PAGE 3 of MAIC's RESPONSE

Our formal and informal connections with indigenous peoples in Central and South America are strong: We are fully prepared to prove without question a strong connection between Manataka and our brothers and sisters in the South, including the Maya.

The indigenous peoples of Central and South America certainly need all the support that they can get. Whither or not Manataka’s connections are with legitimate indigenous organizations in those regions is questioned. The only connections we have found so far are with groups making a hefty income from holding retreats and tours. What percentage of this income actually goes to help the people is unknown. Using the term Elder’s in this context is broad. However, there is a senior council of Mayan spiritual leaders under the umbrella of Consejo de Organizaciones Maya de Guatemala (COMG) and other legitimate spiritual individuals who we are in the process of contacting. If it should turn out that the organizations and individuals MAIC is connected with are approved representatives of the Mayan people and spirituality, then we applaud MAIC’s efforts. However, we have our doubts that this will be the case.

We speak for ourselves: The Elders of Manataka are the legitimate, duly elected and appointed leaders of this organization. Individual members or those claiming membership do not speak for Manataka and we cannot be held responsible for what members say about Manataka, its goals or purposes. Manataka has never held out this organization to be a spokesman for all American Indians.

As we have pointed out, the very name “Manataka American Indian Council” implies that they are advisors or a governing body for American Indians. While an organization has no control over individual members in their actions, we submit that members of a governing body very easily influence the actions of the organization as a whole through their own personal beliefs. If a MAIC Elder is a New Age practitioner or Minister, then those ideas will filter though that elder into the organization. This is more likely to occur in an organization such as Manataka, where the is a mixture of belief systems and ethnic groups.

We can document the government’s attempts to eradicate Manataka’s Native American history: The government has systematically erased (removed from public view) strong evidence of the presence and practices of indigenous people who came to this sacred site for thousands of years.

If this is true, then MAIC should either produce or provide a listing, author, and location of the documents. If MAIC can provide validated and actual proof that the government took any action to deceitfully and on purpose erase evidence of American Indian occupation of Hot Springs and of Hot Springs as a sacred site for thousands of years, then AIHSC will join in to have the record set straight. However, we have not come up with one iota of evidence that MAIC’s claims in this respect are true.

As Marcus Phillips, 90, a well-known and respected local historian and author says, "The Park Service has been removing evidence of Indian presence in this area for years . . . no one knows where thousands of artifacts are located . . . they are not on display and most remain uncataloged, access is nearly impossible."

Mr. Phillips has been contacted about this statement. He replies that he never said it as quoted, and that he must have been misunderstood.

Tourist brochures and film clips have been edited to remove references to the tremendous Indian legacy. Plaques and signs have been removed. The Indian museum section of the Fordyce Bathhouse is a mere fraction of its former size.  George Callahan, a well-respected retired attorney whose family has lived in Hot Springs for several generations, told Manataka the government stole two Lakota dolls his grandfather discovered in a cave on the mountain while installing piping for the closed off hot springs. Many years ago, the family decided to loan the Sioux artifacts to the Smithsonian and gave them to the National Park Service to be transferred to Washington, D.C.

One of Hot Springs initial tourist draws were the fanciful stories invented by promoters about Indian activity in the area. What draws tourists will vary from period to period, and promotional materials will change to reflect the current public response mechanism. Readers can see this for their selves by looking at the evolution of commercials for products that have been on the market for many years.  Sioux in Hot Springs?

We have addressed the "caves" in the main segment of this site.  If MAIC would actually contact the American Indian tribes that it names for backing it's claims, instead of just making things up, they would find that the Quapaw Tribe acknowledges that the "cave" was recently made (i.e. 1921-22). Two older members said they enjoyed going there for baths when the tribe had "lead and zinc money".  The reason they went was because of the the bathhouse's name ("Quapaw").  The tribal historian and genealogist said she has no idea why Callahan called the bathhouse the Quapaw. 

Contrary to the allegation made on the AIHSC site, Callahan did not "buy" four rain god figurines from Nampeyo. He commissioned her to make copies of the two dolls already in his possession prior to loaning the originals to the government. Relatives of Nampeyo used the originals to painstakingly describe intricate details of the artifacts to the famous Hopi artist who was totally blind. Yes, here is yet another "official inquiry" into another "missing" artifact found in one of the Sacred Caves that were in the possession of the National Park Service at the time of their disappearance. The so-called inquiry has been going on for years with no end in sight.

The receipt from Tom Pavatea, stub numbered 504730, was dated April 12th, 1922, from Polacca, Arizona. The total amount was $10.28 for four  "Nampayos Rain Gods" at $2.00 each, plus $2.28 postage and insurance. The response from the Quapaw Bath House Company, dated April 18, 1922 reads:

"Enclosed please find Post Office Money Order for ten dollars and twenty eight cents ($10.28) in payment for the figurines that you so kindly shipped us. They are indeed very interesting, and have caused considerable attention at the QUAPAW BATHS. I am also in receipt of the picture frame with your photo. I was very sorry that the frame was broken, but I am having it repaired, and as soon as it is completed, I will have the picture put in the frame and hung in a prominent place in the Bath House. With sincere good wishes, and trusting to have the pleasure of meeting you some time in the future, I remain Yours Truly, By: [typed] QUAPAW BATH HOUSE COMPANY."

According to Mary Ellen and Laurence Blair, "The Legacy of a Master Potter: Nampeyo and Her Descendants", page 118, the original order was done through an "Indian artifact dealer, a Mr. Croesen" in Hot Springs. Also on page 118 we read:  " A Barbara Kramer claims that 'they [the figurines] were copies of effigies like those made at Tesuque Pueblo in New Mexico.'" [The reference is to Barbara Kramer, Nampeyo and Her Pottery, 1996, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.] On page 119, Figure 2.45, is a picture of the figurines around a drawing of the bathhouse, the caption saying: "They are the only large figurines made by Nampeyo. They probably were not decorated by the potter, but perhaps by a daughter. Other figures sold for tourist trade were not as large or as well executed. The Quapaw figures vary in height from 8 3/8 in. to 9 5/8 in. and were made in 1922."

We rest on the above evidence.  

Further, how many pictographs and petroglyphs that exist in the Ouachitas, Ozarks and other areas of Arkansas are unknown to archeologists and the government? We know of many locations that have not been discovered and picked over and cataloged by the government. Some of our members know of many more. Are we going to reveal the locations to those with no respect of what they reveal? Absolutely not.

The existence of the Sacred Caves of Manataka is a matter of historical fact and spiritual faith. How and when all these facts are revealed is not an issue the bureaucrats can demand. We may speak more on this at a later date.

Why a later date? Why not now? We are not bureaucrats. We are American Indians who want to know why you are making the damaging claims that you do. 

The "Calendar Stone" as described by the National Park Service

The Manataka Stone was discovered in a cave below the main building of what is now known as the Arkansas Rehabilitation Center. In 1887, the Department of War constructed the Arkansas Army Navy Hospital on this site. Prior to this time there were a succession of baths/hotels on this same site. After the Stone was discovered it was used as a door-stop in the government house for a time before it disappeared, presumably stolen or disposed of by a government agent. Samuel Fordyce may have acquired the stone and held it for many years and passed it to Col. J.R. Fordyce many years later.

The Calendar Stone was not discovered in the Ouachita River in the 1930s. The ornately carved boulder is made entirely of sandstone. Sandstone is very porous and its delicate etchings would not have withstood the strong current of the river for very long. This story may have been told by Fordyce to keep government agents from claiming it.

Sandstone comes in various compositions and hardness, and some forms are used for building materials because of their durability. Likewise, some forms can take fine carvings. As we stated in our main document, there were more than one of these stones. They are well documented until recently.   The Ouachita River source of the stone is a cover story made by the fabricators to hide the true origin - their workshop. If Fordyce was interested in keeping government agents from claiming it, then why did he loan the stones to the Macarthur Museum in Little Rock? After the stones were determined to be fake, the museum refused to place them on display.

The Churchward drawing was a copy of the original drawing made sometime after the Civil War and just prior to the first disappearance of the Stone.

The Churchward drawing matches perfectly a 1930’s era photograph in all aspects. We have talked with Churchward’s son. He isn’t sure where his father obtained his information for the drawing, but agreed that it was most likely the photograph. 

We do not recognize the symbolism attributed to the Stone by Churchward in all cases, but there are many similarities between his definitions and our understanding. For example, Churchward says that one of the calendar glyphs portrays the Maya month of Zac and we agree. Regardless of the "occult" term applied to his writings, Churchward was an expert in indigenous symbols.

A lame attempt is made to discredit the Stone. A detailed study of the Calendar Stone reveals the impossibility of two fakers from Jonesboro, Ark., creating an intricately designed artifact with symbolism unknown to any non-Indians of that time and to carve those unknown symbols on to a single Stone that relate knowledge and prophesies undocumented in dominant culture.

MAIC has conducted a detailed study of the stone? They claim it was destroyed decades ago.  Any study based merely on a drawing has to be suspect.  However, since the stones have a real history outside of MAIC's claims, they have indeed been studied and pronounced as fakes.  This is why the museum in Little Rock refused to place them on display.

Theories as to the levels of advancement of previous civilizations, including the Mayan, Aztec, others, are many.

By the way, there is no such thing in Indian culture as "Bath Gods." And a true "American Indian Heritage Support Center" would know that.

That was not our term, but it came from the Hot Springs promotional pamphlet. 

The Name "Manataka"
We claim no written evidence to say exactly where the name Manataka originated. Likewise, the government has no supporting evidence to say the name of these sacred grounds was not Manataka.

While MAIC makes no absolute claim were the term “Manataka” originated, they certainly do make a claim on what it means. At this point there is no evidence to identify its actual origin or that it means anything at all. Both of these are integral to MAIC’s use of the term because they connect it historically with Hot Springs.

We do have indigenous stories that are to us evidence of the sacred name Manataka. At one time, the federal government had signs in downtown Hot Springs all giving three different Indian names to this place: Nowasalon, Tanico and Manataka. Now, they seem to claim that none was correct. We do find basis for the name found in the 1936 Desoto Commission and the 1857 Henry Lowe Schoolcraft reports. (Schoolcraft is noted today as the Father of Modern American Indian Ethnology.)

The oral tradition is quite strong among Native peoples, who rely upon stories handed down to define their history and culture, whether those stories coincide or not with accounts by European authors. We rely on the stories (legends) of our own people.

Then why not name the exact tribe a story is associated with, and the person in that tribe who related it to you? Stories scattered around different tribes concerning hot springs are not uncommon, but none refer to Manataka’s hot springs. They refer to local springs. One cannot transpose a story from one tribe and location to Hot Springs, Arkansas and then claim it’s about those springs. If MAIC’s memberships is ethnically broad as claimed, then who are MAIC’s “own people”?

We have always assumed the name came from the most predominant tribe in the area because across the continent local place names have traditionally been adopted by visiting tribes and sometimes by early settlers. In this case, the Tula was the principal tribe in the area.

The members of the Caddo Confederation were the main groups in the Hot Springs area. The Tula were located in the northern Ouachita Mountains in the area of now Ft. Smith.

The so-called historian of the Hot Springs National Park (who has no formal training in American Indian history) is quoted as saying, "About the only thing that can be said with some certainty is the Indian groups along the Ouachita River in the Sixteenth Century were related to the Kadohadacho [Caddo]." Yet, in the following sentence, the government admits, "the language of the Tula was fairly distinct in and of itself." Therefore, how can the Tula be related if the Caddo could not understand the Tula language?

There are absolutely no such quotes as MAIC claims above on our website attributed to any NPS personnel. The statements on the Kadohadacho and the Tula language are ours, and has nothing to do with the government.  Some scholars believe that the Tula were a northern offshoot of the more southern Caddo tribes.  Just because a group speaks a Caddoan language does not mean that the languages are the same, just as those speaking Athabaskan languages don't understand each other. 

We have ample reason, and documentation, to use the name and from which to compile a history, including various articles and publications from people of European descent, as well as letters from spiritual elders of the Lakota, Choctaw, Caddo, Navajo, Hopi, Chumash, Maya, Aztec, and numerous others; and telephone and personal conversations with dozens of American Indian spiritual elders, historians, ethnologists and archaeologists.

The Lakota, Navajo, Hopi, Chumash, Maya, and Aztec never were in the Hot Springs area. So how can they pertain to the history of Hot Springs? The spiritual elders we have so far identified in MAIC’s site are not genuine representatives of a tribal tradition or accepted by their tribe as such - some are outright frauds. What dozens of historians, ethnologists and archeologists? We have not found a single one who supports MAIC’s theories.  NAME THEM! We have named our sources!

Yes, there is disagreement between MAIC and the government over the name Manataka. But disputing the name of Manataka is double-speak intended to confuse the real issues.

We believe that MAIC’s translation of “Manataka” as “Place of Peace” to be very germane to the issues because it leads to other misinformation that is provided to the public.

The Manataka Symbol
On the AIHSC website, the Manataka Seal, four sacred directions points and a circle, is confused with the Symbol of Manataka ­ that remains unpublished. The Seal of the Manataka American Indian Council and the Symbol of Manataka are two distinctly different images. The official seal of the organization is like a logo and is widely used on letterhead, signs, etc. But, the Symbol of Manataka is sacred and will never be shown to the government and dominant culture.

We will concede that we mixed the differences of the two and will remove this particular comment from our site.