ExTheist

To John Page: The fact Indians killed other Indians should be no justification for continuing this country's violence against them. My opinion has nothing to do with religion, and it is indeed based on emotions and the need to let the Native Americans keep something of their culture. Just as I cannot stomach religion being used to justify all sorts of crimes and atrocities, I think it is wrong to justify our actions in the name of science. The cause of science (searching for answers) will not be served by just rolling over people in its name.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: ExTheist ]</p>

Spoke

Sorry about the links. Here is the original link on <a href="http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/" target="_blank">Kennewick Man</a>.

Here's a <a href="http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/kennman.html"" target="_blank">brief from the Umatilla tribes</a> explaining their reasons for wanting to halt study of Kennewick Man. Note the religious justifications. (In view of those justifications, I'm not sure that I can agree with you, livius drusus, that this is just a property rights issue.)

My question is still: How far back should the right to prevent study of remains go? If a similar policy were applied in Africa, how would that affect our study of human evolution?

I don't think the fact that a bunch of ignorant racists are trying to use Kennewick Man for their own purposes ought to change things. Facts are facts, and scientists ought to be able to study them and let the chips fall where they may. Political correctness (a form of religion in itself?) should not trump science, either.

As for the genocide of Native Americans by European interlopers, I will concede the point. On the other hand, there were plenty of attempts by various Native American tribes to commit genocide upon other tribes, and upon Europeans in the New World. In fact, Indians attempted genocide on white colonists in North America before white colonists ever returned the favor. (First, probably, at the "lost" Roanoake colony, and then less successfully at the Jamestown colony.) It just turns out that European colonists were better at genocide than the Native Americans were. They had more genocidal tools at their disposal (including European germs). Plenty more examples upon request.

So while I'll concede the attempts at genocide against Native Americans, the feeling was apparently mutual, and so I'm not sure I will necessarily concede the moral high ground to Native groups.

livius drusus

Spoke, the tribes (and again, it's not just Umatillas, but a joint claim filed by 5 different groups) can have as many religious reasons as they want. The DOI, however, has a whole other list of criteria for repatriation of remains. Hence my point about property rights. Right of possession/alientation is the legal foundation of NAGPRA, not NA religion.

Spoke

Point taken, livius drusus; the act is founded upon ownership concepts, though I think it stretches those concepts. If I tried to make a legal claim of ownership over a 9K-year-old skeleton which might be my ancestor, I'd be laughed out of court. And I think it's obvious that the real concerns of the tribes are firstly and foremostly political and secondarily religious.

But the question is still on the table. Should there be some sort of time limit? I mean, carrying the law to its logical extreme, the tribes could stop excavation of a shrew-like creature from the Cretaceous because it might be a remote ancestor.

Was the law really intended to cover 9,000-year-old remains, or is that perhaps a hypothetical which didn't occur to the drafters? Should it cover remains that ancient?

And even if you conclude the tribes have a moral and legal right to prevent scientific study, should they exercise that right, where to do so prevents the advancement of scientific learning?

John Page

Exthe:

Two comments if I may:

1. I don't think any actions are justified or dejustified in the name of science - science is a collection of methods and disciplines, not a cause. I think we agree on this.
2. In the case of Kennewick Man, I see no scientific basis for your assertion that people are being "rolled over" in science's name - quite the opposite, a concerted attempt is being made to establish scientific truths and this effort is being opposed by parties with a self-serving interest in maintaining that all ancient remains on their tribal lands must, therefore, be treated as their ancestors.

Cheers.

Autonemesis

As far back as living people can identify remains by name and lineage. If you can do that, then it's a cemetery. Otherwise, it's an archaeological site. That's what I would argue, were I involved.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

DarkDruid

Just an irrelivent side note... the Kennewick Man looks alot like Captian Picard.

lpetrich

I don't know what you people think, but if my main claim to fame was that my ancestors had been living in North America centuries before the large majority of its current ancestors, I'd treat those remains as valuable relics and have them interred in mausoleums. With scientists invited to study them.

One can learn clues on what he/she liked to eat, what he/she died of, how long he/she had lived, and so forth.

JohnR

<a href="http://www.kennewick-man.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kennewick-man.com/</A>
I live 10 miles upriver where they found Kennewick man. I agree he is old enough that he should be studied. But the native Americans have a longer sense of community than we do. They talk of 4 or 5 hundred years ago as though they were 10 years ago. While now they do bury their dead in cemeteries that was not always the case.
I worked with the Chief of the Wannapums and he asked what would happen if these people walked into a white man's cemetery and started digging. That is basically how they feel despite the lawyers putting all the religious and spiritual spin on things. Funny thing is when I worked with him he was a Electrical Forman, now this cultural heritage stuff is so important he is a Director of Cultural Heritage.

Spoke

Not a good argument, in my opinion. After all, archaeologists dig up ancient European remains all the time. (And much younger remains than those we are discussing here.)

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Spoke ]</p>