Question

14

Case Study: The Kennewick Man
The most contentious case in the history of NAGPRA, and one of the stimuli in moving this legislation forward was the case of the Kennewick Man. In 1996, human skeletal remains were found by canoers along the bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA. Upon further inspection this skeleton, dubbed Kennewick Man, turned out to be 8,400 years old and at the time was one of the most complete skeletons ever found in North America. The primary basis of these results were radiometric tests to determine the age and the inspection of the skeleton by several trained osteologists. Once Kennewick’s age and origins were discovered, scientists immediately recognized the significance of these remains to understanding the peopling of the Americas by over the last 13,000 years.
Almost as soon as Kennewick Man was discovered to be an early American, the Columbia River Basin Indian tribes also recognized that this individual was likely a distant relative and, therefore, could be repatriated (returned) under NAGPRA. The primary basis of their case was oral history of the peopling of this area and long-term residence of contemporary tribes which indicated he was a direct tribal ancestor. The problem? Under NAGPRA "cultural affiliation" is usually determined using burial goods, burial style, and other "archaeological" (read "scientific") markers of culture. Oral history is not considered evidence of cultural affiliation.
Thus was born the ethical and legal dilemma:
Under NAGPRA the remains did not have to be legally returned.
Scientists working on the remains argued the following:
To repatriate unaffiliated remains would be unethical as Native Americans are not monolithic and contemporary groups’ burial practices aren’t identical to their early ancestors; in other words, Columbia River Basin tribal burial practices are different today than they were 8,000 or more years ago.
From the standpoint of beneficence, these remains belonged to all of humanity not just these descendants. To rebury these remains without studying them could set research on early diseases, ways of life, etc. back centuries.
Tribal leaders working on getting the remains repatriated argued the following:
It would be unethical to keep remains unburied and in a museum given long-term cultural norms about the dead.
From the standpoint of nonmaleficence and autonomy, the tribal leaders noted that this ancestor had not consented to being studied (much like Henrietta Lacks in the 1950s) and this individual and the community would be harmed by not being able to decide the fate of Kennewick Man’s remains.
Over the decades Kennewick Man went from storage to research lab to storage and finally was placed in permanent storage in 2002. On February 17, 2017, more than twenty years after his remains were found, Kennewick Man’s skeleton was returned to the earth in a private, unmarked location. While the issue has technically been resolved, the ethical dilemmas from this scenario continue to inform the way researchers think about further research.

Answer 1

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.