No Scientists Need Apply The Lincoln Plawg has turned up some molar-grinding commentary from a recent NAGPRA Review Committee meeting.

James Nason, a UW professor and curator of Pacific and American ethnology at the Burke Museum, explained that Jelderks thought the evidence of cultural affiliation in this case to be inadequate and thus saw scientific research in the realm of public interest as perfectly legitimate.

"Establishing cultural affiliation is a very tricky matter, taking into account oral history, traditions, historical data and claims of supposed lineal descendants," Nason said.

Note what Nason is implying here - that "scientific research" is not normally and legitimately a part of the process of determining "cultural affiliation" . And, aside from what one might suppose would be its inclusion under "historical data", it is left out of the list of criteria. It's clear from following statements that Nason doesn't believe that scientific research can properly be used in establishing "historical data".

In addition, Nason explained that affiliation could, under federal law, be determined by tribes currently occupying the land upon which remains are discovered.

Well then, I guess Jelderks wasted more than a year reading the 20,000 pages of documentation and attempting to properly interpret NAGPRA , or he's simply guilty of egregious judicial activism. The statement is simply false, but it's disturbing to contemplate a mindset that would sit happily with a claim, for example, on prehistoric bones and artifacts by groups that were known to have migrated into the area in question in historical time. Essentially, politcally-motivated and anti-scientific interests are pushing the belief that any inquiry into North American prehistory is a violation of the intent of NAGPRA. Rational, common sense views on NAGPRA's purview are distorted into slippery-slope panic-mongering:

Concerns are that the ruling undermines the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which requires museums across the country to return Native American Indian artifacts to the tribes from which they came. Nason sees NAGPRA as "the most important cultural property law ever adopted anywhere."

The anti-science types are fond of this red herring, asking us to believe that it is impossible to make a distinction between artifacts and remains that can be reliably affiliated with known groups, and 9,000 year old specimens. (My great-great grandmother's Bible and grave, Iceman, no difference!) In case you're wondering if Nason's views have been misrepresented, consider the final quote:

"If America has a religion, it is probably science. Why should this be a priority over any other belief system?" he asked.

This from a museum curator, supported by tax dollars. If that's the case, Dr. Nason, what "privileges" the Tribes' claim over that of the Asatru Folk Assembly?

As I've mentioned here before, the paradox in this "myth is equal to science in matters of fact" argument is that those who use it are not loath to base their claims on any isolated results of scientific research that might be congenial to their position. It is unlikely that Ken's remains, first assumed to be those of a white settler, would have been disputed if he had never been carbon-dated.

The current issue of Archeology has an interesting interview with James Chatters, the archeologist who first studied Kennewick Man. Some excerpts:

How do you think the media has done with this story?

It's been mixed. Some have shown a clear understanding of the issues and intent of the lawsuit and are consistently accurate in their reporting. The New Yorker, most news magazines, Nova and of course this magazine were prominent in that group. Others, particularly tabloids, political talk shows, and many prominent eastern newspapers, fixated on the "Science-versus-Indians" angle and clung to the erroneous ideas that Kennewick Man was Caucasian and that we wanted to study him for that reason. Several big papers, including the New York Times and Washington Post really attacked us on the red herring of race. The more postmodern the editorial board, the more harsh they were.

Why do you think race became such a flash point with Kennewick Man?

You really should ask the people for whom that was an issue. To me, the significant point of the discovery is that Kennewick Man and his contemporaries differ greatly from all present-day peoples. It reopens the question of how and by whom the Americas were peopled. Race is an issue of the present that should not be extended into the distant past.

You're probably one of the few anthropologists ever investigated by the FBI. Can you tell us something about the experience?

I only learned of the investigation indirectly and was never questioned by agents. Even so, it was very intimidating. At any one time I'm working on collections for half a dozen or more projects, any or all of which agents could have seized in their quest for the missing bones. That would have devastated my career and livelihood. I worked assuming anything I said or did was going to be reviewed by the FBI. The fate of the Larsons, who found Tyranosaurus Sue--18 months in prison for "failing to fill out forms"--was never far from my mind.
[...]

Judge Jelderks ruled that the government erred in its reliance on oral history to link the tribes and Kennewick Man. What role do you think oral history has in the study of prehistory?

Oral history is invaluable as a source of testable hypotheses about latest prehistoric times and as a means for linking fairly recent skeletal remains to specific events and social groups. I've used it that way myself. What the judge objected to was the acceptance of folklore, which is primariy allegorical, as if it were an oral history of the distant past. The usefulness of oral history is limited to the most recent times because it can change with each retelling, depending on the social positions of teller and listener, and the political realities and mores of the time. Past one or two dozen tellings, the importance of actual events is subordinated to the lesson of political content and is ultimately lost altogether.

What's your position on NAGPRA? Is it basically a good idea with some problems in execution?

Yes. We need a law like NAGPRA. We can't silently condone desecration of Indian graves and keep the bones of people's known kin on museum shelves and expect the general populace to see living Native Americans as fellow beings. But NAGPRA is being misapplied as a license for tribes to take control of any and all early skeletons, and, as we are seeing increasingly, any and all archaeological materials. Assisted by government officials, university administrations, and museum boards, this practice threatens to deprive all Americans--North and South--access to the true history of our hemisphere. The law needs to be revised to remove its geography clauses and to limit its chronological purview.

Here's a link to Kennewick-related articles in Archeology.

(Links to Kennewick Man posts.)

Posted by Moira Breen at November 20, 2002 09:49 AM