THE ROAD TO COMMON GROUND
by John C. Ravesloot
Before white settlers diverted its waters in the late 1800s,
the Gila River was the lifeblood of Pima farmers, who worked
the desert soil much as they had for generations. "The
Pimans reflected a mode of living that stretched back in
time more than 2,000 years," said the late Emil Haury, who
excavated the Hohokam site, Snaketown. The remains of
native settlements line the length of the river, which
bisects the reservation where 12,000 Pima (known as Akimel
O'odham, or "River People") and Maricopa (known as Pee Posh,
or "People") live today.
Both tribes claim ancestry with the Hohokam, the ancients
who made the arid flatlands bloom for centuries. "The
enduring character of Hohokam society was, in large measure,
a product of their nearly perfect adaptation to a desert
homeland," said Haury. When 450 Hohokam gravesites were
found during the building of the Papago Freeway in downtown
Phoenix, Gila River residents played a major role in
reburying the remains outside the right of way. In 1989,
the community joined forces with others tracing their
lineage to the Hohokam--the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, Ak-Chin Indian Community, and Tohono O'odham
Nation--to develop a policy for preserving their shared
heritage.
The residents of Gila River are genuinely interested in what
archeologists have learned about their past. Nonetheless,
they have strong feelings about the ultimate disposition of
their ancestors' remains. They prefer that burial sites be
left undisturbed. Given the explosive growth of neighboring
Phoenix, this is not always possible.
In 1989, the Pinal County Highway Department proposed
widening 14 miles of reservation road into a four-lane
highway. At the department's request, archeologists from
Arizona State University surveyed the right of way in
advance of construction. They found seven archeological
sites. The department realigned the road around four of
them and asked the archeologists to assess the rest for
eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places.
One--a Hohokam village--was eligible. Arizona State, at the
department's request, prepared a mitigation plan, which
proposed excavating the site.
Meanwhile, the community was making its own plans to steer
the project. A 17-member tribal council, which represented
Gila River's seven political districts, stipulated that:
1. The tribal council have veto power over the mitigation
plan.
2. All artifacts, which are considered community property,
be protected in storage designated by the mitigation plan.
Storage outside the community is considered temporary until
a site inside is found. All artifacts shall be returned
upon demand to the community.
3. Human remains be treated with reverence and immediately
reburied in a site determined by the community. Limited
nondestructive analysis of such remains will be granted
prior to reburial, but knowledge of the reburial will be
restricted.
4. The community's land use planning staff be informed
immediately should human remains be encountered in order to
monitor their recovery.
5. Should any agreed-upon plans be altered, by any agency,
before or during excavation, the community be informed well
before the changes go into effect.
Arizona State agreed to limit skeletal analysis to
nondestructive techniques such as cleaning, inventory,
visual documentation, and measurement. However, the
university argued that immediately reburying remains and
associated funerary objects would not allow time for
adequate analysis and documentation. The university asked
Gila River for three months (following field investigations)
for study in the lab. The community agreed, but requested
that the archeologists make every effort to return any
remains and associated artifacts as quickly as possible.
After working out these few points, the two parties drew up
a memorandum of agreement merging the mitigation plan with
the community's stipulations. Once field investigations got
underway, it became clear that the planning had been worth
the effort when the archeologists discovered a series of
Hohokam cremations and associated funerary objects. That
discovery, though important, was soon eclipsed by a find
that would galvanize the entire community.
In July of 1990, the first evidence of a turn-of-the-century
cemetery began to surface. Who was buried there? If the
graves were Pima, they could provide a rare glimpse of a
society that left few written records. Never before had a
Pima cemetery been excavated.
For the community, the discovery had many unforeseen
ramifications. Should the remains be paved over by the
highway? Or should they be exhumed? Whose traditions
should guide reburial? Those of the Pima? The Maricopa?
Was it a Christian cemetery or was it a traditional one?
Several districts came forward with competing claims for the
site.
In light of this unexpected turn of events, the community
and Arizona State halted the investigation to reexamine
their agreement and plan a new course of action.
Interviews with elders and review of historic maps failed to
determine who may have been buried at the site. While a few
elders remembered seeing the cemetery as children, none
could recall how large it was, when it was used, or who had
used it. It was common knowledge, however, that Pima and
Maricopa Indians lived side by side in the general vicinity
during the mid to late 1800s.
For this reason, and because archeologists found a ceramic
vessel some recognized as Maricopa, community members
thought the burials might be of that tribe. Some elders,
however, argued that the Maricopa always cremated their
dead. That left the decision with the Pima.
Arizona State put forth several options to avoid or minimize
disturbance to the cemetery if the road widening went
forward as planned: 1) Move the right-of-way; 2) Cover the
site with several feet of protective dirt before
construction; 3) Excavate the burials and associated
funerary objects, conduct nondestructive study, and then
return them to the community for reburial; 4) Have a
mortuary company relocate the cemetery.
In October of 1990, after three months of discussion, the
community chose the third option. Community members did not
want the burials paved over; rather, they wanted the dead
reburied in the same fashion as they had been originally. A
mortuary company, they concluded, would not have the
background to accomplish this goal. They felt that the slow
and meticulous way in which archeologists work would not
only provide the necessary information for reburial but also
ensure that the remains were treated with respect and
dignity.
The community's natural resources committee (which also
handled cultural matters) gave Arizona State the go-ahead to
excavate based on the earlier provisions of the memorandum
of agreement. However, the committee asked that the
analysis focus on determining whether the remains were of
Pima or Maricopa descent.
The resolution of this issue, while of interest for its
historical value, was important from a practical standpoint
as well. Which district(s) should be responsible for
selecting a reburial site and conducting the reinterrment?
At the time, with several districts laying claim to the
burials, the tribal council was at an impasse.
The excavation turned into a cooperative effort between the
community and Arizona State. Pima and Maricopa worked
alongside graduate students in archeology and physical
anthropology, all under the supervision of university
archeologists. Since everyone was concerned about vandals,
a security firm was hired to protect the cemetery during
nonworking hours.
Several days after fieldwork resumed, in November 1990, Gila
River asked the university to hold the Hohokam cremations
and associated funerary objects beyond the 90 days
originally agreed upon. The additional curation time would
enable the community to arrange for the return of all the
burials recovered during the project. At the same time, the
university was instructed not to use cardboard boxes for
temporary curation of human remains. Rather the tribe asked
that lightweight wood boxes, with brass fasteners, be
constructed for containment.
The university agreed to extend the 90-day period. The
manner in which the remains were curated was another issue.
While Arizona State respected the tribe's wishes, the
project budget would not allow any other form of temporary
storage. Furthermore, the university questioned using
wooden boxes for storage (and reburial) since neither the
Hohokam cremations nor the cemetery remains had been buried
in coffins. After some discussion, the community agreed to
the cardboard boxes.
Sixty-three burials were ultimately removed and transported
to the lab for documentation and study. During the course
of the laboratory work, the university made several
presentations to the natural resources committee, tribal
council, and elders to keep them abreast of the research,
particularly those aspects related to assessing the cultural
affinity of the remains. The archeologists also invited the
community--and in particular the elders--to inspect the lab
and repository, to give them a first-hand look at how the
analysis was done and the remains stored. About 75 elders
accepted. They considered the tour an important learning
experience and asked the archeologists to make a
presentation in the community so all could learn how tribe
members were buried a century ago.
In accordance with the memorandum of agreement, the
university completed study of the remains within 90 days, in
May 1991. The research revealed the site to be a late 19th
or early 20th century Catholic Pima cemetery, which may have
been in use for only a relatively brief period. A genetic
affinity assessment of the burials, made on the basis of
comparative dentition studies, provided some support for
this interpretation. The dental evidence suggested that the
burials were more closely related to modern day Pima than
Maricopa Indians, although Mexican and Maricopa dental
traits were present as well.
At the community's request, the university agreed to
continue curating the cemetery burials until such time that
the tribe found an appropriate reburial site. This process
was a lengthy one, taking two years to complete. The
burials, along with the Hohokam cremations, were returned to
the community in the spring of 1993. During the fall of the
same year, a reburial ceremony took place attended by
community members only.
It is hoped that the above summary provides some insight
into how we in Arizona, archeologists and Native Americans,
are dealing with the multifaceted ramifications of the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. I
believe our experience demonstrates that the implementation
of this new law will be a lengthy process, requiring
considerable time and effort by Native Americans and
archeologists alike. Native American communities like Gila
River will have many difficult decisions to make. Some of
these decisions, such as those relating to cultural
affinity, will require input from archeologists, physical
anthropologists, and cultural anthropologists.
In the process, we archeologists must not forget that we are
dealing with people and their traditions, not merely the
material record. Only by working together can we amicably
resolve differences and at the same time make important
contributions to our understanding of the past.
POSTSCRIPT
In the summer of 1993, the Gila River Indian Community made
an important step in this direction by establishing its own
cultural resource management program. The community
believes that the program will provide greater control of
the interpretation, protection, and preservation of its rich
cultural heritage, both on and off the reservation.
---------
John C. Ravesloot, who was employed by Arizona State
University over the course of the project, now works as the
community's cultural resources coordinator. For more
information, contact him at the Gila River Indian Community,
P.O. Box E, Sacaton, AZ 85247, (602) 562-3301, fax (602)
562-4008.
Adapted from "Working Together to Understand the Prehistory
and History of the Gila River Pima, Arizona," presented by
John C. Ravesloot and Clarence Chiago at the symposium "The
Reality of Repatriation: Issues of Implementation," Society
for American Archaeology, 57th annual meeting, Pittsburgh,
PA.