http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/001718.html
Anthropologists Back Native American Claims

Spirit ManThe case of Kennewick Man - or the Ancient One - as Native
Americans refer to him, dragged through the courts for years before
Judge John Jelderks found that he could not be defined Native American
under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Photo: Edward Jolie and Heather Edgar.

A recent case regarding repatriation of even older remains and artifacts
from Spirit Cave, Nev., suggests that the Kennewick Man case should be
used as a legal precedent and that the remains of Spirit Cave Man are
not Native American.

Four University of New Mexico anthropologists have written an article
where they suggest that a precedent in Paleoindian human remains is
"inappropriate and unnecessary." They claim that each case is unique and
that repatriation determination should be handled case-by-case.

Heather Edgar, Maxwell Museum curator and assistant research professor
in anthropology, is lead author on the article titled, "Contextual
issues in Paleoindian repatriation: Spirit Cave Man as a case study,"
featured in the Feb. 2007 issue Journal of Social Archaeology. Other
authors from the Department of Anthropology are Edward Jolie, Joseph
Powell and Joe Watkins.

Spirit Cave Man was found approximately 70 years ago on Bureau of Land
Management land that is part of an area government documents refer to as
"traditional tribal lands," nevertheless the BLM says the remains are
"unaffiliatable." The Fallon-Paiute-Shoshone filed a lawsuit against the
BLM because they consider him their ancestor. Carbon dating determined
him to be older than Kennewick Man. DNA testing on both skeletons was
inconclusive.

Edgar said that DNA testing is one determiner for affiliation. "Another
way is by what artifacts are found with the remains," Edgar said.
Skeletal remains and one point in the hip is all that was found of
Kennewick Man.

"Many artifacts or 'perishables' were found with Spirit Cave Man because
of the arid condition in and around the cave, she said. "There were
blankets, a burial shroud, bags, moccasins and a breechcloth," Edgar
said. The items are now in the Nevada State Museum.

Edgar is quick to point out that repatriation is moving away from being
a polarizing issue. "This presents an unfair view of anthropology. All
four of us who worked on this article think the amicus brief that ruled
on Spirit Cave Man based on the Kennewick Man precedent is wrong," she
said. She noted that among them two are biological anthropologists, two
are archaeologists, two are natives, two non-natives.

Jolie, who is a member of the Ogalala Lakota, said, "We must balance
between respect to the profession and to the past."

Edgar said that many tribes are beginning to recognize the value in DNA
and other scientific testing in helping them piece together their own
history.

Media Contact: Carolyn Gonzales, (505) 277-5920; e-mail: cgon...@unm.edu

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_sc/aboriginal_remains

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones

Roger Bagula wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_sc/aboriginal_remains

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones

The importance of the Tasmanian DNA is that these are
descendants of nearly pure DNA of a "degenerate" ( they had the lowest
level of subsistence known: they had lost the ability to make fire)
anatomically modern human run off the big contentment by Neanderthals.

The ATM's

that returned to Europe were a mutation of some sort
from this strain of human.

When they returned in fewer numbers, they
drove the Neanderthal to extinction.
So that the difference in the two strains of DNA is actually important
and a "pure" sample would be nice to compare to other ATM DNA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_sc/aboriginal_remains

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 19, 3:15 PM ET

A Tasmanian aboriginal group is suing Britain's Museum of Natural
History to keep it from conducting tests on bones, teeth and skulls
taken from the island, saying Monday that the experiments would
desecrate the corpses.(snip)

Here is a case that would clearly come under the NAGPRA in the USA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_sc/aboriginal_remains

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 19, 3:15 PM ET

A Tasmanian aboriginal group is suing Britain's Museum of Natural History
to keep it from conducting tests on bones, teeth and skulls taken from the
island, saying Monday that the experiments would desecrate the corpses.

The museum agreed last year to return the bones — mostly obtained during
the 1940s — to Australia, but indicated it wanted first to run tests on
them, as they represented some of the few remaining pieces of objective
data about the region's original inhabitants.

Tasmanians were almost completely exterminated after the 19th-century
arrival of white settlers to their island. Out of a population of 4,000,
only 200 remained in the 1830s, and the last full-blooded Tasmanian died
in 1876. Those who remain today are of mixed descent.

The Tasmanian Aboriginal Center, which has been awarded custody of the
remains, said any tests on the bones would defile the remains of victims
of genocide.

"They would never dare to do these experiments to the human remains of
Jews or Roma or Scots or Manx Islanders," the center's lawyer, Michael
Mansell, said in a statement. "They intend to mutilate our ancestors
without our consent."

The museum said would meet with the aboriginal group, but that it would
continue to fight the suit, which goes to court on Thursday.

The museum wants to measure, photograph, X-ray and make casts of the
bones, along with drilling and shaving off microscopic bits of material
from the teeth and skulls to extract genetic material.

The group from Tasmania, a southern island state of Australia, questioned
whether the experiments would yield any useful information.

"The Natural History Museum's tests were 'genetic prospecting' which would
desecrate the spiritual beliefs of the community from whom the skulls and
bones were taken by grave robbery," Mansell said.

Aboriginals believe a soul is in torment unless the body rests in its
native land.

The museum has acknowledged that the remains, drawn from 17 individuals,
were either looted or taken coercively, but said the aboriginal demands
should be weighed against the scientific value of the bones.

"We see the strength of both the (aboriginal) view and the scientific
view, and the decision (to conduct tests) is aimed to meet the primary
interests of both groups," museum spokesman Claudine Fontana said. "We
will be returning these remains permanently, and it is only the
information about them that we will keep."

The Natural History Museum has a collection of almost 20,000 human
remains, taken from all over the world and dating back 500,000 years. Most
were taken from Britain.

Australia's government has backed the aboriginals' argument. In a letter
addressed to the museum and to British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
Australian High Commissioner Richard Alston said Friday that the issue was
"already causing considerable distress in the community of origin of the
remains," and urged a negotiated settlement.

The return of indigenous bones has proven contentious in the United
States, where the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act required all federally funded museums and institutions to return any
Native American remains and spiritual objects that could be traced back to
Indian nations.

Disputes over the Kennewick Man and the Spirit Cave Man, 9,000 and 10,600
years old respectively, have pitted U.S. archeologists against American
Indian tribes in legal battles.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AP News report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority
of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms
of Service | Send Feedback | Help

Roger Bagula wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_sc/aboriginal_remains

Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones

The importance of the Tasmanian DNA is that these are
descendants of nearly pure DNA of a "degenerate" ( they had the lowest
level of subsistence known: they had lost the ability to make fire)
anatomically modern human run off the big contentment by Neanderthals.
The ATM's that returned to Europe were a mutation of some sort
from this strain of human. When they returned in fewer numbers, they
drove the Neanderthal to extinction.
So that the difference in the two strains of DNA is actually important
and a "pure" sample would be nice to compare to other ATM DNA.

The importance of the Tasmanian DNA is that these are
descendants of nearly pure DNA of a "degenerate" ( they had the lowest
level of subsistence known: they had lost the ability to make fire)
anatomically modern human run off the big contentment by Neanderthals.









I don't know wheather to be glad you can't read well

[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: ISO-8859-1, 32 lines --]

pete wrote:


The importance of the Tasmanian DNA is that these are
descendants of nearly pure DNA of a "degenerate" ( they had the lowest
level of subsistence known: they had lost the ability to make fire)
anatomically modern human run off the big contentment by Neanderthals.









I don't know wheather to be glad you can't read well
or that you commented.
No one said anything about Neanderthals in Australia:
It is well known that the diaspora of AMH ( anatomically modern humans)
was due to persecution by Neanderthals ( which the Australian
Aborigines called ants
in their legends). The smell of roast AMH flesh made Neaderthal's mouths
water.

I'm sure if I make any other typos you'll jump on them too!
The reemergence of AMH's is supposed to have been off the fool steppes
of Asia ( near the Ural mountains for those who can't find their bum).
It is thought one of the advantages of AMH was that they had adapted to
very harsh conditions.
Those that didn't come back who found easier conditions and
no adversaries devolved/ degenerated in small groups on Tasmania.

I don't know wheather to be glad you can't read well

pete wrote:






I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying.




Yes, it is pretty obvious

pete wrote:


pete wrote:






I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying.




Yes, it is pretty obvious
that you have trouble understanding.

I recommend working harder

[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: ISO-8859-1, 36 lines --]

Roger Bagula wrote:

pete wrote:


pete wrote:






I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying.




Yes, it is pretty obvious
that you have trouble understanding.

I recommend working harder
and reading more. Spend some time doing Google searches.
Take some classes at your local college.

Try reading Edmund Husserl on "phenomenology".
Read Stuart Kauffman's book ( he seems to like the Wittgenstein approach).
Kuhn and Popper , of course...
Per Bak's book is a modern must.

A course in comparative anatomy might help from a medical point
of view. I tend to be learning as I go.
The Internet is a great resource:
use it.