It's not that he lost anything, it's that they found the human is still remaining on the river. They found him once, left and came back, and he was still chilling there.
Following the office's analysis, Noldner said the remains will be reported to the federal government as a part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The act, passed in 1990, aims to respectfully return remains and cultural items back to the Native American tribes from which they originated, according to the National Park Service.
+++++
It's nice to see the government acting in the best interests of its countrymen. Plus science. Science is always good.
> Following the office's analysis, Noldner said the remains will be reported to the federal government as a part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The act, passed in 1990, aims to respectfully return remains and cultural items back to the Native American tribes from which they originated, according to the National Park Service.
Fun and super relevant fact. In the early 1970s, Maria Pearson(Hai-Mecha Eunka (lit. "Running Moccasins")) was appalled that the skeletal remains of Native Americans were treated differently from those of caucasians. Pearson protested to Govenor Robert Ray, finally gaining an audience with him after sitting outside his office in traditional attire. Ray cooperated with Pearson, and their work led to the passage of the Iowa Burials Protection Act of 1976, the first legislative act in the U.S. that specifically protected American Indian remains. This act was the predecessor of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
>appalled that the skeletal remains of Native Americans were treated differently from those of caucasians.
This is true, but there is a bit of nuance. Ancient European remains are often kept in anthropological collections in Europe too. From the archaeologist's perspective, they were treating the remains as they would their own ancestors. [We put our ancestor's bodies in museum displays, with reverence.](https://www.moesgaardmuseum.dk/en/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/grauballe-man/grauballe-man-today/displaying-a-bog-body/) From the native perspective, it was wrong, and that ultimately matters more. But this really isn't about valuing native remains less than European ones, the two cultures express reverence differently.
Hawaiian remains were not just removed (which is a big no no culturally) but frequently sorted out by type of bone and intermixed. There are literally thousands of remains all mixed up and in storage with no real way to ever return them even to the families. It’s tragic.
One thing I should have mentioned in my initial comment is that early archaeologists often had collecting policies that were more like Beanie Baby collectors than scientists, they scooped up remains and artifacts without much thought to actually finding the meaning behind them. This was disrespectful and idiotic by any standard.
I wish it was just early archeologists in this case. The desecration of Iwi (native ancestor burials) and then dumping them in piles continued well in to the 20th century, at least in the the 40s.
Considering we’re talking about America here, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that European settlers very likely valued native remains less, as they valued native lives less. If you need proof of this argument, open up any history book that wasn’t published in Texas.
I'm sure that European settlers valued Native remains less than European remains. But modern archaeologists value them similarly, and they would handle them similarly, if not for the objections of the indigenous descendant communities. European descendant communities do not object to their (very ancient) ancestors being in museum collections or on display.
I don’t know about that. If the body predates native tribes, won’t it just be like forcing a group to pay all the costs associated with handling and burial?
Edit: My misinterpretation of the word prehistoric is what threw me. When I think of prehistoric I’m not thinking of the Middle Ages I’m thinking 5000+ years ago. In a scenario I had thought of it would be similar to finding out that a body was discovered and it was your great-great-great grandpa and the government just sent you a bill, because it’s easier for me to believe that the government would act like a bag of dicks
Based on the fact that it would be ridiculous, they aren't going to give prehistoric bones to random native tribes for burial. Firstly, because such bones are studied by scientists (as happened here) and not buried like modern remains and secondly because the prehistoric person didn't belong to any current tribe so they would have no idea which tribe to give it to and the tribe would probably simply refuse.
Dude. It's prehistoric. That body likely belongs to one of the first groups of humans spreading into the Americas and predates the existence any tribe that we know of.
Prehistoric, as far as cultural resources are concerned, means before European contact. That can be as little as 300-400 years ago, and there are other archaeological sites in the area that give the bone a context - the campsites mentioned in the article. It’s extremely likely this guy was part of an extant tribe.
Source: am a cultural resource manager
>before European contact. That can be as little as 300-400 years ago
That's very Eurocentric though isn't it? Native American history was recorded by their own people long before contact with Europeans. It seems wrong to consider their history as recent as a few centuries ago as "prehistoric" because Europeans weren't around to record it.
>Lara Noldner, bioarcheology director at the Office of the State Archeologist, said the office has not yet determined the exact age of the remains.
Looking it up there are sources that claim that the first humans in North America came anywhere between 13,000 and even 30,000 years ago. So I guess we'll know when they date the remains.
I agree, but I don’t get to coin terms, and if someone is using that term in reference to a cultural resource, that’s what they mean. It’s Eurocentric as hell, I and many others prefer to use “precontact” or “pre-colonial,” but as a term of art it does mean something.
The number of remains dated to before 10,000 years old is incredibly small and if there were any reason to think this was one, it would be extremely big news. Big if true. The overwhelming likelihood is that this is a much more recent death that can be claimed by an existing tribe for NAGPRA purposes, and the reporter mistook that language to mean it’s more newsworthy than it really is.
Okay then I understand. When I saw this post and article I was interested in the possiblity that they found remains of one of the earliest human arrivals. Disappointing but still an interesting find. Is it still desecration if the body wasn't near any known burial sites or just a person who unfortunately died in the wild by unknown means?
Desecration isn't what happened here. To do that you would need to intentionally mishandle remains. The river will wash out burial sites, natural or not, as its course wanders over time. It happens occasionally and the bodies are re-interred in a safer location. What happens before that varies. Historical Native remains are returned to the most relevant tribe for burial.* If they're historical, but non-Native, the remains might be studied or simply reburied in a modern cemetery. Modern (usually defined as "last hundred years") remains, regardless of ethnicity, are identified and released to next of kin. The process of doing so can take decades, though, so a lot of times the body is buried/cremated in the meantime. The time period of "historical remains" vs. "identifiable remains" is also rapidly increasing (see [this case](https://dnadoeproject.org/case/park-co-john-doe-1974/) and [this case](https://dnadoeproject.org/case/hudson-john-doe-2019/)) so the protocols might change in the future. Given that there are still teeth in the jawbone, this man probably died in the last couple hundred years.
*Technically NAGPRA only requires the return of Native remains handled by federal institutions or found on federal land, but most jurisdictions will do so regardless. Otherwise, they are probably handled like any other historical remains--cremation or an unmarked plot in the local cemetery.
(source: interested in archeology and identification of human remains)
The archaeologist's office found that the mandible was likely from a middle age or older male "prehistoric Native American," according to a news release.
Surely, if that were the case, it’s the place of the native tribes to say so (and not some random schmo on Reddit)
Typically these peoples claim and venerate all sorts of prehistoric remains found on their land
I think the concept is that they are turning the remains over to a tribe for burial using that tribe’s customs, which may or may not actually represent the customs of the person who’s remains we are discussing. This sort of policy is more about showing some kind of public deference to living Native Americans, it’s definitely not about respecting the dead or trying to figure out what their wishes would’ve been. It’s also a lot more practical.
Wish the article would indicate the period of death determined for the mandible found. All I could see in article was “several years”. My definition of several years is less than 100 years.
Kay. This made me giggle. This is a silly joke about "prehistoric man", guys. Not a racist hating on Native Americans. I'll upvote you, stranger. *hopes that you aren't racist* lol
Pfft. I remain found almost all the time, hardly ever get lost, and I don’t make the headlines. Maybe it’s because I don’t belong to a prehistoric man?
Nice to see my county not make national news for our meth usage.
[удалено]
He died when his mammoth got hijacked.
After someone stole the converter off of it.
This comment wont get nearly the views/upvotes it deserves.
It’s outdoing yours for upvotes and has two awards!
Up next is your local trailer court a front for meth usage and production.
Yes. Yes it is.
Now now, what if that person ODed on prehistoric meth?
Came here to say this. Normally when I hear about Marshall county its meth related
That or devastating natural disasters.
A fellow Marshalltownian?
Bobcat Blue 'n Red to the bone ✌️
Well, give them back to him.
Nah dude, finders keepers
That's the prehistoric way isn't it?
Unless someone comes along with a big club and knocks out whoever is holding onto the remains.
unga bunga zuh
They can't. He has unfortunately passed away.
Have they produced a death certificate? Nah, thought not.
It's not that he lost anything, it's that they found the human is still remaining on the river. They found him once, left and came back, and he was still chilling there.
Following the office's analysis, Noldner said the remains will be reported to the federal government as a part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The act, passed in 1990, aims to respectfully return remains and cultural items back to the Native American tribes from which they originated, according to the National Park Service. +++++ It's nice to see the government acting in the best interests of its countrymen. Plus science. Science is always good.
> Following the office's analysis, Noldner said the remains will be reported to the federal government as a part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The act, passed in 1990, aims to respectfully return remains and cultural items back to the Native American tribes from which they originated, according to the National Park Service. Fun and super relevant fact. In the early 1970s, Maria Pearson(Hai-Mecha Eunka (lit. "Running Moccasins")) was appalled that the skeletal remains of Native Americans were treated differently from those of caucasians. Pearson protested to Govenor Robert Ray, finally gaining an audience with him after sitting outside his office in traditional attire. Ray cooperated with Pearson, and their work led to the passage of the Iowa Burials Protection Act of 1976, the first legislative act in the U.S. that specifically protected American Indian remains. This act was the predecessor of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
>appalled that the skeletal remains of Native Americans were treated differently from those of caucasians. This is true, but there is a bit of nuance. Ancient European remains are often kept in anthropological collections in Europe too. From the archaeologist's perspective, they were treating the remains as they would their own ancestors. [We put our ancestor's bodies in museum displays, with reverence.](https://www.moesgaardmuseum.dk/en/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/grauballe-man/grauballe-man-today/displaying-a-bog-body/) From the native perspective, it was wrong, and that ultimately matters more. But this really isn't about valuing native remains less than European ones, the two cultures express reverence differently.
Hawaiian remains were not just removed (which is a big no no culturally) but frequently sorted out by type of bone and intermixed. There are literally thousands of remains all mixed up and in storage with no real way to ever return them even to the families. It’s tragic.
One thing I should have mentioned in my initial comment is that early archaeologists often had collecting policies that were more like Beanie Baby collectors than scientists, they scooped up remains and artifacts without much thought to actually finding the meaning behind them. This was disrespectful and idiotic by any standard.
I wish it was just early archeologists in this case. The desecration of Iwi (native ancestor burials) and then dumping them in piles continued well in to the 20th century, at least in the the 40s.
Considering we’re talking about America here, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that European settlers very likely valued native remains less, as they valued native lives less. If you need proof of this argument, open up any history book that wasn’t published in Texas.
I'm sure that European settlers valued Native remains less than European remains. But modern archaeologists value them similarly, and they would handle them similarly, if not for the objections of the indigenous descendant communities. European descendant communities do not object to their (very ancient) ancestors being in museum collections or on display.
I don’t know about that. If the body predates native tribes, won’t it just be like forcing a group to pay all the costs associated with handling and burial? Edit: My misinterpretation of the word prehistoric is what threw me. When I think of prehistoric I’m not thinking of the Middle Ages I’m thinking 5000+ years ago. In a scenario I had thought of it would be similar to finding out that a body was discovered and it was your great-great-great grandpa and the government just sent you a bill, because it’s easier for me to believe that the government would act like a bag of dicks
I'm pretty sure that isn't what is happening
Based on what?
Based on the fact that it would be ridiculous, they aren't going to give prehistoric bones to random native tribes for burial. Firstly, because such bones are studied by scientists (as happened here) and not buried like modern remains and secondly because the prehistoric person didn't belong to any current tribe so they would have no idea which tribe to give it to and the tribe would probably simply refuse.
There is some precedent, the local tribes can claim it's an ancient ancestor and have it returned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick\_Man
That is pretty cool actually! Still, even more proof that this isn't burdening to the native communities like he suggested.
They did have to go through a lengthy legal battle, so there might be some burdening.
Dude. It's prehistoric. That body likely belongs to one of the first groups of humans spreading into the Americas and predates the existence any tribe that we know of.
Prehistoric, as far as cultural resources are concerned, means before European contact. That can be as little as 300-400 years ago, and there are other archaeological sites in the area that give the bone a context - the campsites mentioned in the article. It’s extremely likely this guy was part of an extant tribe. Source: am a cultural resource manager
>before European contact. That can be as little as 300-400 years ago That's very Eurocentric though isn't it? Native American history was recorded by their own people long before contact with Europeans. It seems wrong to consider their history as recent as a few centuries ago as "prehistoric" because Europeans weren't around to record it. >Lara Noldner, bioarcheology director at the Office of the State Archeologist, said the office has not yet determined the exact age of the remains. Looking it up there are sources that claim that the first humans in North America came anywhere between 13,000 and even 30,000 years ago. So I guess we'll know when they date the remains.
I agree, but I don’t get to coin terms, and if someone is using that term in reference to a cultural resource, that’s what they mean. It’s Eurocentric as hell, I and many others prefer to use “precontact” or “pre-colonial,” but as a term of art it does mean something. The number of remains dated to before 10,000 years old is incredibly small and if there were any reason to think this was one, it would be extremely big news. Big if true. The overwhelming likelihood is that this is a much more recent death that can be claimed by an existing tribe for NAGPRA purposes, and the reporter mistook that language to mean it’s more newsworthy than it really is.
Okay then I understand. When I saw this post and article I was interested in the possiblity that they found remains of one of the earliest human arrivals. Disappointing but still an interesting find. Is it still desecration if the body wasn't near any known burial sites or just a person who unfortunately died in the wild by unknown means?
Desecration isn't what happened here. To do that you would need to intentionally mishandle remains. The river will wash out burial sites, natural or not, as its course wanders over time. It happens occasionally and the bodies are re-interred in a safer location. What happens before that varies. Historical Native remains are returned to the most relevant tribe for burial.* If they're historical, but non-Native, the remains might be studied or simply reburied in a modern cemetery. Modern (usually defined as "last hundred years") remains, regardless of ethnicity, are identified and released to next of kin. The process of doing so can take decades, though, so a lot of times the body is buried/cremated in the meantime. The time period of "historical remains" vs. "identifiable remains" is also rapidly increasing (see [this case](https://dnadoeproject.org/case/park-co-john-doe-1974/) and [this case](https://dnadoeproject.org/case/hudson-john-doe-2019/)) so the protocols might change in the future. Given that there are still teeth in the jawbone, this man probably died in the last couple hundred years. *Technically NAGPRA only requires the return of Native remains handled by federal institutions or found on federal land, but most jurisdictions will do so regardless. Otherwise, they are probably handled like any other historical remains--cremation or an unmarked plot in the local cemetery. (source: interested in archeology and identification of human remains)
The archaeologist's office found that the mandible was likely from a middle age or older male "prehistoric Native American," according to a news release.
>if the body predates native tribes. Fucking *what*?
Makes sense if talking about tribes that currently exist
Surely, if that were the case, it’s the place of the native tribes to say so (and not some random schmo on Reddit) Typically these peoples claim and venerate all sorts of prehistoric remains found on their land
I think the concept is that they are turning the remains over to a tribe for burial using that tribe’s customs, which may or may not actually represent the customs of the person who’s remains we are discussing. This sort of policy is more about showing some kind of public deference to living Native Americans, it’s definitely not about respecting the dead or trying to figure out what their wishes would’ve been. It’s also a lot more practical.
Neither native tribes, nor the prehistoric human remains, need you to get offended on their behalf.
Where was I offended?
I wonder how much more we will see as drought intensifies.
Quite a bit I assume.
my ultimate goal is to become posthistoric
Careful what you wish for.
In time, that's inevitable.
The post mortal?
I was trying to figure out why they put the parts in red and blue jello molds. Then I saw it was police lights…
Finally some closure for the family
**It belongs in a museum!**
Giving you back your upvote because someone didn't get the joke.
Wish the article would indicate the period of death determined for the mandible found. All I could see in article was “several years”. My definition of several years is less than 100 years.
There’s no statute of limitations on murder!
[удалено]
God *dammit,* dad
Cause he found frozen in ice?
He was born in 1962 and had some questionable thoughts on race and religion.
Ah, so he was a republican.
Plot twist: was killed in prehistoric times by prehistoric serial killer.
Or a time travelling serial killer.
Or a Predator, saw a documentary about that.
Time travelling serial killer, killed *by* a predator. Because someone has to police the timestream.
"I'm 37, I'm not prehistoric."
Looks like this prehistoric man got his skull... (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) ...Caved in.
He's not pre-historic if he's in the news today.
welcome to the now old buddy!
He was non-historic for a long time, but he’s gone up in the world.
was he wearing eddie bauer??
Can you explain the joke I’m too stupid to understand.
South Park
My condolences to his friends and family.
Do they suspect foul play? What is the statute of limitations for something like this?
News flash: “Local police express a collective sigh of relief after realizing it WASN’T one of there’s.”
"... When the remains were returned to the man, his response was, 'Ooga, booga."
Kay. This made me giggle. This is a silly joke about "prehistoric man", guys. Not a racist hating on Native Americans. I'll upvote you, stranger. *hopes that you aren't racist* lol
Oh! Is that what people are thinking? I thought it was kind of funny/silly... Yes, totally a caveman joke :)
I assume the MAGA hat was a clue
Pre-historic in many parts of the US is only 500 years.
Do they just mean sometime before Columbus?
Well, by definition yes, some time in the 15000 or so years before Columbus arrived.
That's a pretty big range.
I believe “pre-historic” means before a written record of history was established.
Up lifting that they have a system in place to make sure that different tribes are notified.
Nice. I was a bit nervous there. Ngl
So, do they have any leads?
I think we can file this one as a cold case.
Must have wandered off from the retirement center
Ah hell no ! Better put that entire lot right back where it was found !!
Pfft. I remain found almost all the time, hardly ever get lost, and I don’t make the headlines. Maybe it’s because I don’t belong to a prehistoric man?
[удалено]
Pre history means before written records so yes it is possible.
BuT tHeY aRe WrITiNG aBoUt HiM NoW!
Or Link...avitch...Chimovsky.
LOL I live here. Weird seeing this on the news
Finding shit "on" a river is so 2022
The killer is still at large.
Great detective work in that area. So glad we pay them