off topic - KENNEWICK MAN

OK, let's try this again. I can understand that reading thru some of the stuff that's online about this topic might lead one to believe that the Native American tribes in WA state are trying to "cover up" some controversy that might "taint" their heritage, but I really think what's going on here is just them wanting to properly bury one of their ancestors. These kind of fights are very common in fact.

Looking at the articles that I've read so far...it sounds to me like the "Kennwick Man" might have been someone from the East coast or ancient Asian peoples of the time that somehow ended up on the West coast. It defintely sounds like the Native Americans want their remains back. Maybe there needs to be more comprehensive study, but the remains seem to be Native American for sure.

I don't think there's any way that a white "explorer" would be in that neck of the woods ~6000-8000 years ago. I ask again: where would these "white" males have gone between then and when the Vikings and other Eurpoeans showed up?

Try this link for the real story instead BTW:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/k…

What part of this do you not understand:
"None of these features is typical of modern American Indians, but they are found on other Paleoindian skeletons roughly contemporaneous with the Kennewick remains. Such features have previously been described as 'pre-mongoloid,' 'proto-mongoloid,' 'archaic-mongoloid,' and even 'proto-caucasoid.'

The last term, in particular, has led to some confusion, with New York Times reporter Timothy Egan calling the skeleton 'Caucasian' and saying, 'It adds credence to theories that some early inhabitants of North America came from European stock.' But according to anthropologist Donald K. Grayson of the University of Washington, 'the use of the term caucasoid really is a red flag, suggesting that whites were here earlier and Indians were here later, and there's absolutely no reason to think that.'"

As for the supposed 60 Minutes show on this topic a long while ago...I used to like 60 Minutes too, until they did a story on the crook politican that used to run Providence, RI (Vincent "Buddy" Cianci). They made him look like a good guy when, in fact, he was a crook of the first order. You can't believe everything that you see on TV or read on the Internet. Not everything is a conspiracy. Try again...

The problem, to put it into anglicized terms, is that it's rather like the Norman Kings of England in 1100 AD claiming a 5,000 year old skeleton as one of their ancestors. Whoever was here 10,000 years ago we can be pretty damn certain they weren't calling themselves by the names of any of the tribes Europeans encountered, or any of the tribes recognized by the US government by treaty, and their customs and religions had about as much in common as modern day Egyptians do with ancient Egyptians. I don't doubt that there are some absolutely sincere people who believe this is their ancestor and want to believe this land is theirs from the beginning of time, but then we like to think we're above allowing religion to determine what science can be done and what science is acceptable don't we.

"Try this link for the real story instead", says MisterGuy. You expect us to believe

it's the "real" story just because you say so? How pompous

No, I don't expect anyone to agree with me just because I said so. After doing some web research on the link that you posted on this topic in another thread (thanx again for that BTW), I looked at some other linked articles and found the one that I linked to above (and in that other thread too). I think there's a lot more to this than the "facts" that you present above is all. People are smart enuff to judge for themselves I think...knowledge is power. I could go on and on about how this issue shows what a lot of the media really does with issues of science, but I won't (for now anyways...lol...).

Abbie...it wasn't 10,000 years ago though. Try and tell the modern day Egyptians that they don't have any rights to all that ancient Egyptian stuff on their land and see what happens. I don't have a problem with scientists doing science on a skeleton like this, but they have so far for quite a few years now & they haven't come up with anything definitive that this skeleton isn't Native American. That's what I see anyways...you can judge for yourself.

Actually DNA contamination is a very, very big problem in paleobiological research.

To have a really clean sample, the remains would have to be excavated in a "clean" environment, but because of the uncertain nature of paleontological exploration (ie. you never know when a bone is going to turn up) that's just impractical.

Contrast it with forensics at a crime scene - at least there, the investigators are heading to a site with the awareness that a body is there, and they can set up clean facilities "on site". Quite a different set up, in practice, from what you can do in paleobiology.

Funny, I was just discussing this problem with a paleontologist yesterday!

O.

MG, a few points. 10,000 was a round figure, not a claim of fact. I knew it was in that area, and in fact after looking it up the skeleton has been radio carbon dated at 9,300 years old, so I'm slightly closer in my rounding than you. Also I certainly would not dispute the Egyptian's OWNERSHIP of antiquities found in their soverign territory, what I dispute is that there is some sort of religious or cultural connection. In this case there is no dispute over sovereignty. He was discovered on federal lands, not an indian reservation. He is the property of the Army Corps of Engineers, as he was found below the high watermark of a navigable waterway. That is the legal fact. The argument is that under the provisions of the Native Americans Graves Repatriation Act he can be established as culturally connected with a specific tribe, i.e. the tribe in question can establish that his customs, religion or ancestry are uniquely identified as the same as theirs. This is absolutely preposterous. The argument the tribe in question (the Umatilla) is making is that according to their religion (their legends and oral history) their people have lived in their lands since the dawn of time, QED he is one of them. Now when christians argue that every fertilized zygote is a unique human deserving of the full protection of the law the screams of suppression of science and separation of church and state and theocracy abound in the debate, so why then aren't people calling this attempt what it is? Religious fundamentalists demanding the government officially recognize their religion as true, and decide a legal case based on their religious beliefs. I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that initially no less than five, yes five tribes claimed him as a member of their tribe.

The importance of the "caucasian features" and all the other stuff isn't some balderdash about Europeans getting here first, or earlier than we thought, it is that at less than 10,000 years old and noticeably "caucasian" this puts at doubt the theory that all American Indians are descended from a single wave of migration some 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. That is a matter of scientific interest and legitimate scientific inquiry. Wether the Umatilla have as they claim, lived on their lands since the beginning of time is not.

It's obvious that the remains are that of a Native American...who cares what tribe it is? I could care less who the federal govt. gives the remains back to.

There's a difference between "caucasian":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
and
"proto-caucasoid":
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/200…
scroll down on that "before Columbus" document

This Kennewick Man and/or his people obviously came across from somewhere in Asia along the land bridge in what's now the Bering Sea. We've known for a long time that's how people got here a loooong time ago. The fact that this throws into question the way all the Native Americans that long ago looked is obviously an import issue for science to explore, but that's not the nonsense, I think, that this guy that started this thread is pushing IMO.

MG, You basically ignored every substantive point I made. I'm a Native American. The first of my ancestors arrived here in the late 1600's. How long do I have to trace my ancestors back? I have to go back three generations to find any ancestor of mine born anywhere other than America. Is Kennewick man Native American? Sure, nobody is disputing that. That he is distinctly a member of a tribe based on their belief that their people have been here "since the beginning of time", absolutely unprovable as a matter of law, yet, as a matter of law, we are supposed to defer to their legends as the basis for a legal decision. I'll re-iterate, the importance is that should a court declare that these remains are those of a specific tribe, based entirely on the fact that that tribe says so, it is nothing less than the federal government recognizing one specific religious tradition as true. If that is a precedent you are comfortable with, fine, but no complaints when abortion is outlawed, OK?

"Is Kennewick man Native American? Sure, nobody is disputing that."

The dude that made this thread in the first place is disputing that I think...that's why I posted in the first place. It's crap.

Other than that, I think you and I are basically talking past one another. I'm not a Native American, so I don't really care what tribe the Kennewick Man came from...sorry. I don't think abortion will ever be outlawed again all across this country BTW.

MG, you said, "I don't think there's any way that a white "explorer" would be in that neck of the woods ~6000-8000 years ago. I ask again: where would these "white" males have gone between then and when the Vikings and other Eurpoeans showed up"?

One plausible explanation is they were exterminated by a different tribe.

See what I mean Abbie?

I don't see what you mean, explain.

I wouldn't expect you to.

pompous ass