I just read a story say the Kennewick man may not be a 10,000 year old indian at all.. Could this be the start of changes for the fishing community? I just wonder how this is going to affect us ??????????????????????????????? I think history is about to change..............

Any thoughts?????????

http://www.alternet.org/story/11129/

COHO

Study of the skeletal remains of kennewick man (found on US ARMy corps of engineers land) has shown that he was probably caucasian. Kind of calls into question the whole first people thing that most tribes believe. They want to bury him saying he is one of their ancestors, evidence suggests otherwise.

The tribes have sued to keep scientists from thoroughly studying kennewick man, for some reason the corps of engineers sided with the tribes and we've had a decade long legal pissing match in federal court as a result.

I think the case stands that the Burke museum has him, but the army corps of enigneers is stalling any study despite court rulings permitting scientific study. Seems stupid to me. They need to figure out if he's caucasian and if not apologize to the tribes and bury him.

I can totally understand the tribes not wanting him studied his very existence flies in the face of their traditional religion (being the first people and all).
For christians, its analgous to somebody finding proof that Christ wasn't the son of God. There'd be lots of folks fighting to suppress that tidbit of info if it were true.

BTW there are other archeological finds of old human remains that are non-indian. I belive somebody recently found ~13,000 year old polynesian skeletons in California these predate any indian remains by thousands of years.

I think the tribes are going to have to adjust their relgion to fit reality. Maybe someday all relgions will do that, I think it would make the world a better place.

Just my $0.02

The courts have recently ruled against the tribes. The studies can go on. The Corps Of Engineers did, however, cover over the site where the skeletal remains were found under the premise that it was an ancient indian burial ground.

So Gramp,
What are the Native American laws and the modern day Federal and State laws concerning Native American sacred burial grounds?

Any body want to shed some knowledge?

That would be interesting to know
I personally think that if the kenn man is caucasian, then it really wouldnt effect the indian culture/tradition/religion beliefs.

I don't think the "burial site" is on the reservation so it would be a common courtesy to respect the burial site. Unfortunately the tribes are afraid of what has all but been proven and that is that the skeletal remains are those of a caucasian...that would shoot down alot of their claims and they can't have that. I think it is common for projects to come to a screaching halt if there is one claim of ancient indian anything in the ground. I don't think it matters where it is but I could be wrong. I think the new Narrows bridge was stopped because the excavating uncovered something that could be construed as tribal. The tribes tell us when it is ok to resume our work I think. Kind of like our fisheries. We decide after they decide to allow us to decide.

Does it really matter? I mean, if he's white, he's white. If hes not, hes not.

I think the issue we SHOULD be debating is the age of the body. What says hes 10000 years old??? carbon?? Yeah, carbon testing has all but been shattered in reputation. Remember that Mt. St. Helens rock?

Curtis

I think the History Channel did a show on carbon dating and pretty much said it was a hit & miss tactic. I wouldnt be surprised if that ten thousand year old body was actually a thousand years old.

federal law applies on all federal and tribal lands....native american graves and protection and rpatriation act...washington law applies on all other lands....kennewick man was found on federal land...read the statutes to find out why the corps did what they did...

the hood canal bridge project was stopped when a large(possibly the largest in the NW) village site was unearthed...

carbon dating is used mainly to determine age of things that were once living...not rocks and such...the carbon they look at doesn't accumulate until an animal/plant dies...and it is pretty darned accurate when used on appropriate material....

protections for all historical sites and graves are important....native and non native....
do you really want disney to build a theme park at gettysburg??

Geoduck- I'm curious if you could provide a link to more info on your reference to Polynesian skeletal remains in California. Thanks

Sorry Capt.Dan,

I heard a blurb on this about a month ago on NPR while driving to work. They said something about the oldest north american human remains being found and that they were polynesian. The find was supposedly in california somewhere, but I can't recall where.

I looked and couldn't find it in the archaeology literature online. Probably hasn't found its way into the published literature yet.

I took the report with agrain of salt. NPR is better than most, but the popular press has a way of mis-reporting and over-hyping science findings.

The real study when it gets published is the place to go for solid facts.

Unfortunately, I don't think the origin of Kennewick Man can or will have any bearing whatsoever on current indian treaties or their current legal interpretations.

I believe Kennewick Man is the only way to change the present laws because the court cannot deny the logic that, if a Caucasian was here before the Asian-based Indians, then the "right of first occupancy" presently granted to the Indians goes out the window.

The treaties that grant current tribal fishing rights have nothing to do with science or who was "here first." They are binding political documents, negotiated and signed by particular parties. It's as simple as that. The controversies surrounding Kennewick Man, however thay are ultimately resolved, will have absolutely no bearing on fishing rights or any other aspect of treaty interpretation. Whether or not caucasians or the ancestors of Indians where here 10,000 years ago doesn't change the fact that modern Native Americans certainly were here 500 years ago when Europeans first arrived, and 150 years ago when Americans began settling the NW, occupying and utilizing the land that white settlers, speculators, and governments thought they'd like for themselves. Those are the people the US signed treaties with, not some speculative white-man's ancestor in North America.

I agree with Slabquest & Ramon, regardless of kennewick man or subsequent findings, the legal treaty interpretations will not change.

I may be fuzzy on the treaty language, but I believe they are not predicated on who was here first.

Wow what a great disscustion..... these views are great..................

Thanks to all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COHO

COHO,

I completely concur.

Thank you for posting/launching this thread!

Glory be!! I agree with BOTH Ramon and Slab in one day....whew

He may have been white, and then again he may have been an indian... but chances are no matter what he was probably pretty hairy all over... I'll mull that over while fishing today.

Even if the outcome is to overturn any treaties, the decision will come long after the wild fish in this state have vanished. Lets keep our fingers crossed!