The Public Meaning of Archaeological Heritage - Society for ...

WORKING TOGETHER
land in the Ballona region from the developer, for example,
archaeological and Native American communities were never
included in discussions, and archaeological resources on adjacent
property also owned by the developer were never considered.
This illustrates the disconnect between Native American
concerns and those of anti-development/environmentalists; the
issue of preservation of Native American sites only comes up if
it can help achieve the political agenda of the latter groups.
Some descendant community members are disturbed by non-
Native American groups using terms like “sacred burial
ground” to describe the archaeological sites because they misrepresent
a very essential spiritual philosophy of indigenous
communities.
By the end of archaeological data recovery and monitoring,
local, state, and federal officials began voicing their concerns
over the destruction of the three sites. For example, in December
2003, the Human Relations Commission of the City of Los
Angeles voted to support the purchase of the property due to the
presence of Gabrielino/Tongva tribal ancestral remains and to
return it to its former state prior to grading. Ironically, this vote
came months after the completion of archaeological work and
the removal of all known cultural resources. Furthermore, a
local council member representing the West Bluffs district indicated
that the Commission could not support the resolution if
the City had no intention of actually purchasing the property.
Neither the City nor the State of California has the estimated
$40 million necessary to purchase it, nor the additional millions
to restore the area to its former state and protect it in perpetuity.
It remains unclear if the Commission would have supported the
motion if it actually had been feasible to act on it.
Cultural Resources, Patrimony, and
Perceptions of Preservation
Cultural resources have been seen, since the passage of the
Antiquities Act of 1906, as an integral part of the heritage and
history of the United States. The landmark legislation of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 furthered
the Antiquities Act and other similar legislation by creating procedures
(Section 106) that must be followed by federal agencies
when significant cultural properties are impacted. However, as
the above discussion suggests, one of the perceived failures of
NHPA has to do with public policy and historic preservation.
The average interested citizen of Los Angeles may read the
papers about the destruction of archaeological remains at West
Bluffs, including the fact that all federal and state regulations
were followed, and ask several simple questions: if NHPA regulations
were followed, how was site destruction permitted? If
descendant communities were involved with the planning and
implementation of archaeology at West Bluffs, why were they
outside the gate protesting?
There is a simple answer: Section 106 and CEQA procedures do
not, in and of themselves, protect cultural resources from
destruction. On privately held land, government officials have
no power to stop development because of archaeological sites.
Their obligation, under Section 106, is to assess the impact and,
to the extent feasible, mitigate the adverse effect. Affected
Native American groups, though their comments are invited,
also have no authority to stop a federal project (Watkins
2003:281). This is especially true of non-federally recognized
tribes like the Gabrielino/Tongva. Ultimately, while this act covers
a wide range of historic properties, its power to preserve
them is extremely weak; it is a procedural law, rather than strictly
a preservation law. The outcome of Section 106 is that the
undertaking is allowed to proceed.
Whereas there may be many reasons why NHPA contains
inherent weakness in preservation, one probable reason is the
considerable lack of acknowledgment of patrimony in the United
States. Archaeological remains on private property are
viewed as owned by that individual owner rather than as national
resources. NHPA is weak in the implementation of its procedural
process in many ways because of the regulators themselves.
Many elected officials tie the mitigation of archaeological
remains with science; dictating the excavation of an archaeological
site with scientific techniques is viewed as the responsible
thing to do because the information from the site is being saved.
Of course, many members of the archaeological and Native
American communities see that cultural resources have value
well beyond their scientific importance and that this value to
descendant communities cannot in many ways be mitigated.
Most public officials do not understand this and may only ask a
simple question: are the applicable regulations being followed?
If so, then many are satisfied and the undertaking may proceed.
Given this context, it is quite understandable why Native Americans,
including the Gabrielino/Tongva communities, may view
archaeology with suspicion. Certainly, archaeological work like
that at West Bluffs offers a great deal of important information
about how the ancestors of the Gabrielino/Tongva lived and
interacted with the landscape. These benefits may not be perceived
as accessible to descendant groups, however, because of
the technical nature of reports and publications (Lipe
2002:25–26). At the same time, it is undeniable that archaeological
data recovery is a destructive and invasive procedure (Tsosie
1997:66). To many Native American groups, preservation of
archaeological sites includes the prevention of excavations
because the sites often are seen as more important monuments
of tribal history than the information that can be gained from
archaeological investigations (Watkins 2003:172, 277). Many
descendant community members believe that once sites are
destroyed, the innate physical and spiritual connection between
them and the archaeological remains is lost. The goals and
14 The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2005