evidence
What is it all about? Money.
At its core, this issue revolves around the intersection of development, federal funding, and the preservation of Indigenous cultural heritage.
Every state must have a historical commission to ensure federally-funded projects don't destroy irreplaceable historical sites. In Massachusetts, this responsibility falls to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
The MHC is tasked with certifying compliance with federal laws like the National Historic Preservation Act, which protects significant cultural sites.
However, a troubling conflict of interest exists in Massachusetts:
1. The MHC is run entirely by the state, effectively allowing it to self-certify federal compliance.
2. Decisions about sites are made behind closed doors, with records kept secret. Usually there is no public disclosure of discoveries.
3. The Secretary of State, responsible for maximizing federal funding into the state, also serves as Chairman of the MHC.
This creates a perverse incentive: Lawfully preserving historic sites often means rejecting federal funds. Downplaying a site's significance allows for its destruction and ensures the flow of federal money continues.
The result of this conflict of interest? Ancient Indigenous sites vanish daily, without public knowledge or compliance with our nation's strong federal preservation laws.
Many view this as cultural erasure driven by financial fraud.
Documents obtained through a recent lawsuit have raised questions about the MHC's handling of archaeological reports related to Indigenous sites.
The case involves a 10,000-year-old archaeological site in Northampton, MA, and reveals discrepancies between original field reports and MHC edited versions for regulatory review.
Key Findings:
-
Comparison of Reports: The lawsuit has made public both the original archaeological field report and the final version after MHC review. This allows for direct comparison of the documents.
-
Changes in Content: Analysis shows significant differences between the two versions, including:
-
Removal of certain archaeological findings
-
Alterations to descriptions of site significance
-
Omission of Native American stakeholder input
-
Modifications to expert recommendations
-
-
Regulatory Implications: These changes affect how the site is evaluated under federal historic preservation laws, influencing decisions about site protection versus development.
Another sad example, below, at the location for a proposed Walmart:
-
MHC Director Brona Simon ordered site archaeologists to remove all mentions of burials from their site report.
-
Archaeologists, dependent on state contracts, felt pressured to comply with these requests.
-
Commercial sand mining continued at this ancient Native American cemetery for years, digging into Native American graves.
-
Members of the public picking up human bones off the ground eventually forced the issue to light.
-
The Chief Medical Examiner, upon receiving human bone fragments from the site, had to order MHC to halt operations.
MHC ignored the clear evidence of Native American burials at this site and refused to investigate.
Affidavit of George H. Nelson:
"I observed, on numerous occasions [..] that these piles removed from the Canada Hill property and deposited by trucks on R5-23 contained human skulls and bones."
"These skeletal remains were easily recognizable as human. I regularly walked among these piles looking for artifacts such as arrowheads and I observed that the human skeletal remains were often directly visible on the surface of the piles."
"I discovered an intact skeleton that was still in its original burial position within the sand on the Canada Hill site. I was rather surprised that it had not been destroyed by the regular bulldozing activity taking place on the site. It was covered by a shallow layer of crushed stones arranged in a circle. The top of this crushed stone circle had been grazed by a bulldozer and this had revealed part of the skeleton beneath the crushed stone."
"Because I knew it would be destroyed the following day when the bulldozers commenced excavating sand, I uncovered and then removed it. The skeleton was lying on its side, with one hand under its head and the other on its chest."
"Its condition was quite amazing: while it was lying within white sand, where the flesh had been was replaced by what appeared to be black sand, so it maintained the complete outlines of a fully fleshed human being, until it was moved, and then the black sand fell away from the bones."
In an instance of federal intervention, the true extent of the MHC's failure to protect Indigenous heritage was laid bare. This case highlights the stark contrast between state and federal interpretations of the same preservation laws.
The Incident:
-
MHC, under direction of Brona Simon, refused to acknowledge a well-known Native American site.
-
She ruled it "not eligible" for the National Register of Historic Places, leaving it vulnerable to destruction by developers.
-
In an unusual turn of events, the federal government stepped in to review the decision.
The Federal Ruling:
-
Applying the same criteria and laws MHC is meant to follow, federal authorities overturned the state's decision.
-
They declared the site not only eligible for the National Register of Historic Places but qualified under two separate categories.
Even after this federal finding, Brona Simon refused to add the site to the state's own register of historic places as mandated by federal law.
Brona Simon's defiance of federal findings exemplifies the deeply rooted problem: the MHC enabling unlawful development over lawful cultural preservation.
Archeological researchers Moore and Weiss have delivered a scathing indictment of the MHC.
In their comprehensive analysis, they've concluded that Massachusetts ranks dead last among all 50 states in preserving historic Native American stone landmark ceremonial sites.
This indicates a complete failure of the MHC's core mission.
(SHPO = State Historic Protection Officer = MHC Director Brona Simon)
MHC's Director, Brona Simon, and Chairman, William Galvin, have worked together for decades behind the scenes, in secrecy, with little to no public accountability.
MHC's most recent State Historic Preservation Plan.
This beautiful 89 page document features 70 photos.
Not a single one is related to Native American history in any way.
An overview of MHC's complete control of the Section 106 review process and their sole ability to determine whether a site has historic or cultural research value.
SPOTLIGHT ON SOUTHEASTERN MASS:
Ongoing Desecration of Indigenous History in Plymouth County:
A 400-year legacy of destruction
StoptheDesecration.org has identified over a dozen sites in Southeastern Mass where Indigenous history is severely threatened by pending development. Below are cases where the MHC was complicit in the destruction.
The Annasnappet Pond archaeological site in Carver contains artifacts dating from the Late Paleolndian to the Middle Woodland time periods, and proves that the ancestors of today's Indigenous People in southeastern Massachusetts have occupied the region for thousands of years.
Due to the abundance of finds, Annasnappet Pond has been labeled as an archaeological district. However, our research has revealed that the MHC has allowed at least fourteen other sites in Southeastern Massachusetts to be destroyed by developers for infrastructure and other development projects. The MHC claims that the evidence of Native American presence has been too "insignificant" to preserve them, even though multiple finds paint a regional picture of occupation and use of a landscape for thousands of years. Indigenous People, and their history, is inseparable from the land. Therefore, the MHC is knowingly erasing a large landscape of history across Southeastern Massachusetts, and purposefully destroying Indigenous ties to the land.
Learn more at sandwars.org
In 2023, the MHC allowed a developer to self-certify that there were no historical interests on their property before being given a permit to de-forest, mine, and develop the 44-acre area.
The site is adjacent to Myles Standish State Forest, and the area is the known homeland of the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, who have lived on these lands for thousands of years. Their presence is documented at sites across Southeastern Massachusetts, yet the MHC allows their homeland to be bulldozed.
The developer was not required to perform a single cultural or archaeological survey, or consult with the Wampanoag, before being allowed to mine 1.5 million cubic yards of sand from the site, thereby erasing all traces of history.
In 2020, the MHC advised the AD Makepeace Company against bulldozing the Swan Hold site, due to the likely presence of unmarked Indigenous graves. The site is likely to "contain intact, significant archaeological resources." They state that Native Americans have occupied this area of Carver for thousands of years. This admission indicates that this site has a very high cultural and historical value. However, the MHC did not stop the development, and the site has since been mined for sand and installed with solar.
There is no evidence that a Section 106 Consultation with Tribal Members was conducted.
The total area of mining and degradation on this site was over 24 acres.
At Indian Pond, in Kingston, the MHC informed a project applicant that the pond has archaeological sensitivity for Indigenous artefacts. They called this "ancient" archaeological deposits, as opposed to "historic" archaeological deposits, revealing their cultural bias. An archaeological survey found evidence of stone tool production. Yet the MHC concluded, "Because no significant historic or archaeological resources were identified in the project area, no further archaeological survey is recommended by MHC. No further MHC review is required for the project."