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 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.