Protection is a present-day issue
Sacred places are not only a matter of belief and history. For Apache nations they are a continuing issue of law, land management and respect. This article looks at how protection works in practice today and what outsiders can do. The connection between ceremony and place in general, and the history of the main disputes, are touched on briefly. The emphasis here is on protection.
Where a site is, what it is used for, and who may go there are often things that Apache communities choose not to publish. That is a form of protection in its own right. A map of sacred places could invite looting and disturbance. So the examples named here are the ones that nations and their leaders have themselves raised in public.
Why legal protection is difficult
Many places of religious importance to Apache peoples lie outside present reservation boundaries, on land now managed by federal agencies, states or private owners. This is a consequence of the history of Apache land loss. When a sacred site sits on public land, the questions that arise include who decides how the land is used, what consultation with tribes is required, and how much weight religious claims receive against economic or scientific ones.
A number of laws apply, and none was designed to give simple, complete protection to sacred places. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 states a national policy but has been interpreted as lacking enforcement force. The National Historic Preservation Act includes consultation steps for projects with federal involvement, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act covers certain remains and objects on federal and tribal land. Courts have often held that a government’s management of its own land does not violate religious freedom even when a project would damage a site. For this reason, Native nations and their allies often work through consultation, public advocacy, litigation and negotiation at once. Readers should consult official sources for the current legal situation, since cases change.
Two well known examples
Dziłnchaa Si’an (Mount Graham). Mount Graham, in the Pinaleño Mountains of Arizona, is considered sacred by the San Carlos Apache and other Western Apache people. Since the 1980s it has been the subject of a prolonged dispute over an astronomical observatory built on the mountain. The case involved questions of religious freedom, environmental protection and congressional action, and it is often cited in discussions of how hard it can be to protect a mountain that is both sacred and valued for other purposes.
Chí’chil Biłdagoteel (Oak Flat). Oak Flat, in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona, is described by Apache people as a place of great religious importance, and it overlies a major copper deposit. A federal law in 2014 authorized an exchange of the land to a mining company, and since then Apache individuals, groups, tribal governments and supporters have protested and pursued legal challenges. The matter has moved through courts and agencies, so the current status should be checked with up-to-date sources. The issue is often described as a test of how the law treats Native religion on public land.
These are not the only places of concern, and it would be a mistake to think the Apache nations care only about the sites that make the news. Many communities work quietly on protecting places that remain unnamed.
Tribal efforts
Apache nations have tribal historic preservation offices, cultural resource programs, and, in some cases, cultural centers and museums. These offices review projects that could affect sites, work with federal agencies, document places for protection, and educate the public. Some nations have used cultural advisory groups, drawing on elders and knowledgeable community members to guide decisions. The details differ by nation, and the nations’ own official websites are the right place to see how they describe their current work.
Educational programs for schools and visitors are another part of the effort. Teaching the public why a place matters is often the first step toward changing how it is managed.
How outsiders should respect closed areas
Visitors, researchers, recreationists and companies can all make a difference.
- Obey closures. Areas of reservations are often closed to non-members, and some places on public land are closed or restricted for religious reasons. A sign or a fence is not a suggestion.
- Get the right permits. Many tribal lands require permits for entry, hiking, camping, fishing or photography. Rules differ and change.
- Leave everything where it is. Never remove stones, plants, artifacts or pieces of ruins and old camps. Federal laws protect archaeological resources on public lands, and collecting can be a crime.
- Do not seek out or share sacred locations. Do not post precise locations of sensitive places online or ask Apache people to take you to them.
- Do not hold your own ceremonies or “rituals” there.
- Report damage or looting to the land manager or the relevant tribal office.
- Consult before building. Developers, agencies and researchers working near Apache lands are generally expected to consult the nations early, not after plans are fixed.
A broader perspective
Protecting a place is, for Apache nations, partly a way of protecting a way of life. Language, stories, seasonal activities and ceremonies are tied to specific landscapes. If a place is changed beyond recognition, the knowledge connected with it can be harder to pass on. This is the reason many Apache people describe these disputes in terms of survival of the culture, not as questions of property.
At the same time, the nations are not opposed to every use of land, and they are not unanimous on every issue. Tribal governments weigh economic needs along with cultural ones, and views within communities differ. Readers should be wary of any account that presents one voice as the voice of all Apache people.
For current information, including legal developments, visitor rules and ways to support protection, go to the official websites and cultural offices of the Apache nations.