In a message dated 3/3/01 2:07:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< especially if archaeology is seen (as it is in N america) as being a
branch of anthropology - should be a little more open to "foreign" viewpoints
and beliefs >>

Personally, I feel my point of view on NAGPRA centers around how the U.S.
Constitution is written and my concept of "public" property in America. We
are taught that on federal land or places where federal money is spent, the
Constitution is the highest standard to guide our behanvior. As such, there
is a separation of church and state to the point that no single religious
viewpoint can legally dictate over others. This is why old churches on
National Parks can no longer be used by the original religious group, be it
Catholic, Mormon, Moslem or Wicca. The key here is federal land or money. In
the case of artifacts or human remains recovered with federal money or on
federal land, the Constitution remains the legal guide for our behavior.
Again, it is my opinion that should a group of archaeologists challenge
NAGPRA using this argument, NAGPRA would fall as un-Constitutional. Perhaps
the Kennewick Man case will be the precedent for such an action. I just do
not see how a collective Native American religious viewpoint can dictate the
treatment and destruction of public property in America. But then, this is my
humble opinion.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.