"Why is this revision such a mistake? Because it could significantly reduce - and perhaps cripple - legitimate scientific inquiry into the origins of human settlement in the Western Hemisphere. The retiring Campbell apparently hopes that one of his last acts in Congress will be to undermine the sort of vital study that is undertaken in virtually every other region of the globe."
Henry, with all due respect, you're either completely unfamiliar with, or completely misapprehending, the "argument". The consequence (and whole point) of adding "or was" to the act is render all argument moot. The "or was" defines any pre-Columbian remains or artifacts as "Native American". Period. Think that through in the context of NAGPRA.
Your contention that scientists have to prove where Kennewick Man came from also shows a misunderstanding of the law. Scientists do not have the right to study anything to which existing tribes can demonstrate an affiliation. If they can, it's up to them to decide to allow scientific study, but they have no obligation to do so. (Rightly so.) If there is no demonstrable affiliation to existing groups, science (and the larger public interest) can then rightfully make a claim for study. Contrary to your apparent belief, the scientists did win the court battles via the (perfectly reasonable) "is" wording in the statute as it now stands.
DNA tests were done; they were inconclusive. It is not always possible to extract usable DNA from very old bones. Furthermore, you should be aware that, if NAGPRA had been amended as proposed at the time of the Kennewick find, testing of any sort could have been denied. Even if DNA testing demonstrated that the Kennewick individual had no relation to claimant tribes, it wouldn't matter legally, as he would be legally defined as ancestral to existing populations, no matter how absurdly this legal definition contradicted fact.
Posted by: Moira on October 15, 2004
So if the law read as the proposed revision would have it, the scientists would need to prove certain facts about an artifact before being allowed to examine it in order to prove anything about it?
(Yes, that sentence looks clumsy, but circular logic is never pretty).
Posted by: Phil Fraering on October 15, 2004
I assume that some kind of initial testing would have to be done on disputed remains or artifacts, to determine their age. If they pre-date 1492, however, there would be no need to study anything, according to the logic. The answer to what they are and where they came from would have already been decided by fiat.
Posted by: Moira on October 16, 2004