Position Statement on the Eternal Now. Sad to relate, the Society for American Archeology, despite a spot of mewling about lack of consultation on the proposed disturbing amendment to NAGPRA, is content to toady along with legislation whose effect, as accurately characterized by Timothy Sandefur "would severely limit the ability of scientists to study ancient remains found on federal land...SAA says that they're just fine with the destruction of ancient skeletal remains, intended to appease American Indian creationists; they just oppose the way the amendment was introduced (rather quietly, and without substantial public comment)". Sandefur does not speak too harshly.

The SAA doesn't represent science:

The Society for American Archaeology supports the tribes' recent amendment to expand NAGPRA's definition of Native American to include everyone here before 1492 (Frank McManamon's "1492 Rule"). Who will speak for science and the public interest in Washington now? Other scientific organizations, including state historical commissions, amateur archaeology groups, etc., must voice their views on this important issue. The message: Congress must look beyond SAA for reasoned comment on this issue. SAA's position does not represent the scientific community nor the public's interests in preserving the past. [emphasis in original]

For another sample contrary view read the position statements of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists on Kennewick Man and Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains.

It's not uncommon, when exploring this issue, to come across statements to the effect that, "well, Kennewick Man (or other unidentifiable remains) ought to be turned over to claiming tribes in order to redress the history of abuses by archeologists and collectors and to restore trust in the relations between archeology and American Indians." These rather thoughtless comments indicate a failure to grasp that this redress was the reasonable intent of NAGPRA in its original formulation. What is promoted and accepted here is not reasonable redress. This feckless willingness to acquiesce in the closing off of all enquiry into the unknown history of humans in the New World can be seen only as a manifestation of the pathological "infinite repentence" mindset. Anybody got a better explanation?

Posted by Moira Breen at October 06, 2004 11:50 AM