"Entangled with Religion"
Elizabeth Weiss Claims Protecting Native Graves Violates First Amendment
Controversy erupted at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology yesterday when Prof. Elizabeth Weiss of San Jose State University delivered a presentation based on her recent book in which she attacked the federal law mandating the return of Native American objects and remains for repatriation and protecting Native graves. According to social media posts after the event, Weiss also attacked Native people as lacking the objectivity to perform archaeology and said they should not participate the scientific study of the past. Weiss is also the wife of Ancient Aliens star Nick Pope, whose show similarly takes a dim view of Native peoples, arguing that they are not-fully-human alien hybrids who only clawed their way up from the dirt with the help of powerful, superior outsiders.
Weiss presented her belief that the repatriation law, NAGPRA, is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment because it “establishes” Native American religions and endorses creationism, a position that is obviously untrue. Her abstract lays out the case:
Weiss, Elizabeth (San Jose State University) and James Springer
Has Creationism Crept Back into Archaeology?
Archaeologists and anthropologists have been at the forefront of supporting the spread of science over creationism religion. For instance, the Society for American Archaeology posts teaching guidelines that includes statements that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, the Americas were inhabited about 12,000 years ago, and that archaeology follows the scientific process. The American Anthropological Association, on their policy page, states that “Evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology (including physical anthropology, archeology…).” And, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists has an anti-creationist statement in which it “condemns any effort by the state to dictate specific religious instruction to the people.” However, archaeologists and anthropologists have nearly unanimously supported the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA violates the First Amendment in multiple ways; for instance, “traditional” religious leaders are required for the review committee, “traditional” prayers open and close NAGPRA meetings, and decisions to repatriate remains are made on the basis of creation stories. With NAGPRA, archaeology has become entangled with religion in a way that would never be accepted if the religion was Western-based. We propose a different perspective on human remains and artifacts based on objective knowledge rather than creationism.
While prayers might be offered at meetings—just as they are before sessions of Congress—they are not required by the 1990 NAGPRA law, 25 USC Ch. 32. If Weiss disagrees, she is welcome to complain, but it is not a legal requirement. Similarly, creationism is not required by law. Instead, it requires that Native groups seeking the return of artifacts or remains must provide a “preponderance” of evidence that the objects or remains are affiliated with their tribe. They are required to demonstrate “cultural affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence based upon geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion.” Creation stories, as oral tradition, are only one factor and would need to provide directly relevant evidence. More often used for ceremonial objects, such stories might be used to establish that remains from one geographic area are ancestral to living descendants now living elsewhere. This is not a supernatural connection, but roughly the equivalent of a white person talking about how his or her ancestors came from Germany before immigrating to America.
After archaeologists in attendance expressed their outrage on social media, the SAA put out a milquetoast statement reiterating its support for NAGPRA and adding that “SAA recognizes some will find some certain positions in presentations objectionable or even offensive, and we do not want to minimize these feelings.” They then reiterated their support for “diverse views.”
It is surely a good thing that Indian burial sites are protected, and it is basically a legitimate idea to give back to tribes what is their's (repatriation). But as always, you can spoil even the best idea by exaggerating it.
I never heard of this law, but reading about it now, I find it heavily one-sided. There has to be a trade-off between scientific interests and respect for deceased persons. And as far as I can see, the NAGPRA law takes a one-sided approach on this question. There is no trade-off at all. Bad for science.
It is outraging to read that archaeological findings (e.g. skeletons and burial gifts) regardless of their importance (!) are handed over to be buried and to decay in short time, so what was preserved of a lost culture is now lost for ever. This does not sound like a good solution.
I also read that certain tribes even successully claimed archaeologically highly valuable remains of human beings who had lived 10.000 years ago (!), e.g. the Kennewick-Man. I think this is the background for the accusation of "creationism". Because the Kennwick Man surely was not a member of any Indian tribe of our era. To take his remains away from modern science and to speak Indian prayers over him which never existed at his time is really awkward. It is even disrespectful for the deceased himself who surely never shared the beliefs and rites of these modern-era tribes. This is surely not a "repatriation", but a bad joke. And they really did it!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man#2017:_Return_and_reburial
I also can imagine that alle the benefits granted to Indians and possible descendants lead to the creation of an "industry" living from these benefits, and make them claim more and more "rights". I have no idea about this particular case, but my experience with other such "industries" tells me that it exists. And this one-sided law sounds much like the product of the lobbyism of such an industry.
It is the duty of every virtuous man (and woman) to speak out against the one-sidedness of the law. And it is a good thing that SAA at least allowed dissent.
(The article seems to claim a connection between Elizabeth Weiss' point of view on the matter, and her husband. But I do not see any such connection. The source "According to social media posts after the event" is not convincing. These posts may have been written by partisan people. What did she really say? Her abstract reads differently.)
By the by, and strictly for my own amusement, I heard the Santorum announcement while watching a movie on the finding of the Altamira cave paintings. Of course, they had to have been made by recent French artists as they were too good to be painted by ancient savage half-monkeys (and Spaniards to boot!).
But what struck me is they made a big deal about whether they were really first found by the little daughter of the amateur archaeologist I kept thinking it reminded me of something similar.
Then I remembered the original Crystal Skull and how the Mitchell-Hedges changed his story several times about how it was his little girl who first spotted it. I assume the Indiana Jones wannabe remembered the Altamira story and thought it would make for a nice detail in his rip roaring account.