archaeology and the western indian

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:42 pm

what spurs me to originate this topic is the latest in the news, television and of course the kennewick man debacle.

should people pander the the interests of the western indian? should people be held hostage to the claims of the western indian? does the western indian have the right to suppress ancient finds solely to keep their claim of 'being first'?

this article was one of the catlysts plus an episode of 'numbers' which dealt with ancient artifacts (i am not leaning on the show's premise but its parallel). how far does the western indian get to go in protecting its claims?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060506/ap_ ... NlYwM5NjQ-

if anything the kennewick man shows a deep protective attitude that shuns the truth as fear seems to be the rudder to the western indians actions. fear that the status acheived will be removed and that they would have to return to non-favored status.

having lived on two indian reservations, i am not being a racist here but would like to explore what archaeology actually says about the travels of the western indian, about who may have been first to these lands and what right does anyone have to suppress investigation into history.

should the western indian be allowed to immediately bury any skeleton just because they make claim to it? so who really owns history? or the investigation of history?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 08, 2006 7:42 pm

As I understand the law, the problem is not that some tribes cannot establish a cultural link to various specimens it is that museums simply acquiesce to such demands for fear of being sued under that law.

What John McCain proposed was to make the law much more sweeping by adding the words "or was" to make it a virtual lock that modern tribes could claim such a tie no matter how old the specimens might be.

That is going too far but fortunately it seems that any steam behind that bill has dried up.

Scientists have to be more assertive, especially as Mexico has no such law and significant finds have been made there.

stan · Post by **stan** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:24 pm

This thread reminds me of the issue of restitution for
groups who have been cheated, abused, or defeated in
history...

Where does it stop, or start, and who decides? More to the point,
should the Native Americans be given their land back?

Archeological finds may play a part in such efforts.
BUt ultimately it is the power of the US government that has determined
and
will determine the results.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:36 pm

I had a similar discussion with a friend one time about archaeological digs in Israel.

My point was, if the Palestinians come up with a deed to Jerusalem signed by the Byzantine Emperor and giving the land to Mohammad would the Israelis say 'okay, you win....we're leaving." I think not.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:34 pm

Arch, I think it's a valid point that some limitations should be placed on the policy of our gov't that allows the native americans to arbitrarily claim all ancient remains.

Realizing of course that "native" americans have had their lands taken, their culture destroyed, and their population nearly obliterated -some common sense has got to rule here. Their religion should be respected of course, but in the case of Kennewick man and maybe others I think that blind zealousness should not be allowed. I do believe that we have been and should be respectful of the culture - but in this case it has gone too far. And so the judge ruled.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:46 pm

i actually agree. i do not see why one group of people would be granted that right while the other groups do not get to enjoy that liberty.

i doubt if we will ever solve who came first as the records are scant and the the process of studying history is full of corruptions that it would be very difficult to get the full story.

i do think that some consensus must be reached in which, the study of both native and non-native remians be allowed so we can get a fuller picture of what took place. i do not care if the 'native' americans get to keep their rights if proven that they may have been second, that is not important in an archaeological investigation.

(of course, i disagree with the term native american when it is applied so limitedly)

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:54 pm

i do not see why one group of people would be granted that right while the other groups do not get to enjoy that liberty.

Politics, arch. It's the kind of issue that is VERY important to one interest group and not important at all to the majority. Hence, when they see their name on a check, politicians can become very excited about supporting an issue as long as they know that there is no sustained opposition on the other side.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 10, 2006 9:15 pm

This thread reminds me of the issue of restitution for
groups who have been cheated, abused, or defeated in
history...

this brings up a good question--- where does it stop?

first the indians, then the slaves, then the victims of the inquisition or what about the descendants of the original colonists? shouldn't they get money for their suffering and hardship?

i am going to an extreme but there has to be a point where the line is drawn where beliefs and research can co-exist but be respected.