South American Archaeology: NAGPRA and Kennewick Man as case study

NAGPRA and Kennewick Man as Case Study

I begin this topic by showing the NOVA film "Mystery of the First Americans." It does a good job of laying out the case history and the reasons why the scientists want to study the remains.

Why do some Native Americans oppose the study of human remains?
1. Different views of how human remains can/should be treated
  1. Some won't go near, too dangerous
2. Different sense of kinship than we have
  1. Young woman in film could trace nineteen generations of lineage
  2. Most Americans are lucky if they can trace three
3. Tired of being questions, analyzed, poked, prodded, and bothered
  1. Especially with no apparent benefit to themselves
    1. Scientists (and others) see value as "self evident"
      1. Discovering the "truth"
      2. Preserving traditions
  2. Anthropology traditionally was without obligations to the people being studied
    1. "Salvage work"
    2. These ideas are being challenged
      1. Many feel more exploited than "saved" or "appreciated"
      2. Not just by anthropologists but lots of others
        
        Offended by sports team names
        
        Many see work of anthropologists as akin to goal of missionaries, ie., Missionaries thought they were doing them a service by showing them the one "true" god, anthropologists argue they doing a service by learning the "real" history
        
        Both seen as undermining the traditions that hold the group together
        
        Not just Indian issues, recall that teaching evolution in high school is also a public controversy
    3. There are multiple views of sources of "knowledge"
      1. Traditionally anthropologists have downplayed the value of oral history
      2. Probably a class bias that extends to others besides Indians and fields other than archaeology
      3. Oral traditions, history, are very important to Native Americans
        
        Similar to how many Americans value written traditions like the bible, or other documents whose "truth" may or may not be documented
  3. Some scholars see science as "apolitical"
    1. Valuable in and of itself, but this maybe not true, ex. cloning
    2. Without bias, ie., objective
      1. Definitely not true
        
        Historically anthropology/archaeology very racist and sexist
        
        Work done mostly by rich, white, men
        
        Not surprisingly came up with explanations about human history and behavior that reinforced their own lifeways
        
        Women as gentle, passive creatures in need of male protection and provision
        
        Blacks not as intellectually capable as whites
  4. The study of human remains has a special place in this history
    1. Nineteenth and twentieth century anthropologists tried to find a biological basis for defining racial and sexual differences in behavior
    2. Interested in skull size and shape as indicator of intellectual capability
      1. While nineteenth and twentieth century scientists were out on big colleting expeditions they collected lots of human remains, especially skulls
        
        Ancient and recent
        
        Not just Native American, but mostly Native American
        
        1878 Kamiaken grave desecrated less than one year after death by scientist
        
        Boas financed NWC field work by digging up and selling skulls, and he was very anti-racism!
        
        U.S. military
        
        Sand Creek massacre. I read a passage on this from Thomas"s "Skull Wars" that is very graphic and unsettling.
  5. Disrespectful treatment of human remains not just an "old" problem
    1. Boxes of body parts in College Hall until 1998, stored by body element so one individuals arm bones were all mixed up with other peoples arms etc. No respect for the individual the bones came from, they were just specimens; many were nineteenth century Indians.
    2. Stories of people using skull caps as ash trays
    3. It was the conditions under which human remains were stored at the Smithsonian that finally made Senator Inouye mad enough to propose the NAGPRA legislation
  6. Issues of "soverentity"
    1. Tribes have unique status based on treaties
      1. Recognized as separate governments
      2. Rationship protected by federal recognition, ie., limited State power over tribes or on reservations
      3. N like other, "immigrant" minorities
    2. Late twentieth century, tribes becoming healthier and more economically stable than they have been in 200 years
      1. Me toward self sufficiency
      2. Gaming
      3. Many still have high unemployment, suicide, and mental health issues, but many are getting much better
        
        Mostly because of internal initiatives, not outside "help"
        
        Want authority promised them by treaties
        
        In Washington State lots of dams and reservoirs
        
        Tribes had no say in giving up land and resources when dams were built
        
        1940s-1970s, not ancient history
        
        Promised a role in management of
        
        Water resources
        
        Fish
        
        Cultural resources
        
        Are very much involved in all
    3. Every legal precedent says anything "pre-Columbian" is Native American
      1. Some see Kennewick man as challenging their authority
  7. What does this mean for archaeology
    1. Must be more inclusive
      1. Practitioners
      2. Practices
      3. Goals
    2. Must demonstrate value of archaeological knowledge, learning to live in a multiple-use world is just the way it is
    3. Basic principles and methods of anthropology still good, even if the practice must change