Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Really Discovered America?
Hope Of Israel ^

Posted on 07/14/2002 2:08:47 PM PDT by blam

Who Really Discovered America?

Did ancient Hebrews reach the shores of the North and South American continents thousands of years before Christopher Columbus? What evidence is there for Hebrew and Israelite occupation of the Western Hemisphere even a thousand years before Christ? Was trans-Atlantic commerce and travel fairly routine in the days of king Solomon of Israel? Read here the intriguing, fascinating saga of the TRUE DISCOVERERS OF AMERICA!

William F. Dankenbring

A stone in a dry creek bed in New Mexico, discovered by early settlers in the region, is one of the most amazing archaeological discoveries in the Western Hemisphere. It contains engraved on its flank the entire Ten Commandments written in ancient Hebrew script! Hebrew scholars, such as Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis University near Boston, have vouched for its authenticity. I visited the site of the huge boulder, near Las Lunas, New Mexico, in 1973 and photographed the Hebrew inscriptions. A local newspaper reporter guided me to the mysterious site, located out in the middle of the New Mexico desert. We watched for rattlesnakes, as we hiked in to the spot where the boulder lies, unmoved and in situ for who knows how many mysterious centuries. Who put it there? Who wrote the incredible inscription of the TEN COMMANDMENTS in an ancient Hebrew dialect.

In December, 1989, it was reported that an American explorer in Peru's highland jungles had found evidence that indicated king Solomon's legendary gold mines may have been in that region. The explorer, Gene Savoy, declared that he had found three stone tablets containing the first writing found from the ancient civilizations of the Andes. The inscriptions, he reported, are similar to Phoenician and Hebrew hieroglyphs!

Reports the San Francisco Chronicle: "The hieroglyphs on the tablets are similar to those used in King Solomon's time and include one identical to the symbol that always appeared on the ships he sent to the legendary land of Ophir, which the Bible described as the source of his gold, Savoy said" (December 7, 1989).

Savoy is no newcomer to archaeological discoveries. He was the discoverer of the last Inca city of Vilcabamba in 1964. Savoy declared that the three tablets each weigh several tons and measure about 5 by 10 feet. They were found in a cave near Gran Vilaya, the immense ruins of the Chachapoyas Indian civilization which he discovered in 1985.

This discovery is not surprising to me. In my book Beyond Star Wars, I suggest strongly that ancient Peru was the site of the mysterious "land of Ophir."

Hebrews in the Americas 1,000 B.C.?

In 1973, while traveling to do research for an article I was writing for The Plain Truth magazine, I visited with Dr. Joseph Mahan in Atlanta, Georgia, an expert in ancient Indian ethnology of the southeastern Indians of the United States. He showed me samples of pottery uncovered from the waters around the Bahamas, and told me of Indian legends, including that of the Yuchis, stating they had migrated to the area of Florida and Georgia from the region of the Bahamas. According to their legends, the island sank beneath the sea and they fled for their lives.

These same Yuchis later migrated to the Oklahoma territory, where they eventually settled down. Amazingly enough, they show strong evidence that they had contact with the Old World in historic times. They have a custom which is unique among the American Indians. They are racially and linguistically different from their neighbors. Every year on the fifteenth day of the sacred month of harvest, in the fall, they make a pilgrimmage. For eight days they live in "booths" with roofs open to the sky, covered with branches and leaves and foliage. During this festival, they dance around the sacred fire, and called upon the name of God.

The ancient Israelites had the virtually identical custom, in many respects. In the harvest season in the fall, on the 15th day of the sacred month of harvest (the seventh month), they celebrate the "festival of booths" for eight days. During this time they lived in temporary booths, covered with branches, leaves, fronds. This festival goes back to the time of Moses and the Exodus from ancient Egypt (Leviticus 23).

How is it that two totally separated peoples observed the identical custom?

Dr. Cyrus Gordon, of Brandeis University in Boston, was privileged to sit in on one of the fall harvest festivals of the Yuchi Indians, and listened to their chants, songs, and sacred ceremonies. An expert in Hebrew, Minoan, and many Middle Eastern languages, he was incredulous. As he listened, he exclaimed to his companion, "They are speaking the Hebrew names for God!"

Dr. Joe Mahan is a strong believer in cultural contacts between the Indians and the East, long before Columbus. He showed me a small tablet containing ancient cuneiform writing of the Babylonians. "This," he said, "was found not long ago by a woman digging in her flower bed, here in Georgia. The inscription appears to be genuine. There is no reason not to believe it is authentic."

Perplexing Mysteries

More and more, scholars are coming to admit that peoples from the Middle East reached the New World long before Columbus or the Vikings. One stone, found at Fort Benning, Georgia, has unusual markings all over it. I saw the stone myself, and took photographs of it. Professor Stanislav Segert, professor of Semitic languages at the University of Prague, has identified the markings on the stone as a script of the second millennium before Christ, from the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete!

In Quest of the White God, Pierre Honore points out similarities between the ancient Minoan writing and the script of the ancient Mayas. Independently of him, other scholars have noted striking similarities between Aztec glyphs from Mexico, and Cretan glyphs on the Phaistos Disc from the island of Crete in the Mediterranean.

In addition to these remarkable discoveries, Dr. Cyrus Gordon told me that Jews were in America in ancient times. The inscription on the stone, he asserts, is in the writing style of Canaan, the promised land of the Hebrews. Concludes Gordon, whom I interviewed at his old, New England style home in the suburbs of Boston: "There is no doubt that these findings, and others, reflect Bronze Age transatlantic communication between the Mediterranean and the New World around the middle of the second millennium B.C."

In 1968 Manfred Metcalf was looking for slabs to build a barbeque pit. Several strange-looking, flat rocks caught his eye; he picked up a large flat piece of sandstone about nine inches long, brushed it off, and noticed odd markings on it. Metcalf gave the stone to Dr. Joseph B. Mahan, Jr., Director of Education and Research at the nearby Columbus Museum of Arts and Crafts at Columbus, Georgia. Mahan sent a copy of the stone to Cyrus Gordon. Gordon reported:

"After studying the inscription, it was apparent to me that the affinities of the script were with the Aegean syllabary, whose two best known forms are Minoan Linear A, and Mycenaean Linear B. The double-axe in the lower left corner is of course reminiscent of Minoan civilization. The single verticle lines remind us of the vertical lines standing each for the numeral '1' in the Aegean syllabary; while the little circles stand for '100.'"

Concluded Gordon: "We therefore have American inscriptional contacts with the Aegean of the Bronze Age, near the south, west and north shores of the Gulf of Mexico. This can hardly be accidental; ancient Aegean writing near three different sectors of the Gulf reflects Bronze Age translatlantic communication between the Mediterranean and the New World around the middle of the second millennium B.C."

Gordon offers the exciting thought, "The Aegean analogues to Mayan writing, to the Aztec glyphs, and to the Metcalf Stone, inspire the hope that the deciphered scripts of the Mediterranean may provide keys for unlocking the forgotten systems of writing in the New World. A generation capable of landing men on the moon, may also be able to place pre-Columbian Americas within the framework of world history" (Manuscripts, summer of 1969).

Further proof that transatlantic travel and communication existed in the Bronze Age, in the middle of the second millennium B.C., during the time of David and Solomon, and before, comes to us from South America.

In 1872 a slave belonging of Joaquim Alves de Costa, found a broken stone tablet in the tropical rain forests of Brazil's Paraiba state. Baffled by the strange markings on the stone, Costa's son, who was a draftsman, made a copy of it and sent it to the Brazilian Emperor's Council of State. The stone came to the attention of Ladislau Netto, director of the national museum. He was convinced of the inscription's autthenticity and made a crude translation of it. Contemporary scholars scoffed. The very thought of Phoenicians reaching Brazil thousands of years before Columbus was viewed with disdain. Few scholars took the stone at all seriously.

In 1966 Dr. Jules Piccus, professor of romance languages at the University of Massachusetts, bought an old scrapbook at a rummage sale containing a letter written by Netto in 1874, which contained his translations of the markings on the stone and a tracing of the original copy he had received from Costa's son. Intrigued, Dr. Piccus brought the material to the attention of Cyrus H. Gordon. Dr. Gordon, the head of the Department of Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis and an expert in ancient Semitic languages, as well as author of some 13 books, was amazed. He compared the Paraiba inscription with the latest work on Phoenician writings. He discovered that it contained nuances and quirks of Phoenician style that could not have been known to a 19th century forger. The writings had to be genuine!

Gordon translated the inscription as follows: "We are Sidonian Canaanites from the city of the Mercantile King. We were cast up on this distant shore, a land of mountains. We sacrificed a youth to the celestial gods and goddesses in the nineteenth year of our mighty King Hiram and embarked from Ezion-geber into the Red Sea. We voyaged with ten ships and were at sea together for two years around Africa. Then we were separated by the hand of Baal and were no longer with our companions. So we have come here, twelve men and three women, into New Shore. Am I, the Admiral, a man who would flee? Nay! May the celestial gods and goddesses favor us well!"

The Navy of King Solomon

Cyrus Gordon believes the king mentioned in the script can be identified as Hiram III who reigned 553-533 B.C. The inscription seems to verify an unusual statement found in the Old Testament. An ancient Biblical chronicler wrote:

"And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon" (I Kings 9:26-28).

In the days of Solomon there was an alliance between Hiram, the king of Tyre and the Israelites under Solomon. They were not only allies, but very friendly toward one another (II Chronicles 2:2-12). Israelites and Phoenicians even worked together to build the Temple of God in Jerusalem (vs.13-18). This alliance included shipping together, although the Phoenicians were known to jealously guard the secrets of oceanic navigation from other nations. We read in II Chronicles 8, beginning verse 8:

"Then went Solomon to Ezion-geber, and to Eloth, at the sea side in the land of Edom. And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon" (v.17-18).

In the heyday of Solomon silver was "not any thing accounted of" (11 Chron. 9:20). We read, "And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar trees made he as the sycomore trees that are in the low plains in abundance" (v. 27). Solomon had his own personal fleets and dominated world trade. "And king Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom" (v. 22).

There is archaeological evidence, in fact, that the fleets of Solomon and Hiram of Tyre circumnavigated the globe, sailing from Ezion-geber, a port at tne terminus of the Red Sea, near modern Aqaba or Eliat! Hebrew customs, discovered by the early English settlers in the Americas, were found among some of the Indian tribes, including the wearing of phylacteries! Minoan and Phoenician coins have been found, and inscriptions of ancient Phoenician and Minoan scripts, in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and the Star of David was even found in an ancient ruin of the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico! In the middle of the second millennium, B.C., and down to the time of Solomon, circa 1000 B.C., oceanic travel by maritime powers in the Middle East seems to have been fairly common.

Amazing Discoveries in Mexico

Were Hebrews in the Americas long before Columbus? More evidence comes from the investigations of Dr. Alexander von Wuthenau, whom I interviewed at his home in Mexico City. His living room was filled to overflowing with terra cotta pottery figures and objects d' art. In his book The Art of Terra Cotta Pottery in Pre-Columbian Central and South America, Dr. Von Wuthenau published scores of photographs of these art objects. He tells of his astonishment, when he first noted that in the earliest, lower levels of each excavation he encountered -- not typical Indian heads -- but heads of Mongolians, Chinese, Japanese, Tartars, Negroes, and "all kinds of white people, especially Semitic Types with and without beards" (p. 49).

At Acapulco, von Wuthenau found that early Semitic peoples lived in considerable numbers. "The curious points about these essentially primitive figures are that, first, there is an emphasis on markedly Semitic-Hebrew features," he declared (p. 86). Female figures found in the region are also markedly Caucasian, with delicate eyebrows, small mouths and opulent coiffures.

Cyrus Gordon, who has studied the collection, points out: "In the private collection of Alexander von Wuthenau is a Mayan head, larger than life-size, portraying a pensive, bearded Semite. The dolichosephalic ("long-headed") type fits the Near East well. He resembles certain European Jews, but he is more like many Yemenite Jews."

Near Tampico, the early Huastecan culture reveals portrait heads with a predominant Semitic, white element, but also Negroid features appear. At Veracruz, meanwhile, a figurine of a female dancer possesses the features just like those of a Frenchwoman of Brittany! She wears a headdress reminiscent of Phoenician fashion. Also at Veracruz a figure with a false beard, styled like an Egyptian beard, had a snake-like protrusion on the forehead.

Again and again, figures with definite Semitic features have been found. A sample of Maya ceramic painting shows a lady with a flower who has an undeniable Negroid character. The figure has an affinity with Egyptian painting, says Wuthenau. yet it was not found along the Nile, but in Central America! On the Pacific coast of Ecuador, also, evidence for the presence of early Hebrews has been found. Also discovered was a figurine of a lovely girl who wore a headdress with a remarkable Phoenician affinity. Other Ecuadorian heads show definite Semitic features. Clearly, the Semites penetrated a large part of the American continent in "prehistoric" times!

Discoveries in South America

In the past century, several Brazilians have found inscriptions on rocks along the Amazon river. Over a period of 50 years, four men, including two who were scientists, uncovered inscriptions which they independently concluded were Phoenician in origin.

The first man, Francisco Pinto, in 1872 found over 20 caves deep in the Brazilian jungle and uncovered about 250 strange inscriptions upon the rocks. He thought they were Phoenician, and Brazil's Director of History and Geography corroborated his suspicions. A German philologist who studied the markings in 1911 felt they were genuine.

In the 1880s, Ernest Ronan, a French scientist, combed the jungles and found several more inscribed stones. In the 1920s a scholar by the name of Bernardo da Silva discovered many more inscriptions along the Amazon. It makes good sense. It explains why the Mayans,who considered Quetzalcoatl as the bringer of their arts and laws, depicted him as being unusually blond!

When the Spaniards discovered the New World in the early sixteenth century, perhaps fifty million inhabitants lived in the Western Hemisphere, speaking over 900 languages. Such linguistic diversity has long puzzled scholars, and logically attests to a diversity of origins. Carleton S. Coon reported that the conquistadores "commented on Montezuma's light skin, but did not remark that this ruler rarely exposed himself to the bright sun." Coon adds: "George Catlin, in his portraits of the Mandan Indians, depicted some of them as blond. . . . Another case of allegedly abberrant Indians is that of the Pomo, Hupa, and neighboring tribes in north-central California whose beard growth seems to have been Caucasoid when they were first seen" (Coon, The Living Races of Man, p.154).

Another mystery to ethnologists is the existence of a white skinned, red-bearded tribe discovered by builders of Brazil's Trans-Amazon Highway. Called the Lower Assurinis because they live south of the route of the highway, they have ear lobes (which is uncharacteristic of other tribes), and their language differs from traditional dialects in the region.

Sir Walter Raleigh in his History of the World mentioned that the Indians he encountered used many Welsh words long before the Welsh were known to have come to America. Linguistic studies prove that the Welsh language is very closely akin to ancient Hebrew!

The Mystery of New Zealand's Maoris

There is evidence among the Maori and people of eastern Polynesia that the sun was deified as Tane and that Ra, the sun god, was the tutelary god of Borabora. The Maoris, also, made use of ancient solar observatories. "At Kerikeri, in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, there is a miniature Stonehenge, the blocks standing about 7 feet out of the ground; and near Atiamuri, north of Taupo, there are other great monumental blocks -- some fifty of these still standing erect" (Maori Symbolism, p.137).

Interestingly, ancient Maori traditions relate that since antiquity the Maoris have observed ceremonial and dietary laws very similar to those of the ancient Hebrews. They even kept the seventh day "Sabbath" as a day of rest! Also, every 7 times 7 years -- or 49 years -- they observed a Jubilee Year similar to that of the ancient Hebrews." These similarities simply cannot be explained away as "mere coincidence"! The Maoris, like the Hebrews, even had a "sacred month" given over to Harvest thanksgiving, corresponding to the Hebrew month of Tishri and the Festival of Tabernacles.

How can these fascinating facts be explained? Such similarities must be more than mere coincidence. Like the Yuchi Indians of North America, the Maoris, at some very early stage of history, must have come in contact with ancient Hebrew mariners, roaming the seven seas, who taught them Hebrew customs and left behind signs of Hebraic influence!

How was this contact achieved? Was the ancient world covered by a global cultural continuity, indicating a globe-girdling civilization?

Ancient Maps of the "Sea Kings"

In his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Charles H. Hapgood tells of the Piri Re'is map of 1513 A.D. Studies of this map show that it correctly gives latitudes and longitudes along the coasts of Africa and Europe, indicating that the original mapmaker must have found the correct relative longitude across Africa and across the Atlantic to Brazil. This amazing map gives an accurate profile of the coast of South America to the Amazon, provides an amazing outline of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico (supposedly not yet discovered!), and -- incredibly enough -- shows a part of the coast of the Antarctic Continent which was not discovered, in modern times, until 1818!

This map does not stand alone. A world map drawn by Oronteus Finaeus in 1531 gives a truly authentic map of Antarctica, indicating the coasts were probably ice-free when the original map was drawn (of which Oronteus Finaeus' map was a later copy). The Oronteus Finaeus map was strikingly similar to modern maps of the Antarctic. How could this be?

Another fascinating map is the map of Hadji Ahmed of 1559. It is evident that the cartographer had some extraordinary source maps at his disposal. Says Hapgood: "The shapes of North and South America have a surprisingly modern look, the western coasts are especially interesting. They seem to be about two centuries ahead of the cartography of the time. . . . The shape of what is now the United States is about Perfect" (p.99).

Another map of the Middle Ages, the Reinel Chart of 1510 -- a Portuguese map of the Indian Ocean -- provides a striking example of the knowledge of the ancients. Studying the identifiable geographical localities and working out from them, Hapgood was astounded to find that "this map apparently shows the coast of Australia . . . The map also appeared to show some of the Caroline Islands of the Pacific. Latitudes and longitudes on this map are remarkably good, although Australia is shown too far north" (ibid., p.134).

How can such remarkable accuracy be explained on the basis of almost total ignorance of the earth during that time? Obviously, at an earlier period of earth's history, sea-faring nations must have travelled around the world and accurately mapped the major continents, and fragments and copies of their ancient maps survived into the Middle Ages and were copied again.

Concludes Hapgood: "The evidence presented by the ancient maps appears to suggest the existence in remote times . . . of a true civilization, of a comparatively advanced sort, which either was localized in one area but had worldwide commerce, or was, in a real sense, a worldwide culture" (p.193).

How advanced was this ancient culture? Says Hapgood, "In astronomy, nautical science, mapmaking and possibly ship-building, it was perhaps more advanced than any state of culture before the 18th Century of the Christian Era." He continues: "It was in the 18th Century that we first developed a practical means of finding longitude. It was in the 18th Century that we first accurately measured the circumference of the earth. Not until the 19th Century did we begin to send out ships for purposes of whaling or exploration into the Arctic or Antarctic Seas. The maps indicate that some ancient people may have done all these things" (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, p.193).

What ancient society could have been responsible? Is there really any doubt?

The evidence is overwhelming. The Semitic features discovered in Mexico and South America, the Hebrew and Phoenicians inscriptions, the Hebrew religious customs found in the Americas, and similar customs in far off New Zealand among the Maories of ancient times, all attest to the fact that worldwide oceanic travel, trade and commerce was occurring during the time of the Solomonic Empire!

Hapgood says such mapmaking would indicate economic motivations and vast economic resources. Further, organized government is indicated, since the mapping of a continent such as Antarctica implies much organization, many expeditions, and the compilation of many local observations and maps into a general map under central supervision. He adds that it is unlikely that navigation and mapmaking were the only sciences developed by this ancient people. Such a comprehensive enterprise could only have been achieved during a relative time of world peace, and by a very powerful and extremely wealthy kingdom! What ancient kingdom could have accomplished this?

Biblical Evidence Confirms It

Based on Biblical evidence, from the Scriptures, there can be no doubt. The ancient Israelite kingdom of king Solomon, noted for its wealth, peace, and power, and incredible trade empire, must have been involved in leaving this ancient world-wide evidence behind -- including Hebrew customs, language, and practices.

God told Ezekiel, "And say to Tyre, 0 you who dwell at entrance to the sea, who are merchants of the peoples of many islands and coastlands. . . The inhabitants of Sion and [the island] of Arvad were your oarsmen; your skilled wise men, O Tyre, were in you, they were your pilots. The old men of Gebal [a city north of Sidon] and its skilled and wise men in you were your calkers; all the ships of the sea with their mariners were in you to deal in your merchandise and trading" (Ezekiel 27:3, 8-9).

Ezekiel goes on, "Your rowers brought you out into the great and deep waters; the east wind has broken and wrecked you in the heart of the seas . . . When your wares came forth from the seas, you met the desire, and the demand, and the necessity of many people; you enriched the KINGS OF THE EARTH with your abundant wealth and merchandise. Now you are shattered by the seas . . ." (vs.26, 33-34, Amplified Bible).

This sounds like the description of a globe-girdling nautical nation -- one which brings its wealth from afar! -- one which travels throughout the entire earth in its quest for material goods and trade!

We also read in the Bible: "For the king [Solomon] had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks" (I Kings 10:22).

Is it not significant that Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the globe, requiring three years -- from 1519-1522? Is it not meaningful that Sir Francis Drake, the first Englishman to circumnavigate the world, took three years to do so (1577-80)?

But there's even more evidence!

"You Resemble a Sinner of Canaan!"

Mariano Edward Rivero and John James von Tschudi in Peruvian Antiquities (1857) point out that after the most thorough examination and minute comparison, the religious rites of the American Indians plainly present many points of agreement with those of the Hebrew people (p.9). Continue these authors: "Like the Jews, the Indians offer their firstfruits, they keep their new moons, and the feast of expiations at the end of September or in the beginning of October; they divide the year into four seasons, corresponding with the Jewish festivals. . . . In some parts of North America circumcision is practised . . . There is also much analogy between the Hebrews and Indians in that which concerns various rites and customs; such as the ceremonies of purification, the use of the bath . . . fasting, and the manner of prayer. The Indians likewise abstain from the blood of animals, as also from fish without scales; they consider divers quadrupeds unclean, also certain birds and reptiles, and they are accustomed to offer as a holocaust the firstlings of the flock" (ibid.).

Surely, all these parallels are not mere coincidence! Can anyone in their right mind consign these similarities to mere "accident"?

Say Rivero and von Tschudi: "But that which most tends to fortify the opinion as to the Hebrew origin of the American tribes, is a species of ark, seemingly like that of the Old Testament; this the Indians take with them to war; it is never permitted to touch the ground, but rests upon stones or pieces of wood, it being deemed sacrilegious and unlawful to open it or look into it. The American priests scrupulously guard their sanctuary, and the High Priest carries on his breast a white shell adorned with precious stones, which recalls the Urim of the Jewish High Priest: of whom we are also reminded by a band of white plumes on his forehead" (p.9-10).

These two reputable scientists of the last century also point out, "The use of Hebrew words was not uncommon in the religious performances of the North American Indians, and Adair assures us that they called an accused or guilty person haksit canaha, 'a sinner of Canaan'; and to him who was inattentive to religious worship, they said, Tschi haksit canaha, 'You resemble a sinner of Canaan'" (ibid.).

Though such evidence does not prove that the Indians themselves were Jews or Israelites, it does show that long before Columbus, Hebrews had reached the New World and had left their imprint upon its inhabitants. There undoubtedly was some intermarriage. Such incredible parallels are beyond the remotest possibility of being due to mere chance!

Why should it seem strange that peoples of the ancient world-in particular Phoenicians and Hebrews -- reached the New World and travelled to South America, and even crossed the Pacific? Is it really so incredible? The trouble is, most of us of the present generation have been brainwashed to think that the ancients were merely superstitious savages, terrified of sailing out to sea lest they fall off the edge of the earth.

But the Phoenicians had already sailed out beyond the "Pillars of Hercules" (Straits of Gibralter) by 1200 B.C. They developed the keel, streamlined their ships, covered the decks, and improved the sail. Their ships were from 80-100 feet long and used a single square sail besides oars. Their ships could average 100 miles in a day's time (24 hours). They were busy traders. Commerce was their principal aim. Tyre and Sidon, their home ports, were cities of immense wealth. Did ancient Phoenicians reach the New World? The evidence is inescapable.

Also interesting is the fact that the Quichua word for the sun, Inti, may very likely be derived from the Sanscrit root Indh, meaning "to shine, burn, or flame" and which corresponds to the East India word Indra, also meaning "the sun." It is also significant that the pre-Incas worshipped the invisible, Creator God, the Supreme Being, by the appellative Con, very similar to the Hebrew Cohen, the word for "priest," from the root Kahan meaning "to meditate in religious services, to officiate as a priest."

When all is said and done, Rivero and von Tschudi declare: "It cannot be denied, that the above tradition of the creation of the world, by the invisible and omnipotent Con, the primitive happy state of men, their corruption by sin, the destruction of the earth, and its regeneration, bears a distinct analogy to the Mosaic chronicle of the earliest epoch of the history of the human race . . ." (Peruvian Antiquities, p.149).

The Gold of "Ophir"

In the book of Isaiah we read the enigmatic statement: "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir" (Isa. 13:12). Where was the legendary "Ophir"? What was this "golden wedge"?

The Hebrew word for "wedge" is leshonah and refers to a "tongue," an instrument of some kind. The wedge of gold was, then, a bar or instrument of gold-literally, a "tongue of gold."

What could this "tongue" of gold have been? The gold of Ophir was not a scarce commodity since Solomon received 44 tons of it in a single year. Ophir was a place famous for its gold. Could it be that Isaiah was referring to a particular instrument of gold -- something famous in Ophir?

The Inca Empire was famous for the quantity and quality of the gold it produced. The Incas of modern Peru have a tradition that their earliest king was Pirua Paccari Manco. In modern Quichua Pirua means a granary or storehouse. The first dynasty of kings, called the Pirua dynasty, included the first eighteen kings in the king list. One of the commonest titles of the early kings was Capac which means "Rich."

One of the first kings was Manco Capac who founded the city of Cuzco ("Navel" in the special language of the Incas). Manco Capac is generally regarded as the progenitor of the Incas. Legends of the Incas tell us that he got rid of his three brothers and led the people of Cuzco. We read, "He took with him a golden staff. When the soil was so fertile that its whole length sank into the rich mould, there was to be the final resting place" (Markham, The Incas of Peru, p.50, 53).

Another story calls this golden staff a "sceptre of gold about a yard long and two fingers thick" (Markham, Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, p.64). Could this have been the "golden wedge" or "tongue" of Ophir?

John Crow relates another tradition of the ancient Incas. It is the story of "the Golden Wedge, according to which the Sun, wearied of the crude, barbaric ways of the uncivilized Indians, sent two of his children, a son and a daughter, to lift them from their primitive life. Placed on the earth near the banks of Lake Titicaca, these two children of the Sun were given a golden wedge which they were to carry with them wherever they wandered; and on the spot where this wedge sank without effort into the ground and disappered they were told to found their mother city. When the divine pair reached the vicinity of Cuzco, their talisman slid into the earth and vanished from sight" (The Epic of Latin America, p.25).

Was this mysterious talisman -- this "golden wedge" -- the same thing mentioned by the prophet Isaiah -- the "golden wedge of Ophir"?

There is a close resemblance between the Pirua dynasty and the Hebrew word Ophir. In Hebrew, Ophir ("ph" can be pronounced either as an "f" or a "p") was the name of a place rich in gold (I Kings 9:28); sometimes the term Ophir was used for gold (Job 22:24). Ancient Peru would certainly fit the Biblical description of Ophir. It was famous for its gold. In the Temple of the Sun in Cuzco was a fantastic display of wealth. The four inside walls were covered with paper-thin sheets of gold. A giant golden figure of the Sun hung suspended over the main altar. A huge silver room was dedicated to the Moon. Surrounding the Temple of the Sun and several chapels was a huge stone wall, covered with a cornice or crest of gold a yard wide. Inside the Temple were decorations of gold and silver flowers, plants and animals. The Spaniards sacked the Temple and seized all the gold and silver ornaments.

From 1492 to 1600 about two billion pesos' worth of gold and silver flowed out of Spain's New World colonies -- at least three times the entire European supply of these precious metals up to that time. The total production of gold and silver in the Spanish colonies between 1492 and 1800 has been estimated at six billion dollars.

Historian Fernando Montesinos visited Peru from 1629-1642, a century after the conquest by the Spaniards. He travelled fifteen years through the country collecting material for a history of Peru. Montesinos wrote Ophir de Espana, Memorias Historiales y Politicas del Peru. He believed Peru was the Ophir of Solomon. He contended that Peru was first settled by Ophir, the grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:29).

Montesinos has been ridiculed and derided by historians. But since the early settlers of Peru were white-skinned and red bearded; since there was abundant gold in the region; since the name of the Pirua dynasty may correspond to the Hebrew Ophir; since the voyages of Solomon's fleet took about three years to complete; and since the "golden wedge" of Ophir could very well correspond to the "golden wedge" of Manco Capac; and since there is so much overwhelming evidence of cultural contacts betweens the ancient Peruvians and the Israelites, with close affinities in cosmology; and since there is definite evidence of the presence of ancient Semitic peoples in Peru, Equador, and the Western Hemisphere -- it seems very likely that Montesinos was right! Indeed, there is strong reason to believe that Peru was the ancient Ophir of the Bible!

When we examine all the evidence, the picture comes startlingly clear. Ancient Semites -- early Hebrews -- sailed to the Western Hemisphere 2,500 years before Columbus. Much of this knowledge has been lost to mankind. But now a great deal of it is being re-discovered. The ancient Israelites were here before us! They left signs of their presence everywhere -- in customs, language, religious similarities, archaelogical artifacts, and even the Ten Commandments inscribed on a remote stone in a dry creek bed in New Mexico!


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: america; archaeology; argosy; aztec; aztecs; barryfell; chachapoyas; christophercolumbus; clovis; columbus; cuneiform; decalogue; discovered; epigraphyandlanguage; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; history; loslunas; preclovis; really; saga; tencommandments; true; who
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

1 posted on 07/14/2002 2:08:47 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
No need to ping :-)
2 posted on 07/14/2002 2:22:05 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
FENRIS WOLF PRESS

"THE LEGEND OF THE CLOUD PEOPLE"

Gran Villaya, the city of "Cloud People", the largest pre-Columbian city of the Americas, was once inhabited by the Chachapoyas, legend says, a group of tall, blue-eyed blondes. Today the ancient city is shrouded by overgrowth in the high tropical rain forest of northern Peru, but just a millennium ago, it was still a grand metropolis of fortresses and farms that covered 100 square miles.

The Chachapoyas were conquered by the Incas in 1480. Spaniards reported it, the Incas reported it, and as you go deeper into the dense jungle, tall, blonde, blue-eyed people are still found. Up until very recently, some of these people still used mummy caves (like their Aryan-Egyptian relatives).

There are 10,000 stone structures, complex units of circular buildings. Stairways run up terraces for several hundred yards, and there are underground caverns and about 24,000 circular structures of cut limestone. Kirelap, a great elliptical fortress whose walls soar to 60 feet, and which is thought to have once reached 150 feet, defends Gran Villaya from the east.

From the west, the city and its agricultural terraces are guarded by a chain of fortifications. Local myths trace the Chachapoya culture to the 10th century BC.

The people there were architects, farmers, and engineers who built aqueducts, canals, bridges, and once were in contact with the seas. The archaeological discoveries of Gran Villaya have already located 43 lost cities high in the Andes.

Researchers have found roads built from huge stones leading down to the Amazon. There are few stones in the jungle, so they were likely transported there. Pizzaro, the Spanish conqueror of Peru, recording the persistence of white blood at that time, wrote that "The ruling class in the kingdom of Peru was fair-skinned with fair hair about the color of ripe wheat."

Anthropologists in 1971 discovered a tribe of white-skinned Indians in the depths of these jungles. English explorer Colonel P.H. Fawcett, wrote in 1924 of also finding remote South American tribes with blue eyes and auburn hair.

For additional reading:
"THE POLAR MYTH IN SCIENCE, SYMBOLISM, AND NAZI SURVIVAL" - J. Godwin (Serpents' Occult Books- PO Box 290644 Pt, Orange, FL 32129)

"IN SEARCH OF THE WHITE GOD"- Hutchinson "CONQUEST BY MAN" -Paul Hermann (Harper)

3 posted on 07/14/2002 2:28:59 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Nice survey article.
4 posted on 07/14/2002 2:45:09 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
When God sent the Apostles to "go teach all nations," He knew what He was doing.
5 posted on 07/14/2002 2:46:28 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Plain Truth magazine? Isn't that Garner Ted Armstrong? Yikes.
6 posted on 07/14/2002 3:32:09 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
You have something to say about what the article says? There is so much of this coming out from numerous sources that it is hard to ignore.
7 posted on 07/14/2002 3:35:27 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Truth-in-advertising suggests you would tell the reader the article comes from Armstrong. We do as much for DebkaFile, Lew Rockwell, and BSNN.
8 posted on 07/14/2002 3:41:06 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
First, I didn't post it. Say that to blam.

Second, do you have something to say about what the article says? If you can refute the data, please do so.
9 posted on 07/14/2002 3:52:27 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
While I'm at it, why don't I refute the Mormon belief that Jesus appeared in South America. Or Mary Baker Eddy's belief that disease is a result of sin? Be sure that Plain Truth slants and distorts what little evidence they find in a very professional manner. For instance, who is to say the rock in New Mexico wasn't inscribed in the last hundred years? How long ago was it the etchings were first discovered? What proof is there it was etched before Europeans set foot on America?
10 posted on 07/14/2002 3:59:54 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Mysterious Giant Human Remains Found In Fiji
11 posted on 07/14/2002 4:00:28 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I had an engineer working for me, Zulma, who was from Peru. I asked her about these "White Cloud People" in Peru. She said ,"they're there."

I wouldn't get to up tight about any of this information, some people believe all of it, some, parts of it and some, none at all. It's just FYI.

12 posted on 07/14/2002 4:09:32 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
No sweat. I appreciate your posts. This one could have been better sourced, is all. Carry on. :)
13 posted on 07/14/2002 4:20:06 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Typical demonization approach. OK. Will you take The Atlantic Monthly?

You would do well to read Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of Minoan Myth, by Arthur MacGillivray. He does a pretty good job of pointing out the historic and ongoing role (and peril) of subjectivity in developing archaeological theories. Significant evidence is often discovered by creative imagination extrapolating upon fragmentry information, yet often such information can lead us wildly astray.

Some of us realize that these bits and pieces are necessarily gathered in strange places because the "academic community" is a tyranny of opinion in search of grant money, and thus destructively limits the breadth, depth, and objectivity of current research. Thus, your comments will have ZERO credibility with me unless you address the specifics. I never said I agreed or accepted all of what is here. I didn't ask for a blanket refutation, but a critique of individual data. So far, all I hear is blather. I do think the ancients had a more extensive global commerce than we realize and there is plenty of physical evidence to support that contention, not the least of which is predominant weather and current patterns.

14 posted on 07/14/2002 4:27:45 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gcruse; d4now; another cricket; #3Fan; JudyB1938; ruoflaw
The Diffusionists Have Landed
15 posted on 07/14/2002 4:30:17 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Hmmm, we were thing and posting the same thing.
16 posted on 07/14/2002 4:31:28 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Come on, Carry. It's your turn. You asked me to refute the New Mexico rock as evidence of pre-Columbian settlement by Europeans. You ignored my questions. If you have no other proof of the antiquity involved, then I say the suggestion that it is pre-Columbian is refuted.
17 posted on 07/14/2002 4:33:35 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Go read the article. Then we'll talk.
18 posted on 07/14/2002 5:08:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam

Statue found by archaeologists while digging in Olmec ruins at La Venta, Mexico

19 posted on 07/14/2002 5:12:08 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
That one paragraph is the only mention of the New Mexico rock in the article. I went to Google and searched from "Las Lunas" and "ten commandments." All I got were hits from religious sources, nothing archeological at all. You'd think I would at least have found a comment on how they determined the age of the inscription. Nothing. Nada. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The ball is in the court of the believers. I am outta here.
20 posted on 07/14/2002 5:28:42 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

The aliens that the scientologists believe in discovered America but they stole the land from the muslims since allah created the world for them to dominate as allah's slaves. < /satire based on factual claims >
21 posted on 07/14/2002 6:14:53 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
If you have no other proof of the antiquity involved, then I say the suggestion that it is pre-Columbian is refuted.

No, it is not refuted, it is in question. Is refuting the theory the goal here? It might be yours, considering the evident BIAS in your post. I would say that there is broad PHYSICAL AND LEXICOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE for a THOERY, which is all you've got for ANY such theory.

A stone in a dry creek bed in New Mexico, discovered by early settlers in the region contains engraved on its flank the entire Ten Commandments in an ancient Hebrew dialect.

Was ancient Hebrew known to the discoverers?

Savoy, Inca city of Vilcabamba in 1964: three tablets each weigh several tons (sounds physical to me) hieroglyphs include one identical to that always on the ships sent to Ophir,

Dr. Joe Mahan a small tablet containing ancient cuneiform writing of the Babylonians found not long ago by a woman digging in her flower bed, here in Georgia

stone, found at Fort Benning, Georgia, Professor Stanislav Segert, professor of Semitic languages at the University of Prague, has identified the markings as a script of the second millennium before Christ, from the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete!

Not "proof" but certainly a strong indication.

1968 Manfred Metcalf a large flat piece of sandstone about nine inches long. Gordon reported: the affinities of the script were with the Aegean syllabary, whose two best known forms are Minoan Linear A, and Mycenaean Linear B. "We therefore have American inscriptional contacts with the Aegean of the Bronze Age, near the south, west and north shores of the Gulf of Mexico around the middle of the second millennium B.C."

Gordon "The Aegean analogues to Mayan writing, to the Aztec glyphs, and to the Metcalf Stone, inspire the hope that the deciphered scripts of the Mediterranean may provide keys for unlocking the forgotten systems of writing in the New World.

If it does prove useful, look out.

Over a period of 50 years, four men, including two who were scientists, uncovered inscriptions which they independently concluded were Phoenician in origin.

Another data point.

Francisco Pinto, in 1872 found over 20 caves deep in the Brazilian jungle and uncovered about 250 strange inscriptions upon the rocks. He thought they were Phoenician, and Brazil's Director of History and Geography corroborated his suspicions. A German philologist who studied the markings in 1911 felt they were genuine.

How many 19th Century forgers of Phoenician writing were crawling through the Brazilian jungle?

In the 1880s, Ernest Ronan, found several more inscribed stones. In the 1920s a scholar by the name of Bernardo da Silva discovered many more inscriptions along the Amazon.

a white skinned, red-bearded tribe the Lower Assurinis have ear lobes (which is uncharacteristic of other tribes), and their language differs from traditional dialects in the region.

Anybody done a DNA study yet?

The Phoenicians had already sailed out beyond the "Pillars of Hercules" (Straits of Gibralter) by 1200 B.C. They developed the keel, streamlined their ships, covered the decks, and improved the sail. Their ships were from 80-100 feet long and used a single square sail besides oars. Their ships could average 100 miles in a day's time (24 hours). They were busy traders. Commerce was their principal aim. Tyre and Sidon, their home ports, were cities of immense wealth.

Those are facts few will dispute.

What I said is that there were a lot of data indicating an interesting theory. They didn't mention the cocaine found in mummy hair in Egyptian tombs. How did it get there?

You are trying to say that a supposed failure (if there is one) to prove the theory in one instance disproves that theory. That is a stupid scientific conclusion (sorry, but that's all I can call it). What I am saying is that the breadth of EVIDENCE suggests that this is an extant THEORY and strongly indicates reason to question the Columbian demarcation (which has already been disproved insofar as the Vikings were concerned).

So you post this:

While I'm at it, why don't I refute the Mormon belief that Jesus appeared in South America. Or Mary Baker Eddy's belief that disease is a result of sin? Be sure that Plain Truth slants and distorts what little evidence they find in a very professional manner.

This is a salacious comment unworthy of this forum and the data, NONE of which you have refuted. It imputes a bias on my part for which you had no evidence. To say that it isn't proven is not to refute it. Not to refute considering the data IS proof that there is an extant THEORY or at least a very strong hypothesis. That is more than I can say for the THEORY that the Americas were isolated until Columbus.

22 posted on 07/14/2002 6:22:18 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
We're not particularly concerned with who was where 1000 B. C. That is current events to people like us. Isn't it. :)
23 posted on 07/14/2002 6:57:40 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
We're not particularly concerned with who was where 1000 B. C. That is current events to people like us. Isn't it. :)

Consider, for example, the legal claims being made for "indigenous peoples" and the revival of paganism in the form of the Gaia hypothesis among environmentalists. That set of beliefs is propagating from the UN and manifesting in Federal policy. Then there are the claims of Mexicans as indigenous peoples and the attendant revival of interest in promoting Aztec culture associated with claims over the American Southwest...

24 posted on 07/14/2002 7:28:48 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: blam
Asians who crossed the Bering strait via land/ice bridge.

Then the Chinese. Then the Vikings. Then the Polynesians.

But it wasn't until Columbus "discovering" the Americas that anyone did anything long-term about them.
25 posted on 07/14/2002 7:32:46 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
In addition to these remarkable discoveries, Dr. Cyrus Gordon told me that Jews were in America in ancient times.

Actually, they were more likely of the tribe of Dan, if these artifacts predate the captivites of the mid first millenium B.C. The tribe of Dan were the ship builders and explorers of the 12 tribes. That's why there's a trail through Europe from the Caucusus to Ireland with rivers, town, and countries named after the tribe of Dan. Before they set out on foot after the first captivity, they overtook the Phoenicians in exploring a big part of the world in ships.

26 posted on 07/14/2002 7:45:58 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP
Earliest Americans Seen As More Diverse
27 posted on 07/14/2002 7:49:45 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP; gcruse
There is pretty strong evidence indicating that the Olmecs and others had much in common with negroid polynesians and predated Clovis man.

Lowell Ponte produced two articles on FrontPage Magazine related to the story on Kennewick man, but there was also quite a bit of material on the earlier peoples of North America. The URLs no longer work. I saved the text. Here it is along with a littl followup :-)

Politically Incorrect Genocide, Part One

by Lowell Ponte

FrontPagemag.com | September 28, 1999

URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/ponte/ponte09-28-99.htm

IN 1975, anthropologists digging at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil found a skull in a 43-foot-deep cavern. The cave’s walls were painted with exotic forms, including images of long-extinct giant armadillos. The scientists set aside the skull, as well as some other bones, to gather dust in the National Museum’s huge archives in Rio de Janeiro.

About a year ago, archeologist Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paolo was measuring dozens of ancient skulls when something odd about this one caught his eye. The Brazilian skull, which had belonged to a twenty-year-old female who died in some sort of accident ten millennia ago, had distinct characteristics. It did not appear to be Mongoloid, like those of Native Americans whose ancestors had migrated across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia when past ice ages had lowered world sea levels, but African!

A CAT scan paid for by a British Broadcasting Company documentary team and the National Museum confirmed that this young woman, nicknamed "Luiza" after Africa’s famed human progenitor "Lucy," had the pronounced chin, large nose, and round eyes of an African or an Australian aboriginal. To see Luiza’s story and face, as reconstructed by forensic artist Richard Neave of the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, click here.

Luiza’s "skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia," according to the BBC. Its documentary, Ancient Voices: The Hunt for the First Americans, which aired in Great Britain in early September, shows that ancient Australian rock paintings depict boats with high prows capable of ocean travel. Australia is 8,450 miles from South America, but ancient Polynesians made very long island-hopping voyages across the Pacific. Ancient Australians, whose ancestors left Africa around 100,000 years ago, might successfully have done likewise.

The BBC documentary also notes that only three years ago five African fishermen were caught in a storm and, a few weeks later, their small boat washed onto the shores of South America. Two died, but three of the fishermen survived.

It used to seem loopy when fringe researchers compared the features of prehistoric carved Olmec stone heads in Mexico with the thick lips and other facial characteristics of Africans. It seemed speculative when adventurer Thor Heyerdahl set out to sail his reed boat Ra from Africa to the Americas, or to sail his raft Kon-Tiki eastward across the Pacific to Easter Island off the South American coast, demonstrating the possibility that ancient people did likewise.

But now we have solid scientific evidence that among the earliest settlers of the Americas were people of African ancestry, people whose skin presumably was not red or brown but ebony.

According to the BBC documentary, a few of their descendants might still be alive at the far southern tip of South America, not far from where Ted Turner and Jane Fonda have their huge feudal rancho, a refuge just in case nuclear war destroys the Northern Hemisphere.

The pre-European people of Tierra del Fuego, the "Land of Fire," whose ferocity

and bonfires frightened early Spanish explorers, lived stone-age lives until this century. According to the BBC investigation, they "show hybrid skull features which could have resulted from intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples. Their rituals and traditions also bear some resemblance to the ancient rock art in Brazil."

But what happened to the rest of those black-skinned original Americans in Brazil? The BBC reports that archeologists and anthropologists studying skulls in that cave found that, "The shape of the skulls changes between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago from being exclusively negroid to exclusively mongoloid."

The BBC’s conclusion is stark and horrifying: "Combined with rock art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears that the mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the original Americans." (Emphasis added)

In other words, long before Christopher Columbus and other dead white evil European male (DWEEM in PC-speak) conquistadors arrived to slaughter noble Native American Indians, the noble Native American Indians carried out a genocide that exterminated the true First Americans, who happened to have black skin and African racial origins.

What a different, braver New World ours might have been! Columbus arrives in 1492 and is greeted by smiling black faces. Instead of human-sacrificing Aztecs and socialist Incas, Europeans might have found the gentle culture of Africa or the dreamtime of Australian aboriginal people. Alas, we shall never know what could have been. The murderous genocide carried out by invading Indians destroyed the offspring of Luiza and her fellow black-skinned "original Americans," leaving only a few of their bones and fragments of their beautiful art.

How many died in this New World holocaust? We do not know. But how large must a family grow before we call it a race, or before its extermination is defined as genocide? A racist monster like Hitler would probably have been content to invent a time machine, return to antiquity, kill Abraham, and thereby achieve his desired genocide of the whole future Jewish seed by killing one person. The future millions, and the American civilization these black-skinned trailblazers like Luiza could have engendered, were forever destroyed. Africans would not again be in the New World for nine millennia, when European slave traders brought them in chains to the land where their kin had been annihilated by ancestors of today’s Native Americans.

To help right the wrong done to these first Australo-African-American victims of racism and genocide, PBS should promptly air the BBC documentary. University Black Studies departments should declare a Day of Mourning and issue condemnations of how the ancestors of today’s Native Americans stole the Americas by murder and genocide from black Americans. Reparations should be demanded from everyone with Indian ancestry. All history texts and curricula should be re-written immediately to reflect the nobility of these black first American settlers like Luiza, tell of the American Holocaust that exterminated them, and condemn the murderous theft of their land by Amerindian colonialists, imperialists, and exploiters and their Indian and mixed-ancestry Hispanic descendants. In their memory, we should color one of the white stripes in America’s flag black. To do anything less would insult every American with black skin and unfairly keep in a place of honor millions with red and brown skins whose racist ancestors stole America’s black birthright (while primitive whites shivered innocently, except for the fur they wore, in ice-age caves half a world away). To be PC in this case one must also be Paleolithically Correct.

But this was only part of the genocide carried out by early Native American

Indians. In today’s Northwestern United States other bones provide evidence of what might have been a comparable holocaust in North America against early Americans of a different race—evidence that the Clinton Administration has tried frantically to cover up. We shall examine that evidence next week in Part Two of "The Politically Incorrect Genocide."

Mr. Ponte hosts a national radio talk show Monday through Saturday that

can be heard via TalkRadioNetwork.com. He is a former Roving Editor for Reader’s Digest magazine Click here to send him a message.

© 1999 FrontPagemag.com

Politically Incorrect Genocide, Part Two

by Lowell Ponte

FrontPagemag.com | October 5, 1999

URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/ponte/ponte10-05-99.htm

COULD A FEW BONES require the re-writing of every American history textbook? Could they discredit the politically correct party line that we and our children have been taught for generations about Indian origins and European conquest in the New World? On September 21, a federal judge in Portland, Oregon, all but ordered a DNA test of these disputed relics. Such a test stands a good chance of proving that some of the first "Native Americans" had white skin and European ancestry. No wonder the Clinton Administration has moved heaven—and 500 tons of earth—to prevent a thorough scientific investigation of where one very old skeleton came from.

Two young men found a human skull while wading at the edge of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, on July 28, 1996, and notified the Sheriff. Asked to investigate by the county coroner’s office, anthropologist James Chatters found more bones in the shallow water. That required a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which has legal jurisdiction over navigable waterways such as the Columbia, and it promptly issued a retroactive permit to dig the site.

The bones seemed too old to be from someone who died recently, Chatters thought. They were discolored, and soil adhered to them as to bones buried for a century or more. At first Chatters guessed that they might be of some historic interest. Perhaps they were those of an Oregon Trail pioneer who came west by covered wagon.

But two surprising findings soon turned these remains into bones of contention. They are now part of the biggest political—and politically correct—tug of war since kings of Christendom fought over ownership of holy relics.

When bone fragments were sent for radiocarbon dating to the University of California at Riverside, analyst R. Ervin Taylor estimated that "Kennewick Man," as the skeleton was quickly dubbed, had lived 8,410 (plus or minus 60) years ago. This was "broadly corroborated" by part of a stone arrowhead still imbedded in the 5’10" man’s pelvis. The arrowhead, experts said, dated from the "Cascade" phase of Indian history in the Pacific Northwest that happened 9,000 to 4,500 years ago.

But even more surprising was Dr. Chatters’ analysis of the bones. The skull revealed that Kennewick Man had a long, narrow face, protruding nose, receding cheek bones, a high chin, and a square mandible. "None of these features is typical of modern American Indians," reported the journal Archeology in January/February 1997. Chatters’ analysis, wrote New York Times reporter Timothy Egan, "adds credence to theories that some early inhabitants of North America came from European stock."

Some ancient paleoindians on the East Coast nine millennia ago exhibited skull features resembling Kennewick Man’s. University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson objected to use of the term "Caucasoid" to describe the skeleton, calling it a "red flag, suggesting that whites were here earlier and Indians were here later, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that."

But others were taking no chances that further analysis of Kennewick Man’s bones or DNA might provide evidence and reason to believe that some of America’s earliest settlers had white skins and European ancestry.

Five Indian tribes claimed ownership of the skeleton under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which grants control of human remains to the tribe most likely to be their descendants or relatives. These tribes announced their intention to return Kennewick Man to Mother Earth by burial and to prevent any further religious or cultural affront such as DNA testing.

"Some scientists say that if this individual is not studied further, we, as Indians, will be destroying evidence of our own history," said Umatilla tribal religious leader Armand Minthorn. "We already know our history…. From our oral histories we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time…." (Scientists theorize that the Mongoloid ancestors of Amerindians crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia sometime between 60,000 and 10,000 years ago, with different waves of migration bringing two different blood types.)

The Clinton Administration was also passionately interested in burying these bones and the revision of history they might require. No sooner had public discussion begun about whether Kennewick Man was Caucasian than the Army Corps of Engineers took and locked away the bones from scientists. ACE officials, however, allowed Indians access to the remains and indicated the government’s intention to turn over the skeleton to Native Americans for reburial as soon as possible.

Dr. Doug Owsley, curator and division head for physical anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum, along with seven other scientists, filed a lawsuit to prevent the government from turning the skeleton over to Indians and to seek research access to the remains. Available evidence suggests that Kennewick Man had no "cultural affiliation" with Indians, as NAGPRA requires. The closest thing to such an affiliation might have been the Indian arrowhead lodged painfully in this ancient man’s hip bone. (To visit the Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretative center for links to news stories, documents, the text of NAGPRA, and much more, click here.)

The scientists’ lawsuit has impeded the Clinton-desired cover-up of Kennewick Man. It also opened the way for transfer of more than 350 bone pieces to the University of Washington’s Burke Museum in Seattle, where they remain under lock and key—or most do. Of a dozen femur bone pieces collected and recorded, as of January 1999, only two reportedly could still be accounted for. The rest have apparently been stolen in what Dr. Owsley called "a deliberate act of desecration."

But despite their loud protests, the scientists could not prevent another Clinton cover-up. On April 6, 1998, responding to a never-before-noticed urgent need to shore up one tiny spot along the banks of the Columbia River, the Army Corps of Engineers buried the site where Kennewick Man was found.

At a cost to taxpayers of $160,000, the government dumped 500 tons of rock and dirt on the fragile archeological dig site and imbedded fiber blankets and other materials to prevent the river from washing its work away. It then thickly planted the spot with dogwood, willow, and cottonwood trees whose fast-spreading roots will make future archeological work there almost impossible.

Orders directly from the Clinton White House apparently prompted this anti-scientific vandalism. As journalist Mark Lasswell reported in the January 8 Wall Street Journal, even the Army Corps of Engineers in Walla Walla, Washington, acknowledges the "participation and interest at the Executive level" in the Kennewick Man controversy. The sudden decision to make further research at the Kennewick archeological site, a Corps spokesman said, was a "good faith" effort at "erosion control" to protect both Indian and scientist "sensitivities" (over the screamed objections of scientists) about safeguarding the site.

The Clinton Administration also opposed and defeated a bill by Congressman Richard "Doc" Hastings (R., WA), who represents Kennewick, that would have blunted NAGPRA regulation over the remains and opened scientific access to study them.

The Clinton Administration opposes the most basic precepts of open scientific inquiry in this matter. Some of the reasons why seem obvious. Suppose DNA analysis reveals that Kennewick Man’s skin was not red or brown but white. Suppose excavation of the site uncovered artifacts that confirmed a cultural link to European ancestors.

It has been an article of faith among politically correct Leftists that in 1491, before that white devil Columbus reached the New World, this land was a utopia peopled by peaceful, sensitive, nature-worshipping people of color.

If DNA confirms what his bone structure suggests—that Kennewick Man may have European ancestry, or perhaps be related to the oppressed, ancient Caucasian-like Ainu people of Northern Japan—then the exclusive historic claim of colored people’s priority in the New World goes Poof! and vanishes.

The long-cherished victim status of Native Americans would be weakened—or worse, reversed. Suppose an archeological dig at Kennewick revealed a whole community of people with Caucasian DNA? Suppose it found dozens or hundreds of Euro-American skeletons, most with Native American arrowheads in their backs, victims of a pogrom-like massacre?

If a Caucasoid Kennewick Man and his tribe roamed the Cascade rain-shadow dry interior of Washington State 9,000 years ago, we must then ask a painful question: what happened to them? Why did they vanish while Native American tribes took over the land that once was theirs? Did white-skinned early Americans lack the skill or luck to survive? Or were they killed off by darker-skinned invaders in an act we today would define as racism and genocide (especially if its victims were not of European ancestry)?

Such are the stakes that prompted President Clinton to carry out what could be called the biggest cover-up of his scandalous administration. If Kennewick Man is Caucasian, then white people, according to the racial politics Clinton has promoted, have as legitimate a right to be on American soil as do any people of color.

If evidence shows that white-skinned Americans were exterminated by invading ancestors of today’s Indians, then this genocide could give Caucasian Americans a claim to victim status even stronger than that of Native Americans. Had such genocide not taken place, the argument would go, perhaps most of America’s population and territory would have been Caucasian. Columbus might have been greeted by natives with faces whiter than his own.

History is written by the winners. Even the name "Kennewick" comes from Indian words meaning "winter heaven." On today’s university campuses, the fashion is to depict Euro-Americans as evil and Native Americans and most Hispanics as the virtuous survivors of white colonial exploitation, rape, and genocide. Kennewick Man might prove the opposite—that the true Native Americans were white, victims of murderous genocide by the ancestors of today’s Indians who seized their land. The European invasion of the past five centuries, in this potential revisionist history, merely reclaimed land stolen 9,000 years earlier from their murdered kin.

Which view is true? Perhaps a bit of both, perhaps neither. In an age of science it would have been best to let scientists, not politicians and politically correct ideologues, sort out the evidence unhindered. But having built a racial spoils system, Leftists could not risk having the foundation of victim claims that legitimize their system blown to smithereens.

But science may yet prevail over Leftist racism and dishonesty. On September 21, U.S. Magistrate John Jelderks in Portland, Oregon, chastised the Interior Department and Army Corps of Engineers for their foot-dragging that has prevented scientific ascertainment of the origins of Kennewick Man. This federal judge did not order DNA testing, but, he wrote, "any decision that did not include DNA analysis would probably be challenged as arbitrary and capricious."

As with Monica’s blue dress, if and when scientists are allowed to pull down Kennewick Man’s genes, they may find that here, too, DNA will prove that William Jefferson Clinton has been guilty of another of history’s greatest attempted cover-ups.

We and our children need the facts, not to re-define or justify hate, but to dismantle the whole phony shell-game of racial politics and the hate that such politics inevitably cause. As members of one human race, we all carry two inheritances. We are the children of the killers who conquered and committed genocide against others. And we are the children of the lovers who created and preserved their families in a dangerous world. So what is your race? When the Census form comes, write in "Human," and nothing less.

Waco Meets Kennewick Man © 1999 FrontPagemag.com

Carol A. Valentine
President
Public-Action Inc.
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter
Copyright, September, 1999
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.

In 1996, a 9,300 year-old skeleton was found on the banks of the Columbia River, near Kennewick, Washington. Called the Kennewick Man, this ancient gentleman is thought to have been a Caucasian. You can read more about the Kennewick Man here:

http://www.runestone.org/
and
http://www.runestone.org/kmlinks.html

The Kennewick Man has upset many politically correct applecarts. Why? He indicates that whites may have predated the American Indians as inhabitants of this country: Out the window, perhaps, goes part of a campaign to shame white Americans into subservience for stealing the land from "native" Americans.

There is no doubt where the US government stands in the controversy. The US Army Corps of Engineers, which owned the property on which the remains were found, dumped tons of fill onto the site. They want no more research. The Corps wants to give the Kennewick Man to the Indians to be buried as an Indian.

Two years ago some private citizens filed a law suit against the government, seeking to stop the internment. Among the plaintiffs is Dr. Douglas Owsley, division head of physical anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History.

http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=438607284

But Dr. Owsley's history shows he is a government man, and a dangerous man. Can he be trusted in Kennewick? Look what Owsley did in Waco.

Recall that the FBI issued public statements that the Branch Davidians had killed each other and set themselves on fire on April 19, 1993. Given that the Mt. Carmel Center was (allegedly) the scene of a mass murder/suicide, highest professional standards should have been used to recover the bodies. Procedures for recovering bodies in a crime scene are of utmost importance. The environment in which bodies are recovered is packed with evidence of the time, circumstances, and cause of death, essential in murder investigations.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hb.html

Dr. Owsley is trained in these methods. In fact the Smithsonian Institution's anthropology department has had a long standing relationship with the FBI for decades, ostensibly helping the FEB solve crimes and identify victims.

Dr. Owsley's colleague, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker (the curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian), has written a popular book on the work of forensic anthropologists ("Bones, A Forensic Detectives Casebook," Edward Burlingame Books, 1992.) The dustjacket tells us Dr. Ubelaker is a top consultant to the FBI.

Says Ubelaker: "A smart detective knows how much may be learned from the environment in which a body has been found," (pg. 105).

Both Dr. Owsley and Dr. Ubelaker were sent to Waco to help the locals recover the bodies of the Branch Davidians from the ruins of Mt. Carmel.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hf.html

But instead of using world-recognized professional standards in recovering the bodies, Drs. Owsley and Ubelaker participated in the gross mishandling of the remains. Their acts of commission and omission make them full participants in the cover-up of the Waco Holocaust in its most heinous aspect: The murders of the mothers and children.

Now, the details:

Among forensic anthropologists, utmost emphasis is placed on examination of human remains at the site of discovery or "in situ." Once the relationship between the remains and the environment has been disturbed, it cannot be created again with accuracy, writes Dr. Ubelaker (pg. 107).

Another well known forensic anthropologist, William Maples, echoes Dr. Ubelaker's words. In his book "Dead Men Do Tell Tales," Dr. Maples writes of a murder case in Florida. The sheriff's department had found remains at a burned out shack and mistakenly thought Dr. Maples was out of the country. A technician was sent out to pick up the remains. Dr. Maples laments:

"If only I had been called in just two days sooner! The Alachua County Sheriff's Department thought I was out of the country, in Peru, and unreachable; in fact I had just returned to the United States the morning before the remains were discovered. I could easily have gone out to the burned shack and seen the remains in situ. Instead, an investigator from the medical examiner's office carefully gathered up every single bone fragment she could find . . .

"When I finally opened the vinyl bag I was overwhelmed. Inside, totally commingled and crushed, were approximately ten thousand bone fragments . . . as matters stood, the remains had been jumbled twice, once by the fire and again by the evidence technician." (Maples, pgs. 151-152)

Maples describes the great care he took in recovering bodies in a grave in Fort Myers, Florida: "The corpses would have to be disinterred very carefully if a case were to be made against their murderers. The details of the crime would have to be reconstructed from the stratigraphic evidence of the scene." Dr. Maples took great care to make sure that happened.

". . . In those days I was having some back trouble. I found it excruciating to stoop over these corpses for hours on end. I compromised by crawling down into the hole and lying alongside the bodies, digging them out while lying next to them, face to face . . ." The care with which the murder victims were excavated demonstrated that the victim buried deepest had been shot last (Maples, pgs. 57-58 and photo caption).

According to government's testimony, Owsley was brought to Waco to help recover the bodies,

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hf.html

In the cases presented below, please note that all these bodies were found in the concrete room, an old records storage room that the Branch Davidians used as a pantry. You can see a picture of the concrete room (after the fire) at:

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig07.jpg

And you can see a diagram showing the locations of the bodies at:

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_map01.html

We might have expected Dr. Owsley, like Dr. Maples, to be there recovering the bodies in situ, bending down over the corpses, digging them out with painstaking care, taking notes and recording the most minute details of stratigraphic evidence. He should have carefully noted any anomalous placement of body parts. "A smart detective knows how much may be learned from the environment in which a body has been found."

Now let's look at what he did instead.

* Cyrus Howell Koresh.

Cyrus Howell Koresh (Doe 67-2) was the eight-year-old son of David and Rachel Koresh. Owsley's name appears on Cyrus's Autopsy Report. According this report (pg. 3) Dr. Owsley did the anthropological examination.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-2/67-2_aut.html

Now look at page 2 of the Autopsy Report for Doe 67-2. It says that Cyrus probably died of suffocation as a result of structural collapse. But the structure in which Cyrus's body was found did not collapse, as you have already seen in

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig07.jpg

So Cyrus could not have possibly died in the structural collapse of a building that had not collapsed. According to testimony in the 1994 trial of the Branch Davidians, recovery workers and a Texas Ranger were in the concrete room day after day removing bodies. Owsley could have been there, too, if he had wanted.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_lc.html

But there is no mention that Owsley (or Ubelaker) ventured into the concrete room themselves. Of course they should have been there to recover and examine the remains in situ. So Dr. Owsley's name on an Autopsy Report authenticates the false statement of the cause of death in the report (suffocation due to structural collapse.)

There are several other problems with Dr. Owsley's signing off on Cyrus's Autopsy Report. Cyrus's head was missing. A structural collapse, even if it had happened, would ensure the head would remain in place. Owsley training as a forensic anthropologist would have led him to ask questions about the missing head, too, whether or not he was in the concrete room during recovery.

Here's another problem with Dr. Owsley's signature: Cyrus's remains were found in an agglutinated mass, fused together with 10 other bodies of persons who had variously died of smoke inhalation, suffocation, and gunshot wounds.

" . . . There were several other bodies that were intertwined that we just couldn't separate without tearing them up. And so, they were all packaged in one body bag and given numbers by the medical examiner later on," a Texas Ranger testified in 1994. (Transcript, pg. 935).

Speaking of the commingled remains, the May 1, 1993 Dallas Morning News quotes Judge James Collier, Justice of the Peace for the Mt. Carmel Center district: "They were all in a mingle with one another. I was in the funeral business for 40 years, and I never saw anything like this. This is the worst because of the sheer numbers of it. It's mind boggling."

How did the remains of all these people become fused together? There is no record in the Autopsy Report that Dr. Owsley raised this most interesting question.

* Bobbie Lane Howell Koresh

* Bobbie Lane was the one-year old baby of David and Rachael Koresh. Bobbie Lane's remains were shattered and found at sites approximately two feet apart in the concrete room. Hence Bobbie Lane has two Autopsy Report. (Doe 69 and Doe 67-5.)

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-5/67-5_aut.html

The recovery workers were unaware at the time the remains were gathered that the body parts belonged to one person, and hence two separate numbers were assigned as the remains were collected.

Dr. Owsley's name appears on both Autopsy Reports (pg. 4 of Doe 67-5 and pg. 5 of Doe 69) as having performed the anthropological examination. Doe 69 consisted of a nearly complete skull and jaw (the jaw had to be reconstructed), wavy medium brown hair, and a partial torso. Doe 67-5 was recovered from that same agglutinated mass from which Cyrus's remains emanated. Doe 67-5 consisted of a right foot, upper and lower legs, pelvis bones, and a right hand with attached lower arm.

Was Dr. Owsley on the scene to recover the body of Bobbie Lane, as professional standards require? The Autopsy Report for Doe 67-5 says the remains were "presented to the County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley." So apparently Owsley stayed in the morgue, passive, waiting for the body bags to arrive, and then sorted the bones. Quite a deviation from those professional standards!

There is no record in the Autopsy Report that Dr. Owsley addressed the question of how Bobbie Lane's body was found in separate pieces, two feet apart. Nor is there an explanation of why Bobbie Lane's body was left rotting in the elements and was not recovered until April 27-29.

Star Howell Koresh

Star Howell (Doe 67-1) was the six-year-old daughter of David and Rachel Koresh. Star's shattered remains were found in the agglutination mass in the concrete room, along with Cyrus and part of Bobbie Lane. Dr. Owsley's name appears on this Autopsy Report as having performed the anthropological examination, but there is no record of him recovering the remains in situ. What a shame he did not offer an opinion on why the body was found shattered, or why the body was allowed to rot in the elements before recovery on April 27-29.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-1/67-1_aut.html
(see pg. 5 for Dr. Owsley's name.)

Hollywood Sylvia

Dr. Owsley name appears on the Autopsy Report of remains identified as those of one year old Hollywood Sylvia, Doe 67-4. "Body is presented to the County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley. . . " (pg. 3)

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-4/67-4_aut.html

The corpse weighed only 3.9 lbs, and it was so decomposed it was impossible to tell whether the sex organs were male or female. The child allegedly died on April 19, and the body allowed to rot in the concrete room until April 27-29. "Advanced postmortem decomposition," says the Autopsy Report. No doubt. But even so, the April weather in Texas is not hot. Why was the corpse so decomposed before Dr. Owsley started sorting the bones in the morgue? What a shame he wasn't there doing his exam in situ, as professional standards dictate, and what a shame he was not curious enough to ask any tough questions from his comfortable chair in the morgue.

Paiges Gent

Paiges Gent (Doe 64) was a baby girl. "The separated body parts are presented for autopsy wrapped in a white sheet." Body parts include "separated skull with disarticulated mandible. The skull is incomplete with missing occipital and left temporal bones . . . Separated and decomposing fragments of scalp are also present with long blond hair. . . . large mass of soft tissue and viscera with co-mingled ribs, vertebrae, scapulae, sternum and most of the bones of the extremities . . ."

Paiges body was extracted from the agglutinated mass found in the concrete room. Dr. Owsley is listed as having done the anthropological examination. Was Dr. Owsley at the scene to recover the body? The Autopsy Report says: "Body is presented to County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley."

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/64/64_aut.html
(see pg. 3)

Again, no explanation for the shattered remains, and no explanation of how Paiges's body became agglutinated to the remains of 10 others. Dr. Owsley, where were you when America needed you?

Melissa Morrison

Melissa Morrison was about eight when she died at Mt. Carmel. Her Autopsy Report (Doe 74) reveals that only her lower legs were found. Dr. Owsley was joined by Dr. Ubelaker in the "anthropological examination" for this victim (pg. 3). No explanation of the state of the remains. What happened to the rest of her body?

http://www.Public action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/74/74_aut.html

Indeed, a trained forensic anthropologist like Dr. Owsley should have become curious about the entire forensic scene in the concrete room. Some bodies found in the concrete room were virtually incinerated--puzzling, in that the Mt. Carmel fire lasted only 45 minutes. Other bodies found a short distance away in the same room were only slightly charred. In other cases, entire sections of bodies had been burned away, but the remaining sections were variously described as moist, liquefied, or badly decomposed.

Some bodies were whole and easily recognizable as human forms. Others, as we have seen, were mutilated, dismembered, or shattered. In the concrete room we find heads without trunks, trunks without heads, limbs without trunks. John Bean (Doe 32), a man whose remains were found in the concrete room, was found without a head, arms, or legs. His extremities appear to have been cut cleanly from the trunk, as if with a mechanical saw. And no, tanks did not go into the concrete room and destroy the bodies. The door of the room was less than four feet wide, and undamaged after the April 19, 1993 fire.

The bodies of the women and children found in the concrete room bear the marks of purposeful destruction by the murderers. The US government does not believe these Davidians were murdered by other Davidians, since no Davidians have been charged and the evidence at the crime scene destroyed. The lack of indictments and the mishandling of the forensic evidence speaks volumes about the identities of the murderers. They are in fact a public acknowledgement by the US that the US committed the murders.

The fact that Dr. Owsley did not apply the standards of his profession also speaks volumes. He did not recover the bodies in situ. He sat in the morgue and waited for the body bags to arrive, sorted the bones, and never asked any questions. Then he allowed his name to be placed on Autopsy Reports which he must have known contained lies about the causes of death. Douglas Owsley must have known he was cooperating in the cover-up of murder of dozens of innocent mothers and children and he must have suspected the identity of the murderers.

Authors Christopher Joyce and Eric Stover describe the death machine in Argentina under the military junta: "In most cases . . . military or police squads delivered the bodies of their victims to municipal morgues, where the police surgeon gave them a brisk examination. Many morgue workers were well aware of the atrocities committed around them. Army trucks would arrive at morgues late at night, carrying bodies, often mutilated and bearing signs of torture. Officers ordered the morgue workers not to perform autopsies and simply register the bodies as 'N.N.' for 'no name.' These were usually buried in unmarked graves . . . " (Witnesses From the Grave, Little, Brown & Co., 1991 pg. 224).

 

Argentina has come to the United States. It came to Waco in the persons of the Smithsonian anthropology team. With his record of cooperating with the murderers of the Branch Davidian mothers and children, should we trust Douglas Owsley, Ph. D. in the Kennewick Man controversy? You jest . . .

 

 

Commission on Global Governance

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
EMPOWERMENT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

SIR SHRIDATH RAMPHAL

at the
Olof Palme International Foundation’s Seminar

Governance at the End of the Millennium

Barcelona, Spain
26 February 1999

This new vigour of civil society both reflects and enhances a large increase in the capacity and will of people to take control of their own lives and to improve or transform them. The number and proportion of people who can make their voices heard is nevertheless vastly greater in all parts of the world today than, say, 50 years ago, in 1945. This is principally the product of decolonization, economic improvement, and the spread of democracy. Beyond elections, however, people are beginning to assert their right to actively participate in their own governance. They include indigenous peoples long deprived by settlers of control over traditional lands, ethnic minorities seeking a role in government, and regional and local groups who feel their interests have been neglected by national leaders. These groups have all become more effective in asserting their rights.

OR…

Our Global Neighbourhood

The Report of the Commission on Global Governance

Chapter Two -- Values for the Global Neighbourhood

http://www.cgg-ch.ae.psiweb.com/chap2.html

Self- Determination

The second core principle of the existing international order is self- determination. Not as venerable as sovereignty, it derives from the rise of democracy and the national idea, both of which contributed to the consolidation of divided European principalities into modern nation- states, the collapse of European empires in the Americas, and the breakup of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.

The Versailles Peace Conference after World War I recognized the principle of self- determination, but it was not until the founding of the United Nations in 1945 that it became an effective norm equally applicable world- wide. Throughout the post- war era, self- determination was generally viewed as a right limited to territorially defined populations living under colonial rule. As such, it played a crucial role in the process of decolonization that has brought a succession of new sovereign states into being.

During the past decade, two kinds of developments have occurred that have forced the world to re- examine the issue of self- determination. The first was the breakup of countries, the two most dramatic being the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Both were multinational federations that had been held together by iron- fisted central governments. With the political cataclysms of the early 1990s, these governments lost both their legitimacy and their power--and the constituent national units were able to become independent states. Similar, albeit much more peaceful, negotiated separations occurred in Czechoslovakia and in Ethiopia, where there had earlier been a protracted conflict. While the violent and unsettling consequences of the Soviet and Yugoslav breakups have raised serious concerns about the exercise of the right of self- determination, it is arguable whether they involve any new issues of principle.

A much more far- reaching development is the growing assertion of a right to self- determination by indigenous populations and other communities in many parts of the world. In these cases, self- determination involves a complex chain of historical and other questions that go far beyond the issue of establishing a new state on the basis of a pre- existing territorial entity. Issues of identity, human rights, and empowerment that have little to do with previous boundaries are also involved.

Self- determination is a right of all nations and peoples, as long as it is consistent with respect for other nations and peoples. The challenge now is to find ways to define and protect this right in the environment of the global neighbourhood. It is becoming ever more difficult to resolve the problems raised by competing claims to self- determination on the basis of separate nationhood for each claimant. A process of territorial dismemberment could be set in motion that would leave much of the world far worse off and would greatly increase insecurity and instability. Moreover, redrawing maps will not succeed in reducing injustice and the risks of civil strife if the new states still lack workable formulas to reconcile conflicting claims to authority, resources, status, or land.

The problem is not made easier by the absence of any clear definition of what constitutes 'a people' or 'a nation'. It is time to begin to think about self- determination in a new context--the emerging context of a global neighbourhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states.

The demand for separation and the resort to violence in support of it often follow the frustration of constitutional efforts to secure less drastic changes. This points to the importance of governments being sensitive to the aspirations of ethnic or other groups that feel alienated or threatened. Most of the nearly 200 nation- states in the world consist of more than one ethnic group. There is consequently considerable scope for discord and conflict over the sharing of resources and authority and the policies that governments follow. But there is also a positive side to pluralism as manifest in several successful multiethnic states. Diversity need not become a cause for division. A challenge to governance is to make it a source of enrichment.

If tragedies are not to be multiplied one- hundredfold, concern for the interests of all citizens, of whatever racial, tribal, religious, or other affiliation, must be high among the values informing the conduct of people in the world that has now become a neigh-bourhood. There must be respect for their rights, in particular for their right to lead lives of dignity, to preserve their culture, to share equitably in the fruits of national growth, and to play their part in the governance of the country. Peace and stability in many parts of the world could be endangered if these values are neglected. The world community needs to strengthen protection of these rights, even as it discourages the urge to secede that their frustration can breed. Governance in the global neighbourhood faces no stronger challenge.

Waco Meets Kennewick Man

In 1996, a 9,300 year-old skeleton was found on the banks of the Columbia River, near Kennewick, Washington. Called the Kennewick Man, this ancient gentleman is thought to have been a Caucasian. You can read more about the Kennewick Man here:

http://www.runestone.org/
and
http://www.runestone.org/kmlinks.html

The Kennewick Man has upset many politically correct applecarts. Why? He indicates that whites may have predated the American Indians as inhabitants of this country: Out the window, perhaps, goes part of a campaign to shame white Americans into subservience for stealing the land from "native" Americans.

There is no doubt where the US government stands in the controversy. The US Army Corps of Engineers, which owned the property on which the remains were found, dumped tons of fill onto the site. They want no more research. The Corps wants to give the Kennewick Man to the Indians to be buried as an Indian.

Two years ago some private citizens filed a law suit against the government, seeking to stop the internment. Among the plaintiffs is Dr. Douglas Owsley, division head of physical anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History.

http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=438607284

But Dr. Owsley's history shows he is a government man, and a dangerous man. Can he be trusted in Kennewick? Look what Owsley did in Waco.

Recall that the FBI issued public statements that the Branch Davidians had killed each other and set themselves on fire on April 19, 1993. Given that the Mt. Carmel Center was (allegedly) the scene of a mass murder/suicide, highest professional standards should have been used to recover the bodies. Procedures for recovering bodies in a crime scene are of utmost importance. The environment in which bodies are recovered is packed with evidence of the time, circumstances, and cause of death, essential in murder investigations.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hb.html

Dr. Owsley is trained in these methods. In fact the Smithsonian Institution's anthropology department has had a long standing relationship with the FBI for decades, ostensibly helping the FEB solve crimes and identify victims.

Dr. Owsley's colleague, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker (the curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian), has written a popular book on the work of forensic anthropologists ("Bones, A Forensic Detectives Casebook," Edward Burlingame Books, 1992.) The dustjacket tells us Dr. Ubelaker is a top consultant to the FBI.

Says Ubelaker: "A smart detective knows how much may be learned from the environment in which a body has been found," (pg. 105).

Both Dr. Owsley and Dr. Ubelaker were sent to Waco to help the locals recover the bodies of the Branch Davidians from the ruins of Mt. Carmel.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hf.html

But instead of using world-recognized professional standards in recovering the bodies, Drs. Owsley and Ubelaker participated in the gross mishandling of the remains. Their acts of commission and omission make them full participants in the cover-up of the Waco Holocaust in its most heinous aspect: The murders of the mothers and children.

Now, the details:

Among forensic anthropologists, utmost emphasis is placed on examination of human remains at the site of discovery or "in situ." Once the relationship between the remains and the environment has been disturbed, it cannot be created again with accuracy, writes Dr. Ubelaker (pg. 107).

Another well known forensic anthropologist, William Maples, echoes Dr. Ubelaker's words. In his book "Dead Men Do Tell Tales," Dr. Maples writes of a murder case in Florida. The sheriff's department had found remains at a burned out shack and mistakenly thought Dr. Maples was out of the country. A technician was sent out to pick up the remains. Dr. Maples laments:

"If only I had been called in just two days sooner! The Alachua County Sheriff's Department thought I was out of the country, in Peru, and unreachable; in fact I had just returned to the United States the morning before the remains were discovered. I could easily have gone out to the burned shack and seen the remains in situ. Instead, an investigator from the medical examiner's office carefully gathered up every single bone fragment she could find . . .

"When I finally opened the vinyl bag I was overwhelmed. Inside, totally commingled and crushed, were approximately ten thousand bone fragments . . . as matters stood, the remains had been jumbled twice, once by the fire and again by the evidence technician." (Maples, pgs. 151-152)

Maples describes the great care he took in recovering bodies in a grave in Fort Myers, Florida: "The corpses would have to be disinterred very carefully if a case were to be made against their murderers. The details of the crime would have to be reconstructed from the stratigraphic evidence of the scene." Dr. Maples took great care to make sure that happened.

". . . In those days I was having some back trouble. I found it excruciating to stoop over these corpses for hours on end. I compromised by crawling down into the hole and lying alongside the bodies, digging them out while lying next to them, face to face . . ." The care with which the murder victims were excavated demonstrated that the victim buried deepest had been shot last (Maples, pgs. 57-58 and photo caption).

According to government's testimony, Owsley was brought to Waco to help recover the bodies,

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_hf.html

In the cases presented below, please note that all these bodies were found in the concrete room, an old records storage room that the Branch Davidians used as a pantry. You can see a picture of the concrete room (after the fire) at:

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig07.jpg

And you can see a diagram showing the locations of the bodies at:

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_map01.html

We might have expected Dr. Owsley, like Dr. Maples, to be there recovering the bodies in situ, bending down over the corpses, digging them out with painstaking care, taking notes and recording the most minute details of stratigraphic evidence. He should have carefully noted any anomalous placement of body parts. "A smart detective knows how much may be learned from the environment in which a body has been found."

Now let's look at what he did instead.

* Cyrus Howell Koresh.

Cyrus Howell Koresh (Doe 67-2) was the eight-year-old son of David and Rachel Koresh. Owsley's name appears on Cyrus's Autopsy Report. According this report (pg. 3) Dr. Owsley did the anthropological examination.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-2/67-2_aut.html

Now look at page 2 of the Autopsy Report for Doe 67-2. It says that Cyrus probably died of suffocation as a result of structural collapse. But the structure in which Cyrus's body was found did not collapse, as you have already seen in

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig07.jpg

So Cyrus could not have possibly died in the structural collapse of a building that had not collapsed. According to testimony in the 1994 trial of the Branch Davidians, recovery workers and a Texas Ranger were in the concrete room day after day removing bodies. Owsley could have been there, too, if he had wanted.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page/d_lc.html

But there is no mention that Owsley (or Ubelaker) ventured into the concrete room themselves. Of course they should have been there to recover and examine the remains in situ. So Dr. Owsley's name on an Autopsy Report authenticates the false statement of the cause of death in the report (suffocation due to structural collapse.)

There are several other problems with Dr. Owsley's signing off on Cyrus's Autopsy Report. Cyrus's head was missing. A structural collapse, even if it had happened, would ensure the head would remain in place. Owsley training as a forensic anthropologist would have led him to ask questions about the missing head, too, whether or not he was in the concrete room during recovery.

Here's another problem with Dr. Owsley's signature: Cyrus's remains were found in an agglutinated mass, fused together with 10 other bodies of persons who had variously died of smoke inhalation, suffocation, and gunshot wounds.

" . . . There were several other bodies that were intertwined that we just couldn't separate without tearing them up. And so, they were all packaged in one body bag and given numbers by the medical examiner later on," a Texas Ranger testified in 1994. (Transcript, pg. 935).

Speaking of the commingled remains, the May 1, 1993 Dallas Morning News quotes Judge James Collier, Justice of the Peace for the Mt. Carmel Center district: "They were all in a mingle with one another. I was in the funeral business for 40 years, and I never saw anything like this. This is the worst because of the sheer numbers of it. It's mind boggling."

How did the remains of all these people become fused together? There is no record in the Autopsy Report that Dr. Owsley raised this most interesting question.

* Bobbie Lane Howell Koresh

* Bobbie Lane was the one-year old baby of David and Rachael Koresh. Bobbie Lane's remains were shattered and found at sites approximately two feet apart in the concrete room. Hence Bobbie Lane has two Autopsy Report. (Doe 69 and Doe 67-5.)

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-5/67-5_aut.html

The recovery workers were unaware at the time the remains were gathered that the body parts belonged to one person, and hence two separate numbers were assigned as the remains were collected.

Dr. Owsley's name appears on both Autopsy Reports (pg. 4 of Doe 67-5 and pg. 5 of Doe 69) as having performed the anthropological examination. Doe 69 consisted of a nearly complete skull and jaw (the jaw had to be reconstructed), wavy medium brown hair, and a partial torso. Doe 67-5 was recovered from that same agglutinated mass from which Cyrus's remains emanated. Doe 67-5 consisted of a right foot, upper and lower legs, pelvis bones, and a right hand with attached lower arm.

Was Dr. Owsley on the scene to recover the body of Bobbie Lane, as professional standards require? The Autopsy Report for Doe 67-5 says the remains were "presented to the County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley." So apparently Owsley stayed in the morgue, passive, waiting for the body bags to arrive, and then sorted the bones. Quite a deviation from those professional standards!

There is no record in the Autopsy Report that Dr. Owsley addressed the question of how Bobbie Lane's body was found in separate pieces, two feet apart. Nor is there an explanation of why Bobbie Lane's body was left rotting in the elements and was not recovered until April 27-29.

Star Howell Koresh

Star Howell (Doe 67-1) was the six-year-old daughter of David and Rachel Koresh. Star's shattered remains were found in the agglutination mass in the concrete room, along with Cyrus and part of Bobbie Lane. Dr. Owsley's name appears on this Autopsy Report as having performed the anthropological examination, but there is no record of him recovering the remains in situ. What a shame he did not offer an opinion on why the body was found shattered, or why the body was allowed to rot in the elements before recovery on April 27-29.

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-1/67-1_aut.html
(see pg. 5 for Dr. Owsley's name.)

Hollywood Sylvia

Dr. Owsley name appears on the Autopsy Report of remains identified as those of one year old Hollywood Sylvia, Doe 67-4. "Body is presented to the County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley. . . " (pg. 3)

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/67-4/67-4_aut.html

The corpse weighed only 3.9 lbs, and it was so decomposed it was impossible to tell whether the sex organs were male or female. The child allegedly died on April 19, and the body allowed to rot in the concrete room until April 27-29. "Advanced postmortem decomposition," says the Autopsy Report. No doubt. But even so, the April weather in Texas is not hot. Why was the corpse so decomposed before Dr. Owsley started sorting the bones in the morgue? What a shame he wasn't there doing his exam in situ, as professional standards dictate, and what a shame he was not curious enough to ask any tough questions from his comfortable chair in the morgue.

Paiges Gent

Paiges Gent (Doe 64) was a baby girl. "The separated body parts are presented for autopsy wrapped in a white sheet." Body parts include "separated skull with disarticulated mandible. The skull is incomplete with missing occipital and left temporal bones . . . Separated and decomposing fragments of scalp are also present with long blond hair. . . . large mass of soft tissue and viscera with co-mingled ribs, vertebrae, scapulae, sternum and most of the bones of the extremities . . ."

Paiges body was extracted from the agglutinated mass found in the concrete room. Dr. Owsley is listed as having done the anthropological examination. Was Dr. Owsley at the scene to recover the body? The Autopsy Report says: "Body is presented to County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley."

http://www.Public Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/64/64_aut.html
(see pg. 3)

Again, no explanation for the shattered remains, and no explanation of how Paiges's body became agglutinated to the remains of 10 others. Dr. Owsley, where were you when America needed you?

Melissa Morrison

Melissa Morrison was about eight when she died at Mt. Carmel. Her Autopsy Report (Doe 74) reveals that only her lower legs were found. Dr. Owsley was joined by Dr. Ubelaker in the "anthropological examination" for this victim (pg. 3). No explanation of the state of the remains. What happened to the rest of her body?

http://www.Public action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/74/74_aut.html

Indeed, a trained forensic anthropologist like Dr. Owsley should have become curious about the entire forensic scene in the concrete room. Some bodies found in the concrete room were virtually incinerated--puzzling, in that the Mt. Carmel fire lasted only 45 minutes. Other bodies found a short distance away in the same room were only slightly charred. In other cases, entire sections of bodies had been burned away, but the remaining sections were variously described as moist, liquefied, or badly decomposed.

Some bodies were whole and easily recognizable as human forms. Others, as we have seen, were mutilated, dismembered, or shattered. In the concrete room we find heads without trunks, trunks without heads, limbs without trunks. John Bean (Doe 32), a man whose remains were found in the concrete room, was found without a head, arms, or legs. His extremities appear to have been cut cleanly from the trunk, as if with a mechanical saw. And no, tanks did not go into the concrete room and destroy the bodies. The door of the room was less than four feet wide, and undamaged after the April 19, 1993 fire.

The bodies of the women and children found in the concrete room bear the marks of purposeful destruction by the murderers. The US government does not believe these Davidians were murdered by other Davidians, since no Davidians have been charged and the evidence at the crime scene destroyed. The lack of indictments and the mishandling of the forensic evidence speaks volumes about the identities of the murderers. They are in fact a public acknowledgement by the US that the US committed the murders.

The fact that Dr. Owsley did not apply the standards of his profession also speaks volumes. He did not recover the bodies in situ. He sat in the morgue and waited for the body bags to arrive, sorted the bones, and never asked any questions. Then he allowed his name to be placed on Autopsy Reports which he must have known contained lies about the causes of death. Douglas Owsley must have known he was cooperating in the cover-up of murder of dozens of innocent mothers and children and he must have suspected the identity of the murderers.

Authors Christopher Joyce and Eric Stover describe the death machine in Argentina under the military junta: "In most cases . . . military or police squads delivered the bodies of their victims to municipal morgues, where the police surgeon gave them a brisk examination. Many morgue workers were well aware of the atrocities committed around them. Army trucks would arrive at morgues late at night, carrying bodies, often mutilated and bearing signs of torture. Officers ordered the morgue workers not to perform autopsies and simply register the bodies as 'N.N.' for 'no name.' These were usually buried in unmarked graves . . . " (Witnesses From the Grave, Little, Brown & Co., 1991 pg. 224).

Argentina has come to the United States. It came to Waco in the persons of the Smithsonian anthropology team. With his record of cooperating with the murderers of the Branch Davidian mothers and children, should we trust Douglas Owsley, Ph. D. in the Kennewick Man controversy? You jest . . .

Carol A. Valentine
President
Public-Action.Inc.
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter
Copyright, September, 1999
May be reproduced for non-commerical purposes.

 

 

Kennewick Man Chapter 2

Report on the Osteological Assessment of the "Kennewick Man" Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick)

Joseph F. Powell and Jerome C. Rose

Index

Introduction

Skeletal Reconstruction

Methods

Materials and Methods

Results

Summary

References Cited

Tables and Appendices

 

Introduction

On 25 February, 1999, Joseph Powell and Jerome Rose checked the Standards (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994) inventory prepared by Douglas Owsley for accuracy. Several changes were made, including altering the completeness scores for some bones, moving several bones from one side of the body to another, changing the numbers (L2 vs. L4) of two lumbar vertebrae, and removing one fragment of maxilla from the faunal collection from the site. The corrected Standards inventory is attached. These changes were also made on the collections inventory maintained by the Collections Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On the following days (26 February - 1 March, 1999) observations and noninvasive data collection were undertaken following the recommendations provided in Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains edited by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). Data collection tasks were divided between Powell and Rose, but all observations of age, sex, and pathology were checked by the other and the final determinations were made after discussion.

In the afternoon of 26 February, 1999, 31 bone fragments were transported under security to the Radiology Department of the University of Washington Medical School (see transportation list). Radiographs were obtained using standard clinical cassettes, film and procedures. A centimeter scale and step wedge were included in all radiographs. Good radiographs of the fine detail were not possible due to the impregnation of all bone by fine grained silt and mineral deposits. Even the spaces in the trabecular bone were filled with mineral deposits. This situation resulted in the bone being almost as radiodense as the stone point embedded in the pelvis. CAT scans were also made of the point in the right pelvis, calvarium, maxilla, left proximal femur, and left distal tibia. Dr. Paul Parsons, Radiology Department, University of Washington Medical School, used the CAT scan data to produce a three dimensional computer model of the ilium fragment and point. Although the point and surrounding bone had almost the same radiographic appearance it was eventually possible to differentiate the bone, remove it from the digital image, and produce a three dimensional model of the embedded point.

On the morning of February 28th, both Dr. Odegaard and Dr. Cassman were present to assess the condition of the fragmented facial bones and to determine the appropriate method of reconstructing these pieces. Once the pieces were refit in correct anatomical position, metric data collection by Powell was completed. The finished reconstruction was then oriented in the Frankfurt horizontal plane and photographed with 35mm color print film using three-dimensional scales in each photograph. Once data collection was completed at the Burke Museum, the reconstructed cranium was transported under security to the Radiology Department of the University of Washington Medical School (see transportation list). On arrival the cranium was inspected for possible movement of refit pieces. Once Powell and Odegaard were satisfied that no movement of the reconstruction had occurred, the cranium was inverted on a soft support, and the skull positioned in the Frankfurt horizontal plane. One millimeter coronal "slices" were then performed via computed tomography (CT), and the resulting slices were reassembled into a three-dimensional computerized model (Figure 1). The production of the CT model and availability of the three-dimensional data will allow other researchers to collect "virtual" measurements from the CT data, and should provide necessary data to create a polymer model of the skull using stereo lithography. The cranium was transported back to the Burke Museum and again inspected for possible movement of reconstructed elements. A second set of craniometric data were recorded from the reconstruction to provide quantitative data on any shifting that may have occurred during transport.

All skeletal data collection was completed on March 1, 1999. Unfortunately, during the recordation of the final two craniometric dimensions in the Gill (1986) system, the several reconstructed pieces of the cranium became partially disassociated. Odegaard and Powell again reconstructed the cranium, and Powell collected a third set of measurements on the skull using the 21 dimensions that might have been affected by the new reconstruction. Comparison of the first and second measurements sets indicated that only one dimension, ectoconchion radius (EKR), was significantly altered by the new reconstruction. There was no more than a 0.38 mm difference for all other craniofacial dimensions. Once all data collection was completed, the individual fragments of the skull were disassociated, the wax bonds removed, and all pieces returned to their storage containers.

 

Skeletal Reconstruction Methods

Because many of the cranial and postcranial elements were fragmentary and covered with calcium carbonate deposits, it was necessary to refit some broken pieces in order to collect needed metric data from these elements. Given the conservators' concerns regarding the use of permanent adhesives and consolidants, we elected to refit postcranial elements and maintain the stability of fragments by hand. To this end, Ms. Rhonda Lueck, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, assisted Powell by holding long bone fragment together while Powell recorded the necessary measurements. Measurements were collected only from points that were not obscured by calcium carbonate deposits.

This procedure could not be followed for the measurements of the cranium, since the anatomically correct three-dimensional positioning of fragments is crucial for dimensional accuracy. To solve this problem, conservators Odegaard and Cassman elected to avoid materials that might be permanent, and instead devised an ingenious method for firmly joining craniofacial bone fragments, needed for accurate measurements, while being temporary and nondamaging to individual bone fragments. Cranial pieces were refit using a conservationally stable wax material applied across joint surfaces and to the exposed internal sinus areas in the maxillae. No wax was used between joints, and all fragments fit snugly and in their proper anatomical alignment.

Prior to reconstruction of the cranium, all individual pieces of maxilla, mandible, zygomatics, and the neurocranium were measured by Powell (see Methods below). Facial bone fragments were refit by Powell and Odegaard, with input and assessment by Rose throughout the day-long process. Several times during the reconstruction process, pieces were removed, refit, and reattached to provide the best possible alignment of fragments The anatomical accuracy of the reconstruction was checked at each stage by Powell, and the completed reconstruction was examined by Rose. Only one minor (<1 mm) gap between pieces was present on a break separating the right maxillary and zygomatic bones. This gap was unavoidable due to a slight misalignment of the frontal process of the zygomatic, which had been permanently glued to the body of the zygomatic. This gap did not interfere with metric data collection from the cranium.

 

Materials and Methods

The inventory and analysis followed the Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains edited by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). Additional cranial, postcranial, and dental data were collected following methods outlined in Brace and Hunt (1990), Turner and coworkers (1991), Holliday (1997), Gill and Rhine (1990), Bass (1989), Martin and Saller (1957), and Powell (1995). These additional data permitted an assessment, based on the physical characteristics of the skeleton and teeth, of the biological affinity of the Kennewick remains. All measurement, scaling system, and trait descriptions were read by observers prior to each data collection session.

Raw comparative data for prehistoric and modern populations were obtained from Howells (1989) and from data generously provided by Dr. T. Hanihara, Tohoku University, Japan. These comparative samples represent world-wide Holocene craniometric variation for 330 populations (N = 8,833). These two databases use slightly different measuring systems; as a result, only those dimensions common to both were used for the analysis of the Hanihara data. Finally, craniometric data for 13 North American Archaic populations (N = 304), dated from 8,000 yr B.P. to 1,900 yr B.P., were used in conjunction with a subset of the Howells and Hanihara modern world data. Comparative data for the Gill (1986) and Brace and Hunt (1990) measurement systems were unavailable. Only male data were used for comparisons presented here. Raw odontometric data for 14 samples (N=869) representing prehistoric and modern world-wide dental variation were obtained from Wolpoff (1971) and from Powell (1995). Postcranial data for modern humans in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas were generously provided by Dr. Trenton Holliday, Tulane University (Holliday 1997). Discrete dental and cranial comparative data were compiled from Turner (1985, 1990) and from summary data compiled in Hauser and deStefano (1989) and Ossenberg (1994).

Osteometric and odontometric data were collected using a variety of calipers, including standard sliding and spreading calipers (GPM), a coordinate caliper (GPM), a simometer (modified by G. Gill), and Mitutotyo digital calipers (with both blunt and pointed tips). Long bone lengths were recorded using an osteometric board constructed of 1mm graph paper (checked for dimensional accuracy of the grid) and free-moving uprights, as well as with a large pair of digital calipers. Prior to each metric data recording session, all calipers were checked for accuracy using a GPM calibration rod scaled from 10mm to 150mm. Dental discrete traits were scored following Turner et al. (1991), using both the ASU Dental Anthropology System plaque and written descriptions for comparison. Cranial discrete traits were scored using descriptions in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), as well as illustrations in Hauser and deStefano (1989).

Prior to arriving at the Burke, Powell collected the same battery of craniometric data on a series of six crania in the Maxwell Museum's Documented Collection. Measurements were repeated on these same crania after a period of four days. Additionally, Dr. James C. Chatters generously allowed Powell and University of New Mexico graduate student Erik G. Ozolins to examine and measure a secondary cast of Dr. Chatter's reconstruction of the Kennewick skull. These data provided a useful comparison for measurements taken on the original specimen, as well as a check on interobserver error. Finally, 21 measurements were repeated on the original Kennewick specimen to determine the differences between the February 28 and March 1 reconstructions.

Rates of intra- and interobserver error are presented in Table 1. Intraobserver error was relatively low, with a mean difference of 0.38mm between sessions. The effects of the two separate reconstructions of the Kennewick cranium were also minimal. The only significant difference in measurements noted was between the Chatters cast and the Powell reconstruction of the original (Table 1). Some of these differences are attributable to differences in measurement technique between Powell and Ozolins, and differences in the ability to accurately determine certain landmarks on the cast. The considerable suture obliteration on the original specimen made it particularly difficult to visually determine bregma, though it was possible to locate this point through palpation of the coronal and sagittal sutures in the original. Bregma could not be accurately located on the secondary cast.

The comparative craniometric data were tested for univariate and multivariate normality, and outliers were trimmed using a SAS macrolanguage program. Other variables exhibiting univariate nonnormality after trimming were excluded from further consideration, leaving 52 Howells variables and an additional 28 dimensions from the Brace and Hunt (1990), Bass (1989), and Gill (1986) measurement sets (Table 2 and Appendix I). From these 52 basic dimensions, others were deleted due to intra- or inter-observer error greater than 1.1 mm. Four main variable sets were derived from the full Howells variables, including:

the 52 primary dimensions (after removal of nonnormal data and variables that could not be observed in Kennewick)

a set of 49 variables with low intraobserver error

forty-five variables exhibiting low intra- and interobserver error

thirty-three dimensions that had low error and that could be obtained without reconstruction of the cranium (Table 2).

Although all variable sets produced generally similar multivariate results, only the analyses of the 52, 45, and 33 variable data sets are presented below.

After deleting all female observations and those with missing values, the craniometric and odontometric data were adjusted for size differences following Darroch and Mossiman (1985). Thirty-one of the 34 Howells populations were used in craniometric analyses; the Anyang, Egypt, and Andaman groups were eliminated because their covariance structures were not typical of other Howells samples. Size-corrected data were employed in principal components analysis, canonical variates analysis, and discriminant function analyses.

Principal components analysis uses the pooled covariance structure of all samples to reduced the original data to a series of "principal components" of variation that best describe the original samples. Individual PCA scores were generated, and the centroid for each group plotted using three-dimensional ordination. Canonical variates analysis follows the same approach, but uses a pooled within-group covariance matrix for determining relationships among groups. This has the effect of reducing within-group variation and increasing between-group variation-- making samples as distinctive as possible. Kennewick was allocated to groups using a posterior probability derived from a discriminant function analysis. The posterior probability represents probability that an individual falls into one of the reference populations used in the analysis, which may be unrealistic for ancient human remains. Finally, Mahalanobis generalized distance, D2, was used to construct a typicality probability following Albrecht (1992) and Van Vark and Schaafsma (1992). The typicality probability is useful when the unknown individual may not belong to any of the reference groups, and indicates the relationship between the unknown individual relative to the variation present among the reference samples.

Following Van Vark and Schaafsma (1992), the principal component scores were also used to generate inter-individuals distances as a means of determining to which populations in the PCA ordination the Kennewick remains were most proximate in multivariate space. Only the principal components with eigenvalues greater than one were used in this assessment (Van Vark and Schaafsma 1991). This method provides an assessment of inter-individual distances, but reduces overall variation between groups, making it more likely for the Kennewick skeleton to be included as a "neighbor" to other populations than the original data or the raw size-corrected dimensions. Typicality probabilities generated from these principal component scores are extremely unconservative-- thus the typicality probabilities are exaggerated and should be viewed with caution. This less conservative approach was used to provide the "best case" scenario for group proximity, assuming that the Kennewick remains may not have been drawn from the variation observed in the reference samples. Low typicality probabilities for a population derived under this method suggests that the population in question is morphometrically unrelated to the Kennewick skeleton.

 

Results

Age and Sex

All morphological traits of the skull and pelvis scored in the male category. With the exception of the midlambdoid and anterior median palatine sutures, all others listed in the Standards volume (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994) were closed. The internal aspects of the sutures could not be viewed because the calvarium was filled with matrix. The sutures suggest an old age-at-death. The pubic symphysis and auricular surface morphology suggest an age of 45-50 years.

Dental Anthropology

The teeth are all present except the right maxillary third and left mandibular third molars. The incisors, canines, and premolars are extensively worn with wear scores mostly between 7 and 8 using the Smith wear system. All show wear angled to the lingual side of the tooth. The maxillary first molars have no enamel (score of 40 on the Scott system), while the mandibular molars have some enamel with left and right scores of 32 and 36 respectively. The second molars score between 30 and 37 and the remaining third molars score 17. This wear gradient from the first to third molars indicates very extensive and rapid tooth wear (i.e., considerable enamel removed per year). All the exterior/occlusal surfaces of the pulp chambers are filled with secondary dentin and none are exposed. The CAT scans show that only the maxillary canines have any of the pulp chamber not filled with either dentin or perhaps natural minerals from the burial environment. These two teeth may offer the best source for uncontaminated DNA. Radiographs show a similar infilling of the mandibular teeth with secondary dentin and possibly some environmental minerals. The left mandibular first molar, left premolars, right second molar and the premolars have some empty pulp chamber left. Again, these teeth might be excellent sources of DNA. The teeth all demonstrate an excellent secondary dentin response to the extensive tooth wear protecting the living pulp chamber from the environment. Thus, the amount of tooth wear did not exceed the teeth's capacity to cope. There are no caries or pulp inflammation. There does not appear to be any calculus build up on the teeth, although they have been cleaned and calculus deposits could have been removed. However, it is certain that if there were calculus that it was neither wide spread nor extensive. The left maxillary third molar shows a small trace of calculus deposit.

With only traces of enamel remaining on any of the teeth it is not possible to reconstruct a childhood stress profile from the distribution of enamel hypoplasias. The maxillary second left molar has one small linear hypoplasia located 2.26mm from the cemento-enamel junction. This suggests a childhood stress episode at 6.0 to 6.5 years of age. The mandibular right canine shows a small hypoplasia at 1.66mm from the cemento-enamel junction indicating stress at 5.0 to 5.5 years of age.

Dental discrete traits were difficult to observe given the considerable attrition of the dentition. Dental discrete traits in Kennewick include no UI1 interruption grooves, single-rooted UP3s, no UP3 distosagittal ridge, 3-root LM1s, strong enamel extensions on upper and lower molars, no peg or absent UM3s, no Tome's root, and two-rooted LM1s. Although it is tempting to try to assign Kennewick to either the Sinodont or Sundadont (Turner 1990) patterns, it is simply not possible to attribute the Kennewick individual's dental discrete traits to either the Sinodont or Sundadont groups based on gross morphological observations. The east Asian Sinodont and Sundadont dental patterns are based on the relative frequencies of eight key traits observed in large samples of Asian populations. Any one individual drawn at random from a Sinodont or Sundadont group might exhibit all, some, or none of the characteristics associated with that group's overall pattern of frequencies. However, more complex statistical methods, assuming that Kennewick Man's dental data are representative of the population from which he was drawn, can be used to assign a probability of group membership in reference populations (see Discrete Data Analyses below).

Paleopathology and Taphonomy

On the left portion of the frontal above the eye there is a small 6.6 x 6.0mm depression. There is no irregularity of the bone surrounding the depression. Matrix inside the calvarium makes it impossible to see the internal table. This depression cannot be seen in any of the radiographs or CAT scans. It does not appear to penetrate the internal table. No importance can be attached to this small depression and it does not appear to be anything significant, such as a fatal wound. It most likely represents a minor trauma. The nasal bones are prominent and projecting and there is a slight deviation to the left. Examination of the bone, radiographs (some taken just for examination of the nasals), and the CAT scans reveals no anomaly and there is no evidence for a healed fracture. The mandible, maxilla and other facial bones do not exhibit any pathological lesions.

The right clavicle has a small reaction area with a maximum width of 11.0mm on the medial end just lateral to the articular surface. The interior surfaces of the lesion are smooth. Dirt prevents a detailed examination of the interior surfaces that might have located resorption lacunae. The lesion is clearly seen on the radiograph, but there is no sign of spreading infection. The insertion point of the sternohyoid muscle is just lateral to the reaction area and it is possible that this resorptive reaction area is associated with this muscle. It is even possible that the sternocleidomastoid or pectoralis muscles could be involved. A bacterial infection does not appear to be involved and, thus, these lesions might be associated with a torn ligament or inflammation associated with muscle use. The left clavicle has a similar, but smaller (width of 7.1mm), lesion in the same location. The bilateral nature of these lesions argues against infection and for an association with muscle use.

Both scapulae are fragmented, but the glenoid cavities, acromion processes, and spines are preserved. No anomaly is present.

The right humerus has rodent gnaw marks on the proximal midshaft quarter that are old, stained, and filled with matrix (Table 3). The size of the marks suggest a medium sized animal. The rodent gnawing took place when the skeleton was interred within its original location. Such rodent gnawing is common on skeletons found in their original burial location. There is one new cut scar on the proximal shaft quarter. The bone shows green algae stains on the distal shaft and end. The algae stain is the product of recent exposure within a damp/wet environment and occurred after the grave was disturbed and prior to discovery of the skeleton. Such staining is common on forensic cases where the body/skeleton has been exposed to the environment and becomes covered with water in a puddle or other body of water. The muscle markings are clear and well developed. The midshaft is bowed medially and suggests hyper development from extensive usage. The radiographs clearly show the build up of cortex along the lateral surface of the shaft especially within the region of the deltoid muscle insertion. This shape is not uncommon on individuals who engage in rigorous use of the arm such as modern weight lifters or construction laborers. The angle of the distal half of the shaft with the proximal half is at or just past the extreme end of the normal range. This angle in conjunction with the cortical expansion seen on the radiograph indicates a well healed fracture from early life. It is most likely to have been prior to adulthood and probably when the individual was between 15 and 20 years of age. There is no degenerative change on any of the joint surfaces.

The distal half of the left humerus is stained with algae. Muscle markings are also extensive and the shaft is hyper-developed. There are no degenerative changes on any of the joint surfaces. The olecranon fossa is perforated and the surface exhibits a resorptive reaction area. This reaction is not due to bacterial infection or the joint surface would have been impacted. The reaction, and the associated perforation, are most likely due to inflammation resulting from frequent hyperextension of the forearm while engaged in some habitual activity. This would certainly explain the hyper-development of the shaft and well-developed muscle markings. As with the right humerus, the left humerus shows extensive development of the shaft in the area of the deltoid muscle, but the bending of the shaft is not as extreme as it was with the right humerus. Again extensive muscle use is postulated to explain the morphology of the left humerus. Extensive muscle use is also evident in the highly developed interosseous crests of the radii and ulnae which corroborates this interpretation.

The right radius displays an algae stain on the distal segment and well developed radial tuberosity. The left radius has a similarly well developed radial tuberosity and does not show staining or rodent gnawing.

The right ulna shows algae stains on both proximal and distal end and rodent gnawing at the proximal end of the shaft. The tooth marks here are small and suggest a small animal. There is no staining or soil in the gnaw marks and it is possible that these occurred during the surface exposure just prior to discovery. There is some minor lipping of the joint margin, but the articular surface is smooth. The left radius also shows algae stains on the proximal end. There is slight lipping of the joint margin, but no deterioration of the joint surface. There is a minor resorptive reaction area on the margin of the olecranon process which corresponds to the reaction area of the humerus. However, it is not possible to be sure that this is not postmortem erosion. However, the similarity of the reactions on both humerus and ulna of the left elbow suggest that they are related. Both ulnae exhibit well developed muscle markings.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th right metacarpals and a first row third phalanx of the right hand have algae staining. The 4th metacarpal of the right hand has 9 small rodent gnaw marks. The superior surface of the distal end of the first row third phalanx exhibits pitting just below the articular surface, but this is clearly postmortem erosion. The left hand exhibits no abnormality except that a third metacarpal exhibits a red patchy stain (97.L.16.MCa).

Many of the numerous rib fragments had been fitted together and many more, especially on the right side, were fitted during the examination by Rhonda Lueck. One unidentified right rib fragment (97.I.12d .11) had rodent gnawing along 15.69mm of its inferior border and also exhibited red staining. Fragment 97.I.12d.5 also has a red stain. Unidentified right rib fragment 97.I.12a.1 has one end pinched closed with no loss of superior-inferior width. The cortex continues from the rib to the edge of the pinched end without any disruption on the surface or signs of rarefaction. There is a small smooth walled lytic lesion at the superior corner of the pinched end of the rib. This is probably some sort of cyst with no signs of inflammation or remodeling. The radiograph also shows no disruption of structure anywhere within the fragment. Whatever the cause of this break, it had happened many years before death. Another unidentified fragment (97.I.12a.7) also has a pinched off end similar to the one just described. The other end of this fragment is a normal medial rib end. There is some postmortem damage on the pinched end. Again there does not appear to be any surface or internal (viewing the radiograph) disruption of structure, but simply a gradual narrowing of the bone thickness. Placing these two fragments end to end suggests that they are two parts of the same rib fitting pinched end to pinched end. These two fragments could be either right rib 7 plus or minus one number. This suggests that they represent two portions of a pseudoarthrosis or false joint resulting from a fracture that could not heal because the two broken portions could not be stabilized due to movement during breathing. The trauma causing this break would have occurred many years prior to death. It is most likely that this trauma occurred at the same time as the fracture of the right humerus.

Unidentified right rib fragment 97.I.12a.9 also has a pinched end although the smooth edge is slightly abraded probably after exposure of the burial. Similar to 97.I.12a.1, described above, there is a small smooth walled lytic lesion on the superior surface just before the pinched off end. Similarly there is no disruption of the surface or interior structure of this fragment. Again this resembles a long healed pseudoarthrosis. Fragment 97.I.12a.3 is very small and was originally identified as a left rib fragment. It is also pinched off and what looks like a reaction area (possible infection) is mechanical postmortem damage exposing the trabecular bone. The most parsimonious interpretation is that this small fragment is the other side of the pseudoarthrosis from 97.I.12a.1 and that this is actually a right rib fragment. These two fragments could have come from right rib number 6.

Among the left ribs there are 27 fragments that have what looks like red staining. Two fragments exhibit algae stains. Left third rib fragment 97.I.12a.2 has an 8.6mm wide vertically oriented depression of about 1.1mm in depth. This appears to be a commonly seen normal variation. The radiograph shows normal internal structure. It is possible that this is a normally healed fracture from many years before death. Such fractures are common in both modern and ancient skeletons. Fragment 97.I.12a.5 is very similar and the radiograph shows a normal internal structure. Fragment 97.I.12d.4 is from the right tenth rib and has 2 small vertical grooves with algae staining indicating that they are postmortem marks made prior to discovery. Fragment 97A.I.12d has broken edges rounded by mechanical abrasion probably during water transport just prior to discovery.

The atlas, axis, and third cervical vertebrae (97.U.4 C1a - C3a) exhibit algae staining. The axis vertebra has a shortened spinous process (97.U.4C2a), the third vertebrae has a spinous process that appears pinched off (97U.4.C3a), while the fourth vertebrae has a short spinous process (97U.4.C4a). All of these features are within the normal range of variation and are associated with muscle usage. The thoracic vertebrae exhibit algae staining, but no other anomaly.

The second lumbar vertebra (97U.6.L4b) has a small amount of osteophytic lipping along the vertebral body. Lumbar vertebra 4 (97U6.L2b) exhibits minor osteophytic lipping along the superior body margin and along the inferior body margin (97U.6.L2a). The latter has a small perforation along the rim. This osteophytosis is very minimal and of no consequence. There is a red staining of the articular facet of 97U6.L2c.

The right innominate is fractured into six large pieces, but is relatively complete. A stone projectile point or knife is embedded in the ilium, just below the iliac crest about midway along the iliac arc. The point is visible through a medial window through the bone measuring 34.49mm anterior-posteriorly and 10.98mm superior-inferiorly. There is a similar window through the cortical bone on the lateral side measuring 18.06mm anterior-posteriorly and 16.19mm superior-inferiorly. These windows have smooth edges and are the result of natural biological processes. In a few locations the interior surfaces of the bone can be observed due to a space between the bone and the stone point. The bone surface is smooth compact bone. The entrance area of the point is completely healed and there is no scar. Medial-lateral radiographs show normal trabecular pattern around the point indicating complete healing and no sign of infection. The CAT scans clearly show the healed compact bone around the point and normal trabecular structure interior to the compact bone. The open space between the point and the bone is clearly seen on the CAT scan. John Fagan's examination of both radiographs and CAT scans show that the tip of the point is anterior (ventral) and the butt is posterior (dorsal). Overall appearance suggests that an inflammatory barrier (fibrous tissue) was formed around the point as part of the normal healing process. If there was an infection associated with this wound it was minor and healed long before death leaving no evidence. The point would have come from the rear and slightly below horizontal entering the iliac blade through the posterior edge. There would have been no organ damage, minimal muscle damage, and no major blood vessels would have been severed. Considerable force would have been needed for the point to penetrate the bone so deeply. There is no sign of past infection and healing could have been very rapid once the shaft and haft had been removed, most likely breaking off at impact. This wound would have occurred several and more likely many years (most likely decades) prior to death. The sciatic notch of the right side (score of 5) is narrower than that of the left side (score of 4). This asymmetry could be associated with the point which also disrupted the form of the iliac crest. If the notch asymmetry is associated with the point, then the wound would have occurred prior to growth completion of the pelvis. Thus, this person was younger than 20 years of age and more likely closer to 15 years at the time of event. It is most likely that this trauma occurring at a young age is associated in time to the broken ribs and right humerus. There are no other anomalies on the right pelvis.

The left innominate is broken into four segments. The inferior border of the acetabulum has a 10.01mm wide notch that is not found on the right. This notch could be associated with an extreme habitual positioning of the femur, such as in crossing the left leg over the right. No other abnormalities are present.

Only the distal one third of the right femur remains. The lateral condyle has a rough spot on the superior surface indicating initial joint surface deterioration and arthritis. There is no marginal lipping. The anterior articular surface exhibits an algae stain. Only the superior half of the left femur remains and there are no abnormalities.

The right patella has slight lipping of the lateral articular margin, while the left patella has similar lipping of the medial margin. Both are within the range of normal variation. The right tibia is almost complete, but broken into four pieces. The anterior surface is striated, but it is not possible to determine if it indicates an old healed infection or is postmortem damage. The surface is covered with a heavy matrix deposit making it difficult to observe the surface. No significance is attributed to the striations. There is a rough spot on the medial articular surface indicating initial deterioration and arthritis. There is a red ochre-like stain on both the anterior and posterior surface of the shaft. The left tibia is almost complete, but broken into three fragments. The surface is also obscured by heavy matrix deposit. An algae stain is located on the proximal portions. A patch of large gnaw marks are located on the anterior crest on the proximal middle quarter.

Two patches of rodent gnaw marks are found on the right fibula and one on the left. There are no other abnormalities.

The talus of the right foot exhibits algae staining. The calcaneus has slight marginal lipping within the normal range on the medial talar articular surface and the posterior talar articular surface. The anterior talar articular facet is separated from the medial talar articular facet by a deep well developed groove. Although anomalous, no interpretation can be provided. The remaining bones of the foot exhibit no abnormality. The calcaneus and talus of the left foot show no abnormalities. A left 4th metatarsal has gnaw marks at three locations on the shaft. Two phalanges (97.L.24.Pb and 97.L.24.Pa) have a red ochre like staining.

Nine of the unidentified human bone fragments appear to have red staining. Three of the unidentified faunal fragments are algae stained.

Summary of Taphonomy

The virtual completeness and excellent condition of the skeleton, including the small bones of the hands and feet, suggest that the skeleton was deliberately buried in a grave when the body was completely fleshed. The skeleton exhibited no loss of small bones that is characteristic of forensic cases that had been exposed on the surface. The smaller bones are usually carried off by scavengers. The rodent gnawing observed on the skeleton is also characteristic of skeletons that are excavated from graves.

To test the pattern of element recovery and damage against human remains from known taphonomic contexts, we compared the element representation for Kennewick against five patterns observed in a taphonomic database housed at the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Forensic cases include those from various recovery contexts in the desert southwest, as well as the large database for Washington state compiled by Haglund et al. (1988, 1989). Five patterns were compared: intentional burials, canid-scavenged remains, bear (Ursus americanus) scavenged remains, remains recovered from rivers and lakes, and remains washed ashore on river banks and beaches (Figure 1). Patterns of element recovery in Kennewick were compared using a two-tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. The pattern observed in the Kennewick remains are clearly distinctive from scavenged remains and those recovered in beach and water environments (Table 4), but could not be distinguished from intentionally buried remains. Although the sternum was missing from the Kennewick remains, this element is typically recovered in 40% of canid scavenged remains and in 80% of remains from rivers and lakes (Figure 1).

The algae stains indicate that after the grave was uncovered by natural processes it spent some time (at least several weeks) immersed in shallow water. The red staining seen on many of the bones is similar to the staining observed on other skeletons where the body had been coated with red ochre-based paint prior to burial. This supposition requires that the chemical composition of the red stain be determined and interpreted within the context of the surrounding matrix to ascertain if the staining is of natural or cultural origin. However, if this is of cultural origin, it is pattern seen in eight (53.3%) early Holocene human burials of the 15 burials for which we have such data. Furthermore, intentional burial appears to have occurred in the vast majority of early Holocene remains from North and South America (Powell, 1999, in press).

Many of the transverse cracks in the bones could have occurred while the skeleton was buried, while most of the longitudinal cracks occurred after exposure and during the drying process. The radiographs show that virtually every bone is filled with matrix. When the bones dried out for the first time, the matrix and bone would shrink at different rates and the bone would be splintered. Many microcracks can be seen in the radiographs and CAT scans indicating that the bone is being held together by the matrix inside the bones.

Stature

The estimation of stature relies on the premise that the individual for whom an estimate is generated was drawn from one of the reference populations used to produce a regression coefficient. This is clearly not the case for the Kennewick remains. However, we elected to use the most complete set of long bones (Appendix II and Tables 5 and 6) to produce an estimate of living stature. The bones of the arm were more complete than those of the leg, and were used in a series of stature formulae specific to those elements. However, stature estimates from the arm are not as accurate as those from lower limb bones. The most accurate bone for estimating stature, the femur, was extremely fragmentary and incomplete due to loss after recovery. Instead we elected to use the more complete tibiae for estimation. Fragmentary tibiae were used to estimate complete bone lengths following Steele (1970). We then used these estimates in standard regression formulae. Standard errors for the double estimation were modified accordingly.

Based on the more complete arm elements, the stature of the Kennewick individual is best approximated by humeral dimensions regressed on modern Mongoloids (Table 5). This produced stature estimates ranging from 173.9 to 177.3 cm (5' 9" inches to 5' 10"). Arm estimates have a standard error of 4.25 to 4.66 cm (1.6" to 1.8"). Stature estimates based on fragmentary elements of the leg are presented in Table 6. Mean stature estimates, across all reference samples (Table 6) provide a range of 172.70 cm to 178.36 cm (5' 8" to 5' 10").

Biological Affinity

Determinations of biological affinity were made using both objective and subjective approaches. In the former case, multivariate analyses were used to generate probabilities of group membership, while in the latter case comparisons were made to known patterns of discrete morphological variation among extant forensic samples in the U.S. Two caveats should be emphasized in the interpretation of the bioaffinity results. First, the Kennewick research team was charged with determining whether the remains were those of a Native American individual; although the federal statute is somewhat ambiguous as to how the term "Native American" is defined, we took this as indicating a modern or recent human population indigenous to the Americas. Based on this goal, we derived the following hypotheses:

H0: Kennewick represents an individual drawn from a population of recent (late Holocene) Native Americans

HA: Kennewick does not represent an individual drawn from a population of recent Native Americans.

The method for examining these hypotheses is drawn from logical empiricism, so that any null hypothesis can only be rejected, but can never be proven to be true. It may be possible to exclude Kennewick from membership in the Native American comparative samples used in the following analyses, but it is not possible to prove that Kennewick is, in fact Native American (i.e., prove the null hypothesis to be true). Secondly, the ability to properly allocate prehistoric remains to a particular population or race depends, in large part, on whether the comparative samples are representative of the population from which the unknown person is drawn, and on the assumption that the such reference groups existed in the distant past. The use of typicality probabilities provides a statistical measure of association and group membership that does not assume that the individual examined is drawn from one of the comparative samples. Finally, it is important to recognize that the Kennewick remains may be thousands of years older than any of the reference samples used in these comparisons. Unless morphological "types" extend far into the past, it may be difficult to place the Kennewick remains into any late Holocene sample used for comparison.

Powell has already noted (Powell 1995; Powell and Neves n.d.; Steele and Powell 1992, 1994) that the geographic groupings or races seen among modern peoples are at best fuzzy and at worst non-existent when examining late Pleistocene and early Holocene populations world-wide. This point has also been noted by Kamminga and Wright (1988) in their analysis of the late Pleistocene skeleton from Upper Cave, Zhoukoudien, China. Thus it is possible that the term "Native American," when used in a biological context, is irrelevant when applied to ancient human remains because founder populations did not exhibit the pattern of morphological and metric variation seen among late Holocene populations in the Americas. However, such a situation does not completely rule out the possibility that these ancient remains might be biologically ancestral to modern American Indian populations (see Powell 1997; Powell in press, and Powell and Neves for data supporting this view). Much of the interpretation of the biological affinity of Kennewick results depends on subjective opinions and assumptions about the rate of morphological change possible during the past 10,000 years, the underlying genetics of the traits examined, and the demographic history of early and late Holocene humans in the New World.

Because the bulk of the skeletal reference samples are of late Holocene (modern) age, the comparisons using these reference groups do not allow us to evaluate the biological similarity of the Kennewick remains to ancient populations in the Americas, particularly to other skeletons of early and middle Holocene age. Because of the small number of Paleoindian and Archaic period skeletal series available for comparison, these results are not as definitive. However, they do provide an assessment of overall morphological similarity and dissimilarity between contemporaneous human groups present in the Americas from 9,000 to 5,000 years before present.

If the Kennewick remains represent a member of a founding population whose descendants evolved in situ over the past 9,000 years, North and South American populations who appear later in time may be dissimilar to the founder population due to the cumulative effects of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection over time. An alternative explanation is that the Kennewick remains represent an individual with no living descendants among modern American Indians. Human skeletons from the middle and late Archaic periods (8,000 1,900 yr B.P.) represent the temporally adjacent sample for comparison with Kennewick, for testing the following hypotheses:

H0: Kennewick represents an individual drawn from a population of Archaic (middle Holocene) Native Americans

HA: Kennewick does not represent an individual drawn from a population of Archaic Native Americans.

This set of hypotheses allowed us to examine the possibility that the remains are unlike modern American Indians, yet similar to temporally adjacent Archaic populations in the New World. To test the null hypothesis, we collected craniometric data for 13 skeletal series dating to the Archaic period (8,000 - 1,900 yr B.P.) in North America. One caveat should be noted: even if there is a strong similarity of between Archaic groups and the Kennewick remains, this does not necessarily provide evidence to support or refute a connection to later American Indian populations. Only a time series analysis of populations from the Plateau region, extending from earliest occupation to the historic period, can provide a statistically valid means of assessing morphometric continuity of populations through time. Data for performing such an analysis are currently unavailable.

Craniometric Analyses:

The first analysis of craniometric data utilized the primary variable set of 52 dimensions (Table 2). In the canonical discriminant analysis of the primary variables, Kennewick falls between modern Amerindians and southeast Asian groups (Figure 2), a pattern noted for other ancient North American remains by Steele and Powell (1992, 1994). When the size-corrected data are used to generate posterior probabilities of group membership, the Kennewick individual has the greatest probability of inclusion in the South Japan sample (pposterior = 0.9861), followed by the South Pacific Moriori (pposterior = 0.0081) and North American Arikara (pposterior = 0.0021) samples. If the chronometric age of the Kennewick remains is correct, it is unlikely that the Kennewick skeleton belongs within any modern population, so that a typicality probability is the better assessment of group membership. Typicality probabilities were all ptypicality < 0.00000001 for all population comparisons using all combinations of the original size-corrected variables.

The first three principal components from the principal components analysis of all 52 variables account for only 39.22% of the total size-corrected variation in the data. The PCA plot (Figure 3) places the Kennewick individual as an outlier compared to full Howells data (N = 22 populations). Using the principal component scores to generate inter-individual distances (Van Vark and Schaafsma 1991), the Kennewick individual is closest to south Pacific (Moriori, Easter Island) and the Ainu of Japan. The typicality probabilities for the PC reduced data, which are the least conservative estimates of group membership, all indicate that the Kennewick cranium is not morphologically similar to any modern human population (Table 7). No modern Native American group is included as a close neighbor in the least conservative approach, which strongly suggests that they bear no morphological resemblance to the Kennewick remains. Furthermore, while the inclusion of the Ainu as a nearest group could be interpreted as a possible "Caucasoid" morphology for the Kennewick remains if one considers modern Ainu to be "Caucasoids" (see Jantz and Owsley 1997); we view this as a reflection of the southern Asian/south Pacific morphology of the Kennewick skull given that most researchers tend to associate Ainu groups with earlier population originating in southern Asia (Brace and Hunt 1990; Turner 1985, 1990).

While the above results are interesting, they include a number of variables that tend to exhibit a high degree of intra- and inter-observer error (see Table 2). After removing variables that were univariately non-normal in the comparative data, or that exhibited low repeatability or high inter-observer error, the above analyses were repeated using the best variable set. This variable set contained 45 dimensions of the face and neurocranium, including several radii (Table 2), and was compared to over 2,000 males in the Howells (1989) data

The canonical variates analysis places Kennewick closer to southern Asians, and nearly equidistant to modern Native Americans and Polynesians (Figure 4). The discriminant analysis based on the 45 best variables is highest for South Japan (pposterior = 0.9007), followed by Moriori (pposterior = 0.0765), and Ainu (pposterior = 0.03115). Typicality probabilities were all zero for the Howells comparative samples, suggesting again that the Kennewick skeleton morphologically is unlike any modern human population. A plot of the principal component scores places Kennewick in a peripheral position relative to the bulk of Polynesians and southern Asians, as well as to the Ainu sample (Figure 5). The first three components account for 38.54% of the size-corrected craniometric variation in the Howells data set. Based on inter-individual Mahalanobis' distances, the most proximate group to Kennewick was Moriori, which produced one of the largest typicality probabilities observed (ptypicality = 0.1338). Other "neighbors" to Kennewick included northern and southern Moriori, Ainu, and the Arikara sample (Table 8).

Because the Howells (1989) data contain only three Native American populations, the potential biological affinity, or lack thereof, between Kennewick and recent American Indians cannot be fully assessed without addition of other American Indian samples. A larger comparative data set for world-wide populations, generously provided by Dr. T. Hanihara (1996), was used to examine the relationship between Kennewick and late Holocene populations in North and South America. This data set, which contains 48 cranial dimensions for 296 populations (N = 6,310 individuals), was used to generate both principal components and discriminant scores for the Kennewick remains.

Because the Hanihara data contain some variables that are defined differently than those in Howells, only dimensions that were defined and measured in the same way as Howells (1989) were used: GOL, XCB, XFB, BNL, ASB, BPL, NLH, NLB, MAB, OBH, FRC, PAC, and OCC. These 13 variables were size-corrected as before, and used to generate principal components, canonical variates, and linear discriminant functions. Due to missing data for many observations, only 183 populations (N = 4,179) were used for comparison, including 19 North and South American populations. Prehistoric groups from the states of Washington and Oregon were included, as were populations from Alaska and British Columbia.

In the canonical variates analysis (Figure 6), the Kennewick skeleton was separated from other modern populations on all three canonical axes, though it fell closest to the south Pacific samples. The four largest posterior probabilities of group membership, using 13 size-corrected variables were: Moriori (pposterior = 0.2757) Papua New Guinea (pposterior = 0.0848), Marquesas (pposterior = 0.0753), and California (pposterior = 0.0657). Mahalanobis distances between Kennewick and other group centroids produced low typicality probabilities (Table 9).

The principal components analysis (Figure 7) shows that Kennewick falls within the range of other modern groups for the first two components, but away from modern populations on the third component. The first three components account for 50.84% of the total craniometric variation present. When Mahalanobis distances were computed from PC scores, the Kennewick individual was closest to the Moriori sample (pposterior = 0.3954), followed by Society Islands (pposterior = 0.0945) and Sakhalin (pposterior = 0.0616). Mahalanobis distances for the PC data are provided in Table 10. The five closest groups included Polynesian and northeast Asian populations, while the five most distant groups included Africans, Europeans, and the prehistoric Tennessee samples. Typicality probabilities for all groups were less than 0.10 (Table 10).

A final point of concern involved the reconstruction of the Kennewick skull used for the above analyses. The differences between the measurements taken on the Kennewick Man cast and the Powell/Odegaard reconstruction were statistically significant, suggesting that some reconstruction differences were present in the data analyzed above. Although the fit of pieces was firm, with no observable gaps, it is possible, if unlikely, that the results obtained above are the result of an artifact of the reconstruction. In order to avoid reconstruction bias, multivariate analyses were performed using only those dimensions that were not affected by the reconstruction of the complete skull. Variables deleted were those involving prosthion, subspinale, zygomaxillare, zygoorbitale, and ectoconchion, as well as those already removed because of potential inter- and intra-observer error. This variable set should be the most conservative and, potentially, most accurate of those generated in the Kennewick Phase I study.

The canonical variates analysis for the 33 variable data set placed clearly within the cluster of Polynesian samples, and far from the three American Indian groups (Figure 8). The discriminant analysis of the 33 size-corrected original variables place Kennewick within the South Japan sample (pposterior = 0.9425), followed by Moriori (pposterior = 0.0173) and Ainu (pposterior = 0.0096) samples. None of the typicality probabilities for the Howells populations were greater than zero.

The first three principal components derived from these data accounted for 41.63% of the total size-corrected variation. The PC plot (Figure 9), places Kennewick near the periphery of modern samples, but closest to two northern Asian populations. The inter-individual distances were smallest for the Ainu, Moriori, South Japan, Zalavar, and Easter Island groups, and largest for Berg, Tolai, Tasmania, Australia, Bushmen samples (Table 11). None of the typicality probabilities were greater than 13%, suggesting that with the less conservative PC data, Kennewick could not be attributed with certainty to any of the modern samples. One additional point to note is that with the non-reconstructed variables, two so-called "Caucasoid" groups-- Ainu and Zalavar-- were indicated as most similar to Kennewick in multivariate space, while none of the American Indian samples were close to the Kennewick skeleton. This is not to say that the Kennewick remains are those of a "Caucasoid" individual. It does, however, confirm the work of other researchers (Steele and Powell 1992, 1994; Jantz and Owsley 1997, in press) which indicate that early New World populations have some features shared by some modern Polynesian and European groups. The cranial nonmetric and dental data confirm the Polynesian morphology of the Kennewick skeleton, but do not suggest a morphological similarity of this individual to modern populations of Europe.

To assess the relationship between the Kennewick skeleton and Archaic North American groups, we selected ten variables common to the Howells, Hanihara, and Archaic data, excluding variables with different landmark definitions, for analysis. The pooled modern samples (N=7,142, 277 groups) were corrected for size and tested for interobserver effects. Mahalanobis distances for these samples were used to generate typicality probabilities for these data; the PCA and canonical plots contained too many individual populations to be of any utility. Results are presented in Table 12. Based on the 277 prehistoric and modern reference samples, the five closest populations included Eskimo, Northeast Asians, and Polynesian groups, while the five furthest samples included the majority of Archaic groups and one Near Eastern sample (Table 12). Typicality probabilities were high, with Kennewick exhibiting a 91% probability of having been drawn from the sample of Chukchi from Siberia. Typicality probabilities for the remaining proximate samples were in the range of 0.7339 to 0.8658 (Table 12). Archaic samples from Plains, southeast U.S. and Florida were distant from the Kennewick individual, with zero probability of Kennewick having been drawn from these groups. The Kennewick individual was much closer (D2 = 5.37; ptypicality = 0.865132 ) to Archaic individuals from the northern Great Basin.

Initially, the above results would suggest rejection of the second null hypothesis. On removal of some of the smaller samples (those with n < 5) in the Hanihara data set, we observed that the set of population relationships changed considerably, and suggested that the results presented in Table 12 may be an artifact of pooling the within-group covariances of these many small samples. When the pooled within-groups covariance matrix in the Mahalanobis distance is computed, samples with deviant covariances may skew the resulting distances. To examine this possibility, the Howells-Hanihara reference data were tested for univariate and multivariate normality. The results indicated that 10 of 14 variables were not univariate normal, and the pooled data were not multivariate normally distributed. Thus the previous results (Table 12) are somewhat suspect.

In order to minimize the effect of outlying populations on the pooled within-groups covariance matrix, we elected to combine the 277 individual samples into eight major geographic groups: Africa, Europe, the Near East, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, the Americas, Australia, and Polynesia. A combined Ainu/Jomon sample was retained separately. The resulting regional data were univariate normally distributed (but exhibited some multivariate leptokurtosis) and appear to provide a better overall approximation of world-wide craniometric variation than the use of individual modern samples. Because sample sizes for some of the Archaic reference data were small, we utilized the pooled within-group covariance matrix derived from eight modern regional samples to calculate Mahalanobis distances for Kennewick and all Archaic populations, following the suggestion of Jantz and Owsley (1997) and Van Vark and Schaafsma (1992). This avoided the possibility that the small Archaic samples would also skew the results. Table 13 provides the resulting typicality probabilities for the ten size-corrected variables. In this analysis, the Kennewick individual is most similar to the Archaic sample from Indian Knoll, Kentucky, followed by the Ainu/Jomon pooled sample, an Amerindian pooled sample, Northeast Asians, and Southeast Asians (Table 13). Once multivariate normality in the reference data was established, the morphological similarity between Kennewick and Archaic groups is stronger. The typicality probability of Kennewick having been drawn from either middle Holocene sample from the eastern U.S. (ptypicality = 0. 873325) is high, followed by the Ainu/Jomon groups of east Asia (ptypicality = 0. 476220) and the pooled hemispheric American Indian sample (ptypicality = 0. 450143). Other Archaic groups not shown in Table 13 also exhibit higher typicality probabilities (0.5999 to 0.1369); the seven remaining modern regional samples exhibit lower typicalities, in the range of 0.0040 to 0.1734. These results support the contention that there is at least some morphological similarity between Kennewick and Archaic groups, although the Archaic samples from the southeastern U.S. are clearly distinct. Based on these results, it is not possible to reject the second null hypothesis.

In addition to multivariate craniometric analysis, we also performed a set of bivariate analyses that utilize naso-orbital indices derived by Gill (1984) for discriminating American Whites from Plains Indians and American Blacks. The Kennewick remains produced a maxillofrontal index of 46.9, a zygoorbital index of 30.9, and an alpha index of 72.7. Based on these data, two of Kennewick's indices (maxillofrontal and alpha) fall above the non-white/white cutoff point, suggesting that Kennewick's nasal and orbital configurations for those dimensions are most similar to Gill's (1984) American White sample. The third index (zygoorbital) is well within the Plains Indian/Black range and suggests that Kennewick's zygoorbital breadth and naso-zygoorbital subtense are more similar to Gill's Plains/Black samples.

Odontometric Analyses

Because of excessive dental wear, maximum crown diameter data for Kennewick were limited to seven buccolingual crown diameters: UI1, UC, UM3, LC, LM1, LM2, and LM3. However, because of large numbers of missing variables, only seven of the 14 Wolpoff (1971) samples (N=42) could be used. These data were employed in principal components and discriminant analysis procedures. The first three principal components encompass 69.82% of the total buccolingual variation present in these limited comparative data, and place Kennewick at the margin of prehistoric Amerindians and southeast Asian individuals (Figure 10). The canonical variates was analysis was not significant (p = 0.0561) and will not be presented. The posterior probabilities derived from size-corrected data (not PCA scores) indicated that Kennewick would be classified as part of the largest sample, prehistoric Amerindians from Dickson Mound (pposterior = 0.4584); typicality probabilities were highest for Dickson Mound, followed by Europeans and Southeast Asians (Table 14). Typicality probabilities for including with other prehistoric Amerindians (a composite sample from several North American sites) were low (ptypicality = 0.1711).

Discrete Trait Analysis:

Cranial and dental discrete traits presented a difficulty in analysis. These features could only be scored as "present" or "absent" in Kennewick, while they are recorded as a percentage of "presence" or "absence" in comparative samples. In order to statistically assess the Kennewick discrete data, we elected to follow a procedure outlined in Powell (1993) for converting frequency data to presence/absence form in statistical analyses. All comparative sample frequencies were converted to a set of ones or zeros following Powell (1993), and these data were then used to generate posterior probabilities of group membership for an unknown sample using logistical discrimination (Jobson 1982). Typicality probabilities were not generated for these analysis, though such an approach would be possible.

Cranial discrete data for eight variables in 20 world-wide samples provided a statistically significant discrimination (log-likelihood chi-square 24.93 at 7 d.f., p = 0.0008) of samples into "Amerindian" and "Non-Amerindian" groups. Under this method, Kennewick had a probability of 0.0000 for membership in Amerindians and 0.9998 for membership in Non-Amerindians. The procedure was repeated using dichotomized dental data. In this analysis, 44 samples were divided into Sinodont (including American Indians) and Sundadont groups. The discriminatory power of this method was significant (log-likelihood chi-square 43.360 with 7 d.f, p = 0.0001) for the dental data. Kennewick had a probability of 0.48460 for membership in the Sinodont group, 0.93769 for membership in the Sundadont group. The analysis was repeated using a third group, composed of Paleoindian and middle Holocene samples, in addition to the Sinodont and Sundadont populations. Early Holocene American samples were separated from the main east Asian dental patterns because they exhibit a mixture of features that occur in high frequency in both Sinodonts and Sundadonts (see Powell in press and Powell 1995). Based on this analysis, the Kennewick specimen had a posterior probability of 0.0055 for membership in Sinodonts, 0.5940 for membership in Sundadonts, and 0.4005 for membership in the early Holocene group.

Anthroposcopic Trait Analysis:

Analysis of Kennewick's craniofacial features proceeded as in other forensic cases examined by Rose and Powell. Kennewick was scored for a number of anthroposcopic features, following Rhine (1990), Napoli and Birkby (1990), Brues (1990), Gill and Gilbert (1990), and Brooks et al. (1990).

The craniofacial appearance of Kennewick contains a mix of features observed in both Amerindian and American White populations from forensic contexts. Kennewick's more European/Caucasoid features included cranial sutures of medium complexity (where observable), no wormian bones (where observable), no os japonicum, a large nasal spine, slanting ascending ramus profile, and an undulating horizontal ramus border. Native American/Mongoloid features included a large malar tubercle, blurred nasal sill, zygomatic posterior tubercle, slight nasal depression, moderate prognathism, elliptical dental arcade, straight palatine suture, and what appeared to be an angled zygomaticomaxillary suture (though much of this was obliterated by sutural fusion and damage). Kennewick also exhibits forward facing frontal processes of the Maxilla (Gill and Gilbert 1990) typical of modern American Indians. The Kennewick facial skeleton also exhibited features that occur in several modern non-Amerindian populations, including a nasal bone configuration intermediate between towered and tented forms, a medium nasal opening, vertical zygomatic bones, a somewhat rhomboid orbital shape. Many of these features are typical of Polynesian groups. Kennewick lacked the projecting and bilobate chin of Europeans.

The midfacial profile of Kennewick was examined following Brooks et al. (1990). Kennewick exhibits a slight concavity below the prominent anterior nasal spine, followed by minimal prognathism and a more vertical outline approaching infradentale superior. This condition is intermediate between the American Whites, which tend to have a less prognathic profile and a much shorter outline, and the North American Indian profiles (particularly those from the northern Great Basin such as Brooks et al. 1990 Figure 3a), which tend to be concavoconvex (Brooks et al. 1990).

Based on CT data, the oval window of the external auditory meatus is partially visible, a condition that occurs in only 6% of Caucasoids (American Whites), but occurs in 34% of Mongoloid (Native American) and 32% of admixed (Hispanic/Mestizo) individuals. The posterior wall morphology of the external auditory meatus is convex, which is found in 82% of Caucasoids (American Whites), and in 44% and 73% of Mongoloid and admixed populations (Napoli and Birkby 1990). The temporopetrous angle of inclination in Kennewick was significantly smaller (19º) than that of Caucasoids (32.07º) and admixed (32.44º) groups.

Overall, the anthroposcopic data indicate that the Kennewick skeleton contains a mix of features seen in modern groups, including East Asians, American Indians, and Europeans. The skull lacks features associated with African populations. Gill (1986) presented a list of features for geographic races, and noted that the Polynesian sample (primarily from Easter Island) exhibited a wide range of features like those in Kennewick. Such a finding corresponds to the stronger south Pacific and Polynesian morphometric appearance the Kennewick skull noted in the craniometric analyses.

 

Summary

The Kennewick skeleton is a male who died between 45 and 50 years of age. He was approximately 175 cm (5' 9") tall, based on an average of all stature estimates. The morphology of the humeri and muscle marking of all arm bones indicate that he was well-muscled and engaged in rigorous activity employing his arms. The left elbow joint reaction area is also associated with this rigorous activity. All evidence for arthritis is minor and all joints are in excellent shape for a man of his age. He most likely would not have experienced any pain or problems with any of his joints. Many years prior to death he had broken two right ribs which did not heal together and formed pseudoarthroses (false joints). These false joints would not have caused any disability or pain. Possibly at the same age he also suffered a fracture of the right humerus. This healed well and would have caused no disability. Many years before death and probably when he was a teenager (and at the same time as the other trauma), an accident or conflict occurred which resulted in a projectile point being embedded within the right iliac blade of the pelvis. Recovery from this wound was complete; there was no infection of the bone, and there was no disability associated with this injury. The small defect of the frontal bone of the skull would have occurred just before death. This defect is obscured by matrix both within the depression and the inner surface of the skull that makes definitive interpretation impossible. However, there is no evidence for a depressed fracture and this is most likely a minor traumatic event.

Taphonomically, the Kennewick remains represent a single individual who was most probably interred rather than left to decompose on the surface. The completeness of the remains, the lack of carnivore damage to the remains, and presence of rodent gnawing on several elements are all typical of the pattern seen in intentional modern and prehistoric burials. In fact, the Kennewick remains could not be statistically distinguished from intentionally buried remains, but could be distinguished from human remains in other post-depositional contexts (Table 4). The red staining of some bones may be cultural in origin, suggesting application of red ochre pigment to the skin of the individual prior to interment. This determination will require confirmation of iron oxide levels in the matrix adhering to the bone, and possibly chemical analysis of the bone itself. Algal staining on some elements is probably due to exposure of the remains in shallow water just prior to their recovery in along the Columbia River.

Like other early American skeletons, the Kennewick remains exhibit a number of morphological features that are not found in modern populations. For all craniometric dimensions, the typicality probabilities of membership in modern populations were zero, indicating that Kennewick is unlike any of the reference samples used. Even when the least-conservative inter-individual distances are used to construct typicality probabilities, Kennewick has a low probability of membership in any of the late Holocene reference samples. Similar results were obtained by Ozolins et al. (1997) for Upper Paleolithic samples from Asia, Africa, and Europe and Paleoindian groups, and are not surprising considering that Kennewick is separated by roughly 8,000 years from most of the reference samples in Howells (1989) and Hanihara (1996). The most craniometrically similar samples appeared to be those from the south Pacific and Polynesia as well as the Ainu of Japan, a pattern observed in other studies of early American crania from North and South America (Steele and Powell 1992, 1994; Jantz and Owsley 1997).

Only in three cases, including two analyses based on the least-conservative inter-individual distances, was a Native American included in the five closest samples to Kennewick. The Hanihara craniometrics and the cranial discrete traits both failed to find an association between Kennewick and modern Indian groups, despite the fact that these data sets included populations from the Northwest Coast and Interior Plateau regions of North America. Only the odontometric data suggested a connection between Kennewick and modern American Indians, but the typicality probabilities for this analysis were all very low. Clearly the Kennewick individual is unique relative to recent American Indians, and finds its closest association with groups of Polynesia and the Ainu of Japan.

The question of "Caucasoid" affinities for the Kennewick remains can be addressed, depending on how the term "Caucasoid" is defined. In the strictest sense, this refers to populations of western and southwest Eurasia-- peoples that live or lived in what is now Europe, the near East, and India. When defined in this way, Kennewick is clearly not a Caucasoid. Although one European group, Zalavar (1/25 = 4%) was included among the five nearest "neighbors" to Kennewick (Tables 7 - 12), the majority of nearest neighbors are from Polynesia (16/25 = 64%) and east Asia (24%). The Ainu, which we have described as "east Asian", occur as a nearest neighbor three times (12%), while Native Americans occur as neighbors just twice (8%). Although Kennewick exhibits some features that typically (but not exclusively) occur in modern American Whites (Caucasoids), these same features also occur in moderate to high frequency among Polynesian populations (Gill 1986). If the Ainu are considered to be "Caucasoids," as they were first described in 19th-century anthropological literature, this might explain reports of "Caucasoid" features in the Kennewick skull. However, we follow Brace and Hunt (1990) and Turner (1990) in viewing the Ainu as a southeast Asian population derived from early Jomon peoples of Japan, who have their closest biological affinity with south Asians rather than western Eurasian peoples. Thus Kennewick appears to have strongest morphological affinities with populations in Polynesia and southern Asia, and not with American Indians or Europeans in the reference samples.

Going back to the original null hypothesis, we can reject this hypothesis for the craniometric data, for cranial discrete traits, and for dental discrete traits. The data are inconclusive for anthroposcopic traits, and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the odontometric data. The Kennewick skeleton can be excluded, on the basis of dental and cranial morphology, from recent American Indians. More importantly, it can be excluded (on the basis of typicality probabilities) from all late Holocene human groups. There are indications, however, that the Kennewick cranium is morphologically similar to Archaic populations from the northern Great Basin region, and to large Archaic populations in the eastern woodlands. While these data raise a number of interesting questions, only a regional time series analysis of a sequence of well-dated human remains from east-central Washington spanning the past 9,000 can provide direct evidence of biological continuity between Kennewick and modern American Indian tribes.


28 posted on 07/14/2002 7:51:48 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan; LostTribe
"That's why there's a trail through Europe from the Caucusus to Ireland with rivers, town, and countries named after the tribe of Dan. Before they set out on foot after the first captivity, they overtook the Phoenicians in exploring a big part of the world in ships."

Might the Phoenicians and the Tribe Of Dan be the same folks?

29 posted on 07/14/2002 7:53:34 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

LUZIA, The oldest dated human skeleton ever found in the Americans, found in Brazil. (She was 24 years old when she died)

30 posted on 07/14/2002 8:04:25 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: blam
Linguistic studies prove that the Welsh language is very closely akin to ancient Hebrew!

The Welsh and the Celts are probably descended from Dan. They would've arrived in the British Isles in ships before the captivities. Then after the captivites, the British, who would have been of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (mostly Ephraim) arrived after going across Europe in the great migrations. The Welsh and the British are cousins. Just like the British and the Jews are cousins, and therefore Americans and Jews, Americans being mostly of the tribe of Manasseh.

31 posted on 07/14/2002 8:05:34 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
English And Welsh Are Races Apart
32 posted on 07/14/2002 8:13:41 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blam
Yyyyyup. No matter how much we think we know, there will always be more to confound a current whizdumb. I just wish funding for this research wasn't so political.
33 posted on 07/14/2002 8:14:09 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
So who was Cheddar Man?
34 posted on 07/14/2002 8:24:27 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blam
Might the Phoenicians and the Tribe Of Dan be the same folks?

No. The Phoenicians are descended from Ham, and Canaan. Contrary to what's commonly taught, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are the same race, descended from Adam. Of course the Semites (including the 12 tribes) are descended from Shem exclusively. In other words, Asians and blacks are not descended from Ham or Japheth, as a lot of people try to say. The Phoenicians established a worldwide oceanic mercantile empire paving the way for the tribe of Dan to enjoy a little of that after the Phoenician decline and until the captivities. Of course most of the tribes wandered from God, so it may be hard to tell the difference between the Phoenician ports and the Hebrew ports. If there are Hebrew speaking peoples predating the captivities scattered in pockets around Europe, then I'd say they're of the tribe of Dan. The ones in the Americas could be of any tribe, because more likely they were brought by the Phoenicians to mine gold, etc.

35 posted on 07/14/2002 8:28:37 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
I'm from the Tribe Of Dan.
36 posted on 07/14/2002 8:31:34 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: blam
English And Welsh Are Races Apart

If the Welsh are descended from the tribe of Dan, then they would be related to other colonies of Dan. There was silver mining in Spain at the time of Dan's shipbuilding. This would've been ~1000 BC. The Anglo-Saxons took over Britain in ~500 A.D. for a difference of 1500 years. In those 1500 years, the Welsh would've mixed with some of indigenous people. Also in those 1500 years, the Isrealites (Anglo-Saxons) would have went into captivity by the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Medians and Persians, made their way across the Caucusus, mixed with the indigenous peoples all the way to Britain. So there would have been differences in genetics. That doesn't mean that Dan never made it to Britain in 1000 B.C. Look at American blacks today. Almost all of them now have English blood in them because of slavery and mixing, but could you do a study on them and conclude they come from Friesland, who are closely related to the British.

37 posted on 07/14/2002 8:55:54 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blam
So who was Cheddar Man?

Probable one of the indegenous of Europe. An escapee from the Atlantis sinking, maybe. :^)

38 posted on 07/14/2002 9:00:28 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm from the Tribe Of Dan.

Was his name Dan Blam?

39 posted on 07/14/2002 9:04:15 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
"This would've been ~1000 BC. The Anglo-Saxons took over Britain in ~500 A.D. "

Hmmmm. There were worldwide 'Dark Ages' at 1159BC and 540AD.

40 posted on 07/14/2002 9:05:02 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blam
"For the king [Solomon] had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks"

Look at the original Hebrew word translated into "peacocks" and you'll see that in Hebrew it was pronounced "Tookees". Turkeys?

41 posted on 07/14/2002 9:16:03 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
For instance, who is to say the rock in New Mexico wasn't inscribed in the last hundred years?

Because there is a quirk to the writing that wasn't understood until the '80s.

42 posted on 07/14/2002 9:32:37 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
How long ago was it the etchings were first discovered?

Long before the '80s.

What proof is there it was etched before Europeans set foot on America?

On a nearby rock there is a starmap, showing the year. The people who wrote on the rock were there before Jesus, the exact year was pinpointed. I don't remember the exact year. The rock is on a small mountain. The entire mountain has structures of a defensive fort-like site very similar to the way the Hebrew-speaking peoples did things then.

43 posted on 07/14/2002 9:40:41 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Hmmmm. There were worldwide 'Dark Ages' at 1159BC and 540AD

The fall of Rome certainly was traumatic after ~400 AD.

44 posted on 07/14/2002 9:52:30 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: blam
Hmmmm. There were worldwide 'Dark Ages' at 1159BC and 540AD.

Or are you speaking of a climate event of some sort?

45 posted on 07/14/2002 10:00:57 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Please link to LONG articles instead of posting them. Your post came to 39 PAGES. Most users do not have high speed broadband and it takes them a VERY long time to download what they may in fact not even be interested in. The result is that LONG articles turn out to be Thread Killers. Linking is the way to go.

Thank You.

46 posted on 07/14/2002 11:28:52 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Sorry, but those LONG files are long gone from their original sources (when I put the links on the composition page and tested them, they gave me a 404). I did a google search and a search on their original site at frontpage.com. Gone. Dead links. So I posted my file, and sorry, I didn't know how long it was. I write whole websites from the note pad. I know how to do a link.
47 posted on 07/14/2002 11:42:58 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Or are you speaking of a climate event of some sort?

The speculation is that it is a celestial event, comets, meteorites, asteroids or the like.

48 posted on 07/14/2002 11:45:03 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: blam; #3Fan
>Might the Phoenicians and the Tribe Of Dan be the same folks?

Probably not. It is safe to say the Phoenicians are Hebrews, but not of the same line as Abraham. But they are probably not Semites, and certainly not Israelites, despite the fact that they have much the appearance of Israelites. They could easily be mistaken for Scandinavians; generally tall, fair complexions and with blond or red hair. (Red hair or red head is the meaning of the word "Phoenician".)

Their potential link with the Danites is a fascinating one, enhanced by their appearance. I've seen interesting arguments made to suggest the later Phoenicians are a mix of the originals and some Danites, the ones who escaped from Egypt early, along with Israelites from the tribes of Asher and Judah. These are the same Danites who cut such a wide swath up the Danube, Don, Dneiper and other rivers as suggested in earlier posts, and who probably are the name source for the nation DANMARK.

While actual evidence is thin to make ANY case for the Phoenicians, I'm inclined to go along with the latter.

For definitions and historical context please click on my Profile, below.

49 posted on 07/14/2002 11:49:06 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
>Sorry, but those LONG files are long gone from their original sources...

That really frustrating, isn't it? Been there and done that.

The way to solve that problem is to set up a subdirectory on the home page which comes with your ISP account. Then store all the good stuff you want to post in that directory, and link to it.

Works great! Costs nothing. I do it all the time.

50 posted on 07/14/2002 11:54:23 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson