[Aztlan] Kennewick Man

[huehueteot at aol.com]

Cliff:

  I don't claim to have the complete story here, but it is my 
understanding that part of the problems come from two things. First, 
intact graves policy is that remains that are in the ground should stay 
there unless there is good reason to disturb or move them.

  Second, there are several factions in the Geronimo family and there is 
not a clear consistent idea of what to do with his remains that 
satisfies all the people that have a say in the matter.

  There is still some "friction" between the members of the "Tribe" that 
stayed behind in New Mexico and those that were forceably removed to 
Fort Sill after Geronimo surrendered. That is part of the story. What 
the rest of the story is I don't know and anything would be speculation 
on the stilts of the speculation that I present here.

 Cheers,

 Hugh G. "Sam" Ball

 And remember:

 "This too Shall Pass!

 -----Original Message-----
 From: vgray (gotsky) <vgray at gotsky.com>
 To: Susan Gilchrist <gilchrist.susan at gmail.com>; huehueteot at aol.com
 Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 Sent: Tue, 23 May 2006 06:46:52 -0700
 Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Kennewick Man

  It seems to me there is a matter of confused jurisdiction concerning 
Geronimo's grave. By what authority does the military preempt 
Geronimo's family as regards opening the grave? By what authority does 
the military claim ownership of Geronimo's tomb? What prevents the 
family from moving his tomb to Native land and jurisdiction?

 Cheers Cliff


  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Gilchrist" 
<gilchrist.susan at gmail.com>
 To: <huehueteot at aol.com>
 Cc: <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
 Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Kennewick Man

 Just a thought, another way to tell the story could be
 that during WWI, a person in the Army claimed to have
 stolen the skull of a POW, and sent somebody's skull
 to the fraternity. It's not unusual for descendants/
 successors to investigate and attempt to return war
 souvenirs.
 Susan

 On 5/11/06, huehueteot at aol.com <huehueteot at aol.com> wrote:
 >
 > Cliff:
 >
  > You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the situation 
except
 > that NAGPRA wouldn't apply here because the skull was removed before
  > the passage of the law in 1990. The laws governing theft of 
government
 > property might apply but it would depend on when they were passed. I
 > knew at one time but have since forgotten.
 >
 > The problem is that the Army isn't willing to even investigate the
  > claim that the Skull is missing. The family has been urging them to 
do
 > this for about twenty years but they won't even consider opening the
  > tomb that Geronimo is supposed to be burried in. If they could do 
that
 > then if there was a skull there they could evaluate whether it was
 > Geronimo's or not and answer the question once and for all. If there
 > was no skull there and other things missing another answer would be
 > had. However, it does seem that the powers that be don't want the
  > question answered either way. So most eforts to deal with the 
situation
 > fail before beginning. Power and understanding do not always go
 > together.
 >
 > Hugh G. "Sam" Ball
 >
 > And remember:
 >
 > "This too Shall Pass!
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Clifford T. Brown <ctbrown at fau.edu>
 > To: 'Susan Gilchrist' <gilchrist.susan at gmail.com>; Aztlan
 > <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
 > Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 08:01:37 -0400
 > Subject: RE: [Aztlan] Kennewick Man
 >
 > Actually, if this was stolen from Federal land, then it is federal
 > property.
  > Federal collections are subject to NAGPRA. The feds should go get 
it,
 > and
 > then either rebury or repatriate it.
 >
 > NAGPRA provides a list of priorities for repatriation claims. At the
 > top of
  > the list is "lineal descendants" as judged by the traditional 
kinship
 > system
 > of the tribe.
 >
 > We haven't been discussing this as it does not seem relevant to the
 > Kennewick case, but it would be relevant in the case of a recent
 > historical
 > figure. In such as case, genetic testing might well be relevant.
 >
 > Cliff
 >
 > Clifford T. Brown
 > Assistant Professor
 > Florida Atlantic University
 > 777 Glades Road
 > Boca Raton, FL 33431
 > (561) 297-3232
 > ctbrown at fau.edu
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
 > [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
 > On Behalf Of Susan Gilchrist
 > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:21 PM
 > To: Margarita B. Marin-Dale
 > Cc: Aztlan2
 > Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Kennewick Man
 >
 > There's a story in the news today that seems as though it
 > would involve similar issues if it were a legal case, which
 > it isn't. It seems like a question of whether 1) there's a skull
 > in the Yale fraternity, 2) it's an old guy, and 3) it's Harlan
 > Geronimo's relative. It seems quite different than Kennewick
 > in the sense that it could be a matter of establishing
 > paternity, not descent from long-ago Europeans or Ainu.
 > That's if the question is just whose skull if anybody's is
 > still in the fraternity. Scientists aren't the only ones who
 > collect other people's bones. (It's apparently not NAGPRA
 > since the fraternity is a private organization.)
 > Noninvasive testing seems like a possibiity since there are many
 > photographs of Geronimo and there's software for
 > comparing ID photos.
 > Below are links to news accounts including two different
 > Apache views, in the Hartford Courant and on Associated
 > Press.
 > Susan Gilchrist
 >
 >
 > Yale's Tale Of Skull Gets New Backing
 >
  > 
<http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-skullbones0509.artmay09,0,3995631.s

 > tor
 > y>(The
 > Hartford Courant 5/9)
 > Username: *indianz at indianz.com*, Password: *indianzcom*
 >
  > 
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-skullbones0509.artmay09,0,3995631.st

 > ory
 >
 > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/geronimo_s_bones
 >
 > On 5/9/06, Margarita B. Marin-Dale <inka1box at yahoo.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > Bertram is absolutely right. A federal appellate court will decide
 > only
 > > what's before the court and cannot render an advisory opinion.
 > Everything
 > > else will have to wait until there's another case and controversy.
 > Let's
 > > hope that whatever case appears next is a better test case for the
 > NAGPR.
 > >
  > > Still, I would like for us to consider the issue which I raised in 
my
  > > previous posting about balance and honoring the religious 
traditions
 > of
 > > Native Americans. I find that we are predisposed in our society to
 > view
  > > law, policy, and sociocultural and economic issues from a 
rational,
  > > scientific, and Western European perspective. In the foreign 
policy
 > arena,
 > > in particular, this rigidity leads to conflict and a great deal of
 > cultural
  > > misunderstanding. However, in my view, there are other 
perspectives
 > that
  > > are equally valid and worthy of consideration, even if they are 
very
 > > different than our own. How we honor those perspectives is still a
 > subject
 > > of much debate, but I think it starts with having an open mind and
  > > acknowledging that there are many different ways to view the 
world.
 > Ours
 > is
  > > but one way, and not always the "right" way. I don't wish to get 
off
 > topic,
 > > so I'll just leave this as food for thought . . .
 > >
 > > Thanks to everyone who replied to my postings on and off the list.
 > >
 > >
 > > Huq p'unchaukama (Quechua: "until another day"),
 > >
 > > Margarita
 > >
 > >
 > > Bertram Perkel <bperkel29 at comcast.net> wrote:
  > > In view of the apparent interest of the List in the Kennewick 
case, I
  > > think it might helpful in looking at what the Court of Appeals did 
in
 > > that case, to understand what it did not do and would not do. As
 > Miles
  > > Davis would note, one should also listen to the "music" between 
the
 > > notes as well as the notes themselves to fully understand and
 > > appreciate the piece.
  > > As a matter of traditional appellate jurisprudence, a court will 
go
 > > to great lengths to decide only what is specifically before it and
 > even
 > > then, further limit themselves by speaking only to the particular
  > > question whose answer is required for the decision. While there 
are
  > > exceptions to this basic appellate practice, they generally relate 
to
 > > important matters which can reasonably expected to arise in the
 > > immediate near term or deal with issues of profound public
 > importance.
 > > Neither of these conditions appear to be extant in the Kennewick
 > case.
  > > This principal can be summed up under the rubric that a federal 
court
 > > "does not render advisory opinions" and will allow the 'law" in a
  > > particular area to develop case by case. This is why so he 
Kennewick
  > > case does not satisfy the understandable wish for guidance as to 
what
  > > the NAPGR means or how it may be applied or construed in the 
future.
  > > All we have are some broad hints and knowledge that the extremes 
are
  > > not acceptable. Everything else is left to reasoned speculation 
until
  > > some future parties are once again in conflict as to the 
application
 > of
  > > this statute in a particular case and that conflict is again 
brought
 > to
 > > the courts to resolve.
 > > Bertram Perkel
 > > On May 7, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Margarita B. Marin-Dale wrote:
 > >
 > > > Listeros,
 > > >
  > > > Notwithstanding the merits of the Kennewick Man case, this seems 
to
  > > > be a case of faulty reasoning and bad lawyering on the part of 
the
 > DOI
  > > > and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As Bertram pointed out, 
the
 > DOI
 > > > took the extreme position, in contravention with the direct
 > language
  > > > of the NAPGR, that human remains are presumptively Native 
American
 > if
 > > > proper age and geography are established, "and, irrespective of
 > > > whether some or all of these groups were or were not culturally
  > > > affiliated or biologically related to present-day Indian 
Tribes."
 > > > (Lower Court Opinion, 25).
 > > >
  > > > Yet, under the meaning of the Act, at a minimum, a Native 
American
  > > > must show a cultural relationship between the remains in 
question
 > and
 > > > a present-day tribe, people, or culture indigenous to the U.S.
 > (LCO,
 > > > 30). Proving the latter appears to be multi-faceted. Cliff has
  > > > previously pointed out that the statute permits the introduction 
of
  > > > all kinds of evidence to prove cultural relationship. 
Regulations
 > > > promulgated by the DOI clarify that cultural affiliation must be
  > > > established by a "preponderance of the evidence" (a lower 
standard
  > > > than the appellate court had proposed) through the following 
forms
 > of
 > > > evidence: geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological,
  > > > linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, 
and/or
  > > > other information or expert opinion. (LCO, 30). So, in response 
to
 > > > Marcelo's original question, biological, and presumably genetic,
  > > > evidence may be introduced to prove cultural affiliation under 
the
 > > > meaning of the Act.
 > > >
  > > > As Bertram stated, courts generally defer to agency findings 
unless
  > > > the agency has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. In 
this
  > > > case, there was ample evidence of arbitrary behavior: the DOI 
had
 > > > unilateral communications with other agencies and the Tribal
  > > > Claimants, and had given the Tribal Claimants advance copies of 
key
  > > > reports without providing copies or notifying the scientists; 
the
 > > > Secretary had not been a neutral and unbiased party, and had
 > prevented
 > > > the scientists from meaningfully participating in the
 > decision-making
  > > > process; and so forth. Similarly, the Army Corps of Engineers 
had
 > > > apparently buried the discovery site under two million pounds of
 > > > rubble and dirt (!) to prevent further study of the site. It had
 > also
  > > > contributed to the deterioration of the remains by not 
implementing
  > > > proper environmental control measures to preserve Kennewick 
Man's
 > > > "potential scientific value." (LCO, 8). Additionally, it had
 > > > permitted the Tribal Claimants to visit the
 > > > remains and conduct religious ceremonies without notifying the
 > > > scientists or the court. The latter actually hurt their case,
 > because
  > > > the labs were unable to isolate uncontaminated DNA within the 
time
 > > > frame allotted by the court (?) and the DOI. (LCO, 16) The Corps
 > > > apparently also failed to adequately safeguard the remains. Two
 > femur
  > > > bones were stolen from Kennewick Man and were not recovered 
until 5
 > > > years later (!).
 > > >
  > > > These actions alone were probably enough to set aside the action 
of
 > > > the DOI, but the court went ahead and decided the case on the
 > merits!
 > > >
 > > > As to the standard of proof, it still seems very nebulous. The
 > > > language of the NAGPR says the claimant must prove cultural
  > > > affiliation by a "preponderance of the evidence"; the lower 
court
 > > > states "some relationship," and the appellate court "substantial
 > > > relationship." So, which is it?
 > > >
 > > > Moreover, as an "indigenista" at heart, I must ask how the
 > > > requirements of the NAGPR can protect the burial rites of Native
 > > > Americans if, as in this case, non-invasive evidence is
 > insufficient.
 > > > For obvious reasons, Kennewick Man is probably not a good test
 > case.
  > > > But, assuming some remote, yet tenuous, cultural affiliation, 
how
 > do
 > > > we balance scientific study with the claims of many Native
 > Americans
 > > > that handling, viewing, or even photographing the remains is
 > invasive
 > > > on religious grounds?
 > > >
  > > > Clearly, these court decisions, and even our own discussions, 
are
 > > > tipped in favor of science and proving evidentiary connections;
 > yet,
 > > > where is there a place in this process for honoring indigenous
  > > > practices and cultural affiliations that cannot be 
scientifically
  > > > proven (at least not from our Western perspective)? More 
important
 > –
  > > > what happens to Kennewick man after the scientists are done? 
Will
 > the
 > > > Tribal Claimants who allege kinship with him be allowed to bury
 > him in
 > > > accordance with their burial customs?
 > > >
 > > > Saludos,
 > > >
 > > > Margarita
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > > ---------------------------------
 > > > Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for
 > just
 > > > 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
 > > > _______________________________________________
 > > > Aztlan mailing list
 > > > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 > > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
 > > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > __________________________________________________
 > > Do You Yahoo!?
 > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 > > http://mail.yahoo.com
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Aztlan mailing list
 > > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
 > >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Aztlan mailing list
 > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Aztlan mailing list
 > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Aztlan mailing list
 > Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Aztlan mailing list
 Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
 http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan