In this research journal, the researcher compared two famous cases of repatriation of indigenous human remains.  She compared the Kennewick Man and the La Jolla Skeletons, because the two cases involve “ancient human remains and contemporary injustice.”  Both sets of skeletons are radio carbon dated at around 9,000-10,000 years old, which has made them of great scientific interest for researchers.  Tsosie compared how in both cases researchers argued that the human remains are Paleo-Indian and cannot be linked to a modern tribe.  They argued that since cultural affiliation is impossible, the remains could not be repatriated to any tribe under NAGPRA.  However, after both sets did eventually end up being repatriated, groups of scientists attempted to repeal the decisions and were unsuccessful in this.  She outlined the lengthy legal processes and battles that the Native Americans had to endure for the remains to be repatriated.  In the case of the Kennewick Man, the significant amount of time caused by the appeals court allowed scientists to perform extensive research on the skeleton.

The researcher, Tsosie, used a comparative case study research logic, which was helpful for me to examine, since I am utilizing a similar method for my own research.  She utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and collected them through public and private records.  She analyzed the data of the La Jolla skeletons and the Kennewick Man cases in a qualitative analysis.  This was an interesting case study since the two cases are extremely famous in the archaeology world, and I think the researcher provided thorough analyses of the data.

Tsosie, Rebecca. “Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights.” Washington Law Review 87, no. 4 (December 2012): 1184-190.