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 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	Philosophical disagreement Don't we actually have a philosophical disagreement here? What inherent power does either side have to dictate that their philosophical or religious position must take control here? Is there a compromise? Norm Finch, Lincoln, Neb. James Chatters, archaeologist: This question really reprises much of what I have said above, but it also points out one of the severe flaws in the story shown by the "NewsHour." This case is not about scientists versus Indians, nor about one set of philosophies against another. It is an issue of law, not philosophy. It is strictly about the scientific community disagreeing with the U.S. government about the scope of a new, untested statute. That statute, NAGPRA, was a compromise between the American Indian movement, which sought to claim control of all ancient artifacts and skeletons, and the museums and scientific community (which serve the public at large and act only with their acquiescence and funding), which wished to preserve some artifacts and knowledge about America's earlier inhabitants. To preserve this compromise, Congress included provisions in NAGPRA for continuing study of museum collections when that study could be "of major benefit to the United States" and inserted the clauses that required the tribes to demonstrate cultural affiliation -- a "shared group identity" -- with the remains and artifacts whey wished to claim. The affiliation provision appeared to require that the claimant and the claimed belonged to the same culture, not that they might have some remote actual or mythical ancestor-descendant linkage. Study of unaffiliated skeletons was neither mandated nor prohibited. Our disagreement with the government is over its abandonment of that compromise and its seeming willingness to accept claims of affiliation on the slimmest of foundations. If it were up to me, I might be willing to say, "Let us study and then let's all participate in laying this man to rest." I would be more comfortable with that outcome. But I don't think the greater good, which is to establish the limits of this new law, would be served, nor am I comfortable that this would be the moral choice. I am convinced that Kennewick Man represents a people who no longer exist. As such, we owe it to them to learn as much about their persons, culture and lives as we can so they might take their place in the narrative of our species. That might mean keeping him safely housed so he would be accessible when new technologies expand our scientific reach. Audie Huber, tribal spokesman: While there are disagreements between the plaintiffs and the tribes, this case is not about philosophical disagreements. It is a legal challenge filed by eight anthropologists regarding the implementation of NAGPRA. The scientists have not sued the claimant tribes challenging tribal religious beliefs, they have sued the U.S. alleging that they have a constitutional right to study these remains and that the U.S. failed to lawfully implement NAGPRA. This case is not about science versus religion, it is about scientists versus NAGPRA and tribal rights. The tribes are not opposed to science, in fact we rely upon it in our every day operations of salmon restoration and natural resources management. Our involvement in this case has specifically been about our belief that science should be guided by some ethical boundaries respecting the beliefs and rights of the people they are purporting to study. It is not a question of whether there can be a compromise; the plaintiffs foreclosed such an option by filing this case and demanding a right to study our ancestors without our permission. Congress drew the line with NAGPRA by requiring repatriation upon a showing of cultural affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence. If the scientists want to work with us, as we have with many other institutions and individuals they can ask us. Suing the U.S., arguing that they have rights to study our ancestors superior to that of the claimant tribes, is not the way to establish a cooperative working relationship. Roger Downey, journalist: The problem as I see it: The scientists who brought suit base their position on what might be called philosophical grounds, though they also have a distinct professional and career interest in the matter. The government, acting as surrogate for Native Americans under NAGPRA, bases its arguments on federal law, but behind the passage of that law was a perception that a great wrong had been committed by the dominant culture on the peoples and cultures that inhabited the U.S. before it. So the argument is between philosophical/practical and legal/moral standpoints. It is hardly surprising that the two sides have difficulty finding common ground, or that compromise in the true sense has proved impossible. What is surprising -- to me, almost incomprehensible -- is how the judge in Bonnichsen v. U.S. Corps of Engineers has allowed the clear legal questions in the case to be engulfed by a multitude of side-issues and irrelevancies. A magistrate determined to cut to the chase would have brought these proceedings to a decisive close, one way or the other, five years ago.