All,
The Kennewick case presents us with a very good example of where and when the use of the P-word (i.e., Politics -- briefly discussed in an earlier exchange with Anne Gilbert: Molecular Anthropology/What “is” molecular anthropology?) can and, in fact, should be allowed in the context of our ongoing discussions.
- Since you brought it up, might I ask what's happening with NAGPRA? I'm interested in issues of heritage management, but lately I've not been really keeping up with what's going on outside Malta, since we just enacted a new heritage bill and my attentions were centred on that.
JCM:
If we exclude from the picture the claims of the weirdos who are frequently attracted to such cases, we are left with those formulated by local native groups whose interest in the matter were clearly politically motivated.
- Very true...a good article which covers most of these points is
Smith, Laurajane
1994 Heritage Management as Postprocessual Archaeology?, "Antiquity", Vol 68 Nr259.
Her focus is on Australia, but much of what she says is valid for other contexts.
JCM:
This was made particularly obvious when they brought forth, as one of their main argument, the totally spurious notion that elements of their “oral tradition” could be used in support of their claim.
- Smith also discusses something similar, when she speaks of claims by natives to various sites and the problems people in heritage management face when tackling such issues.
regards,
Isabelle
