Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 05-12-2003, 07:26 AM

Yesterday on BookTV there was a fascinating program about National Museum of Natural History forensic scientist Douglas Owsley, and a new book about his work written by Jeff Benedict. The book is called No Bone Unturned : The Adventures of a Top Smithsonian Forensic Scientist and the Legal Battle for America's Oldest Skeletons. A large part of the program consisted of Owsley discussing the case of the nearly 10,000 year old Kennewick Man cranium. To make a long story short, the Kennewick Man skull and the other earliest crania such as Spirit Cave, based on detailed examination of craniofacial morphology and comparison to other population samples, are not closely related to any known Native American population. I had read about this long ago, but Owsley's side by side comparisons oin the TV program drove the point home very forcefully. Owlsey also makes the point that Kennewick Man is not an anamoly, but that all of the earliest crania appear to be not at all closely related to extant Native American populations, and extant Native Americans may represent a slightly later migration. Owsley is quoted in 1997 a saying:

Quote:

Owsley, a nationally recognized authority in this field, has examined some of the evidence for early Caucasoid presence in the Americas and believes it is fairly convincing. "There have been seven well-preserved skeletons that are securely dated to 8,000 years or older," Owsley said. Two have been reburied at the insistence of American Indian groups who claimed the remains were of their ancestors. "When you look at the craniofacial morphology of the five that are still accessible, they are certainly very different from today's Native Americans," Owsley said. "They are a whole lot different from contemporary Native Americans." Perhaps the most intensively examined of the skeletons is that of a man who died about 9,400 years ago and was laid to rest in Spirit Cave, Nev. His remains were discovered in 1940 but their age was not determined until last year. The man's head and shoulder were mummified, preserving much of the skin in that area. He was wearing moccasins and was wrapped in woven fabric.

Owsley recently examined the remains in great detail and, in his report to the Nevada State Museum, where the skeleton is housed, said, "It does have a 'European' or 'archaic Caucasoid' look because morphometrically it is most similar to the Ainu from Japan and a medieval period Norse population."

Still, Owsley cautioned, this does not mean the man's ancestors were from Europe. "I'm reluctant to say he's a white guy, but he's certainly very different from modern Asians and Native Americans," Owsley said. One possibility, he speculated, is that an ancient proto-caucasoid population lived in northern Asia and offshoots from it moved east to Japan and across the land bridge to the Americas.

source

Unfortunately, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) is Kennewick and otehr skulls from being studied. The assumption here, if I understand correctly, is that all pre-Columbian American bones are assumed to be Native American, so they must be immediately 'repatriated' to NA tribes. The problem is that this assumption of relatedness has been seriously undermined, and there is to date no evidence at all that Kennewick is in any way culturally or genetically affiliated with the modern tribes which are demanding exclusive rights to it. And since these skulls are rare as hens teeth and extremely important for understanding the prehistory of the americas, the NAGPRA may forever stand in the way of the scientific study of early American populations.

Patrick

roxrkool · 05-12-2003, 08:30 AM

Yes, I read about this some years back and I found it extremely fascinating. I didn't know, however, that other similar skeletons had been found - I thought it was just the Kennewick man. Interesting!

Reminds me of the caucasian people found in China wearing tartans... only they weren't quite as old as the ones found here.

Babylon Sister · 05-12-2003, 11:34 AM

As an archeologist, I think this law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to some sort of cosmic "guilt".

It is my opinion that NAGPRA sets a very dangerous precedent by allowing one group of people to dictate what science can study.

I also think NAGPRA raises some interesting Church and State issues.

None of these opinions makes me very popular with some of my colleagues who have a bit more romantic view of the past than I do.

lpetrich · 05-12-2003, 02:40 PM

I agree with Babylon Sister. And I really must say that if my main claim to fame was having ancestors who have lived here for several centuries, I'd want those bones put in a mausoleum and and I'd invite paleoanthropologists to study them to see what they can learn. Reburial is just plain dumb.

id.s · 05-14-2003, 08:47 AM

The natives were a society that views death and ceremony differently than our pragmatic approach. If you don't understand it, at least show some respect for their beliefs. Whether it is a caucasian or not is irrelevant. If it was found on there land then it should have all the respect that we can give it. Our history for respecting others cultures is abhorrant at best, so we feel the obligation to ourselves to prove that someone was here before the natives ( based in herd bigotry-you stole land from whitey).
So since we have no morals or respect for the past and we make it to suit our pedagogy, therefore I can tell you that here in Canada we found one too- but on the other side of the continent!
On the Ottawa river in a cave on an island near Pembroke there he was. The natives tried to prevent them from testing it but of course the demands of science must be met. My draw on it is that either a group came across the Bering sea and spread out south of the glaciers, or they came across the frozen Atlantic (Following food) and spread west. Either way,(Or both) is irrelevant: how we treat people and their beliefs is a world issue.(Afghans& Iraq)

ps418 · 05-14-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

id.s:
The natives were a society that views death and ceremony differently than our pragmatic approach. If you don't understand it, at least show some respect for their beliefs.

Why should anyone respect such beliefs? I gladly show respect for beliefs that are worthy of respect, but not out of some general principle that one should respect the beliefs of others. I especially can not respect a group's claim to sole ownership of skeletal remains under NAGRA when there is no evidence at all for any kind of relationship, geneological or cultural, and nor could I respect a position that serves only limit knowledge of history.

Quote:

id.s:
Our history for respecting others cultures is abhorrant at best, so we feel the obligation to ourselves to prove that someone was here before the natives ( based in herd bigotry-you stole land from whitey).

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that someone felt obliged to find that the earliest Americans were caucasian in order to ameliorate some sort of ancestral guilt, therefore someone found that the earliest American crania were caucasoid? You're not suggesting that, are you? I for one feel no obligation whatsoever to find that a caucasoid population was the earliest to America, that's just happens to be what the evidence shows.

Patrick

id.s · 05-14-2003, 01:09 PM

You said it -All for 1 & 1 for all .Why 1 is relevant is because he speaks for many. As an individual your thoughts are significant to yourself, so are you really willing to admit this is only your opinion? I think not. You have the voice of the silent majority; whenever you think of a threat to your ideals in a priveleged white male pedagogy, it has instructed you to even overlook the rights of race, sex as well as the indigenous peoples of the world.
ps418 -quote -Why should anyone respect such beliefs? I gladly show respect for beliefs that are worthy of respect, but not out of some general principle that one should respect the beliefs of others.
id.s-You are not a risk taker but a "Free rider" and that is why my comments agitate you. You have no culture of your own so you wish to delineate the line between race and custom as we all homogenize into 1 big happy family with 1 common trait- we're all the same- then we'll get along. I have tread on your comfort zone in an attempt to help you see beyond dominant pedagogy, but all you can tell me is that there is no room for variety in this world, only paternalistic hierarchy
ps418-quote ; I especially can not respect a group's claim to sole ownership of skeletal remains under NAGRA when there is no evidence at all for any kind of relationship, geneological or cultural, and nor could I respect a position that serves only limit knowledge of history.
id.s- What I'm saying is find the compromise point of respecting others wishes. Don't force your biased will on a serious cultural difference. Its by trivializing these incidents that we make "others" insignificant. Surely we can wait and find another skeleton thats not on private Native land.
quote-I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that someone felt obliged to find that the earliest Americans were caucasian in order to ameliorate some sort of ancestral guilt, therefore someone found that the earliest American crania were caucasoid?
id.s-No, what I'm saying is that the natural way people think is to ameliorate themselves of all blame just because they weren't there, or it's for the sake of science or history! Instead of hearing the pain in a peoples heart and voice all you think of is science and history. We are all culpable for what we believe, or this web site wouldn't exist. We are here to somehow discern the truth behind the rhetoric of such constructs as the CNN-WEB- Pentagon pool.In other words, the more exposure to other thoughts, the more information we can source. Ask yourself "Why did I feel this way?(slighted?)-- What is it that I am missing?(information?)"Don't show confusion first but try for understanding. Next time a native says "White man took my land" try to empathise with his pain, don't trivialize it with a convenient maxim. We killed 90% of his people,so try to be real. Its like talking to a brick wall :banghead:

ps418 · 05-14-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by id.s
id.s-You are not a risk taker but a "Free rider" and that is why my comments agitate you.

You have an over-active imagination. I'm not at all agitated.

Quote:

You have no culture of your own. . .

WTF? Gosh, if I disagree with the wisdom of keeping Kennewick Man from being studied, I must have no culture? You crack me up id.s!

Quote:

. . . so you wish to delineate the line between race and custom as we all homogenize into 1 big happy family with 1 common trait- we're all the same- then we'll get along. I have tread on your comfort zone in an attempt to help you see beyond dominant pedagogy, but all you can tell me is that there is no room for variety in this world, only paternalistic hierarchy

A really, really overactive imagination!

Please, spare me the ignorant blather about "paternalistic heirarchy" and "dominant pedagogy" -- its hilarious, true, but not really relevant.

Quote:

Ask yourself "Why did I feel this way?(slighted?)-- What is it that I am missing?(information?)"

Ask yourself: "Why do I make such sweeping and erroneous inferences about the thoughts, emotions and culture of other people, based on a few paragraphs of text?"

Quote:

Don't show confusion first but try for understanding. Next time a native says "White man took my land" try to empathise with his pain, don't trivialize it with a convenient maxim. We killed 90% of his people,so try to be real. Its like talking to a brick wall :banghead:

Judging from your response, you may have banged your head one too many times. The thread has nothing to do with the righteousness of the treatment of native americans (which was despicable), but whether NAGPRA should or does entitle any one tribe to exclusive rights to Kennewick Man, and regardless of NAGPRA whether it is a good decision. Apparently you'd rather speculate about my motives, my emotions, my culture, my support for paternalistic heirarchy (WTF?), the past treatment of Native Americans, and so on.

Patrick

id.s · 05-14-2003, 04:52 PM

Truth hurts sfb.

Deadbeat · 05-15-2003, 03:32 PM

Careful, Patrick. If you disagree with him, he'll accuse you of being racist, misogynistic, and still living with your parents.

05-14-2003, 08:47 AM	#5
id.s Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: VICTORIA B. C. CANADA Posts: 206	native rights The natives were a society that views death and ceremony differently than our pragmatic approach. If you don't understand it, at least show some respect for their beliefs. Whether it is a caucasian or not is irrelevant. If it was found on there land then it should have all the respect that we can give it. Our history for respecting others cultures is abhorrant at best, so we feel the obligation to ourselves to prove that someone was here before the natives ( based in herd bigotry-you stole land from whitey). So since we have no morals or respect for the past and we make it to suit our pedagogy, therefore I can tell you that here in Canada we found one too- but on the other side of the continent! On the Ottawa river in a cave on an island near Pembroke there he was. The natives tried to prevent them from testing it but of course the demands of science must be met. My draw on it is that either a group came across the Bering sea and spread out south of the glaciers, or they came across the frozen Atlantic (Following food) and spread west. Either way,(Or both) is irrelevant: how we treat people and their beliefs is a world issue.(Afghans& Iraq)

05-14-2003, 01:09 PM	#7
id.s Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: VICTORIA B. C. CANADA Posts: 206	yes You said it -All for 1 & 1 for all .Why 1 is relevant is because he speaks for many. As an individual your thoughts are significant to yourself, so are you really willing to admit this is only your opinion? I think not. You have the voice of the silent majority; whenever you think of a threat to your ideals in a priveleged white male pedagogy, it has instructed you to even overlook the rights of race, sex as well as the indigenous peoples of the world. ps418 -quote -Why should anyone respect such beliefs? I gladly show respect for beliefs that are worthy of respect, but not out of some general principle that one should respect the beliefs of others. id.s-You are not a risk taker but a "Free rider" and that is why my comments agitate you. You have no culture of your own so you wish to delineate the line between race and custom as we all homogenize into 1 big happy family with 1 common trait- we're all the same- then we'll get along. I have tread on your comfort zone in an attempt to help you see beyond dominant pedagogy, but all you can tell me is that there is no room for variety in this world, only paternalistic hierarchy ps418-quote ; I especially can not respect a group's claim to sole ownership of skeletal remains under NAGRA when there is no evidence at all for any kind of relationship, geneological or cultural, and nor could I respect a position that serves only limit knowledge of history. id.s- What I'm saying is find the compromise point of respecting others wishes. Don't force your biased will on a serious cultural difference. Its by trivializing these incidents that we make "others" insignificant. Surely we can wait and find another skeleton thats not on private Native land. quote-I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that someone felt obliged to find that the earliest Americans were caucasian in order to ameliorate some sort of ancestral guilt, therefore someone found that the earliest American crania were caucasoid? id.s-No, what I'm saying is that the natural way people think is to ameliorate themselves of all blame just because they weren't there, or it's for the sake of science or history! Instead of hearing the pain in a peoples heart and voice all you think of is science and history. We are all culpable for what we believe, or this web site wouldn't exist. We are here to somehow discern the truth behind the rhetoric of such constructs as the CNN-WEB- Pentagon pool.In other words, the more exposure to other thoughts, the more information we can source. Ask yourself "Why did I feel this way?(slighted?)-- What is it that I am missing?(information?)"Don't show confusion first but try for understanding. Next time a native says "White man took my land" try to empathise with his pain, don't trivialize it with a convenient maxim. We killed 90% of his people,so try to be real. Its like talking to a brick wall :banghead:

05-14-2003, 04:52 PM	#9
id.s Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: VICTORIA B. C. CANADA Posts: 206	wtf Truth hurts sfb.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2003, 08:30 AM	#2
roxrkool Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 75	Yes, I read about this some years back and I found it extremely fascinating. I didn't know, however, that other similar skeletons had been found - I thought it was just the Kennewick man. Interesting! Reminds me of the caucasian people found in China wearing tartans... only they weren't quite as old as the ones found here.

05-12-2003, 11:34 AM	#3
Babylon Sister Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wyoming Posts: 894	As an archeologist, I think this law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to some sort of cosmic "guilt". It is my opinion that NAGPRA sets a very dangerous precedent by allowing one group of people to dictate what science can study. I also think NAGPRA raises some interesting Church and State issues. None of these opinions makes me very popular with some of my colleagues who have a bit more romantic view of the past than I do.

05-12-2003, 02:40 PM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I agree with Babylon Sister. And I really must say that if my main claim to fame was having ancestors who have lived here for several centuries, I'd want those bones put in a mausoleum and and I'd invite paleoanthropologists to study them to see what they can learn. Reburial is just plain dumb.

05-15-2003, 03:32 PM	#10
Deadbeat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 1,238	Careful, Patrick. If you disagree with him, he'll accuse you of being racist, misogynistic, and still living with your parents.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.