Kennewick Man

[ST88]

Kennewick Man is an almost complete, ancient skeleton that was purportedly found near the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington in 1996. Dating tests put the skeleton at about 7600-7300 BCE. It was a startling find because the cranial structure does not resemble other Native American tribes thought to be in the region at that time, and this is a matter of both scientific and political controversy.

Almost immediately, the skeletal remains of Kennewick man were claimed by several Native American tribes, who demanded that they be returned for proper ceremonial burial according to their religious beliefs. This would effectively end scientific inquiry on the remains. A lawsuit followed, and the remains were seized by the local Conservation Corps until the matter could be settled. In 2002, a judge ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to show that Kennewick man was ethnically Native American, so the remains should not be returned. However, there is a bill in the Senate that would immediately repatriate all remains from all Native American areas, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. If passed, all Native American artifacts would be available for return to the land in which they were found if the tribes who currently occupy the land make the request.

I am curious if Native Americans are a special case because of U.S. collective guilt, or if this is part of a general trend in government to give special dispensation for all religions. Should religious beliefs be allowed to supercede the interests of science where the two conflict?

[turtleguy]

i think it depends on the circumstance. if some one finds some arrowhead or bone on some indian land or something and wanted to study it i would say no. but if someone found like some temple thing and there was some dead saint or priest in it and scientist wanted to remove the body and study it but followers of that dead priest's religion did not want the dead guy to be moved then i would say yes.

[Corvus]

Should religious beliefs be allowed to supercede the interests of science where the two conflict?

What you are asking is which value takes precedence, the value of religion or the value of science. You can probably guess which I value more, as I can probably guess which you value more, but does the fact that we value the thing more mean that it has more value? No, of course not. One method of determining which value should most be respected by a nation, by government or by society is by comparing pragmatic value.

In your example of the unusual skeleton we have the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake versus the appeasement of religious superstitutions that to certain Indian tribes, might mean that a spirit is put to rest or something. To me it seems that giving back the skeleton has more practical significance for the Indians than it does for us to study it. A case might be made for the enriching nature of knowledge, but all I can see coming from it is a few interesting facts in a text book and no change or improvement to anyone's life at all. I am going to write something completely wild and say that in this example, and this example only, religion might take precedence over science. In theory.

[ENIGMA]

In these sorts of cases, I try to look for the happy middle.

For instance, is there something which the scientists can learn from the bones but not from, say, a high-resolution MRI scan of the bones. Carbon dating is probably one such thing, but that has already been done, and I am hard-pressed to think of another.

So ultimately, what I think should be done is run any more tests which require the actual bones, scan the bones, and then send the bones back to whoever has the best claim of being the proper tribe to bury him.

Like I said, a happy middle. Everyone goes home happy except for those who are already pissed, and there isn't much we could do for them anyway.

[ST88]

For instance, is there something which the scientists can learn from the bones but not from, say, a high-resolution MRI scan of the bones. Carbon dating is probably one such thing, but that has already been done, and I am hard-pressed to think of another.

In the article I linked to, one of the scientists says that it would be a shame if another type of analysis were invented in the future that would be perfect for analyzing these remains. I would also like to see the remains available for direct study by others in the future to confirm or perhaps challenge hypotheses that are being formed today.

After all, part of the controversy is that this skeleton does not appear to be ethnically Native American. But since we have almost a cultural tradition that North America was populated with the peoples we see now, we naturally assume that this individual was part of that population.

Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day caucasoid peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither race. Dental characteristics fit Turner's (1983) Sundadont pattern, indicating possible relationship to south Asian peoples.
-- Kennewick Man

So these remains may not even belong to Native Americans in the first place. But because of our cultural assumptions of residency, we like to assume that the land "belongs" to Native Americans, and therefore everything in it does also.

[ST88]

In your example of the unusual skeleton we have the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake versus the appeasement of religious superstitutions that to certain Indian tribes, might mean that a spirit is put to rest or something.

Not so, mon frère. This is not knowledge for its own sake. What we'd like to know, specifically, is what the heck was this guy doing in this location at the time our dating techniques say he was there. According to our historical tradition of the migration of Asiatic peoples over the Bering Strait, this person should not have been there. So what does this mean for North American anthropological history?

To me it seems that giving back the skeleton has more practical significance for the Indians than it does for us to study it.

I would argue that it's of no practical significance at all. It is of spiritual significance only. And because of my bias against all forms of religion, I say piffle. Yes, piffle! The Vatican is allowed to keep stolen relics all it likes because it has no guilt over keeping them. It enriches their trove and power for them to do so. The great European Catholic powers killed people fair and square over them to please God. That, it seems to me, is hoarding with no practical value. But in this case, we are faced with a very important anthropological question to which Kennewick Man might hold the key. And we are allowing him to be stuck back in the ground to rot to nothing before we learn the answer.

[Curious]

I think it is ridiculous that the skeleton should be "returned" to the Native Americans. If I died in America and was found years later what right would they have to demand my body because that is their religion. If there is no evidence that the skeleton is even of their race then there is even less evidence, that while alive, the person shared their religion.

[Corvus]

In your example of the unusual skeleton we have the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake versus the appeasement of religious superstitutions that to certain Indian tribes, might mean that a spirit is put to rest or something.

Not so, mon frère. This is not knowledge for its own sake. What we'd like to know, specifically, is what the heck was this guy doing in this location at the time our dating techniques say he was there. According to our historical tradition of the migration of Asiatic peoples over the Bering Strait, this person should not have been there. So what does this mean for North American anthropological history?

It is an interesting question, mon cher ami, but is the answer pursued for any practical purpose other than filling in the holes in our understanding of history? I think not. Its practical significance seems limited to providing yet another question for anthropologists to pursue, providing more material for text books and another exhibit for a musuem. It is the exploration of things simply for the satisfaction it gives us from the act of knowing. It is indeed the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

And did I really write "superstitutions"?

To me it seems that giving back the skeleton has more practical significance for the Indians than it does for us to study it.

I would argue that it's of no practical significance at all. It is of spiritual significance only. And because of my bias against all forms of religion, I say piffle. Yes, piffle!

I would agree that it is piffle, but this piffle has a believed practical significance to certain American tribes. Never mind that it's practical value relies on something impossible to prove; a spiritual significance as you say.

The Vatican is allowed to keep stolen relics all it likes because it has no guilt over keeping them. It enriches their trove and power for them to do so. The great European Catholic powers killed people fair and square over them to please God. That, it seems to me, is hoarding with no practical value.

Heavens, ST88, you're the last atheist/agnostic I expected to wax angry and bitter about Catholic history. God knows we have enough. What happened?

But in this case, we are faced with a very important anthropological question to which Kennewick Man might hold the key. And we are allowing him to be stuck back in the ground to rot to nothing before we learn the answer.

Well, not yet. Believe me, I sympathise. I too would like to see where this question leads, but I must admit, if no such gap in our knowledge existed, and this topic never came to pass on this forum, the existence of strange hominids in America would only be a pointless bit of obscure trivia for me, if I knew it at all. Possibly you are more of a scientist, and think differently about it than I do, but would you feel differently?

I should also say that the most significant point of all is that the bones probably aren't even Indian. In the interest of debate, I'm ignoring this point entirely. It's more fun that way.

[ST88]

It is an interesting question, mon cher ami, but is the answer pursued for any practical purpose other than filling in the holes in our understanding of history? I think not. Its practical significance seems limited to providing yet another question for anthropologists to pursue, providing more material for text books and another exhibit for a musuem. It is the exploration of things simply for the satisfaction it gives us from the act of knowing. It is indeed the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Firstly, what is wrong with knowledge for its own sake? Isn't that one of the fruits of living? What would you rather have as a human ideal, the pursuit of knowledge or the gratification of an unseen spirit world?

Secondly, it has vast implications for legal property rights. Essentially, the Native American tribes are arguing that the remains "belong" to them because they were found on their property. In an age where we have DNA testing and all sorts of other scientific identification techniques, shouldn't the ID of the remains have precedence over the presumption of possession? What we are saying by giving back the remains is that we have already figured out everything we need to know about the history of this area, so any evidence we may find that challenges this notion or contradicts it outright should be discarded. I admire Senator McCain for many reasons, but this bill is indicative of political pandering in a state that has Native American lobbying power (Arizona).

To me it seems that giving back the skeleton has more practical significance for the Indians than it does for us to study it.

I would argue that it's of no practical significance at all. It is of spiritual significance only. And because of my bias against all forms of religion, I say piffle. Yes, piffle!

I would agree that it is piffle, but this piffle has a believed practical significance to certain American tribes. Never mind that it's practical value relies on something impossible to prove; a spiritual significance as you say.

So we should allow the unproven supposition to prevail over the surety of gaining empirical evidence? Empiricists are routinely excoriated for not having enough evidence to make any claims at all. Is this the reason?

The Vatican is allowed to keep stolen relics all it likes because it has no guilt over keeping them. It enriches their trove and power for them to do so. The great European Catholic powers killed people fair and square over them to please God. That, it seems to me, is hoarding with no practical value.

Heavens, ST88, you're the last atheist/agnostic I expected to wax angry and bitter about Catholic history. God knows we have enough. What happened?

AAARRGHHGH!! There will never be enough expressed bitterness for that episode! :censored:

[Corvus]

It is an interesting question, mon cher ami, but is the answer pursued for any practical purpose other than filling in the holes in our understanding of history? I think not. Its practical significance seems limited to providing yet another question for anthropologists to pursue, providing more material for text books and another exhibit for a musuem. It is the exploration of things simply for the satisfaction it gives us from the act of knowing. It is indeed the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Firstly, what is wrong with knowledge for its own sake? Isn't that one of the fruits of living? What would you rather have as a human ideal, the pursuit of knowledge or the gratification of an unseen spirit world?

Excellent riposte! By making it a question of which should be encouraged in society, you've made something very useless into something very useful. I concede the point, knowledge for its own sake wins based on social ideals, though I still maintain that if we take the question in isolation, knowledge for knowledge's sake is on par with useless spiritualism.

And, though I'm not really sure if it's a "fruit of living", there isn't anything wrong with knowledge for knowledge's sake. It's just a rather long slogan. Art for art's sake is much more compact and much more satisfying. For all useless things, aesthetics is an important consideration.

Secondly, it has vast implications for legal property rights. Essentially, the Native American tribes are arguing that the remains "belong" to them because they were found on their property. In an age where we have DNA testing and all sorts of other scientific identification techniques, shouldn't the ID of the remains have precedence over the presumption of possession? What we are saying by giving back the remains is that we have already figured out everything we need to know about the history of this area, so any evidence we may find that challenges this notion or contradicts it outright should be discarded. I admire Senator McCain for many reasons, but this bill is indicative of political pandering in a state that has Native American lobbying power (Arizona).

I did concede that it's not technically theirs, and decided instead to focus on my pet subject of values, but something occurred to me just now when you wrote that the Native American tribes are essentially arguing that the remains belong to them because they were found on their land. Don't all relics, ruins and fossils technically belong to the ruler of whatever land they are found in, and hasn't that been the only method of determining ownership of these sorts of discoveries since time began, though it's entirely arbitrary? I'm not entirely sure about this, but don't some Indian tribes have land of their own, and are their own sovereign nations? If so, we should be grateful the remains weren't found inside their borders.

To me it seems that giving back the skeleton has more practical significance for the Indians than it does for us to study it.

I would argue that it's of no practical significance at all. It is of spiritual significance only. And because of my bias against all forms of religion, I say piffle. Yes, piffle!

I would agree that it is piffle, but this piffle has a believed practical significance to certain American tribes. Never mind that it's practical value relies on something impossible to prove; a spiritual significance as you say.

So we should allow the unproven supposition to prevail over the surety of gaining empirical evidence?

To no practical purpose except reinforcing an ideal, much like the unproven supposition, except, I suppose more time would be wasted and some text books might change? Forgive the long addendum to your question. The answer is brief; no, they are equal.

Empiricists are routinely excoriated for not having enough evidence to make any claims at all. Is this the reason?

Probably not, since I can't imagine this occurs too frequently.