About half a dozen readers sent me the article below, which appeared on Colin Wright’s Substack site Reality’s Last Stand. This piece, however, was written by Elizabeth Weiss, professor of anthropology at San Jose State University. She’s a brave woman, for after her own university banned her from accessing the ancient human remains she was studying, or publishing pictures of them, she sued the University. This was because the remains were presumably those of Native Americans, who saw them as sacred relics of their ancestors and demanded them back. (The lawsuit is, as far as I know, still pending.) Weiss is, like me, wary of allowing indigenous American peoples full possession of any remains dug up on “their” land, for we don’t often know if the remains are really those of a tribe’s ancestors, and, also like me, she argues that scientists should be allowed to study them before and if they are returned to any tribe.
The post below is related to that view, but is mostly concerned with an issue we’ve seen in New Zealand: governments and scientists bowing to the religious and supernatural beliefs of indigenous peoples. In this case, museums are validating or being forced to mouth the religious beliefs of Native Americans, resulting in some crazy (and unpalatable) mixtures of science and faith.
Click to read (“the American Museum of Supernatural History” is a jab at the American Museum of Natural History, or AMNH, involved in many of these incidents).
Elizabeth’s thesis, also giving one of several examples in her piece:
In the past two decades, science institutions have faced challenges from another source: indigenous religions. Unlike Christian fundamentalist beliefs, these indigenous beliefs often receive enthusiastic support from academics, scholars, and mainstream media journalists. This support might stem from a desire to oppose Western civilization and align with the “victims” of modernity as part of an effort to “decolonize” museums. Alternatively, it may also be linked to a trend of virtue signaling, which has allowed the misconception that “indigenous knowledge is science” to take root in academic circles.
I recently reported on this trend in City Journal, discussing New York City’s American Museum of Natural History’s Northwest Coast Hall. One exhibit features a display case with a warning label about the “spiritually powerful” objects contained in the case. This exhibit blurs the line between fact and fiction by presenting creation myths as history. It also asserts that artifacts are imbued with spirits that release “mist” visible only to elders, implying that the objects should be repatriated.
Weiss notes that other scholars didn’t find anything objectionable to the deference given these artifact, apparently bowing to what’s been called “the authority of the sacred victim.” That’s instantiated in this regulation:
Are museum staff actually buying into these beliefs, or are they appeasing their indigenous partners to continue curating and studying artifacts? The influence of repatriation ideology, movements, and laws, notably the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, are increasingly depleting museums and universities of Native American “human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.”
And here are a few more examples in which museums apparently give in to the claims of indigenous people, even though those claims don’t involve human remains and are often imbued with religious beliefs.
The Willamette Meteorite Agreement of 2000 resulted in the American Museum of Natural History “recognizing the spiritual relationship of the Grande Ronde Community to the Willamette Meteorite.” This agreement allows the tribe to perform ceremonies in the museum, celebrating this spiritual connection. Additionally, it forbade the museum from removing any part of the meteorite for trade with other museums, a practice once common for diversifying collections for exhibition and research. These scientific exchanges benefited both museumgoers and researchers. However, indigenous religious beliefs have restricted these practices. Moreover, the publicity and support for this agreement has led other museums to adopt similar practices. For instance, the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon handed over their piece of the meteorite to the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde.
Since when do meteorites belong in any sense to Native Americans? That would only be the case if it fell on their tribally owned land. But if they come into the possession of scientists, who might buy them or get them because they fall on public land, then those have a right to study them or trade them for other items. Remember, lands ancestrally inhabited by Native Americans don’t often belong to native Americans, so meterorites which fall on them belong to either the new owner, the finder, or, if on public land, to the Smithsonian.
Here’s another example with a snarky (but accurate) remark by Elizabeth:
The negative influence of indigenous beliefs on science is also evident during tribal visits, such as when the Tohono O’odham Nation visited the American Museum of Natural History in 2021. During their visit, the tribe reviewed the items that were being curated, discussed the history of the collection, and “ritually cleansed ceremonial pieces” at the museum, which was closed to the public during the visit. Additionally, in November 2021, David Grignon, the tribal historic preservation officer from the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, “ceremonially cleansed sacred items” in the museum’s Division of Anthropology “smudge room.” For a scientific museum to have a “smudge room” is akin to a chemistry lab having an alchemy room. Museum spaces should be dedicated to scientific research, curation, and exhibits–not to religious activities.
Except, that is, when the religious activities are performed by Native Americans. I doubt that Museums would be allowed to let a priest sprinkle holy water on old Catholic artifacts to sanctify them.
But the worst is the AMNH’s procedures in dealing with Native American “objects of power”, which have to be treated specially because they supposedly possess supernatural powers—powers that dictate how researchers and scientists must deal with them. Get a load of this:
However, none of these examples are as shocking as the protocols established to curate so-called “objects of power.” These protocols were introduced at the 2021 annual joint conference of the American Institute for Conservation and the Society for Preservation of Natural History Collections. Developed in collaboration with Northwest Coast cultural advisors at the American Museum of Natural History, Amy Tjiong and colleagues outlined the necessary steps for curators and researchers when handling these “objects of power,” defined as objects “used in association with traditional/spiritual healers’ practice, sacred ceremonies, or warfare.” The new protocols include the need to “greet” the object and “explain” to it that permission has been granted from community representatives. The objects must also be clearly tagged, covered with “muslin,” and glass cabinets should be “covered with brown paper to prevent disturbance and unintentional encounters.” Lastly, bundles of “Devil’s Club (Oplopanax horridus, a shrub used to contain power)” should be hung in doorways and cabinets where these “objects of power” are stored.
That is palpably absurd. Museum staff are supposed to procure a special shrub to prevent objects from exerting their special power? But the rules continue:
To further promote the myths that surround these objects, museum staff decided to heed warnings by their indigenous partners. For instance, museum staff were told to “Be wary of any object that incorporates human hair.” This guidance influenced the handling of a Haida orca headdress: “Community members instructed the museum not to put this headdress on view. Museum professionals were warned that handling can be dangerous.” Consequently, this object is not currently on display.
Click on this poster heading to see the protocols developed in the 2021 online conference described above. It lays out how museum workers and scientists are supposed to deal with spiritually “powerful” objects:
From the poster above, presumably an object lesson in how to display powerful sacred objects.
And, from the poster, the rules that museum workers and scientists must obey vis-à-vis those objects, taken from the poster above (click to enlarge). Don’t forget to greet the object and explain your permissions before you handle it! And check out the first point about pregnancy and menstruation:
This itself is an object of power, power exercised by indigenous people to control the behavior of museum workers. Note the ludicrous claims of this poster about the “power” of these objects. As Elizabeth notes:
Perhaps museum staffs know or suspect that if they don’t play along, their indigenous partners will suddenly demand everything back. Regardless of the reason, it seems difficult to trust any science coming from people who take seriously the concept that whistles can be used to summon “supernatural beings.”
Perhaps most offensively, they caution, “DO NOT APPROACH” objects of power “if you are feeling discomfort, i.e., if you are in a physically or emotionally vulnerable state (including menstruation and pregnancy).” This clearly sexist warning abandons science and implies that women, particularly during menstruation and pregnancy, are emotionally unstable and weak. Allowing religious beliefs to be taken seriously in a place of science hinders scientific progress, enables discrimination, obstructs the teaching of science to those who partner with museums, and casts considerable doubt on the quality and objectivity of the research coming out of these institutions.
That’s all true, and here scientists and museum staff are being forced to obey supernatural beliefs of Native Americans,—beliefs that are not only false, but also misogynistic and offensive. But this is what happens when science mixes with the supernatural; the former is diluted and the latter is given credence—and perhaps credibility.
Here’s one more example and a photo:
Most absurdly, museum staff and indigenous partners debated over whether to display a whistle. According to Clyde Tallio from the Nuxalk Nation, “Whistles are so powerful they have caused intercultural conflicts.” Museum protocols explain that, “Nuxalk elders say whistles would not normally be on display, but instead are traditionally stored in boxes.” Because of this, Tallio advises that whistles should not be observed directly, but should instead be placed in closed boxes with an accompanying photo and text explaining its sacredness. However, museum staff decided to take extra precautions: one Nuxalk Kusiut whistle was “removed from display entirely, as it is a summoning tool for supernatural beings.”
From the poster; the removed whistle is the photo on top:
In my view, any object in a museum should not be displayed as if it had supernatural powers, though it’s okay to say that this is what the indigenous people believe. Nor should museum staff have to genuflect and respect the “power” of items that, after all, are just stuff used by Native Americans.
” “objects of power” ”
Marxism alert.
I’m pretty sure this is pre-Marxism.
Marxists are attracted to power like flies to you-know-what.
My understanding was that “objects of power” is not an ancient term, but a modern description of the artifacts.
(Missed the edit deadline):
I read again, and I see the author A. Tjiong et. al. naming these artifacts – apparently retroactively in our modern era – “objects of power (emphasis preserved)”. Perhaps it seems close to “magic power” in meaning.
Given the primacy of power/hegemony in Marxist thought, its particular appearance and formulation in the writing strikes me as Marxist in origin – whether overtly or by ideological capture (i.e. some accident).
The use might be for dialectical synthesis of the artifacts’ nature for Marxist purposes, but that’ll probably fail like most Marxist projects.
These sound like instructions from the TV show “Warehouse 13,” which was about a government storage facility for all sorts of occult objects. Fun show, but only because that stuff isn’t real. I wonder if art museums will now take extra case with religious icons?
Also “do not clean objects with saliva”? Were they doing that?
Saliva has gentle but effective solvent properties. It’s a common, accepted part of the conservator’s “toolkit” for various types of museum objects (for example, Old Master paintings). The conservator wraps a small wad of cotton around the end of a thin wooden stick, pops the cotton end in his/her mouth and gives it a twist to soak up some spit, and then gently swabs the item being cleaned. When the swab gets dirty, they remove it from the stick, and repeat the process as needed.
General comments: Humans are not comfortably rational, especially when confronted by the sacred. Anyone’s sacred. Anyone who is considered important anyway. Native people and their belief structures are important, but were ignored or disparaged for many too many centuries so are owed deference as partial reparations today. And Native Peoples are in the intersectionality tent. So their sacred beliefs are treated as sacred by followers of DEI theology as well. The emotionally based tenets of DEI trump the objective tenets of the scientific method. Since humans are more drawn to emotionally based sacred truths than objectively based scientific truths, our society is headed down the DEI/oppressor-oppressed rabbit hole, led by the elites in society who always try to lead the cultural parade. Might as well figure out how to enjoy the ride. And please, when you do, share your secret with me.
— Carl Sagan
The Royal BC Museum, once recognized as one of the top 20 natural history museums in the world and certainly a far-reacher for its size and smallish budget, has fully fallen into the camp described in this article. I’ll not go into the series of events that led to the almost complete dismantling of the museum, but suffice to say “decolonization” has been the main driver. The British Columbia government has put UNDRIP into legislation and everything the museum undertakes is coloured by this agenda. Every indigenous item, regardless of its provenance is now “stolen” and has to be at best repatriated and at worst involved in the kind of shenanigans that this article describes. Exhibits that were extremely popular with the (paying) public for 30 years or more were ripped out in this “decolonization” effort and the museum pledged itself to engage with indigenous “owners” of all exhibit items to make sure they are displayed properly, even though the first nations exhibit was for decades recognized as one of the best of its kind. While it remains to be seen what BCDRIP will cost BC taxpayers in money and intangible items, it is sure that museums in BC completely kowtow to this idiocy, even to the point of rewriting history.
I say just give the trinkets and knick-knacks back to them and fire all the civil servants who (used to) work in the museums, which can then be used to house the homeless. Who cares if the artefacts get lost to general viewers or physically lost/destroyed for that matter? We can just pretend their history never existed if they don’t want us to know anything about it. Next time they say we “stole” the land, just reply, “Well, Gee Whiz, we don’t have any evidence for that claim now, do we, since museums and academic collections that documented your civilization have vanished without trace.”
Good idea but don’t dismantle the museums. Make them museums of science, history, or art.
I have my moments regards indigenous knowledge and artifacts. This is not one of them.
The totems displayed in museums may be related to religious beliefs. And if those beliefs do not apply to you then the best that can be done is to respectfully acknowledge them and get on with your day. I cannot even imagine how the AMNH acquiescence to proscribe protocols for handling and showing of artifacts fits under the free exercise or the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. To be compelled – and that is the word – to treat the objects as would believers of that religion or practice is a fraught policy for a public institution.
Oh no! What if I’m having my Trans-Joy period in the same room as the sacred objects?
Prof Weiss is a hero! She’s been on about this for years, I never miss her talks.
Enough of this religious nonsense.
“Indigenous bollocks is still bollocks.” – Dawkins.
David A.
NYC
I do like that! We should strive for equal respect for religious nonsense of all origins. My sacred relic is just as silly (but worthy of study and display) as your sacred relic.
Alison’s comment #3 is quite discouraging. Before it fell victim to “decolonialization”, the Royal BC Museum, which I used to visit often, was indeed a marvel. The ideology of matauranga anything indigeneous turns straightforward concepts upside down. Once upon a time, we defined as progress the findings that electromagnetic induction demonstrably summons electric current but whistles do not, really, summon supernatural beings. But nowadays, it is considered “progressive” to indulge the latter superstition. Perhaps next the BC Museum authorities will hide light switches, or hang garlic over them, to ward off the evil magic spirits of electricity.
Other than telling professionals not to clean items in the collection with saliva (pretty insulting, right?) these requirements are anti-intellectual, as she so clearly explains. Treating cultural artifacts with respect does not require pretending to also believe in their religious beliefs. In a different context, we might see that accused of being appropriation. The application of that standard to select groups but not others is suspect. Why only living cultures, and only certain of those living cultures? Who decides which cultures get this treatment? Personally I would like to see Native Americans becoming archeologists and physicists and medical doctors. One can appreciate one’s cultural heritage while participating in the opportunities of western society.
On saliva cleanings, see above under comment no. 2.
I’ll be darned! I assume not while drinking coffee-
The idea that we have to respect and make allowances for religious beliefs like this seems to go against our freedom from religion. Is the constitution a document of weakness or what?
“Objects of power:” Don’t be ridiculous. (And, please don’t lick the artifacts.)
“Whistles are so powerful they have caused intercultural conflict…” Sounds like a dangerous delusion, and if that’s the case, better to get rid of them. I honestly don’t think I could work in a place with such absurd rules or a place I must make-believe to get a paycheck. How insulting.
I guess if they’re all on the grift they just play along and take home the money.
Is there any date provenance on that whistle? The carving of the air jets or whatever you call those little angled slots that generate the sound look to be made with steel or iron tools. The Pacific Coast tribes acquired these from Capt. George Vancouver’s naval carpenters.) His journal reports how thrilled the skilled native artisans were to adopt these tools into their carving techniques. Copper won’t take an edge — too soft unless alloyed with arsenic or tin to make bronze.
If someone can show me how such a whistle could be made with stone-age pre-Contact tools like obsidian glass knives maybe?, I would love to be educated.
The University of British Columbia acknowledges that Pacific Coast carving as we know it began only about 200 years ago when “new tools” were acquired. “Most historians and other experts agree that totem pole carving did not reach its peak until the nineteenth century, when many coastal First Nations were involved in the fish and fur trade with Europeans. During this time, coastal First Nations acquired new tools that enabled them to construct more elaborate poles.” This entire page on totem poles makes no mention of iron or steel:
https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/totem_poles/
Does that mean that powerful whistles capable of summoning spirits and starting wars are a similarly recent invention?
Interesting observations…thanks for the comment. If the whistles were created by “white-man” tools, that would be ironic. Or do we call that cultural appropriation. 😉
Maybe the shamans from one tribe would creep through the woods at night and take up positions near an opposing tribe’s camp. Then those shamans would blow their whistles loudly until morning, disrupting the sleep of their rivals.
That could cause some intercultural conflict.
Not Just BC.
The latest Virtue Signalling from Nova Scotia. Appointed to the Order of Canada.
Elder Albert Marshall
Elder Albert Marshall of Eskasoni First Nation was made an officer for his contributions to the understanding of two-eyed seeing and for promoting Mi’kmaw culture, language and environmental ethics.
He said one of the key concepts of two-eyed seeing is the responsibility to not take any actions that will compromise the balance of nature.
For example, look both ways before crossing the road, sarcasm just in case you thought I was serious.
If kryptonite can endanger Superman, objects of power can endanger humans.
So I’m pasting muslin onto my car and brown paper onto the car windows; these should reduce my insurance premiums.
If museum scientists responsible for educating the public won’t stand up for evidence-based rationality, who do they think should?
But is it museum scientists or museum administration that is responsible? And are museum administrators recruited from ‘studies’ rather than ‘sciences’?
Perhaps the nature of the ‘institution’ is not quite as important as the long march through it?
The Church of Satan needs to get in on this.
I think you probably mean The Satanic Temple, OCS, rather than the Church of Satan.
All artifacts should be displayed normally but with a trigger warning disclaimer:
“Some believe artifacts in this exhibit are imbued with invisible power. Proceed with caution and at your own risk or avoid this exhibit entirely if you believe you might be susceptible.”
Done!
What? Taking personal responsibility? O noes!
‘ . . . glass cabinets should be “covered with brown paper to prevent disturbance and unintentional encounters.”’
I contemplate the optimal shade or tint of brown, and what effect wrinkling or creasing has on the efficacy of the paper. Also, why brown? A natural, earthy color? Why not Taupe or Distressed Pumpkin?
I would suggest a nice neutral weathered tarpaper to create the correct ambience.
I guess, because all this is crap, and brown is the natural color of crap, unless you have hepatitis.
There’s a great M.R. James story about one such artifact: “Oh, Whistle and I’ll Come to You, My Lad.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Oh,_Whistle,_and_I%27ll_Come_to_You,_My_Lad%27
Here in New Mexico the History Museum has moved all their wonderful Hopi katchina (or Katsina, we can even fight about the right word….) collection to the basement. Members can see them (with a warning, and no pix) — or so it was 5 or so years ago. By now, maybe they can’t be seen. Things are different in Arizona (which is usually a bad thing, from a human perspective, compared to NM) where the Goldwater collection is still where it should be at the Heard. I agree they shouldn’t be called “dolls” anymore, but they in fact originally were, mainly for little girls in their primative form, but then the haoles started buying them, and the sensible Hopi started making them for the tourist trade. I could be remembering wrongly, but I don’t think the small “doll” kachinas were ever a sacred religious item in Hopi culture … until the last 20 years or so when they became political footballs. Not unlike the Reep legislative member who just introduced a bill to outlaw necrophilia in NM. Major issue. Manufactured to trap someone into voting against it. Well, maybe a bit of a stretch from the me-tooism of the museums trying to out-wokify the other museums.
I’m flabbergasted! If you think only the Right has reactionaries, that museum affair is the disproof. Here the Woke Left turns out to be a Counter-Enlightenment Left.
By the way, don’t blame ol’ Marx, because he rejected the belief in things divine or supernatural!
What is to blame is the politics of pluralistic/relativistic multiculturalism with its demand for special group rights for ethnic minorities such as indigenous people, which include the right to cultural self-determination and liberation from white/western hegemony, including the “epistemic hegemony” of “white/western science”.
The ‘objects of power, do not approach if you are feeling discomfort’ nonsense reminds me of the ridicule some fundamentalist Christians received when they said they could feel an evil Satanic presence in their hotel room. They claimed that the evil presence turned out to be a Harry Potter book in the desk. This is the level that the far left is at. Only fit for ridicule.
What surprises me most is that the natural history museum has so much anthropology. It’s been a while since I’ve been to the natural history museums in NYC or DC, so perhaps I’m just not remembering correctly. I expected these museums would limit the study of humanity to its evolution and perhaps first evidence of tool use.
However, even in an anthropological museum, I would assume no difference between the treatment of indigenous American cultures and those of ancient Egyptians, etc.