|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Spring on site
It's good to have an article on this site, but I wonder why there are two different spellings.
I visited the site last year. I had heard there was a spring on the site but I only saw a pipe sticking out of the ground that looked like the spring had been capped. The fact that there is a natural spring that formerly flowed at the site could be mentioned.
I was very surprised that the Puvungna site does not seem to be well cared for while just nearby is a lavish Japanese garden (based on a culture that is not indigenous to the Long Beach area) which seems to have been invested with perhaps millions of dollars.
- Both names appear about equally in web searches; "Puvunga" is the spelling on the National Register of Historic Places, while some local experts appear to use "Puvungna". I'm going to try and incorporate a couple of your other suggestions into the article. -- Engineer Bob 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The "ngna" place name suffix doesn't have a consistent spelling, and the fact that for Tongva it is based on written transcriptions rather than a known pronunciation makes it more problematic. In "Reconstructed Tongva", it is generally "ngna": Puvungna, Torojoatgna, Toibingna, Kukamongna, Yangna. But most of the surviving place names are "nga": Topanga, Tujunga, Cucamonga, etc.--Curtis Clark 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added some further information; could expert local editors verify? There is some concern over the identification of the exact location of the site (which can, however, be found on the Internet); the historical designation protects the exact location of the site and, unlike the "improved" Kuruvungna site the Puvungna site is not officially protected, thus I'm not sure about giving its exactl location on campus. It's my impression that the Puvunga/Puvungna village site was quite large and that some other parts of the campus cover it now, but that the large grassy, partially tree-covered area near the parking lot is just a part of the original site.
Also, is it correct to say that the spring no longer flows because a pipe has "capped" it? Badagnani 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this page isn't more controversial. I can't determine the truth of the claims just using the offered links. Can any documentation be offered for the claim that Matthew Boxt examined Puvungna? Or that certain court cases were found in the university's favor? What's the point of the mentions of Marxists and leftists? If the intent is to imply that certain political groups disbelieve in private ownership of land, (and thus Ruyle doesn't want private use of the land in question) then say so clearly, and document it with citations. Incidentally, I'm used to the spelling "Puvungna." Davidus Quercus (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think no one noticed the addition (I missed it, and it's on my watch list). I tagged it rather than deleting it in case some of it is true.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Indians Duped by Professor Ruyle
The area that Prof. Ruyle claims to be Puvunga, was for many years known as “The Organic Garden.” It was a gardening commune in which people from the nearby community would receive a small plot of land to plant. Some of these gardeners had leftist leanings and became friends with Prof Ruyle, a self described Marxist.
When the University announced plans for terminating the Organic Garden so that it could build on the site, the gardeners were incensed and complained very loudly, but they were a small group with no political support from other organizations.
It was about this time the Prof. Ruyle wrote a paper that declared the Organic Garden was a sacred Indian ground and called it Puvunga. Ruyle enlisted the help of several Indian organizations and there were many protests. The Indians were duped into believing they were supporting a legitimate Indian Rights Issue.
Prof. Ruyle was never able to provide any proof that the land in question had ever been sacred or inhabited by Indians. Nor has it ever been proved that Puvunga ever really existed at all. It is probably as mythical as the Garden of Eden.
To help settle the issue a team of independent archaeologists were hired, to examine the land. They were led by Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D. No sign of humans, artifacts, or any other evidence of human habitation was found in that area. For this reason, all court decisions related to the issue were found in favor of the University. Despite their victory in court, in order to avoid more confrontations, the University decided not to build on the land.
Prof. Ruyle and others, have asked the land be returned to a gardening commune, but the University has decided to leave it in a natural state for now. Some people believe there was a natural spring in the area. This is not true. When it was a garden, the University supplied it with water via a pipeline. The remains of this plumbing can still be seen on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)