**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:

From a Tribal perspective, preservation is approached holistically; the
past lives on in the present \... Historic properties \... include not
only the places where significant events happen or have happened, but
also whole classes of natural elements \... (National Park Service
1990:7)

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:

ancient and contemporary cultural use sites and materials \... those
associated with traditional foods and other natural resources, other
sacred sites as designated by the Tribes, habitations, and historical
events and personalities. It is recognized that these are an invaluable,
irreplaceable, and endangered tribal resource. (Warm Springs Tribal Code
Chapter 490.001).

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:

Our starting point in our cultural resources program is that we never
did give up ownership of cultural resources off the reservation (Weldon
Johnson, quoted in National Park Service 1990:21)

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**

What a tribal program is about is a tribe establishing standards and
policies in controlling its own cultural resources rather than letting
someone else do that. (Alan Downer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation
Officer, quoted in National Park Service 1990:13).

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]{.underline}
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]{.underline} 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]{.underline}. **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\"]{.underline}. 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]{.underline} 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]{.underline}. [Whose Culture]{.underline}?
[Whose Property]{.underline}? **Ed** P. M. Messenger. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Pullar, G. L. (1987) [The Kodiak Island Project]{.underline}. 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]{.underline}. 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]{.underline}.
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.

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