Read the Facts behind MHC's exclusion and erasure of Native American history

• Indigenous people have called the land now known as Massachusetts home since time immemorial.

• Millennia of Indigenous history and culture are contained within the land: habitation and village sites, burial grounds, artifacts, ceremonial stone landscapes, waterscapes, and more.

• The preservation of Indigenous sites, districts and cultural landscapes benefits all humankind.

• Yet endemic opportunism and cultural prejudice within our State's Historical Commission leads to their granting of permits for the destruction of Indigenous sites which they refuse to recognize as culturally significant.

​

Discrimination under Section 106

​

• The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) is responsible for safeguarding Indigenous history through the implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is a federal law written to prevent adverse effects to historic properties, districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance  to an Indigenous tribe.

• The MHC only nominates one Indigenous site for every 300 Colonial sites to the National Register of Historic Places by the MHC.

• The MHC frequently and consistently allows Indigenous heritage sites, where artefacts have been discovered, and where Tribal members state there is cultural significance, to be destroyed by developers. The MHC signs off on the permits, stating there is "no significant research value," all the while excluding meaningful Indigenous participation in the process. 

​

Conflicts of Interest and Financial Fraud

​

• The State Historic Preservation Officer, Brona Simon, is responsible for compliance with Section 106 and nomination of sites to the National Register of Historic Places.

• Brona Simon is also the MHC's Director. She has a conflict of interest in her three simultaneous roles as State Archeologist, State Historic Protection Officer, and Director of the MHC, positions she has held for over 30 years with no Tribal or public accountability.

• Decisions made by the MHC Director in the best interest of MHC, such as strategies to secure funding, compromise the ethical guidelines and scientific neutrality required in the roles of State Archaeologist and State Historic Protection Officer.

• The appointment by law of the Massachusetts Secretary of State as Chair of the MHC creates a conflict of interest, as the Secretary of State is a political position primarily motivated to secure federal funds for infrastructure projects, not enforce the National Historic Protection Act at sensitive Indigenous sites.

• The MHC has the duty to self-certify the state's adherence to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As the Secretary of State approves federal funding for the state’s construction projects, but is also the Chair of the MHC in charge of self-certifying compliance with Section 106 at these same sites, it is a conflict of interest.

• The MHC faces allegations of financial fraud as the agency has falsely claimed compliance with the National Historic Protection Act in order to unlawfully secure federal infrastructure funding for state agencies such as the MA Department of Transportation.

  • Ironically, federal monies obtained in this way then fund state construction projects which destroy the same Indigenous sites that state law and the National Historic Protection Act intended to protect.

​

Exclusion and Cultural Ignorance​

​

• For 60 years, Massachusetts’ Governor and Secretary of State have failed to appoint a single Indigenous person to the 17-person MHC.

• The MHC lacks the expertise and authority to make decisions concerning Indigenous cultural heritage, leading to euro-centric interpretations of archaeological information.

• In contrast to other states, the MHC fails to acknowledge the cultural or historical significance of Ceremonial Stone Landscapes (CSL) or waterscapes.

• For example, the MHC refuses to recognize the Turners Falls Ceremonial Stone Landscape District as culturally significant, even though the federal government rejected MHC’s formal disqualification and listed it on the National Register of Historic Places.

• The MHC has gained notoriety for having the “most extreme” policy of all fifty U.S. states in failing to recognize and preserve Indigenous stone landscapes, according to archeologists Moore and Weiss.

• The most recent Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Plan 2018 - 2022, an 89-page document containing 70 photos, does not contain a single image of anything even slightly related to Indigenous history.

​

Secrecy

​

• Despite being fully financed by taxpayers, the Massachusetts Historical Commission typically makes critical decisions about historic preservation in meetings closed to the public, in disregard of MA Open Meeting Law. They do not record minutes, and rarely respond to Freedom of Information requests.

• The MHC issued a regulation stating that the state owns artifacts they discover on private property. This is not supported by Massachusetts General Law. By asserting ownership they do not have to disclose discoveries, perpetuating erasure.

• The MHC allows for discovered Indigenous artifacts to be destroyed. If not destroyed, then permanently stored in state consultant warehouses, preventing their return to Indigenous peoples and perpetuating the suppression of discoveries.

• The Massachusetts Historical Commission violates international laws, such as the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), by allowing federally-funded infrastructure projects to destroy important Indigenous sites without free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous people.

• The MHC often makes it difficult for Indigenous peoples to access detailed archaeological reports of their ancestral sites, resulting in loss of cultural heritage, a barrier to education, and lack of government accountability and transparency.

​

Research Misconduct

​

• The MHC is the only authority that grants permits for archaeological firms working in Massachusetts. They frequently ask archaeologists to modify their reports to advance state projects, even if these projects might damage or destroy significant Indigenous cultural sites.

 

Conclusion

​

• Indigenous cultural history is often contained within the very land itself - land that the State of Massachusetts can get money for from the Federal government for infrastructure projects.

• In order to get federal money for infrastructure project. Massachusetts must comply with Section 106.

• The MHC is responsible for Section 106 compliance. But the MHC is run by two individuals who have financial conflicts of interest in their roles to safeguard Indigenous culture.

• The MHC does not have the expertise to evaluate Indigenous sites or districts.

• Its secretive practices exclude Indigenous participation in the process.

• We have documented dozens of Indigenous sites that the MHC has allowed to be destroyed in this manner.

​