KENNEWICK MAN

June 2001
		Who owns the bones of a 9,000-year-old skeleton? Three experts answer questions about the fate of Kennewick Man.

Online Special Kennewick Man Questions in this forum: What evidence links Kennewick Man to modern tribes? What's the harm done in studying or not studying the bones? Does science have a right to study any subject? Is this battle actually a philosophical disagreement?           National Park Service Kennewick Man site Burke Museum in Seattle Tri-City (Wash.) Herald Kennewick Man site NOVA first Americans special Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Friends of America's Past	Answering your questions are: James C. Chatters, Ph.D., archaeologist and author of "Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans" (Simon & Schuster, 2001). Audie Huber from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, one of the tribes claiming descent from Kennewick Man. Roger Downey of Seattle Weekly and author of "The Riddle of the Bones: Politics, Science, Race, and the Story of Kennewick Man" (Copernicus Books, 2000). The scientists suing to study Kennewick Man explain why they think the remains are crucial to research on the first Americans (courtesy of NOVA Online). 9,000-year connection What evidence is there that a modern-day tribe has a connection to a skeleton that is 9,000 years old? What evidence is there that a modern tribe has not only existed for all that time, but has existed in the same place? Karl Yambert, Lafayette, Colo. James Chatters: There is no evidence of a connection either in this case or any other on record. Nine thousand years is 450 human generations, far too long for any direct link to be possible. The Cheddar Man case from England might be brought up, because the press claimed he had a direct genetic descendant living in a town near his point of discovery. In fact, however, the link between the two men was made on the basis of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed only from mother to child. Hence, the fact that the two men shared a genetic characteristic means only that they shared a common female ancestor at some time in their collective past. This is the case for all of us. For the second part of the question: None; no tribe exists for thousands of years. Ethnic groups develop and dissolve rapidly, on the order of centuries rather than millennia. In the case of Kennewick Man, evidence from physical anthropology and archaeology contradicted the claim of a link. On the basis of skull morphology, dental characteristics, and other genetically determined characteristics of Kennewick Man, he was found to be markedly unlike American Indians and closest to people of Southeast Asia, most specifically Polynesians and the Ainu of Japan. Archaeological data shows that there have been at least three major discontinuities in culture since 9,500 years ago. Kennewick Man, if associated with a local culture in his time, would have used a different technology, lived in different housing, and followed a different subsistence quest than later people. The only cultural link is that he apparently ate salmon (though this remains to be proven), but then, so do I. There was no linguistic evidence, and the only issues the government brought to bear were 19th century cultural geography and vague myths about a cold time and a great flood. I'll focus on the flood, thought some of the same remarks apply to the story of cold. Since science has shown that there were glacial floods before 14,700 years ago in the Columbia Basin, the government accepted the tribes' claim that they had always occupied the Columbia Basin region. Myth, however, is not evidence, and we must evaluate this claim carefully. For at least five reasons, the myths are suspect. First, floods are common on the Columbia River, and in washing away homes and food stores, they would have had a severe, lasting impact on local memory. Because floods have such an impact, virtually every society that occupies a major river has tales of much greater floods than are possible. (The flood of Noah being a prime example for former dwellers of the Nile delta). The Columbia basin flood stories are fantastic, claiming that only the mountain tops remained above water. In fact, the worst of the floods, which was not the most recent, reached only to 1,200 feet elevation (identified mountain tops are at over 3,000 feet). Some of the mountain tops described in the flood myth , like one near Spokane, Washington, that a Umatilla once told me about, were not affected by the glacial floods being surrounded by or under ice at the time. Second, all the tribes involved here were influenced by biblical teachings for more than 100 years before these myths were written down. It is not inconceivable that at least the severity of the mythical floods, if not the story of such a major flood itself, was influenced by the book of Genesis. After five generations, knowledge of this influence would be lost. Third, orally transmitted tales are notoriously changeable, both as a result of memory error and intent (since they often contain moral lessons). To think a tale of a great flood could last more than 14,700 years, which is about 735 generations or 735 retellings, is inconceivable. Fourth, some of the most influential tales cited by the government come from the Salish speaking bands of the Colville Confederated Tribes. Salish speakers entered the upper Columbia River area from the Fraser River delta less than 4,000 years ago. The fact they share stories of a flood, which their ancestors could not have witnessed, calls the claim of eternal occupancy of the basin into question. Finally, modern, non-native American occupants of the Columbia Basin have tales of great floods. We can demonstrate the evidence that these floods actually occurred, and we know when they took place. Does this mean we have lived here since time began or just that we are good observers and interpreters of nature? I say this to point out that all societies are capable of and in fact engage in "science" -- a process of observation and inference from natural phenomena by which they predict and control their world. Keen observers with intimate knowledge of the behavior of a huge river, Columbia Basin occupants easily could have deduced that the Columbia River once flowed down the Grand Coulee and that a large flood may have left strand lines high on the sides of nearby hills. Audie Huber: Please reference the Kennewick Man Web site of the Department of the Interior at http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/. If you read the reports in the cultural affiliation section you will be able to understand how cultural continuity can exist over thousands of years. Consider the example of Australia. The best available evidence is that it was settled in one migration, about 40,000 years ago. So there are places on the earth where people have lived for many millennia, even tens of millennia, without being disturbed. If we rely on our "common sense" as laymen, we might miss that point. It is easy to dismiss the probability of a direct lineal link between 9,000 years ago and the tribes that are here now. Such a cursory view, however, neglects that the archaeological record, including the Marmes Rockshelter and other Snake River occupations from 9,000 years ago, shows a continuity within the Columbia Basin over those 9,000 years. Throughout this case we read stories of people who want to portray the tribes as asking too much, with no proof of an actual continuity. Even when we provide that proof, the plaintiffs try to rebut our evidence with their own theories. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) does not require scientific certainty, only that the remains are more likely than not culturally affiliated to the claimant tribes. With only 50.001 percent of the evidence needing to show cultural affiliation, that 49.999 percent leaves a great deal of room for disagreement. The tribes did not create this problem, we are only trying to work within the law and protect our legal, ethical and human rights. Roger Downey: So far as the tribes involved in the Kennewick Man case are concerned, the evidence is most persuasively put forward in the report by University of Washington Prof. Eugene Hunn's report to the U.S. Park Service on linguistic evidence for cultural affiliation. Dr. Hunn's analysis is not adequately summarized in a few words, but I'll try. When a new people enters a geographical area, it gives new names derived from its own language and culture to many landmarks, indigenous plants and animals. But it also tends to borrow a lot of these terms from the language of the people who lived in the area before, particularly when the feature in question didn't exist or wasn't important in the newcomers' place of origin. Northwest examples: modern inhabitants gave their own names to Mt. Rainier and Puget Sound and Bainbridge Island, but they also borrowed names like Mukilteo, Seattle, Tacoma and Kitsap. Hunn's survey of placenames, etc. in the Sahaptin dialects of the Columbia plateau shows few if any "borrowings" from other language groups. Other things being equal, this indicates that Sahaptin speakers have lived in the area they now occupy for a very long time -- or at least that there's no evidence that anybody lived there before they did. Hunn's analysis is elegantly argued and not long. I encourage anyone interested in this question to read it and come to their own conclusions. It is available for download at the NPS Kennewick Man site, http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/HUNN.HTM.