Subject: UCLA Report on Kumeyaay Cultural Affiliation
Date: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:59 AM
From: Diana Wilson <dwilson@UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: "Diana Wilson" <dwilson@UCLA.EDU>
To: <NAGPRA-L@LISTSERV.UCOP.EDU>
Conversation: UCLA Report on Kumeyaay Cultural Affiliation
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a response to several previous comments on the first UCLA
report
on Kumeyaay Cultural affiliation. This response was finished and
submitted
to the UCLA committee before I received comments from Phil Wilkes. All
comments will be incorporated into UCLA's final report on Kumeyaay
affliliation.
In response to Phil's comments:
The southwest quadrant of Lake Cahuilla would have been located within
Kumeyaay territory as defined in the late 1700's. People moving from the
western shores of Lake Cahuilla to the coast may have been relocating
from
within Kumeyaay territory.
As for the discontinuity of shared identity among warring groups, how
would
we apply that principle to thinking about the descendants of the members
of
the Southern Confederacy who chose not to share a group identity with the
northern states? After a number of generations, most of the descendants
of
those who fought on both sides of the Civil War share a national
identity.
Are the descendants of Confederate soldiers denied a shared group
identity
with their American ancestors who lived before the Civil War?
There is no evidence for warfare in the southern San Diego County area.
There is archaeological evidence for a transition in burial practices,
lithic technology and material culture at a continuously occupied site
(Spendrift) over a long period of time (3000 years).
Whether we decide for or against cultural affiliation with the Kumeyaay,
it's only fitting that we explain, for ourselves and for the Kumeyaay,
how
we understand "shared group identity", "continuity", and "discontinuity".
And if we decide that changes in cultural practices over time - such as
cremation and lithic technology - represent discontinuity, I would hope
that
we explicate that position.
It seems to me that the UC system will want to define "shared group
identity" in a way that accommodates the founding axiom of cultural
anthropology: biology and cultural identity are independent
determinations.
For one example, a kinship identity can be described from standpoints
both
inside and outside the group. Depending on the conventions of the group
into which I am born, I may consider the children of my mother's brother
to
be my cousins, or my brothers and sisters, or of no relation to me at
all.
An outside observer might say that if my mother and her brother have the
same parents, the children of my mother's brother and I share a set of
grandparents and are biologically related.
The point is that an insider's view is not subjective, nor is it
mistaken,
it is a cultural fact, and NAGPRA requires that such cultural facts be
taken
into account in defining shared group identity, along with facts from
other
lines of evidence.
Also, most anthropologists agree that shared group identity is multiply
determined: family lineage, clan, place of residence, language, religious
affiliation, craft and/or religious specialization, and participation in
regional ritual and economic exchanges may play varying roles in
determining
identity or "ethnicity". The reduction of shared group identity to any
single level, or to any single line of evidence, is hard to support. The
strongest determinations will be those that synthesize, and are
explanatory
of, multiple levels of identity and different lines of evidence.
All of the above are reasons why NAGPRA requires that we consider
different
kinds of evidence, including Tribal expert opinion. No matter what we
decide in the Kumeyaay case, I expect that we will consider all the
evidence
thoughtfully and articulate the basis of our conclusions, both for the UC
system and for the Kumeyaay.
Diana