Zuni perspectives on historic preservation

Abstract

The federal historic preservation program of the United States guided by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its ensuing regulations is built on a framework that privileges Western epistemologies of time and space and perceives historic properties as inanimate remains that are valuable for their scientific potential and their capacity for representing significant historic contexts (Dongoske, Pasqual, and King 2015). The concept of historic preservation is far more personal for the Zuni people, however. Zunis see their historical sites as “memory pieces” where culture and history are recalled and discussed, and where ancestral spirits live on and offer power and strength to today’s generations (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2006). Zunis believe that any disturbance of these places has negative and lasting effects on the Zuni people and the world as a whole. Zunis thus define historic preservation as the maintenance and continuity of Zuni culture through the protection, commemoration, and continued respectful interaction with their historical sites and ancestors. In this article, we explore Zuni perspectives on historic preservation and provide recommendations on how adverse effects on historic properties can be mitigated to benefit the Zuni people.

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

©2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor&Francis Group, LLC

Implications

For the National Historic Preservation Act to truly accommodate Native American perspectives and values, U.S. federal agencies must provide inclusive and comprehensive consideration to places of cultural significance identified by Native Americans during the law’s implementation. Heritage practitioners need to shift away from prevailing practices that reinforce the Western power structure in heritage production and embrace a willingness to recognize, respect, and value the expertise of traditional communities.

Social Media Statement

Heritage practitioners must break free from practices that reinforce the Western power structure rooted in heritage production, and begin to truly recognize, respect, and value traditional communities’ expertise.

Keywords:

• Pueblo of Zuni
• sacred sites
• historic preservation
• cultural landscapes
• southwest US

The federal historic preservation program of the United States, exemplified by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is fundamental to ongoing heritage discourse in the United States. This heritage discourse generates a culturally constructed relationship with the past that is based on reverence and attachment to select places, objects, and practices that are seen as connecting with or exemplifying the past (Harrison 2012, 14). In the United States, as well as other Western centers of heritage construction, this discourse validates a set of practices and expert practitioners inextricably tied to Western cultural values, ontologies and epistemologies (Byrne 2014, 5; Smith 2006, 11). The power structure underlying the discourse privileges the Western worldview, and works to obscure diverse views of heritage, limiting debate and challenges to established values and meanings (Smith 2006, 12).

As a small Indigenous population, the Pueblo of Zuni has largely been excluded from broader heritage discourse within the United States. Over centuries, the Pueblo of Zuni has developed a set of heritage practices centered on the protection of Zuni ancestral and sacred sites, which Zuni people view as fundamental to the preservation of Zuni culture and identity, as well as honoring their responsibilities for the inheritance provided by the ancestors (Anyon, Ferguson, and Welch 2000; Anyon and Ferguson 1995; Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018; Ferguson and Anyon 2001; Mills and Ferguson 1998). Since time immemorial, Zunis have been taught to care for their ancestors through prayers, ceremonies, and offerings done at home and away, so that their ancestors will in turn care for them. Zunis treat ancestral archaeological sites as living shrines that directly influence Zunis today. They are used as places to deposit offerings and communicate directly with the ancestors. The natural world and its resources are vital in Zuni religious and ceremonial traditions, and Zunis attribute their knowledge of and values for the natural environment to their ancestors. Although historical events and unilateral decisions by the U.S. government have restricted Zuni people’s access to many places that are sacred to them, Zuni cultural beliefs and stewardship practices transcend the jurisdictional boundaries of the counties, states and federal agencies that were foisted on them.

Zuni efforts to protect places of Zuni cultural importance in consultation with federal agencies is complicated by historic preservation laws and ensuing policies enacted by federal, state, county and industry employees. At times, historic preservation policies are incommensurate with Zuni beliefs because the laws they seek to implement were never designed to incorporate alternative ideas about heritage or mitigate the insidious effects of colonialism on Indigenous peoples (Dongoske, Pasqual, and King 2015). Consequently, the Zuni people suffer from the loss of significant cultural sites destroyed by federal undertakings, and tribal members are left with a sense of frustration, skepticism, emotional trauma and sadness from a biased system of preservation that works to reinforce the prevailing heritage construction of the United States (Smith 2006). While global concepts of heritage and preservation practices have begun to shift to a broader worldview (Harrison 2012, 114), this article explores the ongoing consequences of heritage practice in the United States. In particular, we focus on the ongoing entanglement of historic preservation with the heritage values and practices of non-Western populations within the nation.

To that end, in this article we compile Zuni perspectives about historic preservation shared during a series of ethnographic interviews conducted for a Zuni traditional cultural property study of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (Dongoske et al. 2019). The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, administered by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, involves the construction of two main waterlines and several laterals that extend across hundreds of miles of the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico, with the goal of providing water from the San Juan River to Navajo and Apache communities, as well as municipalities along the pipeline. During interviews, Zuni tribal members provided their own definitions of historic preservation, and offered a critique of historic preservation regulations required for federal undertakings that affect Zuni cultural sites. Interviewees included male and female religious leaders, tribal representatives, and other members of the Zuni community.

Zuni research participants gave their consent to be cited in the technical report prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. Consent was also obtained for the publication of this article by each of the individuals cited, and by the Pueblo of Zuni Governor and Tribal Council. Social and religious information about interview participants is retained in the text below to provide context for the commentaries, and to retain Zuni traditions of identity and authoritative discourse.

The Pueblo of Zuni

The Pueblo of Zuni is a federally recognized American Indian tribe with reservation and trust lands in northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona. The tribe has approximately 11,000 members, most of whom reside in the main village of Zuni Pueblo on the Zuni Reservation. In the Zuni language, Zuni Pueblo is referred to as Halona:Itiwana, the ‘Middle Place’, because it lies at the spiritual center of the Zuni universe. The Pueblo of Zuni is one of 21 culturally and historically related Pueblo Indian tribes in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

Zuni traditions about their tribal origins have been documented for over a century (Bunzel 1932; Cushing 1896; Ferguson 2007; Parsons 1923; Stevenson 1904). According to these written accounts, Zuni people trace their emergence to Chimik’yana’kya deya (‘Place of Beginning’) at Ribbon Falls in the Grand Canyon. Upon emergence, the Zuni ancestors began a journey in search of Halona:Idiwan’a, a quest that led them over large portions of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico.

For Zuni people, ancient sites across the southwestern United States embody the physical traces of their past. Zunis refer to all ancestral sites as enote hes’ahdowe or “old homes.” Ancestral sites are often perceived of in terms of migration histories that are the physical manifestations of the Zuni spiritual path (Colwell and Ferguson 2014, 239). According to Ferguson and Hart (1985, 22), “Each stream or spring, each ancient village site, each stopping place on the origin trail of the Zunis became a sacred shrine, still remembered in prayers, and at which offerings are still left when the Zuni people return.” Artifacts, villages, shrines, burials and rock images transmit important historical and spiritual information to Zunis (Colwell and Ferguson 2014; Ferguson 1984, 2007, 2008).

Long after the migrations to Idiwan’a were completed, Zuni religious leaders continued to return to the areas where their ancestors had lived during the migratory period to collect resources, visit shrines, and leave offerings at ancestral villages (Hopkins et al. 2019; Anyon and Ferguson 2001, 104). However, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was an encroachment of non-Zuni populations in the region, and Zuni people lost the ability to freely use their entire aboriginal homeland (Ferguson and Hart 1985, 89–90). With diminished access to most of their ancestral homeland, the archaeological identification of Zuni sites has become an increasingly important means for the Zuni people to maintain cultural and religious practices, and consult with the federal government about management of historic properties (Mills and Ferguson 1998).

The Pueblo of Zuni established an historic preservation program in 1975, in response to the increasing number of archaeological studies being conducted on the Zuni Reservation after the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and ensuing regulations. The Zuni historic preservation program had four initial goals: (1) increase employment for tribal members on the reservation; (2) enhance research through the involvement of Zuni people; (3) facilitate development on the reservation; and (4) develop historic preservation policies and practices that aligned with Zuni values and beliefs (Anyon and Ferguson 1995, 915–917; Ferguson 1984, 225–226). Over the following decades, the Zuni historic preservation program evolved as the needs of the tribe and funding sources changed. The most prominent portions of this program today are the Zuni Cultural Resources Enterprise (ZCRE) and the Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office (ZHHPO), which were conjoined in 2004 during a period when the tribe faced significant financial pressures (Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018, 158).

ZCRE was established in 1982 as a small tribally-owned business. This enabled the Pueblo of Zuni to seek federal contracts issued as small business set asides (Anyon and Ferguson 1995, 918). ZCRE works independently from the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), providing cultural resource management services for archaeological work on and off of the Zuni Reservation (Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018). ZCRE provides the professional services federal agencies need to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires federal agencies to identify historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and assess the adverse effects of their undertakings on significant historic properties. Approximately 75 percent of ZCRE employees are Zuni tribal members, many of whom hold cultural and religious roles within their community. The employment of Zuni archaeologists and cultural advisors who possess specialized cultural knowledge enables ZCRE to identify historic properties that may be overlooked by non-tribal archaeologists. ZCRE has conducted hundreds of compliance projects in its decades of existence (Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018, 157–158).

ZHHPO was established in 1993, replacing the earlier Zuni Archaeological Program, to: (1) promote the protection and conservation of cultural resources significant to the Pueblo of Zuni both on and off the Zuni reservation; (2) serve as a point of contact for the Pueblo of Zuni in its national and international repatriation efforts; (3) represent the Pueblo of Zuni and negotiate agreements regarding cultural resources with federal, state, tribal, and private agencies; (4) perform Zuni traditional cultural property consultations; and (5) assume the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on Zuni lands in New Mexico and Arizona (Anyon and Ferguson 1995, 921; Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018, 158). In 2000, ZHHPO became a federally recognized THPO, and the Pueblo of Zuni assumed many of the SHPO responsibilities on Zuni trust lands (Dongoske, Dongoske, and Ferguson 2018, 158). Over the past three decades, ZHHPO has consulted on thousands of NHPA projects and conducted numerous studies related to the identification of Zuni historic properties, particularly Zuni traditional cultural properties.

Zuni perspectives on Historic Preservation in the context of the National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665, as amended by Public Law 96-515: Section 1), states that “the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage.” Consequently, the United States Congress declared that “the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans” (Public Law 96-515:Section 1).

An important aspect of the NHPA is Section 106, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed projects on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (54 USC 302909). To be eligible for listing on the NRHP, a property must retain “integrity,” be at least fifty years of age, and meet one or more of the following significance criteria (36 CFR 60.4):

1. associated with historic events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

2. associated with the lives of people significant in our past;

3. embody distinctive characteristics of a class, time period, traditional master builder artisan, method of construction, artistic quality, form of architecture, etc.; and/or

4. have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history and/or prehistory.

The National Park Service issued Bulletin 38 in 1990 (with revisions in 1992 and 1998) to provide guidance to federal agencies on how historic properties with traditional cultural significance, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes, may be identified, evaluated, and considered during federal undertakings. Bulletin 38 coined the term traditional cultural property, which is defined as:

A [historic property] that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community [Parker and King 1998, 1].

The NHPA was amended in 1992 to clarify that historic properties may include “properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria” (36 CFR 800.16 (1)(1). These are commonly referred to as traditional cultural properties.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued regulations for Section 106 (54 U.S.C. 306108) in 36 CFR Part 800. These regulations provide sequential decision-making procedures designed to enable agencies to fulfill their legal requirements under the NHPA. These sequential procedures are known as the “Section 106 Process” (36 CFR 800.3–800.7). The regulations (36 CFR 800) instruct federal agencies to complete the Section 106 process in four multi-layered steps, including (1) establishing the undertaking and initiating the Section 106 process, (2) identifying historic properties, (3) assessing effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and (4) resolving adverse effects.

The practice of the Section 106 process is largely enacted by federal agency employees in concert with employees of State Historic Preservation Offices, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and environmental compliance contractors (36 CFR 800.2). This core group of practitioners drive heritage practices, and, by extension, heritage creation in the United States. These practitioners are codified in federal regulations as the experts on the Nation’s heritage, and primarily have educational and technical backgrounds in anthropological archaeology, history, architectural history, architecture, landscape architecture, or closely related fields (48 Fed. Reg. 44738–44739). These professionals often reinforce the dominant set of heritage practices by relying on the expertise of other established practitioners, and questioning or rejecting diverse viewpoints (Fly 2016). While amendments to the NHPA in 1992 allowed for federally recognized American Indian tribes to establish federally-recognized Tribal Historic Preservation Offices as counterparts to State Historic Preservation Offices, their defined role is limited in scope and they often remain outside the dominant heritage discourse and ensuing practices in the United States (Hawkins, Banks, and Scott 2016).

In general, Zunis appreciate the opportunities that the Section 106 process provides their tribe to participate in the identification and evaluation of historic properties, and consultation with federal agencies about treatment measures. Nonetheless, many Zunis feel that the process is undermined when the engrained heritage practices that federal agencies rely upon privilege knowledge produced by archaeologists and other non-Native heritage practitioners in the identification and evaluation of historic properties rather than seeking tribal perspectives about the significance of historic properties. As a result, Zuni people are left with a general feeling of discord about the intent of the process and the decision makers involved in compliance activities. The following review of Zuni perspectives about the Section 106 process of the NHPA highlights some of these issues.

Step 1: Establish the undertaking and initiate the Section 106 process

At the onset of federal projects, federal agencies must determine whether the project is a federal undertaking, and if the undertaking has the potential to adversely affect historic properties. If an undertaking has the potential to affect historic properties, the federal agency is required to initiate the Section 106 process. The initiation of this process involves coordination with the appropriate THPO or SHPO, the public, and other relevant consulting parties to determine what environmental and cultural reviews are needed (CFR 36 800.3). This early step in the Section 106 process is often problematical for federal agencies. As Tom King (2013, 119) writes, it is common that federal agencies and their employees only complete the following:

[T]hey figure out what SHPO or THPO to consult and send them a letter––often asking just for their comments or even just notifying them of what’s planned and, if they get no response, assuming that they’re good to go. Or they’ll task a cultural resource contractor with doing an archaeological survey of the project site and submitting the resulting reports to the SHPO/THPO for approval; they think this is what section 106 review is about.

While inclusion of the Pueblo of Zuni as a consulting party in the Section 106 process has increased since the tribe began its historic preservation program in the 1970s, tribal members continue to believe that they are invited into the process only after critical decisions have already been made. Zuni tribal members think that federal agencies only consult tribes when problems arise. These problems often come in the form of damage to or desecration of Zuni ancestral sites that adversely affect the Zuni ancestors whose spirits continue to inhabit them (Kucate 2016, 11, 19; Martinez 2016, 10–13).

The issue of latency in federal consultation is compounded by what Zuni tribal members perceive as a lack of understanding by federal agencies on how to properly engage with the Pueblo of Zuni and other tribes. Arden Kucate, the head of the Big Charcoal Society, a kiva member of the Corn Kiva, a traditional healer, and a 12-year veteran of the Pueblo of Zuni Tribal Council, stressed that government-to-government consultation is “not one size fits all,” explaining that “different tribes have different protocols on how you get your feet in the door” (Kucate 2016, 11; 19).

Even when the Pueblo of Zuni provides input through government-to-government consultation many Zuni people feel their input is ignored. Mark Martinez (2016, 23), a leader of the Wall Kiva group, a member of the Koyemshi Society, and a former Tribal Council member, expressed dismay over the lack of follow through by federal agencies, stating that he often asks after projects that Zuni was involved in “what happened to our voices? What happened to the notes that were taken [during consultation]?” Similarly, Octavius Seowtewa, the leader of the Ne:we:kwe Fraternity, a member of the Big Wall Kiva and the Eagle Down medicine group, and the leader of the Zuni Cultural Resource Advisory Team, reiterated this point: “I used to make a joke about Zuni’s recommendations [in government-to-government consultation] going into a shredder and being lost, and I think that still holds true today because this information we’re putting out … it is not being used to the fullest extent” (Seowtewa 2016, 10).

Step 2: Identify historic properties

The second step of the Section 106 process requires federal agencies to identify historic properties that may be affected by the project. This first entails determining the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the undertaking. This is done by reviewing existing information on historic properties in the area, seeking information from consulting parties, and collecting information from tribal governments about locations with cultural or religious significance in the vicinity of the project area. Determining an appropriate APE is critical to make sure that it includes the entire area affected by an undertaking, as well as the project footprint (King 2013, 122–125). Negotiating an APE can be contentious, especially when parties disagree about the indirect and cumulative effects of projects on historic properties used in traditional cultural practices.

Once the initial scoping is completed, federal agencies must then identify historic properties “in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that might attach religious and cultural significance to properties within the area of potential effects” (36 CFR 800.4). After historic properties are identified, they are evaluated in terms of their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Federal agencies must then determine if the historic properties will be affected by the undertaking, and if they are they must proceed to Step 3, the assessment of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.4).

Federal agencies generally rely on methods from the disciplines of archaeology and architectural history to identify historic properties. This usually equates to federal agencies overseeing environmental compliance contractors who conduct archaeological and architectural history surveys to identify and evaluate historic properties within an undertakings’ APE (Dongoske and Pasqual 2016, 67–68). While care has been taken by the federal government to consider diverse methodologies for the identification of historic properties, including the use of knowledge from traditional communities (Parker and King 1998), in practice, the identification of historic properties continues to be dominated by heritage practitioners with Western value systems, and alternative methodologies (including Tribal epistemologies) are rarely fully incorporated within the process (Dongoske and Pasqual 2016, 68).

Zuni tribal members express dissatisfaction with how federal agencies carry out the identification of historic properties. They say there is an overemphasis on archaeological materials and the scientific values related to them, while the living histories and spiritual connections that tribal communities retain for such places is underrepresented. Furthermore, archaeological investigations are often inadequate at identifying many of the historic properties that Zunis consider significant, especially shrines and unmodified but culturally significant landforms. Zunis recognize that archaeologists and other heritage practitioners rarely have a comprehensive understanding of Native American history and culture, and are thus unable to grasp the complex values of significance that Zuni people apply to identification of historic properties.

One issue in the identification of Zuni historic properties that many tribal members expressed concerns about is the failure of federal agencies to comprehend that the Zuni people have strong and abiding cultural ties to areas outside of the Zuni reservation. Although the Zuni people have lost considerable amounts of their aboriginal territory since the late nineteenth century, they continue to see themselves as stewards of cultural sites throughout their traditional cultural landscape, and they connect to these sites through prayer, song, and ceremonies, even from afar (Anyon and Ferguson 2001, 104). Thus, Zuni people continue to hold cultural significance for places throughout southwestern United States, based on their migration history, interaction with other tribes, and other historical events (Ferguson and Hart 1985). Zuni people feel that their unique connections to places are often dismissed, undervalued, or misunderstood by non-tribal members, which results in the under-identification and consideration of cultural resources that are significant historic properties to the Zuni people.

Zuni tribal members felt that traditional cultural properties—historic properties that are meaningful for their significance to living communities—are systematically unidentified by archaeologists and federal agencies. Zuni traditional cultural properties include a wide array of cultural sites whose history and significance is specific to certain clans or religious groups, and is often esoteric (Kucate 2016, 6–8; Seowtewa 2016, 13). One type of Zuni traditional cultural property is shrines. Zuni shrines come in many forms but are often manifested by “rock piles” that are easily overlooked by non-Zuni archaeologists (Figure 1). Demetrius Seowtewa, a leader of the Flat Wall Kiva, a member of the Deer Hunter Society, and a Shalako representative for his kiva, has seen Zuni shrines destroyed because they were not identified as historic properties. He explained that without these shrines Zunis “might not have the intelligence or the prayers or the smarts to go ahead” with the practice of Zuni culture (D. Seowtewa 2016, 30).

Figure 1. Zuni tribal members working with anthropologists to assess a possible Zuni shrine in the NGWSP area. From left to right: T. J. Ferguson, Eldred Quam, Octavius Seowtewa, Ronnie Cachini, Kurt Dongoske, and Maren Hopkins. Photograph by Michael Spears, May 30, 2018.

Several tribal members pointed to natural resources, particularly springs and collection areas, as Zuni traditional cultural properties that are systematically overlooked during the identification phase of the Section 106 Process. Although natural features of the environment often do not possess temporal information typically used by archaeologists for identifying historic properties, they are described in Zuni oral histories documented more than fifty years ago. Zuni people regard these places “with reverence, with respect, and with honor” (D. Seowtewa 2016, 21) because they are associated with plants and animals who are living beings that are considered as relatives (Hart 1995, 8). Demetrius Seowtewa explained that certain plants and minerals are integral in Zuni ceremonies. The loss of collection areas has a direct negative impact on the Zuni people and “a direct effect on our preparations for our fasting and for our summer dances” (D. Seowtewa 2016, 23). Zuni religious practitioners harvest ceremonial natural resources from the same locations because they want to continue cultural traditions. Mr. Seowtewa stressed that religious practitioners follow tradition “because we do not know what’s going to happen. We do not know if spirits or ancestors turn around and get upset with us and do not want that to happen” (2016, 25).

Step 3: Assess effects

The third step of the Section 106 process requires federal agencies to assess the adverse effects of a federal undertaking on historic properties. Federal agencies must consult with “the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization” that attaches religious and cultural significance to them during this step. They must determine whether “an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association” (36 CFR 800.5). Coupled with the issues of the identification of their historic properties, Zuni tribal members believe the assessment of adverse impacts is constrained by Western perspectives and values. These perspectives and values are reinforced by heritage practitioners, often trained archaeologists, who commonly rely on archaeological perspectives to assess the effects of an undertaking on historic properties.

Zuni beliefs about adverse effects are often far reaching and complex, and include spiritual, emotional, physical, and intellectual consequences to community members. Arden Kucate (2016, 26) described the disturbance caused to the landscape by some federal undertakings as desecrations to the earth that take “away the natural life of what once existed.” He elaborated that “we’re robbing the delicate nature and balance of the earth itself.” He stated that Zuni prophesies tell that once the earth is totally unbalanced it will tip over, and that maintaining the balance of earth is “why us Zuni folks, we provide offerings to the earth, Sun, to the moon, to the environment, to pray that it remains balanced even though there’s so much significant desecration” (Kucate 2016, 26). The adverse effects of a federal undertaking on Zuni historic properties are compounded by centuries of disfranchisement that Zunis have experienced from land encroachment and the imposition of Western laws, values, and lifeways. Zuni perspectives about adverse effects are rarely considered in the Section 106 process, much less addressed.

Zuni people believe that the divide between Zunis and federal agencies in the consideration of adverse effects is due in large part to over-reliance on archaeological perspectives. Federal agencies view many Zuni ancestral sites simply as archaeological sites and, as such, these agencies think that adverse effects to these properties are only related to the loss of archaeological information and materials. The Zuni people, on the other hand, view their ancestral sites as living places that embody irreplaceable historical and cultural information and spiritual vitality that is essential for the continuation of Zuni culture. This difference can be easily seen in comparing the complex archaeological classifications of archaeologists, which often come at odds with the Zuni perceptions of ancestral sites as simply places of Honah’awan’altushina, meaning “our elders” (Martinez 2016, 9).

Zuni people see themselves as having culturally-rooted knowledge about sites or landscapes that allows them to recognize significance that would go unnoticed by archaeologists. As Mr. Kucate explained, archaeologists approach questions through a “theorem of study,” while tribes relate to archaeological sites using their knowledge and understanding of “the time of emergence and migration” (2016, 12). Furthermore, Zuni input on the effects of undertakings is not adequately sought or considered by federal agencies, because they often use an archaeological framework to conceive of cultural conceptions, and this framework leads agencies to not acknowledge Zuni migration histories associated with archaeological sites across the Southwest. Mr. Kucate (2016, 13–14) acknowledged that the Zuni people need to find better ways of expressing their esoteric knowledge in terms that do not compromise or trivialize Zuni culture so that places important in Zuni culture will not be lost.

Zuni tribal members believe that the long-term impacts from the desecration of historic properties are difficult to predict. Demetrius Seowtewa explained that when projects disturb the natural environment they “could cause an imbalance in some places,” but the source of the imbalance may not be self-evident (2016, 20–21). Often, Zuni people experience the adverse effects of an undertaking years after a project is completed, and future generations of Zunis suffer from the consequences. As several Zuni participants explained, the loss of places significant to Zuni people does not only have a direct impact on the present: it will indirectly impact future generations of Zuni people because the disturbed locations no longer have the ability to teach Zuni people and thus support Zuni culture (Martinez 2016, 24–27; D. Seowtewa 2016, 20–21).

Adverse effects experienced by Zuni people are often indirect and enduring, while federal agencies tend to focus on adverse effects that are direct, tangible and immediately resolvable. The failure of federal agencies to grasp the negative ripple effect experienced by Zuni people from the destruction of historic properties leads to a systematic lack of consideration of Zuni perspectives and therefore disenfranchisement when addressing Step Three of the Section 106 process.

Step 4: Resolve adverse effects

The final step in the Section 106 process requires federal agencies to work to resolve the adverse effects of undertakings on historic properties. This step is done through continued consultation between the SHPO or THPO and federally recognized American Indian tribes associated with the identified historic properties. This consultation should help to “develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties” (36 CFR 800.6).

Though federal regulations allow for federal agencies to take diverse approaches towards the resolution of adverse effects by an undertaking on historic properties, federal agencies and heritage practitioners generally rely on methods based on Western values and established heritage practices. For archaeological sites, if avoidance is not an option, it is common for federal agencies to mitigate the adverse effects to these historic properties by conducting archaeological data recovery (Douglass and Manney 2020; Sebastian 2020). This method is inherently destructive because it damages or destroys physical aspects of the historic property. However, the practice is viewed as mitigation because it salvages archaeological materials and thus archaeological data. Through this practice, heritage practitioners often privilege and reinforce a Western value system that views archaeological sites as simply repositories of archaeological data sets, and excludes alternative perspectives on these places (Dongoske 2020; Dongoske and Pasqual 2016, 68–70).

Zuni people generally reject this standard archaeological approach to the mitigation of ancestral historic properties, and instead often view the only acceptable resolution of adverse effects as complete avoidance of the historic properties. Presley Haskie, the kiva leader on the Shalako side of the Wide Wall Kiva and former leader of the Longhorn group, explained that to Zuni people the spirits of ancestors have not left archaeological sites. The spirits are important for Zuni ceremonial life “because they are our guides; they guide us,” he explained (Haskie 2016, 6). Based in this belief, Mr. Haskie recommended that archaeological sites within the NGWSP project area should be preserved, even small ones, because the “spirits are still there, their homes are there” (2016, 7). Mr. Haskie commented that if those sites are disturbed, “lord help them because there are going to be things happening [t]here. [The] waterline may be busted all the time, I don’t know, or something might happen. We don’t know because going through a site where people used to live but the spirits are still there, they may do something. We don’t know, only the spirits know” (2016, 8). Because of the unknown and indeterminate consequences that might result from disturbance to ancestral Zuni historic properties, Mr. Haskie and other Zuni people believe that avoidance of these places is the only acceptable option for mitigation.

Though Zuni people have strong convictions about the loss of their ancestral sites, they feel that the Section 106 process ensnares them in a double-bind dilemma where conceding to unacceptable forms of mitigation is better than total destruction of sites. Mr. Kucate (2016, 11) stated “[the Section 106 process] really doesn’t guarantee the tribes anything.” He lamented that the tribes often feel coerced into working towards a strategy with federal agencies that favors the mitigation of adverse effects through archaeological data recovery, and projects often end up with solutions that are problematic for the tribes involved (Kucate 2016, 11). Demetrius Seowtewa (2016, 11) commented that archaeological investigations are a better alternative than total destruction of sites, yet these impacts still constitute a “huge loss” to the Zuni people.

Discussion

For Zuni people, retaining a connection to their ancestors is a vital part of cultural and historic preservation. The tangible places of the past, including ancestral archaeological sites, provide Zuni people with knowledge, spiritual strength, and a sense of place and well-being. Mark Martinez explained that Zuni ancestors left materials for the Zuni people “to learn from and grow from” (2016, 14). Octavius Seowtewa (2016, 3) said that ancestral sites show that Zuni people “are a part of this land.” He described the spiritual significance of specific features at archaeological sites, stating “we connect to our ancestors that passed away through those hearths, we give them food offerings, and when we do find a hearth within the site, this is the place that we connect, this is the way we talk to our ancestors, this is [the] way we ask our ancestors for help, and so this information is very important.”

While the federal historic preservation program of the United States is driven by Western heritage practitioners and practices that are often at odds with Zuni values, some Zuni people think that the process is beneficial because it can lead to places significant to them being preserved. The identification of traditional cultural properties is a way that Zunis engage in the historic preservation process in order to protect their ancestral sites and preserve their culture and religion. Thus, while recommendations made by the Pueblo of Zuni are often ignored during the Section 106 process, they continue to insert themselves in the process and advocate for their interests.

The failure to take Zuni perspectives into account during the Section 106 process is a result of how the NHPA is applied in practice rather than its underlying framework. The NHPA was created to preserve the diverse heritage of the American people, and its legal framework recognizes that Zuni traditional history and values related to historic properties merit equal consideration under Section 106 of the NHPA. However, ensuing federal regulations and standard practice of NHPA processes have privileged the dominant heritage perspectives in the United States. This is beginning to change (albeit, slowly) but much work remains to be done (Hanson et al. 2022).

Under federal regulations, heritage practitioners dominate the Section 106 process and become the experts of the NHPA. Over the decades, these practitioners have come to rely on standard practices that are steeped in the methodologies of the Western disciplines in which they were trained. While there have been attempts to broaden the scope and perspective of the practice of the NHPA (i.e., Parker and King 1998), these alternative approaches have not been fully incorporated into standard practice of the Section 106 process. As a result, all too often Zuni perspectives and concerns regarding the Section 106 process are deflected or elided by federal agencies.

The NHPA is one of few mechanisms available to Native Americans to respond to the pernicious effects of colonialism and neo-liberal capitalism. In our opinion, federal agencies are, by and large, held more accountable to the values and desires of neo-liberal capitalism than they are to the concerns and issues important to American Indian tribes. Zuni people offer the following recommendations for improving the Section 106 process so that it enables them to be better stewards of their cultural landscape:

• Zuni people desire greater engagement and respect from federal agencies and heritage practitioners through meaningful, culturally-informed consultation and engagement in the planning of federal undertakings. It is crucial to stress the importance for this consultation and engagement to occur early and often in the Section 106 process so that the Pueblo of Zuni can be actively engaged during all steps of the planning process.

• Zuni people claim commensurate consideration of Zuni knowledge and value systems to that given to non-Indian heritage practitioners. The overemphasis of archaeological methods and Western knowledge systems has led to inadequate efforts to identify and appropriately consider Zuni historic properties, particularly those outside the Zuni reservation and those that do not possess artifactual remains. In addition, federal agencies often consider the impacts to identified historic properties only in relation to a property’s archaeological value, and not their value to living communities such as the Pueblo of Zuni. This leads to a neglect of Zuni historic properties that are not considered to have the potential for enhancing archaeological knowledge, and short-sighted approaches for mitigating the adverse effects to significant places. For the Zuni people, the knowledge of loss of Zuni ancestral sites can result in lasting psychological and emotional trauma that is never given meaningful consideration by federal agencies in this process.

• Zuni people ask that federal agencies consider avoidance of historic properties as the only acceptable resolution of adverse effects. To Zunis, the potential impacts caused by the desecration of historic properties do not cease when the physical place is destroyed; long-term consequences are unknown and indeterminate. While traditional archaeological mitigation is preferred to total destruction of a historic property, it does not mitigate the adverse effects to Zuni culture. In those instances where archaeological data recovery is planned, it is vital that federal agencies meaningfully incorporate Zuni perspectives and knowledge in plans for mitigation of adverse effects which will result in a more holistic bi-cultural interpretation of the physical remains constituting historic properties and a more equitable historic narrative.

Conclusion – actions to be taken

In order for the NHPA to accommodate Native American views on historic preservation, federal agencies must provide inclusive and comprehensive consideration to the cultural and historical properties and resources that Native people identify as relevant in the compliance process. In the case of the Pueblo of Zuni, this includes considering the historic properties that the tribe recommends as eligible for listing in the NRHP, and using the guidance in National Register Bulletin 38 to account for the intangible-tangible nexus that renders historic properties significant from a Zuni perspective. This means involving Zuni people in the entire NHPA process; respect for Zuni knowledge sovereignty and political sovereignty; and inclusion of meaningful and good faith efforts to identify and consider associated implications for the tangibility and integrity of various forms of cultural and historical resources.

To succeed, these proposed actions require a close evaluation and reorientation of dominant heritage practices in the United States. These new practices must allow for dialogue with and reflexivity to diverse viewpoints on heritage that may challenge underlying assumptions and practices in the United States. This cannot take place without a shift in the perspectives of heritage practitioners themselves. Practitioners must acknowledge their role in reinforcing the Western power structure related to heritage production in the United States, and then be willing to recognize, respect and value the expertise held by individuals and communities, including American Indian tribes.

Ethics statement

The research for this article was conducted by the Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise, a Pueblo of Zuni tribally-owned enterprise. All research was done with informed consent of research participants and the approval of the Pueblo of Zuni. Research participants provided their consent for the publication of this article, and the Pueblo of Zuni Governor and Tribal Council were provided a copy of the draft article for their review and comment.

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to the memory of Ronnie Cachini and Eldred Quam who provided invaluable guidance and insights during this research. We would like to thank the Pueblo of Zuni for supporting this research. In particular, we thank Zuni tribal members Presley Haskie, Arden Kucate, Mark Martinez and Demetrius Seowtewa for their contributions to this article. We also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, which has greatly improved this manuscript. Funding from the Bureau of Reclamation supported portions of this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael C. Spears

Michael C. Spears is an anthropologist who conducts community-based ethnographic, geospatial, and archaeological research with Native American tribes primarily in the U.S. Southwest. He holds positions with Anthropological Research, LLC, and the University of Arizona.

Kurt E. Dongoske

Kurt E. Dongoske is the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pueblo of Zuni and the Principal Investigator of Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise. He has held these positions at the Pueblo of Zuni for over 15 years, and has over 40 years of experience as an archaeologist in the Western United States.

Octavius Seowtewa

Octavius Seowtewa is the leader of the Zuni Cultural Resource Advisory Team for the Pueblo of Zuni. At the Pueblo of Zuni, he is a member of the Eagle Plume Down Medicine Society, the leader of the Galaxy Fraternity, and a member of the Flat Wall Kiva group. He is a Corn Clan member and a child of the Crane Clan.

Maren P. Hopkins

Maren P. Hopkins is an ethnographer and archaeologist whose work involves community engagement and place-based research aimed at understanding history and land use at various scales. Ms. Hopkins is professionally affiliated with Anthropological Research, LLC, and the University of Arizona.

T. J. Ferguson

Dr. T. J. Ferguson specializes in community-based archaeological and ethnographic research for historic preservation, repatriation, and litigation of land and water rights. He is a managing member of Anthropological Research, LLC and a professor emeritus in the School of Anthropology at the University of Arizona.