INTRODUCTION The following report was prepared urder contract between the authors and the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, United States Department of the Interior. In compliance with the terms of the contract the following pages will present the results of a preliminary inquiry into the possibility of there being substantial religious significance associated with the shrines, land, and medical practices found in an area of the former Joint Use Area known as Big Mountain. It includes, further, a determination of the need for a more detailed comprehensive study to fully ascertain religious significance. BACKGROUND The study area of Big Mountain is located in the vicinity of the geographic feature named Big Mountain and Moenkopi Wash, in the northern part of Hardrock Chapter. Hardrock Chapter is one of 13 chapters that transect the former Joint Use Area, and one of 101 such political units functioning in the Navajo Tribal Government. With the enactment of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (Public Law 93-531) some residents of Big Mountain have assumed a position of resistance. This resistance is grounded on a perceived infringement of the people's rights and interests as they pertain to the Big Mountain area. A number of processes associated with Public Law 93-531 seem to account for this perceived infringement. First, the Mediator's settlement and partition of the lands within the reservation established by the Executive Order of 1882 positions the Big Mountain area on the Hopi side of the boundary line. A brief review of the history of negotiations surrounding the partioning of land in the area suggests that in every determination the Mediator accepted the recommendations of the Navajo Tribe. : There are numerous Navajo sacred places distributed throughout the Big Mountain area. The concern of residents is that these sacred religious places have not been given full recognition by government officials, either Navajo or Federal. The map of Navajo sacred places presented for exhibit in the case of Healing vs. Jones identifies only two sacred places in the 1882 Executive Order Area. Subsequent court submissions by the Navajo Tribe have increasingly recognized these places. However, as late as 1975, during the negotiations involving the partition line, the maps that were presented did not include herb gathering areas. The last site identifications submitted before the District Court: on May 13, 1977, are far more comprehensive, yet some sites still remain unidentified. Federal recognition, legislative treatment, enforcement procedures, and administrative policy directives also have been limited with respect to sacred places. This limitation may be a result of failing to perceive what constitutes Navajo reality of sacredness of place. Although variation does exist, it would seem that there is a symbiotic relation : between belief, place, participation through use, and occupancy. To segment this interdependent relationship by allowing only for access to a sacred location is to subtract occupancy, and, perhaps, a degree of participation through use. A clear example of this segmenting process exists in the case of Healing vs. Jones. Here visitation to special religious places was recognized, but the court found that this in no way constituted occupancy nor did it establish exclusive interest in these places. This position seems to sever the links between the parts which consitute the symbolic sacredness of place and, therefore, the right to preserve the integrity of such places. However well intended, it appears that this position is an implicit infringement upon the exercise of free religious belief and meaningful spiritual observance. Big Mountain residents have been resistant in part because they perceive these conditions and positions as being restrictive and precluding their basic human rights as set forth by law. Second, with the passage of Public Law 93-531 the Secretary of the Interior was authorized and directed to reduce the number of livestock within the former Joint Use Area to the carrying capacity of the land. The implications of the livestock reduction program for the social, economic, and psychological life of the people from this area have been documented (Wood, Vannette, and Andrews 1978). For the person of Euro-American descent, it may be possible to conceptually segment (for purposes of research or policy management) the issue of livestock reduction from say, the issue of relocation, but such is not the case for many residents of the change area; the encounter with Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel over fencing at Big Mountain is a case in point. This resistant encounter and the reasons given for it are perceived as interrelated with and inseparable from the more generalized position of resistance to the concept of relocation. Expressions of resistance to relocation have assumed a number of forms. One form has been the physical overt resistance associated with the isolated and somewhat spontaneous fencing incident. Related to this have been the occasional threats directed at government workers and reports by relocation personnel that in some instances they have been Another form of resistance has evolved with the "chased-off". Mountain Area Planning Committee -- as a tool for expressing their grievances and concerns. This approach Both as individuals and in some instances through committee, members of the community have stated their position and perspective on the issues through verbal address and discussion. is evidenced in the numerous meetings and informal gatherings with officials from the Washington headquarters of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with several United States Senators, Navajo Tribal Officials, local United States Government personnel, and with the Press. Finally, some residents of the area have sought to express their + Two beliefs and intentions through organized peaceful demonstration. marches of particular note are The Longest Walk to Washington, and The Big Mountain Walk for Sovereignty to Flagstaff. At one point Chairman Peter MacDonald identified the Big Mountain situation as explosive (Navajo Times, June 1, 1978) and at approximately the same time relocation personnel publically implied that people from this area were uncooperative (ibid). These impressions, formulated by external observers, and the apparent diversity of strategies that members of the Big Mountain community have employed to convey their concerns have raised an important question: Is there particular particular importance associated with land use, medical practices, and shrines found in the Big Mountain area? In an attempt to answer this question, the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission on December 21, 1978, contracted with Northern Arizona University to conduct a preliminary anthropological investi- METHODOLOGY The initial intent was to approach what appeared to be a number of different groups in the study community. Based upon a previous study of the former Joint Use Area (Wood, Vannette, and Andrews 1978), some information on the composition and organization of these groups was already available. The snowballing, non-random, techaique of data collection was to be employed. With the awareness that increasingly time was placing a constraint on our field activities, this approach was modified. Modification took the form of trying to contact key informants who had important religious and healing roles within each of the previously defined social groups. Prior to entering the field, we were informed that good rapport in the community had been established through the Relocation Office's field persoanel. This by anthropological standards was not the case. For this reason we were not able to proceed as efficiently as was first anticipated. An open-ended interview schedule was used to interview three |