I don't see the problem. The questions anthropology seeks to answer are heavily influenced by politics and subjectivity; attempting to erase the imprecision wit

I don't see the problem. The questions anthropology seeks to answer are heavily influenced by politics and subjectivity; attempting to erase the imprecision with which humanity engages with reality paints an imprecise picture of humanity itself. As scientific inquiry is limited by the range of conceivable hypotheses (where that range is limited by experience, dogma, even bias) and available methods of observation, it seems imprudent to proclaim a "scientific worldview" (which is used inappropriately here, though not always elsewhere, as a synonym for "reason") as the be-all-end-all of interest. Especially in a society that has seen no small amount of reckless regard towards physical evidence of indigenous history. I see no reason to begrudge people the right to fill the vacuum left with whatever they like as long as it doesn't contradict physical evidence; they weren't the ones asking for developers to pave over grave sites. It's a bit of a, "lying in the bed you made," situation.