On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:57:27 -0500, chuck wrote:

>> The archeological issue is harder to address.  Where do the
>> rights of the scientist and the rights of the dead cross?  Is
>> it better to show the mummified remains of somebody found in
>> a pyramid than to do the same with the remains of a war hero?
>>
>> Lee
>>
>Where is the line?  Is 1000 years OK?  100 years?  50 years? 10?  It is a
>slippery slope.  Is it a different slope if it is a wreck from my country vs
>yours?  Is it OK to kill 100 people to further an agenda? 1000?  1000000?
>7000000?  It is the same kind of logic.

I don't think the questions of killing people to further an agenda and
permitting archeological study of mummified remains are really morally
equivalent, nor based on quite the same logic.

The issue may be clearest in controversial cases such as that of
Kennebunkport Man in the US Northwest and Mungo Man and Woman in
Australia.  In both cases, political entities representing ethnic
communities (native Americans in the first case, native Ozzies in the
second) attempted to block anthropological and other investigations of
human remains which were known to be thousands of years old, and which
may not be actually ancestral to the contemporary peoples in whose name
political activists were attempting to assert physical control of the
remains.

In both cases, moreover, there were clear political agendas behind the
attempts to block further scientific research and take control of the
remains.

What had been reported as "caucasian" characteristics of Kennebunkport
man, were perceived as posing a possible risk to contemporary native
Americans' status as the "original" inhabitants of North America, and
the political rights and claims that status implies.  (In fact, it is
more likely that ancient Kennebunkport man was related, if distantly,
to early inhabitants of Northeast Asia whose contemporary descendants
include the Ainu (aboriginal) inhabitants of north Japan.  The native
American groups' claim that the remains were those of ancestors are
weak, and I believe were eventually dismissed in court.)

Similar issues were apparently at play in the controversy over Mungo
Man and Woman, whose reportedly "gracile" characteristics implied a
possible threat to parallel claims to special political status on the
part of native Australians.

The Mungo case is particularly interesting because these remains may be
crucial to critical re-examination of the thesis that "Eve" - the most
recent human ancestor of all living people today, lived in Africa some
70,000 years ago.

That theory is based on analysis of the variation of mitrochondrial DNA
(which is passed on only through the maternal line and thus not subject
to sexual reshuffling).  One of the key sequences used to calibrate the
"mitrochondrial DNA clock" that generated the 70,000 bp estimate was
the estimated date of separation between the New Guinea islanders and
native Australians, who were once presumed to have crossed the Torres
Strait to Oz about 15,000 years ago.  The newest dates for the Mungo
remains - the site of the former Lake Mungo is in South Australia,
about a days drive north of Melbourne) suggest that anatomically modern
humans were living at the site 35,000-40,000 years ago, which would
imply that the 70,000 bp dating for Eve is almost certainly off.  The
suggestion is that, while Eve still almost certainly lived in Africa,
it may have been 120,000 or more years ago, which has important
implications for many other theories about the origins and movements of
prehistoric peoples throughout the world.

But back to the main point - these are difficult questions, but the
potential importance of questions like those raised by the Mungo and
Kennebunkport remains lead me to lean toward favoring a general
principle that minimizes the possibility that valid scientific
inquiries can be blocked by any individuals or groups fearing that the
results of such research may be disadvantageous to their own special
interests.

For me, a working hypothesis would be that, in the case of remains of
someone who still has (or could have) living survivors who knew him or
her in life and who could (or do) object, special considerations should
apply, but even here I don't think they necessarily trump all others.
Once it is no longer likely that any immediate survivors are still
alive, few if any obstacles should be placed in the way of
professionals pursuing legitimate research objectives.

A similar question is raised by autopsy, which in many (most?)
societies is legally and routinely performed, even required, in the
case of many deaths, including some which can clearly attributed to
natural causes.

Robert Delfs

Tabula International Ltd.
Email:  <[log in to unmask]
Phone:  +62 361 282-743
Website:  www.tabula-international.com