On July 26, 1996 two individuals were walking along the bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, did not expect to find one of the oldest complete skeletal remains in the world. While, Kennewick man has gained considerable notoriety, debates have grown over the application of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and whether the Native Americans or Archaeologists have the rights to the body. As soon as the body was found it was studied by anthropologist James Chatters and he discovered “that the skull had characteristics unlike those of modern Native Americans” (Native Americans and Archeologists). As a result, it did not qualify under the NAGPRA rules. However, conflict arose because the Department of Interior and many Native American tribes are contesting that evidence found by the archaeologists. But, while it goes against Native American beliefs to inspect the bodies of their ancestors, any evidence that was gathered during the trial, in regards to the origin of Kennewick man, was necessary in order to find out to whom he belongs. Now, the skeleton is currently being kept at the Burke Museum in Washington State, where it is not on display. I believe that is where he should stay until more information about him is found. Finally, in regards to the presentations, I will be taking about who cares about the Kennewick Man, Lise Anderson and Jen Gray will be tackling the topic of opinions, Matt Ruffcorn will do the basic information about the Kennewick Man, Austin Eibel will talk about the conflict affected and finally, Matt Hellinghouse will talk about the research from an archaeological perspective.
The body was found on the land of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and when they took po...
... middle of paper ...
... 18 Nov. 2013.
Minthorn, Armand. "Human Remains Should Be Reburied." Kennewick Man Perspectives on the Ancient One (n.d.): 42-43. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
Morell, Virginia. “Kennewick Man’s Trials Continue.” Science 280.5361 (1998): 190-192. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013
Murphy, Kim. "Kennewick Man Was Just Passing Through, Anthropologist Says." The Columbian. The Columbian, 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2013
Riley, Kate. "Who Owns the Past?" The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company, 28 Aug. 2006. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
Stapp, Darby C. "An Anthropological Perspective on Magistrate Jelderks's Kennewick Man Decision." Kennewick Man Perspectives on the Ancient One (n.d.): 44-66. World Archaeological Congress. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
Thomas, David Hurst. Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York, NY: Basic, 2000. Print
The Royal Alberta Museum holds a sacred object of the First Nations groups of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Manitou Stone. This sacred object has a vast history to the Aboriginals but also has much controversy that surrounds it. Hundreds of years ago the object was removed from its original spot and was moved back and forth across the Canada, eventually ending up in Edmonton at the Royal Alberta Museum. This sacred object was said to have many powers for the First Nations people and when it was taken it brought great hardship to the First Nations groups that believed in the power of the Manitou Stone. This is only the beginning of the issues that surround this sacred object. Many different Aboriginal groups claim to own the piece but no decision has been made as to where the object should be placed. With the Manitou Stone now in the Royal Alberta Museum issues arise about the proper housing of the item and whether or not it should be retained in a museum or if it should be on First Nations land. Where the Manitou Stone is placed brings many complications and struggles for the Aboriginal people that claim ownership of the sacred object. When researching this object I was initially unaware of the significance that a museum could have to groups of people and the struggles that this could bring to these groups. This paper will explore the significance of the stone, the various viewpoints on why the object was moved originally from Iron Creek, who claims ownership to the object, and whether or not a museum is the proper place for sacred objects like the Manitou Stone to be kept.
...ncyclopedia of Archaeology, Ed. Deborah M. Pearsall. Vol. 3. Oxford, United Kingdom: Academic Press, 2008. p1896-1905. New Britain: Elsevier, Inc.
Seeman, Erik. The Huron-Wendat Feast of the Dead: Indian-European Encounters in Early North America Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 2011
Raibmon’s book focuses on stories of the people of the Northwest Coast in late nineteenth century United States and Canada. She has two main reasons for doing so. The first is because the area was the focus of much of the work being done by early American anthropology. Early Anthropology was focused on preserving as much as possible of the “vanishing Indian.” By doing so they provided copious examples of what “authentic” Indians should look like with photographs as well as artifacts of “traditional” Indian culture. Raibmon’s second reason for placing the focus of her book here because there were big political changes in the area at that same time. ...
Kennewick Man has started and added to an immense saga about the ethics involved in excavating and studying the remains of other that passed away long and not so long ago. Kennewick man being one of the hottest topics of the media during the mid-nineties has proved to be one of the most trying ethical dilemmas of our time. An ethical dilemma as described by Kelley Ross Ph. D is a “conflict between the rightness or wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of those actions” (www.friesien.com). In the case of the Kennewick man the coalition of the tribes are trying to do what is best for their culture and belief by having the Kennewick man buried and the scientists who want to study this strange humanoid that has shown up on the banks of the Columbia River and are acting how they believe this should be handled, with careful study and the need to find the knowledge that this skeleton can provide about America nine millennia ago; and here is the problem that has been floating around this case for little over a decade.
Zigmond, M. L. (1986). Kawaiisu. In W. C. Sturtevant, Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 11, pp. 398-411). Washington: Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.
Blackfoot Gallery Committee, The (2013). The story of the blackfoot people: Nitsitapiisinni. (2nd ed.). Ontario: Firefly Books.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
Upper Missouri River area. Eastern Sioux, 19th century. Wooden board, buckskin, porcupine quill, length 31″ (78.8 cm). Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, D.C. Catalogue No. 7311
The Minoan archaeology is one which was surrounded by numerous controversies and this can be considered to be incomplete without the overall understanding of Sir Arthur Evans. The Minoan archaeology on its own has been present for several years however a true understanding of the culture and the culture was brought to life due to the efforts by Sir Arthur Evans. Heinrich Schliemann on the other hand was focused on the Mycenaean culture. Both these scholars were known to make a number of alterations to the artifacts, however for very different reasons and rationale. The main aim of this paper is to discuss their position in each culture and to discuss the possible rationale that these individuals had for making the alterations.
Fisher, Andrew H. Shadow Tribe: The Making of the Columbia River Indian Identity. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010.
The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act was signed into law on November 1990 by President George Bush. This legislation is the result of decades of effort by American Indians to protect the burial sites of their ancestors against grave desecration and to recover the remains of ancestors and sacred cultural objects in the possession or under the control of federal agencies and museums. In November 1993, museums holding certain Native American artifacts were required to prepare written summaries of their collections for distribution to culturally affiliated tribes. In November 1995, museums were required to prepare detailed inventories of their Native American collection. This act is historically significant because it represents a fundamental change in social attitudes toward Native people by museum curators, the scientific community, and Congress. Congress attempted to strike a balance between the interest in scientific examination of skeletal remains and the recognition that Native Americans have a religious and spiritual reverence for the remains of their ancestors (4).
In 1893, Simon Pokagon spoke at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition. He was a prominent tribal leader who was known for this speech. So much so, it was printed and turned into an informative pamphlet. The speech encompassed American history and it’s push Westward, detailing the destruction of the Native lands and culture forever. He begins by telling the crowd about how he cannot celebrate with them in this great big new city, because it reminds him of all that was lost. Pokagon states, “where stands this “Queen City of the West” once stood the red man’s wigwams;” (Page 32). A bold statement follows about how nature was plentiful, until pale face came with their
Debate started to arise when an archaeologist by the name of Thomas D. Dillehay found artifacts of people existing 14,600 years ago, before Clovis, in Monte Verde, a site in southern Chile. These people slept in hide tents, had access to seafood and potatoes, and shared similar characteristics to other artifacts found in North Ame...
Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner. The Western Heritage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.