We did not have enough time in class to fully discuss the examples of ethical issues facing anthropologists in the Kennewick Man case, and since our discussion I have been thinking about what you all had to say on the subject. It interested me to see the overwhelming support for the scientific argument for studying the remains, which is not too surprising given the rational, scientific underpinnings of Western culture. However, in the interest of cultural relativism, I challenge you all to consider the balance that we must strike between science and humanism. The scientific argument is clear: the remains are some of the oldest ever recovered in North America, and therefore hold the potential to answer questions about the peopling of the Americas, ancient diet, health and disease, and so forth. But what is the value of this research from an indigenous perspective, in particular the Umatilla tribes that have claimed the remains as their ancestor? What will they āgainā from the scientific analysis of these remains? One of the benefits may be quantifiable evidence of long standing First Nations presence in the region, which could potentially strengthen land claims since oral traditions are still not considered solid evidence in a Western court of law. However, many would argue that this will be the only positive outcome of these invasive analyses, and that delaying the reburial of the remains has spiritual ramifications on a both a personal and community level.
The overwhelming acceptance of the scientific arguments and skepticism about the claims of the Umatilla tribe has been offensive to many First Nations individuals, and the polarization of positions has done significant harm to the relationship between many anthropologists and First Nations communities.
How can anthropologists navigate this cultural minefield when they are unaware of cultural protocols and spiritual perspectives? They must ask questions and be prepared to collaborate with indigenous groups and descendent communities. Partnerships take more time and require compromises on both sides, but ultimately are the most fruitful and serve to build and maintain important relationships between researchers and the āresearchedā. Perhaps a useful example of this is Kwaday dan sinchi; the remains of a young man discovered melting out of a glacier in Northern BC in 1999. While of extreme interest to archaeologists because of the age (proto-Contact) and level of preservation (allowing for detailed studies of everything from DNA to stomach contents), recovery of the remains and research was conducted from the outset in partnership with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. Research was designed to be of mutual interest and benefit to all stakeholders, both sides respected the perspectives and interests of the other, and the outcome continues to be relevant and productive to everyone involved. Unlike Kennewick Man, the remains were returned to the First Nations communities in 2001 and cremated in accordance with important traditions.
The following links may be of interest to you:
Ā
- professional ethics reportĀ about the Kennewick Man case presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1998)
- Ā position paper by Armand Minthorn, chief of the Confederation of Umatilla tribes (1996)