Talk:Kennewick Man

Misc
I remember that the Tri-City Herald (the local newspaper) reported that some drunk guys had found him in the bushes during the hydroplane races, and they ran, thinking it was a murder scene. Can anyone with the time and energy verify that? Sword 16:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to a movie I just watched in Archaeology Class, they stubbed their toe on something, lifted it out of the water, and it was a skull. They then hid the skull in the bushes thinking it was a recent victim, and called the cops. Tezkah i-dont-know-what-time-it-is, 2 Nov 2004

They'd been drinking, the boat races were a big thing back then. It was a weekend of anything goes.

They were skirting the security (sneaking in) to a section of the park that gives a good view and requires a payment. This was done by walking along the shore of the river of where wild trees and bushes still grow. One's foot sunk into the mud and stepped on the head, how he knew I don't know barefoot maybe; but pulled it up. They left it where they found it. Later they reported their find and the authorities treated it as a murder scene.

Google Earth of the find. (Within 18 meters) Lat: 46°13'32.81"N Long: 119°10'9.87"W --BadActor 07:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilparty (talk • contribs)

Re: Scientific significance
In the original article from the main page, the contributor states that many native americans can trace "caucasian" ancestry in their DNA. However, it's not stated whether the genetic marker for caucasian predates the known colonization from Norsemen in North America or 15th & 16th Century Europeans "after" Columbus. If peoples from the European continent indeed mixed with native "mongloid" peoples 12,000 - 9,000 years ago, this is the first time I've heard of it.

Aside from the Clovis theory that ancient Europeans crossed over the Atlantic ice sheet between 20,000 - 18,000 B.C., I've never heard any other claims regarding this. Therefore, I find the article misleading and unscientific in its claim.

Thoughts? Bourbon King 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)Bourbon_King


 * There is a genetic marker which is found in some Native Americans and some Europeans. This does not refer to contemporary persons of mixed blood. It is simply evidence of a common ancestry. Fred Bauder 22:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Has a complete genetic analysis been done on the remains? If not, then why not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.242.249 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean common ancestry as "human beings" in general? If so, I agree with that genetic study, but I'm referring to it's support of Caucasian/Mongloid intermixing during the time of Kennewick Man, which is how I interpreted the article's statement.


 * Also, I remember the PBS program on this subject and it seemed to favor the belief that some peoples from the Asian continent had similar features to Caucasians but weren't actually Caucasian, but of a group of peoples in Asia with different looking features. The Ainu of Japan were mentioned as possible genetic ancestors to Kennewick Man. Bourbon King 23:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "(although unreliable in cases such as this due to contamination)". See the DOI memo at http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm for more information. Also, I changed the "Clovis spearhead" to "Cascade point" as per Dr. John L. Fagan's (a recognized authority on lithic analysis and replication of stone tools) analysis available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/fagan.htm. Earthsound 22:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The line:

Recent (2008) evidence on the genetics of modern populations suggests that they originated in a single migration.

should be removed as misleading or the line should be appended to note what DNA was excluded to yield the single migration result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J Ring (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple problems with this section. It mis-states the timeframe of the migration into Beringia inferred by its own source, #21.  It also conflates "single wave" with single source (Siberia) and single path (land bridge).  An initial wave does not preclude multiple sources and more than one path of migration that are temporally indistinguishable, following the Last Glacial Maximum.  Kennewick Man's source and path are what's at issue.  It is also widely accepted that the Amerind and Na Dene language group migrations into the Americas were separate in the temporal sense. The coastal and later inland migrations into the Americas were distinguished from each other by certain haplogroups.  The statement that "The preliminary DNA findings in January 2015 that link Kennewick Man to Native Americans adds strength to the theory of peoples migrating by the Siberian land bridge" is unsourced and unsupportable in the absence of such findings being published.


 * Anzick Boy may have significance, but it has nothing to do with Kennewick Man and is off-topic for this article.
 * As a note of general interest re: Anzick Boy, the researchers identified the MtDNA as Haplotype D4h3a. D4h3a is a rare haplotype that has been traced to a coastal migration route from southeast Alaska to Patagonia.  The root lineage, D4h3, was identified among Han Chinese in Shandong Province (Yellow Sea Coast) as well as in the On Your Knees Cave skeleton in Alaska.  The haplotype for Anzick Boy thus suggests a founder for the lineage descended from a population of coastal east Asia.75.111.54.141 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Absent from the section is any discussion of the isotope data on Kennewick Man's diet and water intake, which demonstrate the geographic range of that individual and the tremendous mobility of waterborne coastal migrants. That is of far greater significance to understanding how the Americas were settled than any speculation about what thus far unpublished DNA findings might imply.50.25.211.177 (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of the material you mention doesn't even belong in the article, I'd have to look more closely. If the sources don't mention Kennewick man, then it clearly doesn't belong. We do need published reports, I agree. The only thing that bothers me slightly, having said we should avoid news reports on other articles, is whether or not this was picked up widely and discussed. That might justify its inclusion. Yes, the boy doesn't belong here without a sourced connection. And if you have sources that discuss his diet and the geographic range (not one source that discusses his diet and another source that discusses some sort of geographic range but doesn't mention him), then bring it here for discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The isotope data and their implications for the range of Kennewick Man are discussed in roughly equivalent detail in the Washington Post and Smithsonian articles referenced under the Article Update Needed heading. Both refer to the professional volume published by Owsley and others, so they are clearly not pre-publication speculation.  Taken together, their consistency and reference to the published volume make them more reliable than other mass media sources.  What is your estimated timeframe for fixing the problems with the Scientific Significance heading?  The problems are sufficiently severe that it is unacceptable to let them sit IMO.75.111.54.141 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Caucasoids and Mongoloids
In terms of facial features, the only pre-Columbian North Americans who generally fit the mongoloid type are Eskimos. Chatters forgot to mention that. The term "pious fraud" comes to mind.


 * I removed this from the article, added by the same anonymous user who wrote the above & without citation:


 * For what it's worth, modern Indians generally have dolichocranic skulls and narrow, prognathous faces, but apparently the plaintiffs were unaware of this. In fact, many of the "differences" between Kennewick man and modern Indians actually end up with Caucasians between Kennewick man and East Asians, and either modern Indians either between Caucasians and Kennewick man or Kennewick man between modern Indians and Caucasians. Chatters et al. seem to have engaged in a type of pious fraud, particularly in the realm of prognathism; Caucasians are the most orthognathous racial category.


 * If someone wants to clean it up and provide citation, I have no objection to its reinsertion. Binabik80 04:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I grew up on Pine Ridge, and generally Indians don't look like mongoloids at all. At least not if you're using a definition of "mongoloid" which includes peoples of the Pacific Rim but doesn't include everyone on this planet today. Yes, that is how non-mongoloid Indians look. But if you want a citation, there are literally thousands of photographs of Indains from the late 19th/early 20th century, and paintings of Indians before that. You can look at Edward S. Curtis's The North American Indian for some photographs. For actual data, Earnest Hooton did some digging at Pecos Pueblo and found "pseudo-Australoids", "pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans". Hooton's own interpretation was tainted by the racism prevalent in anthropology during that time, but his data are good.

BTW, it was a Cascade point in Kennewick man, not a Clovis point. Clovis was millennia before.

The resemblance to Patrick Stewart
That reference to Patrick Stewart seems a little out of place. (though amusing)


 * There's an article on Kennewick Man in the July 2005 issue of Harper's ("Mighty White of You: Racial Preferences Color America's Oldest Skulls and Bones," by Jack Hitt) in which it is suggested that Chatters' "reconstruction" was in fact deliberately patterned after Patrick Stewart, quoting Chatters as saying "I turned on the TV, and there was Patrick Stewart&mdash; Captain Picard, of Star Trek&mdash; and I said, 'My God, there he is!  Kennewick Man'" (Hitt 50). The article goes on to claim that facial reconstructions from skulls are of dubious value since the most recognizable facial features are due to soft tissue rather than bone structure.  Does anyone have a reference to a scholarly treatment of the Kennewick "reconstruction"? --Cholling 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The resemblance to Patrick Stewart was very widely reported in popular media and it was often alluded to in the discussions since. If you have sources about how the resemblance may not be accurate, add something, but this should not be excised from the article. Jonathunder 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) "If you have sources about how the resemblance may not be accurate..": That's not the point at all, the question is: Is it relevant to the article? Do we have to point the readers attention to things that he can see for himself? No.
 * 2) "was very widely reported in popular media": It was indeed, and that wasn't a relevant issue then - and it's much less so nowadays, as the Kennewick Man is not a interesting subject for the press -especially the tabloids- anymore.
 * 3) "it was often alluded to in the discussions since..": Yes, in blogs, forums and with Harper's and such like. AFAIK it wasn't an issue with anthropologues or ethnologues. Among them, the scientific value of facial reconstructions from skulls in general might be an issue, but certainly not the resemblance of a particular reconstruction to a -good gracious- Shakespearean and Star Trek actor...


 * Summing up, it's just noise that adds nothing wortwhile and, yes, it"seems a little out of place" in an encyclopedic article. Doubts about facial reconstructions could be of interest here, provided the info can be substantiated. Anyway, even then, something like "the accuracy is disputed" should be added to the images caption, not more. If there are specific doubts regarding the Kennewick Man's reconstructions, put that in.


 * If you must, add something like "a resemblance to Patrick Stewart was noted by the popular press" to the caption. Superfluous, but less embarassing, providing some context and not giving it more wikipedia real estate than it deserves. --tickle me 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not irrelevant because this is not just a summation of scientific views--that's not what Wikipedia is. We also report popular culture, along with many other things. The resemblance was extremely widely reported and commented on, and it an association that many people still make. It is not our place to censor that out because we think it is unscientific. If scientists call it that, report that. Report the issue and the controversy, but do not edit it out. Jonathunder 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad if Cholling could elaborate on the controversy, possibly backing it up by something more substantial than Harper's. Anyway, that's not at all what we're talking about. "It is not our place to censor" ...nor to state the obvious, give it undue weight and to present it out of context - especially, if popular culture is what you'd like to see mentioned. I changed accordingly. --tickle me 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I never noticed before, but Stewart looks -quite- native american.. the nose, the eyes, the jowl lines..


 * I don't know who wrote the above comment, but it is one I've seen in various places and always find ironic. (I agree with it by the way).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because the resemblance noted by the media is amusing doesn't mean that isn't worth noting in the article. It's not just "pop culture" - it actually comes up in academic discussions (although usually in a context which is humorous or incredulous). I'm re-adding the information. Fuzzform (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also misleading however and possibly POV unless you provide a context. Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The context is the popular reaction to the reconstructed appearance of Kennewick man. Homo floresiensis is referred to as a "Hobbit" and this is duly noted in the Wikipedia article. Twalls (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading use of Caucasian
It is my opinion (also expressed by others) that one of the mistakes made early in the investigation of Kennewick Man was the use of the term "Caucasoid" to describe certain facial features (implied from skeletal measurement). This terminology is at best confusing to the public, and at worst, outright offensive. Caucasoid as used by Chatters, etc. was never intended as a synonym for Caucasian (or Caucasian a synonym for European), and both of these terms can have multiple definitions, depending on context (geography vs. general appearance vs. facial bone structure vs. ancestry).

It was the contention very early on that the subject was similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples, following from the presence of specific "Caucasoid" skeletal features as is also found in those groups. It is made very clear in Chatters's book that Kennewick Man was not Caucasian and did not appear to be Caucasian, but rather something entirely different (and indeed rather different from any people on earth today). It was regrettable that the popular media could not distinguish the terminology, and thus regrettable that it was used outside a forensic setting.

As a result this excerpt is not precise enough to describe the issue, and is possibly misleading:

"Further research, however, has shown that Kennewick Man is possibly not Caucasian at all. Rather, some researchers now suggest he most closely resembles Polynesian or Ainu peoples."

I will give the matter some more thought, but if no changes or discussion occur after a week or so, will probably edit this to read.

" The presence of forensic Caucasoid features inferred from measurements of the skull is not synonymous with a modern Caucasian appearance, nor does is it imply a European ancestry. Rather, researchers have used these measurements to suggest a skeletal similarity to Polynesian or Ainu peoples, both of which have features that are referred to as Caucasoid by forensicists. Further, while the match to these modern groups is strongest, some of Kennewick Man's facial metrics are much more similiar to those from other Paleoindian (Paleoamerican?) examples than those from any modern human group." ref: Chatters, Ancient Encounters

I thought that the only time that a "Caucasian" origin was considered was from before a detailed examination was made, when the possibility of a 19th centrury settler was still a concern. This was ruled out very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about all this. The Caucasian/Caucasoid mess probably has to be addressed since it had an impact on events following the discovery of Kennewick man. Certainly, it isn't fair to the first forensic scientists that studied Kennewick Man to suggest that they  thought that Kennewick Man was likely of European origin or appearance. Yet, it is understandable why people would think Caucasian when they hear Caucasoid. The comparison to Patrick Stewart's head did not help calm the controversy at all. I admit that I am concerned about relying so heavily on Chatters's own account in this, but it is a clear account of what the thought was at the time as the data was coming in.

A link out to the forensic/ facial craniometry entries treatment of "Caucasoid" may be helpful. I am concerned about the extent that any of this can be subverted by some groups with a non-neutral point of view, but since they are already doing so on their own websites, trying to bring in more clinical perspective may help.

In summary, I would like to see it quickly explained that Kennewick man had certain facial metrics similar to specific groups around the Pacific; that these facial features are sometimes termed by forensicists to be Caucasoid, using a very distinct definition from that of the more general word, Caucasian; but overall Kennewick Man appears to be more similar to other Paleoamericans than to any modern humans. This is handled well in the following paragraph, but the sentence I am raising an issue with is not an effective lead-in. (Forgot to sign -- see below)

Edit: I am still mulling it over. The issue might be the use of "now" in that sentence to refer to an opinion reached several years ago, after which there has been more study. Thus it reads as if the more recent findings contradict earlier work that they actually substantiate. 24.58.1.138 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back to Ancient Encounters, as well as the latest Time article. The use of the word "now" was part of the Wikipedia entry several years ago -- so that is part of the issue. It appears that an update to the entry is in order. I also note that the cause of death is _not_ known; they have simply ruled out the spear point (though it appears to me that this is also a reiteration of something suspected several years ago). If it is known, then details and reference are needed. 24.58.1.138 02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What Tribe(s) Actually in Lawsuit?
Early on the article states the Umatilla was the only tribe to actually pursue legal action. Later it states the "the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the appeal of the Umatilla, Colville, Yakama, Nez Perce and other tribes".

This contradiction should be investigated and resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.22.169 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * "The corps was acting on behalf of five Native American tribes who have claimed that Kennewick man was their ancestor: the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Wanapum Band."
 * -- a 1998 article in Willamette Week (Portland, OR
 * Nerwen 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological excavation?
The article says that the bones were 'collected'. Was there an archaeological excavation of the remains? If not, why not? Archaeologists have methods and techniques that allow them to gather much contextual information about the body, such as the hugely important question of was he buried or not? Was he interred in a grave or had he died alone of his wounds and gradually been covered by natural deposits?

If he had been buried, there might have been grave goods, and dating evidence in the grave fill. If the bones were 'collected' by someone unfamiliar with archaeological techniques, much important evidence may have been lost. 86.138.105.97 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chatters is an archaeologist that is very familiar with archeological excavation techniques and has conducted many excavations. It is stated both in his book and in Riddle of the Bones that the remains were scattered in the reservoir after having been eroded out of the bank, and thus were collected following notification and delivery of the cranium by the coroner.--Windustsearch (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

origin belief
how is it that the tribe could say that the evidence of a skull older than their tribe's beleife of the dawn of time count as persecution of their beliefs, while if a young earth creationist tried to say that the government accnoleging the age of the univerese to be 14 billion years old to be persecution of their beleifs would be laughed at?

I might be biased seeing as how indiginous australians acnolege that they have lived here for 40000 years, and some of them even have histories of arriving in australia from elsewhere. But the whole thing about pre european remains being automaticaly defined as belonging to a native american tribe just confuses me, as some of these regualtions go beyond recognition and allowence of practice of culture and seem to at least get very close to intergrating religous beleifs as law. Can someone please at least tell me if there exists any literature that will cure me of my confusion, that doesn't require having a preexisting knowelage of american history, and possibly gives comparisons to rights of native peoples in other countries? --124.168.200.78 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The intent of NAGPRA was surely to offer some respect to the situation of native Americans being on the losing end of a major event of human migration, and to prevent further exploitation (for lack of a better word) of that unfortunate situation. And to show respect for the dead (remember, desecrating a grave or body is an offense in most cultures)...Of course, all this opens the possibility that groups, tribes, whoever, can play the 'religion card' in uncertain situations. The article states "The Umatilla have argued that their origin beliefs say that their people have been present on their historical territory since the dawn of time, so a government holding that Kennewick Man is not Native American is tantamount to the government's rejection of their beliefs."....Well..1) With respect, the Umatilla's current religious belief (that they have been in that geographic area since the 'dawn of time') flies in the face of the fact that most if not all Native American populations were in varying degrees nomadic - the Indians moved a lot over the centuries. 2) And anyway, "rejection" or "acceptance" of religious beliefs does not bear much on whether Kennewick Man was a member of that tribe....FWIW I think the 9th Circuit ruled correctly in Feb 2004. The Umatilla overstepped their bounds - they have no proof (or anything close to it) that KM was a Umatilla... Engr105th 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your asking (sorry, just being honest - maybe you could simplify it a bit?) but I think the controversy/confusion of the NAGPRA law as relates to this case is a result of a short-sighted assumption that any 'ancient' remains (meaning pre-1400s-European 'intrusion', for practical purposes) could naturally be assumed to be Native American ("Indian") ancestry; in other words the law assumes any remains found here that are thousands of years old must be related to some existing tribe. And, by default, a member of the tribe that occupied that land at the point in time of the European arrival...and from what I'm reading in this article and have seen on news media, Kennewick Man has thrown a monkey wrench into the legal works.

Dates do not match
Opening line:

Kennewick Man is the name for the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, USA on July 28, 1996.

Only line in the third paragraph (just above the contents):

In July 2005, a team of scientists from around the United States convened in Seattle for ten days to study the remains, making many detailed measurements, and determined the cause of death.

I'm pretty sure the scientists didn't study it before it was discovered :P Porco-esphino (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which way do you normally conceive of time as flowing? ClovisPt (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked my calendar, and yes, it does seem that 1996 was before 2005. --Doradus (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you have a calendar that lasts for more than one year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.30 (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Research shows a Beringian entry for a single founding population
I'm sorry this section is very vague and doesn't really say anything, it seems like a citation for the sake of citation. There is nothing liking this citation to Kennewick Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.165.37 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet the paragraph above is about the same general topic and isn't even referenced. Someone's removed the section, so I've simply added the reference to the paragraph about the debate over origins. It is clearly relevant and I don't understand why people think one bit about origins is relevant and another (the only referenced one) is not.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Custred edits & POV?
Last May Grundlkc (SPA, this is their only contribution) added a whole bunch of stuff from an article by Prof Glynn Custred. Custred is clearly by Wikipedia standards a reliable source, but he is also clearly a politically active academic with an axe to grind, and by relying on him so much I think this has given the article Custred's POV and he can't be considered a neutral participant in the debate - see for instance. Comments?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like Custred's contribution to the Kennewick Man case are arguments against political constraints on archaeological research. If that position intersects with his political opinions, I think that's fine. Certainly, his positions on other issues may be considered agenda-driven, but his contribution to the Kennewick Man discussion seems completely relevant. Twalls (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarity please
''The projectile was leaf-shaped, long, broad and had serrated edges, all fitting the definition of a Cascade point. This type of point is a feature of the Cascade phase, occurring in the archaeological record from roughly 5000 to over 8000 years ago.[7]'' What is a "projectile"? What is a "Cascade point"? What is the "Cascade phase"? I find the use of terms that your average reader isn't going to understand, within a article such as this, to be unnecessary. Why should a student have to work out what you mean by a "projectile"? If you mean that it is the stone tip or blade of a prehistoric weapon such as a spear or arrow, then say so. all fitting the definition of a Cascade point. On the Cascade point page, it describes the these tools as "simple". Long, broad, worked both sides and with serrated edges is not a "simple" stone tool. This needs fixing. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Statements
The following excerpt includes contradictory statements. I'm not familiar with the subject so can't clean this up. Can someone in the know address this?

typically associated with modern Native Americans, has been used as evidence to support these rival hypotheses. '''Recent (2008) research argues for a single migration. [8]'''

The recent (2008) research[8] references a mitochondrial DNA study in The American Journal of Human Genetics, which was based on currently living people. James Chatters had mitochondrial DNA studies done on ancient remains in North America and the results support multiple migrations in the Americas. --134.187.128.99 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's rather clear in James Chatters book about his find. The theory is that humans reached the Americans before the human stock that makes up present day Native Americans reached America and died out do to a sudden, but brief climate change.

Since politically correct science dictates that present day Native Americans were the first humans in the Americas, the researchers referenced in [8](now [7]) chose only to look at present day Native Americans.

However, if the oldest known human remains are used, both genetically and physiologically, the theory of a single migration falls apart.

Maybe this section needs to be dived in to 2 sections. Political findings and scientific findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J Ring (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if we can find reliable sources labelling some as political and others as scientific. Editors can't make that sort of determination themselves. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that there is nothing contradictory in the statements. The American Society of Human Genetics paper chose to use exclusive data while Chatters used inclusive data. If you throw out enough data, sooner or later, you going to get the results you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.103.101 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Since politically correct science dictates that present day Native Americans were the first humans in the Americas, the researchers referenced in [8](now [7]) chose only to look at present day Native Americans." I am not sure I understand what "politically correct science" is, in this case. The most recent archaeological and genetic research shows basically all ancient human remains in the Americas are related to Native Americans. I know there are scientists who support/reject multiple migration hypotheses, but I don't think it's generally for political reasons--usually just different valuations/interpretations of different evidence. The only group I've heard was involved and was at all worried about "political correctness" (though for different reasons) were white supremacists who did not know the difference between the anthropological and colloquial definition of "Caucasian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4B01:F529:4157:250D:F655:27DC (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Scientific Significance Section
The first paragraph of this section ought to begin with the scientific significance of Kennewick Man. Instead it begins with basic details, which belong in the article, but fail to explain the significance of the find. Perhaps the details of the discovery could go in the introductory section, or in a section of their own? 24.217.231.76 (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation Story
The last edit on the creation story stated that creation stories "are called creation myths in reliable sources." Maybe. . . if that "reliable" source happens to be non-Indian and bent on using the scientific method. I have a reliable source, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Native American History, written by an Indian scholar, Walter C. Fleming, that refers to creation stories as just that, stories. He repeatedly refers to creation stories as stories too. See Fleming, Walter C. 2003. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Native American History. New York: Penguin Group. The book is a good read too!74.214.77.70 (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed to death on Wikipedia. I suggest reading through the archives at Creation myths.  Also the article on religion and mythology here for the standard academic view on the word "myth".  The Complete Idiot's Guide is not an academic source; on Wikipedia we generally try to adhere to academic usage. SQGibbon (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an academic source; I have used many times in my college papers as a bona fide academic source--and received an "A" on the paper and in the class for that matter; finally, the man who wrote it, Walter Fleming, is a professor and the chair of the Native American Studies department at Montana State University at Bozeman. If that is not an academic source then I do not know what is.


 * Now, I looked at the articles you suggested. Creation myths in just the opening words acknowledges story or myth could be used equally. Also in checking the other sources, despite your "academic" reference being all over the place, the only author could find close to being Indian is the guy who took a curious interest in Native Americans. So there we have it, no Indians cited. The one Indian cited, Walter C. Fleming, we try to discredit as an academic source. What makes Fleming not credible then?


 * If you want another source, here, this one was published in an academic journal:
 * Getting Past Our Myths and Stereotypes about Native Americans
 * Walter C Fleming
 * The Education Digest; Mar 2007; 72, 7; Research Library
 * pg. 51


 * Now, I propose a compromise then. We completely change out "creation myths/stories" for the term "oral traditions."

74.214.64.123 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On Dougweller's change--that works well with me!74.214.66.142 (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually prefer the word myth normally, but in this case we have a source to quote and for me one of the key things is that the source is saying that they go back 10,000 years (there are a lot of problems with this of course but this article is not the place to discuss that!). Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

External link to "Kven..." site
In this edit I reverted an addition of an external link. The editor who originally added it was not, but rather (Moxy was just self-reverting to let others weigh in). Looking at the linked site, it does not appear to be authoritative (is not affiliated with any organizational authority, is not peer-reviewed, etc) and appears to advocate a particular POV very strongly - thus it fails WP:EL. My guess is that it fails as a reliable source so adding content to the article citing that web page would also be unencyclopedic. Best to find a reliable source instead. -- Scray (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Kennewickstanford.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
This sits at the entrance of the "new" Kennewick Washington library, and public domain. It appears to be the first casting of the reconstructed face.

Many different views or even a rotational video can be provided from it.mmullen 05:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) mmullen 05:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitch was Trax (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ thank you for your donation of the image.Moxy (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Different view if this isn't considered public domain I can't work with wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AKennewick_Man.tif I've jump the hoops I've gotten the permissions this is a freaking statuemmullen 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitch was Trax (talk • contribs)
 * ✅....Moxy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian?
When I look up any research on the history and origins of the Polynesian peoples most studies point to their origins to the Malay region of South East Asia with a subset of groups colonizing various islands around the South Pacific. More importantly, the time-frame from which Polynesian peoples started to take route hover around the 1,000 - 900 B.C.E, not the time-frame from which Kennewick Man was estimated to exist. Did the researchers of Kennewick Man have another idea of the history of the Polynesian peoples? 71.118.89.60 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does not state that Kennewick Man was Polynesian, but rather that he had craniofacial measurements that are shared by both Polynesian and Ainu groups. This does not mean that he was necessarily either, but rather, that he resembled members of those groups, at least in the shape of his head and face. This still leaves alot of variability regarding other phenotypic features, such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape and color, etc. If Kennewick Man could be positively attributed to either (or both) of those groups, it still does not mean he was a Polynesian, or that he came from the Polynesian people. Given the time frames, it would more likely mean that Kennewick Man, the Ainu, and the Polynesians came from another as yet unknown, more ancient group of people. At this stage, and without more on DNA, one could say that Kennewick Man's group, the Polynesians, and the Ainu were/are sibling-groups, with an older and as-yet unknown/undiscovered parent group. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of Polynesian, think Austronesian. Although many of them lived in Sundaland at one point, a prevailing theory is that they began in Taiwan, and before that, they were on the Asian mainland, before the modern Chinese. Kortoso (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is Japan seperate from Asia
In the Craiofacial diagram picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coollikethisyo (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably because the Yamato people, the largest group of Japanese, have evolved with very little admixture with mainland Asia over the last 2,000 years (since the Yayoi period). Therefore they may have developed craniometric traits distinct from other Asian groups. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
I cannot make sense of the following sentence:
 * anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said expert on Asian populations physical anthropologist C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan believed people related to the Jomon came before the modern Indian and that "two varieties of American Indian arose from the former being absorbed by the latter with the Plains Indian resembling the older group

Who is "the former", who "the latter", who "the older group"? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, if this is just rephrasing Brace, shouldn't we be sourcing it from Brace? Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes we should. And since Brace is already quoted twice in the article, I'll remove this paragraph for now. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos and/or illustrations needed
I was surprised to come here and see no photos or illustrations, which are essential for any interested reader to understand what the controversy was about. So I added a link to one of the better-known ones, here, diff.This was promptly reverted, twice, by another editor, who apparently feels that site's copy is a copyvio. Here is the correspondence, from my talk page:

You can't make external images appear by just adding a link, and in any case it would in most cases by copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean: | Template External Media is intended to link to external images, especially when there isn't a free image available -- and a link isn't a copyvio. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to." = see WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNEVER. I've had to revert you until you can show that it is copyright free. There's probably a reason why we don't have an image on Commons. The other issue is that I don't know how we can add an image of a reconstruction that isn't pov. See for instance and this image. Sorry Pete. The skull would be ok if we could find one. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why this editor thinks we can't link to sites such as greatarchaeology.com that, to my eye, look perfectly legitimate.

Perhaps, based on his last comment, we should offer links to several different reconstructions, again so readers get a flavor for the controversy. Which no one will get without seeing the recons! Comments? --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if we can link to a copyright image, and I'm checking that, it needs to be on a site that has permission to host it, otherwise it's a copyvio link. "When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement."
 * And of course the article has no mention of the reconstruction. We shouldn't have or link to images without providing a context. If you think you can write an NPOV section that covers all the issues, go ahead, but that needs to be done first. We can of course show the skull if we can get over copyvio issues, as there's no controversy about that. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Moonriddengirl says "Our policy is that if we link to something being used elsewhere under fair use, we should not strip it of the context that makes its use fair. To quote relevant portion of WP:C: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." If the image is non-free, a bald link to it is likely to be an issue under WP:LINKVIO unless greaterachaeology owns it, just as linking to a famous work of art they're hosting would be." So again, you need to check the copyright status. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - So to be clear a picture of the bust that was made with public funds and is on public display in  museum is still a copyvio? -- Moxy (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying to find out. But even if it was ok, one image is POV, any images without context are clearly not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So let's use several images, to illustrate the different interpretations. And write NPOV text to accompany. As it stands, the article doesn't (imo) give our readers a good picture of the whole Kennewick Man controversy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Start another section with some suggested wording. Don't forget to mention Patrick Stewart.
 * As for copyright, where is the original bust located? Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in the US for instance. We need to know where it is located and who made it (and under what contractual conditions they made it). Getting a range of images is not going to be that easy which is probably why we don't have them at Commons. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ainu and WP:UNDUE
Isn't this article pushing the Ainu (who weren't going to exist until many thousands of years after Kennewick Man) too much?Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The Ainu are a remnant population descended from the Jomon, who provided a lot of the genetic heritage of the modern Japanese.  Jomon skeletons have been found to possess Haplotype D1, shared with Native Americans such as 12,000 - 13,000 year old Naia.  Jomonoids are very much in play as a source population for Haplotype D1 in the Americas.50.25.211.177 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I know this is very old, but I was intrigued by this finding and had a look. In fact that reported Jomon D1b was negative for the coding region mutation C2092T which marks the Native American type (D1 proper), and only shared the recurrent control region mutation T16325C, which is probably not coincidentally also found in D4h2, known from both Jomon and modern Ulchi. So there is no evidence for a closer relationship to Native Americans than in other Northeast Asian D4, or in other words this reported D1 has not been demonstrated to really fall within the D1 clade, only within D4. Megalophias (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Dental analysis
From "Findings", paragraph 5: "Furthermore, Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull to have a 94 percent chance of being a Sundadont group like the Ainu and Polynesians and only a 48 percent chance of being a Sinodont group like that of North Asia." How can the sum of the two probabilities exceed 100%? Axl ¤  [Talk]  09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was poor wording. It has been corrected.  The percentages were percentages of consistency between the teeth and the two categories Sundadont and Sinodont.  They are independent of each other, not required to add up to 100%.75.111.54.141 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Article update needed
Pertinent new articles:
 * "The Kennewick Man Finally Freed to Share His Secrets" by Douglas Preston, Smithsonian Magazine, September 2014
 * Scientists: 'Kennewick Man' might have been Asian by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, August 25, 2014 (via Tri-City Herald)
 * New Book on Kennewick Man Details Hard Life in Paleoamerica, NMNH 2014

These are all based on the new book  Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, edited by Douglas W. Owsley and Richard L. Jantz. Link to publisher page

I've started updating, but more is needed. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to get the book! Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I should have mentioned that Preston is a novelist, even if writing for the Smithsonian. We need to use the source or peer reviewed commentary on the source. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Valdivia
Should this page mention the theories of Japanese-Valdivia culture contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.207.26 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if they've been written about in connection with KM in several academic sources. Sources need to discuss Kennewick Man, and we need multiple to show it's significant enough to pass WP:UNDUE. But I can't think of why you'd find academics suggesting it as the dates are wrong. Betty Meggers was suggesting contact between 3000 and 2000, about 4000 years after KM died. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary flagging of "unreliable sources"
The apparent basis for flagging the Vancouver (Wa) Columbian and as an "unreliable source" is the flagger's (mistaken) opinion that the Ainu are not related to the Jomonoid lineage proposed by Owsley as the source of the earliest North Pacific coastal migration, phenotypically represented by Kennewick Man. Smithsonian Magazine has been flagged as an "unreliable source" over the reference to isotopic evidence for Kennewick Man's food and water sources, with no explanation other than a dismissive comment towards the author. There is no substantiation that the methodologies of isotopic analysis are invalid (they are in fact well established), that the conclusions derived from them are erroneous, or that the reporting of them is inaccurate. Meanwhile, the Seattle Times is not flagged over a blanket statement that DNA analysis (as yet unpublished) shows that Kennewick Man "has normal, standard, Native American genetics," although what that is supposed to mean in light of significant diversity among Native Americans is not clear.50.25.211.177 (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the flagging had nothing to do with any opinion about Owsley, it was to do with actually wanting to source Owsley's opinion directly rather than through a reporter. Nor did I flag the Smithsonian Magazine as unreliable. Again, I'd prefer to read what Owsley says through either Owsley himself or scientific sources, not the interpretation of Douglas Preston, whose books, as I have said, I usually enjoy. The fact that I haven't gone through the article and flagged every source I don't think meets WP:RS is immaterial, life's too short. But I do agree that we should avoid newspaper sources in favor of scientific ones for this article when it touches on scientific issues. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And given that Owsley has evidently not submitted any of his relevant work for peer review, it seems even more important that we have some commentary from his peers on his work. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to learn that Lape left a comment on the Crosscut article regarding how his comments have been misconstrued. Lape never stated that Owsley failed to have his results peer-reviewed.  He criticized the process of presenting results in public presentation before the peer-reviewed results were published.  Owsley's presentations were invited by Columbia Basin tribes, so it is understandable that he might bend the standard protocol for the sake of relations with some pretty big political players in the Kennewick Man situation.  There also seems to be some misconception on your part about the relationship between professional journal articles and peer review.  Journal articles are reviewed by top authorities in the field before they are published and digested by the larger professional audience.  A similar review process occurs for professional volumes such as the recent 680 page work by Owsley and a large team of interdisciplinary collaborators on Kennewick Man.  That volume is published by the Texas A&M University Press.  Texas A&M University is one of the foremost institutions in Native American anthropology.  There is simply no justification for your accusation that Owsley is bypassing professional peer review.  You need better sources than dilettante sites that have an obvious political axe to grind.  Again, you should familiarize yourself with the underpinnings of isotope analysis for evidence of dietary and water sources, as they are the basis of accepted practice, before latching on to some purported comment that they are "tricky."


 * Now let's compare the Owsley volume with the as-yet unpublished DNA results used to argue that Kennewick Man has "normal, standard Native American genetics," whatever that term implies. The source is a Seattle Times article that is no longer online, so it is effectively unsourced. Taking care of that problem should take precedence over your unfounded sniping at Owsley and Preston.  If life's too short to do the job right, maybe it's time to defer.75.111.54.141 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I should have said "papers" as I did at Talk:Settlement of the Americas. I've taken part in the process of assessing academic books as a reviewer. I have no idea why you are comparing a novelist with a professional academic. I don't know what your point is about something not being online, sources never have to be on line, they have to be verifiable, which might involve for instance using a library. Newspapers stories are almost all archived somewhere. In any case, it is still online, eg at . We really need more comments on using this. Again, I think we should use Owsley - you are responding as though I don't think we should. I just think we should use his publications directly, not filtered through a novelist or a newspaper reporter. Ditto the DNA. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed the Seattle Times article link so it accesses the article from the phys.org site, thus keeping that task from interfering with your busy schedule.


 * What is the significance of journal papers versus a professional volume in terms of peer review? Nothing.  If anything, the professional volume would entail a higher standard of review.


 * You've changed you position from accusing Owsley of bypassing peer review to advocating using Owsley et al (2014) as a primary source? Good!  Since something doesn't have to be online to be referenced, why not just go ahead and refer to Owsley's professional volume directly?  It's probably in more academic libraries than the Seattle Times is in public libraries and there are electronic versions.  Seems pretty verifiable to me.  If someone exposes a discrepancy between what Preston and the Washington Post reporter said about the contents of the volume (since they said the same thing) then there would be a basis for regarding Preston, acting in the capacity of a reporter for the Smithsonian and not as a novelist, as an unreliable source.  If you don't regard Sandi Doughton as an unreliable source, you need more substance to your contention that Preston is an unreliable source than your sneeringly dismissive references to him as a novelist.


 * Let's do a comparison of the Doughton and Preston/Washington Post articles. Preston and the WaPo article are reporting on the contents of a professional volume that is the product of years of research and a rigorous peer review process.  Doughton is reporting on the contents of an an email from 2013 from an analytical laboratory to the US Army corps of Engineers, vaguely reporting that they "feel that Kennewick has normal, standard Native-American genetics" (emphasis added).  As of 2015, the laboratory declined comment to the reporter and there are still no published, peer-reviewed results.  The reporter states that the results "are expected to be published soon in a peer-reviewed scientific journal," although the basis of that statement - submission of results to a journal or speculation - are not clear.  It is clear that the information base of the Preston/WaPo articles is of way higher quality than that of the Seattle Times article.


 * I don't know what your vague, self-credentialing reference to taking part "in the process of assessing academic books as a reviewer" is supposed to mean. Are you trying to imply that you've taken part in the scientific review process?


 * The options now are to either 1)reverse your bogus placement of "unreliable source" flags or 2)accept references to Owsley et al (2014) in lieu of Preston. Which one is it going to be?  Your game of selectively invoking WP standards to favor a POV has to end.75.111.54.141 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken part in the academic peer review process, yes. I am not sure what counts as 'scientific' to you. Yes, use Owsley's book. The flags were not bogus. Remove the Stuff sourced to Doughton if you wish. There's no pov in suggesting that we use Owsley directly instead of reporters or a novelist. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, you can always ask for more opinions at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers required
We still need page numbers for the Owsley book. See Template:Rp for one method, or Help:Shortened footnotes. And I can see even less reason for using Preston's article now that the book is being used. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since Preston provides a summary of sections of Owsley and Jantz, with the manifest consent of Owsley, referring to the Preston summaries is justified as a courtesy to WP users who might not have access to the primary source.


 * If we did an inventory of book references on WP with and without page numbers, I doubt we would find much consistency. It is certainly a standard we should strive for.  For now, I think it would be acceptable to flag unpaged book references with a  flag as a reminder to complete the reference, if we do it consistently and not just with regard to Owsley and Jantz.75.111.54.141 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good reason not to do things properly. You've added the book as a source. Either you've read it and can easily add the page numbers, or you haven't and shouldn't be adding Owsley - your post suggests that you are relying on Preston, not your personal reading of the book. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is suggesting that just leaving things flagged is acceptable. If one flags one's own contribution, one is obligated to complete the endeavor in a reasonable timeframe.  However the point is moot, at least for the Owsley references, as I was able to use my occasional access to a Kindle copy to peruse the relevant articles and complete the references in conformance with standards for references to articles in multi-author compilation volumes.  The standard is author-title-volume, much like journal articles.  Page numbers are not part of that standard, because of different pagination systems used by different volumes.  I also took the opportunity to review sections related to evidence for the life history and burial of Kennewick Man that have a deficient (now flagged) reference, Annual Editions: Archaeology, 10th Edition.  The same information is in the Owsley volume articles, so I was able to add backup references in case the issues with the Annual Editions references are unable to be resolved.  Having references from the Owsley volume resolves the dilemma of maintaining reference standards or losing information in that case.


 * I still maintain that the Preston references should be kept as a courtesy to users of this article without access to the Owsley volume. Nothing I found indicated that Preston had mis-reported any of the findings in the Owsley volume.75.111.54.141 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am belaboring the point, but here's an example of references to thematic volume articles, from Jenkins et al. (2012) on the Paisley Cave findings:

18. C. Beck, G. T. Jones, in Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, D. Rhode, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2012), chap. 2.

19. L. G. Davis, S. C. Willis, S. J. Macfarlan, in Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, D. Rhode, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2012), chap. 3.


 * If it's good enough for Science Magazine it's good enough here.75.111.54.141 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Annual Editions: Archaeology, 10th Edition is just an anthology of magazine articles. The article in there dealing with Kennewick Man is the Time magazine article by Michael D. Lemonick (see pg. 42). I replaced all the "Annual Editions" cites to the Time source directly, except for one citation which didn't verify. Also, I resolved all the page number needed requests by using archive.org scanned books to search and find. -- Green  C  06:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of novelist's summary and an unread book now at RSN
See WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Book review
From the new journal PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 1 "Kennewick Man Two Decades Later" reviewed by Karl L. Hutterer

A generally favorable review, but:

"It is impossible to say how his specific morphological characteristics would stack up within the range of variability of a population. This is particularly important in terms of imputed genetic relationships with other populations for whom the values used in comparisons are usually based on means derived from broader population samples. Kennewick could well have been an outlier within his own group. For the other, the date of Kennewick Man is really rather late. Current consensus puts the likely date of the coastal colonization of the Americas from northeast Asia at about 15,000 cal yr BP. That allows for a good long time for founder effect and genetic drift to be active and to shape what could be small population isolates in the expanding Paleoindian world. In the end, the volume’s painstakingly drawn picture of Kennewick Man amounts to a portrait of a mystery person for whom we have no family information"

"Recently published DNA analyses of human remains from the New World older than Kennewick Man establish clearly that the sampled individuals are ancestral to contemporary Native Americans, strong morphological differences notwithstanding" Doug Weller 12:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Rewrite in light of new evidence
Some conclusions stated as fact may need revising.

The onwership controversy is alive again.

The external image and Owsley quote should go.

Owsley will certainly have more to say. See already.

It may be that we need to reduce the detail in some sections per WP:UNDUE.

There's no rush for most of this, although I do think the Ainu quote & external image link should go now as they are confusing in light of the new finds. Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As the NY Times continues to use the Chatters recon, we should too: New DNA Results Show Kennewick Man Was Native American, by Carl Zimmer. Good article --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer the NMNH bearded recon to "Capt. Picard". Agree the Ainu bit in the old cap should go. Don't think the DNA work would change the skull reconstruction.But maybe one with less face-fur would be better? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That is part of the problem as it's obviously speculation. Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, yes.... But people like pictures, and it's respectable (and reliably-sourced) speculation.


 * It's not speculation that present-day Natives have (generally) sparse male facial-hair. So, maybe it's back to Capt. Picard? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps unless we can get a better one. I meant the bearded bit is speculation, but of course quite possible, there are some tribes in the Americas with more facial hair than the average Indian. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the article would best represent a neutral point of view on this contentious issue if the photographs of the Picard and bearded reconstructions remain omitted from the article, because both reconstructions give undue weight to the idea that Kennewick Man was Caucasoid. The reconstruction that looks like Picard is highly biased, since it has a cleft chin like Picard, and, as far as I can discern, a cleft chin is an exclusively Caucasoid facial trait. Google the words "cleft chin" with the word "Asian" in Google images and you won't find any Mongoloid person with a cleft chin unless it was added through plastic surgery. Adding a soft tissue feature as clearly racially-indicative as a cleft chin makes a person wonder what other liberties the forensic artist took with the nose and eyes to help flesh out a decidedly Caucasoid vision for the skull. The abundantly bearded reconstruction is obviously biased in the Caucasoid direction due to the unnecessary addition of facial hair which other commentors have already noted.--Ephert (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some excellent points and I agree. Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The race factor
It seems to me that this article sidesteps what was a major factor inciting interest about Kennewick Man: the declarations that his features were "Caucasoid" and the conclusion drawn by many that the earliest inhabitants of the New World may have been of Caucasian rather than Mongolian appearance. It is difficult to understand the controversies surrounding Kennewick Man without taking into account racial undertones. I would propose to add a paragraph or two on this subject and to mention it also in the summary paragraphs. Smallchief (talk 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Review
Hello, I am reviewing Wikipedia pages as assigned by my Environmental Science class to get acquainted with writing proper Wikipedia articles. In regards to neutrality, the article in general had a variety of perspectives from multiple sources providing an unbiased view of the facts around this controversial topic. Despite using info from news companies such as Crosscut and BBC the sources were mostly reliable and scientific in nature. Additionally, the page includes critique of some of the studies referenced which includes ,pre perspective and layers to the story. The page however includes questions about the conflict of interest that this conundrum involved but does not include any sources weighing in on the conflict in itself. I believe that including a question inherent in the case without providing personal or cited perspective is an unnecessary addition. Furthermore, at the bottom of the first paragraph the sentence "In June 2015 the team announced their conclusions" references a team that was not previously mentioned or given citation and is therefore confusing to the reader. On a side note there is a typo under the Race Factor section, instead of saying "used Kennewick Man to claim that Caucasians came to American well before Native Americans" I believe it should say used Kennewick Man to claim that Caucasians came to America well before Native Americans. All in all the article was very well wrote and backed with great scientific evidence and multiple perspectives. Thank you for reading. Washman360 (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed on problem. Thanks. Smallchief (talk  23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Issue with dates in the intro
The introduction says: "In June 2015, scientists at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark determined through DNA from 8,500‑year-old bones that Kennewick Man is, in fact, related to modern Native Americans, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation from the region in which his bones were found.[9] The international team of scientists communicated that finding to the Army Corps of Engineers in 2013.[9]" If the scientists made the finding in 2015, they couldn't have time-traveled back to 2013 to inform the Army Corps. Either the wording is unclear, or the dates are wrong. What's going on? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording to clarify the sequence.-- Auric   talk  08:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentance was still weird because it said the researchers had communicated something in 2013 that they only found in 2015. I added "it was made public that" to make it clear that the findings had happened earlier but the public only found out in 2015. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that was completely necessary, as it was perfectly clear (to me) that they "had" communicated the information earlier and only released it later. I'm still not sure why the Army were the first notified. -- Auric   talk  23:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The investigation concluded in 2013, they had preliminary results, and notified the Corp who had legal jurisdiction over the bones, and who (probably) commissioned the study. Then the lab began writing a peer reviewed paper, and this took two years, when it was published in 2015 in the journal Nature. -- Green  C  06:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccessible Source
Source 54 is inaccessible, even on the archive page.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Kennewick Man.jpg

Wiki Education assignment: ANTR 8 World Prehistory in Archaeological Perspective
— Assignment last updated by BellaGoose (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

DNA
The article states:

"Kennewick Man's genetic profile was particularly close to that of members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Of the five tribes that originally claimed Kennewick Man as an ancestor, their members were the only ones to donate DNA samples for evaluation."

This is completely false. Kennewick man, and all his people were from Europe! 79.106.203.85 (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "body was "Caucasian", an anthropological term not synonymous with "white" or "European""
 * Yes, these are synonymous. 79.106.203.85 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was never called “caucasian” but “Caucasoid” which is in reference to the skull shape, not ethnicity or skin color! Besides the Native Americans back then had different skull shapes which changed in their modern day descendants whose dna is indistinguishable to their ancestors. Kennewick man is their ancestor, not yours! 2600:8802:571F:2700:8022:3CC4:6F6C:557C (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Genetic affinities
If DNA tests showed that Kennewick Man showed the greatest genetic affinity with modern-day indigenous peoples of Central America and South America, why is this basic information, which anyone visiting this article could expect to find here, not mentioned in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Any reliable source backing up your claims? A09 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Owlsley peer review?
Our article states:
 * the absence of peer-reviewed articles published prior to Owsley unveiling the bones' "secrets"

This is from a 2012 source. The Owsley source was published (finally) in 2014. However in 2012 Owsley dropped some preliminary results which is what the 2012 is criticizing. The question is if the Owsley report, in its final form in 2014, is peer reviewed? Our article, and the sources, are not clear. If not peer reviewed, this is a major criticism. If it was peer reviewed, that 2012 source is outdated and somewhat misleading to the reader. -- Green  C  22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Skull cast picture
The picture in the infobox is a plastic skull cast, created by Chatters. Someone has tagged the Commons image as possibly fraudulent, but this is based on no evidence. On the contrary, copies of the skull are available for sale here it is fairly inexpensive. There must be 100s floating around in living rooms, local museums and wherever. And the skulls appear to be exactly the same, compare the damaged hole underneath the right eye. -- Green  C  22:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

They never postulated that the man was from Europe
They never postulated that the man was from Europe. They said he was possibly related to the Ainu who are not white! DNA debunked that Claim and he is entirely or Indigenous Ethnic American DNA and ancestral to modern day Native American people, and the Colville tribe whose dna was sampled.

Kennewick man NOT White or European 2600:8802:571F:2700:8022:3CC4:6F6C:557C (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Correct thats what the article says. Moxy 🍁 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people did postulate he was European: : "Some other people argued that [Kennewick man] has Caucus traits, so he could be related to Europeans,” said geneticist Eske Willerslev. You can Google "Kennewick Man" and "European" for other sources that "postulated that the man was from Europe". They are of course wrong, as our article unambiguously says, but it was postulated. --  Green  C  03:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment
I think the following should be corrected to "descendants" rather than "ancestors" but English isn't my best language and I'm not an anthropologist: "Palaeoindians" assert modern Indians are the ancestors of the earliest settlers of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8F00:C105:B073:C203:224B:8A68 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I'll fix it. -- Green  C  16:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)