Background information on Kennewick Man is available here.
—
When two men, watching boat races on a lazy July afternoon along the Columbia River, happened upon a set of exposed bones, it’s unlikely that they could have apprehended how important of an archaeological discovery they’d made, or the furor it would cause over the next ten years –both in the archaeological and Native American communities. This furor, surrounding the discovery of the Kennewick Man, informs a myriad of social and anthropological issues. Notably, it reminds both the press and the modern archaeologist to be sensitive to the precise use of language, which wields a supple and potent power. Moreover, for a larger audience, it refreshes to the mind the Native American resistance to Western archaeologists and anthropologists becoming what Vine Deloria Jr. caustically termed the “custodians of the Indian Past.”
Archaeologist James Chatters assisted local authorities with the excavation of the bones–finding a nearly complete skeleton–and it was Chatters who first described the now-Kennewick Man in terms of “Caucasoid traits,” noting a long, narrow face, narrow cheekbones and a protruding upper jaw. Expecting that the bones were several hundred years old, one can imagine Chatters’ surprise when Carbon 14 results came back dating Kennewick Man at approximately 8,400 years old.
The press, in turn, was equally impressed, and Kennewick Man made his debut on the proverbial front page. Looking at two news sources in particular, the Washington Post published an article claiming that because of its “Caucasoid look … the Kennewick skull might alter conventional views of how, when and by whom the Americas were peopled.” Similarly, the New York Times, several months later, published an article discussing the skeleton as having “Caucasian features, judging by skull measurements.”
Unfortunately, America’s media was rather hasty in its public announcement of the discovery–announcing “Caucasian origins” and revisionist histories well before the archaeologists themselves had formed their own opinions. Doubtless, Kennewick Man made good copy–especially given America’s keen interest in archaeological news–but these hasty and unsubstantiated announcements call into question the sensitivities of both publications. Stuart Fiedel, discussing Kennewick Man, notes that “the press is drawn to the David versus Goliath theme of tenacious upstarts successfully challenging scientific orthodoxy” – a theme the press’s version of Kennewick Man certainly fulfilled. Unfortunately, to extend to the metaphor, these publications pre-empted the death of the giant, even before the first stone flew.
Even when news agencies guard carefully against overstatement, the reading public tends to accept the reporter’s implied assumption about an unconfirmed event. (e.g., North Korea’s recent announcement of a nuclear bomb detonation, despite the careful inclusion of modifiers like “may,” “claim,” or “supposed,” amounts to an actual and successful nuclear detonation in the minds of most.) Thus, when the New York Times described “Caucasian features,” a nonscientific public understood the article to imply the possibility of European origins.
Kennewick Man’s fame was bolstered by the well-publicized legal battle that quickly erupted over the custody of the bones–the anthropologists, who wished to study Kennewick Man, on one side, and the Native Americans, who wished to properly bury his bones, on the other. On July 28th, 2006–six weeks after its discovery–a group of five Native American tribes claimed ownership of the bones under the 1990 Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). In response, a group of eight anthropologists quickly filed suit to prevent tribal burial of Kennewick Man and his potentially invaluable anthropological evidence. Kennewick Man remained in the custody of the Burke Museum at the University of Washington during the eight years of judicial proceedings. In February 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Native Tribes’ claim to the bones, on grounds that they were unable to show sufficient evidence of kinship to satisfy the NAGPRA.
Certainly, each side had a vested interest in gaining ownership of the bones. For archaeologists, Kennewick Man, as one of the most-complete skeletons of an early Holocene era human, represented the possibility of new archaeological insight and discovery. Specifically, the skeleton still may yet prove to be a key link (or counterproof) for the currently much-debated multiple-migration theory of Pleistocene American peoples.
The Native American interest in the skeleton is more complex. Ostensibly, the Native interest in Kennewick Man (and the idea behind the NAGPRA in general) was simply to prevent the desecration of an ancestor’s bones–which anthropological scrutiny would be in the first degree. The fact that not just one tribe, but four (the Umatilla, Colville, Yakama, and Nez Perce) carried the case all the way to the Supreme Court, however, suggests that more than a sense of sacred was at play. Rather, the Native American legal appeal seems more likely propelled by American Indian Movement ideas–ideas of self-determination, the control of Native American identity, imagery, and, most importantly, the control of Native American history. These ideas gained primacy, especially during the 1970s, through authors and activists like Vine Deloria Jr. Thus, to quote D.H. Thomas at length, “the lingering issues between Indians and archaeologists are political, a struggle for control of American Indian history. Although Deloria and [N. Scott] Momaday disagree about the relative merits of scientific knowledge and the role of Red Creationism, they agree on the most basic issue of all. The American academic community–led by grave-digging archaeologists–has robbed the Native American people of their history and their dignity. ”
Invoking a larger audience, the public’s response to Kennewick Man highlights both the power of language and its need for use with deliberate caution. Thomas quotes Chatters (who originally introduced the “Caucasoid-like features” description) as later complaining that “newspaper accounts had ‘confused the description of the remains as ‘caucasoid-like’ with an assertion that the skull was European.'” The blame for this ‘confusion,’ Thomas asserts, falls not with the reporters or newspapers, but rather squarely on the shoulders of Chatters and his fellow archaeologists. “As scientists repeatedly used everyday racial terminology to describe the Kennewick bones,” Thomas says, “they inadvertently stirred up some of anthropology’s most hateful and threatening ghost–the legacy of scientific racism.” The suggestion that Native Americans are the distant descendants of Europeans does more than deny the legitimacy of Native creation myths–it asserts a sort of paternal ownership over the Pleistocene and early Holocene peoples of North America.
The very use of the term “Caucasoid” is inappropriate, to the extent that to speak of the “race” of an ancient people is “bad science.” Nearly a full century ago, anthropologist Franz Boas proved experimentally that “race, language and culture are independent variables.” Underlying this was Boas’ discovery that a people group’s cephalic index (head form) is more affected by geography than by heredity–thus repudiating anthropology’s previous long-standing use of the cephalic index to trace the origins and movements of peoples. By July, 1996, the “American school of racial determinism” had been dead for more than half a century. C. Loring Brace asserts that in modern anthropology, “terms such as ‘Negroid,’ ‘Caucasoid,’ and ‘Mongoloid'” have become “biologically … worse than useless” –leveling a potentially deserved accusation at Chatters’ inapt word choice. Thomas continues in the same vein: “In the aftermath of Kennewick, any scientist using the term “Caucasian” … to describe a 9,400-year-old skull is both practicing bad science and painfully naive about the power of racial language in modern America.”
In February of 2006, a team of scientists and anthropologists were, for the first time since its discovery, given full access to the skeletal remains. Conclusions are outpaced by questions. How did this man arrive in present day Washington State? Did he cross the Beringia Straight? Is he, in fact, an ancestor of any of the tribes that have laid claim to him? And who will get to interpret the significance of Kennewick Man in terms of Native American history? To what extent has that role been assigned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court? In each case, while we wait for time to answer, we do so with a reminder of the perception-carving power of language and the assurance that, should David should slay his Goliath or otherwise, Kennewick Man will continue to ripple outwards in our intricately-woven fabric of society.
—
PDF version with citations:
https://eateggs.com/files/2006.10.18-Kennewick-Faux-Pas.pdf
