In 1996, the 9300 year old Kennewick Man skeleton was found within Washington
in the United States. While his age implies that he is a Native American,
his physical
features suggest that his origin may in fact be European. Federal legislation
prevents
testing that could conclude the origin of Kennewick Man. This paper considers
the
various implications that the remains of one ancient person can have upon
the struggle
between cultural beliefs and the scientific quest for knowledge. The decision
about
repatriating Kennewick Man or allowing him to be studied is examined from
an ethical
perspective. It is debated whether Kennewick Man has more significance
to scientists
and the general public or to Native Americans. Finally, claims to ownership
are addressed,
and the agendas underlying each claim are summarized. Since the remains
are highly
valuable to both groups, they must be tested so that proper ownership can
be determined.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Ethical Considerations
Importance
Ownership
Conclusion
References
Introduction
While
repatriation is a necessary tool in preventing the exploitation of people
and their heritage, sometimes it goes too far. Kennewick Man was delivered
to the Native Americans for repatriation before proper scientific testing
and consequent conclusions were complete. Thus, he was silenced without
the opportunity to reveal many mysteries about his past.
Kennewick
Man is the issue of heated debate between scientists who wish to study
him and Native Americans who want his body repatriated and returned for
burial. Both Kennewick Man and NAGPRA need to be defined before discussing
this debate. Kennewick Man of a person found on the banks of the Columbia
River in July of 1996. After an initial analysis, the skeleton was deemed
a middle-aged male Caucasian. However, when the skeleton was then dated
as being over 9300 years old, Kennewick, Washington quickly became the
center of a long-standing debate. ( http://www.runestone.org/kmfact.html
)
NAGPRA is the Native Americans Grave Repatriation Act passed by Congress
on November 16, 1990. ( http://www.cast.uark.edu/products/NAGPRA/DOCS/lgm003.html)
NAGPRA was implemented to protect Native American graves and to help defend
Native American groups from any violation or exploitation of their rights
especially by groups that are more powerful. It further asserts that ownership
of any human remains found on federal or tribal lands after 1990 should
be given to the closest lineal Native American descendants. If a lineal
descendant cannot be found the remains will then be given to the group
with the closest relation. If it is hard to ascertain any realistically
close relationship or determine whether one can even be decided only then
will the remains be turned over for either scientific interests or to museums
for preserving. ( http://www.cast.uark.edu/products/NAGPRA/DOCS/lgm003.html)
The
decision about whether to pursue scientific study or allow Kennewick Man
to be returned is complicated and has many far-reaching implications. If
Native Americans were determined to be one of a few groups to originally
inhabit the Americas or a later group that invaded and conquered the indigenous
people, a large part of history would be rewritten. One possible consequence
of a rewritten American history is a reduction in funding and benefits
for Native Americans. Not only would they no longer be the indigenous people
of this continent, but they would have actually displaced some other group.
( http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html)
Cultural implications also would be large, since a mystery about how much
of the Native Americans' culture was their own and how much was adopted
from an earlier group. If no testing is done then Native Americans will
continue to be regarded as the original settlers of North America. Forbidding
testing becomes a political avenue to maintain their aboriginal status.
( http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html)
Deciding
to allow studies to be done carries added implications because it would
set a precedent. This becomes more than just a struggle to protect one
possible Native American ancestor because it could establish a guideline
for how unearthed human remains will be handled in the future. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/020200.html)
In order to determine whether or not the remains are allowed to be subject
to testing actually requires tests to be done on the remains. DNA testing
needs to be conducted to establish whether these skeletal remains that
possess Caucasian features must be repatriated or should be turned over
to science. (Downey 2000, p. 43). Even if repatriation is carried out,
DNA tests would need to be done to determine which of the several Native
American groups with claims to Kennewick Man, if any, are justified in
their request. (Downey 2000, p. 45). Not conducting tests on these remains
because of Native American religious beliefs respects the culture of another
group, but, it allows science to be thwarted by religion. (Downey 2000,
p. 43).
Debate
intensifies because both scientists and Native Americans try to interpret
gray areas in the wording of NAGPRA to suit their own benefits. They cannot
reach any compromise though as it is simply a matter of testing the skeletal
remains or leaving them alone and reburying them. Consequently, it is left
to the justice system to try and resolve this unwavering stalemate. Of
course, ethical concerns aside from just the legal ones about the rights
of the Native Americans as a group, and the conduct of science and archaeology
as disciplines play a major role as well.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics play a major role
in what should be done regarding Kennewick Man. The principles of archaeology
are examined and determined to either be operating justly or violating
the standards upon which the discipline is supposed to be based.
Archaeologists are major
proponents of educating the public and promoting cultural heritage. The
fundamental principles of archaeology entail communicating interpretations
of the past and making resources and information available to the public
to enrich their knowledge and understanding. (Messenger 2000, pp. 111-112;
http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
However, it is imperative that archaeologists wait to present information
to the public until they are relatively certain about their findings because
failure to do so misleads the public and results in long-lasting erroneous
beliefs. (http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
Archaeology aims to enrich understanding of cultural diversity and to aid
the development of culture in general. (Wylie 2000, p. 139). Teaching about
cultural heritage and developing a written history of the past are ethical
responsibilities for archaeologists. (SAA 2000, p.11; http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
Archaeologists are responsible for "designing and conducting projects that
will add to our understanding of past cultures" and "committed to promote
and support all legislature, regulatory, and voluntary programs that forbid
and discourage all activities that result in the loss of scientific knowledge
and of access to sites and artifacts". (Wylie 2000, p.141; http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
Thus, not presenting the world with the truth about Kennewick Man infringes
upon ethical responsibilities as it silences the truth.
Archaeologists
also are accountable to explaining to the groups with which they work why
the research is important and offering them the opportunity to assist in
the process as well as trying to ascertain their permission before any
work has been conducted. They should also try to build a relationship with
the group they are working with as they communicate what is entailed in
the research. (Messenger 2000, p. 111; http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
Archaeologists are guilty of breaking this ethical principle in the case
of Kennewick Man. Native Americans were not first informed about the research
before excavations had begun and were never asked to partake or to be included
in the processes during the early stages. Native Americans were also not
asked permission before the work was conducted on their ancestors as scientist
simply sped ahead to examine the skeletal remains. (Downey 2000, p. 33)
The research conducted is inconsiderate of the rights of Native Americans
and discriminates against them by treating the sacred bones of their ancestors
as nothing more than common fossils. (Yellowhorn 2000, pp. 130-131). While
these violations should not be taken lightly, they should not be used as
justification for keeping the truth about Kennewick Man hidden. Just because
one type of mistake has been made in the past does not mean that another
should be made in the future.
Stewardship
is the ethical principle that leads to the long-term conservation and protection
of the materials that the archaeologists study. (Messenger 2000, p. 111).
Archaeologists must contribute to the formation and preservation of the
archaeological record as well as using it for the advantage of all people.
(Wylie 2000, p. 153; http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html).
In the case of Kennewick Man, archaeologists have certainly upheld this
ethical principle as they try to conduct tests using as little of the remains
as possible. The tests are conducted in order to enrich the archaeological
record with the information that archaeologists ascertain through their
studies. In fact, to disturb as little of the remains as possible, the
left over fragments from the Carbon 14 test were used for the subsequent
DNA testing. (Downey 2000, p. 29). Scientists and archaeologists held close
to the principle of preservation as they gave care and attention to their
study while using only what was necessary and nothing more. (SAA 2000,
p. 12; http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html)
Even
when attempting to make decisions adhering strictly to the ethical code
though, things often get complicated as the rights for a group in one area
conflict with the rights for another group in a different area. Arguments
ensue over which group is justified because the ethical codes are often
kept very general. While all groups may agree with their basic principles,
they are too broad to solve any real dilemmas. The very murky wording is
open for a myriad of interpretations. (Zimmerman 1998, p. 77) Many people
also argue that it is wrong to allow a set guideline of ethics determine
a blanket course of action. They argue that an individual's judgments about
what is right or wrong need to be taken into consideration in addition
to what is written in some handbook. Every case is different and no one
can rule over whose ethical standards are right and whose are wrong just
because they have reached a previous consensus. (Goldstein 2000, p. 124)
Importance
A
major factor in the decision of whether Kennewick Man should be repatriated
or subjected to studying by scientists rests in the benefit and significance
of the skeletal remains relative to the Native American community versus
to scientific research or to the general public. It is important
to consider the possible benefits that depend on the outcome of this case.
The
first question is how many people will benefit? Dr. JoAllyn Archambault
stated in an affidavit to the Department of the Interior that, "Kennewick
Man is part of the human past, and we have an obligation to preserve as
much knowledge of the human past as we can. We owe this obligation not
only to ourselves, but more importantly to future generations, both Indian
and non Indian. They will judge us harshly if we needlessly allow part
of their heritage to be lost." (http://www.friendsofpast.org/01/news-010322.html,
March 20001)
Conflict
between beliefs of Native Americans that the past should be left undisturbed
and the goals of science to establish a documented record of the past through
testing and analysis creates a dilemma. (Wylie 2000, p. 151). While the
Native Americans state that they want Kennewick Man repatriated, scientists
argue that the good of the general public and the truth about this continents
history rests in the analysis of these skeletal remains. Returning
Kennewick Man to the American Indians would make a small group of people
very happy but would deprive almost 5 billion others of learning a potentially
important piece of information about the history of the world.
Kennewick
Man holds significance for Native American groups, science, and the historical
record. How much cultural significance does Kennewick Man have to the Native
Americans. This question is important because it has to be determined whether
these ancient remains are an integral part of American Indians' beliefs
and culture or just something they would prefer for others not to be disturbing.
"Native Americans believe that the dead remain connected to the living
and to the physical remains they left behind… Disturbing such remains disturbs
the moral fabric of the world with negative consequences". (Downey 2000,
p. 37). Native Americans argue that preserving the skeletal remains is
a spiritual matter and that they only are going through a legal avenue
to secure their claim and provide a remedy to this situation. (Yellowhorn
2000, pp. 130-131). They believe that when a body is secured in its final
resting place that it should be left for all of posterity and never disturbed
or exhumed. It is not lost and thus not the property of whoever finds it
but rather should be safe and protected by religious rights of the Native
American groups. (Yellowhorn 2000, pp. 132-133). They further argue that
since all of the native groups promote reburial, it should not matter to
which specific group the bones belong before repatriation can take place.
Instead, an immediate reburial should occur so that the spirit can return
to an undisturbed slumber. (Yellowhorn 2000, p. 133). Native Americans
believe that the disturbance of anyone of their ancestors will have a severe
negative impact on their world and thus knowing they could be descendants
of Kennewick Man, it is very important to them culturally to see him be
repatriated.
The
other side of the debate is how much allowing the study of Kennewick Man
will enhance historical and cultural understanding if he is delivered into
the hands of the scientists. Many scientists have given sworn affidavits
in court that Kennewick Man is an irreplaceable piece of history and forbidding
testing to be done to at least determine ownership is wrong and a serious
detriment to the scientific field and public as a whole. (Downey 2000,
p.49) Scientists believe that the discovery of Kennewick Man has
provided them with an invaluable chance to learn about the early North
American population and consider the remains to be an extremely rare find
of utmost importance to their research and discipline. (Downey 2000, p.49)
Ownership
To
whom should Kennewick Man belong? The main defense for the claims of Native
Americans is NAGPRA : "Remains are subject to NAGPRA if the remains were
discovered or excavated from Federal or tribal lands after November 16,
1990 and if the remains are of a person of Native American ancestry. NAGPRA
defines a person of Native American ancestry as of, or relating to, a tribe,
people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States, including Alaska
and Hawaii."
( http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/library/weekly/aa011400.htm)
Kennewick Man was found on Federal land. The link to Native Americans
is less clear. NAGPRA must clarify whether there needs to be a cultural
as well as biological link when determining Native claims. What to
do if a link to more than one group or a group that differs from Native
Americans or has died out but is still on their land exists is also a confusing
situation. A more orderly process consisting of steps that can be carried
out and implemented in a certain order must be established. (Downey 2000,
p. 116-117) Scientists argue that any human remains over 400 or 500 years
old cannot reasonably be linked to any one group through direct descent
because of cultural and biological evolution. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html
)
"Native American" as defined in NAGPRA may be limited by the word "indigenous".
By definition, the term indigenous excludes people and culture that came
to the American continents from other places in the world. (http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/library/weekly/aa011400.htm)
Congress did not mean for "indigenous" to put
such severe restrictions on who is a "Native American". Instead "Native
American" was implied by NAGPRA to mean all people and culture present
in the United States before official European exploration of the Americas.
( http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/library/weekly/aa011400.htm)
The terms Native American and indigenous need to be better defined in order
to deal with many of these issues.
Since
Kennewick Man was found in the United States and lived there from prior
to 1492, NAGPRA states by definition that Kennewick Man is Native American.(http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/library/weekly/aa011400.htm)
Following the guidelines set by NAGPRA any Viking remains from their many
voyages to North America prior to Columbus' travels would be considered
"Native American" and repatriated to modern tribes for reburial. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/102500.html
)
Thus, the claims of repatriation can be extended too far. This over
extension can result in the wrong people having rights to handle other
people's ancestors as their own. Biological and cultural ties are
not taken into consideration, but rather the remains are just automatically
repatriated. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html)
NAGPRA is using time as its only guideline, and this point is fervently
argued by scientists to be completely unreasonable. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html
)
Another
question that must be addressed by NAGPRA is whether any time limit after
which any remains become public property exists. As previously mentioned,
most scientists agree that any skeleton as old as Kennewick Man is too
old to be related to any modern tribe. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/042498.html)
With the lack of cultural and biological ties of skeletal remains several
thousand years old, it is questionable whether any particular group of
the world has any more right or relation to remains than any other. Based
on the age of the skeleton, these arguments would imply that Kennewick
Man should not be the sole property of any modern Native American group
regardless of his lineage.
Facial
structures provide strong physical evidence that Kennewick Man is not a
part of an early Native American group but instead part of a different
pre modern European population. Powell and Rose did an in-depth comparative
analysis of a variety of characteristics found in human populations throughout
the world. This analysis also measured details about the craniums
of these modern populations and indicated that the remains of Kennewick
Man are not very similar to any of them. Although the shape of the
cranium is similar to Northern Asian populations like the Ainu, it does
not closely resemble that of any modern population. ( http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/mcmanamon.htm#exam
)
Dr. Chatters explains that a long pointed nose, well developed and flat
mastoid processes, orbits that are circular rather than square, and a skull
that passes the pencil test all signify that the skeleton of Kennewick
Man is much more similar to a Caucasian than a Native American. (Downey
2000, p. 23) Dr. Chatters suspects that Kennewick Man was a male of European
descent that died around the age of 50. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/073096.html)
He emphasizes that early American Indian skulls tend to have rounded skulls.
Also, with a diet that was high in fiber as well as sand that was often
inadvertently mixed in with their meals, American Indian teeth tended to
be worn down. This pattern contrasts with the European-like teeth and skull
structure of Kennewick Man. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/073096.html)
It seems that modern Native Americans do not have a substantial claim for
the ownership of Kennewick Man on the bases of these biological findings.
Evidence
for Native American ownership outside of the legal protection of NAGPRA
is dubious and speculative at best. Even if the skull of Kennewick Man
were determined to be Native American further studies would have to be
conducted to determine to which modern tribe if any the remains should
belong. ( http://www.friendsofpast.org/01/news-010104.html)
Native Americans face a dilemma because in order to win their case and
prove ownership they would have to allow scientific testing of Kennewick
Man's remains. In the process, they would be losing their fight.
The only way for Native Americans to win is to appeal to the current wording
of NAGPRA or continue tying the arguments up in court until they win or
are simply granted custody after a never ending stalemate. One interesting
note is that an object resembling a spear point found in the side of Kennewick
Man. The curious object appears to resemble spearheads used by early Native
Americans. While the resemblance to a spearhead may imply that Kennewick
Man was Native American, it also may mean that he was not a Native American
and consequently was speared or it could simply be a coincidence that the
rock imbedded in the hip region resembles a spearhead. (Downey 2000, p.117)
Chatters and others that initially looked at the skeleton assert that Kennewick
Man is a wanderer without lineal ancestors in this country. Thus,
he should not belong to any one group but rather to the American people".
(Downey 2000, p. 116-117).
The
only real evidence pointing toward Kennewick Man being Native American
is historical precedence because of the time period and geographical location.
Thus, testing is also avoided because aside from his age and being found
in the United States, most physical evidence suggests that Kennewick Man
is not of Native American descent. In fact, so far scientific evidence
suggests that no direct descendants of any early Americans are alive today.
However, without a clear answer from scientific testing to determine ownership
of the Kennewick Man, Native Americans can still use the protection of
NAGPRA to have a chance at having the remains repatriated to them.
Several
tribes conjointly possess the current rights to Kennewick Man. "Indian
tribe claimants (including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama Reservation, the Nez Perce
Tribe of Idaho, and the Wanapum Band) are now the legal custodians of the
skeletal material and further scientific research by members of the public
is up to them. (http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/library/weekly/aa100100a.htm)
More testing obviously needs to be done to at least determine which if
any of these groups is the right group of people that Kennewick Man has
been placed with.
Conclusion
It
is a difficult decision to determine whether the benefit of knowledge outweighs
the significance of cultural meaning. The scientific argument is one of
a quest for knowledge and desire to reveal the hidden mysteries of the
world. Science continually seeks to uncover the true story of what
"really" happened. Scientists believe that an analysis of the bones of
Kennewick Man can provide them with an invaluable piece of the puzzle in
learning about early North American history. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/042498.html)
Some archaeologists have likened the reburial of human remains by Native
American groups to book burning because all of the information and knowledge
that could have been discovered by analyzing the remains may be lost forever.
(Zimmerman 1998, p. 73) Some scientists assert that no one owns the past
and so no groups should have any exclusive access or control to it. (Zimmerman
1998, p. 70) While the record may be about Native Americans more
specifically it is still about the world in general and that the past and
archaeological materials are not private but rather the public domain.
(Zimmerman 1998, p.76). Giving things back is not necessarily the right
course of action because while you may be fulfilling the wishes of one
particular group in some ways you are depriving the enrichment and rights
of the rest of the world. (Goldstein 2000, p. 120) They argue that
the information gained through archaeological research is invaluable as
it unveils the mysteries of the past and that without archaeology Native
Americans would have been left without a past as well. (Zimmerman 1998,
p. 77) The main argument in this particular case though is that most of
the evidence based upon the physical structures suggests that the remains
are not Native American and thus even though the bones may have been found
upon Native American lands, the remains are not of their direct ancestors
and so they should have no special right to them. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/042498.html
;
http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html)
The
Native American argument is that their ancestors are not just an important
part of their past but an important part of their present culture as well.
They argue that no one would want the remains of their relatives exhumed
and analyzed and not many people would want it done to them either. Non
American Indian Scientists counter this remark by stating that the remains
of Kennewick Man may indeed be more closely related to them then Native
Americans and they still insist that he be studied and the data be analyzed.
(Downey 2000, p.49) Native Americans do not want their ancestors disturbed
as they serve an important part of their life because of their religious
beliefs and believe that disturbing these remains infringes on their religious
freedom. They liken the exhuming of their possible ancestors by others
in the face of their religious beliefs in terms of insensitivity to going
into a church during mass and ripping pages out of the Bible in front of
the entire congregation. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/050198.html
)
The American Indian groups believe that they were the only people here
and thus that NAGPRA should be used to return the skeletal remains of any
ancient skeleton found in the Americas to them. (http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/recasting/story1.html)
Native Americans religious beliefs state that when people take care of
the land the land will take care of them. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/050198.html)
When remains are exhumed the promise to protect the land and all that is
within it has been broken and thus the covenant the land had to take care
of the people will be shattered as well. ( http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/073096.html)
They do not want to see Kennewick Man studied but instead returned to his
grave because even though he may not be one of their ancestors they do
not want to take the chance and risk falling victim to adverse consequences
as mentioned about their religious beliefs. Native Americans conclude their
arguments by saying since the dead obviously cannot give their consent
to be studied, spiritual ancestors should have the authority to make the
decision. (Goldstein 2000, p.119)
Studies
already conducted on the skeletons should be analyzed by scientists to
determine whether the skeleton is of Native American heritage or not and
should not be kept from being analyzed. A court ruling on February 6th
of 2001 found this to be true and ordered that all raw computer data of
the analysis should be turned over for further investigation. ( http://www.friendsofpast.org/01/news-010212.html)
Testing should be done to determine to which group Kennewick Man belongs.
Whoever receives ownership should then have the right to decide whether
Kennewick Man is analyzed or reburied. If the remains are Native American
than scientists should respect their decisions. However, if the remains
prove to not belong to any Native American group than they should be studied
by scientists and used to adjust the history of the world.
…Another court case regarding Kennewick Man is
currently scheduled for June 19th of 2001. ( http://www.friendsofpast.org)
References
Associated Press
2000 Judge reactivates lawsuit,
questions government definition of 'Native American'. Kennewick Man Virtual
Interpretive Center presented
by the Tri-City Herald. Web link at:
http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/102500.html
Astrau Folk Assembly
1999
Kennewick Man Fact Sheet. Web link at:
http://www.runestone.org/kmfact.html
Downey, Roger
2000
Riddle
of the Bones- Politics, Science, Race and the Story of Kennewick Man.
Copernicus, New York.
Friends of America's Past
2001
A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and advancing the rights
of scientists and the public to learn about
America's
past. Web
link at:
http://www.friendsofpast.org/
Goldstein, Lynne
2000
The Potential for Future Relationships between Archaeologists and Native
Americans. In Ethics in American
Archaeology (Second Revised Edition), edited by Mark J. Lynott and
Alison Wylie, pp. 118-125. The Society
for
American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Hirst, K.Kris
2001
Kennewick Man-- or how I learned to hate 60 minutes. Index Page web link
at:
http://archaeology.miningco.com/science/archaeology/blkennewick.htm
Lee, Mike
1998
Ancient One belongs to land, tribal leader says. Kennewick Man Virtual
Interpretive Center presented by the
Tri-City Herald. Web link at: http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/050198.html
1998
Tribal view focus of Kennewick Man talk. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive
Center presented by the
Tri-City Herald. Web link at: http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/042498.html
1999
Recasting the Past: Day One. Politics of the past. Scientists, tribes still
at odds over Kennewick Man bones.
Kennewick
Man Virtual Interpretive Center presented by the Tri-City Herald.
Web link at:
http://www.kennewick-man.com/recasting/story1.html
2000
Tribes criticize plan to test DNA of old bones. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive
Center presented by the
Tri-City Herald. Web link at: http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/020200.html
McManamon, Francis P.
1999
The Initial Scientific Examination, Description, and Analysis of the Kennewick
Man Human Remains. Presented by
the
Archaeology and Ethnography Program. Web link at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/mcmanamon.htm
Messenger, Phyllis ; et. al.
2000
Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century: Thoughts on Postgraduate
Education/ Professional
Development.
In Ethics in American Archaeology (Second Revised Edition), edited
by Mark J. Lynott and
Alison
Wylie, pp. 110-112. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Public Law 101-601—November 16, 1990
1990
National Park Service and National Center for Cultural Resources present
the Native American Graves
Protection
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Web link at:
http://www.cast.uark.edu/products/NAGPRA/DOCS/lgm003.html
Schafer, Dave
1996
Skull likely early white settler. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center
presented by the Tri-City Herald. Web
link
at: http://www.kennewick-man.com/news/073096.html
Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Ethics
in Archaeology Committee
2000
Principles of Archaeological Ethics. In
Ethics in American Archaeology
(Second Revised Edition), edited by
Mark
J. Lynott and Alison Wylie, pp. 11-12. The Society for American Archaeology,
Washington D.C.
Society of Professional Archeologists (SOPA)
1997
SOPA home page. Web link at:
http://www2.smu.edu/anthro/sopaold.html
Wylie, Alison
2000
Ethical Dilemmas in Archaeological Practice: Looting, Repatriation, Stewardship,
and the (Trans)formation of
Disciplinary
Identity. In Ethics in American Archaeology (Second Revised Edition),
edited by Mark J. Lynott and
Alison
Wylie, pp. 138-157. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Yellowhorn, Eldon
2000
Indians, Archaeology, and the Changing World. In Ethics in American
Archaeology (Second Revised Edition),
edited
by Mark J. Lynott and Alison Wylie, pp. 126-137. The Society for American
Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Zimmerman, Lawrence
1998
When Data Becomes People: Archaeological Ethics, Reburial, and the Past
as Public Heritage. International
Journal of Cultural Property 7: 69-86.
