest for a past or a perceived past to trump people’s present paths. A bit of a complicated concept, but I think Fritz Scholder’s artwork is a good embodiment of it. I approached the current exhibit of his work at the National Museum of the American Indian, not as a non-Indian or Indian for that matter, but as a painter and a sculptor, myself. I found his 1988 sculpture “Another Carnival” Lion and Man, to be most captivating. Too, I was careful to observe his palette, his painterly brushstroke and the keen attention to line relations and also his cool approach to cats, dog, teeth, text, and feathers. He is an artist – an artist period. I’m convinced after seeing “Another Carnival,” that he is a Great artist. I am a poet too and cringe when people call me a poetess simply because I am a young lady. I am a purebred poet, not a qualified version of a poet, not a poet plus an –ess. And I think it is a misstep to not hear the current-ness of life, that is, to cede to an echo minded mission.
Maria Jagodka
It is only appropriate that the Kennewick Man controversy should be approached with great sensitivity and hesitation. Approached with sensitivity, because this matter is extremely delicate, to say the least. And approached with hesitation because no matter which way this case is ultimately decided either the anthropological and archaeological community, the Native American community, or most probably both will be shaken to their very core. The Kennewick Man ordeal is more than just a custody battle over a pile of bones, it is the question of who are the Native Americans of today and what role does the archaeological community play in this country’s history.
ReplyDeleteThe Kennewick Man, or the “Ancient One” as he is also called, will define who and what the Native Americans are. If the remains are eventually released to the tribal coalition for reburial then the claim of sovereignty of Native Americans throughout the continent will be bolstered by the fact that the courts have recognized Indians as a people whose roots in these lands go as far back as perhaps the original habitation of the Americas. If that becomes the case then the group will be the ones to determine the history of the New World. The narratives that the Native American culture asserts as the origin stories of their people will become the origin stories for all of America and its inhabitants. Since the times of the American Revolution the American people have adopted the Indian persona in order to shrug off their European source. However, this role has been manipulated and twisted throughout history in order to provide a means towards many ends, most of which did not have the benefit of Native Americans at heart. But this does not change the fact that however the future (and past) of Native America is shaped by the outcome of the Ancient One situation, the larger identity of the American people at large will also change as well. If the Ancient One is not returned to the Umatilla and co-plaintiffs for reburial then the current identity of Native Americans will be seriously undermined in their own communities and culture. Perhaps the younger generations of Indians who are constantly dealing with the issues of assimilation and isolation will be thrown for a whirl if it is decided that the ancient origins of their people in this land, of which they have long been taught, is not acknowledged by American society at large. Many other groups who have found themselves in the midst of the American “melting pot” have suffered extreme crises of identity that eventually led to the weakening of their tradition and culture. The difference between these groups and the Native Americans is that it could be said that the “melting pot” found itself in the midst of the Native Americans. When considering the Ancient One, one must consider what will be lost within the Native American community, as well as the general American community, if the remains are not eventually given back to the Native American people.
On the other hand, the American people as a whole have a right to know their history, or at least as that history pertains to the land. With the Kennewick Man findings, archaeologists and anthropologists have been given a unique and rare insight into this country’s past. If they are not allowed to continue their research on this 9,000+ year old skeleton, then their scientific authority and validity will be thrown into question. Ultimately, I have to agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that allows anthropologists to continue their study of the remains. I am extremely sympathetic with Native Americans’ plight and apprehension. Many other cultures have been forced to reassess their core beliefs in the face of modern science. Much of the information about human migration to the Americas directly contradicts the honored and sacred origin stories of native peoples. Perhaps there is some way that these two things can be reconciled. Maybe they can harmoniously remain as distinct “opinions”. As a religious Jew I have also encountered several instances where my religious belief seems to be in conflict with what is accepted as scientific fact; however, Jews have been coping with this issue for centuries. Native Americans have only been confronted with such monumental issues rather recently. I cannot pretend to understand what they are going through. But it is still my firm belief that history, at least as ancient as the Kennewick Man, belongs to everyone. Since the remains could not be definitively linked with a current group then they should remain in the domain of all people and so should be left to the study of anthropologists.
It is unfortunate how this issue has caused further damage to the relationship of anthropologists and Native American groups. Hopefully, perhaps after further study, the Kennewick Man/ Ancient One will be identified as an ancestor of a specific group or groups and can be buried by those descendants, but until that day I have to side with science.
-Shoshana Schoenfeld
Kennewick Man's discovery and the fight for his reburial illustrates the tension between the modernity of Native American communities and their prehistorical past too often ignored. Through centuries of massacres and forced but only partial assimilation, Native Americans have struggled to maintain their culture and history in an often hostile environment which would seek to destroy it or appropriate it. Kennewick Man is a symbol of anti-assimilationism within the Native American community; those who would seek to rebury him as an ancestor reject the scientific community's priorities as subservient to the preservation of Native American rights and identities. This entitlement to the remains is based in spirituality that is both crucial to the stereotype of Native Americans in popular culture and a crucial part of the anachronistic image of the Indian as one stuck between the modern world and his glorious, but doomed, past. The "right" or most sensitive thing to have done certainly would have been to return Kennewick man to those who identify him as their own ancestor, but then again the best thing European colonizers could do for Native Americans as a whole is probably to go back to Europe.
ReplyDeleteRachel Wagner
At the time of the Kennewick Man Episode, those of us who cared about such things -and there were clearly many- watched in grim fascination as the events played out in the press and on TV. Front page of the Times. 60 Minutes. Stephen Jay Gould, a Cambridge MA resident and likely Red Sox fan became a hometown hero through his Columbia education and monthly column in Natural History, the magazine of the AMNH. The events played out against the political landscape of the time when the Republicans/Evangelical Christians/Anti-Evolutionists were a vocally viral force, and the Clintons were being witch hunted and spit roasted daily. It is rumored that when the Army Corps of Engineers bulldozed in and forever buried the site where the Ancient One was found under scandalous tons of rock and rubble, that the order came from the White House itself. Kennewick Man became the Watergate of North American archaeology.
ReplyDeleteThe remains of Kennewick Man are being held at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington until they are identified as ancestral to one of the current Indian tribes and handed over to them for reburial. The innate catch 22 assures that the bones, which “belong” to the Army Corps of Engineers until further notice, will never be reburied because they aren’t a match to any of the claimants, including all the Indian tribes, the Pacific Islanders, the Asatru and rag-tag others who have claimed them. The bones need to be examined by our own Ralph Holloway, which will never happen. NAGPRA has succeeded in making the Indian creation stories -the basis of the claims of most of the tribes- which are as factual as any other creationist credos, which is to say not at all- the legal center of the mess, and by doing so has virtually ensured that the remains will never be claimed.
From here, it isn’t much of a stretch to imagine the bones of the Ancient Ones coming to rest in a vast governmental storage facility, sometime in the not too distant future, not far from the Ark of the Covenant.
Sylvia Calabrese
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat are archeologists striving towards? Will they not be content into they know every detail about every organism that has ever walked this country?
ReplyDeleteI understand that we have to know about the people who have occupied this country before us, but the search for this knowledge should be within reason. There should be a fundamental respect for the dead. Consider how, despite digging up thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of skeletons, archeologists still are not sure when or how the first Americans arrived. The "Kennewick Man" proves that scientists do not even know who the first Americans may have been. Despite the thousands of glorified grave robberies. The respect we may possibly gain for the first Americans in digging up in analyzing dead bodies, even those as unique as the "Kennewick Man" does not make up for the tremendous disrespect for their descendants in digging up the graves up their forefathers.
As Thomas notes, "'a treaty is not a grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them" (p. 235). This should be the standard. Those with sovereignty over a given area should have final say over decisions which they have not ceded control over. The Umatilla wish for the "Kennewick Man" to be reburied and it should be done.
Besides public sentiment for the further study of the "Kennewick Man" is fueled by people like Chatters who deceives the public into thinking that the caucasoid "Kennewick Man" is Caucasian and therefore a European who may have been typical of the first occupiers of America (Mann, 170-1). This would wipe out an unbelievable amount of White guilt. But while White guilt does take a substantial psychological toil on millions of Americans, a remedy, in a bias study, is not sufficient reason for subverting the little sovereignty the Umatilla have left.
D. Omavi Harshaw
I don't mean to take the discussion to far from the readings, but I'm struck by how the Kennewick Man debate relates to the larger issue of the ethical stakes of knowledge. The schism between faith and reason has only deepened since the Enlightenment, especially since science in the 20th and 21st century has challenged our moral limits in a way that makes Galileo look like Dennis the Menace. There is, of course, no easy compromise between tradition and knowledge. Both faith and reason are irreconcilable ideologies, dogmatically bound to their worldviews and unwilling to take second priority to the other in the race of humanity.
ReplyDeleteAll knowledge comes with a price. There is no way to properly justify backing either corner of the ring. If you evaluate the situation in terms of utility (more people will benefit from x scientific knowledge), you've used an analytic framework that contains an intrinsic "rational" bias. If you evaluate the situation in terms of cultural respect (the most important thing is that x culture upholds their traditions without interference from the scientific community), you're standing in the way of some potentially very useful knowledge.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic about the standoff between these opposing forces. Or maybe I just can't imagine what a compromise would look like. Is there a middle ground between respect for tradition and respect for new ideas?
Jacob E. Brunner
The Bonnichsen et. al. v. U.S. revealed the shortcomings of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, (NAGPRA) and the clash of interpretations surrounding it. Firstly, I want to stress the difficulty that I had in approaching this issue because I found myself agreeing with aspects of conflicting arguments. I will make no bold claim to a solution, however, I will explore the issues from two perspectives: the legal perspective and the anthropological perspective, which are, ultimately, matters of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteContrary to the manner the mass media portrayed this case, this was not purely a ‘culture versus science’ matter; rather, it was a clash of interpretations of NAGPRA, in which culture and science played a significant role in shaping perspectives. Under NAGPRA, the Corps of Engineers (COE) perceived a legal obligation to return the remains of Kennwick Man to American Indians. Owsley and Jantz summarize the problem, in their view, with this action: “It was… haste repatriation [on the part of the COE] and [a] lack of reasoned and orderly protocol, combined with uncompromising resistance to scientific concerns” (570). David and Jantz argue that NAGPRA calls for the repatriation of remains to “lineal descendants” and the remains of Kennewick Man cannot be empirically traced to modern Native American tribes; therefore the repatriation of the remains was a mistake. It is true that the “lineal descendants” component is found within NAGPRA. Legally, then, this is a strong argument, and I can see how the ruling favored the plaintiffs. However, what if NAGPRA is flawed? As Hurst brings up in Skull Wars, “NAGPRA is predicated on the argument that archaeologists can often identify ancient antecedents of contemporary Indian tribes” (232).
The media, further, portrayed the Native American argument to have originated from a fear of losing sovereignty and ‘claims to the land.’ This matter, however, did not affect their sovereignty and would not have affected previous treaties. Rather, Native Americans were arguing that, in their interpretation, the seizing of the remains was “undercutting a major intention of the NAGPRA” (Zimmerman 265). From an anthropological perspective, I agree with Zimmerman that this seems to be a form of “scientific colonialism” (265) that is marginalizing and deeming Native American oral traditions as “worthless to anyone but them” (269). This is where my conflict arises, however. I am a cultural relativist, and, yet, I feel that boundaries of moderation should be put in place; in other words, there a boundary of protection exists, so that, for instance polygamy (Reynold v. U.S.) is not protected along with the practice of circumcision. Nevertheless, this is an issue of burial, which is within the boundaries of moderation. Indeed, Congress passed legislation (NAGPRA) to protect Native American graves. If I must choose, I think I will have to err on the side of repatriation because of NAGPRA’s failure to address the issue of affiliation despite the absence of empirical evidence establishing “lineal descent.” Nevertheless, discourse and cooperation needs to persist.
Michelle Rosales
I know this is late, as I was sick and lost track of dates and assignments. However, I'd still like to respond with my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteThe NAGPRA agreement requires that organizations receiving federal funding document any Native American human remains or cultural items that they have in their collections publicly, so that federally recognized tribes can claim their items for repatriation. Any collection not receiving federal funding is not included, and any non-recognized tribe is not eligible. However, another point of the NAGPRA decision was that any remains found on tribal property were to be repatriated to a tribe that could prove lineal descent or affiliation.
The Umatilla are a very unique case, when it comes to land rights and affiliation; it is this fact that makes the case of the "Kennewick Man"/"Ancient One" so strange. The Umatilla signed several treaties with the United States government relinquishing their land, but fully maintained their hunting rights and religious/spiritual rights on the land that they ceded to the government. As the remains in question were found on government property - by the Army Corps of Engineers - that once belonged to the people of the Umatilla tribe, then the "Ancient One" ought to return to the tribe if his remains can be proven to be an ancestor of that tribe. However, because physical anthropologists working with the bones failed to work directly with the tribe, reporting first to the media, it has become a very charged debate.
Many public figures argue that the remains do not phenotypically appear to be linked with the Umatilla tribe, so why should they be involved at all? However, phenotypes are not the only determining factor of NAGPRA approved affiliation. Essentially, the public and news media have seized on the word caucasoid and made the association with caucasian; however, the structure of the bones of the body cannot be a determinant of skin color or of tribal affiliation.
I would argue that more research is needed in any case. When the bones were seized by the Army Corps of Engineers, that simply made matters worse. The fact that the Corps then filled over the area in which the remains were found on the riverbank makes it seem as though they are against scientific research altogether. The fact that it is extremely difficult to make any type of affiliation with modern tribes from ancient remains further complicates the matter. If the remains were allowed to be tested however, there are procedures that could be performed in an attempt to link them with the extant tribal members. Perhaps, following the example of the Brazilian lab under the direction of Dr. Pena, work with mitochondrial DNA could be attempted. However, the team working with "Kennewick Man" should have immediately entered into dialogue with the members of extant Native American tribes in the area rather than going to the media with a half-baked story; that is one thing that is certainly true.
Halley Hair
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had been leaning towards siding with the archaeologists against the reburial of Kennewick Man’s remains until I came across modern-day Umatilla Armand Minthorn’s position paper on the subject. Some interesting statements Minthorn made about his own people and culture made me look at facts brought up in the accounts of Thomas, Zimmerman, and Owsley & Jantz in a completely different light. Thomas mentions both Zimmerman and Owsley in his Skull Wars; Owsley is introduced with a quote discussing “information that the American public has a right to know,” while Zimmerman is mentioned in the context of explaining that “looters had vandalized [a] site, and that he was digging to protect the past” (Thomas xxvi, Thomas 210). Both are archaeologists, but Zimmerman is a self-professed Native American sympathizer while Owsley is a scientist first and foremost with the interest of the public at large at heart. This is why their answers to the prompt question “Should the remains of Kennewick Man have been reburied?” are completely opposite. Yet even this query can be reduced to the basic question of who has the right to decide what should be done with the remains in the first place: archaeologists, the non-Native public, or Native Americans themselves? I wonder if these varying interests can ever be reconciled enough to make an appropriate and fair decision in the case. A more comprehensive question surrounding this debate—which Thomas’ Skull Wars sets forth in its Prologue—in light of sobering fact becomes: ““Is the archaeological record a nonrenewable resource to be held in trust for future generations? Or does each of the world’s cultures and its descendents own the material remains of their own pasts and the exclusive rights to their interpretation?” (Thomas xxxvii).
ReplyDeleteThis already complicated question is further convoluted in this instance by the fact that Kennewick man’s tribal lineage and even race are still contested. Since the 1990 NAGPRA seems to allow only modern-day tribes with verified cultural affiliation with the remains to request repatriation and reburial, the question is not only convoluted—but also potentially unanswerable in the case of Kennewick Man. Cultural affiliation should be determined by many different types of information: “geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, linguistic, folkloric, oral tradition, historical, and expert opinion” (Thomas 226). Native Americans apparently have a lot of ways to make their case for repatriation, yet the problem with this system is that “archaeologists often have a central role in determining cultural affiliation” and therefore have much control over what kind of evidence is accepted in court (Thomas 233). In a 1901 Supreme Court decision, tribal affiliation was agreed to be determined by 1) race, 2) community, 3) government, and 4) territory (Thomas 229). Since Kennewick man’s race is contested and his community and government are no longer in existence—the determining factor should be the territory in which the remains were found. As Minthorn’s position paper clearly states: “My tribe has ties to this individual because he was uncovered in our traditional homeland.” I believe that this is the greatest piece of evidence in favor of reburial. Yet Zimmerman bemoans the courts’ “[denial of] oral tradition’s validity” in particular as evidence in determining tribal affiliation (Zimmerman 265, 269). Therefore Zimmerman might accept the oral tradition that “[the Umatilla] have been part of [that] land since the beginning of time”—not even simply the 9,000 years since Kennewick Man’s era—as evidence to be considered. Yet although I sympathize with the Umatilla like Zimmerman, I would not go so far as to believe this statement. Even Owsley, however, agrees that Kennewick Man could be considered to be Native American simply for the fact that he “predates European contact” (Owsley 569). I, therefore, think of my viewpoint as a reconciliation of Zimmerman and Owsley’s. While Zimmerman’s main points are intensely spiritual (the Native American belief that the afterlife journey of the soul is unable to continue until reburial), Owsley’s are intensely scientific (the government has no right to help the Native Americans deny the public truths about the collective nation’s past). My feelings on the matter lie somewhere between Zimmerman’s spirit and Owsley’s science; I believe that archaeology is important but that ethics require us to take more notice of its “human component”—and acknowledge a basic respect for the right of the dead to rest in peace (Thomas 218). Minthorn explains: “We have a responsibility to protect all human burials, regardless of race.” Whether Kennewick Man looked more like Patrick Stewart (as Chatters suggested) or Chief Blackhawk during his life makes no difference to the Umatilla—and I could not agree more.
-Jenny Johnson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete