River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon (1996)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 Cultural Resources Cultural resources along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead include physical remnants of human presence prior to the arrival of Europeans and during the era of exploration by Europeans. In addition, cultural resources include sites that have significance to one or more cultures presently, in the recent past, or in the distant past but without necessarily showing any physical evidence of human presence. Finally, cultural resources can include general landscape such as the river, the canyon, or particular kinds of geomorphic or biotic features along the river, especially if they have significant traditional cultural properties. In fact, the entire region has acknowledged cultural significance to both Native Amer- icans and Americans generally. Cultural resources seem to present an incredibly broad arena for study, even in a specific environment such as the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) study area. The task of GCES, however, was not to study all aspects of cultural resources but ratherto focus on those particular resources or locations that might be affected by various alternative means of operating Glen Canyon Dam. The distinction between studies of cultural resources generally and studies of resources potentially affected by operations was never clearly established or maintained by GCES. As will become evident in this chapter, failure of GCES to focus its resources on questions related to operations produced lack of specificity in conclusions about operations. At the same time, the tendency of GCES to direct money at virtually any aspect of cultural resources led to inevitable inadequacy in funding of the most relevant cultural resource issues, such as sacred sites. The GCES organizers took a dual approach to the study of cultural resources. The first studies to be identified and supported through GCES 137

138 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon were archaeological, that is, they involved inventory of sites along the river showing evidence of past human presence. At first the work did not involve participation by the Native American tribes having cultural affinities with the Grand Canyon area; the studies were conducted primarily by the National Park Service (NPS) pursuant to various federal laws. A second thrust developed later around ethnography in 1992 when the six Native American tribes or tribal groupings were first acknowledged as cooperators in the guidance of GOES. Ethnographic studies, performed primarily by tribal people or consultants hired through the tribes, dealt with present and historical cultural uses of the lands along and above the river between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Both of these categories of study will be discussecl in this chapter. NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE GRAND CANYON REGION Overview of Present Residents The populations most directly affected by dam operations are those residing in northeast Arizona, specifically the peoples of Coconino, Apache, and Navajo counties. In 1990the U.S. Bureau ofthe Census estimated a total population of slightly more than 235,000 for these three counties. Of this total, Native Americans accounted for 1 16,463, or 49 percent (Table 8. 1~. The tribes of the Grand Canyon region differ greatly in population size. Tribal population figures, however, are available only for individuals residing on reservations. Large numbers of Navajos, Hopis, and Zunis as well as members of the other three tribes live beyond reservation boundaries or in cities and towns well outside the region. The number of individuals who live on the reservations does show, however, approximate relative differences in population size. About 140,000 members of the six tribes live on reservations in either Arizona, New Mexico, or Utah (Table 8.2~. Even without including Navajos residing on those portions of the Navajo reservation in New Mexico and Utah, theywould still number 87,577 or 85 percent of the total potentially affected Indian population. Collectively, the members of the tribes shown in Table 8.2 constitute the largest concentration of culturally traditional Native American peoples in the United States. Although there are differences between tribes and inclividuals, some generalizations can be made. The majority of adult members of these tribes speak their tribal language as their first or, in many cases, only language. Al

Cultural Resources TABLE 8.1 Population Sizes by County 139 County White (non-hispanic) Indian Total Coconino 57,170 28,233 99,591 Apache 11,468 47,803 61,591 Navajo 31,148 40,417 77,658 Total 99,786 1 16,453 235,840 SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1 993a). TABLE 8.2 Summary of Population Sizes by Tribe Tribe Reservation Population Percent Under Age 18 Navajo (total) 123,944 43.6 Arizona only 87,577 43.9 Hopi 7,061 38.1 Hualapai 801 42.5 Havasupai 400 41.8 Southern Palute Kalbab 102 41.2 Shivwitsa 85 San Juanb 150 Not available Zuni 7,073 38.4 The number of "Paiutes of Utah" enumerated in Washington County, Utah. bEstimated; the San Juan Palutes are counted with the Navajos. SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1 993 b). though Christianity and Western medicine have been accepted to some ex- tent among Native Americans, the vast majority, to varying degrees, still adhere to tribal religious and healing practices. Although their numbers are

140 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon declining, a significant portion, particularly elderly members of these tribes, are still engaged in and dependent in part on traditional economic activities such as herding, farming, gathering, and craft production. Traditional tribal beliefs and practices are still part of the living culture of these peoples. Actions that threaten their beliefs and practices endanger the continued well- being of the communities. The concerns expressed by the tribes relative to the potential effects of dam operations must be considered and evaluated within the context of cultural traditions and values that at times differ sig- nificantly from those of most Americans. The vast Indian lanclholdings in the region create a false picture of Indian economic well-being and potential. As in most regions of the United States, Indian reservations of the West were established in areas with limited resources, in which early white settlers showed little interest. While res- ervation lands may appear to be only sparsely occupied to the casual ob- server, most reservations are overpopulated given their present economic base. In addition, the tribal populations are increasing rapidly. In 1990 the percentage of reservation populations under age 18 ranged from 38 percent to almost 44 percent (Table 8.2~. In terms of income there are significant differences among tribes; the most significant difference is between reservation Indian populations and local white (non-Hispanic) peoples. The Kalbab Palutes have by far the highest income but number only 102 individuals (Table 8.3~. In contrast, the Navajos, who constitute about 85 percent of the total regional Indian population, have a per capita income of only $3,805 and a median family income of only $11,532. If not for various government programs, these incomes would be even lower. The income of reservation Indians averages less than one-half that of their white neighbors (Table 8.4~. In terms of cultural and historic traditions and religious beliefs and practices, the Native American peoples are the population at risk relative to dam operations. It is also important to note that the relative importance of cultural and religious resources in the canyon varies significantly from tribe to tribe. Also, in terms of the potential economic effects of dam operations, Native American peoples are the poorest and thus the group most at risk within the region. The degree and nature of potential economic effects vary. For some tribes, dam operations have no potential positive or negative economic effects. Others may be affected in important ways.

Cultural Resources TABLE 8.3 Indian Income by Reservation (1989) 141 Reservation Per capita Median Family Navajo (all) $3~805 $1 1'532 Hopi $4~566 $13~917 Hualapai $3~630 $11~731 Havasupai $4l 1 1 2 $20~1 79 Southern Palute Kalbab Shivwits San Juan $5,245 $21 ,250 Not available Not available Zuni $3,904 $15,502 SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1 993 b). TABLE 8.4 Income of White (non-Hispanic) Populations in Three Counties of Arizona County Per Capita Median Family Coconino $13,919 $37,761 Apache Navajo $1 1,694 $1 1,731 $34,734 $31 ,106 SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1 993a). Historical Perspective Archaeological studies have shown that human occupation of the Grand Canyon began as early as 2000 B.C. About A.D. 700 horticultural Puebloan

142 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon peoples began to settle in the canyon. Cultural characteristics as well as recorded traditions support the interpretation that at least some of these Puebloan peoples were ancestral to the modern Hopis. About A.D. 1200 the Puebloan settlements in the canyon were abancloned. Most of these Puebloan peoples eventually settled on the Hopi mesas (Heib, 1979; Clem- mer, 1995~. Based on archaeological evidence, anthropologists have long noted what appears to be a cultural historical affiliation between Zuni and the prehistoric Puebloan peoples of the Chaco Canyon region of New Mexico (wood bury, 1979~. Only recently have the Zuni begun to assert that they originated in the Grand Canyon area and migrated up the Little Colorado River to eventually settle along the Zuni River (Ferguson and Hart, 1985~. Although they are no longer residents of the Grand Canyon, the Hopis used sacred sites in the canyon for religious purposes and continue to do so today (Clemmer, 1995~. In recent years the Zuni also have asserted continued use of sacred sites in the canyon (Ferguson and Hart, 1985~. After A.D. 1300 small groups of non-Puebloan peoples began to occupy the Grand Canyon at least seasonally. The occupants of the entire north side of the canyon and the south side as far west as the Little Colorado River appear to have been ancestors of the modern Southern Palutes. On the south side of the canyon as far east as the Little Colorado, the new occupants were the ancestors of modern Hualapais and Havasupais. During the nineteenth century, the Southern Palutes were forced by Euro-American settlers to abandon their croplands in the canyon. The Shivwits and Kalbab were placed on reservations some distance away. These groups claim, however, continuing use of specific sites in the canyon for religious purposes (Stogie etal., 1993~. Sites claimed by Southern Paiute in Stoffle et al. (1995) are, according to Grand Canyon National Park archaeological site records, Anasazi A.D. pre-1 150 and Pal (Hualapai and Havasupai) A.D. post-1300. The Hualapais also continue to assert religious use of the canyon (Hualapai Cultural Resources Division, 1993~. The Navajos were the last Native American tribe to enter the region. The significance of their history of occupancy is the most uncertain. During most of the historical periocl, the Navajos were primarily a pastoral people. Divided into numerous small, highlyautonomous extended families and clans, Navajo family groups wandered widely in search of water and forage for their herds. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Navajos were the only tribe in the Southwest to experience a major population increase. From only a few thousand in the mid-1 700s, they grew to over 10,000 by the mid-1 800s and to over 20,000 by 1900 (Johnston, 1966~. Population growth, together

Cultural Resources 143 with their ability in times of drought and war to temporarily move great distances in search of water and safety, resulted in their expansion and fluid territorial boundaries. Territorial expansion was also the major source of their conflictwith neighbors, particularly/he Hopi and Zuni. During the Navajo War of 1863-1868, a number of Navajo families sought refuge in the Grand Canyon. Some scholars argue that Navajo families were already occupying at least portions of the region as early as the 170Os (Thomas, 1993), while others believe that ~ was not until after 1880 that the Navajos permanently settled in the region (Bunte and Franklin, 1987; Euler, 1974~. Adding to the confusion over interpretations of Navajo concerns is the question of tribal definition. The Navajos together with the Apachean tribes of the Southwest are Athapaskan speakers. The Athapaskan-speaking peo- ples were the last Native Americans to arrive in the region; their arrival may have been as late as A.D. 1500. Thus, many individuals, including some scholars, tend to portray the Navajos as late invaders of the area. While the Navajos speak an Athapaskan language, the Navajo population growth during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was in large part the result of the absorption of numerous non-Athapaskan individuals and families. The Navajo tribal study (Roberts et al., 1994) notes several examples from the Grand Canyon area. Possibly one-third of the Navajo clans and subclans originated from incorporation of non-Navajo peoples, including Hopis, Palutes, Zunis, and Utes. The Navajos not only assimilated these peoples but also incorporated many of their cultural and religious beliefs and practices into what has been an ever-expanding but still uniquely Navajo cultural and religious tradition. Thus, biologically and culturally, the contemporary Nav- ajos are a fusion of Athapaskan and earlier southern peoples (Bailey and Bailey, 1986; Vogt, 1961; Reichard, 1928~. Background Information on the Six Tribes Hualapai Historically, the Hualapais were primarily a hunting and gathering people who occupied much of northwestern Arizona south of the Grand Canyon. While some Hualapai families farmed small plots in the side canyons of the Grand Canyon, most lived in widely scattered seasonal camps. In 1883 the present Hualapai reservation was established by presidential executive order (Dobyns and Euler, 1974; Kappler, 1904) and included in the reservation the

144 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon south bank of the Colorado River for a distance of some 108 miles. Trad- ~tionally, the Hualapais have claimed territory extending to the middle of the Colorado River. The 1990 census recorded 802 Native Americans resident on the Hualapai reservation (Bureau of the Census, 1993b). A tribal en- terprise, the River Runners, operates raft trips on the Colorado for tourists. While the Hualapais are diversifying their tribal economic development, as late as 1991 thetribe earned approximately one-third of its total incomefrom river- based recreational activities. Havasupais Culturally and linguistically, the Havasupais are a band of the Hualapais In fact, the Hualapais count the Havasupais as one of their 14 bands. Today, however, they exist as a separate tribal entity recognized by the federal government. The major factor that historically has distinguished the Hav- asupais from the Hualapais is their occupation of the small but relatively rich farmlands in Cataract Canyon, a side canyon of the Grand Canyon. As a result, the Havasupais have had ~ much greater dependence on farming than their Hualapai kin. A reservation for the Havasupais was established by executive order in Cataract Canyon in 1880 and 1882 (Kappler, 1904), and in 1975 Congress enlarged the reservation to encompass areas on the adjacent plateau. Today, about 400 tribal members are residents of the reservation (Bureau of the Census, 1 993 by. While tourism generates some incomeforthe tribe, the reservation boundaries do not extend to the river, and tourism is not directly related to recreational use of the river. Southern Palute Consortium The consortium originally included four distinct groups of Palutes: the Shivwit Palutes, the Band of the Palute Tribes of Utah, the Kalbab Palutes, and the San Juan Palutes. However, in 1994 the San Juan Palutes withdrew from participation in the GOES cultural studies due to other tribal business. They requested the right to reenter cultural resource discussions in the future. Each of these three groups is recognized by the federal government as a separate tribal entity. Closely related culturally, socially, and linguistically, these three communities were part of the Southern Palute tribes. Historically, the Southern Palutes had exclusive use of the entire north bank of the

Cultural Resources 145 Colorado River as well as portions of the south bank between Glen Canyon Dam and the Little Colorado. Until the late 1 800s, the Palutes depended on small farms in the Grand Canyon as well as on hunting and gathering in the adjacent plateau. Today, the Shivwits (about 85 resident members) live near St. George, Utah (Bureau of the Census, 1993b). The Kalbab (about 100 resident members) have a reservation near Fredonia, Arizona (Bureau of the Census, 1993b), and the San Juan Palutes (about 150 members) reside in two small communities on the western Navajo reservation (see Bunte and Franklin, 1987~. The San Juan Paiutes were legally recognized by the federal government as part of the Navajo Tribe until 1989, when they were accorded separate tribal recognition. The federal government has yet to address the issue of a separate land base or reservation for the San Juan Palutes (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989~. Palute residence areas or reservations today are 25 to 75 air miles from the river. There is no indication that op- eration of Glen Canyon Dam will directly affect the economy of these three tribal entities. Hopis A farming people, the Hopis live in a series of permanent villages stretching from Moenkopi on the west to First Mesa on the east, a distance of about 70 highway miles. The Hopi reservation was created by executive order in 1884. The reservation was not created exclusively for Hopi use, however. This has resulted in a long unresolved land dispute with the Navajos, whose reservation surrounds the Hopi lands (Kappler, 1904~. To- clay, about 7,000 Hopis reside on their reservation (Bureau of the Census, 1 993b). The closest Hopi village to the river is Moenkopi, about 30 air miles east; the intervening land is part of the Navajo reservation. While tourism is still important to the Hopi economy, it is unrelated to recreational use of the river, and dam operations appear to be of little economic concern to the Hopi Tribe. Navajos Historically, the Navajos have been a pastoral people who practiced some farming. With the total population of almost 125,000 members on reservation lands and an almost equal number living elsewhere, the Navajo

146 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon are the largest tribe in the United States (Bureau of the Census, 1 993b). They also have the largest reservation in the United States. It encompasses much of northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and a small portion of southeastern Utah. The original Navajo reservation, created by the Treaty of 1868, was a relatively small area along the New Mexico-Arizona border. Since 1868, the reservation has been expanded on a number of occasions by executive order. By executive orders in 1884, 1900, and 1930, the Navajo reservation was extended westward to the Colorado River (see Williams, 1970; Kappler, 1904~. In 1969, however, the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Interior ruled that a 1917 executive order withcirew Marble Canyon for"water power purposes" and placed the Navajo reservation boundary one-quarter mile from the river. Although the Navajo tribe disputes the ruling, Marble Canyon is presently administered by the National Park Service. In addition, the Navajos are the only tribe whose reservation adjoins Lake Powell. Virtually the entire south shore of Lake Powell is Navajo reservation land. As a result of a land dispute between the Navajo and the Hopi over portions of the western extension area, in 1966 Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett ordered a freeze on economic development projects on the westernmost portion of the Navajo reservation until the land question was settled. The "Bennett Freeze" remained in effect until 1992 and then was reimposed in 1995 (Clemmer, 1995~. The Navajo Tribe has voiced a range of economic concerns relative to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, provides electricity to the majority of consumers on the Navajo reservation. The authority receives about 20 percent of its power from the Western Area Power Administration tWAPA). Navajo Agricultural Products, Inc., a tribal enterprise that operates the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, which receives its power from WAPA-by 1998 this will amount to 96 MW. Thus, the Navajo Tribe has a direct interest in the cost of electricity from Glen Canyon Dam (Thomas, 1993~. The tribe has also voiced concern over tourism and recreation in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon. These activities benefit local tribal members, many of whom have small businesses along the highways. The Bennett Freeze restricts economic development that would allow the Navajos even greater opportunity to earn tourist dollars. The tribe also sees the opportunity to develop commercial rafting and sport fishing businesses on the river and has plans to develop a marina on Lake Powell (Thomas, 1993~.

Cultural Resources Zanis 147 Historically, the Zunis have been a farming people whose permanent villages have been located near the headwaters of the Little Colorado River drainage, in the extreme western portion of New Mexico. With over 7,000 resWent tribal members (Bureau of the Census, 1993b), the Zuni reservation is about 250 air miles from the Colorado River. Dam operations appear to have no direct economic consequences for the Zunis. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES The earliest evidence for human use of the Grand Canyon goes back 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. At that time, Indians were hunting in the canyon, as shown by small wooden split-twig animal figurines left in caves high in the cliffs. These Indians may have been related to the Pinto Basin hunters of the Mohave Desert, who existed about the same time. In all probability the figurines are some form of imitative magic: if a figurine was made of the animal to be hunted, perhaps the maker would have more success in the hunt. There is no further evidence of human use of the Grand Canyon until about A.D. 500 to 700. At that time, two unrelated groups made halting explorations of the canyon. Along the South Rim came the Cohonina, who practiced minimal agriculture along with hunting and gathering. These Indians lived in harmony with their Anasazi (or Hisatsinom) neighbors to the east. The two groups traded with one another; the Cohonina especially valued the decorated ceramics of the Hisatsinom and adapted their archi- tecture as well. (Hisatsinom is the Hopi term for Anasazi.) The Hisatsinom occupied both north and south rims from cat A.D. 500 until around A.D. 1 150 to 1200. Their lifestyle was similar to but more soph- isticated than that of the Cohonina. They lived in well-constructed masonry pueblos, which occasionally included a subterranean circular ceremonial room, or kiva. By about A.D. 1050, hundreds of Cohonina and Hisatsinom were living in and around Grand Canyon. Of more than 2,000 archaeological sites now recorded, about 1,500 were inhabited in the twelfth century by the latter group. Within 100 years, the Grand Canyon was abandoned by the Cohonina and Hisatsinom. Climatic changes were probably a major cause but not the

148 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon only cause. The Hitsatsinom moved east and became the Hopi as we know them today. The Cohonina simply disappeared from the archaeological record. For a century or more, no human beings lived in the Grand Canyon. Then, about A.D. 1300, the Cerbat peoples, who were direct ancestors of the presently Hualapai and Havasupai (the Pai), came into the area from the west, and the Southern Palute moved into the North Rim. These peoples hunted and gathered wild food and engaged in some farming near springs on the rims and in the canyon depths. They remained until forcibly removed to reservations by U.S. government conquest in the late nineteenth century. Not until the 1880s did any Navajos come to Grand Canyon (Jones and Euler, 1 979~. The foundation for understanding the importance of and potential vulnerabilities of archaeological resources is given in the report, The Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey Along the Colorado River Between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon (Fairley et al., 1994~. This survey, which was supported by GOES, includes all sites that could be discovered within approximately 10,506 acres along 255 miles of the Colorado River from the Glen Canyon Dam to Separation Canyon. A total of 475 archaeological sites and 489 isolated occurrences of cultural materials were recorded during the survey. In addition, direct effects from "recent" inundation were recorded at 33 sites and indirect effects in the form of bank retreat, accelerated arroyo cutting, and increased visitation were noted at 127 sites. This detailed report is marred by only a few errors of fact and field technique. For example, it discusses the controversy regarding the ancestry of the historic Indian occupants in Grand Canyon, but this controversy has been settled and is no longer relevant; archaeologists who have done the most intensive research in the Grand Canyon are in general agreement as to the ancestry of the present tribes. The most important defect in technique forthe archaeological surveywas its "no-collection" policy. Artifacts were not collected for future laboratory analyses. The report indicated that this was a Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) requirement, but it is contrary to procedures normally followed by NPS archaeologists at Grand Canyon National Park (J. Balsom, personal communication, May 17, 1994~. Because of the no-collection policy, archaeologists had to accomplish identifications and rudimentary analyses of ceramics and stone artifacts (Ethics) under difficult conditions in the field, where such artifacts often were encrusted with dirt or lime accretions. The report notes (p. 21 ) that the field

Cultural Resources 149 crews did collect "sherd nips," which are small pieces of the sherd generally less than a 1 x 1 cm square. The report claims that these nips have "as much information potential as the whole sherd for lab analyses" and that field analyses conducted by several different archaeologists could be "re-checked in the lab by a single analyst." Although some government agencies now demand a no-collection policy in field surveys, the limitations of the policy are very severe. In the opinion of many archaeologists, field examination of artifacts falls far short of accepted scientific analytical procedures in archaeology and prohibits future analyses as new data and theoretical constructs may become available. Further, leaves the artifacts on the ground where, especially in the Grand Canyon, removal by untrained unauthorized individuals may irretrievably reduce and skew the data base. The impossibility of laboratory analysis from "shard nips" becomes apparent in another way. Archaeologists on the project had various degrees of expertise. This is clear from their inability in many cases to distinguish between Pal ceramics (Tizon Brown Ware) and those of the Southern Palute (Southern Palute Brown Ware). This resulted in the cultural affiliation of some sites to be listed only as "Pai/Paiute." If whole shards had been brought to the laboratory where they could be examined by one or more archaeologists familiar with artifact types, this could have been eliminated. In briefly discussing archaeological aspects of contemporary tribes, the authors (Fairley et al., 1994, p. 110) noted that no Navajo sites or diagnostic artifacts predating the late nineteenth century were identified during the survey. This finding is discussed later in this chapter. Strangely, the authors also noted (p. 111) that little ethnographic material is available for the Pal (Hualapai and Havasupai) bands. These bands have been described in detail by Dobyns (1956) and Dobvns and Euler (19701. which are not referenced by Fairley et al. ~,, Despite these minor caveats, the archaeological survey report is well organized and presents important data on sites along the river corridor. Its value is enhanced by two studies relating archaeological sites to surficial geology in the eastern Grand Canyon. The first report (Hereford et al., 1993) presents evidence of archaeological sites (Pueblo 1, cat A.D. 800 to 900) buried under later ruins (Pueblo 11, A.D. 1050 to 1150) that are now being eroded. It also notes even earlier eroding Anasazi ruins marked by hearths, the charcoal from which has been radiocarbon dated at 400 B.C. to A.D. 450. The archaeological report concludes with the statement that of the 475 known archaeological sites in the river corridor, 50 percent (238) are as

150 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon sociated with alluvial deposits, and about 52 percent (123) of these are presently affected byarroyo cutting because of tributary-channel adjustment to hydrological conditions following construction of Glen Canyon Dam. Field observations along the river in the eastern Grand Canyon attest to the channel erosion that has occurred at archaeological sites since the completion of Glen Canyon Dam. If the geological studies are accurate, large-scale mitigation efforts, including excavation by the NPS, are overdue. There is no indication in any of these studies that NPS has put into action plans orfunds for such mitigation. Indeed, the Hopi Tribe (Dongoske, 1 993 b) has criticized NPS for doing nothing to mitigate these deleterious conditions. The second report on surficial geology (Hereford, 1993) documents by means of a map and description of the map units the nature of postclam erosional effects on archaeological sites in the area of Palisades Creek. There appears to be no question but that erosion and other alluvial perturbations have taken their toll. Assessments through monitoring should determine which sites are of sufficient significance to warrant mitigation. Monitoring is documented in another report on archaeological sites from Glen Canyon Dam to the Paria Riffle in Glen Canyon (Burchett, 1993~. Of a total of 50 sites, some 38 were studied for damage by erosion and human activity (Fairley et al., 1994~. This is a very good report that contains data on how the sites are being monitored, the condition of the sites, and what is recommended for mitigation. Such documentation should be provided for sites along the river in the Grand Canyon as well. At the same time, actual mitigation is overclue. One undocumented and overly generalized statement does appear in the report, however: "The canyon has been and continues to be a spiritual resource for many cultures, as indicated by various shrines and rock-art sites scattered along the river corridor" (p. 4~. That some tribes claim a spiritual resource in the canyon and that there may be known shrines associated with this resource, such as the Hopi salt deposits and sipapu, are not disputed. More specific and documented statements are, however, required as a basis for evaluating cultural resources. ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES Perspectives on Ethnography Cultural resources as defined by the archaeologists and cultural re

Cultural Resources 151 sources as defined by the tribes are not the same. To varying degrees and in different ways, all of the tribes see the canyon in its entirety as a sacred place and thus as a cultural resource in need of protection. Within the canyon there are specific locales or sites with what might be best termed secular-historical importance to a particular tribe or group within a tribe. In speaking of the locations of an old sheep corral and a sweathouse, the Navajo study states: "What is most important is the preservation of the stories about those places that perpetuates the significance of the place from generation to generation. Even though the sheep corral . . . or the sweathouses . . . no longer exist, the places where they used to be are still important reminders of the events in Navajo history. Preserving the physical places as much as possible and enabling Navajo access to them helps the perpetuation of the stories and thereby helps preserve the importance of the places" (Roberts et al., 1994, pp. 111-112~. In societies for which history exists in the mind and not on paper and is transmitted orally from generation to generation, the physical existence of places is critical for the retention and transmission of historical knowledge. Thus, the orally transmitted stories are the true "cultural resource" and not the physical evidence of human occupation and use. Tribes also view native plants and animals as part of the cultural resources of the canyon. In this regarcl, "the loss of native plants is viewed by the Southern Paiute representatives as more damaging than the potential loss of archaeological sites in the banks" (Stoffle et al., 1995~. Sacred Sites Even more difficult is a special category of cultural resources that, for lack of a beKer term, is called "sacred sites." Within the canyon specific locales have sacred significance. These sacred sites are the areas of greatest concern to local Native American communities. The American Indian concept of a "sacred site" has little equivalent to western Judeo-Christian religious tradition. These fundamental differences between Native American and western religious traditions were well defined by the Hopi tribe when they wrote: Fundamental to Hopi religious thought is the belief in the sacred nature of physical places such as mountain peaks, springs, and burials. In many religions, including Christianity, the locations of

152 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon most places of worship are theologically irrelevant. The loss of a particular church does not diminish the efficacy of the belief system. In contrast, the loss of a sacred site can damage the vitality and coherence of Hopi religion. Deities are thought of as inhabiting specific locations, and specific geographic areas are identified as points of tribal origin. In such places, individuals interact with deities and the spiritual forces embodied in the natural environment. These interactions are structured by rituals that prescribe the use of particular native plants, animals, and minerals. Activities that may affect sacred areas, their accessibility, or the availability of materials used in traditional practices are of concern to the Hopi. (Hopi Tribe, 1990, p. 1) Hopi beliefs concerning sacred sites are almost identical to those of the Zunis and to lesser degrees can be applied to the Navajos, Hualapais, Havasupais, and Southern Palutes as well. The protection of sacred sites is critical to the continuation of religious beliefs and practices. Religious leaders, particularly among the Hopis and Zunis, find themselves in an extremely difficult position. Sacred teachings of both tribes speak of the Grand Canyon as the point of origin or the place of tribal emergence into the present world. They indicate that some of the most sacred sites for the tribe are located in or near the canyon. Destruction of these sites could jeopardize the continuity of their traditional religious beliefs and practices. Disclosure of the locations of sacred sites or of sacred knowledge concerning these sites, however, presents a major problem, particular for Hopi and Zuni religious leaders. Hopi and Zuni religious traditions are not the same as western religions regarding dissemination of sacred knowledge. Sacred knowledge is not public knowledge, even within the tribes. Religious leaders among the Hopis and Zunis are members of formally organized religious groups or priest- hoods. Sacred knowledge is restricted to religious leaders or initiated members of a particular clan or tribal priesthood. This characteristic is not unique to the Hopis and Zunis. Control of sacred knowledge by clan or tribal priesthoods was a common characteristic of the traditional native religions of the tribes of the eastern United States as well. Uninitiated members of the tribe are not privy to certain categories of sacred knowledge, nor are individuals outside the tribe. In large part the authority of the religious leaders of these tribes is derived from their exclusive control of this sacred know- ledge. Making public such knowledge could erode or weaken the authority

Cultural Resources 153 of the religious leaders. Still another problem that is relevant to the disclosure of locations of sacred sites as well as those of other tribal cultural properties is that of security. This concern of the tribes for the security of cultural resources makes them highly reluctant to disclose information on cultural properties. Most of these sites are located in isolated areas, and looting or desecration of such sites has been a major problem in the Southwest. American Indian objects command high prices. Thus, public identification of the locations of sites could make them targets for thieves in search of objects to sell. Even petroglyphs and pictographs are not safe because rock faces can be removed. Knowledge of the sacred importance of such sites only enhances the market value of objects looted from them. While the Hopis in particular have been victimized by art thieves trading in stolen sacred masks and other sacred objects, this problem is common to all tribes in the region. Still another problem is what some have termed "new-age" people, non-lndians, who are attracted to Indian religious beliefs and some of whom practice a pseudo-lndian religion. Such individuals have attempted to participate in religious rituals and have even left their "prayer sticks" and other "religious offerings" at tribal shrines. Finally, zealous tourists in search of an exotic adventure may intrude on and damage sacred sites (Clemmer, 1995~. Thus, traditional tribal leaders experience a dilemma concerning the protection of their cultural resources. On the one hand, such locations do need protecting. Public disclosure of site locations and the cultural significance of sites may, however, expose them to looting and desecration. The Hualapai Tribe The report of the Hualapai Tribe to GOES (Hualapai Cultural Resources Division, 1993) is quite thorough. With the assistance of Hualapai tribal members, the study was written by Robert Stevens of the School of Social Sciences at the University of California, Irvine; Professor Stevens is not a Hualapai. The initial sections presenting geographical, historical, and social background information on the tribe contain elementary data with only a few factual errors. For example, the claim is made (p. 5) that the Cohonina, a prehistoric entity, were ancestors of the Hualapai. This has long been refuted by anthropologists intimately familiar with the matter (Euler, 1981; Schwartz, 1989~. The ancestors of the Hualapai were people of the Cerbat tradition. The Hualapai study also lists significant geographic locations (pp. 1 1-12),

154 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon some of which are plainly outside the aboriginal Hualapai range. Examples include Jerome and Paulden in Central Arizona (Dobyns and Euler, 1976~. The report states that "in Hualapai worldview, the Grand Canyon system is believed to be the place of emergence of the Hualapai bands." Anthro- pologists who have researched this (Dobyns and Euler, 1961, 1976) understand that the Hualapai believe their ancestors emerged from a place near Eldorado Canyon on the lower Colorado River southwest of Grand Canyon and then moved to Matawidita Canyon, a tributary of the Grand Canyon from the south and a sacred place in Hualapai tradition. There is a sacred cave, excavated in support of the Hualapai land claims case, called Wa 'ha 'vo, where the legendary chief Wakiasma is buried. The importance and sacredness of this site are well documented (Euler, 1958~. The remainder of the report contains statements by older Hualapai regarding the Grand Canyon. At this late date, it may be difficult for in- dividuals to recall details about aboriginal life. The report also lists places, plants, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles that are termed "culturally significant." This is a fairly inclusive listing, and the fact that these places, animals, and plants were known to or used by Hualapai does not say much about the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. The intensive research carried out among the Hualapai in the 1950s in connection with land claims cases of the Hualapai (Dobyns, 1956; Euler, 1958) did not yield any emphasis on the Grand Canyon nor was it (otherthan Matawidita Canyon) considered sacred by respondents. That"the Grand Canyon in its entirety is considered a sacred area by the Hualapai cultural scholars," as stated in the report, may not be literally correct. Respondents may have confused sacredness with animistic belief (i.e., that everything contains a spirit being). It seems obvious, however, that the Hualapai Tribe and its investigators put much thought and effort into their research and report. As shown by their own statements (p. 122), they need more information about the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and about the potential effects of dam operations (p. 137~. Southern Paiute The Paiute originally held more than 600 miles along the Colorado River from east of the Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah to Blythe, California, as verified by anthropologists who have researched the ethnohistory of the several Southern Paiute bands, including the Chemehuevi (Kelly, 1934, 1964; Euler,

Cultural Resources 155 1966, 1972~. A lengthy draft report gives the Southern Paiute assessment of the Colorado River corridor (Stoffle et al., 1993~. This report covers the research and study designs, ethnography of the constituent Paiute political units, and the tribal concerns for natural and cultural resources. A separate chapter discusses legal relations between the Southern Paiute forthe Colorado River corridor, the Havasupai, and the U.S. government. The section on Southern Paiute place names is very complete and well documented, as are data regarding plants, animals, minerals, trails, and river crossings. The chapter detailing the chronology of Southern Paiute is an excellent ethnohistorical summary. Southern Palute "elders" who took three rivertrips in 1992 and 1993 under GOES sponsorship include some from the Kaibab, Shivwits, and San Juan Palute tribes. These trips yielded information about tribal interests along the river. The archaeologists in the 1991 Colorado River corridor survey (Fairley et al., 1994) delineated 18 Paiute sites and an additional 32 in which theywere undecided-about cultural affiliations and described them as Pai/Palute. Not all of these were visited by the Paiute elders, however. The Paiute report (Stoffle et al., 1993) states that some Palute continue to use sites along the Colorado River and that most sites visited by the elders "were perceived to be of high cultural significance to Southern Palute people" (p. 33~. Validation of this statement would require evidence and documentation. The report emphasizes the uses of plants by the Palute (ethnobotany). The Palutes undoubtedly used most of the plants listed in the report, but many of these plants are present on the uplands above the river corridor and the Paiute do not necessarily have to go into the canyon to obtain them. The Palutes who visited sites in the canyon were cautious about making policy statements; they were uncertain about what the water release options meant. Their conclusions included requests to protect archaeological sites in several ways and a plea for better consultation between federal agencies and the Southern Palute tribes. They also requested better protection of plants in the canyon. Finally, a four-page recommendation for mitigation of Paiute resources clearly stated the Paiute position as elucidated by the authors of the report. A second report (Stoffle et al., 1995) dealing with rock art lists 25 sites in the Grand Canyon corridor that have been interpreted by tribal members as Southern Paiute. In addition, rock art at 12 sites in Kanab Canyon, away from the river corridor, and six traditional cultural properties were interpreted by the Palute as having some relation to their ancestry. Since this is a draft

156 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon report and perhaps subject to further alteration, all that can be said at present is that it contains Southern Paiute impressions that may have little or no re- lation to anthropological or historical data. Hopi The reports emanating from the Hopi Tribe (Dongoske, 1993a, 1993b) indicate their progress in evaluating cultural resources but provide no conclusions as yet. Mentioned in these progress reports are two studies: a draft historical report entitled "Hopi and the History of Grand Canyon Ex- ploration" by Gail Lotenberg and a cultural resources inventory of the lower Little Colorado River from Blue Springs to the confluence with the Colorado. Neither of these had been released as of September 1995. Navajo A Navajo Nation position paper (Thomas, 1993) provides a good summary of the history of laws and dam operations. It claims, without presenting any evidence, that "cultural . . . resources of the Navajo Nation . . . including archaeological sites [and] traditional cultural properties . . . are directly affected by dam operations" (p. 3~. In this connection it is worthwhile to again note that the intensive archaeological survey of the river corridor by Fairley et al. (1994) did not locate any Navajo sites. The Navajo position paper does state that research is being conducted "to document historic and current use and traditional cultural properties of the Navajo people in Glen and Grand Canyons" (p. 4) and that the Historic Preservation Department planned to submit a technical report to the BOR in September 1993. This study was not available for review as of September 1 995. The position paper continues with more undocumented claims of Navajo sites in the Grand Canyon. It says that "many of these archaeological sites [upstream from the confluence of the Little Colorado at Mile 61 ] exhibit use by Navajo peoples . . . [and that] Navajos have left evidence of use as far west as Crystal Creek at river mile 98" (p. 1 1~. Carrying these claims a bit farther, the position paper claims that traditional cultural properties of the Navajo "reflect Navajo use of the canyons over hundreds of years and the importance of the canyons for their spiritual well being" (pp. 1 1-12~. Again,

Cultural Resources 157 all that can be said at present is that some empirical evidence must be presented in support of the validity of these statements. Zuni There were no extensive reports from the Zuni as of September 1995. Letters and brief reports do provide some information on GCES work by the Zuni. A letter from Roger Anyon to David Wegner dated January 22, 1993, states that "we anticipate that sites of cultural importance to Zuni will be iclentified along both the mainstem (Colorado River) and the Little Colorado River." Also, "we are confident that many of the cultural resources identified by archaeologists within the area affected by dam operations are culturally affiliated with the Zuni Tribe...." The Zuni have requested that biologists assist them in protecting natural resources that are identified as having significance to the tribe's traditional and religious concerns. Still, no Zuni archaeological sites have ever been documented along the Colorado River or in the Grand Canyon. In certain aspects of Zuni mythology, there is reference to Zuni emergence from the bottom of Grand Canyon, perhaps from the same place referenced by the Hopi, and it may well be that Zuni assimilated this idea from Hopi. A letter from E. Richard Hart (Institute of the North American West) to Roger Anyon, dated January 23, 1993, proposes an "exhaustive" search of primary and secondary published materials to produce an annotated bibliography of sources related to Zuni and the Colorado River, Little Colorado River, and Grand Canyon. Mr. Hart states that he has collected information from Zunis on the Grand Canyon for 25 years. But he also notes that Zunis do not reveal religious information and thus "much information in historical and anthropological reports published in the past has contained errors of fact, interpretation, and opinion." In a five-page report, Zuni and the Grand Canyon, dated June 24, 1993, E. Richard Hart indicates that he is now completing "an exhaustive search of primary and secondary published materials as well as a complete search of available manuscript materials" relating to the Zuni claim. This has not been presented to the Committee. He also reiterates that much information in print is faulty or incomplete and states that "much of the published documentary material relating to Zuni emergence and migration is suspect." According to Hart, the Grand Canyon is sacred and plays a prominent role in Zuni religion

158 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon and world philosophy. His report also claims that periodic pilgrimages to the Grand Canyon are or were made by the leaders of certain Zuni religious groups to obtain samples of items needed for their religion and, finally, that the ecosystems of the Grand Canyon "remain integrated in Zuni religion and greatly influence the religious practices of Zunis today." Evidence of these assertions has yet to be presented. A report entitled Zuni Cultural Resources and the Grand Canyon by Roger Anyon and Andrew L. Othole pour pages, dated June 24, 1993) indicates that the Zuni emergence was from the bottom of the Grand Canyon and that there was a subsequent search for the center of the world, the Middle Place. Then, according to this report, the Zunis moved up the Col- oraclo River and along the Little Colorado. The authors then state that, since Zunis emerged in the Grand Canyon, "all culturallyaffiliated cultural resources in the Grand Canyon are important to Zuni traditional and cultural values because of the spiritual linkage to the place of emergence for the Zuni Tribe." It also claims that over 400 archaeological sites along the river corridor have significance to the Zuni Tribe. On a recent river trip, Zuni religious leaders visited 28 sites and identified two previously unrecorded Zuni shrines, each on a different site. They state that there may be more but that they cannot be recognized by non-Zunis; they can be identified only by religious leaders. In contrast to these assertions, intensive archaeological research in the Grand Canyon has yet to produce any independent verification of a Zuni presence there. A three-page progress report by the same authors (May 5, 1993, to September 30, 1993) refers to background research on ethnohistory, pre- paration of an annotated bibliography, fieldwork, and preparation of an ethnohistorical report. It also records a Colorado Rivertrip taken by the "Zuni team" in May 1993 on the basis of which Zuni ancestral sites and Zuni shrines were identified in the Grand Canyon. Perspective on Tribal Studies Although GCES began in 1983, it was not until 1990 that the first cultural resource studies were funded. Why the BOR waited so long to begin supporting tribal studies is not clear, given that most of the laws protecting cultural and native religious properties were already in effect by 1983. Even without any studies, it should have been readily apparent to the bureau that in terms of cultural properties the local tribes were the only population at risk

Cultural Resources 159 and that in terms of potential economic effect some of these tribes were also the population most at risk. The tribes are an integral part of the ecosystem. It is unfortunate that they were brought into the GOES very late. After the decision was made to include the tribes, the BOR began contracting with them before it had clearly defined the nature of studies ap- propriate to define tribal concerns. As the Navajo Nation notes, 'tribal issues in the EIS [environmental impact statement] seemed to be considered synonymous with archaeological and cultural resources" (Roberts et al., 1994~. As the Navajo researchers discovered on their own, other issues also were of critical concern to the blavajos. Even within this general category of archaeological and cultural resource studies, the BOR appears to have given little guidance and direction to the tribes. As a result, a great deal of needless anxiety and apprehension have been created among traditional religious leaders, particularly the Hopis and Zunis. Many individuals have been left with the impression that they are going to have to disclose the locations of all of their sacred sites together with restricted sacred knowledge in order to protect these sites from possible destruction or to meet the terms of their contractual agreements. Most of the tribal studies are far broader and more comprehensive than are needed for protecting cultural resources from possible destruction caused by clam operations, and the actual risks associated with operations have remained poorly defined. Only cultural resources that are located on the beaches and other areas along the river corridor need to be considered. Sacred knowledge con- cerning a particular location does not, and should not, need to be disclosed if it violates religious beliefs. For sites that can be identified, conditions need to be appraised and monitored over time, and methods need to be devised for protecting the cultural resources. The Hopis have devised an excellent minimal model for the type of site-specific data needed for protection (Dongoske, 1994~. Tribal studies should not be considered academic studies but rather applied studies focused toward specific objectives-that is, the protection of specific tribal cultural resources. Relevant to studies of sacred sites, in 1971 the Council of the American Anthropological Association adopted what it terms the "Principles of Professional Responsibility." These principles were amended in 1976 and again in 1989. Section 1 states: Anthropologists' first responsibility is to those whose lives and cultures they study. Should conflicts of interest arise, the interests of

160 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon these people take precedence over other considerations. Anthro- pologists must do everything in their power to protect the dignity and privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research or per- form other professional activities. Their physical, social and emotional safety and welfare are the professional concerns of the anthropologists who have worked among them. Few, if any, anthropologists engaged in field research have not at one time or another been privy to certain information the disclosure of which might prove detrimental to a particular individual or the community being studied. It is to be hoped that most anthropologists have withheld such information from public disclosure. There is little doubt that disclosure of restricted sacred knowledge would endanger the "social welfare" of tribal communities. While restricted knowledge has been protected relative to the GOES, protection may be more difficult in the future. Studies show that in many cases two or more tribes claim the same cultural resource. Thus, juris- dictional disputes may arise between tribes over the control or protection of particular cultural resources. While the Navajo tribe notes some discussions with the Hopi and Hualapai researchers (Roberts et al., 1994), the tribes probably need to worktogether more extensively on their common concerns. It would be in the long-term interest of all of the tribes to cooperate with each other in the monitoring and protection of Native American cultural resources in the Grand Canyon. SUMMARY The tribes generally have not given explicit attention to the various flow alternatives or to how these alternatives might affect their cultural resources and values. This may have resulted from a lack of direction to the given researchers by the BOR. Some of the tribes, especially the Hualapai and Southern Paiute, have exhibited concerns for botanical resources but not so much for other biotic resources. All tribes have noted a concern for spirits in plants and animals. None of the reports, except that of the Navajo, indicate concern about the cost of electrical power. The Hualapai, especially with their river-running enterprise below Diamond Creek, are concerned with any effect river flows might have on recreational resources. The tribes have not addressed nonuse values in their reports except in a general way to the effect

Cultural Resources 161 that the Grand Canyon has a sacred value whether they use it or not. It is clearfrom anthropological, archaeological, and historical studiesthat Hopi, Southern Paiute, Hualapai, and Havasupai have all used the Grand Canyon to one degree or another in the past. The extent and significance of Navajo and Zuni occupation of the Canyon are as yet unclear. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The BOR should have involved the tribes in the Glen Canyon environmental research and on the cooperating group much earlier than it did. In future studies such as these, where Native American interests are apparent, the BOR should make sure the affected tribes are involved at the earliest possible planning stage. 2. In future such studies the BOR should provide more direction to the tribes involved so that they can more directly address the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam and its effects. 3. An anthropologist without a vested interest in any particular tribe or agency should be involved in future studies for which tribes participate in environmental and cultural research. An independent anthropologist could have enhanced the credibility of tribal reports and served as liaison to the tribes. 4. A determination should be made as to which archaeological sites are in danger of damage because of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, and monitoring as well as mitigation need to be specified for the future. 5. The tribes should take responsibility for identifying sacred sites to the extent possible in terms of their individual religious precepts; the BOR and NPS should take responsibility to protect these sites. REFERENCES Bailey, G., and R. Bailey. 1986. A History of the Navajos: The Reservation Years. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Pp. 14-16. Bunte, P.A., and R.J. Franklin. 1987. From the Sands to the Mountain: Change and Persistence in a Southern Paiute Community. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Pp. 51-99, 240-241.

162 Burchett, T.W. 1993. River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon Review Draft, Summary Report for the 1993 Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Monitoring of Archaeological Sites from Glen Canyon Dam to the Paria Riffle, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Flagstaff, Ariz.: Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of the Census. 1993a. 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, Arizona. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bureau of the Census. 1993b. 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, American Indian and Alaska relative Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Clemmer, R.O. 1995. Roads in the Sky: The Hopi Indians in a Century of Change. Boulder: Westview Press. Pp. 16, 274-295. Dobyns, H.F. 1956. Prehistoric Indian Occupation Within the Eastern Area of the Yuman Complex. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dobyns, H.F., and R.C. Euler, eds. 1961. The origin of the Pal tribes by Henry P. Ewing. The Kiva 26(Feb.) :3. Dobyns, H.F., and R.C. Euler. 1970. Wauba Yuma's People: The Comparative Sociopolitical Structure of the Pal Indians of Arizona. Prescott College Studies in Anthropology 3, Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona. Dobyns, H.F., and R.C. Euler. 1974. Socio-Political Structure and the Ethnic Group Concept of the Pail New York: Garland Publishing. Dobyns, H.F., and R.C. Euler. 1976. Tribal Series. ~ ne wa~apa' Heople. Plloenix: Indian Dongoske, K.E. 1993a. Progress Report Number 8 on the Hopi Tribe's Involvement as a Cooperating Agency in the Glen Canyon Dam Environ- mental Impact Statement. Kykotsmovi Village, Ariz.: The Hopi Tribe. Dongoske, K.E. 1993b. Progress Report Number 9 on the Hopi Tribe's Involvement as a Cooperating Agency in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. Kykotsmovi Village, Ariz.: The Hopi Tribe. Dongoske, K.E. 1994. Progress Report Number 14 on the Hopi Tribe's Involvement as a Cooperating Agency in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. Pp. 5-6. Kykotsmovi Village, Ariz.: The Hopi Tribe. Euler, R.C. 1958. Walapai culture history. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Cultural Resources 163 Euler, R.C. 1966. Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 78, Salt Lake City. Euler,R.C. 1972. The Paiute People. Phoenix: lndianTribalSeries. Euler, R.C. 1974. Havasupai Historical Data. NewYork: Garland Publishing. Euler, R.C. 1981. Cohonina-Havasupai relationships in Grand Canyon. In Collected Papers in Honor of Erik Kellerman Reed, Albert H. Schroeder, ed. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, vol. 6. Albuquerque: Albuquerque Archaeological Society Press. Fairley, H.C., P.W. Bungart, C.M. Coder, J. Huffman, T.L. Samples, and J.R. Balsom. 1994. The Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey Along the Colorado River Between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon. Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park. Ferguson, T.J., and E.R. Hart. 1985. A Zuni Atlas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Pp. 20-23, 44-51. Heib, L.A. 1979. Hopi World View. Handbook of North American Indians, Southwest, vol. 9. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp. 577-580. Hereford, R. 1993. Description of Map Units and Discussion to Accompany Map Showing Surficial Geology and Geomorphology of the Palisades Creek Archaeologic Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. USGS Open-File Report 93-553. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Hereford, R., H.C. Fairley, K.S. Thompson, and J.R. Balsom. 1993. Surficial Geology, Geomorphology, and Erosion of Archaeologic Sites Along the Colorado River, Eastern Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. USGS Open-File Report 93-517, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. Hopi Tribe. 1990. Proposal for Involvement of the Hopi Tribe in GCES Projects in the Colorado River Corridor and Little Colorado River. Kykotsmovi Village, Ariz.: The Hopi Tribe. Hualapai Cultural Resources Division. 1993. Hualapai Tribe Ethnographic and Oral Historical Survey for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. Peach Springs, Ariz.: Hualapai Tribe. Johnston, D.F. 1966. An Analysis of Sources of Information on the Population of the Navajo. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 197. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 136-137, 153.

164 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon Jones, A.T., and R.C. Euler. 1979. A Sketch of Grand Canyon Prehistory. Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Natural History Association. Kappler, C.J. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 176-177, 804-809. Kelly,l.T. 1934. Southern Paiute bands. American Anthropologist36:4. Kelly, I.T. 1964. Southern Paiute ethnography. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 69, Salt Lake City. Reichard, G.A. 1928. Social Life of the Navajo Indians: With Some Attention to Minor Ceremonies. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 1 1-19. Roberts, A., R. Begay, and K.B. Kelley. 1994. Bits'iis Nineezi (The River of Neverending Life): Navajo History and Cultural Resources of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. Window Rock: Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department. Pp. vii, 3. Schwartz, D.W. 1989. On the Edge of Splendor: Exploring Grand Canyon's Human Past. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, M.J. Evans, and D.E. Austin. 1993. Pia'paxa'huipi (Big River Canyon): Ethnographic Resource Inventory and Assessment forColorado River Corriclor, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Presentation paper, June 24. Pp. 1-3. Stoffle, R.W., L.L. Loendorf, D Austin, D. Halmo, A.S. Bulletts, and B.K. Fulfrost. 1995. Tumpituxwinap: Southern Palute Rock Art in the Colorado River Corridor. Preliminary draft, January. Pp. 87-231. Thomas, J.R. 1993. Navajo Nation Position Paper, Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. Window Rock: The Navajo Nation. Pp. 15-16. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. Notice of final determination that the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe exists as an Indian tribe. Federal Register 54~240~:1502-1505. Vogt, E.Z. 1961. Navaho. Pp. 278-336 in Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, E. H. Spicer, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, A.W., Jr. 1970. Navajo Political Process. Smithsonian Contribution to anthropology, vol. 9. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. P. 13. Woodbury, R.B. 1979. Zuni Prehistory and History to 1850. Handbookof North American Indians, Southwest, Vol. 9. Washington, D.C.: Smith- sonian Institution Press. Pp. 467-473.