Sadly, there is another heritage battle over bones going on the North Island of New Zealand. In October 2004, the spring flood of the Ruamahanga River unveiled part of a skull. After a police investigation and scientific test it looked like the skull belong to a woman of European origin who died around 300 years ago.
This is where the debate starts. The agreed upon history does not make match. The first New Zealanders, the Maori, came from the Pacific and began colonization around AD 1300. The first European to discover New Zealand was Abel Tasman. Tasman encountered the Southern Island in 1642 and left after a naval battle against the Maori. It is disputed whether or not any sailors landed on New Zealand's South Island. The first European to land on the North Island without a doubt is James Cook who came in 1769.
So how could a European woman be on the North Island? There was established European trading in India, Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia but the closest historical trade port was approximately 4,500 miles (7,500 kilometers) away (and that's a direct path through the heart of Australia. If it was the skull belonged to an European woman she was a) lost or b) part of a expedition that ended horribly.
Not everyone agrees that it was a European. Some state the skull dating is wrong or the skull belongs to a Maori. There is a legitimate debate because the history does not work out. Unfortunately there are those who argue it must be Maori so the investigation should be closed. The former point is legitimate and must be weighed while the later is the politicization of science.
Time may tell who the skull belong to. Until then, all everyone can agree on is that history is still an open book.