Last Word On Kennewick Man?

Archaeology ^ | 11-17-2002

[Spunky]

LAST WORD ON KENNEWICK MAN?

I wished it was but it isn't.

I am from the Kennewick area and it isn't over yet.

Oct. 29, 2002
NW tribes appealing Kennewick Man ruling

By the Herald staff Four Northwest tribes have appealed a federal District Court ruling in the Kennewick Man case, making good on promises to challenge an opinion that allows continued study of the 9,000-year-old remains.

The appeal was filed late last week by Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama and Colville lawyers and made public Monday. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center

P.S. Check out my profile page.

[blam]

I agree with what you have said, the argument is that these are not American Indians/Native Americans.
Chatters, in his book, says that there are not any skeletons in North America older than 6,000 years old that can be classified as American Indian/Native American. All the skeletons older than 6,000 years old are someone entirely different.

Now, I have discussed this with a FReeper Native American who basically said, "who-ever is found in the skeleton record, that's us." (I suppose he could be correct if he can accept that KM is his ancestor, huh?)

[blam]

Tom McClelland of Richland shows the skull casting of Kennewick Man. He and anthropologist Jim Chatters used to re-create the facial features of the 9,200-year-old discovery. Herald/André Ranieri

[Hemlock]

Holy sh*t, that could be my brother.

[blam]

Calico: A 200,000-Year Old Site In The Americas?

[willyone]

Nine thousand or so years from now what would I care? We are talking pre history here. I personally doubt that in another nine thousand years there will be any museums to be displaying anything.

[willyone]

This is high stakes stuff with all kinds of most favored treatment riding on it. This could result in whites being able to have casinos.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[Spunky]

Holy sh*t, that could be my brother.

I think your brother is at posting #28 and #29. ;-)

[WFTR]

I should have included more of the original quote from the post to which I was responding. In it, this gentleman had said:

We can't silently condone desecration of Indian graves and keep the bones of people's known kin on museum shelves and expect the general populace to see living Native Americans as fellow beings.

I think we agree on all points here. I'll throw them out and see where we fall.

In the case of Kennewick Man, the evidence doesn't support his being a cultural or genetic ancestor of the modern American Indian/Native American. Therefore, the modern American Indian/Native American cannot claim a right of refusal on the study or display of Kennewick Man.

In the case of more modern skeletons, we should respect the fact that modern tribes would feel some disrespect if we displayed the remains of their ancestors. For instance, the Anasazi are essentially the ancestors both genetically and culturally of the modern Pueblo and Navaho tribes and display of their remains may be seen as disrespectful to these people.

I would even lean somewhat towards the cultural "ancestry" being more important in most of these cases. I don't have any ancestors who sailed on the Mayflower, but I would have some problem with those people being dug up and displayed. On the other hand, someone excavating in the British Isles might find the bones of one of my direct ancient ancestors. However, because I have no cultural connection to the pagan Irish or English culture, I wouldn't have a problem with that display.

WFTR
Bill

[Denver Ditdat]

I think many people would find it unseemly to dig them up now, study them, and display their bones in museums.

While I suspect that this may be unusual, it's not unheard of. Here's a snippet from a page listing public tours available in the Colonial Williamsburg area:

GUIDED LOCAL TOURS provided by Maximum Guided Tours Williamsburg, VA

Jamestown Island and Jamestown Settlement - 4 hours

At Jamestown Island archaeologists are still uncovering the site of the first permanent English speaking settlement. Also, at this site the date of 1619 is profound. The first African-Americans arrived on the shores of the New World, and the first representative government was formed. The foundations of many important buildings remain. Of particular interest are the ruins of the church where Pocahontas was baptized and married, the tomb of a knight, and the skeleton of a settler who was buried within the fort in 1608. His bones and thousands of other artifacts can be viewed in the museum. At Jamestown Settlement the island history comes alive. The fort of 1610 is reconstructed according to John Smith's records and daily life within it is recreated. You may board one of the 3 ships which are replicas of those which brought the settlers here in 1607. The Susan Constant may well be the most accurately represented ship of the 1600's in the world. An Indian village has been recreated to exemplify a village of the Powhatan Indians living in the area in the 1600's. Observe the "Indians" perform the tasks of their everyday lives.

PRICES $25.00 per person. Includes guide service admission, and transportation

[lizma]

How would you like it if somebody dug up your parents and displayed them in a museum?

I think the point here is that it wouldn't be your parents but the people who lived in the house next door to your parents and lived several thousand years before they they did.

This more about Native Americans not wanting to give up "we were here first" status.

[WFTR]

I still have reservations about the whole thing, but I appreciate your adding substantive information to the discussion. You've made a good find.

[SauronOfMordor]

In my opinion, studies could still be done if there was a legitimate practical or academic reason for them, but the remains should be buried decently again when the study is complete.

The problem is that re-burying the skeleton will cause it to be lost to future researchers who will have far more sophisticated techniques of analysis. The preference among researchers would be to put it in a sealed case to preserve it for the future

The "connection" between a skeleton and presently-living people decreases with age. Past a couple-thousand years it is tenuous at best.

[SunkenCiv]

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Smokin' Joe]

When the excavations in St. Mary's City, Maryland revealed a couple of lead lined caskets in the chapel floor, and the caskets were shown being opened on National TV, the well preserved pubic hair of a long dead female relative was displayed for the world to behold.

Knowing that burial in a crypt in the church was reserved for the powerful and devout (Catholic in this case), I can only be aghast at what my relative would have thought about being displayed nude in death for millions of viewers. This would have been an unthinkable horror in life for her, no doubt.

While there are certainly those who are all too willing to overreact to such treatment of the deceased (who may or may not be relatives) based on assumed tribal affiliations, these graves were doubtlessly docuented somewhere in church or other records, and not nameless beings. For those whose names cannot be documented, their racial/tribal affiliations may be apparent by other means, historical or archaeological, and they should be accorded appropriate respect.

While that takes some study, that study can be accomplished without a three-ringed circus, if everyone involved will permit the identification of that affiliation.

The essential issue here was one of permiting enough study to establish any relationship with existing tribal groups, or to demonstrate that no such relationship existed, and that others were here as well at that time.

Sensationalistic displays of those remains reek of sideshow barkers trying to hawk those bones for grant money.