Just relax, this won't hurt a bit. From the second of only two news articles I've seen on the proposed stealth amendment to SB 536: [Emphasis mine - mb]

Last year the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that no direct link exists between the tribes and the [Kennewick] skeleton.

Scientists say McCain's bill, with a two-word change, could nullify that ruling.

The change would add the words "or was" to a definition. It would then say that in the context of ancient remains, the term "Native American" refers to a member of a tribe or culture that is or was indigenous to the United States.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee approved the bill on a voice vote last month. Rob Roy Smith, an attorney for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington state, and other supporters say the bill would apply to future archaeological finds, and would strengthen the case of tribes across the country that want to claim and bury ancient remains.

But not to worry, because

[...]Andrea Jones, a spokeswoman for McCain, said attorneys have told the committee the bill would not apply to Kennewick Man, because the 9th Circuit has already made a decision.

Spokesmen for Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., also say the bill does not apply to Kennewick Man.

Oh well, that's all right then. It's not as if there are or will be any artifacts or remains comparable to Kennewick's. Move along, nothing to see here.

Angela Becker-Dippmann, a spokeswoman for Cantwell, said that even if the bill is signed into law, tribes "will still have to prove a cultural connection" to an archaeological find before being allowed to claim them.

And we all know how hard it is to get Interior or the Corps of Engineers to accept claims of "cultural affiliation". At any rate, NAGPRA already requires that cultural affiliation be demonstrated. Perhaps Becker-Dippmann could clarify for the public exactly what purpose this amendment is supposed to serve?

(Related links.)

UPDATE: I'm moving the comments from Cleone Hawkinson of Friends of America's Past up to the main page, as it's important to emphasize how obfuscating the happy words of the amendment's supporters and sponsors really are:

The requirement to demonstrate a cultural relationship will be easily ignored and largely uninforceable. The Army Corps' willingness to ignore NAGPRA's requirement to establish cultural affiliation was the original issue in the K-man lawsuit in 1996. It turned out no affiliation or even the most tenuous connections could be established.

If all finds and sites are automatically defined as NA, the local tribe has to be consulted immediately. The tribe could refuse to allow anyone (agency or scientist) further access to independently 'verify' their claim of a cultural relationship. The only remedy would be to bring a lawsuit, which is unlikely to be a realistic choice. (K-man is in its 9th year and still has a tribal appeal pending before the 9th Circuit).

With this expanded definition of NA and new NAGPRA regulations covering 'culturally unidentifiable' items and remains, the key to the lock on the nation's entire prehistory will rest in the hands of American Indians.

The world's understanding of human migrations into this continent (via the Pacific and Atlantic) and discoveries such as K-man would be limited by the wims of tribal politics and religious beliefs.

And:

The 'comforting' words by Senators that this amendment wouldn't affect K-man deserve further examination. Nothing in the language of the amendment addresses K-man nor exempts these remains from new claims under NAGPRA.

A new round of litigation may in fact eventually uphold the original K-man decison. However, scientists' access to K-man will remain shut down until all legal issues are resolved.

Of course the issue is much broader than K-man. The lack of Senate committee hearings to take input from anyone but the tribes on the issue speaks volumes about the real political agenda. All Senators need to be held accountable for digging further into this issue. We must not be satisfied with their misleading superficial replies. If we let them off the hook with no further questions, they get to take the easy way out issuing reassurances that are baseless.

(More background and info here.)

Posted by Moira Breen at 08 April 2005 08:18 AM