Did anyone watch Sunday night's 60 Minutes? I didn't watch all of it, but I did see the last segment, which was about an ancient skull found in North America that is roughly 9,000 years old...and that is of Caucasian descent (according to a group of scientists).

I only saw bits and pieces of this segment, but I heard that the remains of the body wouldn't be allowed to be fully examined because it violated the burial beliefs of a local Indian tribe where the remains were found.

However, the important question was asked and answered, "Does this change the belief of who were the first inhabitants of North America?" the reporter asked. A scientist responded, "Yes, it challenges that belief."

Anyone else see this?

I saw it. Quite interesting. They also passed a bill requiring further study of the remains and the location they were at, but someone (I think the Army Corps of Engineers) ignored the ruling and quickly trashed the site by dumping thousands of tons of rock/soil over the exact area the bones were found. Something fishy going on there.

I missed the beginning of the piece, did anybody catch what type of dating technique they used on the bones to determine their age? Just curious. (I have a degree in archaeology, though I didn't pursue it after graduation) I also didn't catch the location, does anyone know it? I know they named the bones "Kennewick Man", so I'm guessing that is a clue to the location.

The native americans want no more study on the bones or the area, claiming they are sacred, but the scientist thinks that if the bones were proven to be legitimate, it would usurp the current theory of native americans being the first here, and thus possibly cause them to lose the special rights granted them currently (like their ever-lucrative casino rights).

it was playing in the living room while i was in the kitchen....

i think they said plain old radio-carbon dating. and the location they kept mentioning "columbia river"

I saw this report when it was originally on. I imagine that if the Native Americans would just give in and let them test the bones they'd find that they are, in fact, not Caucasion.

Then again, maybe they are and we'll see a mass conversion to Mormonism.

I saw the report. It looks like someone in the government is (literally) trying to cover this up.

Why not let these guys do their research? Carbon dating shows that the bones were approx 9,000 years old, and the shape and size of the skull matches caucasions of that era, and GREATLY differs from Native American skulls of that era.

That sure throws a monkey wrench into the Native Americans' claims to be the first ones on the continent, and as the report alluded, it could threaten their status (of being a sovereign nation, and having the reservations) - and that could relate to the casinos in states that otherwise do not allow that type of gambling. Although, even if they weren't the "first" on the continent, they certainly had possession of it (more or less) when the European settlers first came. So it doesn't seem like their status would face that much of a threat.

I found it interesting, and very disturbing, that the "Native American" representative said flat out that he didn't want to know if there were others in North America before his ancestors - and he didn't want anyone else to know about it either.

And in the end, they literally covered it up.

In the spot where the "Kennewick Man" was discovered they (the Army corps of engineers) didn't just put tons of rocks and dirt over it - they planted dozens of trees as well so that excavating that site in the future would be incredibly difficult! A literal "cover-up!"

To me this discovery (and it isn't the first, there was one before it a few years back, as the report covered) throws our entire accepted history of the continent (just who lived here, and when) into doubt. But that wouldn't seem like any reason to cover it up.

A very interesting story.