Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Intervenors Request for Stay Pending Appeal
Affidavit of Richard L. Jantz
Alan L. Schneider, OSB No. 68147
Paula A. Barran, OSB No. 80397
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBSON BONNICHSEN, C. LORING BRACE, GEORGE W. GILL, C. VANCE HAYNES, JR., RICHARD L. JANTZ DOUGLAS W. OWSLEY, DENNIS J. STANFORD and D. GENTRY STEELE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, FRANCIS P. McMANAMON, DAVID A. FASTABEND, EDWARD J. KERTIS, THOMAS E. WHITE, GALE A. NORTON, CRAIG MANSEN, ROBERT G. FLOWERS,
CV. 96-1481 JE
AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD L. JANTZ
STATE OF TENNESSEE
I, Richard L. Jantz, being first duly sworn, do depose and state as follows:
1. I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case. My professional qualifications are described in earlier affidavits filed with the Court. See e.g. attachment to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Granting Access to Study (Docket No. 57).
2. It is important that the Kennewick Man skeletal remains be reexamined without further delay. Discussions of the skeleton and its implications for the evolution of New World native peoples have begun to appear in the scientific literature. Interest in the skeleton on the part of researchers seems to be increasing with every passing year, and papers, journal articles and conference presentations about it are becoming more frequent.
3. Unless the skeleton is reexamined, the discussions that are conducted about it are in danger of taking place in an environment of inaccurate and incomplete information. For example, some of the cranial measurements (such as interorbital breath and basion-bregma height) reported by the government's investigators may be incorrect. In several instances that I am aware of (and there may be others), the possible inaccuracies are large enough to affect conclusions about the course of early human evolution in the Americas. In addition, the government's investigators did not record all of the measurements and observations or conduct all of the analyses that will be carried out by plaintiffs' study team. As a result, information about the skeleton is incomplete and the resulting unknowns could distort conclusions that are reached about the skeleton.
4. The Kennewick skeleton also continues to be discussed and debated in magazines, books and other forms of communication directed to the nonscience community. Popular discussion of the skeleton is often characterized by highly inaccurate conclusions about Kennewick Man's supposed racial affinities, what he looked like, what he ate, how he died and where he spent his lifetime. Some of these mischaracterizations appear to find their source in statements made by government representatives during the course of this case.
5. The longer that public discussion of the skeleton continues to be influenced by inaccuracies and deficiencies in what we know about it, the greater will be the harm that results. Perceptions based upon erroneous data can often take decades to correct. For example, it took over 20 years to overcome the once popular idea (as epitomized by the books of Robert Ardrey) that warfare and other forms of human violence are the inevitable consequences of a deep-seated human instinct to kill. Even today, echoes of this now discredited concept can still be found in some articles and books.
6. Some of the individuals who worked with the skeleton for the government and their students are authoring articles, papers and conference presentations using data on Kennewick Man not available to other researchers. I also understand that Dr. Powell has a book in progress about the evolution of New World native peoples, and that his book will use data from his government-sponsored study of the skeleton. I disagree with some of Dr. Powell's interpretations of how native populations have changed over the past 10,000 years. However, I and other scientists cannot respond effectively to these issues unless we too are given an opportunity to examine the skeleton for ourselves. Without access to the original data source, we can do little more than express reservations which are often disregarded because of their contingent nature.
7. I was 56 years old when the Kennewick skeleton was discovered. I am now 62. I would like to study this remarkable skeleton while I still have students to assist with my research and while I am still in a position to influence the perspectives and career choices of the students who chose to come to my university.
8. I am confident that the investigators who studied the Kennewick skeleton for the government would agree that it should be reexamined by other investigators. As scientists, they understand the importance of independent verification of data and the benefits of multiple perspectives.
DATED this day of November, 2002.
Richard L. Jantz
Return to Affidavits & Declarations