Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tenth Meeting

MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
TENTH MEETING: OCTOBER 16-18, 1995
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

The tenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie Naranjo
at 8:30 a.m., Monday, October 16, 1995 at the Dillingham Room, Anchorage
Hilton, Anchorage, Alaska. The following committee members, National
Park Service staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the committee:
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, Chair
Ms. Rachel Craig
Mr. Jonathan Haas
Mr. Dan Monroe
Mr. Martin E. Sullivan
Mr. William Tallbull
Mr. Phillip L. Walker

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Team Leader, Washington, DC
Ms. Mandy Murphy, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC

The following were in attendance during some or all of the proceedings:
Mr. Herbert Anungazuk, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Patrick Anderson, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Ted Birkedal, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Harriet Blair, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue, Alaska
Ms. Karen Bretz, Naknek, Alaska
Ms. Barbara Carlson, Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska and the Unalaska
Corporation, Unalaska, Alaska
Ms. Linda Cook, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. J.R. Deagen, Office of Senator Murkowski, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Marilyn Doyle, Douglas Indian Association, Douglas, Alaska
Ms. Cheryl Eldemar, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians,
Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Lena Farkas, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Yakutat, Alaska
Ms. Gillian Flynn, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Keller George, Oneida Nation of New York, Vernon, New York
Ms. Arlene Glenn, Barrow, Alaska
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. O'Patricia L. Gregory, Ounalashka Corporation, Qawalangin
Tribe, Unalaska, Alaska
Ms. Jana Harcharek, Keepers of the Treasures, Barrow, Alaska
Mr. Gary Harrison, Chickaloon Village, Chickaloon, Alaska
Mr. Steve Henrikson, Alaska State Museum, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Mike Huhndorf, Kenaitze Indian Tribe IRA, Kenai, Alaska
Ms. Andrea Hunter, Smithsonian Review Committee, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Dawn S. Jackson, Organized Village of Kake, Kake, Alaska
Mr. Mike A. Jackson, Organized Village of Kake, Kake, Alaska
Mr. Michael Jennings, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Alaska
Ms. Marilyn John, Oneida Nation of New York, Oneida, New York
Ms. Jolene John-Ellis, AVCP Incorporated, Bethel, Alaska
Mr. John Johnson, Chugach Heritage Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Marlene Johnson, Huna Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. William Jones, Kavilco Incorporated, Ward Cove, Alaska
Mr. Bruce Kato, State Museum, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Harry R. Lang, BIHA, Sitka, Alaska
Ms. Frances Lekanot, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Yakutat, Alaska
Ms. Alexandra Lindgren, Kenaitze Indian Tribe IRA, Kenai, Alaska
Mr. Edward M. Luby, Hearst Museum, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley,
California
Ms. Vera Metcalf, Bering Straits Foundation, Alaska
Ms. Margie Macauly, Bristol Bay Native Foundation, Anchorage,
Alaska
Mr. Emil Norton, Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository,
Kodiak, Alaska
Mr. Brian Patterson, Oneida Nation of New York, Vernon, New York
Mr. Gordon L. Pullar, College of Rural Alaska, Rim, Anchorage,
Alaska
Ms. Marjorie Rosser, Eklutna Village, Alaska
Mr. Walter Soboleff, Tenakee Spring Tlingit, Alaska
Mr. Robert Sam, Tlingit Cemetery Caretaker, Sitka, Alaska
Ms. Debra Sanders, National Park Service, Alaska
Mr. Gary Selinger, University of Alaska Museum, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Bob Shaw, State of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Mike Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sean Smith, TDX Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Alberta Stephan, Native Village of Eklutna, Eklutna, Alaska
Mr. Larry Strain, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage,
Alaska
Mr. Doug Veltre, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Carey Vicenti, Jicarilla Apache, Dulce, New Mexico
Ms. Patricia Williams, Ketchikan, Alaska
Ms. Miranda Wright, Keepers of the Treasures Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska

Ms. Naranjo welcomed everyone to the meeting, and asked Mr. Walter
Soboleff to provide the opening invocation. She then asked the committee
members to introduce themselves.

Mr. Ted Birkedal, Chief of Cultural Resources with the National Park
Service (NPS) in Alaska, welcomed the committee to Alaska on behalf of
Robert Barbee, Field Area Director of the NPS, and was encouraged that
NAGPRA and the committee will advance the repatriation process in order
to bring the ancestors and objects of cultural patrimony of Alaska
Natives, and all Native Americans, home.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the committee members and the members of the
public to the meeting and explained that the meetings are open to the
public with scheduled public comment periods. Mr. McManamon thanked
Mr. Birkedal for his welcoming remarks and the Alaska System Support
Office of the NPS for their assistance in organizing the meeting. He
then thanked the committee members and the National Park Service NAGPRA
staff for their time and efforts regarding implementation of the
statute. Mr. McManamon gave a brief review of the main agenda items,
including: implementation update; draft recommendations regarding
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains; dispute
regarding disposition of an Oneida wampum belt; dispute regarding
disposition of a shield previously owned by the Kiowa chief Satanta;
implementation of the statute in Alaska; and a request from the Hood
Museum regarding disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Implementation Update

Regulations: Mr. McManamon reported that the NPS has completed its
review of the regulations, which have been signed by Mr. Frampton,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The regulations
were then sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final
review. Mr. McManamon explained that after approval by the OMB, the
regulations will be published in the Federal Register and, after 30
days, will become final regulations. In the meantime, the NPS has
worked to provide guidance on implementation of the statute by sending
memos to museums and agencies regarding completion of NAGPRA inventory
examples and describing procedures for museums to appeal to the
Secretary of the Interior for extensions of NAGPRA inventory deadline.

Grants: Since the last NAGPRA meeting, 42 grants, totaling 2.2 millions
dollars, were issued to museums and Indian tribes to assist in
implementation of the statute.

Federal Register Notices: Mr. McManamon reported an increased number of
requests to publish notices in the Federal Register. These include 15
notices of inventory completion and six notices of intent to repatriate.

Report to Congress: The committee's Report to Congress, as discussed at
the Los Angeles meeting, has been completed and sent to the appropriate
House and Senate Committee Chairs.

Mr. Sullivan asked how many extensions for inventory submissions have
been requested to date. Mr. McManamon replied that the NPS has received
12 requests, and he suggested that Mr. McKeown explain the extension
process. Mr. McKeown explained that in order to receive an extension,
museums need to show a good-faith effort by providing the following
information: a letter from the museum's organizing body describing the
reason for the expected failure to meet the November 16, 1995 deadline;
a description of Native American human remains and associated funerary
objects in the museum's collection, organized by archaeological site
and/or geographic source; a listing of all contacts with Indian tribe
officials consulted regarding cultural affiliation of the human remains
and associated funerary objects; and a written plan detailing steps to
complete the inventory by a specific date. After discussion, the
committee suggested that as a formal part of the extension, partial
completion could be required of the museum: for example, completion of
inventories regarding certain tribes or a certain area of the country.

Discussion of Comments on the Draft Recommendations Regarding
Disposition of Culturally Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains in
Museum or Federal Agency Collections

Mr. Haas summarized one of the mandates of the committee was a
requirement of "compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable
human remains that are in the possession or control of each museum and
Federal agency and recommending specific actions for developing a
process for disposition of such human remains." In an effort to resolve
this issue, the committee published and distributed draft
recommendations regarding disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains for public review and comment. Mr. Haas recommended the
committee carefully review comments received on the draft
recommendations in order to develop a process for disposition of these
human remains. He urged the committee members to consider the fact that
these recommendations could be developed into regulations.
Mr. McManamon explained that the Secretary of the Interior would have
the authority to issue regulations regarding culturally unidentifiable
human remains -- since disposition of these items is specifically
discussed in the committee's mandate. Regulations regarding culturally
unidentifiable associated funerary objects may require additional
legislation. Mr. Haas was concerned that museums and agencies may
misinterpret the statute as not requiring inventory of those associated
funerary objects and wanted to reinforce that requirement. After
discussing the issue of treatment of associated funerary objects, the
committee agreed that such objects should be treated in a manner
consistent with the disposition of human remains but, at the same time,
recognized an amendment to NAGPRA may be necessary to accomplish that.

Mr. Monroe suggested that the committee focus on the issues raised in
the comments by the following statement in the draft recommendations --
"Ultimately, decisions about what happens to the human remains of Native
American individuals from anywhere in the (U.S.) and associated funerary
objects should rest in the hands of Native Americans" -- and stated that
the majority of the comments against this statement came from the
academic community. He pointed out that many comments still centered
around the issue of rights of scientific inquiry versus other types of
rights. He emphasized the basic premise of the regulations that
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains should be
determined by Native Americans. Mr. Haas felt that the negative
reaction could be, in part, because of a problem with the perception of
cultural affiliation. He suggested one solution might be developing a
broader definition of cultural affiliation to include more than one
group, such as with the Sioux tribes. He described a possible process
of museums, Federal agencies, and universities being involved in
determining Indian tribes with cultural affiliation. Then those Indian
tribes would ultimately determine disposition for culturally
unidentifiable human remains and associated objects.

Mr. Tallbull described the geographical history of his Indian tribe and
his concern that human remains found in areas not currently associated
with Cheyenne could actually be his ancestral human remains. When asked
about his feelings of other Indian tribes taking responsibility for
reburying human remains that could potentially be Cheyenne, Mr. Tallbull
emphasized the sensitive nature of reinterment, since the spiritual part
of the person human remains with the body, and added that if a
commitment is made to acknowledge this process, he would be happy to
have the human remains reinterred by other Indian tribes.

Ms. Naranjo pointed out that some comments suggested replacing the term
"affinity" with "affiliation." Mr. Sullivan agreed with dropping the
term "affinity" and using "affiliation," or considering any relationship
of shared-group identity in the absence of known affiliation.
Mr. Sullivan further stated that some comments pointed out the current
difference in NAGPRA between the treatment and disposition of human
remains found in new excavations and that accorded human remains already
in collections.

Ms. Naranjo invited Mr. Carey Vicenti, Tribal Judge for the Jicarilla
Apache, to comment on the subject. Mr. Vicenti explained that, in his
opinion, human rights exist forever. An individual has a right to
dignity and respect even after death. Mr. Vicenti stated that it was
time for the study of Native American human remains to stop and all
human remains to be reinterred regardless of cultural affiliation. In
his opinion, most disputes will arise between museums and Indian tribes
-- when a museum and an Indian tribe disagree about cultural affiliation
-- and not between Indian tribes arguing over human remains. He feels
that most Indian tribes are interested in returning human remains.
Mr. Haas pointed out that ancient human remains are studied worldwide.
However, the major difference in North America is human remains are not
being studied by their descendants but by a colonial Western culture.
Mr. Vicenti emphasized the importance of not studying the dead without
consent. It is against all basic human rights. Mr. Tallbull added that
the spirits of the dead should not be forgotten. They exist and are
present.

Mr. Walker summarized the committee's discussion of draft
recommendations regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, as
follows: 1) human remains that are culturally unidentifiable due to
affiliation with a non-Federally recognized Indian group; and 2)
developing a process of evaluating museum lists of human remains that
are not culturally affiliated with any group. Mr. Monroe further
suggested a process of determining cultural affiliation of those human
remains where some information is known, for example, by having all
relevant parties meet to try to reach a consensus. The process should go
from the known to the unknown in dealing with culturally unidentifiable
human remains. Mr. Walker stated the basic responsibility of trying to
establish cultural affiliation rests with the committee which needs to
evaluate museum inventories for validity of the findings and also to try
to determine cultural affiliation in cases where information is
inadequate for the museum to make a determination.

The committee discussed possible categories of cultural affiliation,
which Ms. Naranjo summarized, as follows: 1) human remains that are
culturally affiliated with a Federally recognized Indian tribe; 2) human
remains for which there is inadequate information to make a
determination of cultural affiliation; and, 3) human remains that are
affiliated with a non-Federally recognized Indian group. Mr. Walker
suggested a fourth category in which inventories are received where the
cultural affiliation that is given may be incorrect. He pointed out that
such cases could have serious consequences. Mr. McKeown explained the
NPS procedure of reviewing inventories for consistency and completeness
of consultation but pointed out that the NPS does not have the staff to
check all the specific details of the inventories. Mr. Walker
emphasized the need to ensure that all groups that are potentially
affiliated with human remains have an equal voice in the process of
determining cultural affiliation and decisions regarding disposition.
Mr. Monroe suggested that due to the inability of the committee to
review all cases, a procedure of evaluating culturally unidentifiable
human remains on a local and/or regional level could be established in
order to simplify the process. Mr. Walker suggested that the NPS give
some grant priority to proposals for regional consortia in order to
stimulate regional consensus between Indian tribes, museums, and Federal
agencies.

In summarizing the issue, Mr. Monroe stated that the committee has been
discussing the value and benefit of increased dialogue on culturally
unidentifiable human remains between Indian tribes and the scientific
and museum community. Ultimate decisions about disposition would be made
by Indian tribes. Mr. Monroe stated that it would ultimately be
necessary to create another draft of the recommendations, which would be
an ongoing iteration that should take into consideration the many
comments received on the first draft. He also pointed out that any
solution needs to be as simple as possible so as to not impose a
financial burden on any Indian tribes or museums.

Mr. Walker suggested the NPS provide the committee with a database
summarizing the basic information received from completed inventories,
containing the following: collection information; geographical
information; chronological information; number of human remains and
artifacts involved; cultural affiliation; and consultation efforts.
Mr. Walker also expressed concern about the committee monitoring the
inventory process to ensure that all museums treat similar human remains
and funerary objects consistently in order to avoid exclusion of
potentially affiliated Indian tribes in the consultation process. The
committee felt that NPS summarizing the current status of inventories
and making those inventories available for the committee's review would,
in part, help with that concern. Mr. McKeown described different cases
where the grants program has enabled Indian tribes and museums to meet
and develop their own processes to deal with the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. The committee discussed that the next step
after developing a database, in the process of moving human remains from
the culturally unidentifiable category to culturally affiliated, would
be to publish all culturally affiliated human remains as a notice of
inventory completion in the Federal Register.

Mr. Vicenti pointed out that NAGPRA is not the only law governing
treatment of the dead and suggested the committee should take into
consideration compliance with local sepulcher laws when discussing the
treatment of culturally unidentifiable human remains. He stated that
most local laws require reinterment of the dead. Mr. Vicenti cautioned
the committee to add wording alerting Congress and the Secretary of the
Interior that some local sepulcher laws may be not provide equal
treatment of human remains. For example, some states classify all pre-
1742 human remains as "ancient" human remains, which are subject to
exhumation and study.

The committee discussed a model "paths" for treatment of human remains.
The first step would be the submission of inventories, with human
remains either being classified as culturally affiliated or culturally
unidentifiable. The culturally affiliated human remains would go
through the NAGPRA process for repatriation as outlined in the statute.
The culturally unidentifiable human remains path then forks with one
leading to cultural affiliation with non-Federally recognized Indian
groups, and the other leading to truly culturally unidentifiable human
remains. Human remains culturally affiliated with non-Federally
recognized Indian groups could become classified as affiliated after the
involved parties seek the advice of the committee in the dispute
resolution process. Truly culturally unidentifiable human remains could
be discussed at regional dialogues and could have two potential
outcomes: human remains that become classified as affiliated due to
consensus agreement, which then go into the NAGPRA process as culturally
affiliated; and human remains which cannot be identified, with one
treatment option being the application of local sepulcher law as
described by Mr. Vicenti. Mr. McManamon stated that the model was
definitely a helpful tool in trying to determine cultural affiliation
and suggested the committee consider it not as a hard-and-fast set of
rules to be followed, but rather as general guidelines that are helpful
in the overall process.

The committee decided to send a letter to each individual or group who
submitted comments concerning the draft recommendations regarding
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Walker explained the
points that were considered, including: recognition of the enormous
amount of work that went into the comments; how useful the comments
were; and the importance of giving people access to every comment.
Mr. Walker stated that Indian tribes, museums, and the scientific
community need to come together in order to develop a way to deal with
the problem of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Monroe
stated that the letter fundamentally accomplished the goals of the
committee, but he was concerned that the legal standing of the
Secretary, with respect to capability to promulgate regulations on this
matter, was unclear. He stated that since a number of people questioned
whether the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to promulgate
regulations on the subject of culturally unidentifiable human remains,
the committee members need to describe what provisions of the draft they
believe to be outside of the scope of the statute. The committee
discussed the concept of shared group identity and the need to define
that concept and its relationship to culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

Mr. Sullivan stated that part of the next step of drafting
recommendations will be to try to identify mechanisms that can
continually narrow down the number of human remains that ultimately have
to be considered culturally unidentifiable. Mr. Monroe suggested that
the committee clearly state the legal standing of this issue,
understanding that it cannot be resolved at this time, and added there
will be another set of draft recommendations, with substantive changes
from the first draft, that will be put out for comment. The committee
then discussed the possibility of distributing the comments on a
national level and the methods to do that. Mr. Monroe pointed out that
the most effective method to get input on the draft recommendations was
direct, face-to-face dialogue and suggested emphasizing dialogue rather
than distribution of the comments. He then described the active role of
the Heard Museum during the creation of NAGPRA and suggested emphasizing
the role of entities in the dialogue process.

The committee discussed possible solutions to the final group of human
remains that will remain culturally unidentifiable after all attempts to
identify them. Ms. Craig explained that efforts are taking place in
Alaska to form a committee of different Alaska Native groups in order to
develop a method to deal with culturally unidentifiable human remains.
One solution is the tomb of the Unknown Alaska Native placed in a secure
location such as a city cemetery.

Mr. Sullivan stated that the committee will devote as much time as
possible at the next meeting to the developing revised draft of
recommendations. This draft will be based on discussions at this
meeting, comments received on the first draft, the chart prepared by
Mr. Haas, and any ideas developed by the committee members before the
next meeting. Mr. Monroe suggested finalizing recommendations prior to
the termination of this particular committee, as it would be very
difficult for a new group of people to complete.

Discussion of the Dispute Resolution Process

Mr. McManamon described the committee's role of facilitating the
resolution of disputes among Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations, Alaska Native villages and organizations, lineal
descendants, and Federal agencies and museums. The procedures involved
in the dispute process include reviewing requests for consideration of
the cases for dispute at the NPS staff level. These facts are then
discussed with the committee Chair and a decision is made as to whether
the committee regards the situation as a dispute. Mr. McManamon
reported that this process had been followed with the Oneida wampum belt
dispute. The committee, through the NPS, requested that the parties
submit written documentation on the facts of the case and invited the
representatives of the interested parties to make statements and answer
questions at a committee meeting. Mr. McManamon explained that for both
disputes scheduled for discussion at the Anchorage meeting, the
committee offered a chance for participants to make formal presentations
in the future regarding their issues, due to the great distance involved
in reaching this committee meeting.

Discussion of the Submissions from the Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,
the Field Museum, and the Oneida Indian Nation of New York

Mr. Haas recused himself from this discussion.

Committee Discussion: Mr. Sullivan began by stating that, in his
opinion, the wampum belt in question was clearly an Oneida Nation belt.
It is not a clan belt. The belt clearly falls within the definition of
cultural patrimony. He thus feels that the dispute is appropriate to
consider under NAGPRA. Mr. Sullivan expressed the hope that the parties
involved in this dispute would make every effort to talk with each
other, in light of the historical and cultural significance of the
wampum as a symbol of unity and heritage intended to bring people
together. Ms. Craig also encouraged the parties to work together and
concentrate on the relationship of the people as a whole in order to
maintain a semblance of unity and love for each other. Mr. Monroe
expressed the hope that the dispute could be resolved through consensus
rather than the committee issuing a finding.

Mr. Keller George, Oneida Nation of New York, asked to address the
committee. He explained that Oneida society was traditionally
matrilineal, with inheritance being traced through the mother's side. He
described the government of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin as being a
patrilineal society, following the father's heritage, and explained that
they also have deviated from the traditional clan system by having a
business committee and electing their government. Mr. George stated the
Oneida Nation of New York is a matrilineal society, following the
clanship from the mother's side, which is traditional in Iroquois
society, and following their traditional ways with ceremonies and use of
a Longhouse. Mr. George explained that the Oneida Nation of New York
are the ancestors of the Indian tribe that established the government in
Wisconsin. He emphasized that there is no dispute among the parties
that the belt was created in New York, used in New York, and tells a
story in New York of the Confederacy based in the territory now known as
New York. Mr. George explained that the Oneida Central Fire never left
New York, and the Oneida culture, heritage, and traditions still
flourish within the Longhouse of the Oneida Nation, which is why this
particular wampum belt is so significant to the practices of the Oneida
Nation of New York. Mr. George stated that the very essence of the
NAGPRA Act itself is based on repatriation; which he felt should be to
the place of origin and use, which is New York.

Ms. Marilyn John, Oneida Nation of New York, explained that the red
color on the belt signifies the blood the Oneida have shed for the
United States. She explained, according to the markings on the belt,
the ceremony when the red color would have been put on the belt to
signify a declaration of war did not have a proper closure. As a
result, the Iroquois have been in disarray since the American
Revolution; that closure needs to occur in order for the Confederacy to
come back together; and the only place to have final closure would be in
New York where that ceremony would have been performed.

Mr. Brian Patterson, Oneida Nation of New York, explained that the
Oneida people of New York have stayed, suffered, and endured hardships
throughout the past and never left their land. He added that the Oneida
people of New York were able to adapt and grow with the times and still
maintain traditional and cultural beliefs. He described the differences
between the two Oneida tribes and stated that the Oneida Tribe of
Wisconsin has attempted to overthrow the Oneida Nation of New York. He
claimed that the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin sold their birthright and
disregarded the traditional way of life, and therefore, their interest
in the belt is only historical. He added the Elijah Skenandoa that left
New York and took the wampum belt to Wisconsin was not a sanctioned
chief and did not have the right to remove the belt from New York.

Mr. Michael Smith, attorney for the Oneida Nation of New York, explained
that although discussion between the parties on similar type of issues
is always the best solution, this may not be possible given the history
of the two groups. He stated that historically and culturally the belt
belongs in New York, and that the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin has not been
able to prove cultural use of the belt in their submissions. The Oneida
Nation of New York asked the committee to find the clearest and closest
cultural affiliation with the belt to be New York.

Committee Questions and Discussion: Mr. Sullivan asked if the Oneida
Nation of New York has a copy of all written submissions from the Oneida
Tribe of Wisconsin and the Field Museum, and Mr. George stated that they
do. Mr. Sullivan then asked for the sequence of events in this dispute,
which Mr. Smith summarized as follows: the Field Museum sent the
required summaries of its collections to all Indian nations on November
1, 1993; the Oneida Nation of New York responded with a claim for the
belt on February 7, 1994; the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin made a claim for
the belt on October 12, 1994; and on March 1, 1995, the Field Museum
published a notice of intent to repatriate the belt to the Oneida Nation
of New York in the Federal Register.

When asked if there was any shared cultural heritage between the Oneida
of New York and the Oneida of Wisconsin, Mr. George responded that he
feels there is not, because he is not aware of any ceremonies being
performed in the Wisconsin Longhouse, nor have New York Oneida been
invited to any such ceremonies. Mr. George responded to further
questioning about the political histories of the two Indian tribes and
explained about the current land claim dispute that caused the present
dissention. He added that this situation makes discussions between the
two groups impossible. Mr. George explained that the Oneida Nation of
New York is the smallest of the three Oneida groups because they follow
the matrilineal method of determining heritage, whereas both the Oneida
Tribe of Wisconsin and Oneida of the Thames use the nontraditional
patrilineal method. He added that the Oneida Nation of New York follows
the tradition of communal ownership of land, not individual ownership.

Mr. McManamon thanked the Oneida Nation of New York for their
presentation and input. He then summarized areas of agreement in the
written material from all parties as follows: both the Oneida Nation of
New York and the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin are Federally recognized
Indian tribes and have standing under NAGPRA; and the wampum belt under
dispute fits the definition of an object of cultural patrimony under
NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon pointed out certain claims made by the Oneida
Tribe of Wisconsin that differed from the views presented by the Oneida
Nation of New York as follows: the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin claims to
be able to trace a continuous governmental existence from the time the
belt was created by the unified Oneida Nation, prior to the move of part
of the Indian tribe to Wisconsin; the belt was taken to Wisconsin by
Chief Elijah Skenandoa in 1830; in the late 19th Century the belt was
held in a post office in Oneida, Wisconsin; and the Oneida Tribe of
Wisconsin asserts that the belt was probably obtained by Mr. Wyman, a
collector, who subsequently gave it to the Field Museum, although the
exact details of that exchange remain under dispute.

Mr. Monroe suggested that the committee hold a formal dispute hearing at
the next committee meeting. Mr. Walker expressed the concern that
NAGPRA considers cultural affiliation to be an either/or situation,
either a Indian tribe is culturally affiliated or it is not culturally
affiliated, which would mean that several different groups with varying
degrees of connection to ancestral human remains or cultural patrimony
under the law would seem to have equal standing. Mr. Smith stated that
he felt the statute as a whole takes a different view and speaks to the
most appropriate Indian tribe or clan where there are competing claims.

After discussion, the committee decided to send a letter to all three
parties in the dispute, the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Nation
of New York, and the Field Museum, asking that they come together to
make formal presentations to the committee at the next committee
meeting. Each party would be asked specifically what efforts they have
made to reach a resolution together, as well as any specific questions
that individual committee members might have.

Discussion of the Submissions from Betty Washburn and the Hearst Museum

Mr. McManamon summarized the positions of Ms. Betty Washburn and the
Hearst Museum at the University of California at Berkeley. Ms. Washburn
asserted in her submission that the shield has an ongoing historical,
traditional and cultural importance to the Kiowa Tribe and ought to be
considered as an object of cultural patrimony. She also stated that the
shield was used in the annual sun dance until that ceremony was outlawed
by the United States in 1890 and would be needed if the ceremony is
renewed. Lastly, she argued that the shield was not transferred and did
not come into the possession of the museum where it currently is held
according to traditional Kiowa property rules. Written materials
presented by the Hearst Museum asserted that the individual who came
forward as a lineal descendent does not have standing for claiming the
object because it has been defined as an object of cultural patrimony.
Therefore, only a culturally affiliated Indian tribe has standing to
make a claim, in this case the Kiowa Tribe. The museum also stated that
if the shield is to be considered the property of the individual,
Satanta, the museum would contend that it was given to his son and then
bequeathed to Hugh Scott, from whom the museum received it. Those
transfers seem to have been appropriate. In addition, no Kiowa religious
leader has claimed that the shield is needed for traditional religious
practice. Ms. Washburn's own information indicates that it is uncertain
whether the Kiowa would be able to revive the sun dance even if the
shield were available. The museum contended that there is no evidence of
any impropriety on the part of any of the individuals who held the
shield since Satanta.

Mr. Monroe stated that the claim for cultural patrimony is questionable
since the object was individually owned. The museum also provided
documentation of the transfer of the shield from Satanta's son to
Mr. Scott and from Mr. Scott to the museum. No traditional Kiowa
religious leaders have identified the shield as being necessary for the
practice of traditional Kiowa religion by present day adherents.
Mr. Monroe also pointed out that, in light of Ms. Washburn's statement
that she was more concerned about having access to the shield than she
was about actual repatriation, this might be a great opportunity for the
Hearst Museum to exercise its responsibility to help preserve and
develop living cultures with an extended loan of the object to a museum
in Oklahoma. Mr. Monroe recommended urging both parties to pursue that
option.

Mr. Vicenti agreed with Mr. Monroe's assessment of the situation and his
recommendation, but he wanted to point out that there really needs to be
some participation by the involved Indian tribe, the Kiowa, in order to
reach a solution in this case. He further stated that the Indian tribe
is responsible for describing their notion of ownership law and what can
be owned and transferred. It was not the responsibility of the museum to
prove how it acquired the object. In the absence of the Indian tribe's
claim of cultural patrimony in this case, Mr. Vicenti stated that the
only recourse is to suggest that the Indian tribe work toward a solution
with the Hearst Museum.

Mr. Tallbull stated that in some cases Indian tribes elect to leave
items in museums and use them only for certain ceremonies or for renewal
and purification of the item. One reason would be to protect the item,
especially when the item is used only for certain ceremonies. He added
some items could be considered both an item of cultural patrimony and a
sacred object. Mr. Tallbull explained one possible reason for
Ms. Washburn's request could be a desire to perform renewal and
purification ceremonies for the shield since it has been in a museum for
so long. He went on to explain the immense power of certain items and
how dangerous that power can be.

Mr. Monroe explained, in this case an individual is making a claim for
cultural patrimony. This is internally inconsistent with statutory
language. Therefore, the committee can make a suggestion that the two
parties work together toward an agreement, but cannot issue a finding.
Mr. McManamon asked the committee, in light of Mr. Tallbull's comments,
to discuss the possibility that the shield could be a sacred object. He
wondered what effect a determination that the shield was a sacred object
would have on the museum's right of possession. Mr. McManamon then
asked the committee to discuss the issue of cultural patrimony and
consider the letter received from the Kiowa chief stating that the claim
is to be considered as a claim for all Kiowa people. Mr. Tallbull
expressed the view that an object of cultural patrimony could, in fact,
be passed from person to person in the sense that these people were the
caretakers of the object. The family is responsible for the care of the
shield and for determining what happens to the shield even within the
community. These objects can be sacred. Mr. Vicenti added that while he
appreciates Mr. Tallbull's point, there is no evidence presented on the
part of the Kiowas in support of that type of tribal treatment of
objects of cultural patrimony. Therefore, the committee should refer to
the tribal law, for which the claimant has not demonstrated standing,
either as a lineal descendant or as an agent of the Indian tribe.
Mr. McManamon asked Mr. Tallbull if, in his scenario, there could be a
possible explanation for a caretaker of an object, such as the shield,
to pass that object to non-family members. Mr. Tallbull explained that
this did happen in some cases when individuals were not allowed to
practice their ceremonies and had to hide these objects or pass them on
to other people. This sometimes included non-family members. Some of
these objects found their way into museums, either when graves were
robbed or someone disposed of them. Mr. Tallbull indicated that none of
these objects belong in museums.

After discussion, the committee decided to send a letter to Ms. Washburn
stating that the committee has questions about whether or not the shield
actually fits the categories of object of cultural patrimony or sacred
object and whether or not a lineal descendent can make a claim for an
object of cultural patrimony. The committee would appreciate some
additional written text and/or discussion at the next committee meeting.
The committee would also send a letter to the Hearst Museum recommending
that the museum continue to pursue the course it is apparently following
and encouraging the Hearst Museum to work out an agreement with the Fort
Sill Museum that would allow for a long-term loan agreement of the
shield. Additional discussion may be required by the committee as more
information becomes available.

Review of a Request for Recommendations Regarding the Disposition of
Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains from the Hood Museum, Dartmouth
College

Mr. McManamon summarized the request from the Hood Museum of Art at
Dartmouth College concerning two sets of culturally unidentifiable human
remains. The Hood Museum is requesting a recommendation on repatriation
of the human remains to the Wabanaki Tribe, a non-Federally recognized
Indian group in Vermont. The Hood Museum has consulted with both the
Wabanaki Tribe and the Penobscot Tribe, a Federally recognized Indian
tribe with potential cultural affiliation to the human remains. A
letter from the Penobscot Tribal Chair indicated that the Penobscot do
not feel that they are culturally affiliated with these human remains
and feel that repatriation to the Wabanaki would be appropriate.
Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Monroe recommended the return of the human remains
to the Wabanaki from the Hood Museum. Mr. Haas agreed and added that
this could be positive precedent that may be applied to other culturally
unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. Vicenti suggested further efforts be made to ensure that all
potentially culturally affiliated groups are notified. After
discussion, the committee agreed that repatriation would occur, if no
other groups come forward with a claim for the human remains after
additional publication in New Hampshire and Vermont. At that point, the
committee would recommend that the Secretary of the Interior send the
Hood Museum a letter indicating that this repatriation is appropriate.
If no groups claim the human remains, the human remains could be
repatriated without coming before the committee again.

Discussion of Museum Extensions

Mr. McManamon stated that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
grant extensions for inventory completion to museums. The NPS developed
a set of criteria for requesting extensions and an independent set of
criteria to describe what would constitute good faith on the part of
museums. These criteria have been distributed to the museum community.
Mr. McManamon asked for any guidance or recommendations from the
committee in terms of interpretation of information that is received on
the subject. Mr. Walker suggested that the process of reviewing the
extensions be fair, with an equal standard being applied to all museums.
He also thought that there should be no delay in the completion of
portions of the inventory for groups where cultural affiliation is
clear. Mr. Monroe stated that other factors to be considered would be
the degree to which a reasonable amount of time and money has already
been expended in an effort to comply with the deadline, a reasonable
explanation as to why an extension is required, a written plan for
completion of the inventory, and a reminder to institutions that failure
to comply may subject them to civil penalties. Mr. Haas agreed with
Mr. Monroe's suggestion to ensure that institutions have committed the
necessary time and money priorities toward inventory completion.

Public Comment on Implementation of the Act in Alaska

Ms. Jana Harcharek, Alaska's North Slope, described the first
repatriation experience of the Inupiat of the Arctic Slope as being an
educational experience that pointed out lack of respect for ancestral
human remains. The human remains, from a private collection, were
returned in the box they were originally shipped in over 90 years ago.
She then reported that efforts have been taken on the part of the
municipal government to work with tribal organizations and village
corporations by way of tribal resolutions to educate the general public
through NAGPRA workshops. She added that the elders and youth, at their
annual meeting, plan to discuss the issue of repatriation, covering the
basic points in order to develop a policy and guidelines to follow in
submitting requests to museums, as inventories become available.
Ms. Harcharek described an ongoing situation with the National Museum of
Natural History at the Smithsonian where 600 Alaska Native human remains
are currently held. As part of their documentation process, the museum
was photographing and x-raying the human remains. When Alaska Natives
objected, the museum stopped the documentation process until the issue
can be resolved but have not repatriated the human remains. Alaska
Natives object to any further documentation and feel the human remains
should be returned expeditiously, since the origin of the human remains
has been established. Mr. Haas pointed out that the Smithsonian has a
history of returning or destroying offensive photographs, and if that is
an issue, the Alaska Natives could probably ask for the photographs of
these human remains. Ms. Harcharek stated the fact that the
documentation was being done despite objection by the Alaska Natives was
their main concern and explained their concern about the possibility of
setting a precedent for other cases if they were to allow further
documentation in this case.

Ms. Vera Metcalf, NAGPRA Coordinator for Bering Straits region,
explained that she represents the Bering Straits Foundation, a nonprofit
organization that provides educational opportunities and promotes
preservation of heritage and history. Currently, eleven communities are
working together in order to pursue repatriation and have developed two
resolutions for support in requesting grants. With one grant, a three-
day workshop was held with representatives from the NAGPRA office of the
NPS, the Fairbanks Museum, the Smithsonian, and an elder and an IRA
representative from each of the villages. The participants agreed that
repatriation was worth pursuing. They wondered why these human remains
were taken in the first place. The foundation is now contacting and
working with 130 museums describing their current actions with the
communities and consulting on behalf of those eleven communities.
Ms. Metcalf explained that their first priority is return of human
remains from the Fairbanks Museum and the Smithsonian and explained that
the villages are forming repatriation committees to deal with this
issue. The Native Villages of Savoonga and Gambell have been active
with consultation in Fairbanks. The Native Village of Wales is working
to form a repatriation committee and to repatriate human remains from
the Smithsonian. The Native Villages of Golovin and Wales are working on
repatriation of human remains that were brought to Fairbanks from the
Smithsonian for physical analysis. She reported that the Bondi
collection, which contained human remains from 150 burials in Gambell,
has been returned to Fairbanks from Switzerland, and hopefully, will be
repatriated to Gambell. Ms. Metcalf described a handbook that was
developed for the villages giving step-by-step guidelines on
repatriation. She added that there is no agreement regarding the
physical studies issue, since that decision is left to the individual
communities. Mr. Haas asked about the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains and how that could be handled in Alaska.
Ms. Metcalf replied that while she could not speak for her region and
those communities, she was certain that Alaska Natives would work
together to develop a solution to the problem of culturally
unidentifiable or culturally unidentifiable Alaskan human remains.

Ms. Margie Macauly, Communication Specialist and Cultural Resource
Manager with the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, welcomed the committee
and thanked them for coming to Alaska. She extended an invitation for
them to visit the Bristol Bay region. She described the native people
of Bristol Bay -- Yupiks, Athabascans and Aleuts -- as being a nomadic
people who live respectfully with the land. She explained that Bristol
Bay is just beginning to get involved in repatriation, and added that
with the impact of the Russians and the relocation of villages a lot of
the culture and practices were lost. NAGPRA is an important way to piece
together some of the past. She stated that the phrase "clinging to the
bare remnants of the past" was an appropriate way to describe the
efforts of the Bristol Bay community. In their efforts to date, they
have been able to identify that collectors associated with the Field
Museum, the Smithsonian, and the University of Oregon traveled through
their area. They will be working with each of these institutions
regarding the repatriation of human remains.

Ms. Macauly reported that the Council of Katmai Descendants was formed
as a result of NAGPRA to consult with the NPS, the caretaker for the
Katmai area. There were nineteen human remains removed from Brooks Camp
during construction of NPS facilities. Consultation with elders will
have to be conducted to determine their wishes regarding these human
remains. Ms. Macauly stated that through NAGPRA, they learned that 36
sacred masks, previously thought to be in a cave in Katmai National
Park, had actually been removed in the 1920s. Seven have been located in
a Juneau museum and one in California. The NPS is helping to repatriate
those masks. Ms. Macauly stated that they are in the identification
stages of the repatriation process and are frustrated at the lack of
financial and human resources available for repatriation.

Ms. Miranda Wright, Vice President of the Doyon Foundation, explained
that while the Athabascan people had a very diverse geographic
background, the Doyon Foundation is mainly concerned with the people in
the very heart of Alaska. There are eleven Athabascan language groups
in Alaska. This results in may different customs and traditions. The
elders of her area have been called upon for guidance and advice on
dealing with diverse customs, values, and beliefs regarding burial
protocol. A native elders group, formed to guide and advise on the
issue of repatriation, is still having a hard time understanding and
dealing with the basic concept of repatriation. It is very painful to
them. The cycle of physical death and spiritual renewal which occurs
when the human remains go back to nature is very important. This cycle
has been broken. Many feel that many of our social ills result from
these injustices. There is still no agreement on what to do with the
ancestral human remains. Some want the human remains returned and others
do not. There is a lack of regard for spiritual connections with human
remains. One museum identified masks by the type of material from which
they were made. This categorization was irrelevant to the people, who
remember the names of the masks, the spirits they represent, and the
people who participated in the ceremonies where these masks were made.
Another a collector retrieved masks from a "refuge heap." This was
really a cache, or wooden structure, made specifically for these masks.
The cache had collapsed, which was part of the cycle of returning to
nature. Ms. Wright pointed out that since people have many jobs to do,
repatriation issues may be delated, but they are not forgotten.

Ms. Shirley May Holmberg, in testimony read by Ms. Miranda Wright, spoke
about the spiritual nature of burials and related objects. All human
remains need to be reburied by native people with proper handling,
prayers, and ceremonies. She stated that the luck previously lost, due
to people using what they had in a wrong way, will come back to the
tribal people if these human remains are reburied as soon as possible.

Mr. Emil Norton, Alutiiq Museum and Archeological Repository in Kodiak,
stated that his museum is a small state-of-the-art museum that opened on
May 13th. He explained that the museum is one of only two facilities in
the state of Alaska that meets the Federal criteria standards to house
human remains and items of cultural patrimony. Mr. Norton believes that
the intent of NAGPRA is to have the control of these items given back to
the village and tribal entities, which this museum is now able to do.
Mr. Haas asked about the source of funding for the museum, and
Mr. Norton replied that the facility was built with monies from the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust Council and operational funding comes from
private and village corporations representing the area of Kodiak.

Ms. Rachel Craig, Northwest Arctic Borough, thanked the committee for
coming to Alaska and added she was happy that many people would be able
to describe the implementation of NAGPRA in Alaska. Ms. Craig described
the initial reluctance of the people in her area to deal with
repatriation because of the traditional taboo and negative effects
associated with handling human remains. She reported a feeling of
responsibility of the people to bring back all human remains. Ms. Craig
reported, as the Chair of the Committee on Repatriation in the Northwest
Arctic Borough, that they are currently negotiating with the Smithsonian
for the return of four human remains. She explained that, historically,
human remains were not buried in any systematic, identified way. They
are currently being discovered, for example, during water and sewer
construction projects. She emphasized that while handling human
remains, it is important the people are spiritually prepared and
cleansed, so bad things do not happen to them or their families.
Ms. Craig stressed the importance of museums and agencies listening to
Alaska Natives about the history of their ancestors and the importance
of having the different communities of Alaska come together to develop
agreement regarding this issue. She stated education of youth is
important so they have a better understanding of these issues.

Ms. Cheryl Eldemar, Cultural Resource Specialist for the Central Council
of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, presented the committee with a copy
of the Southeast area mission statement and goals toward repatriation.
She reported on two successful repatriations under NAGPRA. A wolf
headdress was repatriated by the Anchorage Museum to the Taku Yanyeidi
Tlingit. Human remains were recently repatriated to the Huna Indian
Association on behalf of the Hoonah Tlingit. She then described four
cases that are currently in progress. Ms. Eldemar stated that the
Central Council is very supportive in the implementation of NAGPRA, and
clans and tribal members are being encouraged to use their local IRAs
and/or village corporations to make actual claims. She stated that
NAGPRA grant monies had been used to create a NAGPRA database of
inventory information which is distributed monthly to the various
villages. She is in the process to identify Tlingit clans, clan leaders,
and caretakers, since many items will fall under cultural patrimony
claims due to the Tlingit social structure. She is also developing
generic claims for the clans to use as guidance, with completed research
information on each of the possible types of items.

Ms. Eldemar described some solutions for the frustrating problem of the
distance involved in the consultation process for many items, including
a teleconference with the Smithsonian and videotapes of items from the
University of Pennsylvania Museum. She also reported that delegates
were able to tour collections at both the Hood Museum and the Harvard
Museum through grants from the NPS. She described efforts at education
through repatriation conferences, sharing resources, and educating
youth, and she expressed a hope for more funding for this education, as
well as a concern over the 50/50 split of funding between museums and
Native groups.

Ms. Eldemar identified the continuing market in cultural items as one of
the major problems in implementing NAGPRA. She was also concerned about
the appropriateness of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) in order to
help streamline NAGPRA, especially when conflicts arise. She reported
that some positive effects of NAGPRA are already being seen. A state
agency recently called and asked permission to do testing on human hair.
This demonstrated the researcher's increased sensitivity. Ms. Eldemar
identified the primary needs at money and resources, education and
training, and access to collections. Mr. Monroe and Mr. Haas both
expressed their appreciation of the efforts of these people and
explained that while museums are receiving funding, much of that is
going directly to Indian tribes for consultation processes. Ms. Eldemar
asked about the process for helping a small non-Federally recognized
Indian group with repatriation. Mr. Monroe suggested that they look at
the process used by the Mashpee Wampanoag in Massachusetts.

Ms. Barbara Carlson, Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska and the Unalaska
Corporation, explained that one problem they were facing was that many
museum items were simply identified as "Aleut" with no further
distinction between the various Aleut villages. It will take time and
discussion to solve this problem. She stated that they are still
learning about NAGPRA and are appreciative that the law has been
enacted. Ms. Carlson supported inclusion of non-Federally recognized
Indian groups in the draft recommendations. She also objected to the
exclusion of the Smithsonian Institution in section 2 of the statute.
She felt that institutions should ask the permission of the culturally
affiliated Indian tribe prior to conducting scientific studies. She
described an instance where a well-meaning gentleman returned some human
remains, but did so in an offensive manner. She hoped that NAGPRA will
help people establish proper protocol so this sort of thing does not
happen again. Ms. Carlson felt that lack of human and economic
resources and the pain involved in dealing with the dead made
implementation of NAGPRA difficult.

Ms. Alberta Stephan, Historian from the Native village of Eklutna,
reported on the commercialization of an Athabascan graveyard. The
spirit houses were repaired and painted, instead of being allowed to
return to nature. A gift shop has be established nearby. The land is
owned by the church and the for-profit Alaska Native corporation. Ms.
Stephan asked the committee if they had any ideas about how to stop this
type of activity.

Mr. Steve Henrikson, Alaska State Museum and the Museums Alaska
Organization, thanked the NPS for the excellent support provided by the
NAGPRA team. He feels that Alaska Native villages and corporations
should receive a larger percentage of NAGPRA grants since they have much
greater distances to travel and a larger percentage of the Federally
recognized Indian tribes. Mr. Henrikson explained that Museums Alaska
is a state professional museum organization of over 30 museums in Alaska
which has been active in providing information and resources to their
members on the requirements of repatriation and an understanding of the
law itself. One of the main goals of Museums Alaska is to work closely
with developing cultural centers and museums, providing resources and
training when needed.

Mr. Henrikson explained that the Alaska State Museum in Juneau and the
Sheldon Jackson Museum in Sitka have a combined total of approximately
10,000 Native American objects. He reported that the Alaska State
Museum published summaries of the collection inn 1993. These summaries
were actually more like an inventory of the collection which included
collection data and other details where known. This has received a lot
of interest. The Alaska State Museum has been active in consultations
with various Alaska Native villages and corporations, including a recent
meeting with eleven Tlingit and Haida elders and religious leaders that
helped to point out the need for routine and ongoing consultations. The
museum is also consulting with Alaska Native villages and corporations
regarding regarding current exhibits, both to get ideas and also to
ensure the exhibits are not offensive or improper.

Mr. Henrikson raised the issue of continuing acquisition of Native
American objects. He was concerned that with no clearance and
classification process currently in place, information learned in the
future could affect present classifications of objects. The Alaska
State Museum, in keeping with their goal of bringing as many Alaskan
objects back to the state as possible, continues to acquire Alaska
Native objects. Currently, the Alaska State Museum has a policy
requiring consultation and consent before obtaining any Native American
objects. He presented a copy of a working agreement with one Indian
tribe regarding the acquisition of an item that could be under the
purview of NAGPRA. This agreement details the rights and
responsibilities of both parties concerning the object, including clan
use whenever needed and educational and research use by the museum when
acceptable to the clan and Indian tribe.

Discussion of Committee's Future Activities

Recommendations Regarding Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human
Remains in Museum or Federal Agency Collections: The committee asked
Mr. McManamon to send a letter to everyone that commented on the draft
recommendations. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Haas agreed to prepare a second
draft to be considered at the next committee meeting. Mr. Monroe
requested an opinion from the Office of the Solicitor regarding
different strategies for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains. These would include broadening of the definition of cultural
affiliation and the Secretary's ability to promulgate regulations on
this matter. Mr. Haas agreed and added redefining shared group identity.
Mr. Monroe suggested compiling a list of all options for resolving the
issue of culturally unidentifiable human remains discussed so far.
Mr. McManamon suggested having a representative from the Solicitor's
Office present at the next committee meeting in order to answer any
questions the committee members have. Mr. Haas asked that the committee
members consider options for a solution to human remains that cannot be
identified and submit those to Mr. Sullivan or Mr. McKeown. One option
could be adhering to sepulcher law, as suggested by Mr. Vicenti.
Another option could be to evaluate each occurrence on a case-by-case
basis.

Upcoming Meetings: After discussion, the committee decided to pursue a
meeting in February in Oklahoma. Disputes regarding the Oneida wampum
belt and Satanta's shield were possible agenda items.

Discussion of Draft Letters

Oneida Tribes/Chicago Field Museum: Mr. McManamon summarized that the
letters would offer an opportunity for each party to attend the next
committee meeting, provide oral presentations, and answer specific
questions regarding this particular dispute. The committee would ask
the two tribal parties for additional information regarding the use of
this particular wampum belt, and wampum belts in general, during the
19th and 20th Centuries, along with other any specific questions the
committee members might have.

Hearst Museum: The letter to the Hearst Museum regarding the Satanta
shield dispute was approved as presented in draft form, with one small
change in wording.

Ms. Betty Washburn: The letter to Ms. Washburn regarding the Satanta
shield dispute was approved as presented in draft form, with one
clarification suggested by Ms. Naranjo about whether the shield shield
can be considered a sacred object according to the explicit definitions
in the statute.

Smithsonian Institution: Mr. Monroe explained that the committee's
report to congress had previously pointed out that the Smithsonian
Institution did not currently fall under provisions of the statute. The
Smithsonian is operating under a different statutory authority. Some
parts of the Smithsonian, specifically the National Museum of the
American Indian, is more closely following NAGPRA provisions than other
parts of the Smithsonian. The committee received two responses from the
Smithsonian regarding the recommendation, both urging the committee not
to make continued efforts to bring the Smithsonian under NAGPRA.
Mr. Monroe suggested a formal recognition of the Smithsonian letters.
The committee should acknowledge the Smithsonian's efforts is making to
carry out repatriation. While acknowledging the explanation, Mr. Monroe
felt the committee should explain it still feels that the Smithsonian
Institution should be required to follow the requirements of NAGPRA.
There appears to be a lack of consistency within the Smithsonian as to
how Indian tribes are treated. He expressed concern about how the
Smithsonian was notifying Indian tribes and about their consultation
process. He understood that the Smithsonian has expended considerable
and substantial resources on repatriation, but was concerned that they
are following several very different set of procedures.

Ms. Naranjo asked Ms. Andrea Hunter, Vice Chair of the Smithsonian's
Repatriation Review Committee, to address the committee. She stated
that the Smithsonian Review Committee is satisfied with the progress of
the Smithsonian Repatriation office regarding inventory and
consultations. She reported that the Smithsonian Review Committee has
been very busy with a dispute with the Pawnee Tribe and hopes that this
dispute will become a model for successful consultation and
repatriation. Mr. Monroe expressed concern that the Smithsonian is only
required by law to repatriate human remains and funerary objects.
Repatriation of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony is
covered by policy, which can be changed at any time. He was also
concerned about a lack of consistency between the repatriation at the
National Museum of Natural History and the National Museum of the
American Indian. Mr. Monroe pointed out that at promises were made to
bring the Smithsonian under NAGPRA when the statute was passed in 1990.
These promises have not been honored. Ms. Hunter explained that the
Smithsonian has been putting on workshops where both museums are
present, going out to the Indian communities, and trying to help Indian
tribes have a better understanding of the different procedures between
the two museums within the Smithsonian. She expressed an interest in
having the NAGPRA committee and the Smithsonian Review Committee meet in
order to discuss common ground and develop consensus.

Ms. Naranjo suggested a reminder in the letter of the original pledge to
bring the Smithsonian under NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon suggested that the
letter be drafted by Mr. Monroe, reviewed with the Chair and other
members of the committee, given to the NPS for final drafting, and then
given to the Chair in order to be sent to the Smithsonian.

Public Comment

Mr. Gary Harrison, Chickaloon Village, expressed concern that it is so
difficult to hire individuals with expert knowledge to complete NAGPRA
grants. He felt that museums should be required to actively seek the
participation of Indian tribes that might have an interest in certain
human remains and objects, rather than just sending a written
notification. Many Indian tribes do not have the resources to respond
to written notifications. Mr. Harrison further described mistreatment
of Native American graves on private land. Trash is being burned on top
of the graves. He asked for suggestions on how to stop this
mistreatment, understanding that the situation is not covered by NAGPRA
since it is on private land.

Ms. Jana Harcharek, President of Keepers of the Treasures Alaska,
indicated that her organization was interested in assisting with the
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and objects which
are listed as being "from Alaska," with no tribal or geographical
affiliation. Keepers of the Treasures Alaska has submitted a resolution
to the Alaskan Federation of Natives that calls for developing a
steering committee to deal with this category of human remains as well
as other human remains that are classified as culturally unidentifiable.
Ms. Harcharek felt that the proper way to deal with culturally
unidentifiable human remains would be for Indian tribes to decide their
disposition, working with existing organizations such as the Keepers of
the Treasures and the National Congress of American Indians. She stated
that the resolution also encourages working with existing repatriation
efforts within Alaska on issues of human remains that are partially
identified, i.e., Inupiat, Yupik, or Siberian. Ms. Harcharek stated
that regional dialogues already take place across the country and should
be encouraged and given priority in funding.

Mr. Brian Patterson, Oneida Nation of New York, inquired if the
acknowledgement letters for comments received on the draft
recommendations of culturally unidentifiable human remains could be sent
to all Indian tribes in order to promote equal levels of information and
understanding. The committee felt that this is a good idea and was open
to suggestions on a viable way to accomplish this. Various options were
discussed, and Mr. Keller George stated that he felt distribution of
this type of information could be made by the National Congress of
American Indians and the United South and Eastern Tribes to their
members.

Mr. Bob Sam, Tlingit from Sitka, Alaska, told of his personal experience
in righting the desecration of thousands of graves in his hometown due
to the construction of homes on top of Native American graves. I took
ten years for him to completely return all the human remains to the
ground and for the city to protect the graves. He explained that the
committee has the opportunity to make peace for the first time in 500
years. That gesture of peace is for the ancestors to come back home.
Mr. Sam explained that the thought of having to reinter human remains is
overwhelming to Tlingit people and will have a great impact on them.
Reinterment is an entirely new concept. New ceremonies need to be
developed. He described the world-wide travels of his ancestors. He
asserted that there is no such thing as culturally unidentifiable human
remains. All human remains need to go home. Mr. Sam stated that he was
honored to be able to speak and thanked the committee for their time.

Closing

Ms. Naranjo expressed her appreciation for being in Alaska and the
informative summary of the implementation in Alaska. Mr. McManamon
thanked the members of the committee for their time and effort, the
Keepers of the Treasures Alaska for organizing the implementation update
and the reception held for the committee, and the National Bank of
Alaska for the reception. Mr. William Tallbull gave the closing
blessing. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
October 18, 1995.

Approved:

/S/ Tessie Naranjo October 24, 1997
Tessie Naranjo, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee