Understanding Science in the Context of Repatriation
Elizabeth Weiss, a professor of physical anthropology at San José State University, has become a controversial figure in the field of archaeology due to her stance on the repatriation of human remains and artifacts to Native American tribes.. We have seen too much censorship in this country and cancellation of people for not conforming to the orthodoxy. Weiss should be heard. I have had several conversations with Dr. Weiss and hope to have more. Having said that there are some areas where on religious grounds I don’t understand how her position could prevail. The first Amendment ensures freedom of religion and The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion freely. Key aspects include: People can believe and worship according to their conscience. Religious practices are protected unless they violate "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.
Without debating whose moral position is more righteous, it would seem to me that Native American sincerely held religious beliefs prevail. Understanding the positions of all parties is starting point for compromise and resolution.
Weiss's Position on Repatriation
Weiss strongly opposes the repatriation of skeletal remains and artifacts, arguing that scientific study of these materials is crucial for understanding human history and should take precedence over other considerations, reburying bones leads to a loss of valuable scientific data and hinders future research opportunities, linking ancient remains to modern tribes is often imprecise, even with DNA analysis, due to historical migration patterns
Controversy and Criticism
Weiss's views have led to significant backlash within the anthropological community: Her book "Repatriation and Erasing the Past" was accused of promoting scientific racism. Nearly 900 academics signed an open letter calling for the book's retraction. She has been labeled as racist and out of touch with current norms in the field. Weiss claims she has faced retaliation from her university, including being removed as curator of the university's skeletal collection
Arguments for Scientific Priority
Weiss and her supporters argue that: Objective knowledge and scientific inquiry should not be compromised by cultural sensitivities or religious beliefs. Collaboration with Native American stakeholders can introduce subjective biases that weaken the factual nature of scientific data. Repatriation laws like NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) hinder scientific understanding of the past.
Broader Implications
The controversy surrounding Weiss's work highlights a larger debate in archaeology: Balancing scientific inquiry with respect for cultural beliefs and practices of indigenous peoples. The role of objectivity in anthropological research versus incorporating diverse perspectives. The potential conflict between academic freedom and cultural sensitivity in studying human remains.
Weiss's case has become a flashpoint in discussions about the future direction of archaeology and anthropology, particularly regarding the study of Native American remains and artifacts.
References:
https://culturalpropertynews.org/fall-reading-elizabeth-weiss-the-new-archaeology-wars/
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/repatriation-erasing-past-woke-archaeology-elizabeth-weiss/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/15/anthropologist-says-shes-being-punished-views-bones
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/34/2/repatriation-and-the-threat-to-objective-knowledge
https://upf.com/book.asp?id=9781683401575
https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/transmotion/article/view/993/1919
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv15vwjv4
