## Facts

- A city retained a private archaeological consulting firm to survey land considered for development.
- During the survey, an archaeologist uncovered a pre-colonial grave containing two male skeletons; each had large metate fragments and rocks placed on the chest area.
- The archaeologist notified the county coroner and transported the human remains to a museum for study as directed.
- The archaeologist kept the metate fragments instead of leaving them with the burial context or surrendering them for reburial/curation with the remains.
- A museum anthropologist concluded the remains were consistent with Native populations from California but did not identify a specific tribe.
- Native American groups sought reburial of the remains together with the metates under California’s statutory scheme protecting Native American graves and associated items.
- The State and the Native American Heritage Commission filed a civil action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction compelling turnover of the metate fragments under Pub. Res. Code § 5097.99(a).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State and Commission and issued an injunction ordering surrender of the artifacts; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether metate fragments removed from a pre-colonial burial are “Native American artifacts ... taken from a Native American grave” within Pub. Res. Code § 5097.99(a).
2. Whether summary judgment was proper because the evidence established, without a triable issue of material fact, that the grave was Native American and the metates were grave artifacts covered by the statute.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment and the permanent mandatory injunction.
- The court held the record established the burial was a Native American grave for purposes of § 5097.99(a), even without proof of specific tribal affiliation.
- The court held the metate fragments were “Native American artifacts” taken from the grave because they were intentionally placed with the remains and removed by defendants.
- The court found no triable issue of material fact as to the grave context, the placement and removal of the metates, or defendants’ continued possession and refusal to surrender them.

## Legal Principles

- Pub. Res. Code § 5097.99(a) reaches artifacts taken from a Native American grave as determined by burial context and statutory purpose, not solely by proof of particular tribal identity or ceremonial classification.
- Objects intentionally placed with human remains in a Native American burial context may qualify as protected “artifacts” even if they are utilitarian tools in other settings.
- Summary judgment is proper where undisputed evidence shows (1) a Native American grave context, (2) removal of items from that grave, and (3) knowing possession of those items, with no material factual dispute on these elements.
- The State and the Native American Heritage Commission may obtain mandatory injunctive relief compelling the return of artifacts taken from protected graves.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed injunctive relief requiring an archaeologist and his firm to surrender metate fragments removed from a pre-colonial Native American grave, construing § 5097.99(a) broadly to protect burial contexts and associated items based on their placement with the remains and the statute’s protective purpose.


People v. Van Horn, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1378, 267 Cal. Rptr. 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)