Commonwealth Forums

Folks,

Here we go, an excellent case of science and religion clashing.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml...05§ion=news

(Copied below)

In a nut shell, a skeleton was found. Many, if not most, people think it of indigenous North American descent. The Indians want to bury the skeleton per their tradition. The scientist want to study it.

I ask you, in all frankness, what the hell could we learn from the skeleton? And would it matter? Will it mean a damned thing if the skeleton sheds light on the events of the past?

On the other hand? Should the Indian religion be sufficient to stifle science?

Tough call.

What do you think?

Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover





Science Trumps Ritual in Mystery Skeleton Row
Thu 5 February, 2004 01:42

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Denying a request by American Indian tribes who sought an immediate burial, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday that scientists should be allowed to continue testing on a 9,000-year-old skeleton.

"It's terrific," said Robson Bonnichsen director of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans and a plaintiff in the case. "The court has upheld the principle for scientific study of very early human remains."

The legal battle pitting Bonnichsen and seven other scientists against the U.S. government and Indian tribes dates back to 1996, after two teenagers discovered a skeleton near the shore of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington.

Scientists dated the "Kennewick Man" remains as 8,340 to 9,200 years old, yet it was a puzzling find because its features differed from those of American Indians. Scientists hoped further study would shed light on early North Americans.

Indian tribes demanded the burial of the remains, which they believe belong to a distant relative, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request, backing a lower court ruling.

"From the perspective of the scientists-plaintiffs, this skeleton is an irreplaceable source of information about early New World populations that warrants careful scientific inquiry to advance knowledge of distant times," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the three-judge panel.

"From the perspective of the intervenor-Indian tribes the skeleton is that of an ancestor who, according to the tribes' religious and social traditions, should be buried immediately without further testing."

The battle was especially emotional because of the mystery the "Kennewick Man" represented. Aged 45 or 50 when he died, he had a projectile point unlike those seen in the region in his hip dating back to when he was 15 or 20 years old.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which had fought to bury the remains, said it was reviewing the decision but did not say whether it would appeal to the Supreme Court.

MYSTERIOUS ANCESTOR

Until recently, most scientists thought North America was first populated after the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago when Asian mammoth hunters walked from Siberia. Yet recent evidence has hinted at late Ice Age human settlements on California's channel islands and in Chile, suggesting earlier settlers may have arrived by boat from different regions.

The core of the legal arguments centered on whether the remains were Native American, as the law on reburial requires a link between the remains and an extant tribe.

"The age of Kennewick Man's remains, given the limited studies to date, makes it almost impossible to establish any relationship between the remains and presently existing American Indians," the ruling found.

Without a clear link between the skeleton and Native Americans, the court gave a green light to science.

We "affirm the judgment of the district court barring the transfer of the skeleton for immediate burial and instead permitting scientific study of the skeleton," the court wrote.

In Australia there is an increasing movement towards bringing aboriginal skeletons home (mainly from Britian) for burial, the difference here being these were generally skeletons of one to two hundred years ago, often shot for the purpose...

Your Majesty

With all do respect a skeleton can actually tell scientist a lot about how people lived and worked in ancient times. What they ate and in some cases how they fought each other and communiciated. But as far as the indigenous religion goes I must say that this was after all their land first. Maybe a compromise could be drwn up in which the scientist get to do their study then a proper Indian burial after the srudies are completed. But as you said yourself your majesty. It is a tough call.

How many tiems do I have to issue a restraining order for science to stay away from religion?

I hope that was a joke.

The fact is, this particular skeleton could tell scientists a LOT.

It may be able to yield DNA evidence which would tell us whether it was a person descended from those who we believe came to the New World from Asia.

It can tell us a lot about diet, potentially a lot about the diseases people of the time suffered. It could tell us about the treatment of the sick or injured by these people. It can tell us how he died. Was it due to old age? Due to illness? Foul play?

In my opinion, the scientific tests should be done, and when completed (probably a DNA test should be done to see whether there is any evidence that this person is a relation to the modern Native Americans in the region) if the results are positive, let the Native Americans give it a proper burial AFTER the tests are run.

Would they deny an autopsy for someone newly dead?

It is possible that no usable DNA may be found. However, lots of other tests can be run to learn more about the lives of those 9000 years ago.

Sir Nicholas... I am shocked... you think that I would ever make a joke? Never... I am as serious as serious can be .

heh.. which is almost never

General

I can't even begin to think of comments to dignified that with

I have to agree with Sir Nicholas. On the one hand, the value of these remains to science is significant. The fact is, we have very little scientific data concerning the origins of Native Americans; fossil evidence has been scarce. For hundreds of years, the presence of advanced civilisations in South America, and of aboriginal cultures in North America (The implied lack of advancement is not just a slight here. The Mayans vastly surpassed most Native American tribes in their knowledge of mathematics and date reckoning.) has gone mostly unexplained. Any contribution that examination of this corpse can make to the advancement of science should be made. On the other hand, the significance of the burial to the Indians is a matter of tradition, and it benefits only themselves. I think the choice is clear, especially as both sides, if flexible, can be duly satisfied.

CMcQueeny,

You have to understand that I like to explore statements like the ones you made. Please don't take these questions as a challenge, but as an honest exploration of what you mean.

OK, tell me, what BENEFITS do we have from knowing anything about native Americans?

How does it help my life, your life, or anyone elses?

Better clothes?
Better food?
Better gas milage?
Better Nintendo games?

I contend that, likely, the Mayan "secrets" are of little or no value to modern people. I'll grant some possibility, of course, but in my estimation it is slight. I mean, my guess is they did like everyone else. They worked on the problem until they arrived at an answer.

Someone answer me this.

Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover