Multivocality in the Forest: A New Approach to Tribal ...

1

Multivocality in the Forest: A New Approach to Tribal Relations on the Coronado National Forest, Arizona. Sarah E. Cowie, University of Arizona Christopher C. LeBlanc, Coronado National Forest, Heritage Program Mary M. Farrell, Coronado National Forest, Heritage Program Nicholas C. Laluk, University of Arizona, Coronado National Forest, Heritage Program Abstract: The United States Forest Service consults with Native Americans regarding their tribal homelands, Special Places, Traditional Cultural Properties, and archaeological sites within Forest Service boundaries. The Coronado National Forest (Arizona) recently formed a Tribal Relations Team (TRT) to collaborate with local tribes to improve the existing consultation process with tribes and to integrate tribal voices in the Forest Service’s stewardship of the land. The team emphasizes face-to-face communication by facilitating youth and elder camps, traditional resource collections, and a variety of public outreach activities. These activities engender valuable cross-cultural exchanges regarding land management practices. In the process, Forest Service employees are listening and learning about diverse tribal cultures, their cultural beliefs, and their concerns regarding the management of their traditional homelands. In the future, TRT personnel hope to use this knowledge to better understand tribal priorities concerning land management, and insure that tribal voices are heard and understood during future project planning and consultations.

Keywords: Tribal Relations; Heritage Consultation; Collaboration

Introduction The United States government recognizes many American Indian, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian tribes as sovereign nations. The US Forest Service (USFS) is mandated to uphold their Federal trust responsibility to protect tribal resources and lands, which can be interpreted to mean traditional tribal homelands, special places,

Arizona Anthropologist 19: 1-17. © 2009 Arizona Anthropologist

2

ARIZONA ANTHROPOLOGIST 19

Traditional Cultural Properties 1 (TCP), and archaeological sites within Forest Service boundaries. As part of this responsibility, the USFS consults with numerous tribes that have ancestral, historic or modern ties to land now administered by the Forest Service in regard to proposed projects. There is a common misunderstanding that consultation is mandated primarily for archaeological sites. In fact, consultation encompasses all cultural resources, including archaeological resources, historic resources, Native American cultural items, spiritual places, religious practices, cultural uses of the natural environment, and community values (SWCA 2005). Although Congress first recognized the need to protect archaeological sites and other historic properties over 100 years ago, consultation with the tribes whose ancestors created these same sites is a relatively recent phenomenon, mandated in the following laws and Executive Orders (Table 1): Table 1. Selected Legislation and Executive Orders Regarding Native American Cultural Resources. Title

Codified

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

PL 95-341; 42 U.S.C. § 1996, § 1996 note

National Historic Preservation Act

PL 89-665, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470w-6 and amendments; PL 96 515, U.S.C. 470a

National Environmental Policy Act

PL 91-190; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370c

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

PL 101-601; 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3013

White House Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

29 April 1994

Executive Order 13007. Indian Sacred Sites

24 May 1996

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and 6 November 2000 Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Twelve federally recognized tribes have traditional ties to lands now administered by the Coronado National Forest (CNF): O’odham people, formerly known as Pima and Papago (Tohono 1

The term “Traditional Cultural Property” has been defined by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, in its series of publications to help guide the evaluation and documentation of properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Bulletin 38 states: “A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one 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 (continued next page)

Cowie et al. – Mulitivocality in the Forest

3

O’odham Nation, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, Ak-Chin Indian Community); Western Apache and Chiricahua Apaches (White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chiricahua-Warm Springs-Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation); Hopi Tribe; Pueblo of Zuni; and Pascua Yaqui Tribe. In 2001, the Coronado National Forest established a single position, the Tribal Liaison, to help the CNF establish better relationships with tribes. Controversy sparked by the US Congress’s authorization of the Mount Graham International Observatory 2 dictated the Tribal Liaison’s first priority: preparing the documentation to determine Mount Graham eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a Western Apache Traditional Cultural Property. The White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had requested this determination. More crucially, the CNF staff felt that officially acknowledging the importance of Mount Graham to Western Apaches was a necessary first step in all future consultations about projects on the mountain. The Tribal Liaison’s work included meetings and field trips with Western Apache tribal members as well as archival research. Meanwhile, the CNF developed “memoranda of understanding” with the Hopi Tribe and the Gila River Indian Community to tailor consultation to the needs of those specific tribes. CNF archaeologists worked with the Ak-Chin Indian Community to facilitate the collection of basketry materials and other traditional plants on forest service lands, and met with representatives from several tribes in the field to discuss the treatment of archaeological sites or the potential effects of specific projects. Yet, personal contact between other Forest Service employees and tribal members was limited. In general, the main protocol for consultation at the CNF included sending letters to notify tribes of proposed projects and asking tribes in writing for opinions on the rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1998). The National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties listed on, or eligible for the National Register, was amended in 1992 to include traditional cultural properties, and to require federal agencies to consult with a tribe if an undertaking would affect a historic property to which the tribe attaches cultural or religious importance. 2 The Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, which authorized the construction of the astrophysical site, specifically addressed the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. However, Western Apaches’ concerns that the telescopes would damage a sacred area were not addressed in the law.

4


projects. Due to funding and personnel constraints, communications took place largely in written form, funneled through the Forest Service archaeologists. Face-to-face encounters were limited to occasional meetings or field trips with members of tribal governments’ cultural resource offices to address specific problems or issues. However, these efforts were not sufficient or satisfactory for either the CNF or the tribes. At least 12 Native American tribes have unique relationships to the land that is now administered by the Coronado National Forest, and that relationship with the land is tied to their cultural well being. Tribes have expressed a general distrust of the consultation process, resulting from centuries of conflict and miscommunication with the Federal Government. Most recently that distrust manifests in controversial projects at sacred sites, as was the case with the Mt. Graham International Observatory (MGIO) (Russell and Adams-Russell 2006). The MGIO was constructed in the peaks of the Pinaleño Mountains, also known as Dzil Nchaa si’an (Big Seated Mountain; Welch 1997:75). The mountain range is considered very sacred to Western Apache tribes. This sacredness is embodied in Southern Athapaskan worldviews centralized and defined by Holy Peaks. The southern Holy Mountain (Dzil Nchaa si’an) is a primary source of specific powers and is linked with the sacred turquoise color and thunder (Goodwin 1939:85; Welch 1997:88). Moreover, these peaks are home to the Apache gáán (mountain spirits) who descend “to share mountainderived power and wisdom” (Welch 1997:88). In an attempt to officially recognize the importance of the mountain, the CNF Tribal Liaison worked with Western Apaches to compile a determination that this sacred area is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). However, even its current TCP status does not bring full protection by tribal standards: the National Historic Preservation Act requires consultation, but does not require protection or preservation. The failure to understand the significance and intricate ties of the spiritual, social, cultural, and physical worlds within Apache and other Native American worldviews and belief systems contributes to legislation and policy that do not recognize or effectively integrate the principles and values that are most important to American Indian peoples (Williams 1993:1153). Coordinating work for the Mount Graham International Observatory within the sacred place of


5

Dzil nchaa si’an remains quite controversial (Russell and AdamsRussell 2006). In 2005, the CNF’s Tribal Liaison retired and the position was abolished. Her expertise in tribal law and her interpersonal relationships with tribal members were lost. In the next year, no one person had sufficient time or resources to cultivate and expand tribal relationships in addition to their regular duties. To rebuild tribal relationships with existing funding and personnel, in 2006 the archaeologists in the CNF Heritage Program tried a new approach. The CNF was restructuring its work force to increase efficiency, and was reemphasizing the Forest Service motto of “caring for the land and serving people” (USDA 2008). Employees were given the flexibility to share resources and blur boundaries between administrative units (Coronado National Forest 2006). Currently, the CNF is in the process of revising their Forest Land Management Plan, which will guide decisions for decades. One goal of the CNF is to collaborate with tribes to incorporate their visions for the forest into the revised Land Management Plan. In response to these changes in policy, the CNF Heritage Program recruited an interdisciplinary Tribal Relations Team (TRT) that includes a diverse grouping of Forest Service personnel such as archaeologists, district rangers, fire prevention officers, land surveyors, silviculturists (forestry specialists), biologists, and administrators. One advantage of this varied team is to provide a greater diversity of contacts among the many stakeholders within the CNF and interested Native American tribes, to increase opportunities to understand each other’s concerns. Relationship continuity is no longer dependent upon one person. Most importantly, tribal leaders and their representatives talk directly to the Forest Service decision-makers and specialists, rather than to an intermediary liaison. There are numerous other advantages as well, which we detail later in the paper. The Need for Multivocality in the Forest Multivocality generally indicates parallel discourses or different narrative understandings. Broadly applied, this idea is related to a variety of concepts. For example, Jacques Derrida’s (1978) notion of decentering explains how open systems of communication create an absence of a central or singular meaning. In critical theory,

6


decentering has been linked to studies of electronic media and hypertext, in which individual readers choose their own central points of reference and follow relevant hyperlinks; this is in contrast to closed systems such as printed books (Landow 2006). In a similar vein, certain archaeological theories of the past decade have emphasized reflexive methods in archaeological practice, acknowledging that different interest groups might generate alternative histories (Dowdall and Parrish 2003:100; Hodder 1999:160; Shanks and Tilley 1987: 245) (see also Barkan and Bush 2002; Dongoske et al. 2002; Shackel and Chambers 2004; Watkins 2000, 2002). The concept of multivocality is increasingly applied in federally mandated archaeology and heritage stewardship, for example, where histories presented by archaeologists are often too limited and sometimes contested (e.g., McDavid 2002, Zimmerman 1995). Instead, collaborative research incorporates the interests, goals, and knowledge of descendant communities, indigenous peoples, archaeologists, and other interested groups. Examples of collaborative projects include studies of colonial European and Native American interactions in the Pacific Northwest (Daehnke 2007), the interpretation of indigenous sites in the US (Dowdall and Parrish 2003, Ferguson and ColwellChanthaphonh 2006), and the collective remembrance of sites important to African-American histories (Delle 2008). Voice, memory, and landscapes are inextricably linked. Cultural groups reconstruct the landscape in social ways that are culturally relative. Keith Basso’s (1996) Wisdom Sits in Places describes the processes of naming places and (selectively) recalling the names, narratives, and wisdom embedded within them; this process yields a phenomenology of sorts - a way of knowing the truth about history that is culturally and socially relative. Similarly, cognitive anthropology’s attention to the environment supports the idea that different cultures may understand and model the environment differently, resulting in alternative views of nature and people’s place in it (see Kempton 2001). As T. J. Ferguson and Chip ColwellChanthaphonh (2006:243) observed in History is in the Land, collaborative research that includes Native American perspectives and oral histories “injects a sense of humanity” into historical and archaeological research that otherwise sometimes “narrowly transforms human lives into detached objects of study.”


7

Anthropologists have recently called for our discipline’s increased involvement with conflict resolution, indicating the utility of ethnographic methodologies to promote cross cultural and interdisciplinary dialogue surrounding contentious issues (e.g., Davidheiser and Treitler 2007). The CNF is now focused on involving tribes early in the decision-making process, and working together to resolve conflicts. Not only can collaboration with tribes enrich the CNF’s understanding of the landscape and its history, it can also have practical benefits to Forest Service management. This kind of engagement has become a high priority for the CNF, to begin to address Native Americans’ concerns presented in the recent report entitled Values, Attitudes and Beliefs Toward National Forest System Lands: Arizona Tribal Peoples (Russell and AdamsRussell 2006). This report summarizes comments made by Hopi, Navajo, Yavapai Apache, Prescott Apache, and other tribal entities during focus group discussions regarding tribal consultation in the Southwestern Region of the US Forest Service. Participants in the focus groups repeatedly expressed concern that their cultural beliefs and values were not sufficiently incorporated into decision making within the Forest Service. For example, one participant (cited in Russell and Adams-Russell 2006:11) explained the disparity in worldviews regarding a sacred mountain on the Coconino National Forest, in saying, The Forest Service has tended to divide that mountain. It is like taking a piece of pizza and slicing it up and saying we will only take this much here. It only represents one percent of the mountain. In this case it is the special-use (Snowbowl) permit. If you look at the spiritual side of what they are doing it is tantamount to slicing up (our culture). The tribes consider that mountain to be a living entity…. When the tribes consider that a living entity and they go and desecrate the mountain like that with reclaimed water, it is like cutting a piece of your mother off. Cutting a toe off and it is as if they say ‘oh that is only one percent of the body’.

Different tribes and different individuals within tribes have varying degrees of contact with the Forest Service. While some tribes and individuals actively work towards an improved working relationship with the Forest Service, others do not. Tribal relations with Arizona’s Coconino National Forest, for example, have been

8


described as “a bad marriage, we are not talking right now” (cited in Russell and Adams-Russell 2006:12). In spite of these difficulties, it appears that much can be accomplished through effective communication that establishes active dialogue more so than dictating static policy. Some tribal members clearly welcome the Forest Service’s interest in improved methods of consultation, saying, I would like them to sit and talk with us, to understand how we perceive these areas. They are not just natural springs or just natural resources. They are beyond that from a cultural point of view. Members of our tribe view these places as part of what we need to be who we are. We can talk about those things and how what the Forest Service does affects us and our meanings about those places. [cited in Russell and Adams-Russell 2006:1]

Tribal members have also repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with a perceived tendency to lump all tribes together, disregarding their individual worldviews and sovereignty in land management decisions. For example, one tribal member observed, Sometimes federal agencies try a divide and conquer approach to dealing with Indians. They will come to us and say, ‘Hopi said this or Navajo said that.’ I try to tell them my concern is not with what the other tribes say or do. We have our own way of dealing with NAGPRA, Traditional Cultural Properties, and other things. We don’t want to debate with other tribes. We want the courtesy of federal agencies respecting our tribal sovereignty and that of other tribes as well. [cited in Russell and Adams-Russell 2006:9]

Indeed, in the past, diverse tribal perspectives were not incorporated in the Coronado National Forest’s land management practices. In the 1990s, the CNF archaeologists began consulting tribes on the wording or design of interpretive signs that dealt with tribal history, but traditional knowledge and tribal issues were not considered in the 1986 Forest Plan (USDA 1986). More recently, however, the CNF has recognized the environmental and educational benefits of incorporating tribal voices, as well as the legal, social, and moral imperatives to do so. As a recent Forest Service report on tribal relations explains, the Forest Service now envisions “a future where the Forest Service and Indian Tribes work


9

collaboratively through government-to-government relationships ~ a future where the Forest Service possesses the organizational structure, skills, and policies to redeem our responsibilities in this partnership” (USDA 2003). The Coronado National Forest’s revised approach to tribal relations is attempting to do just this. The New Tribal Relations Team (TRT) Approach The Tribal Relations Team approach focuses on building new relationships and strengthening existing relationships with tribes through cooperative, mutually beneficial partnerships and projects. In turn these relationships will help expand and deepen the CNF’s relationship with tribes when it comes time to consult for the overarching Forest Plan revision or for specific projects. This diverse team will build better relationships, and more lines of communication will lead to a new depth of understanding between people with different worldviews and land management practices. In particular, the “decision-makers” of the CNF (the Forest Supervisor, the Deputy Forest Supervisor, and the District Rangers) will hear tribes’ concerns directly, and all members of the TRT are in a position to find common ground between tribal and CNF interests. No member of the team works full time on tribal relations, and anyone with particular expertise, knowledge, or inclination can contribute. Thus, people from all positions within the Forest Service can work towards these goals more efficiently than a single individual. Although the Tribal Relations funding is less than in the past, with the current organization, the TRT is able to do more relationship-building, create true government-to-government contact, and engender multivocality. Goals for the Tribal Relations Team generally focus on interpersonal communication and redefining what constitutes effective consultation. The team actively seeks opportunities for face-to-face contacts and on-the-ground field trips to project areas to discuss potentially controversial projects in the early planning stages. The TRT works with the 12 tribes that have traditional ties to lands now administered by the CNF. The team’s diverse membership also allows it to work with other Native Americans who have relocated to Tucson and the surrounding communities from traditional territories in other parts of the country. Generally

10


speaking, TRT activities include hosting tribal youth and elder camps, facilitating resource collection within the CNF, consulting about projects, and general relationship building. For example, the TRT facilitates the tribes’ collection of traditional resources and reduces the need for permits to collect such resources, thus making them more easily available. The TRT encourages broad partnerships by sponsoring storytelling camps and youth camps that focus on natural resources, both of which draw upon the expertise of tribal elders. In addition, outreach activities, such as information sessions and job recruiting, focus on finding employment and economic opportunities for Native Americans within the Forest Service. Many activities, such as traditional storytelling and resource collection, continue to take place on the reservations and are not dependent upon the CNF. However, one mission of the TRT is to make tribes feel welcome on their traditional lands by facilitating tribal-sponsored visits and events. The following sections describe some examples of recent efforts by the TRT to coordinate with tribes, build partnerships, and build interpersonal relationships. Camps In 2006, the TRT facilitated an elder and youth camp for the Ak-Chin Indian Community at Kentucky Camp, a National Register Historic Property on the CNF. The TRT provided a meeting place and grant money for travel and food. CNF personnel provided talks and demonstrations about forest engineering and fire management, and worked toward building meaningful relationships with the Ak-Chin Community. The Tribe provided the expertise for tribal history lessons, traditional activities, and resource collection. CNF personnel’s and Ak-Chin tribal members’ perspectives regarding land stewardship demonstrated a fascinating contrast that is important for developing a mutual understanding of resource management from two very different worldviews. In 2007, the TRT’s efforts to secure federally sponsored More Kids in the Woods Grants, which provide youth with opportunities to learn about natural resources, created partnerships between the Tohono O’odham Boys and Girls Club, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the non-profit group Sky Island Alliance, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Kitt Peak National Observatory, and others. As a result approximately 30 Tohono O’odham and Ak-Chin youth


11

participated in a five-day camp on the CNF, entitled T’Jewedga, which is O’odham for “our land” or “everyone’s land.” The children participated in various activities such as gold panning, pack mule demonstration, and an astronomy tour. An O’odham elder gave a number of talks regarding O’odham history and cultural practices, as well as blessings and a departing talk. These successful camps inspired a number of other camps, including an O’odham storytelling camp in the winter (as traditional O’odham storytelling customarily takes place in cold weather) and a horse camp in the spring, with another land-managing agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), enlisted as a partner. Resource Collection Resource collection on the CNF has benefits for both the CNF and participating tribes. For example, the unnatural buildup of plant materials within the CNF boundaries can increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires. O’odham people have traditional uses for many plants growing within the CNF, such as mesquite for fuel wood and yucca and beargrass for basketry. By including fieldgoing employees in the TRT and training them in what materials tribal peoples want, the Forest Service can facilitate resource collection. TRT members have notified tribes when and where these resources are available, and have assisted tribal members with collection. The CNF benefits from the reduction of fuel loads, while the tribes acquire free fuel wood, as well as basketry materials that are not readily available on the reservations. These activities were initiated by the Ak-Chin Indian Community’s Cultural Resources Department and the Tohono O’odham Senior Services in Sells, AZ. This resource collection program has become so popular, it has expanded to the other districts of the Tohono O’odham Nation and now fosters plant collection on BLM land, too. The TRT hopes to expand this partnership with other tribes and other agencies in the near future. Project Consultation Tribes need to consult with many government agencies regarding heritage resources, but have limited funding to do so. In some cases, the TRT can work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate tribal

12


consultation for projects that cross modern administrative boundaries. The TRT also continues to develop Memoranda of Understanding with individual tribes to outline common goals and interests. These memoranda specify how the CNF will consult about different kinds of projects, with the understanding that each tribe has a unique perspective and interests in the management of their ancestral lands. As the management climate in the CNF has shifted, so has the emphasis on exploring varied forms of communication with tribes that give them more voice in decision making. For example, CNF recently participated in a Listening Session on Mt. Graham for the chairpersons of the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Tribes, National Forest officials, and members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As a result of the session, all parties agreed to collaborate to develop desired conditions and best management practices for the sacred site. Building Relationships Other activities are directed toward making tribes feel welcome on their ancestral homelands and exchanging information that will lead to mutual understanding. For example, the TRT provided logistical support for a documentary created by Hopi filmmaker Victor Masayesva and the Mescalero Apache Tribe in a joint effort with the National Park Service and the University of New Mexico. In a related event, the TRT coordinated with the Mescalero Apache Tribe for a blessing ceremony on Forest Service lands. This event was largely put on by Apaches, for Apaches, in a favorite location of Cochise’s band of Chiricahua Apache – East Cochise Stronghold in the Dragoon Mountains. Approximately 500 people made the trip from Mescalero, New Mexico, to attend the feast and Mountain Spirit Dances, and experience the Dragoon Mountains. TRT personnel gave a tour of West Cochise Stronghold and a talk on the history of the Chiricahua Indian Reservation, which in the 1870s encompassed parts of the CNF and surrounding land. Another goal of building relationships focuses on hiring and retaining Native American Forest Service employees. Job recruitment for tribal members in the Forest Service is important for both tribal economic development and for involving tribal members in land management decisions on an administrative level. This new


13

generation of tribal leaders within the hierarchy of Forest Service management will make it possible for tribes to make decisions regarding their ancestral homelands.. Conclusions and Recommendations Respectful communication and collaboration with tribes is aligned with the Forest Service mission and the Federal trust responsibility. Building interpersonal relationships humanizes the process of respectful consultation. It may not be possible to avoid conflict altogether, but disagreements can be learning opportunities in longterm relationships, provided that the CNF personnel and tribal members continue to communicate. The TRT has developed some preliminary recommendations and working goals to lead to more effective consultation and collaboration: • Tribes with traditional ties to the areas now part of the Coronado National Forest are recognized as having an integral role in the stewardship of the land. • Tribal members have free access to sacred sites for individual and group prayer. The integrity of sacred sites is maintained or improved. • Traditional uses, such as the collection of basketry materials and fuel wood, are encouraged and help restore the precontact ecosystems. • Traditional lands on the CNF provide a setting for intergenerational sharing and the education of tribal youth in culture, history, and land stewardship. • Interpretive and educational exhibits or other media are developed in collaboration with tribes, so that the general public gains a greater understanding and appreciation of their history, culture, and traditions. • Efforts are made to make tribes feel welcome on their traditional lands, and the CNF helps to facilitate tribalsponsored visits and events. • Collaboration between tribes, Forest Service, BLM, state agencies, private foundations, and landowners help blur modern boundaries and create partnerships.

14


Tribal members are encouraged to pursue careers in the Forest Service, and contribute to the CNF’s ability to respond to the needs of a diverse public. • Tribal documents (e.g., NATHPO 2005, White Mountain Apache Tribe 2004) provide guidance and recommendations for consultation. • Face-to-face meetings give tribal members a true voice and the respect to be heard. We expect and hope that these goals, gleaned from past conversations and meetings with tribes, will evolve as our communication and collaboration evolves. In conclusion, removal of tribes from their ancestral homelands over 100 years ago physically distanced them from their lands. However, they maintain strong spiritual and cultural connections with their homelands through a sense of place, memory, and the wisdom embedded in the landscape. The damage of removal cannot be undone, but the CNF can work toward multivocality in the Forest by facilitating tribal visits to their ancestral landscapes, and by listening to the memories and wisdom these visits invoke. •

References Cited Barkan, Elazar and Ronald Bush, Eds. 2002 Claiming the Stones Naming the bones: Cultural property and the Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sites in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Coronado National Forest 2006 Workforce Design Model. On file, CNF Supervisor’s Office. Tucson, AZ. Daehnke, Jon D. 2007 A ‘Strange Multiplicity’ of Voices: Heritage Stewardship, Contested Sites and Colonial Legacies on the Columbia River. Journal of Social Archaeology 7(2): 250-275. Davidheiser, Mark, and Inga E. Treitler 2007 An Analytic Introduction and a Call for Interdisciplinary Engagement. Anthropology News, September 2007. Delle, James A. 2008 A Tale of Two Tunnels: Memory, Archaeology, and the Underground Railroad. Journal of Social Archaeology. 8(1):63-93.


15

Derrida, Jacques 1978 “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 278-293. Dongoske, Kurt E., Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner 2000 Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology. Dowdall, Katherine M., and Otis O. Parrish 2003 A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1):99-133. Ferguson, T. J., and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006 History is in the Land: Multivocal Traditions in Arizona’s San Pedro Valley. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Hodder, Ian 1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Kempton, William 2001 Cognitive Anthropology and the Environment. In New Directions in Anthropology and Environment. C.L. Crumley, A.E.V. Deventer, and J.J. Fletcher, eds. Pp. 49-71. Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press. Landow, George P. 2006 Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. McDavid, Carol 2002 Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: a pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of AfricanAmerican archaeology. World Archaeology. 34(2): 303-314. National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) 2005 Tribal Consultation: Best Practices in Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: NATHPO. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Bulletin 38, USDI National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/history.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/ bulletins/nrb38/ Accessed July 21, 2008. Russell, John C., and Peggy A. Adams-Russell 2006 Values Attitudes and Beliefs Toward National Forest System Lands: Arizona Tribal Peoples. Placerville, California: Adams-Russell Consulting. Shackel, Paul A., and Erve J. Chambers 2004 Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. New York: Routledge.

16


Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley 1987 Reconstructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SWCA Environmental Consultants 2005 Consulting Indian Tribes in Cultural Resources Review. Salt Lake City, Utah: SWCA Environmental Consultants. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1986 Planning Area Description. Coronado National Forest, Ecosystem Management Planning files, Tucson, AZ. 1992 Coronado National Forest Cultural Resources Planning Assessment Update. Coronado National Forest, Heritage Program files, Tucson, AZ. 2003 Report of the National Tribal Relations Program Implementation Team. Forest Service, USDA, Washington, DC. 2008 US Forest Service, About us – Mission http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml. Accessed July 8, 2008. Watkins, Joe 2000 Indigenous Archaeology. American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. 2002 Writing unwritten History: An archaeologist and American Indian walks the tightrope of a double life. Archaeology Magazine. 52 (6): 3642. Welch, John R. 1997 White Eyes’ Lies and the Battle for Dzil Nchaa Si’an. American Indian Quarterly, 21(1):75-109. White Mountain Apache Tribe 2004 Cultural Heritage Resources Best Management Practices. Version 9.13.2004. White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program, Historic Preservation Office, Whiteriver, Arizona. Williams, Robert A. 1993 Large Binocular Telescopes, Red Squirrel Piñatas, and Apache Sacred Mountains: Decolonizing Environmental Law in a Multicultural World, West Virginia Law Review, 96:1134-1164. Zimmerman, Larry J 1995 We Do Not Need Your Past: Archaeological Chronology and “Indian Time” on the Plains. In Beyond Subsistence: Plains Archaeology and the Post- Processual Critique, edited by P. Duke and M. Wilson, 28-45. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.