Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Oldest American Skull Found in Mexico 57

Posted by michael from the nice-teeth dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oldest American Skull Found in Mexico More

Oldest American Skull Found in Mexico

Comments Filter:

  • So what happens to that U.S. Law if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0x69 ( 580798 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @02:59PM (#4803586) Journal
    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"...

    • Re:So what happens to that U.S. Law if... (Score:5, Informative)

      by the phantom ( 107624 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @09:58PM (#4806916) Homepage
      The law remains and not much happens. NAGPRA (The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act) asserts that all prehistoric remains in all the museums in the US are to be "repatriated;" that is to say, they must be given over to the tribe that can make the best claim to decendence from the remains. Furthermore, any new remains that are found must be handed over after a limited time for scientific analysis.

      NAGPRA makes it very clear (or at least later legal interpretation of NAGPRA makes it very clear) that all prehistoric remains are to be "repatriated," regardless of actual evidence of decent. Case in Point: Kennewick Man. Kennewick Man is a ~10,000 year old skeleton found in Washington state. Anthropologically speaking, it is impossible to show that he has any relation to any living group. In fact, he is completely unlike any living person on Earth (see Jim Chatters' book, Ancient Encounters; while Chatters may not be the best scientist in the world, he is just about the only one to publish anything on Kennewick Man). However, it was originally ruled that Kennewick Man must be given over to modern Indian groups that live in the area. Recent court decisions have gone back and forth a bit, but the general outlook is not good.

      In my opinion, NAGPRA is one of the most regressive, anti-scientific laws ever written. When determining where a skeleton or other remains ultimatly end up, it is assumed that all remains will go somewhere. If archaeological or anthropological evidence cannot place remains among any living, federally recognized Indian group, native folklore is taken at face value and the group that claims to have lived in an area "since time immemorial" has the greatest claim.

      This is particularly upsetting in the case of Kennewick Man, where archaeological evidence implies that the folk who live in that part of WA now have only been there for the last 2 or 3 thousand years!

      Again, to come back to the question that was asked: The laws, as they are written, are not affected by any new theories. Furthermore, the idea of several migrations has been around for a while and is accepted by a large group of archaeologists, even before the evidence of this skull.

      Note: I am an archaeologist, and have rather strong feelings on the subject. Sorry to rant.
      • Actually, I have always wanted to ask this question of an anthropo/archeo-logist.To my untrained Nordic eye, there are not only definite and obvious facial similarities between Orientals and Indians, but that Egyptians, Arabs, Native Semites (Jewish and Arab), Greeks, Spanish, Italians, and nearly everyone Meditteranean, all look pretty much alike to me. I suppose the odd thing is that there are so many thousands of world cultures when there only seems to be about 4 moderately different human physical body "styles". Lots of invisible royal outfits, I guess.:})||
        • This is not really a new observation. About a century ago, people started to notice similarities, leading to three major classifications of people in the world (based on major phenotypes). There are mongoloids, similar in appearance to Asians. These included most Asian groups, Polynesians, and most American Indians. Negroids are similar in appearance to Africans, i.e. dark skin, wide noses, often tall and thin. Included in this group are most sub-Saharan Africans, Native Australians and a scattering of other groups around the world. The last group, the caucasians, are similar to people from the Caucasus region (not to say they are from there, just that the appearance is similar). This includes most Europeans.

          However, these classifications only take into account a small facet of human variability and have no real basis in genetic reality. MtDNA is much more important in the modern study of human groups, though by no means the only factor. Things like skull shape are still used, and to great effect. For instance, Kennewick Man and Penon Woman III are seen as distinct based upon skull shape. Still, it will be interesting to see what the MtDNA has to say.

          In terms of why these similar "styles" seem to exist in the world, it is probably in large part due to adaptation. In a hot, sunny environment such as Africa or Australia, it is good to be dark so as not to get sunburned, and a high height:mass ratio increases surface area for cooling. Short, stocky people like the Scots or some northern American groups (i.e. the Inupiat) are designed to exist in cold environments.

          That being said, the similarities between Asians and American Indians are likely caused by common ancestory. About 15-20 thousand years ago, duing the height of the last Ice Age, it was possible to walk across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to America. Even more likely, it Asia to America. Thus, nearly all native American Indians are likely decended from Asian groups, such as the Ainu.

          I hope that incoherent rambling mess comes near to answering your question...
      • I was thinking more about the political situation.

        If the "pro-Native American" law is BS, but the (low emotional appeal) scientists are the victims, i don't see much chance of the law changing. Ditto judges using an "if Congress had a brain" alternate version of the law.

        Now, if:
        (1) Science was sure (and had good average-Joe-understands-it skull-shape & DNA evidence) that some set of bones claimed by "current" Native Americans were actually Ainu.
        (2) Some real, live, determined, liberal/victim-politics-savvy Ainu were trying to claim the bones.
        -then we could have a SERIOUS political fight.

  • Enjoy it while it lasts, skull... (Score:5, Funny)

    by seanmeister ( 156224 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @03:01PM (#4803613)
    ... it's only a matter of time until Strom Thurmond [stromwatch.com] kicks the bucket and takes your crown.
    • Hah, and I thought all those complaints of a Senate "death watch" were just political B.S.


      Like him or not, circling over him like vultures hoping for him to kick over and create another "upset" to win back the Senate majority is simply tasteless. It's political trolling.

  • Whatever happened with Kennewick man anyway?

    I have to say the whole situation surrounding that. I remember an interview with one of the tribal elders where he stated that scientists shouldn't be allowed to study him to figure out where he came from and what kind of life he lived because their oral history made it clear that they were the first, and that there were no others, so he must have been one of them QED.

    It's always a tragedy when, esentially, religion pushes science around and prevents us from expanding upon our understanding.

    • Re:Kennewick man. (Score:2, Informative)

      by the_gadfly ( 556428 )

      The fate of Kennewick man is still a matter of some debate [tri-cityherald.com]. 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 [independent.co.uk] in The Guardian speculating that the Mexican remains might show the first Americans were of European origin.

  • Gotta love misleading headlines (Score:4, Informative)

    by sosedada ( 97525 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @03:04PM (#4803637) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Gotta love misleading headlines (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, someone "found" it in Mexico City's National Museum of Anthropology, so the title is technically true. There are plenty other Slashdot titles that are clearly false, not just misleading. I've seen a few that were true. "Mozilla 1.2.1 Released" is the best example.
  • ...in the head of Strom Thurmond.
  • I don't like the posters tone in saying that american natives don't 'get to rebury' the skull and stop all scientific progress. I am a big believer in scientific study but, I don't believe in desecrating a person's final resting place just to find out - He was old!!

    • Re:what's wrong with reburial? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0x69 ( 580798 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @04:02PM (#4804112) Journal
      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...
      • 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.
        • 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.
      • This is also known as the uncertainty principle.

        http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.h tm l

        Interesting...
    • Exactly who is harmed by studying these bones?
      • the people whose dignity is being taken away from them by nnot leaving them at peace
        • ... not leaving them at peace

          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.

          • They are not `at peace' they are simply not.

            The dignity in question is not that of the deceased, but that of the surviving relatives or community.

            If you dig my grandfather up to stare at his skull, that will upset my family. (Whether it "should" is a moot point; it is a common human reaction.)

            • The dignity in question is not that of the deceased, but that of the surviving relatives or community.

              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.

        • the people whose dignity is being taken away from them by nnot leaving them at peace

          And how exactly are they being harmed? No one has a right to dignity, they have to attempt to earn it. It's like respect.

          Let alone the fact that the person in question is no longer. She's *dead*. And famous for it.

  • Dodgy interpretation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by riptalon ( 595997 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @04:07PM (#4804153)

    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 [asianweek.com] 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.

    • I don't think they're denying the fact that people traveled over the land bridge to get to north america; I think they're saying that those weren't the FIRST people in north america (or at least that far south in north america), but rather that island hoppers had set foot on land down in mexico. that's just my interpretation.
    • What's that got to do with Dogs?

      -Maynard

      He said "penetrated"...

  • This is getting ridiculous. (Score:5, Funny)

    by flux4 ( 157463 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @04:16PM (#4804244) Homepage
    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?

  • Better link (Score:5, Informative)

    by riptalon ( 595997 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @04:55PM (#4804672)

    The BBC version of this story [bbc.co.uk] is more detailed and has somewhat less wild speculation.

  • Too often, I find that these press releases result in a correction or retraction,(later, quietly buried on page 27) and they are usually tied to either a funding request for the project, or an ego trip. Just a skull does not a culture make. The skull, while it may be 13,000 years old, may not have been in place for 13,000 years. And as both "Native American" and a scientist, I think its a shame to let modern beliefs interfere with the discovery of where we came from.
    • Do you think that people carried around skulls for hundreds or thusends of kilometers then?

      The most likely explanation is that the owner of the skull either lived or was travelling in today's Mexico City area long time ago, earlier than previously belived.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Close