Another issue is a closer relationship between all parties. This involves museums, anthropologists, universities, tribal agencies, the government, and other scientists (Barkan 170). However, in fact it has caused more conflict between these parties than friendships, especially between Native Americans, museums, universities, and federal agencies (Fine 6). .
One issue that has been solved is the reduction in trafficking in cultural materials (Barkan 170). According to Fine, "because trafficking is defined as a "general intent" crime under NAGPRA, it must be proven that cultural items [ ] [are] specifically defined under NAGPRA [and] were removed from federal or private land without tribal consent or without an ARPA permit after 16 November 1990" (Fine 137). Nevertheless, most of these are artifacts, not human remains. One of the biggest problems with NAGPRA is how definitions are used and interpreted. The cultural interpretation is more a concern of NAGPRA. Is property material, tangible, words, ideas, or spiritual phenomena? (Fine 156). In the Kennewick Man case, tribes believe that he is theirs because of geography and their ideas. Barkans book explains this concern, "the Kennewick Man case demonstrates the need for congress to reexamine how NAGPRA is interpreted and applied" (Barkan 157). One recurring question about NAGPRA is to achieve some kind of balance, or who should be the good guys and who should be treated with more respect (Fine 161). No where in NAGPRA does it say that it needs to achieve balance (Fine 162).
When the Army Corps of Engineers took Kennewick Man, anthropologists were outraged that they could not study him. They filed a lawsuit in Federal court to permit further studies, infront of Judge Jelderks. He stated, "Kennewick Mans culture is unkown and apparently unknowable." He also said that there was no evidence that linked Kennewick Mans group and a Native American group.
