MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
EIGHTH MEETING: NOVEMBER 17-19, 1994
ALBANY, NY

The eighth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order at 8:30am, Thursday,
November 17, 1994 by Ms. Rachel Craig. The committee meeting was held at
the New York State Museum, Clark Auditorium in Albany, NY. The following
committee members, staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the committee:
Ms. Rachel Craig
Mr. Jonathan Haas
Mr. Dan Monroe
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, chair
Mr. William Tallbull
Mr. Philip Walker

National Park Service staff:
Mr. Francis McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist
Mr. Tim McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader
Ms. Mandy Murphy, Consultant
Ms. Jean Kelley, Consultant

The following others were in attendance during some or all of the
proceedings:

Ms. Jodi Ackerman, Albany, NY
Ms. Lisa Anderson, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Brenda Baker, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Louise Basa, New York Archeological Council,
Schenectady, NY
Mr. Robert Bonnichsen, Corvallis, Oregon
Mr. James Bradley, Robert S. Peabody Museum, Andover, MA
Ms. Jaymie Brauer, American Museum of Natural History, New
York, NY
Ms. Tamara Bray, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Bob Brown, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
Ms. Silvie C. Brown, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. M.A. Bruce, Wynantskill, NY
Ms. Ellen Cesarski, State University of New York-Albany, NY
Mr. George Claxton, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Rebecca Cole-Will, Abbe Museum, Bar Harbor, ME
Ms. J. Collamer, Collamer & Associates, East Nassau, NY
Mr. Steve Comer, Stockbridge-Munsee, Sand Lake, NY
Ms. Honee Conklin, Albany, NY
Ms. Jacky Corey-Smith, Rensselaer, NY
Mr. Ed Curtine, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY
Mr. Charles D'Arcangelis, State University of New York-New
Paltz, NY
Ms. Nancy Davis, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. Dan DeMicco, Albany, NY
Mr. M. Ellsworth, Lake George, NY
Ms. Pam Fahey, Oneida Nation of New York
Mr. W. N. Finton, Shirgerlands, NY
Ms. Patricia Friedrich, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
Mr. Dennis Funmaker, Ho-Chunk Nation, WI
Ms. Rebecca Goldstein, Albany, NY
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New
York, NY
Mr. George Green, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee, MA
Ms. Laura Green, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Tamara Grybko, Boston Children's Museum, Boston, MA
Mr. Gregory Gust, Washington, D.C.
Mr. L. Hauptman, State University of New York-New Paltz, NY
Ms. Barbara Issacs, Peabody Museum, Havard University,
Cambridge, MA
Mr. Pete Jemison, Seneca Nation, NY
Mr. Kervin Jonathan, Tonawanda Nation, NY
Ms. Rebecca Joseph, National Park Service, Boston, MA
Mr. George Kanertio, Mohawk Nation, NY
Ms. Andrea Lain, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. Bronco LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Sharon LeRoy, Cayuga Nation, NY
Mr. S. Light, Brooklyn, NY
Ms. Anita Little, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee, MA
Ms. Maria Liston, Adirondack Community College, Queensbury,
NY
Mr. Michael J. Lukensgard, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
Mr. Bud Mahoney, New York Assembly, Albany, NY
Mr. Emerson Martin, Selkirk, NY
Mr. Gary McCann, Muhheconneck Intertribal Committee, Quincy,
MA
Ms. Joan Merriman, State University of New York-Binghampton,
NY
Ms. Loretta Metoxen, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
Mr. Phillip Minthorn, Jr., National Museum of Natural
History-Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Kerry Nelson, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New
York
Mr. Nick Nicastro, Ithaca, New York
Mr. Doug Owsley, National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Brian Patterson, Oneida Nation of New York
Mr. Stuart Patterson, Tuscarora Nation, NY
Ms. Kelly Paxton, State University of New York-New Paltz, NY
Ms. Lydia Peirce-Doughty, New York State Museum, Troy, NY
Mr. Joseph R. Phillips, Maine State Museum, Augusta, ME
Mr. Irving Powless, Onondaga Nation, NY
Mr. Mark Pritchard, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Carol Raemsch, State University of New York-Albany, NY
Ms. Sharon Reid, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. C. Rosenmeier, Robert S. Peabody Museum, Andover, MA
Ms. Barbara Ross, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. Allan Ryan, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Ms. Alyce Sadongei, National Museum of the American Indian
Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Geraldine Santoro, Statue of Liberty National Monument,
National Park Service, New York, NY
Ms. Lorraine Saunders, Rochester Museum & Science Center,
Rochester, NY
Ms. Nicole Scafidi, State University New York-New Paltz, NY
Mr. Alan L. Schneider, Portland, OR
Ms. Maggie Sebastian, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. S. Seney, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Ms. Anne Stanaway, Boulder, CO
Mr. John Stubbs, Peabody Museum, Havard University,
Cambridge, MA
Ms. Tamara Vasney, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. Carey Vicenti, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington,
D.C.
Ms. Anne-Marie Victor-Howe, Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA
Ms. Denise Vigue, Manager, Onedia Nation of Wisconsin
Mr. Emerson Webster, Tonawanda Nation, NY
Mr. Daniel H. Weiner, Hughes, Hubbard & Need, New York, NY
Ms. Beth Wellman, New York State Museum, Albany, NY
Mr. Frank Wozniak, US Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM
Mr. Ben Young, State University of New York-New Paltz, NY
Mr. Stephr Young, State University of New York-New Paltz, NY

Host's Welcome

The committee was welcomed to the New York State Museum by Ms. Carole
Huxley, Deputy Commissioner for Education and Mr. Louis Levine,
Assistant Director of the New York State Museum.

Review of Agenda

Mr. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist, went over the
meeting agenda. Following a review of the status of current efforts to
implement the Act, the committee would review several draft documents
including the committee's 1993-1994 Report to Congress, a Sample
Inventory for Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects, and a
listing of Native American groups currently petitioning for Federal
recognition. The committee was also scheduled to hear presentations the
disposition of culturally unidentified human remains and a request from
the Peabody Museum at Phillips Academy in Andover, MA for the
committee's recommendation regarding repatriation to a federally-
unrecognized group. The United States Marine Corps, Hawaii has also
asked for the committee's recommendations regarding a dispute between
claimants for human remains from the Mokapu penninsula on Oahu.

Implementation Update

Mr. McManamon reported that over 15,000 notices had recently been sent
to remind all medical schools, museums, and departments of anthropology
at colleges and universities of the summary and inventory requirements
of the Act. Mr. McManamon said some of the responses from smaller
institutions indicate "there is not a very good understanding of the
law." The Archeological Assistance Division has recieved copies of
summaries from 630 museums and Federal agencies. Mr. Haas said he
noticed many museums and universities still missing from the summaries
list. Mr. Haas said he appreciated seeing the notation on the list of
institutions that have sent in statements of no collections. Mr.
McManamon suggested the committee let him know of institutions who ought
to be on the summaries list, and in the meantime he would continue
publishing announcements and distributing information about NAGPRA. Mr.
Haas asked Mr. McKeown if he could provide a percentage of institutions
currently in compliance. Mr. McKeown responded that there is currently
no way to tell which of the 15,000 museums and universities actually
recieved Federal funds and have Native American collections. Mr. Walker
said he was concerned that there were small museums who "are just going
to not do anything...and we'll never know about it." Mr. McManamon said
that although informing everyone about the law is a slow process, most
institutions will eventually get the information they need.

Mr. Haas asked if the committee could be provided with copies of the
Notices of Inventory Completion and Notices of Intent to Repatriate a
Cultural Object published in the Federal Register. Mr. Haas said that
as part of the committee's monitoring responsibilities, he would like to
see the level of activity and what material was being returned. Mr.
McManamon said those copies would be provided in the committee's meeting
binders in the future. Mr. Haas questioned the level of repatriation
activity based on the low number of notices. Mr. McKeown explained that
notices could cover a large number of human remains and objects, and he
also expected the number of notices to increase dramatically during the
next year.

Mr. McManamon announced that Congress had funded the NAGPRA grants at
2.3 million dollars for FY 1995, the same amount appropriated in FY
1994. Grant guidelines had already been distributed to all Indian
tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums that submitted
summaries. Application deadlines were in Feburary, 1995. He acknowledged
the current level was not adequate to meet the needs of tribes and
museums. Mr. McManamon called the committee's attention to the FY 1994
grant recipients. Mr. McKeown explained the process of the 1994 grant
selection and the method the grant selection panel was chosen. Mr. Haas
and Mr. Monroe asked if the selection panel could be chosen from people
outside the federal government, like NSF, NEA, and NEH run their grant
panels. Mr. McKeown said the Department Solicitor had told them their
panel should be federal employees or they would have to go through
another review committee set-up and selection process. Mr. Monroe asked
if the grants selection panel could be set up under the authority of the
review committee. Mr. Walker said the point was to make everyone feel
the process is fair and "there aren't any inside favorites." Mr.
McManamon said he would check on the feasibility of that option.

Mr. Walker asked if the grant funding could be in jeopardy with the new
Congress. Mr. McManamon replied that there was talk of a recesion of
some FY 1995 funds, but he had not heard of anyone specifically
targeting NAGPRA grant monies. Mr. Walker asked when the 1995 grants
would be allocated. Mr. McManamon responded that the 1995 grants should
be distributed by July 1, 1995. Mr. Walker asked if some funds could be
set aside to assist smaller tribes and institutions to develop their
grant proposals. Ms. Craig suggested that joint proposals would be the
best method of getting NAGPRA funding to smaller tribes and museums. In
Alaska, different villages are getting together and drawing up
cooperative proposals. She thought perhaps smaller communities in the
lower 48 states could look at those examples. Mr. McManamon agreed and
said the proposals which include joint efforts on the part of several
different Indian tribes and museums were very cooperative. Ms. Craig
said that in her area, the information about NAGPRA grants was just
beginning to reach the more isolated communities, and that may increase
the need for funding even further. Mr. Walker said he had the same
concerns for small museums and institutions, and asked if there wasn't
some method to further simplify the grant process. Mr. McManamon stated
that the office has simplified the process to the extent possible. He
also said that the proposal guidelines encouraged applicants to call the
NAGPRA staff for assistance in preparing their grants.

Mr. McManamon said Mr. McKeown had been doing "a tremendous amount of
work on training" through a formal course offered by cooperative
agreement with the University of Reno, Nevada; and also participating in
a series of workshops, including ones partially funded through FY 1994
NAGPRA grants. Ms. Naranjo thanked Mr. McKeown for conducting those
workshops around the country. Mr. Monroe added that the DCA was doing
"an outstanding job explaining issues and helping people understand the
course to take without having to bring issues before the committee."

Mr. McManamon told the committee that he and Mr. McKeown had several
meetings with representatives of the Assistant Secretary's office, the
Solicitor's Department, and other Interior bureaus; and the final
regulations have been sent for final approval. Mr. McManamon outlined
the few specific changes to the regulations in their final form.

Mr. McManamon reported that a draft of proposed regulations regarding
civil penalties would be introduced for publication in the Federal
Register once the final regulations were signed. Ms. Naranjo asked Mr.
McKeown for a review of the subjects within the civil penalties section.
Mr. McKeown reviewed the current draft civil penalties section for the
committee.

Mr. McKeown reminded the committee there were three other reserved
sections of the regulations: disposition of unclaimed human remains and
cultural items recovered from Federal or tribal lands; disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains in museum and Federal agency
collections; and future applicability of the statute. The committee
agreed to discuss these sections at a later meeting.

1993-1994 Report to Congress

Mr. McManamon reviewed the contents of the committee's draft Report to
Congress for 1993-1994. Mr. McManamon said the draft contained a short
text which documented the committee's activities during that time,
followed by summaries of each of the committee's meetings, and findings
issued by the committee on dispute hearings, and a section for the
committee's recommendations to Congress. Mr. McManamon also noted the
attachments of various documents issued by his office and the committee
during 1993-1994: the memorandum of guidance for summaries, inventories,
and notification; the proposed regulations; the list of institutions
submitting summaries; the FY1994 grant guidelines; and a listing of
Notices of Inventory Completion and Notices of Intent to Repatriate a
Cultural Object published in the Federal Register during 1993-1994.

Mr. Walker was concerned that the report be very readable and asked how
the committee could maximize the chances that the Congressional
committees would "actually look at this and make use of it..." Mr. Haas
agreed it was important to produce a document which would be very
readable. Mr. McManamon agreed the document itself should be streamlined
and to the point, but added that the appendices were important
supporting information. Mr. McManamon suggested that perhaps the report
and the appendices could be produced as two separate documents. Mr.
McKeown said the initial text could be edited down and then have an
executive summary. Mr. Haas agreed that would be an effective document.

Mr. Walker asked who was reading the 1992 report to Congress. Mr.
McKeown said in addition to being included in each information packet
sent out, the 1992 report was being requested by tribal representatives,
museum representatives, Federal agencies, and staff members of several
House and Senate committees. Mr. McManamon related that the 1992 report
had been very useful during the 1993 Senate Indian Affairs Committee
oversight hearings on implementation of the statute.

The committee members agreed that increased grants funding should be
stressed in the report's recommendations. Mr. Haas recommended the
committee include a vigorous recommendation for 10 million dollars per
year. He thought this level would be appropriate for the next five
years, and was in line with the importance of the issues of
repatriation. Mr. Haas also recommended the members of the committee
begin pushing their professional organizations and other advocacy groups
to increase lobbying for the higher funding levels. Mr. McManamon
reminded the committee that these recommendation would be for the FY1996
money.

Mr. Carey Vicenti, Bureau of Indian Affairs, suggested that the
committee use its position to comment on how NAGPRA is effecting the
maintenence of Indian cultures and religions. He recommended the
committee let Congress know that its not all bliss out here. Mr. Haas
agreed that the current draft does not indicate the disagreement or
emotion surrounding the law. Mr. Vicenti said the committee may want to
consider including language indicating the challenges faced by both
tribal and museum communities in implementing this law.

Mr. Sebastian "Bronco" LeBeau, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, supported including the challenges faced by Indian tribes
and museums in the 1993-94 Report to Congress. Everyone has to talk
about the problems we are having with it. His community has been having
problems in consultation with institutions who have already decided what
in the collections the tribe may conduct consultation on. Mr. LeBeau
asked the committee to speak it's true feelings in the Report to
Congress. "Give Congress a complete a picture of what people are doing."
He recommended that the report be as long as needed to present the
current situation.

Mr. J.R. Phillips, Director of the Maine State Museum, supported
including a request for $50 million funding over the next five years in
the 1993-94 Report to Congress. Mr. Phillips said the larger total was
more likely to get some serious attention in Congress.

Mr. Dennis Funmaker asked the committee to be very vocal in its report
to Congress about the need for more funding to accomplish the objectives
of the statute.

Mr. George Abrams, New York University Museum Studies and the American
Indian Association in New York City, said he hoped the Report to
Congress would be persuasive enough for Congress to appropriate more
funds for NAGPRA.

Mr. Monroe recommended the committee write the report to Congress and
not use the draft. The
Committee concurred. Mr. Monroe agreed to write the text of the report.

Sample Inventory

Mr. McManamon presented the committee with the latest draft of the
Sample Inventory for Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects which
included the changes recommended by the committee at the Rapid City
meeting. Mr. McManamon noted that cultural affiliation has been changed
to be a specific line in each example, and the results of consultations
are also a separate line.
Mr. Walker asked what the statutory requirements were for the inventory,
and specifically what the language regarding existing documentation
meant for the inventory production. Mr. McManamon responded that
institutions should be checking through not only accession and catalog
information, but also reports, field notes, or other records in the
institution. The regulations provide for limited further examination for
the express purpose of determining cultural affiliation.

Mr. Walker asked for clarification regarding human remains from an
earlier single group were now represented by two or more Federally
recognized Indian tribes. Mr. McKeown agreed the document could be
changed to reflect that situation, and noted that several Indian tribes
have entered into agreements to jointly repatriate those remains. Mr.
McKeown said the draft had been produced to be generic, and therefore
flexible when applied to different institutions.

Mr. Tallbull reminded the committee that many tribes today are the
result of earlier peoples coming together, such as within the Cheyenne.
"The tribe consists of two groups of people that came together, two
different languages. Each group has a covenant...there has been a
problem of bringing home items that belong to a certain group but
somebody else got it within a tribe. It has a very demoralizing effect
on the people. I don't think the museums should just hand it to the
first group of people that comes along. Even within tribes, important
information may not be relayed to the appropriate people." Ms. Naranjo
stressed the importance of both tribes and museums exerting
conscientious efforts in consultations and notifying the appropriate
people.

Mr. Walker asked how notification of culturally affiliated tribes
occurred. Mr. McKeown explained that when an institution sends in a
notice to be published in the Federal Register, the DCA staff it over to
check that all culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations have been contacted. Mr. Walker said the approach he would
like to see "is to try to do everything that we can with the resources
that we have to make sure that appropriate groups are notified." Mr.
McKeown responded that consultation was the responsibility of the
institution or Federal agency. Consultation must be done before the
notice is published in the Federal Register. Although the NAGPRA program
office does screen notices and may suggest tribes for further
consultation, the institution must ultimately be the contact.

Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. Frank Wozniak for comments on cultural
affiliations with multiple tribes from his perspective in the Southwest.
Mr. Frank Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Southwestern Region, U.S.
Forest Service, explained many of the Pueblos have claims for the same
areas, and the situation is further complicated by the Navajo Nation's
proposal of cultural affiliation with prehistoric Pueblo materials
within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation. Mr. Wozniak thought the best
method of dealing with these potentially competing claims would be for
the Pueblos to work through the All-Indian Pueblo Council, made up of
the governors of all New Mexico's pueblos. Mr. Wozniak stated the
cultural affiliation questions were extremely difficult, and invited
guidance and direction from the committee in this area.

Mr. Walker disagreed with the inclusion of remains affiliated with
federally unrecognized tribes as Culturally Unidentifiable. Mr. Haas
agreed, but thought the publication requirements of culturally
unidentified inventories may result in tribes coming forward with
claims.

Mr. Walker asked if the sample inventory could be reworked to eliminate
redundant information. Ms. Naranjo said her concern for tribal
communities was that the document show exactly the information with each
individual as the draft indicated. She said this was the specific type
of information needed by Indian tribes, and she supported the draft
inventory's structure. Mr. Walker supported a listing of information for
each accession before the listing of each catalogue item. Mr. Haas
suggested that for each tribe, there would be a cover sheet stating the
common accession information, and then list specifically human remains
and associated funerary objects with relevant documentary and
consultation information. Ms. Naranjo agreed this would get the relevant
information to the tribes. Mr. McKeown said the current draft was
constructed to provide as many generic examples as possible for all
institutions to use. The committee recommended that the suggested
changes be incorporated. Mr. McManamon stated the sample inventory would
be revised to have cultural affiliation clearly stated on one line, and
also include an example of a situation where two present-day tribes are
affiliation with human remains from a single earlier group.

Native American Group Contacts

Mr. McManamon summarized the draft memorandum as an issue which arose
during review of draft final regulations. Mr. McManamon explained that
there was interest within several Department of Interior bureaus in
working with groups currently in the recognition process in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Mr. McManamon said the draft memorandum would
encourage museums and Federal agencies to consult with those groups, but
restrict repatriation until those groups are recognized or until the
issue is resolved by the Department of the Interior.

Ms. Naranjo said the draft was a beginning in allowing non-Federally
recognized Native American groups into the process, but acknowledged
that the law specifies that a tribe be Federally recognized to have
standing for repatriation.

Mr. Haas asked if NAGPRA limits a museum's ability to repatriate
collections to non-Indian groups or to groups outside the United States.
Mr. McManamon explained that the NAGPRA statute only covers Native
American human remains and cultural items, and the concern is ensuring
they are repatriated to the correct community. A museum following an
internal procedure for Native American human remains which would not
comply with NAGPRA would possibly be "at some legal, financial, moral,
and ethical risk." He added that he thought it was possible to address
these concerns within the framework of NAGPRA.

Ms. Craig suggested that institutions and museums work within their own
policies to return "all human remains to their respective Indian groups.
"Whether the U.S. Government has recognized them or not, they are here.
They were born and they die." Ms. Craig asked that part of the
Committee's recommendation state that the issue needs to be resolved "in
whatever way that it works for those remains to get home to the people
that they were taken from." Ms. Naranjo agreed, and added that she was
frustrated because currently, although unrecognized tribes should be
consulted, they are not included beyond the consultation process.

Mr. Haas noted that the draft memorandum states the BIA list determines
which Indian tribes have standing under NAGPRA. That statement is
contrary to the committee's decision to not use the BIA list. He stated
that he did not want the NAGPRA process to be dependent on "that other
bureaucracy" to determine which communities have standing. Mr. Walker
asked if the separate tribes now incorporated into affiliated or
confederated governments/reservations could somehow be enabled to act
separately from the recognized government's authority. Mr. McManamon
replied that the Secretary's solicitors have not given a final answer to
that question. When they do, the committee will have stronger guidance
on how to proceed.

Mr. Haas proposed, and the committee agreed to recommend the inclusion
of the Mashpee Wampanoag on the DCA NAGPRA contact list. Mr. McManamon
said he would work with the Solictor to see if the list can be expanded.

Mr. Monroe suggested that the committee allow non-Federally recognized
Native American groups to request a decision when making a claim on
human remains culturally affiliated with that group. Once the committee
has issued a decision, it could also issue a finding that the non-
recognized Native American group is an affected party under NAGPRA. Mr.
Monroe then suggested that the committee could create a list of
"affected parties" for distribution with the NAGPRA contact list. Mr.
Walker and Ms. Craig supported the idea. Mr. Vicenti explained that this
method of dealing with non-Federally recognized Native American groups
would have to be approved in the Solicitor's office. He suggested that
the idea should be considered. Mr. Haas asked the committee to also
consider another alternative because the committee is charged with
recommending specific actions for culturally unidentified human remains,
it could recommend repatriation to non-Federally recognized Native
American groups based on the information submitted with those
inventories, and then add those groups to an "affected parties" list.
Mr. McManamon said he would look into the feasibility of both proposals
and report back to the committee.

Request for a Recommendation Regarding Culturally Unidentifiable Human
Remains

Mr. James Bradley, Director of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology at Phillips Academy, Andover, MA, requested the committee's
recommendations regarding human remains held by the museum believed to
be culturally affiliated with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, a non-
Federally recognized Native American group. Mr. Bradley spoke about the
development of the Massachusetts state repatriation process and the long
involvement of the Mashpee Wampanoag community in repatriations within
the state. He explained the reason the museum was asking for the
committee's recommendation, "There is a clear claimant in this case, but
because of the lack of Federal recognition we cannot proceed with the
return of those remains without your permission." Mr. Bradley presented
three lines of evidence demonstrating affiliation. The Titcut Site,
from which the human remains were recovered, is a well-known site in
Massachusetts. The site has considerable time depth with at least seven
or eight millennia of human occupation. The burial was a ten to twelve-
year old girl, with associated funerary objects that include both native
and european made items dating from 1580-1610. Mr. Bradley said this
burial compares very strongly with other known Wampanoag sites, such as
Burr's Hill. "We feel that we can demonstrate a shared cultural
relationship on the archeological evidence alone." The second line of
evidence presented by Mr. Bradley used ethnohistoric accounts dating
back to the early 17th century that clearly define traditional Wampanoag
territory. A map presented by Mr. Bradley showed the burial site was
clearly within Wampanoag territory. The third line of the evidence
focused on the oral history of the Mashpee Wampanoag. The Mashpee
consider themselves related to the earlier occupants of the Titcut Site.

Mr. Chuck Green, Vice President of the Mashpee Wampanoag, stated that
the Mashpee have existed as a community since "...that area was
designated as the last holding place for the Wampanoag people at the end
of the King Philip Wars." Mr. Green also presented the Federally-
recognized Gay Head Wampanoag Tribe's support of the Mashpee claim.
Mother Bear, one of the Mashpee Wampanoag clan mothers, addressed the
committee and requested their assistance in the repatriation and
reburial of these Mashpee human remains.

Ms. Naranjo invited the committee members to discuss the museum's
request. Mr. Tallbull supported the request for repatriation. Mr. Walker
asked if the requirements of NAGPRA are met, mechanisms outside of
NAGPRA can be used for repatriation. Mr. Green responded the Mashpee
were approaching the issue in this fashion to be able to work within
NAGPRA in the future. Mr. McManamon confirmed that non-Federally
recognized Native American groups such as the Mashpee Wampanoag do not
have standing to make claims under NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon stated these
human remains currently were considered culturally unidentifiable, one
function of the review committee was to make recommendations regarding
the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. Monroe said all the processes had been followed in this situation,
and recommended the remains be returned. Ms. Naranjo directed Mr.
McManamon to draft a letter of finding for the Robert S. Peabody Museum
and the Mashpee Wampanoag stating the committee's support of
repatriation.

Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains to Non-Federally
Recognized Native American Groups

Mr. McManamon presented the committee with a draft memorandum regarding
the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains which are
culturally affiliated with non-Federally recognized Native American
groups. Mr. McManamon stated the draft document was drafted to provide
an interim solution to similar situations between institutions and
groups such as the Mashpee Wampanoag. Mr. Walker said the procedure had
already been used and the committee should "extend that opportunity to
other groups in similar situations." Mr. Haas also suggested the
memorandum allow non-Federally recognized Native American groups to
bring requests to the committee. Mr. Monroe agreed. Ms. Naranjo said she
was looking at the draft memorandum as "an interim kind of way to help
us while we clear up the definition of Indian Tribe."

Mr. Haas was concerned that human remains which are culturally
affiliated with a present-day Native American group were being
classified as culturally unidentifiable simply because the community
does not have Federal recognition. Mr. Walker and Mr. Monroe agreed. Mr.
McManamon explained that there are different reasons that human remains
or cultural items fall into the culturally unidentifiable category. The
committee is authorized to make specific recommendations regarding the
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Monroe
explained he felt there was a "problem with the logic and a problem with
the ethics" with the way culturally unidentifiable was being defined.
Ms. Craig questioned how human remains "could not be culturally
affiliated just because the government doesn't recognize that Indian
tribe", and suggested that the memorandum be reworked.

Mr. Haas asked if the committee would agree to a memo simply stating
Native American groups claiming cultural affiliation may petition for
repatriation on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Monroe asked how an Indian
tribe is determined eligible for special programs and services. Mr.
McKeown explained that there are some groups having "some sort of
relationship with the United States government" which are eligible for
funds under the American Indian Self-Determination Act. Mr. McKeown said
the Solitior's Office has advocated a government-to-government status
for determining an Indian tribe's standing rather than a looser race-
related standard, but that the committee's preference for a broader
interpretation has been communicated to the Solicitor's office. Mr.
McKeown stated the Solicitor's office had told him that "the
determination of what "Indian Tribe" means is out of the committee's
control and out of our control (the National Park Service)." He stated
that if the final determination comes back that there is no latitude for
granting standing to non-Federally recognized Native American groups.
The draft memorandum before the committee would provide mechanisms
within the law to accomplish the goals of repatriation.

Mr. Monroe suggested the committee formulate a procedure by which, on a
case-by-case basis, there would be an opportunity to bring repatriation
requests before the committee. Mr. Vicenti felt that a case-by-case
procedure would become too cumbersome, and suggested a two-tiered
approach-- mandating notification and consultation with Federally
recognized groups first, and if no claims to the materials are received,
the institution would be free to give the human remains and cultural
items to whatever group it thought was entitled to them. Mr. McKeown
responded that this was essentially the procedure proposed in the draft
memorandum. Mr. Monroe strongly disagreed with the inclusion of human
remains affiliated with non-Federally recognized Native American groups
in the culturally unidentifiable category. Mr. Haas supported using the
current draft memorandum until "we hear from the Solicitors if we can
use a larger list."

Mr. Vicenti and Mr. McKeown agreed the Mashpee decision would provide
notice to museums that similar situations could be brought before the
committee. The precedent could serve as policy without further action by
the committee. Mr. McKeown asked the committee if they wanted the policy
memorandum published in the Federal Register and the Federal Archeology
Report to notify effected institutions and groups. Mr. Haas suggested
also publishing in Aviso, the American Association of Museums newsletter
and the Society for American Archeology newsletter as well. Mr. Monroe
agreed on those steps for the Mashpee decision, but wanted to get better
answers before publishing findings on the issue of the inclusion of non-
Federally recognized Native American groups on the NAGPRA contact list.
Mr. Haas said the committee should also make and explicit, vigorous
recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior that the committee does
"not accept the BIA list as the list of groups that have standing under
NAGPRA." Ms. Naranjo directed the DCA to "publicize our recommendations
related to the [Mashpee] Wampanoag Tribe...to give notice to the museum
community and to the Indian tribes that we are not being exclusive with
regard to tribal participation in repatriation."

Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Mr. Douglas Owsley, forensic anthropologist at the National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, presented his views to the
committee on the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.
Mr. Owsley stated he felt that all human remains need to be treated with
great care and respect. "My studies of the remains from long ago are
conducted with a sincere belief that these bones can tell us much about
what life was like. I think this information is relevant to us today."
Mr. Owsley listed the kinds of information he feels can be gained from
human remains and what that information tells him about life in the
past. Mr. Owsley specified two categories of culturally unaffiliated
human remains. The first category are those human remains lacking good
"cultural context". Such human remains are often collected by
nonprofessionals and donated to a museum. "This lack of cultural
context reduces the value of these human remains to scientific
research." Mr. Owsley said those remains should be reburied. The second
category are "human remains that have good archeological provenance but
are not clearly culturally affiliated with a present-day Indian tribe."
Examples included Woodland and Archaic peoples of a thousand years ago.
"Their relationship to the modern day is very difficult to unravel." Mr.
Owsley felt that pre-contact people were very culturally different from
Indian tribes in the historic period. "These remains should be carefully
preserved so that they are available for study in the future." Such
long-term curation should be done with input and sanction from
contemporary Indian people. "Museums need to work with Indian tribes to
obtain input and to find ways that would help make curation more
tolerable." Mr. Owsley suggested the continued curation of these human
remains "will prove beneficial to Native Americans." Mr. Owsley also
cited the continuing developments in investigative techniques as a
reason to maintain collections.

Mr. Sebastian LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux NAGPRA representative,
responded that while Mr. Owsley and his profession stress scientific
values, Indian people value the spiritual relationship presented by
human remains. Mr. LeBeau disagreed with Mr. Owsley's statements that he
respects Indian human remains, and pointed out in the National Museum of
Natural History's labs, he had seen "people visiting over them, people
talking over them, people laughing over them. You don't do that with
people. That's what our ancestors are to us: people. I didn't see
respect." Mr. LeBeau reiterated that the ancient human remains in
institutions are the relatives of Indian people, who will settle issues
of cultural determinations. Mr. Dennis Funmaker stated the proposed
justifications for maintaining collections were unbelievable, and
supported Mr. LeBeau's remarks.

Ms. Brenda Baker, bioarcheologist at the New York State Museum,
presented a statement prepared by a group of physical anthropologists
from New York State; including Carol Raemsch, Richard Wilkinson, Tamara
Varney, Lisa Anderson, Maria Liston, and Lorraine Saunders. Ms. Baker
stated, "the primary issue concerning the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains, as with all excavated human remains, is
not repatriation but the tension between reburial and continued access."
Ms. Baker attached the same importance to culturally affiliated and
culturally unidentifiable remains, and the group's statement did not
distinguish between the two. Ms. Baker cited examples of specific
research, such as the study of back problems and the relationship of
arthritis & osterophosis with diet as having improved treatments for
present-day sufferers: "Bio-anthropological research on human remains
supports the provision of better social services and health practice in
contemporary societies."
Ms. Baker and her colleagues supported maintaining all human remains in
research collections, and cited extensive research...carried out on the
remains of Euro-American populations, of poorhouse residents, family
tombs, and the bioarcheology of African American groups" to show that
Native populations were not the sole basis of research collections. Ms.
Baker and her colleagues also supported curating human remains for
training future anthropologists in the area of human osteology. "Any
artificial model fails to provide the range of variation found in actual
skeletons. We would not trust a surgeon trained exclusively through
computer-generated programs, and we should not trust a skeletal
biologist whose training was similarly artificial." Ms. Baker stated
"it is not appropriate to rebury those remains for which we cannot
decipher group membership. It is in no one's best interest to return
culturally unidentifiable remains to any single group simply to remove
them from museum collections. Even isolated burials, fragmentary
skeletons and those that are unprovenienced can provide information on a
region and about little-known time periods. It is only through careful
attention to each and every individual that we can build a more complete
picture of the past." Ms. Baker concluded her presentation by stating,
"The study of all remains fosters understanding of all cultures. It is
of major benefit to the United States to promote appreciation of
cultural diversity for our future rather than promoting divisions and
intolerance. The understanding we can all gain from cooperative efforts
fosters mutual respect. We propose that repatriation with continued
access would benefit all. We respectfully recommend to the review
committee that repositories for culturally unidentified and unclaimed
remains be created that would allow control by Native American groups
while permitting continued access by anthropologists."

Ms. Naranjo noted that Mr. Owsley's and Ms. Baker's presentations made
sense, but she also could not forget Mr. Tallbull's stories of human
remains singing and laughing as they were being taken home. Mr. Haas
asked if osteologists and physical anthropologists felt they could
continue to justify their analysis "in the face of overt direct
opposition by the descendants of those individuals to that analysis."
Ms. Baker said she did not know.

Mr. Thomas Killion, Acting Director of the Repatriation Office in the
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, supported
the development of a process to facilitate the repatriation of
culturally unidentified human remains.

Mr. Dean Snow, Professor of Anthropology at the University of New York
State, Albany, limited his remarks to the problems presented by human
remains "so old as to defy identification with any present-day Tribe."
Mr. Snow noted that the length of time this would encompass will be
different for different regions of the country. Mr. Snow suggested the
following regulatory language: "In cases where because of their age,
human remains cannot be reasonably affiliated with a lineal descendent,
Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, the remains should be
curated in perpetuity because they are indispensable for current and
potential scientific study, the outcome of which would be of major
benefit to the United States. Such perpetual curation should be the
responsibility of an approved repository, and carried out in a manner
appropriate for human remains." Mr. Snow urged the committee to "adopt a
policy that will ensure the curation of ancient culturally
unidentifiable human remains."

Mr. Peter Jemison, NAGPRA Coordinator of the Seneca Nation, reminded the
committee that the 1795 treaty between the Six Nations and the United
States was supposed to ensure the protection and non-disturbance of the
Six Nations' territory and people. Mr. Jemison explained his community's
view was when people die, they have finished their work. Their rest
should not be disturbed to tell the living anything more. NAGPRA was
enacted specifically because the human rights of Indian communities
regarding their dead have not been recognized. As the closest relatives
of the culturally unidentifiable human remains, Indian people have the
right and the responsibility to speak for those human remains.

A Dispute Regarding Human Remains from Mokapu, Hawaii

Mr. McManamon presented the committee with a letter from the US Marine
Corps concerning multiple claims for human remains from KaneOhe Navel
Air Station on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

Mr. McKeown explained some of the background of the case to the
committee, including the status of the lawsuit between Hui Malama I Na
Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei (plaintiff) and the Secretary of the Navy and the
Beatrice Pahai Bishop Museum (defendants). Mr. McKeown said the lawsuit
"asked for suppression of certain portions of the inventory that had
been conducted by the Bishop at the request of the Navy...the plaintiffs
charged that [those studies] constituted 'new scientific research'. They
also asked for the expeditious repatriation of the human remains from
the Mokapu Peninsula to the plaintiffs which was Hui Malama I Na Kupuna
'O Hawai'i Nei.

On June 15th, 1994, 15 claimants met with representatives of the Marine
Corps. The Marine Corps advised the claimants that it would request the
involvement of the review committee to resolve the suit they were unable
to come forward with a unified claim after 30 days. On July 29th, 1994,
Major Ka'ainoni, Jr. sent a letter to Mr. McManamon asking for the
assistance of the review committee. After consultation with the Chair of
the committee, Mr. McManamon sent a response indicating the committee
would consider the dispute. At that time, letters were sent to all 15
disputants as required by the review committee's dispute resolution
procedures. These letters asked each disputent particular questions
regarding the nature of the dispute. Four responses were recieved,
representing 14 of the 15 claimants. One disputent did not respond."

Mr. McKeown said the Marine Corps would like the committee assistance to
resolve two issues: 1) the interpretation of lineal descendant; and 2)
what should museums or Federal agencies do when there are claims from
groups claiming to be Native Hawaiian organizations not specifically
mentioned in the statute. Mr. Haas asked Mr. McKeown to clarify the
standards for identifying a Native Hawaiian organization. Mr. McKeown
responded that the Native Hawaiian organization needs to show it "serves
and represents the interests of Native Hawaiians, has a primary and
stated purpose of services to Native Americans, and has an expertise in
Native Hawaiian affairs." Mr. Monroe asked why the Marine Corps wanted
answers for these issues. Mr. McKeown said that although the Marine
Corps would like to repatriate the Mokapu remains as soon as possible,
there were fifteen claimants, some basing their claim on cultural
affiliation and some as lineal descendants.

Mr. Haas asked if the committee was being asked to answer these
questions "without information on at least four of these organizations."
Mr. McKeown responded that the committee had all the available
information provided by the claimants. Ms. Naranjo asked if all the
claimants were asking for the committee's involvement. Mr. McKeown
responded that only two organizations, Temple of Lono and the Princess
Kamehameha Society had specifically asked for the committee to become
involved.

Ms. Naranjo wondered whether the committee should consider this issue as
a dispute. She asked the committee to consider sending the issue back
and telling all parties to try to work things out among themselves. Ms.
Naranjo said the committee should not be involved while the claimants
are still holding discussions among themselves. Mr. Monroe noted the
statute states very clearly that when there are competing claims, the
institution involved waits until "the competing parties resolve their
differences." "I know there are other issues surrounding this case in
terms of the relationship between the various Native Hawaiian
organizations and the Marine Corps, the Marine Corp's consultation
process and the imposing of a 30-day period which is totally outside any
statutory provisions. I see no compelling reason that they have to force
this issue at this time." Mr. Monroe recommended the committee not
review or act on the request of the Marine Corps, and further remind the
Marine Corps that "there is no provision in the statute by which one
could dictate to the disputing parties that they resolve their
differences in 30 days." The committee agreed with his recommendation.
Ms. Naranjo directed Mr. McManamon to prepare a letter stating the
committee's decision to the Marine Corps and claimants.

Public Comment

Mr. Tallbull spoke about the similarities between the repatriation of
Native American human remains the repatriation of American servicemen
from Southeast Asia. He noted that one of the major concerns for Indian
people was the spiritual environment, not merely the physical land or
cultural resources, which he hoped to make a part of the cultural
resource management and consultation processes for the land-managing
federal agencies. Mr. Tallbull said he is very concerned about how to
take care of the culturally unidentifable human remains. Scientists do
not understand the spiritual aspect of disturbing human remains. "When
we talk about the culturally unidentifable remains, I think about the
history of my people. The earliest history of my people begins
somewhere up along the Atlantic Seaboard. They then crossed over into
Hudson Bay country, and then down into Minnesota country. They certainly
must of left some things behind. Once the flesh eating animals became
extinct, we went out on the prairie. We couldn't do that when these
animals still existed. Once we were down south, there was a message that
came to them that you go back north: there's going to be a great flood.
All of the Tribes went back north. And somewhere there are remains of my
people scattered up and down this continent."

Mr. Pete Jemison asked about the percentage of grants going to smaller
tribes and institutions. Mr. McManamon explained the money had been
awarded 50/50 to tribes and museums, and the size of the tribe or
institution had not been a deciding factor. Mr. McKeown said that
applications were evaluated on the basis of whether they were able to
address large issues for small amounts of money. There needed to be
evidence of cooperation and collaboration with either museums or Indian
tribes. Mr. Jemison commented that his view was that the smaller
communities were the least likely to receive these funds because of
their smaller budgets. He also requested that institutions be monitored
to ensure their cooperation and working relationship with Indian tribes
were active and going forward. Mr. Jemison read a memorandum to the
committee from the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules and
Regulations (Standing Committee). The memorandum asked that the
Haudenosaunee Standing Committee be added to the tribal contact list.
Mr. Jemison explained that the Haudenosaunee, the traditional council of
the Six Nations: the Cayuga Nation; the Onondaga Nation; the Tuscarora
Nation; the Tonawanda Band of Seneca; the Seneca Nation; the Oneida
Tribe of Wisconsin; and the Oneida Nation of New York was active and
properly represented the interests of all the Six Nations, with the
exception of the Oneida Nation of New York. Mr. Jemison expressed his
dissatisfaction with the differing interpretations of the statute and
"the cumbersome bureaucracy and procedures that have been created
surrounding this process." Mr. Jemison suggested the committee consider
aboriginal territory as a basis for tribes to claim culturally
unidentifiable human remains. His community wants to ensure that when
they bring home human remains, "we get all of the remains that belonged
to that individual together to take them all back at the same time. We
don't want to leave half of them someplace and take half of them home."
Mr. Jemison asked for the cooperation of anthropologists and
archeologists to ensure an individual is kept together.

Ms. Barbara Issacs, Curator of Anthropology at the Peabody Museum at
Harvard, said the challenges presented by NAGPRA were not philosophical
or territorial, but financial and personnel. She said the Peabody Museum
began complying after the law passed in 1990, and it has spent about
$530,000 for compliance so far. Compliance has been mad more difficult
by the fact that the archeological collections, originally estimated as
containing around 800,000, really has closer 8 million items. Ms. Issacs
asked for a strong statement from the committee about the amount of
funding needed for institutions to comply with the statute.

Mr. LeBeau asked that more consideration be given to tribes when funding
grants. Mr. LeBeau said the tribes do not understand why large
institutions with budget of over $10 million per year needed more money
to complete inventories. He offered his tribe's assistance to museums
for completing their inventories. He also announced that the seven
Western Lakota nations, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, the Crow
Creek Sioux Tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Devil's Lake
Sioux Tribe are signing a cooperative agreement to work as one entity.
He suggested museums also form cooperative agreements to advance the
inventory work. Mr. LeBeau emphasized museums and institutions must
complete their inventories in consultation with culturally affiliated
Indian tribes. He requested museum and institutional representatives
get in contact with tribal NAGPRA representatives. Mr. LeBeau requested
allowances be made for tribal communities which never sought federal
recognition, for treaty groups, and for terminated tribes. Mr. LeBeau
asked the final versions of the regulations be distributed before being
published, and said he was concerned "that you as a committee would
approve of regulations you haven't read." Mr. LeBeau read a statement
from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe expressing grave concern on the current
language of the final regulations, and called for the regulations to be
published as proposed once more for another comment period. Mr. LeBeau
thanked the committee for their work.

Mr. Gary McCann, representative of the Muheconneuk Inter-Tribal
Committee on Deer Island, Quincy, MA, addressed the committee on the
difficulties his organization was facing in trying to protect burial
grounds on Deer Island in Boston Harbor. Mr. McCann said NAGPRA does not
address the concerns of his organization in protecting in situ burials
from future disturbance. Mr. McCann also asked that the committee
consider avenues for non-Federally recognized Native American groups to
repatriate the remains of their ancestors. Mr. McCann also told the
committee that the Massachusetts State Archeologist has not been
cooperative in dealing with Indian tribes.

Mr. Phillips also suggested Indian tribes cooperate with museums in the
areas of long-range planning regarding storage and care of repatriated
items. Museums can assist with training and technical assistance for
conservation issues.

Mr. Funmaker, Co-Director of the Ho-Chunk Historic Preservation Office,
asked the committee to allow Indian tribes to comment on any
recommendations concerning non-Federally recognized tribes being able to
request human remains and cultural objects for repatriation.

Mr. George Abrams expressed the hope that NPS and the committee could,
through "a careful reading of the legislation", come to some kind of an
agreement between interpretation and procedures regarding the
inventories and culturally unidentifable human remains. Mr. Abrams said
he greatly appreciated Mr. Tallbull's points during the meeting. Mr.
Abrams asked the committee to maintain the requirement that Indian
tribes be Federally recognized to have standing under the statute.

Ms. Loretta Mitoxen, Vice Chairwoman of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin,
told of her involvement with a repatriation of the body of a young Camp
Verde Apache man from Walter Reed U.S. Army Hospital. She was concerned
that although the records for remains at Walter Reed are very good, they
do not seem to be moving ahead with consulting or repatriating. Ms.
Mitoxen explained the different communities of Oneida, although
physically separate, still constitute one tribal nation. She informed
the committee that the Oneida nation will accept culturally
unidentifiable human remains from the northeastern United States for
rebuiral on behalf of the Haudenosaunee.

Mr. Dan Weiner, outside counsel for the American Museum of Natural
History (AMHS) in New York City, expressed his concern in dealing with
non-Federally recognized Native American groups. He explained that the
AMHS holds its collections in trust "for all peoples, not only of New
York State, but of the entire country and the world. We are looking to
the committee for guidance regarding collections which are affiliated
with non-Federally recognized Native American groups." Mr. Weiner
stated that museums have no authority to decide who is and is not an
Indian tribe with standing under NAGPRA and a list is needed. He was
also concerned that State Attorney Generals would be coming back to
museums saying "gee, you hold these collections in trust for the entire
people of your State, why did you go and give this away?" Mr. Weiner
cautioned that absent clear guidance, museums may take repatriation
requests to court in order to cover themselves from future liability.
Mr. Weiner agreed with Mr. LeBeau's statement that affected parties need
to see the changes to the regulations.

Ms. Leah Rosenmeier, Peabody Museum at Andover, asked the committee for
clarifications of the notification procedures when notices are sent to
the Federal Register. Ms. Rosenmeier asked about an institution's
responsibilities if human remains had been repatriated before NAGPRA,
and had been pre-contact Pueblo claimed by one present-day Pueblo; now
should they contact all the Pueblos and inform them about this
repatriation? Ms. Rosenmeier said these questions also apply to
present-day confederacies of tribes, and requested further guidance from
the committee and the DCA in this matter.

Mr. Bob Brown, Condoled Chief of the Oneidas of Wisconsin, explained how
the traditional form of Oneida government works, and how it now exists
along side of the tribal council established under the Indian
Reorganization Act.

Mr. Allan Ryan, attorney for Havard University and the Peabody Museum,
suggested that there already was a procedure available for museums to
repatriate to non-Federally recognized Native American groups--having
the committee issue a finding. This method avoids the problem of the
statutory definition of Indian tribe.

Mr. Jonathan Haas suggested that the committee's finding on the Mashpee
repatriation be extended to the inclusion of the Mashpee community on
the NAGPRA contact list. Mr. Haas acknowledge this would open up a big
door. "I'm willing to open that door. I like the idea of State
recognized
groups."

Ms. Rachel Craig thanked Mr. Jemison for his presentation to the
committee. She commented that fights between Native peoples and the
mainstream society were now becoming "battles of the brains." "I was
raised in the Inupiat Eskimo tradition, and my grandparents took special
care to make sure that I knew the things that were important in our
life. That was our relationships with people--how we got along with
people and how we treat the people in this life. They shared that
information with me. I feel an obligation to give back to them, to speak
for them. Our grandmothers have told us the importance of the spirit
world. The spirits of those people cannot rest and make their progress
in the spirit world unless they know that those bones are put back in
the earth where they belong. That is our teaching."

Mr. Phillip Minthorn, Jr., Assistant Curator of Anthropology at the
Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, suggested the committee listen to
the input of tribal traditional religious leaders concerning culturally
unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. George Claxton, staff archeologist at the New York State Museum,
commented that although spiritual information is very important, the
scientific ways of knowing were also critical to understanding the world
and the past. "We cannot shut ourselves off to knowledge simply because
we fear the knowledge, simply because we are afraid of what we might
find."

Ms. Tamara Varney, an osteologist with the New York State Museum, said
she has found that there can be connections between her spiritual world
and her professional world.

Ms. Maria Liston, physical anthropologist, said she has been
professionally frustrated in trying to address both "the intellect and
the spirit." For culturally unidentifiable remains, she said, "at this
stage, we cannot make that identification. There are other scientific
purposes and goals and benefits that can be met with these
unidentifiable remains."

Mr. Irving Powless wanted everyone to know that he and his ancestors all
ate corn, fish, beans, rabbits deer, beaver, and butternuts: "I made
this statement before at a meeting of New York anthropologists and
archeologists. And I'll make it again today: I eat corn , beans and
squash, supplemented by deer, rabbit, turkey and fish. In the tradition
of my ancestors I also continue to gather and eat butternuts. I tell you
this, and I ask you to make a note, and to pass this note on to those
who follow you in your profession so they will not have to dig up my
bones to confirm that I eat corn, fish, and nust. We do not need or want
our ancestors dug up to confirm this. They say that they have respect
for our people, but we question their mehod and their ideas of respect.
One thing is sure, and this may be an answer to your question, the bones
that are dug up that are 1,000 years old are not the ancestors of those
who study them. They do not belong to you. You are trying to put a label
on them so that you can keep them to study. We, the people of today, say
again, return our ancestors to us." Mr. Powless cited an example of the
Rochester Museum wanting to keep Seneca ancestors "in case a machine was
invented in the future that would answer questions that have not been
asked yet. This is totally offensive to me. I cannot accept the idea of
my ancestors being examined and stored on shelves for future use." Mr.
Powless said archeologists and anthropologists do not have the same
meaning when they speak of respect for human remains compared with the
Indian meanings of respect.

Ms. Denise Vigue, Cultural Preservation Officer for the Oneida Tribe of
Wisconsin, reminded the committee and the audience that the statute
mandates the return of human remains. "There is no leeway. There is no
scientific study in that. They are to be returned. That is what we must
remember." Ms. Vigue also requested the committee seek the assistance of
tribal traditional religious leaders for determining the disposition of
culturally unidentified human remains. Ms Vigue said the tribes have the
means of "identifying our own, and it isn't some mystical spiritual
thing that we think we know. Give us equal rights under this law and
leave it up to us."

Mr. Nick Nicastro, a graduate student in the Cornell University
Archeology Department, asked "to what degree is science itself on trial
in this issue?" Mr. Haas responded that science was not "on trial":
"what we should be doing is providing advice to the people who will be
making the decisions about what is going to happen with these remains.
The people who are culturally affiliated with these remains are going to
have the say as to what happens to them."

Mr. Frank Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Southwestern Region of the
US Forest Service, said he was concerned that the regulations were still
not finalized. Although human remains had been removed from Federal
lands on the pretext of advancing scientific knowledge, there had been
no scientific analysis of them. "We are, to a degree, concerned and
maybe even shocked with regard to this situation. We are a bit concerned
with this whole question of the rationale of the advancement of
knowledge." Mr. Wozniak reminded institutions holding Federal
collections that the Federal agency maintains control and has the
responsibility in making determinations of cultural affiliation.

Ms. Lynn Sullivan, Chair of the Anthropological Survey at the New York
State Museum, extended her thanks to the staff of the New York State
Museum for their work in setting up the meeting, facilities, and social
events.

The meeting was closed at 5:15 p.m. on Saturday, November 19, 1994.

Approved:

/s/ Tessie Naranjo August 18, 1996
Tessie Naranjo, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee