SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 67

Zahniser, Jack archaeological data. They have challenged the evi­ 1974 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at 4- LAn-306 (Known as Puvunga) Summer, dence of ks historic and religious significance and 1973. Report on file at the Rancho Los even ks location. Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. Boxt and Raab began to express thek opinions shortly after they started dokig archaeological work on campus under contracts with California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). Some reports on their fieldwork have been prepared under con­ tract but have not yet been released. However, ki addkion to the present article, two earlier docu­ ments became available. One is the immediate pre­ decessor to this—an unpublished paper wkh a re­ Comment on "Puvunga and Point lated theme (Boxt and Raab 1997). The other Conception ..." by Matthew A. (Raab 1993) is a statement which was the source Boxt and L. Mark Raab of data used by attomeys in public hearings and ki litigation on behalf of the university. There are nu­ KEITH A. DIXON merous errors and misinterpretations ki the three Dept. of Anthropology, California State Univ., Long documents. It is necessary to comment on the two Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840- 1003. earlier ones because Boxt and Raab include view- pokits ki the present article which they discussed in THIS article by Drs. Matthew A. Boxt and L. more detail there. Mark Raab is presented as a comparative study of Boxt and Raab make several errors regarding traditionaUsm. Thek general discussion of the pro­ the campus location (pp. 46-47).' They say that the cess repeats what has been said before by others, CSULB campus is "east" of the Rancho Los Ala­ includkig the references they cite. What needs re­ mitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. In fact, k is on view and comment is the reliability of thek two the west side as thek map shows. Thek sknple er­ case studies which justify the article. I will leave a ror lends support to thek crkics. Boxt and Raab review of their Point Conception case to others. are alone among scholars of reputation, as far as I It seems clear from how this article evolved that know, ki refusing to acknowledge Boscana's simple the basic subject is Boxt and Raab's views of the and widely recognized error ki writkig northeast Puvunga issues. I find that thek analysis is too kistead of northwest ki locatkig Puvunga. Boxt and flawed and superficial to be used ki a comparative Raab (pp. 53-54) use this in trying to cast doubt on study and is misleading as a presentation of the is­ the reliability of both Boscana and Harrkigton. sues. Therefore, my maki purpose is to correct Only one source was cited by Boxt and Raab to some errors and misrepresentations of data and to support thek view that Boscana did not make an pokit out that they omitted knportant kiformation error and that Puvunga, or another Puvunga, was that is confrary to thek views. The rest of this located elsewhere. They cite "an account by [Kur- comment is a summary of how the article evolved tis] Lobo (1977), a Juaneiio Indian descendant, and the situation on campus which may account for [which] follows Boscana's description of the loca­ errors. tion of Puvunga, placing k in the Lake Elsinore re­ Skice 1993, Boxt and Raab have been express- gion [to tiie northeast of San Juan Capistrano]" (p. kig opkiions about whether Puvunga, an ethnohis- 54). They do not further identify Lobo or his toric village, conforms to their conception of the source of kiformation. However, their phrase "fol­ nature of villages and also about the relevance of lows Boscana's description" does leave the reader 68 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY with the impression that Lobo supports their view LAN-235, k was well withki k as documented ki of Boscana as testimony derived kidependently the site survey sheet and map that Boxt and Raab from Juaneno fradkion. However, that appears not had reviewed. There is no reason for Boxt and to be the case. Raab to think the burial was "single, [and] appar­ Boxt and Raab quoted Lobo in an endnote to ently isolated" skice there was no further excava­ thek unpublished paper (1997:37), clakning that tion ki that area of the site. The workmen found a Lobo "corroborates Boscana's original identifica­ complete skeleton, not "parts" of one. They col­ tion, placing Puvunga in the vicinity of Lake Elsi­ lected only the bones that were dislodged from the nore." What they write in this article is para­ trench sidewall. Those were later reburied ki an­ phrased from that endnote, except that here they other location on campus at Native American re­ omit the Lobo quotation and do not mention the quest, and the rest are stiU in situ. Boxt and Raab most essential information about k. That is, ki the have no cause to express doubt that the skeleton quoted passage, Lobo summarized part of the cre­ was that of a Native American because the "report ation myth from Boscana's Chapter III and ended did not draw such a conclusion" (p. 48). The so- by mentioning Puvunga, " 'which Boscana de­ called "rqxMl" was merely an kiventory of the col­ scribes as being about eig^t leagues northeast of the lected remakis that was attached to the site survey township of San Juan Capisfrano.' " In that quoted form. The records showed that the burial was ex­ passage, Lobo does not mention Lake Elsinore (nor, amined in situ by two experienced archaeologists of course, did Boscana); rather, Boxt and Raab ki- and a physical anthropologist who were well aware froduced k. Lobo was not kidependently "follow­ of the relevant osteological characteristics and ob­ ing" or "corroboratkig" Boscana, he was just ckkig served the midden context. Boscana as his source. Boxt and Raab do not say Boxt and Raab are vague in this article, but the that Lobo disputed Harrington's correction or that basis of thek doubts is in thek earlier reports. he was even aware of k. It should be kept ki mind Thus, in a swom declaration on behalf of the uni­ that the 1933 edition of Boscana wkh Harrington's versity in a lawsuit, Raab (1993) stated, "I have notes was a rare limited edkion (Boscana 1933; determkied that Dr. Dixon formed his opkiion that Harrington 1933); the MaUd Museum Press repro­ the skeletal remakis diskiterred from LAn-235 ki duction appeared ki 1978, a year after Lobo's ac­ 1972 were Native American solely on the basis of count. However, Lobo could have used a widely tooth wear." Raab said he "determined" this from ckculated paperback edition that was published in his "careful review of a memorandum summarizing 1970 and included Boscana's error with no anno­ an kiterview" with me on August 20, 1993, by "an tations (Robkison 1970:10). archaeologist" working on campus with Boxt. In ThCTefore, the kiformation that th^ had kiclud- fact, there was no formal kiterview. I remember ed ki thek unpublished paper (Boxt and Raab 1997: only brieC casual conversations with students who 37), shows that Lobo's statement is not corrobora­ were workkig with Boxt when I visited his field tion by an kidependent source of Juanefio fradition- project. For Raab to have drawn such an absurd al knowledge. Thus, I beUeve there is still no credi­ conclusion from somebody's notes about how I ble reason to doubt the evidence for the location of formed my "opinion" without verifykig k with me Puvunga on the Los Alamitos ranch or that Bos­ is kiterestkig. cana made the same kkid of careless error that Boxt Raising additional doubt about the Native and Raab themselves made in their present article. American identification, Raab (1993) went on to Boxt and Raab make a number of avoidable er­ clakn that ranch workers ki the Mexican period rors ki thek discussion of the human burial on cam­ "consumed a diet which confributed to rapid tooth pus. Fkst, the skeleton was not "near" site CA- wear, similar to tooth wear experienced by Native SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 69

Americans." Perhaps Raab can cite studies that questions and of whether the test questions are ap­ demonsfrate sknilar patterns of extreme tooth wear propriate to the research issues. ki the two populations. Boxt and Raab have misrepresented statements In the declaration, Raab (1993) also said that, taken from thek published sources. For example, "Further, shovel shaped kicisor teeth, kidicative of confrary to their claim ki this and thek previous Native American ancestry, were not noted in the paper (Boxt and Raab 1997:1, 18, 22), Kroeber RepOTt" which was attached to the site survey fomt (1959) was not castkig doubt on tiie location of Pu­ Surely, k is unwise to assume that the trak was ab­ vunga but rather was discussing the historicity of sent simply because k was not mentioned ki the in­ Wiyot(cf MUUkenetal. 1997:32-33). Also, thek ventory. In fact, shovel-shaped incisors are noted quotation from Meighan (p. 58) was taken out of m the coroner's report that was prepared by foren­ the context where k had an entirely different pur­ sic osteologist, Dr. Judy Myers Suchey, ki April pose. 1979. Copies of the report were available to Raab Boxt and Raab say that "Harrington assumed from the administration, our department office, or that Puvunga was a single, discrete location" and from me, as well as from the county coroner's of­ that he "never identified locations on the present- fice. He was kiformed of the report and its contents day campus as Puvunga or even hkited at such a ki 1993. possibUity" (p. 55). However, they do not mention Raab (1993) also claimed that "first-hand re­ that Harrington only described what he saw around ports of GabrieUno Indian burial practices recorded the ranch house; that he did not do a regional sur­ by Father Boscana, and confirmed by archaeologi­ vey, and that he had no reason to speculate about cal evidence, indicate that the GabrieUno's [sic] village (rancheria) boundaries. Boxt and Raab cre­ cremated the dead"; and because the bones showed ate what they call a "Greater Puvunga model" (p. no sign of burning, "the condkion of the skeleton 55) that they claim was devised by me as "an en- weighs against Dr. Dixon's conclusion that the re­ tkely new archaeological twist on the Puvunga fra­ mains were that of a Native American." In fact, dkion"; kistead, k reflects the ethnohistoric evi­ Boscana said both interment and cremation were dence for the nature of viUages and the sociopolki- practiced, and Harrington noted kiterment as far cal organization of the GabrieUno, as well as such south as the Santa Ana River (Harrington 1933: related groups as the Juanefio and Luisefio (e.g., 196-197; cf references ki McCawley 1996:157). Altschul 1994; Earle and O'Neil 1994; McCawley Descriptions of burials without cremation attribut­ 1996). able to the Gabrielkio are common ki archaeologi­ Boxt and Raab do not clearly distinguish cal reports and are part of Gabrielkio fradkion. "sites," LAN- numbers, and "villages." Villages (Some of the other evidence and references are (rancherias) are social units comprised of people summarized by McCawley [1996:157-158].) whose most recoverable archaeological remains are Regardless of the burial's date, k does support the material evidence of domestic and community the integrity of deposits ki CA-LAN-235. The activities that vary ki kkid and intensity throughout dates on midden shell that Boxt and Raab discuss thek village territory. A village core may be most (pp. 56-57) still need to be evaluated ki terms of easily recognized ki archaeological deposits by ma­ such factors as sampling sfrategies and thek con­ terial remakis that represent habkation areas of the texts. In any case, some kkids of ethnographic data eUte class, sometimes kicluding ceremonial spaces and kiterpretations are not testable with archaeolog­ or cemeteries. The material evidence for the com­ ical evidence. There must be clear understandkig of mon foUc and other activkies may be labeled with whether the radiocarbon dates, as well as other such standard but imprecise archaeological terms kinds of site analyses, are appropriate to the test as can^, work stations, or middens. Village com- 70 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY ponents need not be contiguous deposits. Their dis­ references, incomplete reference citations, and the tribution, appearance, and contents are affected by like. At this point, I will not further discuss Boxt such variable factors as seasonality, population and Raab's other errors, ki part for lack of space ki size, activities, and time. this short comment, but also because it seems more Boxt and Raab's use of a passage from Zahni- important here to describe the history of thek pa­ ser's (1974) report is misleading (p. 56). They pers and the situation from which they evolved. quote his comments about his very limited excava­ Much of the Puvunga portion of this article is tion at the Rancho (LAN-306) and his not findkig recast from thek paper, "National Register Site or evidence to identify a Puvunga village (i.e., core) Oversight: The Authenticity of the Bellflower Par­ (Zahniser 1974:33). They omit the paragraph's cel, A Cautionary Tale for Contemporary Archae­ concluding sentence: "The generalization I have of­ ology" (Boxt and Raab 1997). The present article fered above is my best guess, and not much more cannot be understood without reference to that pa­ than that." Zahniser (1974:34-35) followed this per, which makes the space Iknitation of the Jour­ with a discussion of what he found, in which he nal for comments even more of a problem. The pa­ said, "The thorough disturbance of the deposits is per is still unpublished but copies are available. quite clear in the distribution of historic materials Boxt and Raab gave a copy to the library of the throughout all areas and all levels of the site" (of Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens his excavations); he then mentioned the causes of for research purposes. The letter of transmittal the mixkig and scarcity of artifacts. Zahniser had from Boxt (dated August 12, 1997) authorized k to changed the project's objectives and disregarded in- be cited as "Pacific Coast Archaeological Society stmctions, includkig those of the Rancho dkector, Quarterly (in press)." The theme of that paper is by choosing to excavate by levels through rede- partly about the standards and criteria for entering posited midden that had been moved onto a graded sites on the National Register of Historic Places surface. Boxt and Raab's quotation from Zahni- (NRHP), which "groups" take as proof of objective ser's report is therefore krelevant to thek purpose. historical reality. Boxt and Raab mistakenly as­ They did not use an excellent field investigation and sumed that acceptance on the NRHP is what in- literature study of LAN-306 by Milliken et al. spked contenp)rary Native Americans to claim the (1997). sites as sacred in thek belief system. Boxt and Boxt and Raab say their purpose is not to take Raab (1997) are concemed that "the current ten­ a position on whether the burial on campus is Na­ dency to regard ethnographic data as more 'real' tive Amoican or on where Puvunga is located (pp. than archaeological findings is not only unjustified 48-49), but only to show that there are contradic­ but leads to the creation of popular myths rather tions and ambigukies from which thek colleagues than demonsfrably accurate understandings of the and activist groups chose particular kiterpretations past." The point is not new, and in any case thek to foster thek causes. However, they themselves analysis of Puvunga ethnohistoric sources, archae­ have confributed to the confusion. Nothing in an­ ological data, and recent events is too incomplete to thropology or history or life ki general is certain, quaUfy as a case study. Nevertheless, certaki cam­ but when thek errors and omissions are taken into pus admkiistrators are still uskig Boxt and Raab's account, I think that Boxt and Raab can be seen to views to support thek quarter-century-old hope of have exaggerated their clakns about ambiguities ki removing the campus Puvunga sites from the the evidence, conflicts among the sources, and other NRHP. people's biases. For more than 25 years, campus admkiistrators In addition, there are mkior errors ki thek quota­ seem to have acted under the mistaken belief that tions from pubUshed sources, omission of knportant archaeological sites prevent development and have SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 71 wished that both the sites and those concemed met, administrators had no interest in crkics, no about thek conservation would go away. In 1973, matter how thoroughly facts were documented and when I fkst brought the administration's attention carefully kiterpreted. There were some peer re­ to the CaUfomia Envkonmental Quality Act in rela­ viewers who apparently met on campus several tion to archaeological resources, the first reactions tknes, but I have no kiformation about what they from admkiisfrators were denial that there were any were told or what documents they were given. Or- remakis and the clakn that CEQA did not apply to dkiarily, one should expect a university to encour­ the university. When we finally overcame that, the age and give respectful consideration to the contri­ admkiistrators still did not have interest ki the butions of kidividuals and organizations who have resources, but they did understand the need to have relevant knowledge or are affected by admkustra- thek paperwork done to show compliance with reg­ tive decisions. However, ki this case, I believe that ulations. administrators have fek k expedient to ignore, dis­ As I experienced administrators' reactions over credit, and isolate potential crkics, leading to error, the years, I believe they evolved three main ideas resource losses, and even driftkig into costly Ikiga- (Dixon 1977). The earliest was to dig up sites by tion as a resuk. having our faculty use them for teaching archaeo­ When Boxt and Raab began contract work on logical field techniques to students. We all refused campus, this is the situation they met. I believe on ethical grounds and the obvious conflict of inter­ that the admiiusfrators' views are what first fo­ est (the years of pressure on our department chaks cused thek interest on the themes in their present and on our faculty archaeologists is too long a story article and its predecessors (Raab 1993; Boxt and to tell here). Then, the idea was to have the sites Raab 1997). I also think there is reason to believe dug as legal salvage "mitigation" by contract ar­ that the administrators interfered by imposing or chaeologists. Some of this has been done, and I am inqjiying certain consfraints on thek work so that not aware of any serious efforts to kicorporate re­ Boxt and Raab did not consuk with knowledge­ source protection kito the iiutial project design pro­ able people. The following is the situation as I cesses. know it. The adminisfrators also undervalued the signifi­ I made a number of attempts to contact Raab. cance of sites for research by clakning they are no In December 1993,1 sent him a detailed commen­ longer "kitact" because of early agriculture and la­ tary on his statements about campus archaeology ta- gradkig and landscapkig. Another approach has ki his August 1993 swom declaration that the uni­ been to challenge the importance of sites for the versity's attomeys had used in a legal proceeding community, kicludkig Native Americans. One ar- (Raab 1993). He did not respond. Most of the gumoit was that the archaeological tests of the mid- same errors in the declaration persist in thek 1997 dea deposks did not tum up what the administrators and present papers. consider to be the material evidence for a village; a I taUced with Boxt and visited his fk-st excava­ second argument was that Puvunga was not any­ tions on campus several times in 1993. He was where on this campus or even in this region because very pleasant and kiformative. I offered my full the ethnohistoric and historical information was cooperation and copies of all background docu­ wrong or not "scientifically" proved. When I and ments. Soon after, his manner changed, and he did others would submit critical reviews of the admirus- not respond to my request for a meetkig. On De­ trators' clakns and the confract reports they chose cember 23, 1993,1 wrote agaki to both Boxt and to rely on, the admiiusfrators would summarily dis­ Raab, asking why they had broken off contact. miss contrary professional kiput as mere "opki­ Raab did not reply, but in a letter dated January ions." As long as legal condkions appeared to be 13, 1994, Boxt wrote: 72 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

... [k was] with the best interests of all concemed. both the knowledge and the social, polkical, and As you know, in this polkically charged atmos­ economic processes that were akeady underway phere, normal interpersonal relations are very of­ ten compromised and strained. I offer this as expla- among local Native Americans independently of an­ natian and not excuse. Please keep this in mmd for thropologists. any problems of this sort as they may arise ki the The problem with this article is Boxt and Raab's future. analysis of the Puvunga case, not thek review of I responded to express my concem about profes­ the well-known general issues concemkig the uses sional matters. There have been no further com­ or misuses of anthropological kiterpretations ki eth- munications, but I think k was courteous of Boxt to nogenesis. Boxt and Raab's caution to thek col­ have replied with frankness about the situation. leagues in thek final sentence might better have This account has to be personal because I can ended by recommendkig "... more thorough analy­ only document my own experience, but k is my un­ sis than we were able to do here." derstanding that Boxt and Raab also avoided other In thek rebuttal, Boxt and Raab will have the univCTsity faculty and Native Americans who were last word because the Journal does not provide for out of favor with the adminisfrators. If Boxt and repUes to rebuttals. However, as responsible schol­ Raab received insfructions or perceived a con- ars, I thkik Boxt and Raab may now recognize the sfraint, it would put them ki a difficuk poskion. problems that arose from working under awkward Whatever the explanation may be, the irony is that circumstances. With regard to the campus sites the errors ki this and thek other papers could easily and thek views on Puvunga, I hope they now may have been avoided through normal interaction with understand that th^ have presented errors of fact colleagues and other concemed people despite the and interpretations that warrant reconsideration. "politically charged atmosphere." Boxt and Raab are competent and experienced This all bears dkectly on Boxt and Raab's con­ researchers. I readily acknowledge that they have cluding paragraph. Regarding the influence of an­ had a particularly difficuk dilemma to resolve. I thropological research on Puvunga issues, they ex­ hope they regret by now that they did not consuk aggerate its importance to Native Americans. Con­ individuals who are sources of information that trary to thek statement, k is certakily not a "fact" they knew to exist. I believe they must have be­ that "widely held understandkigs of Puvunga are come aware by now that other sources of published aknost entkely a product of anthropological schol­ and unpublished information were available to arship" (p. 63); the "imderstandkigs" preceded Har­ them which they have not yet used. And I hope rington's and other anthropologists' kiformation and that they also will want to revise miskiterpretations interpretations. They also assumed that ki recent of some of the published and unpublished sources years Native Americans have relied on archaeolo­ that they did use. gists' interpretations of the local sites and on thek I hope the Journal will invite publication of an NRHP status for "authentication." Native Ameri­ adequate follow-up to Boxt and Raab's article ki cans and others have cited some of what Boxt and the future ki order that knowledgeable people can Raab caU the "anthropological component of ethno- analyze the kinds of issues that they brought up genesis" (p. 45), but k had only a small, nonessen­ about local archaeology and ethnohistory in order tial role ki the growth of local "tradkionalism" on to prepare the level of response that is not possible canq)us and elsewhere ki the region. Native Ameri­ ki a brief comment. However, Boxt and Raab cans and others ki the community gained the sfrong could use thek rebuttal now to make that unneces­ support of anthropologists who agreed they were not sary. being given a fair hearing. Due to incomplete re­ I hope thek response will be to disaffirm this search and analysis, Boxt and Raab underestimate and tiiek previous paper (Boxt and Raab 1997) as SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 73 incomplete for reasons beyond thek confrol, and Earle, David D., and Stephen O'Neil then perhaps express thek kitention to consider pre­ 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: An Ethnohistoric Analysis of Population, Set­ paring an independent study of the Puvunga issues tlement, and Social Organization ki Coast­ by takkig advantage of all the information that is al Orange County at the End of the Late available to them.^ Prehistoric Period. Report on file at The Keith Companies Archaeological Division, NOTES Costa Mesa, Califomia. Harrington, John P. 1. The campus is not ki the "Los Altos community' 1933 Annotations. In: Chinigchinich: A Revised of Long Beach; the Los Altos area is north of campus. and Annotated Version of Alfred Robin­ The Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens son's Translation of Father Geronimo Bos­ is not a "park," k is a historic ske with house, bams, cana's Historical Account of the Belief, and formal gardens. Usages, Customs and Extravagencies of the 2. If fiirtber comment is needed, I will place it on Indians of This Mission of San Juan Capis­ my website (http://www.csulb.edii/~kdixon). trano called the Acagchemem Tribe, Phil Townsend Hanna, ed., pp. 91-246. Santa REFERENCES Ana, CA: Fkie Arts Press. (Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Baiming, 1978.) Altschul, Jeffrey H. (comp.) 1994 Puvunga: A Review of the Ethnohistoric, Kroeber, Alfred L. Archaeological, and Ethnographic Issues 1959 Problems on Boscana. Ethnographic In­ Surrounding a Gabrielino Rancheria Near terpretations 10. University of Califomia Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County, CaU­ Publicaticxis in American Archaeology and fomia. Draft report on file at the South Ethnology 47(3):282-309. Central Coastal Information Center, CaU­ McCawley, William fomia State University, Fullerton. 1996 The Fkst Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indi­ ans of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Mal­ Boscana, Gerdnimo ki Museum Press. 1933 Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Milliken, Randall, William R. Hildebrandt, and Brent Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Ac­ Hallock count of the Belief Usages, Customs and 1997 Assessment of Archaeological Resources at Extravagencies of the Indians of This Mis­ the Rancho Los Alamkos Historic Ranch sion of San Juan Capistrano called the and Gardens. Report on filea t the Rancho Acagchemem Tribe, Phil Townsend Hanna, Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens, ed. Santa Ana, CA: Fine Arts Press. (Re­ Long Beach. printed by Maiki Museum Press, Banning, Raab, Mark 1978.) 1993 Declaration, prepared for defendants in Boxt, Matthew A., and L. Mark Raab Native American Heritage Commission v. 1997 National Register Site or Oversight: The Board of Tmstees, Califomia State Univer­ sity, Long Beach. Declaration on file at Authenticity of the Bellflower Parcel, A Califomia State University, Long Beach. Cautionary Tale for Contemporary Archae­ (Information used in public hearings before ology. Report cm file at Rancho Los Alami­ Native American Heritage Commission, tos Historic Ranch and Gardens, Long Long Beach, Califomia, December 3.) Beach. Robkison, Alfred Dixon, Keith A. 1970 Life in Califomia During a Residence of 1972 Revivkig Puvunga, an Archaeological Proj­ Several Years ki that Territory, Including ect at Rancho Los Alamitos. The Master- a Narrative of Events which have Trans- key 46(3):84-92. pked since that period when Califomia was 1977 Endangered Archaeological Resources on an Independent Government and Chinig­ Califomia's University Campuses. Soci­ chinich, An Historical Account of the Ori­ ety for Califomia Archaeology Newsletter gin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians 11(2): 10-12. of Alta-Califomia by the Reverend Father 74 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Friar Geronimo Boscana. Santa Barbara broader social and polkical implications, and ks re­ and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Publishers, lationship to native peoples. Inc. (First edition published in 1846.) In commentkig on the Boxt and Raab article, the Zahniser, Jack 1974 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at 4- primary pokit I raise here concems the competence LAn-306 (Known as Puvunga), Summer, of contemporary archaeological research. I think k 1973. RepOTt on filea t the Rancho Los Ala­ is naive to think that we can practice a totally ob­ mitos Historic Ranch and Gardens, Long jective archaeology that is divorced from the social Beach. concerns, polkical pressures, and funding con­ straints of today. Archaeological research is con­ ducted for a variety of reasons and for divergent clients and fundkig agencies. Collaboration with in­ volved stakeholders, especially native peoples who have a vested interest in the archaeological record, will continue to increase. I have no problem with Comments on "Puvunga and archaeologists workkig closely with native groups Point Conception: A Comparative to identify sacred sites or places, to assist them ki Study of Southern California becoming federally recognized, to develop sfrong Indian Traditionalism," by and legitimate claims for the repatriation of cultur­ Matthew A. Boxt and L. Mark ally affiliated skeletal remains, associated funerary Raab objects, and sacred objects, or to help them negoti­ ate or promote their native identkies to the broader public. My problem is with poor, sloppy, and/or KENT G. LIGHTFOOT inexcusable archaeological research. Dept. of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3710. A very significant point raised by Boxt and Raab is that archaeological research cannot be con­ THE provocative article by Matthew A. Boxt and ducted in a hasty, arbitrary, or uncritical manner L. Mark Raab is guaranteed to engender controver­ given the ultknate implications k may have for con­ sy because k raises questions about sacred sites, na­ tributing to the poUtics of development/open space, tive identity politics, and the competence of archae­ for "authenticatkig" ethnic identkies and histories, ological research in an kicreasingly complex and and for generatkig public perceptions of the past. emotionally charged world. Thek discussion of the Thek article highlights a problem that is becoming sacred vUlage of Puvunga and ks identification wkh kicreasingly common ki studies of the past under­ specific archaeological sites, ki combkiation with taken by archaeologists. In this day of postproces- the recent paper by Haley and Wilcoxon (1997) on sual archaeology, little emphasis is placed on the the emergence of the Westem Gate as a sacred place development or refinement of formal methodologies among Chumash Tradkionalists, provides much that can be employed to constmct interpretations of food for thought. Recognizkig the complicated and the past. While mukiple "stories" are celebrated, unpassioned nature of events that underlie both the very little attention is actually devoted to generat­ Puvunga and Western Gate episodes, I applaud ing alternative interpretations and to evaluating them for raiskig issues about the participation of an­ competing scenarios ki a crkical manner. Not all thropologists and archaeologists in the genesis of interpretations of the past are equally valid and, as CaUfomia Indian Traditionalism. I believe k is very exemplified by the Puvunga case, archaeological tknely to begin an open and frank discussion about research should involve the rigorous assessment of the practice of Califomia archaeology today, ks viable altematives.