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.