The Desecration of Native American Sacred Sites
Although the protests from Native Americans and others concerning the desecration of sacred sites has had some effect, the problem persists. A sacred site is defined in Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites “as any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the Tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.” The definition of Indian Tribes refers to an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior has published on the list of federally-recognized tribes pursuant to Public Law No. 103-454, 108 Stat. 479.
The following data is from the May 2014 Progress Report on Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites. Government agencies who authored this progress report include the: U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. On December 5, 2012, the afore mentioned Federal agencies entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in an attempt of improve the protection of Indian sacred sites. The MOU, a five-year action plan released in March 2013, revolved around five central themes: (1) improving training and education for Federal staff concerning sacred sites and communicating with the tribes on issues with the sacred sites, (2) developing optimal management practices and construction agency and tribal capacity in order to more effectively address issues concerning sacred grounds, (3) identifying and analyzing mechanisms in order to protect the confidentiality of sacred sites, (4) increasing public outreach and informing other non-Federal parties about the need to maintain sacred sites, and (5) reviewing the laws related to sacred sites as well as formulating was to address problems impeding sacred sites’ protection. Each area of focus had a dedicated Core Working Group member. For each respective area (Training, Confidentiality, Management, Public Outreach, and Policy Review), the Core Working Member is as follows: (1) Defense, (2) Interior, (3) Agriculture, (4) Energy, and (5) ACHP.
The Training Subgroup was tasked with reinforcing the protection and access to sacred sites through identifying and promoting training methods regarding the sacred sites. As of this 2014 Progress Report, the DoD has compiled and analyzed all existing tribal training on all tribal matters paving the way for a database to be made for ease of access. Detailed analysis of the gathered training methods would also allow identification of the methods’ shortcomings. A Forest Service Tribal Relations Training Group has also been created and the DoD was evaluating whether its methods and efforts could be transferred across and used by other Federal agencies. The Next Steps for this Subgroup included: continuing communication with tribal leaders, experts, and Native American Non-Governmental Organizations in order to understand the difficulties faced and identify potential training methods that would remedy relationships between Federal agencies and the tribal governments.
The Confidentiality Standards Subgroup was tasked with identifying and analyzing the effectiveness of the existing confidentiality standards and requirements for maintaining the secrecy of information concerning the sacred sites as well as developing recommendation for addressing challenges that confidentiality maintenance faces. In order to fulfill these tasks, the Subgroup put forward an internal survey in order to assess participating agencies’ current standards and requirement as well as the challenges they have faced in the use of their standards. The survey also requested suggestions for improvement concerning the maintenance of the sacred sites’ confidentiality. The survey’s distribution and completion showcased interdepartmental collaboration and kept the involved agencies focused on the sacred sites’ issues on a high level. As of the 2014 progress report, the Subgroup was still in the analysis stage of the task list. The Subgroup was also looking at previous feedback from tribal leaders concerning their experiences with the Federal Government with the confidentiality of sacred sites. The Next Steps for this Subgroup included the development of recommendation on how to address the problems faced regarding the confidentially of sacred sites’ sensitive information and continued communication with the tribal leaders to assess the progress of their new recommendations. After the recommendations have been finalized internally, they will be compiled and presented as a cohesive plan for tribal consultation.
The Management Practices and Capacity Building Subgroup was tasked with assessing the existing Federal management practices and considering both the Federal and tribal capacity building that would allow Federal and tribal support of the sacred sites. In order to fulfill these tasks, the Subgroup managed to review the following: policies or practices that would reimburse the tribes for consultations, acceptable methods, processes, and protocols for future consultation and guidance regarding the management of sacred sites and related personnel. After review, the Subgroup considered several practices such as: cost-sharing, the use of technology, personnel exchanges and sharing of tribal experts, and intra-agency coordination. The Next Steps for this Subgroup involved the: development of sacred sites management guidance and creation of Local/Regional Federal Agency and Tribal Working Groups.
The Communication and Public Outreach Subgroup was assigned to the following four tasks: the identification of existing information that could supplement and be used in the creation of a Sacred Sites MOU website, creating a clear and simple message based upon the MOU language for other Federal Agencies and the general public, determining what outreach capacity currently exists within the respective agencies which could incorporate and build awareness of the MOU, and identifying the best practices for further outreach. The Subgroup’s first draft of the clear and simple message stated, “Sacred sites on Federal lands that are subject to the MOU often occur within larger landforms or connect through features or ceremonies to other sites or a larger sacred landscape. Agencies should consider broader areas and connections to better understand sacred site context and significance. Sacred sites include, but are not limited to, geological features, bodies of water, archaeological sites, burial locations, traditional cultural properties, and stone and earth structures.” The Sacred Sites MOU website, created and maintained by the USDA USFS, can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/sacredsitesmou.shtml. All involved agencies have made presentation at various tribal meetings concerning the MOU implementation’s progress. The DOI and ACHP co-hosted a listening session in partnership with the White House Tribal Nations Conference regarding the Sacred Sites MOU. The DOI also refined a generic power-point presentation concerning the MOU for the use of all signatory agencies. The Next Steps for the Subgroup involved, the sharing of information regarding on-going communication between the signatories and ensuring that the efforts to build capacity within the Federal agencies to improve communications about these issues continues.
The Policy Review Subgroup was tasked with reviewing the following policies: Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice. The Subgroup also was tasked with determining if more inter-agency measures were needed to better protect sacred sites, identify obstacles that faced the Federal-level of sacred sites’ protection, and make recommendations to the Executive Working Group to address those obstacles. In addition to reviewing the aforementioned policies, the Subgroup also reviewed the regulations implementing NAGPRA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) to the review because of its relationship to NAGPRA because they play an important role in how sacred sites are addressed by Federal agencies. Based on its review, the Subgroup found that there is no single Federal authority that required the preservation and/or protection of Indian sacred sites; however, there is a group of Federal statutes and Executive orders that create a Federal policy of “stop, look, and listen,” when dealing with actions that could affect Indian sacred sites. Another of the Subgroup’s findings was that there were only two Federal authorities that specifically address Indian sacred sites: the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13007: Indian Sacred Sites. The Next Steps for the Subgroup involved the review of existing guidance, policies, and internal directive of the signatories as well as the continuation of dialogue with tribal leaders.
Despite Federal efforts to preserve and spread information such as the 2012 MOU, the problem still continues. The following paragraphs will discuss the desecration of Indian sacred grounds from before and after the creation of the 2012 MOU.
In the 1975-1989 Akwesasne Notes, Devon Abbott addresses the Indian populace of Texas and their concerns with the desecration of their sacred burial sites and the scientific need for studying Indian remains. The Texan Indians found it interesting that archeologists don’t distinguish themselves from grave-robbers when all the difference is “the time element, sunscreen, and a little whisk broom.” The Indians see the archeologists’ quest for science as a heinous disrespect for the deceased and the First Amendment of the Constitution and the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act. The Indians believe that they not only have the right to ask these archaeologists to justify their actions and monitor their operations if and when they decide if those studies need to be performed. In conclusion, Abbott states, “Even if the remains can contribute to the advancement of science today, it is the place of the tribal medicine men to grant permission for study, not the Society for American Archaeology.”
Al Swilling, the Founder of SCAAA International, published a report condemning the desecration of the Alabama Trail of Tears which occurred during Halloween 2000 in Moulton, AL at the site of the Oakville Indian Mounds and Museum. A fundraising event was hosted by the Lawrence County Jaycees, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, to celebrate Halloween called the “Trail of Fears.” This play on words was enough to anger many Native Americans especially the native Echota Cherokee tribe; however, according to Swilling, the use of the sacred site and burials of their ancestors was “the ultimate insult.” The Jaycees claimed that the fundraiser was created to raise money for children of the area and when the Native Americans of the area offered to give the Jaycees money equal to what they expected to raise, the Jaycees refused. This led the Native Americans to believe that the Jaycees had other motives. The night of the fundraiser, the Native Americans gathered to protest peacefully; however, there were reports of Natives being arrested, imprisoned, and abused by police officers on scene who would even grab and drag the elders. The Alabama Trail of Tears falls under the definition of a sacred space since it was identified by an Indian Tribe as representative of the Tribe’s religion as the Mounds are the burial sites of their ancestors and they are the site of a ceremonial mound. Desecration of this site equates to the violation of the Native American’s rights to religious freedom as well as a violation of American Indian Religious Freedom Right Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-431).
The potential for personal enrichment can also lead to the desecration of Indian sacred grounds reports the Ojibwe News in its May 18, 2001 issue. Drought led illegal artifact hunters to the sacred Indian sites behind the Grand Coulee Dam. It is important to note that these eleven town sites, Indian settlements, and burial grounds were permanently flooded in 1941 during the construction of the Columbia River dam. Although the recreation area is open to boating and camping, disruption of the artifacts is illegal with fines ranging from $50 to thousands of dollars based on the circumstances and damage caused. In 2000, two people were caught digging for artifacts in the Spokane arm of the lake and the case was brought before Federal court. As of the time of the report, no one had been cited that year, but the Park Service had increased patrols and were trying to educate the public about the law and cultural sensitivity.
In the January 2006 edition of the Native American Times, Carter Camp, a member of the Ponca Nation, issued a call to action for all Indian people to gather and defend the sacred mountain, Bear Butte, from the construction of the 600-acre “Biker Bar Campgrounds,” which would consist of a man-made amphitheater and concert venue. The Indians also took insult to the proposed name of “Sacred Ground” and the construction of a giant Indian statue facing Bear Butte. The developer of “Sacred Ground” was not the only one who was seeking to build similar venues around Bear Butte. The Indian peoples wished to keep the area sacred and free from the noise, drunken partying, and roaring motorcycles which would drive animals, Indians, and spirits away from the mountain. It became quite obvious to the Indians that the immense amount of money Meade County and the state of South Dakota make off the “Sturgis Bike Rally” meant that their requests would not be heard. The New York Times’ Jim Robbins also reported on the conflict in an article published on August 4, 2006. Mr. Jay Allen, owner of the Broken Spoke Saloon and was currently finishing the new bar at the time, said that the Indians’ concerns were overblown. He said that the rock music amphitheater would face away from the mountain to reduce noise and knew “for a fact that this isn’t a disruption.” The Meade County commissioners who approved the beer and liquor licenses granted to Allen and other campground owners have refused to comment due to lawsuits. The Indians aren’t the only ones to protest the new campgrounds, the Association of Christian Churches of South Dakota supported a march back in July of that year and some bikers had also sided with the Indians with Kenneth G. Robinson, a biker, comparing it to putting a bar in the Vatican.
In an article by Sue Sturgis, posted September 3, 2009 on Facing South, an online magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies, a list of commercial entities who destroyed Indian sacred sites. Instances of sacred sites being destroyed in order for Wal-Marts in order to be built all around the country are prevalent. In the mid-‘90s, a Wal-Mart store in Canton, Georgia set up a permanent display of unearthed Indian artifacts taken from unearthed and relocated graves next to its layaway counter. In 2004, Sturgis reports that while building a Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart Supercenter in Hawaii, the workers unearthed 64 native Hawaiian graves and left the bones for three years in a trailer, waiting for reburial. However, Sturgis points out that Wal-Mart also cancelled plans to demolish sacred sites such as the 2001 relocation of a planned store in Morgantown, West Virginia after it was discovered that it would have destroyed a Native American burial site and having received letters protesting the chosen location from company shareholders and the Native American leaders. Wal-Mart wasn’t the only company or entity who was reported to damage or threaten sacred lands. In the late 1990’s an Indian burial site was disturbed by the construction of the Tennessee Titan’s stadium and its construction was defended by the Mayor, Phil Bredesen on the grounds that part of the site had already been disturbed by previous construction. Finally, Sturgis poses the question, “Why would the U.S. allow so much of its cultural heritage to be destroyed by development?”
The Tribes of the Yakima Nation in Oregon asked a federal court for justice after the government bulldozed their sacred burial grounds during a highway expansion project near Mount Hood, reported the Fort Apache Scout. In 2008, the government refused the tribal members’ requests which began as early as the 1980’s to use a retaining wall or widening the opposite side of the road and destroyed the sacred grounds. After years of failed negotiations, the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation sought a ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2017 since the government refused to remediate the site or return the sacred artifacts taken from the site. Plaintiffs Wilbur Slockish and Johnny Jackson, Hereditary Chiefs of the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation and Carol Logan, an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde were joined by the Cascade Geographic Society and the Mount Hood Sacred Lands Preservation Alliance. Carol Logan expounded on the destruction in her own blog on the Washington Post. The highway expansion destroyed the altar and other burial markers, covered the burial grounds with a mound of dirt, cut down the forest, stripped the sacred medicine plants and removed safe access to the sites. The government also left the opposite side of the highway untouched. In her own words, “…we are asking for the return of our sacred artifacts, the planting of new trees and sacred medicine plants and the promise that such injustice will not be allowed in the future.”
Another instance of Federal violation of an Indian sacred site came quite recently following President Trump’s inauguration. A few days after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order that would pave the way for the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction along a path protested by the Native Americans. The “water protectors” of the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes saw the 1,200-mile oil pipeline as a threat not only as a potential pollutant to the reservations’ water supply but also as an infringement on their religious freedom as water is a sacred element to them. Finally, the tribes feared that construction would disturb their ancient burial grounds. During President Obama’s last term in office, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it would attempt to reroute the pipeline to prevent crossing under Lake Oahe which was next to the reservations. However, on January 24, 2017, President Trump ordered the Army Crops to expedite approval of the pipeline and on February 8th, the Corps issued the legal rights for the Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners to proceed with the full pipeline being operational within three months, according to the Associated Press. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe requested a federal judge to halt the pipeline’s construction will a pending lawsuit filed in the summer of 2016. According the Dave Archambault II, the Standing Rock Sioux chairman, state in late January 2017, “The fight is now in D.C.”
Although the Native Americans, indigenous peoples, the American public and Federal Government have joined the fight and increased means to protect these sacred grounds, until the methods are solidified and more people band together, these sacred spaces will persist to be crushed under the pervasive modernization of the American West.