Mighty White of You

In the July 2005 issue of Harper's magazine, contributing editor Jack Hitt provides a long nasty article on the Clovis/Pre-Clovis debate, titled "Mighty White of You: Racial references color America’s oldest skulls and bones." Hitt obviously spoke to a lot of folks in the Clovis/Pre-Clovis debate, including James Adovasio and Vance Haynes, and did a lot of reading on the subject for his 17,000 word piece. Unfortunately, this led to a bit of a mess. Hitt argues that archaeology can’t be a real science because it is caught up in a caste system where the Brahmin (academics) must seriously consider the comments from the Untouchables (cultural resource management types and armchair archaeologists). However, Hitt says, archaeologists also use a lot of jargon, making the science unapproachable to the common man; and yet the common man has made valuable contributions to the science. Inconsistent, illogical and contradictory, maybe, but let's face it, it’s also true. Yes indeed, in archaeology, the private sector researcher envies and looks down upon the Ivory Tower types; and the academic envies and looks down upon the Money Grubbers. Yes, archaeologists are guilty of jargon. And, yes, in fact, many advances in archaeological science have been made by independent scholars. This describes pretty much the status quo in all science, even, I daresay, particle physics, which is Hitt’s exemplar of a ‘real science’.

But the main thrust of Hitt’s argument is that scientists who are looking for pre-clovis in the Americas are... white supremacists. As proof, he discusses in depth the public discussion over Kennewick Man's supposedly Caucasoid appearance. Hitt argues that the discussion is clear evidence that scientists desperately want to prove that European guys settled the New World before the Native American guys.

What Hitt misses (if you’ll pardon the pun) is that the interesting thing about the Kennewick Man (or the Ancient One as his probable descendants refer to him) is that he looks very similar to just about every skeleton of the same age in just about every place in the world. In other words, it may be that 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, there were no major ethnic differences between anyone. Nina Jablonski points out (and Hitt cites her) that skin color changes quickly, and 20,000 years ago or so, all Homo sapiens had little pigmentation. It was only after they had settled in a region that skin color and the other ethnic characteristics that we recognize developed. In other words, 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, humans hadn't settled down yet, and were still roaming around looking for places to live. These folks were not Europeans, Mr. Hitt, they were Homo sapiens ancestors in our original state—-and if you want to get technical, in fact, as mtDNA studies have proven, we are all Africans.

It’s weird that Hitt would miss this, because as he points out, mathematically, we are all descended from Charlemagne (this is a fairly trivial point, so I’ll leave it to Mr. Hitt to explain). From the standpoint of a long-time reader of Harper's, I have to admit I'm a little shocked, to see that merely talking about something as a possibility would be considered racism.

Rant over. Let’s get serious. The real point of my essay, why I believe we should all read Hitt’s article, is that it reminds us of our ethical responsibilities to the world at large. Based on emails I've received, and the news reports I've read, there is no doubt in my mind that some people outside of archaeology perceive the Kennewick Man case (probably preclovis, too, for that matter) as proof that Europeans are the master race: most archaeologists are aware that this is a load of rubbish. It is archaeology’s responsibility to discuss the broader implications of our work.

What the Clovis/Pre-Clovis debate has turned into is an academic fist fight, and I suspect that's what Hitt found when he was talking to some of the archaeologists involved in the debate. What it should be about is the meaning of pre-Clovis: What does it mean to be human? What is ethnicity? If archaeologists do not begin to discuss this issue openly, the data will be interpreted by others, some of whom clearly have a white supremacist agenda. And Hitt will be right. If you allow others to interpret your work without discussing it yourself, you are tacitly agreeing with the interpreters.

Don't believe me? Ask Gustav Kossinna.

---

The Jablonski article referred to by Hitt is this one:
Jablonski, Nina G. and George Chaplin. 2000. The evolution of human skin coloration. Journal of Human Evolution 39:57-106.

Reader and man of parts Alex Chaffee had a cooler head than I when I wrote this article, and sent me the note on the next page responding to my complaints. He was kind enough to allow me to print it here for you as well.

Previous

• 1
• 2
• 3

Next