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!!!
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.
Glad to hear religious and cultural authority Rick Santorum has declared Native American culture Cancelled. Everybody knows there were no inhabitants in the New World (that's why it's called that-DUH!).
The Vikings, Welsh, Templars, and white bearded giant Mound Builders and others had already died out so they don't count.
All the more reason to exhibit Amerindian remains in sideshows for our amusement. By the way, there is an actual Cigar Store Indian next door to the Stonewall LGBT Museum Gallery in Wilton Manors, FL. So the Gays are good with it too. So what if there are two reservations nearby.
Perhaps she hasn't noticed historically most if not all remains dug up in European contexts are offered Christian re-burial whenever possible. Are Christians Creationists?
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.
Glad to hear religious and cultural authority Rick Santorum has declared Native American culture Cancelled. Everybody knows there were no inhabitants in the New World (that's why it's called that-DUH!).
The Vikings, Welsh, Templars, and white bearded giant Mound Builders and others had already died out so they don't count.
All the more reason to exhibit Amerindian remains in sideshows for our amusement. By the way, there is an actual Cigar Store Indian next door to the Stonewall LGBT Museum Gallery in Wilton Manors, FL. So the Gays are good with it too. So what if there are two reservations nearby.
Some satire may be detected here. Probably not.
Perhaps she hasn't noticed historically most if not all remains dug up in European contexts are offered Christian re-burial whenever possible. Are Christians Creationists?