I am proud that one of our first resolutions called for the return of bones of the 9,600 year old Kennewick man to the local Native American tribes. This Congress is the first time scientists have banded together to support these Indigenous people on the issue of respectful treatment of the mortal remains of their dead."
Now, if you follow this blog, you will notice immediately the sleight of hand being practiced in the above two sentences. Not only is the whole controversy over "whose dead?" completely swept aside, it insinuates that those scientists wishing to study K-man are against "indigenous peoples" having rights to their own dead.
Unsurprisingly, the same stunt is pulled in this press release:
President of WAC, Dr Claire Smith, stated "The respectful treatment of the mortal remains of the dead is a fundamental human rights issue. We need to recognise and acknowledge the special significance of Indigenous ancestral remains to Indigenous peoples. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that human remains are assumed to be Native American if they pre-date the documented arrival of European explorers. This change is consistent with the spirit of the original NAGPRA legislation and is simple good sense."
Astonishing, no? "We need to recognise and acknowledge the special significance of Indigenous ancestral remains to Indigenous peoples." Leaving aside the bizarrely patronizing generalizations about what is or is not of special significance to "Indigenous" peoples, who disagrees that people ought to deal with their dead as they see fit? But is there a sentence left out between this sentence and the one that follows it in the above quote? Because it surely is a whopping non sequitur: "The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that human remains are assumed to be Native American if they pre-date the documented arrival of European explorers." One assumes Dr. Smith has put her name to this release in her role as a scholar and a scientist. However, I'm at a loss to understand how this means anything at all in a context of science and scholarship. Read outside of that context, it is, of course, perfectly lucid. But what scholar could assent to such an "assumption", much less its codification into law? (As an aside, what exactly qualifies one as "Indigenous"? Do they all think alike? Or is it certain beliefs about human remains that separate the "Indigenous" from the merely "indigenous"?)
I put the text of the release, fiskatorily unrendered, in the extended entry, if you're interested, but will comment on a couple more things:
"Claims by some scientists that this amendment has the potential to cripple the field of physical anthropology are irresponsible scare-mongering," said Dr Smith. "Physical anthropology has been successfully done for the past 14 years under NAGPRA and this amendment will not change this practice in any way.
I will note only that Dr. Smith, as far as I can discern, is not a physical anthropologist, and that the American Association of Physical Anthropologists sees things differently. Continuing:
It only clarifies the intent of the original law and resolves ambiguities that have arisen. The amendment does not affect the requirement that Native American claimants demonstrate cultural affiliation before being entitled to the return of human remains."
One wonders what demonstration of cultural affiliation Smith relied upon to argue in favor of the re-interment of Kennewick Man? Apparently, by "clarification" and "resolution of ambiguities" Smith means "just resolve all disputes in favor of tribal claimants". Well, that would certainly be clear and unambiguous.
"This is not a controversial amendment. What really concerns me is the reaction to this amendment from some of the scientists involved in the Kennewick case. That kind of hostility to the legitimate concerns of Native peoples causes mistrust and is very damaging to our discipline. In contrast, international experience shows that research on human remains increases when Indigenous peoples and archaeologists work together cooperatively.[emphasis added]
Bad scientists. Bad, bad scientists. That certainly makes things easier, doesn't it? We don't have to deal with any fundamental disagreements over world views, establishment of religion, or the proper limits of science, or messy stuff like that. It's all about a few scientists with bad attitudes. (I'd be very interested to know what examples of scientists evincing "hostility to the legitimate concerns of Native peoples" she has in mind. Why do I suspect that "presuming to dispute the relationship of K-man to modern groups" is qualification enough for the "hostility" label?) And once again we have that odd and patronizing reference to an abstract "Indigenous peoples". (No "Indigenous" people are archaeologists themselves? For that matter, are there archaeologists and Archaeologists?)
Naturally we'd all prefer co-operative endeavor to a situation of fundamentally irreconciliable positions that require adjudication. But not all disagreements are rooted in somebody's (guess whose) bad attitude, and sometimes, as is manifestly the case in the Kennewick dispute, the "Indigenous" disputants have the wrong of it. Vandalizing a piece of legislation to ensure that any disputes shall be settled in favor of one side, as is the aim of this amendment, cannot transform the essential absurdity of the WAC's position into "simple good sense".
Also: A new "scare-mongering" article detailing the consequences of the proposed amendment has been made available: What is the Significance of "Is"? Another Attempt to Amend NAGPRA.
MEDIA RELEASEThe World Archaeological Congress (WAC) came out today in support of Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell's proposal to amend the existing Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). WAC offered its unreserved support for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's amendment to the Act which would recognize as Native American all human remains found in the United States that date prior to the documented arrival of European explorers. This revision is believed by many archaeologists to clarify the original intent of the law as it was passed in 1990.
President of WAC, Dr Claire Smith, stated "The respectful treatment of the mortal remains of the dead is a fundamental human rights issue. We need to recognise and acknowledge the special significance of Indigenous ancestral remains to Indigenous peoples. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that human remains are assumed to be Native American if they pre-date the documented arrival of European explorers. This change is consistent with the spirit of the original NAGPRA legislation and is simple good sense."
"Claims by some scientists that this amendment has the potential to cripple the field of physical anthropology are irresponsible scare-mongering," said Dr Smith. "Physical anthropology has been successfully done for the past 14 years under NAGPRA and this amendment will not change this practice in any way. It only clarifies the intent of the original law and resolves ambiguities that have arisen. The amendment does not affect the requirement that Native American claimants demonstrate cultural affiliation before being entitled to the return of human remains."
Dr Smith said: "This is not a controversial amendment. What really concerns me is the reaction to this amendment from some of the scientists involved in the Kennewick case. That kind of hostility to the legitimate concerns of Native peoples causes mistrust and is very damaging to our discipline. In contrast, international experience shows that research on human remains increases when Indigenous peoples and archaeologists work together cooperatively. In Australia, for example, there is on-going scientific research on human remains from Lake Mungo, some of which have been recently re-dated to around 60,000 years."
BACKGROUND The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization and is the only elected international body of practising archaeologists. WAC promotes interest in the past in all countries, to recognise the historical and social role and political context of archaeology, and endeavours to make archaeological studies relevant to the wider community. WAC acknowledges and recognises Indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing and protecting Indigenous cultural heritage.
Claire Smith
President, World Archaeological Congress
Department of Anthropology, Columbia University,
1200 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027
Ph: 1 212 854 7465; Fax: 1 212 854 7347
Email: cs2224@columbia.edu; URL:
World Archaeological Congress
--
Claire Smith
President, World Archaeological Congress
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,
Adelaide, SA. 5001. Australia
Ph: 61 (0)8 8201 2336
Fax: 61 (0)8 8201 3845
Till July, 2005
Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Ave,
New York, NY 10027
Room 964, Schermerhorn Extension
Ph: 1 212 854 7465
Fax: 212 854 7347
World Archaeological Congress
[edited to make provided links active - mb]