One of the reports, however, manages to muddy the waters on the issue of NAGPRA by throwing a non-sequitur into the discussion:
The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has wide-ranging political and racial implications.In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections to claimants.
Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from Nagpra.
I hope you can appreciate the sheer loopiness of the above paragraph. No archeologist argues that remains should be exempt from NAGPRA because they don't resemble their descendents. This sort of question-begging infests writing on the subject. What "some archeologists" do argue about is a)whether lack of resemblance indicates lack of descent, or b)whether it is meaningful at all to talk about "descendents" across hundreds of generations. It continues:
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull [just a skull!?! - mb.] from Washington State known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American populations tend to have short, broad skulls.Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around 35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Record erased
"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells told BBC News Online.
He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000 years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day Native Americans.
In context, the above misleadingly implies that debates over the purview of NAGPRA hinge on the demonstration of a non-Asian origin of the people who left the Kennewick remains and other ancient skeletons - which is flatly false. I certainly don't think it's a deliberate sleight of hand to conflate the debate about the antiquity of man in the New World with the debate about the validity of claims of modern groups to very old skeletons. But it is sloppy and introduces unnecessary confusion into the public discussion.
(More Kennewick Man links here.)
Criminy...
How awfull to have public confused! :-)
I think that there is a direct connection. If the present Amerindian type settled provably no earlier than 8,000 BCE, then their claim on anything that represents previous population types is rather dubious, eh?
Let me bounce it off one of my friends from the Okanagan tribe, how she feels about it...
OK, am back. She agrees with me. But then, she hates tribal politics, so that may be skewing her opinions and effectively corroborates her social status of a non-PC renegade.
But to the antiquity issue...
There were likely several waves of colonizers in the span of last 150,000 years. Some waves seem to disappear altogether, while some were replaced by new invaders. Even further back in time, hominids perhaps found their way. At least some suppressed finds seem to suggest that there may have been some inhabitation going on as far as 320,000 years ago. I can dig up the basic info if pushed into a corner. :-)
In more recent times, about 45,000 years ago, several expeditions from seafaring Australian Aborigines reached S. America from the west and within following 15,000 years, spread from the southernmost tip of S. America to the central plains of North America. There is no evidence that they replaced any earlier populations, and if that were the case, it may have been assimilation rather than complete replacement without any genetic exchange. Unfortunately, there is no data that may corroborate this, the last 2 surviving members of the original population died in the first third of the last century, and their physical characteristics suggest a frequent exchange of genetic material with Amerindians, which did not seem to diminish their lower status in the eyes of Amerindian populace. The probability that these original inhabitants were of Aboriginal descent is not set in stone, but it is far more probable than any other scenarios, in fact, almost certain.
They were hunted down by the Amerindian invaders, in droves, and rolled back from NA, gradually, so by 16th century, they were concentrated only in the proper of Tierra de Fuentes. New invader were coming on the scene, yet the old ones were still hunted, enslaved, without any respite.
The indication that these people were closely related to Aborigines can be found in their rites and mythology, which were described by the last 2 survivors and which bear close affinity to those of Aborigines. The Monte Verde occupation (-33k), gives the most recent date of arrival, but based on appearance of spear thrower at approximately -45k in Australia and its absence in Americas, one can safely assume that the migration transpired before this invention saw the light of the day. What is certain is that Aborigines were able to travel fairly long distance in their boats.
It seems that Kenwick man represents some earlier type of migration that was fairly localized and may have arrived from the east, rather than through the bridge that was connection Americas with Asia. If Aborigines were seafaring-able -50k, then others may have been able to do the same at later times.
Not only Amerindian mythology, but also some intriguing finds from the 19th century seem to suggest that there were some remnants of caucasoid genotype present as late as 200 CE. The Smithsonian did their best to disregard and suppress the evidence and with great success practically "erased" these finds from the scientific knowledge base. Because Ales Hrdlicka, the final arbiter of academia, decided that the human element first appeared in Americas about 12,000 ago, and they were related to oriental genetic stock, it was the end of the story. Intriguing, that happened practically a century ago and it more or less stands with some slight adjustmnets, till today.
But the red headed giants, conveniently tucked away in repositories and vaults of Smithsonian and other museums, attest that we simply cannot take any academic opinion for granted. When I say opinion, I mean exactly that, although academe is passing off opinions as something more than they really are, however "educated" may be.
To make it more exciting, these is a substantial evidence that not only caucasoid types, but also negroid types were on the continent at some point. Olmec steles and big stone heads cannot be interpreted in any other form. The facial features are rendered so realistically that there cannot be any other interpretation. The La Venta heads thus indicate a migration of negroid element that manifested in Olmec culture--not only that, apparently, they were ruling class, otherwise there would be little reason for the labor expenditure on the statues, which are by no means small. Olmec stelae also depict clearly caucasoid types, with long beards. It is not clear if these were only visitors or inhabitants, but the world in ancient times was far busier than we imagine. I would be inclined to think that Phoenicians knew no bounds as seafaring is concerned and went where only some men went before. Intriguing is the fact that most hair-raising stories about dangers of travel across seas, including the descriptions of terrifying animals, can be traced back to Phoenicians. One wonders why? Protectionism at works? Quite likely.
Then there are Tuatha da Dannan, mysterious race that invaded Ireland a millenium before Celts appeared on the scene. They came from west, from the sea, so the tales say. Red-haired giants. Not unlike the red-haired giant of the central plains, spoken about by Amerindians and also found throughout the mound burial sites in the oldest layers, during the excavations in 1800's, with some patches of hair still preserved. Some experts may say that the color may be due to leeching and replacement by iron oxides form the soil, but that has one little problem, it would cut across the board, so the specimen from decidedly Amerindian stock in the same layer would have red hair as well.
Well, then there is this petroglyph in Australia, which depicts a boat with some people in it, and one of them is a bearded caucasoid man with a head dress reminding of mideastern head wear--either Mesopotamian or Phoenician tiara. Go figure.
On New Zealand, traces of pre-Maori settlements are known, yet presently in PC denial, of affinity decidedly to Celtic culture or perhaps its precursor. Unfortunately, Maori had a profound craving for human flesh and disposed of the supply rather quickly.
Or take, for example, Negev script. It appears in all corners of the world and it seems that it's in its earliest form, that can be dated to at least 6000 BCE. You can find it around Mississippi Valey, near Sao Paulo, in Western Africa, Indonesian archipelago or on Pacific Ocean's islands. Odd, isn't it?
Seems that ancients had no regard for future archeologists and anthropologists and moved around as they pleased, to utterly confuse the descendants. If they knew what our "educated" academe came up with, they would find it more than amusing.
Posted by: alphasheep on July 31, 2003
See the timestamp on my post. That would put the whole diatribe into a perspective! :-)
Posted by: alphasheep on August 01, 2003
One comment... While it is true that "debates over the purview of NAGPRA" do not hinge on the demonstration of a non-Asian origin of whatever remains would be found and decidely qualified as such, it may provide an ammunition to the idea that certain aspects of NAGPRA are based on ad hoc assumptions and its nature is based on psychological (or perhaops psychopathological) factors rather than on logical basis.
"Habeam corpus", the tribes say. If the relationship cannot be clearly established, why should they? There should be a clear "cut off" date for any claims to be null and void. Especially as migratory tribes, with no permanent established settlements prior to the establishment of their reservation territory, are concerned.
In the case of Kennewick skeleton, it was even used in rituals and some fragments became lost and other part damaged. What a respect for an "ancestor!" I am suspicious that the claimants knew exactly what they claimed and why... the exact opposite of "respect" being on their minds.
Being a tad acquainted with ritual magic of some tribes in British Columbia, it presents no difficulties for me to put 2 & 2 together, because from all the probable explanations, this one seems to provide the best fit.
Unfortunately, I fear that things may get worse yet, before they get better. Perhaps in US moreso than in Canada.... as here an opposite trend seems to take a hold with the latest ruling regarding fishing rights; perhaps because the grievances do not have as much clout here as in US, because the Brits elected a less confrontational approach in dealings with Anerind populace.Hopefully, this trend would also be reflected in the Canadian equivalent of NAGPRA.
Yea, it is politics, for the most part. That is the unfortunate reality and thusly whatever may help to halt the tide--sloppy or not in its nature--is equally as good as an argument that is directly derived from relevant and more valid basis, because it may just work.
Posted by: alphasheep on August 01, 2003
politics are huge in society today, and the settlements are not a joke. It is our history that we should never take for granted!
Posted by: on November 03, 2003