Answer:
The case of the Kennewick Man highlights an ethical and legal dilemma that arose under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The Columbia River Basin Indian tribes recognized Kennewick Man as a distant relative and wanted to repatriate the remains under NAGPRA, based on oral history and the belief that he was a direct tribal ancestor. However, under NAGPRA, "cultural affiliation" is usually determined using archaeological markers of culture, such as burial goods and burial style, rather than oral history.
Scientists working on the remains argued that to repatriate unaffiliated remains would be unethical, as it could set research on early diseases and ways of life back centuries. They also argued that the remains belonged to all of humanity and not just the descendants of the Columbia River Basin Indian tribes. On the other hand, tribal leaders argued that it would be unethical to keep the remains unburied and in a museum, given cultural norms about the dead. They also noted that this ancestor had not consented to being studied and that the community would be harmed by not being able to decide the fate of Kennewick Man's remains.
Ultimately, after more than 20 years of legal and ethical debates, Kennewick Man's skeleton was returned to the earth in a private, unmarked location in 2017. This case continues to inform the way researchers think about further research and the ethical implications of studying human remains.