PROTECTING THE PAST, PROTECTING THE PRESENT: CULTURAL RESOURCES AND AMERICAN INDIANS

Roger Anyon

Introduction

While the protection of the past appears to be a simple concept, both the "past" and the nature of its "protection" are culturally defined. Many issues of critical relevance to American Indians are often ignored or merely implied in discussions about archaeological resources protection. To Indians, archaeological resources are only part of the realm of cultural resources for which protection and preservation is a serious concern; cultural resources represent not only the past but also the present, they are a legacy derived from hundreds of generations of ancestors.

For a western-trained scientist protection of the past is a difficult proposition. The material record created in the past is now transformed into the archaeological record. The archaeological record is an unbiased present day phenomenon, it can be measured, observed, and analyzed. The past, on the other hand, is what we make it; it is our interpretation of the archaeological record. The crucial problem for scientific archaeology is to develop methods to evaluate interpretations of the past.

Since the arrival of Columbus, non-Indians have acquired title to nearly two billion acres of land in the United States alone, all of which was once controlled by Indians (National Park Service 1990). Today Indians have title to about two percent of these lands. Millions of archaeological sites scattered throughout the United States, on non-Indian and Indian lands, represent the unwritten record of Indian achievements, their histories, and their cultures. For centuries Indians have witnessed their cultural heritage under siege from foreign cultures. They have survived policies of removal from their homelands, assimilation, and termination. Even after the right of Indians to self determination within a pluralistic society was recognized in 1975 with the passage of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, an important part of their cultural heritage remains under assault. Looters and vandals continue to destroy ancestral homes, camps, religious sites, burial grounds, and other cultural resources.

The complete protection and preservation of cultural resources is a common goal shared by Indians, archaeologists, legislators, and many other citizens. It is important, however, for non-Indians to understand that while Indians share a common goal to protect and preserve cultural resources their needs and ultimate objectives may differ. When laws and regulations to protect these resources are written, enacted, and applied Indian perspectives have often been overlooked.

Federal, tribal, and state laws protect cultural resources on federal, Indian, and state lands. Cultural resources on private lands are, however, unprotected for the most part. At present only twenty seven states protect unmarked burials through state legislation, but provide no protection for other cultural resources on private land. A number of Tribes have enacted their own ordinances and tribal codes to provide not only for protection of cultural resources on tribal lands, but also call for site protection on other lands, for example in traditional use areas where they have allowed non-Indians to settle. Protection for all cultural resources, on a national level, is clearly inadequate. To provide adequate protection will require a comprehensive integration of multiple cultural viewpoints about the importance of cultural resources, as well as more inclusive laws than presently exist at the federal, state, and tribal levels.

In this article I explore some of the differences between Indian and non-Indian cultures, values, pasts, and presents in terms of perceptions about cultural resources (including burials which to Indians is an integral part of the cultural resource protection issue). It is important that these differences be addressed if Indians and non-Indians are to develop mutually agreeable and workable solutions to protect, preserve, and manage cultural resources. I also provide a brief review of how some tribes are using the law to assert their role in protecting their cultural heritage.

I am a non-Indian but I have spent a number of years living and working, as the Tribal Archaeologist, for the Zuni Tribe on their reservation in New Mexico. Although non-Indians can never expect to gain a complete understanding of a particular Indian culture and world view it is important that we attempt to understand Indian viewpoints concerning cultural resources. After all, it is the archaeological record of the American Indian that

comprises the vast majority of archaeological sites in the United States, and it is this resource that the vast majority of archaeologists working in North America study.

Different Cultures, Different Values

The Indian view of cultural resources is, in general, much more holistic than that of non-Indians. While non-Indians are primarily concerned about protecting and preserving archaeological sites, Indians view archaeological sites as part of the larger realm of cultural resources that cannot be separated from those resources:

Tribal law and codes emphasize this holistic approach to cultural resources (see Rogers this volume for a discussion of model tribal laws). For example the Warm Springs Tribal Code explicitly incorporates this view of cultural resources needing protection and adequate management, including those sites that are:

Indians wish to preserve archaeological sites as a part of their efforts to preserve cultural resources because these sites are an integral and irreplaceable part of their cultural identity and their history as a people. These resources are the heritage of Indians; with no written records of their past these resources are their history, to which they retain their links through legends and myths about the land and its people. Archaeologists and concerned non-Indians, on the other hand, wish to preserve and protect archaeological sites primarily to protect a non-renewable data base that holds part of the record of human adaptive evolution. Indians are often dismayed at the restrictive values placed on definitions of cultural resources by non-Indians. It simply does not make sense to them that only a portion of their cultural history should warrant protection.

Another, more fundamental point of importance for Indians is the issue of land ownership, and the protection, or lack thereof, for cultural resources. Non-Indian concepts of private land ownership and individual property rights as they extend to cultural resources, are appalling to most Indians. Why does the use of the land through it's current legal ownership apply to the cultural resources within that land (see Fowler this volume for a discussion of the legal structure of historic preservtion law)? Why should only the cultural resources that happen to lie on lands controlled and owned by federal, Indian, or state governments be protected under laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)? Whether cultural resources are on federal, Indian, state, or private lands is not a point of relevance to Indians as Weldon Johnson of the Colorado Indian Tribes has stated:

A number of Tribal ordinances reflect this expectation that off- reservation cultural resources, under any land ownership, should be afforded equal protection as those resources on lands with protective legislation. The Navajo Nation Cultural Resources Protection Act and the Warm Springs Tribal Code, among others, call for such protection. Other tribes, from a variety of areas and different cultural backgrounds, including the Hopi, Zuni, Seneca, Chemehuevi, Paorch Creek, Cherokee, Lummi, and the Praire Band of the Potawatomi, have also demanded full protection for cultural resources on private land.

Situations, such as that at the ancestral Zuni site of Heshodan Imk'osk'wa, graphically illustrate the absurdity of pretending that land ownership boundaries have any relevance when the protection of cultural resources is at stake. This site lies partially on and partially off the Zuni Reservation. With full protection of the law the portion of this site on the Zuni reservation remains intact whereas the privately owned portion of the site has been looted with impunity (Nichols et al. 1989).

It is ironic that the American concept of individual rights, to do as one pleases on ones land, a right often touted as being the reason that looting Indian cultural resources is acceptable, has many other restrictions that are apparently for the health and welfare of the nation. If an endangered species, for example the bald eagle, nests on private land it has the same protection as it would if it had nested on federal land. The landowner may not destroy or harm the bald eagle, or its nest, despite his or her ownership of that land. Land owners are not permitted to exercise their individual rights to do as they please in this case; they must obey the law, private land or not. The bald eagle, symbol of the United States, is well protected on private land. Indian cultural resources, symbols of a long and proud Indian heritage, are not protected on private lands. Of even greater irony is that a renewable resource through breeding, the bald eagle, is given full protection, whereas non-renewable cultural resources are provided no protection at all from the whims of private landowners (for a discussion on archeology and the Public Trust concept see Knudson this volume).

Even under the provisions of current federal legislation that specifically ensures the protection of some cultural resources, the need to provide accountability for different cultural values is not adequately addressed. Given that most of the cultural resources protected under the NHPA and ARPA are ancestral or in-use Indian resources, the roles of tribes under federal laws and regulations are inadequate. Tribes are allowed only a consulting role, or given the power to make recommendations. Whether or not Indian concerns are actually taken into account in the final decision about the disposition of cultural resources depends upon the individual land manager. Managers that take Indian consultation and recommendations seriously often ensure that the Indian concerns are addressed in the final decision. If, on the other hand, the land manager does not see any need to address Indian concerns, then these concerns are ignored. For Indians this can lead to serious problems, if the protection afforded a resource is inappropriate or inadequate.

Different Pasts, Different Presents

To Indians and non-Indians the past and present are perceived in different ways. Under NHPA, properties should be minimally 50 years old to qualify as being significant, while under ARPA the cut off is at 100 years. Many Indians, however, do not distinguish the past and the present in such concise and arbitrary terms. To Indians, for whom time is often not the linear concept it is to most Americans, the past can be the present and the present the past. Consequently, although the past and the present may be separated in the law, these legal non-Indian definitions of past and present, and what constitutes an historic property can be perplexing to many Indians. Take for example two instances of perceptions about the role and use of two historic properties, as defined under the law, that are important cultural resources to the Zunis.

The site of Kia'makia is located to the south of the present day Zuni Reservation. To archaeologists this is a pueblo occupied sometime during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and abandoned before the arrival of Coronado in 1540. Archaeologists believe Kia'makia should be protected for its potential to provide significant data to the discipline. For the Zunis, however, Kia'makia is not only a ruin, it is where the Kia'nakwe lived and Cha'kwena corralled all game animals. After the Zunis defeated the Kia'nakwe in battle they opened the corral and freed the game. Since that time, game has roamed the face of the earth (Stevenson 1904:36-39). When Stevenson visited the site in the early 1900s, the spring and water hole at Kia'makia were surrounded by hundreds of Zuni prayer sticks. On a recent visit to the site the prayer sticks mentioned by Stevenson were not observed, but for the Zunis their visit to the spring was of great significance. They began to recall and tell the legends of Kia'makia, the Kia'nakwe, and Cha'kwena. Future religious visits to the site are planned. To the Zunis Kia'makia is as important in the present as it is a location of their past history.

At the Pueblo of Zuni itself, Indian and non-Indian perceptions of the past and present are not entirely congruous. While the Zunis value their past as an integral and important part of their culture, they do not wish to become a society viewed by outsiders as a living museum. The protection of in-use historic properties such as Zuni Pueblo can, therefore, become problematic. At Zuni the present day needs of the tribe can sometimes be at odds with the expectations of non-Indian historic preservation efforts.

The Pueblo of Zuni has been occupied for hundreds of years, and has become a modern town atop a complex archaeological site, a site that continues to evolve in the present. Over the past 100 years the architecture of the Pueblo has undergone drastic changes. What was once a compact five-story pueblo has been modified into a more diffuse series of one story structures surrounded by suburbs. During the last century the essential integrity of spatial structure within the Pueblo has been maintained even though Zuni vernacular architecture has undergone massive changes (Ferguson et al. 1990). Zunis want to have modern homes and continue to live in the Pueblo. Here the fundamental needs of shelter and housing for the Zuni people often conflict with the non- Indian ideals of historic preservation. Historic preservation ideals are for the Pueblo to retain its historic character, but these ideals are sometimes applied in such a way that Zunis feel as if they have little control over the continued growth and development of their own Pueblo. This is not meant to imply that the goals of historic preservation and the goals of modernization at Zuni are incompatible, but rather that the two different cultural perceptions of historic preservation are not necessarily the same. Preservation of the historic character of the Pueblo is important to the Zunis but they feel that historic preservation concerns of both Zunis and non-Zunis must be accommodated by a dialogue where both parties are treated as equals.

The pressure from historic preservation agencies for Zunis to retain the Pueblo as it once was, is echoed in the questions of many tourists who visit Zuni. Tourists arrive in Zuni expecting something quite different from the present day town. They usually begin a conversation by asking where the Pueblo is, and then are disappointed to find that the five-story nineteenth century Pueblo is not in existence today. The tourist perception of what Zuni should look like is conditioned, to a large degree, by history as presented at many of the protected and preserved archaeological sites in the Southwest. At these sites visitors see exhibits and receive literature showing late nineteenth century pueblos, implying that Zuni, for example, is some kind of living museum. Thus, non-Indians often expect the present to look like the past, and are surprised when this is not the case. To the Zunis, the present does not have to look like the past because the past lives on in the every day actions of the Zuni people. The essential cultural difference is that non-Indians want to see the past to know it, whereas to Indians the present embodies the past and thus they do not necessarily have to see their past to know it.

The ways in which the past is used to interpret the present also play a vital role in molding cultural perceptions. That every culture, at different times, perceives its past and the past of other cultures in its own idiosyncratic way is well established. Today we see the great Moundbuilder debate of the late nineteenth century (Willey and Sabloff 1980:34-43) as a parochial view that is an unfortunate legacy of our intellectual past. But is this debate just an unfortunate part of our intellectual past? Present day visitors to Anasazi archaeological sites in New Mexico are often presented with the mysterious disappearance of the Anasazi as being a focus of archaeological research in the area. The abandonment of the spectacular pueblos in Chaco Canyon and other locales is presented as a mystery. Interpretive signs and exhibits ask; What happened?, Where did the Anasazi go? Even if mention is made that modern pueblos are populated by descendants of the Anasazi, the tourist is provided with photographs of nineteenth century pueblos. It is with these questions of Anasazi disappearance in mind that the tourist arrives in Zuni. Asking a Zuni where the Anasazi went is simultaneously comical and insulting. The Zunis are direct descendants of the Anasazi, and are fully aware that Anasazi archaeological sites are those of their ancestors. They often fail to understand why anyone should ask so strange a question. An Anasazi mystery fabricated by mostly non-Indians is just as mysterious to the Zunis as is the fable itself to the visitors. This type of fabricated past forces us to consider that once the past is protected and preserved how it should be presented to the public. Whose past and whose present is being protected?

Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Strategies

Given the varied cultural values, traditions, and resources of Indian tribes it is not surprising that they have developed different methods for protecting their cultural resources. It is precisely because of these differences that the need for cultural resource protection and management lies at a local level, within a framework provided by federal legislation. The NHPA provides the mechanism through which tribes may develop their own standards and procedures for protecting cultural resources, and some tribes are beginning to implement their own historic and cultural preservation offices. This process will be one of adjustment by both Indians and non-Indians due to greater Indian involvement in cultural resource issues. Here, I outline some of the different strategies implemented by several tribes to take control of their cultural resources. This discussion is far from exhaustive; it is meant to provide a brief overview of the range of strategies being applied by tribes in the United States.

As I have noted above, the protection, preservation, and management of cultural resources are an issue of great importance to Indians. This can, however, mean different things to different tribes, just as much as it means different things to Indians and non-Indians. To some Kootenai tribal members these concepts mean leaving the cultural resources alone and keeping archaeologists away from resources on the reservation (Pat Lefthand, quoted in National Park Service 1990:47). To the Hopi of Arizona, these concepts have been treated as a basis for working with the state and archaeologists to study ancestral ruins, and develop them as a park for public education and enjoyment (Adams 1989).

Tribes have successfully used the provisions in NHPA and ARPA to develop tribal involvement in the protection of ancestral cultural resources on their reservations. On many reservations a combination of NHPA and tribal ordinances have been used to prevent destruction of tribal cultural resources. Any development projects that have not assessed impacts to cultural resources cannot be activated, and projects that do start without assessing this impact are often shut down by tribes until they do comply with the law.

For the past 15 years the Zuni Tribe of New Mexico has owned and operated its own archaeology program. After seeing outsiders doing archaeology on its reservation for decades, the tribe decided that it should exert control over cultural resources management issues and formed its own archaeology program in 1975. Since then the Zuni Archaeology Program has been involved in all aspects of cultural resource management, research, inventory, and curation of cultural materials, public interpretation programs, and training and development for tribal members (Anyon and Zunie 1989).

Both the AkChin in Arizona and Koniagmiut of Kodiak Island in Alaska have used archaeology projects to initiate tribal cultural resource programs. For the AkChin the successful litigation of water rights led to an agricultural development project, which led directly to tribal involvement in cultural resources management. Under the NHPA and ARPA, archaeological research led to the discovery of prehistoric ancestral ruins on the AkChin lands being developed for agricultural purposes. This experience provided the impetus for the tribe to establish its own eco-museum where the community itself controls the prehistoric resources removed from the ground. The museum also provides for the protection and use of these resources for the benefit of tribal members (Charles Carlyle, personal communication 1989). For the Koniagmiut the experiences of working with students from Bryn Mawr College at the excavation of an ancestral archaeological site, although fraught with initial problems (Pullar 1987), have proved to be extremely rewarding for both the tribe and archaeology students. The tribe has increased its own involvement in the project and has used this as a springboard for developing cultural resource management issues.

For the Navajo Nation the provisions in the NHPA have created the conditions for the development of a tribal Historic Preservation Office. This office has been instrumental in the passage of the Navajo Nation Cultural Resources Protection Act, and negotiations for the tribal office to take over the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Offices (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) for tribal lands within those three states. An initial project undertaken by the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Office was a pilot study at selected chapters (the unit of local government on the Navajo Nation) into Navajo perceptions about cultural resources (Kelley and Francis 1988). One of the more interesting results of this study is that many Navajos regard prehistoric Anasazi sites as an aspect of the natural landscape. This is quite a different perception than that held by the Hopis and Zunis who regard Anasazi sites as ancestral cultural resources.

The Navajo Nation has also linked the provisions of the NHPA with those in the Self-Determination Act, and has recently contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take over cultural resources management work on the Navajo reservation from this particular federal agency. For all tribes the initiation of an independent tribal historic preservation office and the self-determination contracting of cultural resources work is a major precedent setting step towards tribal management of cultural resources on tribal lands.

Conclusion

The protection, preservation, and management of cultural resources is an issue of great importance to Indians. It is, however, important for archaeologists, legislators, and the public to understand that different cultures, whether they be Indian or non-Indian, have different concepts and values that they bring to protecting the past. The archaeological record is a present day phenomenon that must be protected. It is this present day phenomenon that is the key to different cultural pasts.

The archaeological record is an essential part of the Indian cultural heritage. It is also the fundamental data base of archaeologists. For Indians, the record embodies aspects of their cultural past and their cultural present; it is an affirmation of their long and close ties to the land. They are sure of their cultural past and see the archaeological record as their ancestral cultural resources, and a record of the past they know. For archaeologists with scientific training, the archaeological record embodies the unknown, the data to unlock the cross-cultural patterns of human adaptive evolution. Both Indians and archaeologists see the same material record and both have equal and valid needs of that record.

To successfully promote the goal of protecting cultural resources it is essential that all parties are treated as equals. The goal of cultural resource protection should continue to be met through federal statutes such as the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal statutes should, however, be amended to provide complete protection of all cultural resources throughout the country, regardless of current landholding legalities. If the goal of federal statutes is to protect this non-renewable record of the national heritage then the law should provide equal protection for all of this heritage not just those parts on certain landholder's property. The idea of declaring all archaeological resources as a part of the national patrimony is nothing new; it is the law in many other countries throughout the world. While federal legislation should provide more inclusive protection for all cultural resources it should also provide greater latitude for the development, enactment, and application of tribal laws to allow even stricter protection of the resources at a local level.

The protection of cultural resources is a common goal of different cultures, each with its own agenda about why it is protecting the past. It is a goal that can only be met through equal participation of all relevant parties. This participation must be met not only through the law, but also through direct and honest communication, where the views of each culture are accepted as having equal validity. It is the acceptance of multiple viewpoints that is the key to accomplishing the goal we have set.

References Cited

Adams, E. C. (1989) The Homol'ovi Research Program. Kiva 54(3): 175-194.

Anyon, R. and Zunie, J. (1989) Cooperation at the Pueblo of Zuni: Common Ground for Archaeology and Tribal Concerns. Practicing Anthropology 11(3): 13-15.

Carlyle, C. L. (1989) Personal Communication. Route 2, Box 27, Maricopa, Arizona. 602-568-2227.

Ferguson, T. J., Mills, B. J., and Seciwa, C. (1990) Contemporary Zuni Architecture and Society, pp. 103-121. In Pueblo Style and Regional Architecture. Eds N. C. Markovich, W. F. E. Preiser, and F. G. Sturm. Van Nostrand Reinheld, New York.

Kelley, K. and Francis, H. (1988) Zuni and Navajo Use of the Navajo "New Lands". Papers presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona.

National Park Service (1990) Keepers of the Treasures: Protecting Historical Properties and Cultural Traditions on Indian Lands Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Nichols, D. L., Klesert, A. L., and Anyon, R. (1989) Ancestral Sites, Shrines, and Graves: Native American Perspectives on the Ethics of Collecting Cultural Properties, pp. 27-38. In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Whose Culture? Whose Property? Ed P. M. Messenger. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Pullar, G. L. (1987) The Kodiak Island Project. Paper presented at a Conference on Native Americans, Native American Lands and Archaeology. Heard Museum, Phoenix.

Stevenson, M. C. (1904) The Zuni Indians: Their Mythology, Esoteric Fraternities, and Ceremonies. Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 1901-1902. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Warm Springs Tribal Code (nd) Chapters 490, Protection and Management of Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.

Willey, G. R. and Sabloff J. A. (1980) A History of American Archaeology. 2nd Ed. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Return to the Table of Contents

Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article