According to this AP article, the US Army Corps of Engineers have determined that the oldest (8,500 years), most complete human remains ever found in North America are Native American. Discovered near the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA., Kennewick Man has been the center of a custody fight since 1996 between researchers and several Native American tribes claiming his repatriation under the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. According to some researchers, Kennewick's unique skeletal features suggested a non-Native American ancestry; however, a comparative DNA study by the Northwestern Corps has confirmed that Kennewick is most closely related Native Americans than any other people.

I wonder how objective science is allowed to be in such extremely politically sensitive cases. I'd have prefererd a study by, say, a Danish university, rather than the US army.

 

The row resulted from the very idea of "Native American". Had they arrived second and exterminated previous inhabitants, the presently called Native Americans might have lost some legal status.

 

Making science under these conditions must be almost as difficult as archaeology in Israel. You know, when archaeologists find that for instance the historic Galilea couldn't possibly be where the present province is, the answer is just "shut up", because of the huge political implications.

 

I'd find it quite a natural idea that the Americas were settled several times by varied people. Older remnants have been found in Brazil for instance, and they don't match the native populations neither. Or think of the islands in southern Pacific: every not-too-small one is inhabited, as closely as Easter Island. The continent wasn't much farther and certainly easier to find.

Link doesn't work.

 

here's another story on the topic

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-kennewick-idUSKCN0XQ2BX

I wonder how objective science is allowed to be in such extremely politically sensitive cases. I'd have prefererd a study by, say, a Danish university, rather than the US army.

 

The row resulted from the very idea of "Native American". Had they arrived second and exterminated previous inhabitants, the presently called Native Americans might have lost some legal status.

 

Making science under these conditions must be almost as difficult as archaeology in Israel. You know, when archaeologists find that for instance the historic Galilea couldn't possibly be where the present province is, the answer is just "shut up", because of the huge political implications.

 

I'd find it quite a natural idea that the Americas were settled several times by varied people. Older remnants have been found in Brazil for instance, and they don't match the native populations neither. Or think of the islands in southern Pacific: every not-too-small one is inhabited, as closely as Easter Island. The continent wasn't much farther and certainly easier to find.

 

There are hundreds of archeological sites in America with artifacts laid bare to erosion by the elements and forbidden to study because of their Native American spiritual significance and protection. Although I mourn the loss to science, I respect the rights of Native Americans to their history and spiritual traditions, which they have been brutally denied by the American government routinely in the not so distant past. Their rights to their heritage and sources of religious significances outweigh, IMO, our need to study it.

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by DrmDoc