After eight years of bitter controversy, the ultimate fate of the ancient hunter known as Kennewick Man may hinge on a quiet attempt by outgoing Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell to change "is" to "is, or was."Campbell (R-Colo.) is sponsoring a bill innocuously titled "Native Americans Technical Corrections Act of 2004," which proposes in Section 14 to amend the definition of Native American in a 1990 law requiring the repatriation of remains to modern indigenous tribes.
Instead of defining Native American as "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States," the law would read "is, or was indigenous to the United States."
Scientists intent on studying the Kennewick remains say the bill, if passed, would effectively overturn an appeals court ruling allowing their research to go forward and instead cede control of the bones to a coalition of four northwestern tribes that want to rebury them. [...]
"There's so much at stake," said National Museum of Natural History anthropologist Doug Owsley, one of the eight internationally known scientists seeking access to the remains. "It is unfortunate that they're trying to slip this in under disguise. It should be done in open discussion."
Campbell's office is being disingenuous:
Campbell's office says the bill's passage -- which could occur by voice vote during Congress's lame-duck session -- does not necessarily mean that the Kennewick remains will be off-limits, only that Native American remains and artifacts may be linked to tribes or clans that no longer exist.For the Kennewick bones to be handed over for reburial, Campbell's office says, the four tribes still must show not only that Kennewick Man "is, or was" Native American, but also that he has a "cultural affiliation" to the modern-day tribes seeking his remains.
Yeah, right. Access to culturally affiliated artifacts and remains is already guaranteed under NAGPRA as it is now written. Since the four tribes, through protracted litigation, have been unable to demonstrate any affiliation to the Kennewick remains, one has to ask from where that "not necessarily" is conjured, if "was" changes nothing of import.
Supporters of the amendment also expand on the tactic of ignoring the substance of the controversy and maintaining that the debate is all about their ancestors (not what it is actually about: "whose ancestors? and "who were these people?"). Note that the particular reference below is to "the" ancestors rather than "our", but that this indicates no change in claims to primacy in all cases:
For the Native American tribes, the Campbell amendment, as well as the original 1990 law, has a purpose that goes beyond Kennewick: to give indigenous people the first voice in how ancestral remains will be treated."We're not opposed to science -- we're not Luddites," said Audie Huber, acting natural resources director for the Umatilla Tribes and spokesman for the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce and Colville tribes, who seek control of the Kennewick remains.
"The authority over the graves of the ancestors has to end up in someone's hands," Huber said. "The problem is that the tribes have always been the ones that have been forced to compromise."
Unfortunately, this constantly repeated attempt to move the focus back to that question-begging "our", and away from the real issues, is often successful with reporters and readers.
(Related links.)