Slashdot Mirror
Oldest American Skull Found in Mexico
MaximumBob writes "While digging a well near the Mexico City airport, crews found this skull, believed to be the oldest human skull ever found in the Americas. What's especially exciting is that since it was found outside the United States, it's not subject to U.S. laws which allow local tribes to rebury remains and keep them from being studied. The skull will be studied by scientists and may shed new light on alternatives to the "land bridge" hypothesis of American settlement."
This find is being interpreted as (very preliminary) evidence for a newer theory - that the Americas were inhabited by people related to the Ainu, long BEFORE the people we now call "Native Americans" showed up.
What happens to that 'Native Americans get dibs on any old bones found in the U.S.' law if the earlier-Ainu theory pans out? This could get into some really interesting "politically unacceptable scientific facts"...
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
... it's only a matter of time until Strom Thurmond kicks the bucket and takes your crown.
The "Peñon Woman III" -- which scientists believe is now the oldest skull from the New World -- has been sitting in Mexico City's National Museum of Anthropology since 1959.
They just re-dated it.
There are two issues here:
1.) Is it okay to dig up ancient graves, remains, etc. to learn about long-gone humans, cultures, etc.? It seems fairly well accepted that it *is* okay when there are nothing remotely resembling next-of-kin to object.
2.) How much of a (scientific) reality check should there be on any group claiming next-of-kin legal rights over the ancient graves, remains, etc.? You often have to study to determine whether someone has the right to forbid any study...
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
This story seems somewhat confused and contradicts other things I have read on the subject. I am not convinced the actual interpretation of this find is very reliable.
The most modern theories about the origns of humans in north america, prior to this find, as far as I understand them are as follows. The first humans came across the land bridge between alaska and asia during the last ice age, about 17,000 years ago. They were caucasians, closely related to the Jomon, the prehistoric inhabitants of Japan, whose modern couterparts are the Ainu of Hokkaido. They penetrated throughout north and south america in a 1,000 years or so. Later, about 3,000-4,000 years ago, another group crossed the bering strait in boats. These people were closely related to the modern Chinese and Mongolian people and only penetrated north america. Their descendents are principly the Eskimo and Aleut, but some penetrated futher south such as the Navajo. See here for details.
This find seems to just seems to add extra conformation to the above hypothesis. Finding a 13,000 year old skull does not mean that there had to be human in the americas 25,000 years ago. Nor does the skull contradict the theory that the first humans used the land bridge to cross to alaska during the last ice age. The evidence of camps -- man-made tools, a human footprint and huts dating back 25,000 years are totally separate from this and obivously need explaining, but this find has no real bearing on that debate.
While digging... near the Mexico City airport, crews found this skull, believed to be the oldest human skull ever found in the Americas.
Perhaps *now* the airlines will admit that interflight delays are getting out of hand?
The fate of Kennewick man is still a matter of some debate. A court approved study on the remains, but the American Indian tribes are trying to halt research while the decision is appealed.
For an example of why these findings are so political, check out this related story in The Guardian speculating that the Mexican remains might show the first Americans were of European origin.
The BBC version of this story is more detailed and has somewhat less wild speculation.
Is it okay to dig up ancient graves, remains, etc. Why should current beliefs really enter into this? The best reason I can see for not digging up someones remains is if we have reason to believe they didn't want to be dug up. Just as a matter of respect for another human. I find the idea that someone might dig up my body 20,000 years from now to learn about my people and me pretty exciting. Someone else might find it repulsive. If we don't know what they wanted it should be weighed against whatever value we might get out of it. If you find a 1000 bodies, the first 20 you dig up and analyse maybe worth it, but if we learn to read the inscription that says, "please leave this body be" or "please dig me up" then it should be respected. If we find the body was buried so the relatives didn't have to watch it picked apart by buzzards or just to keep from spreading disease, then modern ideas have more value. I really find no reason to think the ancients were more supersticious than some of our contemporaries. When you read Plato do you think he thinks of the gods as symbols or as real living breathing people? I know I don't think of gods as being real but I often speak of them because it is convenient shorthand for more complicated ideas. If someone is buried with appeals to a god, is that because they believe in it or because a relative does, or because a relative saw some political gain in looking like they believed in it, or was it just tradition that was seen as valuable for mourning? Some cultures don't have a god creation myth... Layering on modern beliefs doesn't help, but respecting their true beliefs has value to us today. We might wish that our remains are respected in our way 10,000 years from now when everyone knows there are four gods that require bodies to be exhumed and reburied in dog dung, then posed in sex acts with goats, and sent into the sun on inter-planetary television.
Significant contamination or atmospheric exchange would be detectable in the mineral structure of the skulls independantly of carbon dating. Additionally, the fact that five skulls all gave the same age in strong evidence against contamination, and shows that good techniques were used thoughout.
Atmospheric carbon does not exchange with bone minerals on these time scales.
The skulls had not previously been dated, unless you wish to show a link for that.
They are not `at peace' they are simply not.
If you want to be safe, we could allow them 30 days to object in person to the nearst court officer. If they don't they either don't exist or don't care, so no problem.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
The argument runs like this:
1) These remains [i.e. Kennewick Man, Spirit Cave Man, &c.] belong to a member of our tribe.
2) We will not allow anyone to dig up one of our modern graves.
3) As a member of our tribe, [Kennewick Man, Spririt Cave Man, &c.] would not have wanted to be excavated.
4) You may not dig up any remains.
Basically, the Indians are making the claim that their world view is fundamentally the same as a 2- or 5- or 11,000 year old culture.
Rhapsody in Numbers
This is rather undermined by the fact that themain aim of the rules seems to be to stop anyone from establishing whether they have any surviving relatives or community.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
This summer I finally got my ass in gear and went back to school for those two credits I needed for my Anthropology major. Had to take an archaeology course and decided on one called Alberta Archaeology. I figured it would be interesting as Alberta really acted as the gateway to the Americas for early man entering through the Ice Free Corridor.
What I ended up learning was that the Ice Free Corridor hypothesis is growing more and more tenuous as the evidence piles up. The preponderance of new archaeological evidence is starting to suggest that the first known migrants to the Americas arrived via boat, making their way down the coast from Alaska all the way to Northern California or Oregon and then pressing inland.
One of the major problems facing Archaeology of the Ancient Americas is that it seems there has to have been Pre-Clovis people somewhere in the Americas, but there is NO definitive evidence of them anywhere. The Clovis people, where ever they came from seem to have exploded onto the scene somewhere between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago nothing yet has been discovered to definitively prove that people where here before that. Every find that suggests earlier occupation of the Americas has somehow landed in controversy. (Not to say that they're not valid data, just that they're not definitive data.)
However, with each new early find, it seems more and more likely that people didn't come down through the Ice Free Corridor. The timing for the corridor to have been open just doesn't add up to the times people seem to have been here. Further, with the Ice Free Corridor hypothesis, one would expect to find most of the really old evidence in Alberta, Montana and Saskatchewan and that just isn't the case.