An Ethnographic Overview of the Fort Benning Military Reservation, Georgia and Alabama

The ethnographic overview of Fort Benning was written to provide background and context for understanding Fort Benning's responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes concerning cultural resources. It was produced in the context of Work Order 0011 for Contract DABl0-96-D-0039. The purpose of this work order was to lay the ground work for determining if any Native American sacred sites and/or Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are present on land owned by the installation.

The report begins with a recognition of the special relationship of American Indians and the US Military. Indians have the highest level of participation in American military service of any ethnic group in the US. Next, the legal parameters of tribal consultation are discussed. Trust responsibility and government-to-government relationships are integral to American Indians' relationship with the federal government in general and the department of the Army in particular. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRF A), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are reviewed in terms of Army guidance document Army Pamphlet 200-4 and Army Regulation 200-4 as well as Department of Defense Directive 4701.1.

Tribal groups with historic ties to Fort Benning cultural resources are described. These include the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Kialegee Tribal Town, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, the Poarch Band, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma, the Chickasaw and possibly the Shawnee. The history of each group is briefly recounted and general principles of appropriate consultation and contacts are listed.

The tribal histories rely almost exclusively on written documents and, hence, are only as complete as those documents. Gathering oral history data from the tribes was beyond the scope of this project. Further work with the Elders and tribal historians would, no doubt, add valuable insights and historical interpretations to those presented here. Only the tribes can decide if it is appropriate to share such information and, if so, under what conditions it can be shared.

This report was generated with only limited ethnographic consultation and, consequently, only general protocol descriptions are given. It is incumbent on the Army to increase their understanding of proper consultation protocol by active, face-to-face contact with the tribes and independent tribal talwas (tribal towns) listed above. All of the groups contacted during this study have indicated that they want direct communication with Army decision makers.

Sensitive archaeological site types including historic talwas, mounds, ceremonial earth lodges, "square grounds", old fields and stone rings are discussed in terms of why they are important in Maskoki tradition. Finally, in recognition of the tribal perspective that cultural issues extend far beyond the significance of archaeological sites, the traditional cultural significance of plants, mineral springs, birds and medicine rocks are addressed. These resources, like tribally-affiliated archaeological sites, are present at Fort Benning and are of cultural interest to the tribes. Compliance with AIRF A, NHP A and NEPA requires that these resources be considered.

National Register evaluation of Maskoki Traditional Cultural Properties is discussed in terms or registration requirements, integrity types, boundary issues and the differences between rural historic landscapes and districts. All of this discussion is explicitly and specifically tied to the relevant National Park Service Bulletins relating to eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.