Hi Tweets,

A digest (I get home late from work, so this is over several days. Sorry, to
be dragging the discussion back so late):

Paul Talbert writes (many snips):

>It
>seems clear that we still have much to learn about H. erectus and their
>replacement by H. sapiens. (to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever
>suggested that H. habilis, who was earlier than H. erectus, has been found
>anywhere but Africa.)

Paul is quite correct: I mistook habilis for erectus. Apologies--my mistake.

>Michael seems to be referring to the Kennewick man, which gets pretty
>regular updates in Seattle newspapers,

Unforunately the story stopped at the border a couple of years ago.

(snip)
>The Asatru society, a group of pagans recreating Germanic traditions,
>in what seems to me to be an ironic attempt to inject humor into the
>situation, are also claiming the bones as ancestral, based on their
>supposed Caucasian features and on the traditions of Vikings in the Americas.
>Both Asatru and native American tribes have been permitted to perform
>ceremonies over the bones.

Hey, do we earthlings know how to have a good time or what?

>What Michael calls "the central myth of native fundamentalism" is taken
>very seriously by native Americans I know, who find attempts to tell them
>they came over the Bering land bridge offensive, just as they find studying
>ancestral bones offensive. In the Kennewick man case, of course, a major
>issue is whose ancestor is he? Although I would regard studying bones as a
>way of honoring my ancestors, it is scarcely surprising in the light of
>history that many Native Americans view certain archeological activities as
>more modern attempts to destroy native cultures and traditions.

This is a puzzling, disturbing paragraph, particularly combined with Tom
Foote's account. If native Americans find the idea of immigration from Asia
offensive in spite of a good deal of inferential and genetic evidence
contradicting a sui generis origin hypothesis, then I'd think the divergence
between belief and knowledge mirrors that between strict Biblical
literalism/Creationism and modern evolutionary and paleontological science
in the surrounding Euro/Anglo/Afro-American society. Such a opinion is
legitimate, but as a hypothesis, where's the proof? But it distresses me
that influential Native North Americans would consider scientific inquiry as
an attempt to destroy culture, unless that culture could exist only in an
atmosphere where free inquiry were suppressed so to maintain religious or
political/cultural orthodoxies.

>We could probably take a cue from them in not being too eager to buy into
>the Bering land bridge scientific myth.

Well, Paul, I'm usually fairly careful in trying to differentiate between
myth and hypothesis: the latter is supported, established or invalidated by
hard evidence; the former is a belief placed by its adherents beyond the
possibility of testing by evidence. Hominid colonisation of North America by
Asian peoples using Bering land-bridges is, by that criterion, not a myth
but a hypothesis since there's a fair amount of inferential and genetic data
to suggest if not support it. The assertion that the First People originated
in North America made a priori without evidence is a myth if it is, as
seems, presented as a theological/political assertion somehow exempt from
the need for supportive evidence.

Jane Westervelt, Sr. writes:

>I know we're way off topic here, but I'm jumping in anyway.

I have learned more unusual facts & theories, seen more good discussions in
off-topic stuff on Tweeters than just about anywhere besides The Economist.
Viva off-topic!

>Many of the statements that are being made about the Kennewick man
>appear to be based on information gathered from the popular press,
>and not on information gained through actual knowledge of the case.
>Not that I would expect anyone to be providing first hand knowledge,
>because most of the people involved firsthand are under a gag order
>due to the case being in legislation. Some of the opinions appear to
>be coming from people with a very limited knowledge of anthropology,
>something that has also been a problem in the Kennewick Man case.

Well, I know what it feels like to be someone with many years' experience of
birds listening to someone with 'a little knowledge' spouting off, and
having to nip my condescension in the bud: often the new birder has a fresh
insight the rest of us have missed through over-familiarity--inexperience
doesn't equate to stupidity. Not often, but often enough to teach respect. I
also know what it feels like to be condescended to by experts and
cognoscenti. My suggestion would be that the experts attempt to edify us
benighted non-experts by sharing actual fact on which to build inference and
opinion, rather than rub our noses in what we already know, that we're not
expert enough to hold a useful opinion.

That said, there do seem to be a number of troubling issues: the
'disappearance' of a number of bones before they were turned over to the
Burke, specifically bones which--just coincidentally--would be useful to
determining important characteristics; public pronouncements by Native
religious leaders which, if I had not read preceding text, I would have
taken as being uttered by some flat-earth, anti-evolution Bible-thumping
evangelical with a political agenda; the manipulation of Euro/Anglo-white guilt.

Personally, I don't care a toss what people believe in the privacy of their
own home and churches. I note, neutrally, that the capacity of people to
believe things in spite of what they know to be true often bespeaks a
breathtaking tolerance for a serious, even pathological divergence between
knowledge and belief, and many religious bureaucracies would be out of
business if it were any other way, but that's their business. What I have a
great deal of trouble with, regardless of culture or society, is the
deliberate suppression in the name of spirituality for political/religious
reasons of either evidence or hypothesis to support a preconceived idea. I
don't know whether Native North Americans arose from the ground fully-formed
and outfitted in spandex, or whether they migrated here from Asia, the
Pacific, or that part of the world which is forever England. I don't know
whether they arrived by Shank's Mare, outrigger, camelback or whaleback, or
alien UFO, or whether they came from all points of the compass or just some
of them. The important thing is to be able to ask the necessary questions
and find out the various answers.

Gene Hunn writes:

>It's just too complicated to sum up in a few sound bites here. However, I
>also would caution people from jumping to conclusions and laying blame on
>the basis of incomplete information. One thing is clear to me, however, that
>it was a serious mistake to refer to Kennewick Man as "caucasian" or even
>"caucasoid," implying a racial typing that is rejected by the vast majority
>of serious physical anthropologists. The implication of such "name calling"
>is that if the skeleton is "caucasoid" it therefore cannot be "Native
>American." That is ridiculous, since known Native American populations are
>highly variable.

I would agree with this, but again, nobody's illuminating this particular
point with what's known or current hypotheses, just kind of implying that
those who aren't experts are fools easily-led by the trashy media. Darn it,
this is interesting, and I'd like to *know* what the current thinking is
among anthropologists and archeologists from those who clearly are
acquainted with it sufficiently instead of being patronised.

>Besides, the presumptive source populations for staging
>across the Bering Land bridge (or bridges) during the many thousands of
>years the continents were broadly joined were a complex mix of north Asian
>peoples. It is entirely likely that among those earliest arrivals were
>peoples whose descendants now live in Scandinavia, the northern Urals,
>Mongolia, Siberia, Hokkaido, etc.

Is there much research on this, Gene?

>So what does one skeleton prove? Not much.

I'm confused. Is this not a pre-judgement? In light of telling others not to
form an opinion because not enough is known, where is the basis for that
assertion coming from? Besides, it may not be necessary to prove anything:
the value of Kennewick Man may be precisely the opening of other lines of
thought and research regarding the very alternate and supplementary origins
which you propose--you may want to be less dismissive of him.

>Before I get too long-winded, my point is that everyone needs to be
>careful about believing verbatim what they see and hear in the
>popular media.

Jerry Converse located a good web article excerpted from 'Archeology' at:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick.html

The journal of the Archeological Institute itself uses the terms 'Caucasian'
and 'caucasoid' and suggest on the available data that it may not be related
to current Native North Americans. I'm an ignorant layperson here: do the
experts consider this journal part of the 'popular media'? Is it
trustworthy? Are their articles considered to have good editorial oversight?
Legitimacy? Is it peer-reviewed?

>The Army Corps of Engineers, the tribes, and the physical
>anthropologists & archaeologists are not the "bad guys", and they
>aren't to blame, although it can be easy to do so when reading some of
>the articles that have appeared in newspapers and on the web.

Well, I've observed--film at eleven--that even 'good guys' can be stupid and
short-sighted, show poor judgement, even be perverse if and when their
authority is questioned.

Messy.

Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
mprice at mindlink.net

"She's psychic....we've decided to find it charming."
--Frasier