Talk:Kennewick Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Misc

I remember that the Tri-City Herald (the local newspaper) reported that some drunk guys had found him in the bushes during the hydroplane races, and they ran, thinking it was a murder scene. Can anyone with the time and energy verify that? Sword 16:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to a movie I just watched in Archaeology Class, they stubbed their toe on something, lifted it out of the water, and it was a skull. They then hid the skull in the bushes thinking it was a recent victim, and called the cops. Tezkah i-dont-know-what-time-it-is, 2 Nov 2004

[edit] Re: Scientific significance

In the original article from the main page, the contributor states that many native americans can trace "caucasian" ancestry in their DNA. However, it's not stated whether the genetic marker for caucasian predates the known colonization from Norsemen in North America or 15th & 16th Century Europeans "after" Columbus. If peoples from the European continent indeed mixed with native "mongloid" peoples 12,000 - 9,000 years ago, this is the first time I've heard of it.

Aside from the Clovis theory that ancient Europeans crossed over the Atlantic ice sheet between 20,000 - 18,000 B.C. [1], I've never heard any other claims regarding this. Therefore, I find the article misleading and unscientific in its claim.

Thoughts? Bourbon King 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)Bourbon_King

There is a genetic marker which is found in some Native Americans and some Europeans. This does not refer to contemporary persons of mixed blood. It is simply evidence of a common ancestry. Fred Bauder 22:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Has a complete genetic analysis been done on the remains? If not, then why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.242.249 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean common ancestry as "human beings" in general? If so, I agree with that genetic study, but I'm referring to it's support of Caucasian/Mongloid intermixing during the time of Kennewick Man, which is how I interpreted the article's statement.
Also, I remember the PBS program on this subject and it seemed to favor the belief that some peoples from the Asian continent had similar features to Caucasians but weren't actually Caucasian, but of a group of peoples in Asia with different looking features. The Ainu of Japan were mentioned as possible genetic ancestors to Kennewick Man. Bourbon King 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "(although unreliable in cases such as this due to contamination)". See the DOI memo at http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm for more information. Also, I changed the "Clovis spearhead" to "Cascade point" as per Dr. John L. Fagan's (a recognized authority on lithic analysis and replication of stone tools) analysis available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/fagan.htm. Earthsound 22:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasoids and Mongoloids

In terms of facial features, the only pre-Columbian North Americans who generally fit the mongoloid type are Eskimos. Chatters forgot to mention that. The term "pious fraud" comes to mind.

I removed this from the article, added by the same anonymous user who wrote the above & without citation:
For what it's worth, modern Indians generally have dolichocranic skulls and narrow, prognathous faces, but apparently the plaintiffs were unaware of this. In fact, many of the "differences" between Kennewick man and modern Indians actually end up with Caucasians between Kennewick man and East Asians, and either modern Indians either between Caucasians and Kennewick man or Kennewick man between modern Indians and Caucasians. Chatters et al. seem to have engaged in a type of pious fraud, particularly in the realm of prognathism; Caucasians are the most orthognathous racial category.
If someone wants to clean it up and provide citation, I have no objection to its reinsertion. Binabik80 04:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I grew up on Pine Ridge, and generally Indians don't look like mongoloids at all. At least not if you're using a definition of "mongoloid" which includes peoples of the Pacific Rim but doesn't include everyone on this planet today. Yes, that is how non-mongoloid Indians look. But if you want a citation, there are literally thousands of photographs of Indains from the late 19th/early 20th century, and paintings of Indians before that. You can look at Edward S. Curtis's The North American Indian for some photographs. For actual data, Earnest Hooton did some digging at Pecos Pueblo and found "pseudo-Australoids", "pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans". Hooton's own interpretation was tainted by the racism prevalent in anthropology during that time, but his data are good.

BTW, it was a Cascade point in Kennewick man, not a Clovis point. Clovis was millennia before.

[edit] The resemblance to Patrick Stewart

That reference to Patrick Stewart seems a little out of place. (though amusing)

There's an article on Kennewick Man in the July 2005 issue of Harper's ("Mighty White of You: Racial Preferences Color America's Oldest Skulls and Bones," by Jack Hitt) in which it is suggested that Chatters' "reconstruction" was in fact deliberately patterned after Patrick Stewart, quoting Chatters as saying "I turned on the TV, and there was Patrick Stewart— Captain Picard, of Star Trek— and I said, 'My God, there he is! Kennewick Man'" (Hitt 50). The article goes on to claim that facial reconstructions from skulls are of dubious value since the most recognizable facial features are due to soft tissue rather than bone structure. Does anyone have a reference to a scholarly treatment of the Kennewick "reconstruction"? --Cholling 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The resemblance to Patrick Stewart was very widely reported in popular media and it was often alluded to in the discussions since. If you have sources about how the resemblance may not be accurate, add something, but this should not be excised from the article. Jonathunder 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. "If you have sources about how the resemblance may not be accurate..": That's not the point at all, the question is: Is it relevant to the article? Do we have to point the readers attention to things that he can see for himself? No.
  2. "was very widely reported in popular media": It was indeed, and that wasn't a relevant issue then - and it's much less so nowadays, as the Kennewick Man is not a interesting subject for the press -especially the tabloids- anymore.
  3. "it was often alluded to in the discussions since..": Yes, in blogs, forums and with Harper's and such like. AFAIK it wasn't an issue with anthropologues or ethnologues. Among them, the scientific value of facial reconstructions from skulls in general might be an issue, but certainly not the resemblance of a particular reconstruction to a -good gracious- Shakespearean and Star Trek actor...
Summing up, it's just noise that adds nothing wortwhile and, yes, it"seems a little out of place" in an encyclopedic article. Doubts about facial reconstructions could be of interest here, provided the info can be substantiated. Anyway, even then, something like "the accuracy is disputed" should be added to the images caption, not more. If there are specific doubts regarding the Kennewick Man's reconstructions, put that in.
If you must, add something like "a resemblance to Patrick Stewart was noted by the popular press" to the caption. Superfluous, but less embarassing, providing some context and not giving it more wikipedia real estate than it deserves. --tickle me 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant because this is not just a summation of scientific views--that's not what Wikipedia is. We also report popular culture, along with many other things. The resemblance was extremely widely reported and commented on, and it an association that many people still make. It is not our place to censor that out because we think it is unscientific. If scientists call it that, report that. Report the issue and the controversy, but do not edit it out. Jonathunder 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad if Cholling could elaborate on the controversy, possibly backing it up by something more substantial than Harper's. Anyway, that's not at all what we're talking about. "It is not our place to censor" ...nor to state the obvious, give it undue weight and to present it out of context - especially, if popular culture is what you'd like to see mentioned. I changed accordingly. --tickle me 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, I never noticed before, but Stewart looks -quite- native american.. the nose, the eyes, the jowl lines..
I don't know who wrote the above comment, but it is one I've seen in various places and always find ironic. (I agree with it by the way).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because the resemblance noted by the media is amusing doesn't mean that isn't worth noting in the article. It's not just "pop culture" - it actually comes up in academic discussions (although usually in a context which is humorous or incredulous). I'm re-adding the information. Fuzzform (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also misleading however and possibly POV unless you provide a context. Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The context is the popular reaction to the reconstructed appearance of Kennewick man. Homo floresiensis is referred to as a "Hobbit" and this is duly noted in the Wikipedia article. Twalls (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading use of Caucasian

It is my opinion (also expressed by others) that one of the mistakes made early in the investigation of Kennewick Man was the use of the term "Caucasoid" to describe certain facial features (implied from skeletal measurement). This terminology is at best confusing to the public, and at worst, outright offensive. Caucasoid as used by Chatters, etc. was never intended as a synonym for Caucasian (or Caucasian a synonym for European), and both of these terms can have multiple definitions, depending on context (geography vs. general appearance vs. facial bone structure vs. ancestry).

It was the contention very early on that the subject was similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples, following from the presence of specific "Caucasoid" skeletal features as is also found in those groups. It is made very clear in Chatters's book that Kennewick Man was not Caucasian and did not appear to be Caucasian, but rather something entirely different (and indeed rather different from any people on earth today). It was regrettable that the popular media could not distinguish the terminology, and thus regrettable that it was used outside a forensic setting.

As a result this excerpt is not precise enough to describe the issue, and is possibly misleading:

"Further research, however, has shown that Kennewick Man is possibly not Caucasian at all. Rather, some researchers now suggest he most closely resembles Polynesian or Ainu peoples."

I will give the matter some more thought, but if no changes or discussion occur after a week or so, will probably edit this to read.

" The presence of forensic Caucasoid features inferred from measurements of the skull is not synonymous with a modern Caucasian appearance, nor does is it imply a European ancestry. Rather, researchers have used these measurements to suggest a skeletal similarity to Polynesian or Ainu peoples, both of which have features that are referred to as Caucasoid by forensicists. Further, while the match to these modern groups is strongest, some of Kennewick Man's facial metrics are much more similiar to those from other Paleoindian (Paleoamerican?) examples than those from any modern human group." ref: Chatters, Ancient Encounters

I thought that the only time that a "Caucasian" origin was considered was from before a detailed examination was made, when the possibility of a 19th centrury settler was still a concern. This was ruled out very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about all this. The Caucasian/Caucasoid mess probably has to be addressed since it had an impact on events following the discovery of Kennewick man. Certainly, it isn't fair to the first forensic scientists that studied Kennewick Man to suggest that they thought that Kennewick Man was likely of European origin or appearance. Yet, it is understandable why people would think Caucasian when they hear Caucasoid. The comparison to Patrick Stewart's head did not help calm the controversy at all. I admit that I am concerned about relying so heavily on Chatters's own account in this, but it is a clear account of what the thought was at the time as the data was coming in.

A link out to the forensic/ facial craniometry entries treatment of "Caucasoid" may be helpful. I am concerned about the extent that any of this can be subverted by some groups with a non-neutral point of view, but since they are already doing so on their own websites, trying to bring in more clinical perspective may help.

In summary, I would like to see it quickly explained that Kennewick man had certain facial metrics similar to specific groups around the Pacific; that these facial features are sometimes termed by forensicists to be Caucasoid, using a very distinct definition from that of the more general word, Caucasian; but overall Kennewick Man appears to be more similar to other Paleoamericans than to any modern humans. This is handled well in the following paragraph, but the sentence I am raising an issue with is not an effective lead-in. (Forgot to sign -- see below)

Edit: I am still mulling it over. The issue might be the use of "now" in that sentence to refer to an opinion reached several years ago, after which there has been more study. Thus it reads as if the more recent findings contradict earlier work that they actually substantiate. 24.58.1.138 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back to Ancient Encounters, as well as the latest Time article. The use of the word "now" was part of the Wikipedia entry several years ago -- so that is part of the issue. It appears that an update to the entry is in order. I also note that the cause of death is _not_ known; they have simply ruled out the spear point (though it appears to me that this is also a reiteration of something suspected several years ago). If it is known, then details and reference are needed. 24.58.1.138 02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Tribe(s) Actually in Lawsuit?

Early on the article states the Umatilla was the only tribe to actually pursue legal action. Later it states the "the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the appeal of the Umatilla, Colville, Yakama, Nez Perce and other tribes".

This contradiction should be investigated and resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.22.169 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

"The corps was acting on behalf of five Native American tribes who have claimed that Kennewick man was their ancestor: the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Wanapum Band."
-- a 1998 article in Willamette Week (Portland, OR
Nerwen 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeological excavation?

The article says that the bones were 'collected'. Was there an archaeological excavation of the remains? If not, why not? Archaeologists have methods and techniques that allow them to gather much contextual information about the body, such as the hugely important question of was he buried or not? Was he interred in a grave or had he died alone of his wounds and gradually been covered by natural deposits?

If he had been buried, there might have been grave goods, and dating evidence in the grave fill. If the bones were 'collected' by someone unfamiliar with archaeological techniques, much important evidence may have been lost. 86.138.105.97 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] origin belief

how is it that the tribe could say that the evidence of a skull older than their tribe's beleife of the dawn of time count as persecution of their beliefs, while if a young earth creationist tried to say that the government accnoleging the age of the univerese to be 14 billion years old to be persecution of their beleifs would be laughed at?

I might be biased seeing as how indiginous australians acnolege that they have lived here for 40000 years, and some of them even have histories of arriving in australia from elsewhere. But the whole thing about pre european remains being automaticaly defined as belonging to a native american tribe just confuses me, as some of these regualtions go beyond recognition and allowence of practice of culture and seem to at least get very close to intergrating religous beleifs as law. Can someone please at least tell me if there exists any literature that will cure me of my confusion, that doesn't require having a preexisting knowelage of american history, and possibly gives comparisons to rights of native peoples in other countries? --124.168.200.78 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your asking (sorry, just being honest - maybe you could simplify it a bit?) but I think the controversy/confusion of the NAGPRA law as relates to this case is a result of a short-sighted assumption that any 'ancient' remains (meaning pre-1400s-European 'intrusion', for practical purposes) could naturally be assumed to be Native American ("Indian") ancestry; in other words the law assumes any remains found here that are thousands of years old must be related to some existing tribe. And, by default, a member of the tribe that occupied that land at the point in time of the European arrival...and from what I'm reading in this article and have seen on news media, Kennewick Man has thrown a monkey wrench into the legal works.
The intent of NAGPRA was surely to offer some respect to the situation of native Americans being on the losing end of a major event of human migration, and to prevent further exploitation (for lack of a better word) of that unfortunate situation. And to show respect for the dead (remember, desecrating a grave or body is an offense in most cultures)...Of course, all this opens the possibility that groups, tribes, whoever, can play the 'religion card' in uncertain situations.
The article states "The Umatilla have argued that their origin beliefs say that their people have been present on their historical territory since the dawn of time, so a government holding that Kennewick Man is not Native American is tantamount to the government's rejection of their beliefs."....Well..1) With respect, the Umatilla's current religious belief (that they have been in that geographic area since the 'dawn of time') flies in the face of the fact that most if not all Native American populations were in varying degrees nomadic - the Indians moved a lot over the centuries. 2) And anyway, "rejection" or "acceptance" of religious beliefs does not bear much on whether Kennewick Man was a member of that tribe....FWIW I think the 9th Circuit ruled correctly in Feb 2004. The Umatilla overstepped their bounds - they have no proof (or anything close to it) that KM was a Umatilla... Engr105th 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates do not match

Opening line:

Kennewick Man is the name for the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, USA on July 28, 1996.

Only line in the third paragraph (just above the contents):

In July 2005, a team of scientists from around the United States convened in Seattle for ten days to study the remains, making many detailed measurements, and determined the cause of death.

I'm pretty sure the scientists didn't study it before it was discovered :P Porco-esphino (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which way do you normally conceive of time as flowing? ClovisPt (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just checked my calendar, and yes, it does seem that 1996 was before 2005. --P3d0 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Research shows a Beringian entry for a single founding population

I'm sorry this section is very vague and doesn't really say anything, it seems like a citation for the sake of citation. There is nothing liking this citation to Kennewick Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.165.37 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet the paragraph above is about the same general topic and isn't even referenced. Someone's removed the section, so I've simply added the reference to the paragraph about the debate over origins. It is clearly relevant and I don't understand why people think one bit about origins is relevant and another (the only referenced one) is not.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Custred edits & POV?

Last May Grundlkc (SPA, this is their only contribution) added a whole bunch of stuff from an article by Prof Glynn Custred. Custred is clearly by Wikipedia standards a reliable source, but he is also clearly a politically active academic with an axe to grind, and by relying on him so much I think this has given the article Custred's POV and he can't be considered a neutral participant in the debate - see for instance [2]. Comments?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Custred's contribution to the Kennewick Man case are arguments against political constraints on archaeological research. If that position intersects with his political opinions, I think that's fine. Certainly, his positions on other issues may be considered agenda-driven, but his contribution to the Kennewick Man discussion seems completely relevant. Twalls (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)