Kennewick remains represent a single male individual, approximately 5'9" in stature.
From a morphological perspective, the Kennewick specimen appears to be more similar to those of modern Europeans and South Asians than to modern Native Americans.
The Federal Government pulled out all stops to get the bones into the hands of the tribes for reburial in a secret location that would halt all further efforts that might result in KM being proven anything other than a Native American, all under the auspices of NAGPRA(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990).
Then there is the DNA evidence. Or rather, the lack of it. Examination of the reports of this testing seem to indicate that no matter how many times they repeated the test, the results were unacceptable -- always showing caucasoid origins. So they blamed it on contamination of the tools by one or more of the investigators. These reports are, of course, prepared by the agencies of the Federal Government.
In reality, contamination of samples is a very real problem in the type of DNA testing used. The replication of sequencing tends to "grab" any foreign genetic material and replicate it in the billions while doing the same for the test sample. It's just the nature of the process.
However, in reading those reports, and in my related research regarding lab techniques as reported, it seems these were very careful, professional people conducting these tests. The whole contamination issue seems very reminiscent of the arguments involved in the so-called "cocaine mummies", and those arguments still sound lame to me for both cases.
Why all the hubbub, Bub?
As Mr. Malcomson so aptly stated in his New York Times essay, if KM is caucasian (or anything other than American Indian), then the implications affect many current social, cultural, and legal points and ultimately upsets the status quo. KM's ethnicity can even throw into question the validity of current recognition of tribal rights and national legal status.
Furthermore, KM as Caucasian upsets all the archeaological, historical, anthropological, and even "right of discovery" applecarts.
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: archaeology.org
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...