Monday, Dec. 07, 1998

Owsley details inventory work.

Report of the Inventory of the Kennewick Skeleton

Oct. 28-29, 1998

Dr. Douglas W. Owsley

Introduction

In accordance with the Court's orders and the parties' Revised Memorandum of Agreement, an inventory was taken of the Kennewick Man skeletal collection on October 28-29, 1998 at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland Washington ("PNNL"). The inventory process began at approximately 7 a.m. on October 28, 1998, and concluded at 4:12 a.m. on October 29, 1998, after more than 21 hours of almost continuous work.

The objectives of the inventory were: (a) to identify and record all bones and bone fragments presently contained in the skeleton; (b) determine if any bones had been added to or removed from the collection since it left Dr. Chatters' possession in August 1996; and (c) determine if the collection represents a single individual. The first objective was accomplished in most respects, but some additional work is needed to complete the collection's inventory record. The last two objectives were accomplished completely.

As part of our inspection of the skeleton, a review was also made of its current condition. Dr. Chatters has prepared a separate report, setting out his findings concerning the skeleton's present condition and any changes that have occurred since he last saw it. I have included in my report some observations concerning the process used for the condition review.

Personnel and Procedures

The inventory and condition review were conducted in the Nez Perce Room of PNNL's Sigma V building. Inside the room were tables for unpacking and repacking the skeleton, for inventorying the skeleton, and for examining the skeleton during its condition review.

The examination tables were padded to protect the skeleton from contact damage. The room was adequate in size to have accommodated both Dr. Chatters (who was allowed) and my data entry assistant (who was not). The arrangement of the layout space was organized and functional.

The first step in the documentation process was to unpack the skeleton. The individuals handling the bones wore gloves and Tyvex aprons. I also wore a 5X power magnifying headset for examining small details on the bones. Each item was checked against its assigned catalog number as the remains were removed from the two Action Packer storage containers. Ms. Lueck removed the bags from the containers and then each piece from its storage bag. Dr. Trimble and I checked off the identification numbers on our copies of the Master Catalog. Ms. Militello then took a Polaroid photograph of each item. A metric scale and the catalog number were included in each photograph.

The process of laying out the Kennewick skeleton was difficult and time consuming. This was due in part to the fragmentation of the bones (more than 350 separate pieces were present in the three collections) and their small size. Many of the fragments are less than an inch in length. Dr. Chatters is to be commended for recovering so many pieces of the skeleton from the discovery site. Another complicating factor was the need to maintain the association between each piece and its catalog number written on a loose paper tag (and with its original container as well). Fortunately, Ms. Lueck and Ms. Militello organized this task effectively.

Although I was not allowed my usual working arrangement of a computer and an assistant, I was allowed to record my observations on an audio recorder. To ensure that I would have ample recording capacity, I brought eight 90-minute tapes. One tape was used to record portions of introductory comments and to document the process of accounting for the assigned catalog numbers and associated specimens while the skeleton was being unbagged. Five tapes were used to record my inventory observations.

The identification and description portion of the inventory process began at approximately 3:10 p.m. and continued until 2:30 a.m. the following morning (October 29). After Dr. Chatters had finished his evaluation of the skeleton's condition, he assisted with identifying and matching rib fragments and with the inventory of the hands and feet. His help was invaluable. The inventory could not have been completed in the time allowed without his help.

Contents of Collection

When all fragments have been refitted into elements, the skeleton will be approximately 70-80 percent complete. The overall condition is good. All major elements most important for scientific study are present except for large portions of the femora.

The skull is in at least eight pieces. With careful reconstruction, it will be complete enough for a full set of metric measurements. The cranial sutures are almost completely obliterated. This suggests an older individual. However, other parts of the skeleton suggest a man of younger age. Further evaluation will be needed to clarify the question of age.

The innominates (hip bones) are fragmentary but will be nearly complete when reconstructed. Both pubic symphyses and the auricular surfaces, which are particularly useful features for assessing age, are present. Since the skeleton gives mixed signals about the age of this individual at death, careful cleaning of these surfaces and reconstruction of the fragments are important. Osteon counting will add additional precision to the age assessment.

The long bones of the arms and legs, though in several pieces, are largely present with the exception of the femora, which are represented by only one piece from each side. With careful reconstruction, important information about functional morphology and lifestyle can be learned from the skeleton. Handedness can be discerned. Pathological features are apparent and need further evaluation. General robustness, physical size and information about activities can be assessed.

I identified 17 of the 18 bones from Collection A (recovered on 9/17/96) and one of the two bones in Collection B (recovered on 9/4/97) as consistent with human morphology. Based on their size, color, and state of preservation, they appear to represent missing pieces of the Kennewick Man skeleton.

About 20 fragments were too small to be identified in the time allowed, but I am confident many of these can be placed during the reconstruction process. I corrected the identification of several fragments. For example, the sternal ends of some ribs are present as well as a fragment of manubrium of the sternum, which was earlier thought to be completely missing.

The overall collection contains approximately 350 bones and bone fragments. The exact number is difficult to assign at this time because a few fragments separated into smaller pieces after their original catalog numbers were assigned. Also, some fragments are held together by soil matrix. When this matrix crumbles away or is removed, the fragments will separate into more pieces.

Results of the Inventory

1. We have an accurate, high-level inventory of the anatomical elements in the collection.

The standardized inventory data forms attached as Appendix A identify the presence (complete or partial) or absence of all anatomical elements of the Kennewick skeleton. These forms include not only the bones collected by Dr. Chatters in July and August 1996, but also those items subsequently collected by other parties. As a result, we now have a unified record that integrates all of the elements belonging to the Kennewick skeleton.

Dr. Trimble's team and I are in agreement as to the representation of each anatomical element. To record our agreement, Dr. Trimble and I signed each page of the completed inventory data forms. Dr. Chatters was no longer present when this occurred (after 2:15 a.m. on October 29), so it was not possible to obtain his signature. I recommend that Dr. Chatters be allowed to re-inspect the collection when it has been rehoused at the Burke Museum so he can determine if he concurs with the identifications Dr. Trimble and I have agreed upon. If he does concur, he can sign the inventory data forms at that time.

2. Nonhuman fragments have been identified.

During the inventory process, I was able to identify positively seven fragments as nonhuman. These bones were reclassified to a faunal designation for storage separate from the human remains. There are a few other fragments whose identification is uncertain. These should be evaluated by a zooarcheologist.

Dr. Trimble's team and I are confident that all the fragments now in the Kennewick Man collection are human, with the possible exception of those fragments designated for additional evaluation.

3. The number of unidentified fragments is reduced.

As already noted, numerous fragments previously listed as unidentified have now been identified and matched to specific elements of the skeleton. Identification of these fragments will aid in efforts to reconstruct the skeleton for measurement and formal study.

Because of the limited time allowed for the inventory, some fragments could only be identified generally (e.g., as upper or lower rib fragments, etc.). I believe that the exact placement of most of these fragments can be determined when the skeleton is reconstructed for study. For example, it should be possible to assign specific rib numbers and sides to many of the rib fragments.

4. The collection is a single individual.

Questions have been raised in the past whether the collection contains a third pubis fragment, (i.e., the fragment that was added to the collection on 9/17/96 as item 97.A.I.17a). I was able to identify this item as a piece of the Kennewick Man skeleton. It is a fragment of ischium that fits perfectly in an area of missing bone on the innominate.

5. Changes to the collection have occurred.

During my examination of the skeleton, I found no indications that any bones had been added to the collection during its storage at PNNL (other than those bones and fragments contained in collections A and B, which were maintained in separate containers). It is my understanding that Dr. Chatters concurs with this assessment.

Although not as significant as the missing pieces of femurs, the bones that were taken from the collection in April 1998 also could have aided in reconstructing the skeleton. Their loss represents a potential reduction in the information that can be learned.

6. A foundation has been laid for future management and study.

The inventory process has provided information that will aid in future management and study of the skeleton. Some of the positive benefits that can be realized in this regard include:

-- When the Master Catalog is finalized and agreed to, this record will enable accurate tracking of each item in the collection to monitor against future thefts and inadvertent losses.

-- Related items in the collection can be now housed by anatomical categories (e.g., left and right ribs, vertebral column, specific long bones) to facilitate future study.

-- A plan for accurate reconstruction of the skull and post-cranial skeleton can be formulated.

-- Essential information has been gained for planning future study designs (i.e., we now have a better idea of what is possible).

-- Scientists will be able to work more efficiently with the collection thereby reducing unnecessary handling and potential deterioration.

Other Observations

1. Unnecessary restrictions on data recording.

My original plan was to document my observations on a laptop computer with the aid of an experienced assistant to act as data entry operator. My expectations in this regard were communicated to the government before execution of the Revised Memorandum of Agreement, which expressly authorized me to use an assistant for recording purposes. During the week preceding the inventory, the government unilaterally announced that all recording devices, including computers, would be barred from the examination room. I consider this action to be an unwarranted breach of faith, and an attempt to limit the scope of the inventory ordered by the court.

The government's ban on the use of computers and recording devices was nonsensical and inconsistent with accepted scientific practices, even in the context of pending or prospective litigation. I have worked on several hundred forensic cases and have never encountered restrictions of this kind. One consequence of this ban on recording devices was the lack of a back-up system to prevent the loss of data in the event of a mishap to the primary system (i.e., the audio recording system authorized by the court). Such a mishap did occur and valuable data were lost. Such a loss would not have occurred if the government had not blocked my use of a data entry assistant as I originally proposed.

2. Effects of time constraints.

The tasks involved in inventorying the skeleton and reviewing its condition were more than could be accomplished in an eight hour (or even 12 hour) work day. We worked for over 21 continuous hours with only a few short breaks. Such a schedule resulted in an intense work environment. The risk of mistakes was increased unnecessarily, and we had little opportunity to recheck or validate our work.

As a result, I was not able to start the actual inventory, which included matching and identifying individual fragments, until almost 8.5 hours into the day's work. I worked continuously without a break until 6:20 p.m., when we stopped work for a quick supper. I began again at 7:05 p.m. and worked continuously until 2:30 a.m. without a break. I assisted others from then until I signed out on the morning of October 29, 1998.

3. Uncompleted inventory tasks.

The inventory data forms Dr. Trimble and I signed provide a general summary of the collection (i.e., the skeletal elements that are present or absent). If the skeleton were intact, these forms would be adequate for management and future study of the skeleton. However, when skeletal remains are as highly fragmented as in the present case, more detailed identification is needed.

The Master Catalog Verification, created after the November 1997 inventory, lists every piece of bone in the collection, although many were unidentified at that time and some were not human. As a result of my evaluation, this list must be updated with identifications useful to the conservators and for future reconstruction. If we had been allowed to follow our original plan, I could have provided a computer generated list of the newly identified elements at the conclusion of my examination. Ms. Lueck could then have updated the information on the Master Catalog, and Dr. Trimble and I would have been able to sign a mutually agreed upon copy of the catalog.

For example, Dr. Trimble and I made quick notes on our respective working copies of the Master Catalog while the collection was being unpacked and laid out. We did not have an opportunity later to update our notes or to make sure they were consistent.

The changes made in the status of many items (i.e., from unidentified to identified; from human to animal, etc.) during the inventory process are recorded in my taped observations. To my knowledge, neither Dr. Trimble nor Ms. Lueck had time to consistently write down every change. It is important to make sure that Dr. Trimble and I are in agreement as to these changes. In addition, the identifications that were lost when Tape 5 was reused must be redone.

We also need to reconcile my audio recorded observations against our handwritten notes and against the collection itself. Upon reviewing the transcript of the audio tapes, I have found a few inconsistencies between my recorded observations and the handwritten notes I made on my copy of the Master Catalog. Although I have attempted to reconcile all of these inconsistencies, such a reconciliation cannot be considered final until it has been checked against the bones themselves.

My intention in voicing these concerns is to present an accurate picture of the complexity of this situation so the record is clear. Many details need to be reconciled.

4. Significance of the skeleton.

5. Need for study.

Comprehensive study of the skeleton is absolutely imperative. Among other things, morphometric measurements must be taken and analyzed. Such analyses will help answer the questions posed by the court. When analyzed, the metric measurements will determine whether the Kennewick Man skeleton falls within the range of variability of modern American Indian groups and how he relates to other world populations. However, these metric measurements will only yield useful information if they are compared with data in comprehensive databases.

There are other questions that need to be addressed if we are to have any hope of understanding this person's place in American prehistory. It is important that we be permitted to realize the potential of what was recovered.

The Condition Review

Some of the difficulties they faced include the following:

1. Lack of advance planning

It appeared to me that the conservators were not given an opportunity to prepare and plan in advance for the condition review. Two of them had little advance information about the collection. They were simply expected to show up on the appointed day and begin collecting information. All three of the conservators were absolutely dedicated to the assigned task. However, it was unrealistic to expect them to undertake such a complicated project without more thorough advance orientation and preparation.

2. Time constraints

If there had been more time, the conservators might have benefited from my condition observations and osteological knowledge. However, we had few opportunities to collaborate. If nothing else, closer collaboration would have allowed them to focus their attention on the most scientifically significant elements. In addition, a greater opportunity for us to work face-to-face would have aided the conservators in their future assessments at the Burke Museum.

3. Tool restrictions

The conservators were also affected by the government's arbitrary decision to bar all recording devices. This restriction limited them to pencils, diagrams, and standarized forms. This restriction made it difficult for the conservators to record pertinent information about the condition of all items in the collection. After 2 a.m., the urgency was so great that they could perform no condition assessments or associate specific pictures with their individual records. From that point on, the fragments were only tagged and packed.

The procedures and schedules followed for the pre-move conservation review in this case should not serve as a model in the future.

Recommendations

The government has now acknowledged that the skeleton must be studied. From a scientific perspective, study will be productive only if the appropriate steps are taken. Preparing the skeleton for study must be planned by experienced scientists who are familiar with ancient remains and who are not subjected to arbitrary government interference. The following issues must be addressed before study is attempted. To avoid these steps invites failure.

1. The loose tag system must be replaced.

The loose tag system presently being used for management of the collection creates logistical problems. Even with careful handling, the integrity of this catalog system will inevitably be lost during the study of the skeleton. In addition, this system will complicate the study process and will prolong the amount of time needed for study.

2. The skeleton must be carefully reconstructed.

3. Extreme care must be taken in cleaning the skeleton.

Before the skeleton can be reconstructed, many of the bones and fragments must be cleaned to permit their correct placement and to remove sediments that could interfere with examination of the skeleton. The cleaning process is important, and care should be taken so there is no damage to the skeleton. On many fragments dirt is adhering to the bone cortex. The cortex will flake away with the dirt unless careful measures are followed.

Care must also be taken to capture the sediments adhering to the bones so the potential information that might be obtained from such sediments will not be lost. For example, analysis of the sediments adhering to and inside the bones (e.g., in the medullary cavities and inside the cranium) will provide clues concerning the taphonomic history of the skeleton. The effectiveness of such an analysis will depend, however, on whether study of the discovery site is permitted. The cleaning process could also reveal subtle features in the bones that could provide clues as to how the skeleton was positioned in the ground. Such information could help to reconstruct the context of Kennewick Man's death and whether his deposition at the discovery site was a cultural or natural event.

Concluding Comments

Dr. Chatters' participation in the process was critical. His knowledge of the skeleton and the circumstances of its recovery are resources that cannot be duplicated or replaced. He completed a number of important tasks, and was generous in his willingness to share information and insights. I could not have completed the inventory without his help. Among other things, he identified the bones and fragments of the hands and feet (and many rib fragments) when it became clear that time was getting short. His tally of these pieces provided the data now reflected in the official inventory forms.

Although the inventory process was long and grueling, it was a pleasure to work with Dr. Trimble, his assistants, and the conservators. They are extremely dedicated and hard working individuals. I appreciate the many courtesies they extended, and their cooperative spirit. I especially appreciate Dr. Trimble's willingness to allow me as much flexibility as possible within the limitations imposed by the government. Without his support, it would not have been possible to document as much data as was obtained.

In my opinion it was a mistake to squeeze the inventory and condition review into a single marathon session that taxed everyone's capabilities. I hope that similar mistakes are not made with respect to the tasks needed for final cleanup of the Master Catalog or for study of the skeleton.

I appreciate the opportunity to inventory these remains. I undertook this task on personal time away from work. Inventorying the Kennewick skeleton was truly a labor of love for the field of anthropology and reinforces my appreciation for the information that can be gleaned about ancient life ways. Although the process could have been improved, I am proud of the results.

Submitted by Douglas W. Owsley, Ph.D.

December 7, 1998