 |
Federal Defendants' May 2000 DNA Analysis Progress Report
Declaration of Francis P. McManamon, Ph.D.
Lois J. Schiffer
Assistant Attorney General
Allison Rumsey
US Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Div.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
950 Penn. Ave., N.W., Room 2740
Washington, D.C.
(202)514-0750
Kristine Olson
United States Attorney
Timothy Simmons
Assistant United States Attorney
District of Oregon
1000 SW 3rd Ave., Ste 600
Portland, Oregon 97204-2902
(503) 727-1156
(503) 727-1117
tim.simmons@usdoj.gov
OSB#92461
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBSON BONNICHES, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants
Declaration of Francis P. McManamon, Ph.D.
I, Francis P. McManamon declare as follows:
1. I am Chief Archeologist of the National Park Service and
the Departmental Consulting Archeologist for the U. S. Department
of the Interior ("DOI"). My duties and responsibilities
in this capacity are as set forth in my declaration filed with
this court on April 1, 2000. This declaration is being submitted
in support of the Federal Defendants' filing regarding the DNA
analysis. All information herein is based on my personal knowledge
and upon information furnished to me in my official capacity.
2. On April 24-28 a team of scientists met at the Burke Museum
to perform further physical anthropological analysis with a focus
on taphonomy and micro-sampling for the purpose of selecting
appropriate bone samples from which to obtain viable DNA for
analysis. (See Plan for Conducting DNA Investigation of the
Kennewick Remains, filed April 10, 2000.)
3. The scientific team included Dr. Francis P. McManamon, Chief
Archeologist, National Park Service; Dr. R. E. Taylor, U. C.
Riverside, an expert in radiometric dating and bone structure
and chemistry; Dr. David Glenn Smith, U. C. Davis, an expert
in anthropological genetics and DNA analysis; Dr. Joseph Powell,
University of New Mexico, an expert in physical anthropology,
who has examined and measured many of the existing ancient skeletons
from North America and was a member of the team that examined
the remains in February, 1999, and reported on them; Dr. Clark
Larsen, University of North Carolina, an expert on interpreting
life ways from skeletal examination; and Dr. Phillip Walker,
University of California at Santa Barbara, an expert in determining
life ways from skeletal examination. All of these physical anthropologists
are experts in taphonomic examination and interpretation (i.e.,
describing what happens to the human remains from the time of
death to present). The curation and conservation of the human
remains was overseen by Dr. Michael K. Trimble, Curator, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers; Dr. Nancy Odegaard, Conservator, Arizona
State Museum, University of Arizona; and Dr. Vicki Cassman, Conservator
and Assistant Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
4. Drs. Powell, Larsen, and Walker undertook a physical anthropological
examination, building upon the examination, analysis, and reporting
done by Drs. Powell and Rose in 1999. The main objective of
this investigation was to perform a taphonomic recording and
analysis of the skeleton to assist in the identification of a
well-preserved bone for the proposed DNA sample. To do this,
the taphonomic examination focussed on interpreting postmortem
treatment of the body and environmental conditions which the
body and skeleton were subject over the millennia. Indications
of weathering, discoloration, polish, cut marks, rodent or carnivore
gnawing, and other forms of modification of the skeletal elements
were observed, described, analyzed and interpreted. Evidence
of chemical and mechanical erosion due to surface exposure, extensive
ground water, riverine exposure, and animal activity was checked.
Drs. Powell, Larsen, and Walker also recorded various skeletal
characteristics by means of photographs and small surface impressions.
5. Dr. David Glenn Smith also assisted in the examination
of the skeleton and consulted with the other experts on the team
to estimate the likelihood that the various skeletal elements
would yield viable samples of ancient DNA. Dr. Smith compiled
information about the treatment of handling of the human remains
since their discovery, in particular the radiographs that have
been made of the remains, as one means of assessing the likely
condition and contamination of ancient DNA in various skeletal
elements.
6. After consulting with the physical anthropologists and conservators
to determine the skeletal elements that appeared best preserved,
Dr. R. E. Taylor took micro-samples of certain of those skeletal
elements. Micro-sampling involved the removal of small portions
of the bones for laboratory analysis to detect the level and
condition original organic material from which DNA could be extracted
successfully.
7. Dr. Smith, consulting with the other experts -- Larsen, Powell,
Taylor, Walker, Odegaard, and Cassman -- developed a list and
ranking of potential bones or teeth for sampling of DNA (a through
j below). In addition, micro-samples were taken from bone elements
k and l (listed below) to accommodate a need for comparative
analysis of the overall skeletal biochemistry and interpret the
other results. The preliminary listing reflects the likely intact
bone collagen/carbon content and the potential diagnostic characteristics
of the element and the bones which micro-samples were taken.
This list is as follows:
a. 3rd right mandibular molar. 97 R75a This was not micro-sampled
as it would be too much of an intervention.
b. 3rd left maxillary molar. 97 R50a This was not micro-sampled
as it would be too much of an intervention.
c. 3rd left metacarpal 97 R16 (Mca). Micro-sample 1, a piece
from the distal end.
d. Right 8th rib 97 I 12d(13). Micro-sample 2 from vertebral
end of rib fragment. The rib fragment broke while being cut
due to the fragility of the remains.
e. Portion of 8th rib 97 I 12d(13). Micro-sample 3 from the
sternal end of the rib fragment.
f. 2nd cervical vertebrae 97 U4(C2a). This was not micro-sampled
because of its diagnostic importance.
g. 3rd right metacarpal 97 R16(Mca). Micro-sample 4, proximal
end piece. During cutting, this bone broke at mid-shaft due
to the fragility of the remains.
h. 3rd right metacarpal 97 R16(Mca). Micro-sample 5, distal
end piece.
i. 2nd right metacarpal 97 R16(Mcc). This was not micro-sampled
due to other micro-samples already taken from neighboring bones.
j. 2nd left metacarpal 97 L16(Mcb). Micro-sample 7, piece from
distal end.
k. 2nd right metatarsal 97 A.I 25c. Micro-sample 6, piece from
midshaft.
l. Left tibia 97 L20b. Micro-sample 8, piece from proximal
end adjacent to previous sample.
8. This tentative ranking will be evaluated in light of the
reports of the physical anthropological analysis and bone chemistry
and a revised ranking will be developed and used to select the
bone or tooth for DNA sample. Once the sample has been selected,
it will be split and sent to the two DNA laboratories: (1) Dr.
Frederika Kaestle, Yale University and (2) Dr. Andrew Merriweather,
University of Michigan. If cutting of the bone is necessary,
we will arrange for it to occur at one of the DNA labs under
carefully controlled conditions to reduce the risk of contamination.
That lab will then provide the second portion of the sample
to the second lab.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Executed this 1sd day of May, 2000.
Francis P. McManamon, Ph.D.
Return to Status Reports
|
|
