MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
TWELFTH MEETING: NOVEMBER 1-3, 1996
MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA

The twelfth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie Naranjo
at 8:30 a.m., Friday, November 1, 1996 at the Lopez Room, Sands Ocean
Club Resort, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The following committee
members, National Park Service staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the Review Committee:
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, Chair
Ms. Rachel Craig
Mr. Jonathan Haas
Mr. Lawrence Hart
Mr. Dan Monroe
Mr. Martin E. Sullivan
Mr. Phillip L. Walker

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Team Leader, Washington, DC
Mr. Sam Ball, NAGPRA Team, Washington, DC

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

Ms. Nadema Agard, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ft. Yates, North
Dakota
Mr. Roger Anyon, Smithsonian Institute, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Edward Halealoha Ayau, Hui M_lama I Na K_puna 'O Hawai'i Nei,
Haleiwa, Hawaii
Ms. Roxann Bain, Lac Vieux Desert, Watersmeet, Michigan
Mr. Earl Barbry, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, Louisiana
Ms. Joyce A. Bear, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma
Mr. Bobby C. Billie, Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of
Florida, Daytona Beach,
Florida
Mr. Belanger Brown, Sr., Oneida Nation, Ontario
Ms. Tracey K. Brussat, Museum of Natural History at Roger Williams
Park, Providence,
Rhode Island
Ms. Rain Cantrell, Cherokee, Piedmont American Indian Association,
Green, South Carolina
Mr. Richard "Medicine Bear" Cantrell, Cherokee, Piedmont American
Indian Association,
Green, South Carolina
Ms. Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,
Philadelphia, Mississippi
Ms. Connie Cascales, White County Historical Museum, West
Lafayette, Indiana
Mr. Kevin Comer, United Native American Education Council, Arcadia,
South Carolina
Ms. Carol Cornelius, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Thornville,
Ohio
Ms. Susan Daniels, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Bill Day, Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, Marksville,
Louisiana
Mr. Gary Deese, Chicora Indian Tribe of South Carolina, Inc.,
Andrews, South Carolina
Ms. Linda Kawai'ono Delaney, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA),
Honolulu, Hawaii
Ms. Nancy L. Derrig, Museum of Natural History at Roger Williams
Park, Providence, Rhode
Island
Ms. Dianna Doucette, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Deborah Doxtator, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Ms. Gay Drew, Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina, Rock Hill,
South Carolina
Mr. Richard W. Edwards, University of Toledo College of Law,
Toledo, Ohio
Mr. Charlie Elijah, Oneida Nation, Ontario
Mr. Duane Everhart, United Native American Educational Council,
Arcadia, South Carolina
Ms. Gillian Flyn, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Lee Foster, US Army Environmental Center, APG, Maryland
Ms. Lesa K. Hagel, Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing, Rapid City, South
Dakota
Mr. Michael Haney, Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, Wewoka,
Oklahoma
Mr. Gerald L. Hill, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Jim Horne, Recognized First Nations Advocacy Group, Augusta,
Georgia
Ms. Nadine Horne, Georgia Council of American Indian Concerns &
Recognized First Nations
Advocacy Group, Augusta, Georgia
Ms. Beverly Ironshield, Standing Rock NAGPRA, McLaughlin, South
Dakota
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachuttes
Mr. John George, Catawba Indian Nation, Rock Hill, South Carolina
Mr. Keller George, Oneida Nation of New York, Vernon, New York
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. Marilyn John, Oneida Nation of New York, Oneida, New York
Ms. Tamara Johnson, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
Mr. David Jumper, Seminole Tribe, Florida
Ms. Rita Kenyon, Catawba Cultural Preservation Project, Rock Hill,
South Carolina
Ms. Deanna J. Kerrigan, American Association for State and Local
History, Nashville,
Tennessee
Mr. Richard Koontz, Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois
Ms. Shannon Larsen, E.E.C. & Vida Verde, Daytona Beach, Florida
Ms. Lani Maa Lapilio, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, Hawaii
Mr. Jonathan Leader, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia,
South Carolina
Ms. Naida Lefthand, Kootenai Culture Committee & Confederated Band
of Salish & Kootenai
Tribes, Pablo, Montana
Mr. David Lindsay, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Houlton, Maine
Mr. Mike Lokensgard, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Ms. Rhonda Lueck, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri
Ms. Marilyn Massaro, Museum of Natural History at Roger Williams
Park, Providence, Rhode
Island
Mr. Nick Mejia, Alliance for Native American Indian Rights,
Nashville, Tennessee
Ms. Teresa Militello, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Mr. Kunani Nihipali, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei,
Haleiwa, Hawaii
Ms. Christy Norkett, United Native American Educational Council,
Woodruff, South Carolina
Ms. Deborah Osterberg, National Park Service, Ft. Sumter, New
Mexico
Mr. Brian Patterson, Oneida Nation of New York, Oneida, New York
Ms. Marita Penny, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Roland Poncho, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Livingston,
Texas
Ms. Leah Rosenmeier, RS Peabody, Andover, Massachuttes
Mr. Joseph Schomaker, Department of Energy/Fluor Daniel,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ms. Bertie Schweppe, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Thornville,
Ohio
Ms. Polly Schweppe, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Cincinnati,
Ohio
Ms. Ella Sekatau, Narragansett Tribe, Kenyon, Rhode Island
Ms. Jennifer Shannon, Florida State University Department of
Anthropology, Tallahassee,
Florida
Ms. Lynn Shreve, Florida State University Department of
Anthropology, Tallahassee, Florida
Mr. Francis Skenandoa, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Chuck Smythe, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Ms. Kim Spedowski, Lac Vieux Desert, Watersmeet, Michigan
Mr. John Stubbs, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachuttes
Ms. Gaye Summers, Cameron, South Carolina
Mr. John Taksuda, Oneida Nation of New York, Oneida, New York
Ms. Lois Thompson, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Mr. Lee Tippett, South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office,
Columbia, South Carolina
Mr. Jack Trope, Sant'Angelo & Trope, Cranford, New Jersey
Mr. Eddie Tullis, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, Alabama
Ms. Gabrielle Vail, University of Pennsylvania Museum,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ms. Sharri Venno, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Houlton, Maine
Ms. Anne-Marie Victor Howe, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Mei Jeanne Wagner, Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Dan Weiner, Hughs, Hubbard & Reed, New York, New York
Ms. Betty White, National Museum of the American Indian, Bronx, New
York
Mr. Ed Williams, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Tony Wonderley, Oneida Nation of New York, Oneida, New York

Ms. Naranjo welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked for a moment of
silence for the late Mr. William Tallbull. She then asked that the
committee members introduce themselves.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the members of the public to the meeting and
explained that the meetings are open to the public with scheduled public
comment periods. He then welcomed Mr. Lawrence Hart, the newest member
of the Committee. Mr. McManamon thanked the committee members for their
time and efforts regarding implementation of the Statute. He then gave
a brief review of the agenda.

Implementation Update

Notices of Intent to Repatriate and Inventory Completion: Mr. McManamon
reported that the National Park Service has continued to help prepare
Federal Register notices on intent to repatriate (for unassociated
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony) and
notices of inventory completion (for human remains and associated
funerary objects). Currently, the National Park Service is reviewing
637 inventories from museums and Federal agencies and seeking
clarification when necessary in order to move the implementation process
forward.

Civil Penalties: The civil penalties section is currently awaiting a
signature from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
and the Office of Management and Budget in order to be published in the
Federal Register as interim regulations.

Future Applicability: The future applicability section, as drafted at
the Billings meeting, is under review by the Solicitor's Office and by
the Assistant Secretaries within the Department of the Interior.

Grants Program: Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 grants have been awarded, with 20
Indian tribes and 19 museums receiving a total of approximately 2.1
million dollars in grants. The 1997 budget for the National Park
Service includes the same amount for the grants program, and application
guidelines have been sent with deadlines of December 6th for Indian
tribes and December 20th for museums to submit proposals for FY 1997.

Other Matters: Mr. Richard Corrow was convicted in the first jury trial
under the trafficking provisions of the statute.

The National Museum of the American Indian Act has been amended to make
its repatriation requirements more consistant with those in NAGPRA. The
Smithsonian Institution is now required to provide summaries of sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony. Deadlines for completion of
summaries and inventories of human remains and associated funerary
objects were established. The Smithsonian Institution‘s Repatriation
Review Committee was expanded from five to severn persons, with the two
now positions to be filled by traditional religious leaders. The
Smithsonian Institution staff actively supported the amendment.

Senator Inouye has introduced an amendment to the planned excavation and
inadvertent discovery sections of NAGPRA. The amendment passed the
Senate by unanimous consent and is currently under consideration by the
House Natural Resources Committee.
Federal Agency Compliance: Mr. Haas expressed concern that some Federal
agencies seemed to be missing from the list of completed inventories. In
particular, he wondered about the status of implementation efforts by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, and Army.
Mr. McManamon offered one explaination for the omission from the list is
that some Federal agencies only one combined summary or inventory for
the entire agency. These would be listed only once by the location of
the submitting facility. Mr. McManamon suggested that sending a letter
to all Federal agencies requesting information on the status of their
compliance efforts. Federal agency representatives could be invited to
address implementation at the next committee meeting. Mr. Haas replied
that many museums were also faced with budget cuts but were still
required to comply with the Statute.

Mr. Walker asserted that it was time for the committee to be more
assertive in determining the extent of compliance of Federal agencies.
He expressed specific concern about compliance by the BLM. He suggested
contacting agencies at the highest levels to encourage support at the
local office level. Mr. Haas agreed that it was time to be more
assertive and then suggested an additional request in the memo asking
Federal agencies to provide a plan and proposed date for inventory
completion.

Mr. McManamon suggested the that the National Park Service send a memo
to all Federal agencies, including a list of all summaries and
inventories currently on file with the Departmental Consulting
Archeologist. Each Federal agency would be asked to verify the list .
The memo should also indicate that the committee anticipates discussing
the topic of Federal compliance at its next meeting.

Compliance in General: Mr. Haas asked if there was any indication of
the status of compliance in general. Mr. McManamon replied that
although exact figures were unavailable, most agencies and museums were
trying to comply. Mr. McKeown added that when museums were asked how
many human remains were in their collections a rough count of 100,000
was received. He suggested that a final estimate of 200,000 would be
reasonable. Mr. McKeown then stated that the exact number of human
remains in the National Park Service collections is 4,998.

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

Brief History: Mr. McManamon summarized the committee‘s previous
efforts to develop recomendations regarding disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. A first draft was developed by the
committee at the Los Angeles meeting and published for public comment in
the Federal Register in May, 1995. One hundred and ten comments were
received which were discussed at the Anchorage meeting. The committee
developed a second draft at the Billings meeting which was published for
public comment in the Federal Register in June, 1996. Fifty five
comments were received.

Committee Discussion: Ms. Naranjo explained that central part of the
most resent draft was to define ‘shared group identity‘ in such a way
that the number of culturally unidentifiable human remains would be
reduced. This approach, developed at the Billings meeting, seemed like
an effective way to expediate the return of these human remains.
However, recent public comments on the draft indicate this may not be an
effective approach. She suggested that the committee continue working on
the issue, even though it may not be resolved by the time some of the
current members‘ terms expire. Mr. Hart agreed and suggested that the
committee seriously consider the public comments.

Mr. Haas wondered whether the problem was with the draft itself, or with
the process of drafting, publication, comment, and discussion. Each of
the drafts was prepared a different meeting and reflect the comments of
those members of the public that happened to attend. Neither draft was
acceptable to many of the commenters. Mr. Haas wanted to make sure that
the process did not take too long. In two cases, the United States
Forest Service has already moved forward, but in two separate ways.
Tonto National Forest recently filed a Notice of Inventory for human
remains that many consider to be culturally unidentifiable. The Forest
Service‘s Southwest Region eliminated all culturally unidentifiable
human remains from its collection by assigning cultural affiliation
based on their own criteria.

Mr. Walker was concerned that the structure of the committee and the
lack of proper resources made it difficult to evaluate the decisions
being made about cultural affiliation. Each notice represents a
precedent. Mr. McManamon replied that incoming notices are all reviewed
by the National Park Service and clarification sought from the
submitting Federal agency or museum if necessary. However, publication
of the notice in the Federal Register does not imply any sort of
Departmental approval. Mr. Weiner agreed, and added that the real
precedents will come through litigation of particular cases. These
decision may be entered before the court. Any decisions public as
notices in the Federal Register could be brought before the committee in
the dispute resolution process.

Mr. Haas added that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
both have basically the same information about human remains in the
southwest, but reached two different conclusions regarding cultural
affiliation. He suggested that the committee consider what priority
should be given historical links, geographical links, and temporal links
in determining cultural affiliation. Mr. McManamon responded that it
might not be such a bad thing that different Federal agencies and
museums are reaching different conclusions. These difference might
ultimately lead to the resolution of the issue.

The committee reviewed past cases of repatriation of culturally
unidentified human remains to non-Federally-recognized Indian groups to
identify guidelines for consideration of other cases. In each situation:
the museum or Federal agency holding the culturally unidentifiable human
remains had wanted to repatriate; the was a relationship of shared group
identity between the human remains and a non-Federally-recognized Indian
group; and nearby Federally-recognized Indian tribes concurred with the
decision. Mr. Walker recommended the development of regulation to
resolve these issues since the committee will be unable to hear the
large number of cases that may develop.

Mr. Sullivan observed that many of the comments focussed on the
potential for the NAGPRA process to convey quasi-recognition on non-
Federally-recognized Indian groups. Mr. Haas responded that although
there are some legitimate concerns about spurious groups seeking
recognition, there are some truly legitimate groups without Federal
recognition that should be entitled to participate in the process. While
the exact wording of the recommendations needed work, he felt that the
draft recommendations provided a a good foundation for further work.

Mr. Hart felt tha the committee was not trying to dictate to any of the
different Indian groups, whether Federally recognized or not, but to
develop a method by which both could accomplish repatriation though
cooperation and collaboration. As an example, he described a recent
meeting of representatives from eight different Indian tribes at which
they discussed the repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human
remains in southeastern Colorado.

Mr. Sullivan summarized the main concerns evidenced by the comments.
Some commentors felt that the statement ‘Non-Federally-recognized Native
American groups are encouraged to work with museums and Federal agencies
to reach agreement on possible repatriation of human remains," was
unnecessary, since most interested parties have are already working with
the museums and Federal agencies. Some commentors suggested that the
statement "The non-Federally-recognized group and the museum or Federal
agency holding the human remains are encouraged to consult with all
Federally-recognized Indian tribes who may have an interest in the
geographic area," should be changed strengthened to a requirment.
Lastly, some commentors thought that the statement "The Review Committee
believes it may be necessary to amend the Statute," should be deleted.
After discuss, the Mr. Sullivan recommended replacing the phrase "The
Review Committee believes that it may be necessary to amend the
Statute... In the absence of such an amendment," with "The Review
Committee recommends the following general guidelines to encourage..."

Haas identified non-Federally-recognized Indian groups that may become
Indian tribes in the future as an additional concern. Ms. Naranjo and
Mr. Hart suggested using maps detailing historical provenance to aid in
determining the disposition of culturally unidentified human remains.

Mr. Haas suggested establishment of a forum similar to the National
Dialogue on Indian/Museum Relations to reach a concensus regarding the
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Participation
would be limited to a small (8-12) number of knowledgeable individuals
representing all of the major constituencies. The group would review the
committee‘s previous draft recommendations and all public comments and
then try to formulate a compromise resolution. Mr. McManamon suggested
that the committee view this experts meeting as a chance to clarify the
issue of treatment of culturally unidentifiable Native American human
remain. Once formulated, the committee could consider the meeting
results at a committee meeting and proceed with its own recommendations.
Mr. McManamon proposed that the experts group consider several general
issues, including: whether all Native American human remains be
repatriated and whether Native American human remains should be
documented in some way prior to repatriation. The National Park Service
could provide a grant to a museum or Indian tribe wishing to coordinate
such a meeting. Mr. Haas recommended considering the Santa Fe Institute
as a possible sponsor. The meeting should be held before the committee‘s
next meeting.

Discussion of the Status of Non-Federally-Recognized Indian Groups

Mr. Haney, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and
representative of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, stated he was
honored to be speaking in front of the committee. Mr. Haney reported
that the Five Civilized Tribes Intertribal Council passed a resolution
in 1990 deploring the retention of human remains and funeral goods for
any reason and urged their immediate and permanent return to the
appropriate Indian tribes. Due to the ceremonial and religous
connections, the Five Tribes Intertribal Council has agreed to act as
one body in dealing with repatriation issues. Repatriation of ancestral
human remains is essential to the success of the Indian tribes'
contemporary activities. They have been advised to be very cautious in
these activities. So, despite being one of the first tribes committed to
addressing the process of repatriation, the Seminole have not yet
repatriated any human remains. Mr. Haney stated that at the 53rd annual
National Congress of American Indians in Phoenix, Arizona, an
independent commission was established to address the special concerns
of repatriation and grave protection. NCAI passed a resolution urging
the proper recognized tribal authorities and spiritual representatives
be involved with the repatriation processes. NCAI requested that the
statute be amended to grant authority to only the recognized traditional
religious leaders. Mr. Haney announced that the United South and Eastern
Tribes (USET) Repatriation Committee and the Five Civilized Tribes plan
to meet and discuss common ground. Mr. Haney then mentioned a general
concern that museums and Federal agencies were not conducted sufficient
consultation with Indian tribes. He also wished that traditional
religious leaders could be directly involved in the consultation
process.

Mr. Barbry, Chairman for the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, felt that
the definition of sacred objects should be anything that came out of a
Native American grave. Sacred objects need to be respected and not
treated lightly. Mr. Barbry stated that the committee members were not
selected fairly as there is not equal representation of all Indian
tribes. There should not be any museum or scientific professionals on
the committee. It should be an all-Indian committee. Mr. Barbry stated
that he was against any further scientific study of Native American
human remains. Only Indian tribes should be allowed to determine what
action is taken regarding repatriation. No Federal agency besides the
Bureau of Indian Affairs should be allowed to grant Federal recognition
to state-recognized Indian groups. Changes need to be made in order to
expedite the repatriation of Native American human remains. Ms. Naranjo
responded that the composition of the committee was stipulated in the
statute to include individuals nominated by Indian tribes, Native
Hawaiian organizations, and national scientific and museum
organizations. The appointments were made by the Secretary of the
Interior. She also affirmed that the committee treats is extremely
serious in fulfilling its duties and treats human remains, funerary
objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony with the
utmost respect.

Mr. Tullis, Tribal Chairman of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians,
strongly urged the Committee to use caution in giving standing to non-
Federally recognized Indian groups. These decisions can have unforseen
consequences, including some non-Federally recognized Indian groups
attempting to obtain Federal benefits due only to Indian tribes. The
State of Alabama has recognized a Boy Scout troop as a tribe. Other
state-recognized Indian groups have misused the services of the Alabama
Housing Authority. Mr. Tullis stressed that he did not want to preclude
any legitimate Indian tribe from participating in the repatriation
process, but cautioned the committee from liberally accepting claims
from non-Federally-recognized Indian groups. He presented with the
committee with two USET Resolutions, 96:28 and 97:12.

Mr. Carleton, Tribal Archeologist for the Mississippi Choctaw, read a
letter to the committee from Mr. Phillip Martin, Chief of the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Mr. Martin stressed that only duly
elected government leaders and traditional religious leaders of
Federally-recognized Indian Indian tribes are designated for involvement
in the repatriation process. No provision is made for the participation
of any other groups. He then stated that legitimate
non-Federally-recognized Indian groups seeking to participate in
repatriation efforts should apply for recognition to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Once recognized, these groups could repatriate human
remains and cultural items under the provisions of NAGPRA. Another
problem concerns situations where two culturally affiliated Indian
tribes disagree on what should be done with human remains. He believes
that the Choctaw should only repatriate Choctaw human remains. Research
is necessary to identify ancestral Choctaw human remains. Mr. Martin was
concerned that other Indian tribes could repatriate human remains from
Choctaw ancestral grounds before the necessary research is completed. He
suggested that Indian tribes affected by such repatriations should have
absolute veto power over any collective decision.

Dispute Over an Oneida Wampum Belt

Mr. Haas recussed himself from consideration of this dispute regarding
the disposition of an Oneida wampum belt currently held at the Field
Museum of Natural History. Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. Sullivan to chair this
portion of the meeting. Mr. Sullivan welcomed the representatives from
the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, the Field Museum, and the Oneida Nation
of New York, and asked them to make their presentations to the
committee.

Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin: Ms. Deborah Doxtator, chairwoman of the
Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, greeted the committee and introduced members
of he delegation. Mr. Anoki Schuyler and Mr. Leander Danforth spoke to
the committee in the Oneida language. Mr. Bruce Elijah greeted the
committee and explained that the smudging ceremony that was conducted
was designed to help everyone speak from the heart. He went on to
explain how wampum functions in Oneida culture. Wampum is not an object.
It doesn‘t belong to the person who made it. It belongs to all the
people. Ms. Carol Cornelius reviewed the historical documentation
indicating the the belt was created shortly after the Revolutionary War
to solidify the reunification of the Haudenosaunee people. The belt was
brought to Wisconsin by Elijah Skenandoa. Wyman claims to have purchased
the belt from Skenandoa‘s grandson. A September 2, 1904 article in the
Brown County Democrat stated that ‘[t]here is great excitement and
tribulation among the Oneida on their Indian reservation, the fact
having finally leaked out among them that their cherished relic, their
famous wampum belt, has been taken from them and is now in a Chicago
museum. Every possible effort has been made to keep from the great body
of Oneida Indians knowledge of the fact that this greatest treasure of
this once powerful Indian tribe had disappeared from the reservation.‘
Wampum has, and continues to have, an important role in the cultural
life of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. Mr. Michael Lokensgard, attorney
for the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, stated that while the belt might be
thought of as belonging to the entire Oneida Nation -- including the
Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Nation of New York, and the Oneida
of the Thames, Ontario -- it should be repatriated to the Oneida Tribe
of Wisconsin from where it was originally acquired by Wyman. Ms.
Doxtater thanked the committee for its consideration and asked them to
strive for a solution that is in the best interests of all Oneida people
for the next seven generations.

Field Museum of Natural History: Mr. Richard Koontz, counsel for the
Field Museum, explained that the museum feels that the belt should be
repatriated to the Oneida people. There is not sufficient information to
clearly determine which of the two Indian tribes should control the
belt. While the notice of intent to repatriate that was published in the
Federal Register identified the Oneida Nation of New York as the
potential recipient, the notice was intended to enable other Indian
tribes to determine their interest in the object. The Oneida Nation of
New York‘s claim for the belt was received first. Mr. Koontz added that
the National Park Service had recently received a letter from the
Onondaga Nation asserting their interest in the belt. If the Field
Museum receives such a claim, it would be reviewed under the same policy
guidelines as any request.

Oneida Nation of New York: Mr. Michael Smith, attorney for the Oneida
Nation of New York, stated the tribe‘s position that the belt should be
repatriated to the Oneida Nation of New York because it was made in New
York. In all other matters, the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin speaks of
repatriation to New York because it is the "homeland." This principle
applies to this case as well. There is some confusion in the historical
documentation about whether Wyman acquired the belt in Wisconsin or New
York. Even if it was acquired in Wisconsin, it is unlikely that Elijah
Skenandoa had the authority to take the belt with him. While the
committee can talk about the ‘Oneida people,‘ they must deal with the
two Federally-recognized Indian tribes before them. Mr. Keller George,
Vice Chairman of the Onieda Nation of New York, explained that the
Oneida Nation of New York has remained on its traditional lands and
continued to practice the traditional matrilineal form of descent. The
great law teaches that when you leave the circle, you leave naked and
you nothing with you. He questioned whether the Onondaga could have
reinstated the traditional chiefs in Wisconsin since this role is
reserved to the Mohawk and Seneca. Brian Patterson, member of the Bear
clan, reminded the committee of the proposal to provide all Onieda
people access to the belt that was submitted by the Oneida of New York.
He then asked Leander Danforth from the Oneida of the Thames to formally
close the presentation in the Oneida language.

Committee Discussion: Mr. Sullivan thanked the Onieda Tribe of
Wisconsin, Field Museum, and Oneida Nation of New York for their
presentations. He explained that the committee only has the power to
make recommendations which are not legally binding.

Mr. Sullivan raised the question of whether the belt represented an
object of cultural patrimony. Submissions from both the Onieda Tribe of
Wisconsin and the Onieda Nation of New York suggests that it is a
national belt, as distinguished from a clan belt. A letter from the
Onandaga Tribe suggests that the belt may actually be a confederacy belt
that is culturally affiliated with al the Iroquois tribes. The committee
agreed that the belt met the definition of cultural patrimony.

Mr. Sullivan then asked whether the two parties had standing to claim
the belt under NAGPRA. The committee agree that both the Onieda Tribe of
Wisconsin and the Onieda Nation of New York have standing to claim the
belt. He then asked the committee to consider whether theOnieda of the
Thames in Canada also have standing. Mr. Koontz suggested that the Field
Museum would consider including a culturally affiliated Canadian First
Nation in repatriation discussions if the culturally affiliated
Federally recognized Indian tribe agreed. Concerning right of
possession, Mr. Koontz recommended that the committee stick to the
question of whether the belt was obtained with the voluntary consent of
the appropriate Indian tribe or tribes, and not Constitutional issues
related to Fifth Amendment takings. Ms. Craig questioned what effect
placing the belt with one party and not the other would have on the
future of the Oneida people as a whole. She suggested that all the
parties work together to find a solution that was beneficial to all
Oneida people. Mr. Walker discussed the issue of cultural affiliation,
explaining that the anthropological community had urged Congress to
consider varying degrees of cultural affilation. Unfortunately, Congress
decided on a binary approach: an Indian tribe is either culturally
affiliated or it is not. Mr. Smith disagreed, feeling that the issue was
to determine the most appropriate Indian tribe. Mr. Lokensgard urged
the committee to see all three groups as successors in interest.

Mr. Sullivan then asked the Onieda Nation of New York and the Onieda
Tribe of Wisconsin to detail the steps they would take of the belt was
placed in their possession to ensure access by all Onieda people. Mr.
Smith responded that such a plan was already outlined in their proposed
agreement. The best would be made available to any Oneida who wished to
see it. The Onieda Nation of New York would be willing willing to
discuss travel arrangements when necessary. The Oneida Nation of New
York expressed its willingness to discuss the details of the memorandum
of agreement with the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. The Oneida Tribe of
Wisconsin replied that if they were granted custody of the belt, they
would also be agreeable to further discussions of travel arrangements.
The Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin had some concerns about the current
memorandum of agreement, especially with regards to the term "visit,"
but expressed an interest in further discussions of a memorandum of
agreement after consulting with their Tribal General Council. Mr. Hart
stated that the action of the Oneida Nation of New York in inviting the
Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin to do the traditional closing was to him a
very significant step in the ability and willingness of the parties to
work together.

In light of this willingness to talk, the committee determined that any
action on their part would be intrusive. Therefore, the committee
recommended further discussions between the Oneida Nation of New York
and the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. The committee also expressed a
willingness to provide any necessary assistance or guidance. Mr.
McManamon then suggested that a letter be sent from the committee to the
Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, Field Museum, and Oneida Nation of New York
detailing this recommendation and also thanking each of the parties for
their extensive efforts in this matter. A draft of this letter was read
to the committee and approved.

Special Invitation to the Committee from the American Association for
State and Local History

Ms. Deanna Kerrigan, Program Officer for the American Association for
State and Local History (AASLH), introduced herself and her
organization. AASLH is a non-profit, membership-based public history
organization, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. In a recent
survey, AASLH was made aware of the intense interest in NAGPRA of Native
American tribal museums and cultural centers across the United States.
In an effort to help fulfill the needs of these tribal museums and
centers, AASLH will be focussing on NAGPRA as one of its topics at the
upcoming annual convention. Ms. Kerrigan extended an invitation to the
committee to attend and be a part of the AASLH annual meeting on October
1-4, 1997, in Denver, Colorado.

Implementation of the Statute in the Southeast Presentations

Mr. Bill Day, of the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, spoke on the importance of
sovereignty to Indian tribes. He pointed out that the Tunica-Biloxi
Tribe was the first Indian tribe to assume the responsibilities of the
State Historic Preservation Office. He advised the committee to only
acknowledge Federally-recognized Indian tribes in NAGPRA issues. Mr.
Day gave a summary of Tunica-Biloxi tribal history and relocations from
their first contact with Europeans to their eventual settlement in
Louisiana. Mr. Day then gave a summary of the events surrounding the
removal of items from the Trudeau Site and the subsequent actions
necessary for the Tunica-Biloxi to regain possession of those objects,
including construction of a museum. Mr. Day stated that the condition
of those objects necessitated the training of two tribal conservators to
salvage the mistreated objects. Mr. Day stated that all 200,000 tribal
conservation efforts to date have been successful. The Tunica-Biloxi
tribe has built a casino, amidst many obstacles, which has helped the
entire tribe climb the socioeconomic ladder.

Mr. Roland Poncho, of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, gave a brief
history of his Indian tribe's relocation from their original homelands
at Ft. Toulouse, Alabama, to their current lands in east Texas. He
described how important it is that the committee fulfill its claim to be
fair, open-minded, and thorough in their dealings with NAGPRA. Mr.
Poncho stated that one thing non-Indians would not be familiar with is
being Indian and speaking the Indian language, into which is embedded a
natural caution against non-Indians. Mr. Poncho emphasized the work
that went into NAGPRA, and its importance to Native Americans, Alaska
Natives and Hawaiian Natives.

Mr. Michael Haney, of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma, explained the
unique situation in Oklahoma with 39 Federally-recognized Indian tribes
of which only two -- the Witchita and the Caddo -- are indigenous to
Oklahoma. The majority of Native Americans in Oklahoma are many miles
away from their ancestral homelands. Mr. Haney explained how his work
with protected unmarked Native American graves began in 1978 when he
began to work toward legislation. He explained how this work eventually
culminated in NAGPRA being enacted in 1990. He also described current
efforts in Oklahoma trying to stop ongoing excavations. Mr. Haney
agreed with Mr. Day on the issue of Indian tribes contracting SHPO
responsibility, in part because of misuse of National Historic
Preservation Act money in Oklahoma. He stated that the Indian tribes of
Oklahoma want to repatriate all materials currently held by Federal
agencies and museums. These items are essential to the health and
well-being of Indian nations. Mr. Haney stated that prior to the Five
Tribes developing a final position on culturally unidentifiable human
remains, they are going to meet with the United South and Eastern Tribes
(USET) to try to develop a consultation process. Mr. Haney said that
Executive Order 13007 dealing with the protection or sacred sites is
good, but pointed out that there are already many different policies
within the Federal government regarding grave protection and
repatriation. He emphasized the need to standardize these many
regulations and finalize the NAGPRA regulations so they can be fully in
effect. Finally, Mr. Haney spoke about non-Federally-recognized Indian
groups and cautioned the committee not to develop blanket policies that
exclude these groups. Mr. Haney cited the Yuchi and the Begesic
(phonetic) people as examples of ceremonial, historical tribes that do
not have recognition but should be considered on a case-by-case basis
under NAGPRA.

Ms. Joyce Bear, of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, spoke about the
importance of their homeland in Alabama to her people. She explained
that it was very meaningful for her great uncle to have just a small
part of the homeland; a rock that she was able to bring to him from
Loachapoka, Alabama. Ms. Bear described the positive effects NAGPRA has
had in Georgia. She states that on extensive road construction
projects, consultation has successfully occurred when artifacts were
found. She described the successful repatriation of two human remains
when they were found during construction of a water project. Ms. Bear
stated a concern with upcoming project on the Okmulgee oil fields,
because this land is considered the "cradle of the Muskogee Nation." The
Muskogee do not wish to have their mounds disturbed.

Mr. Bobby Billie, spiritual leader of the Independent Traditional
Seminole Nation of Florida, stated that his tribe is a sovereign nation
because they follow the natural law of the Creator and not the man-made
law. He stated that burial grounds need to be respected, and the taking
of ancestors, ancient relatives, and their materials violates the rights
of all Indigenous people and is against the Creator's law. Mr. Billie
stated that the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of Florida has a
right to be treated on a government-to-government basis due to their
six-million-year history of following the traditional laws. He then
stated that digging up human remains can have a negative effect and the
right thing to do is to leave them alone.

Ms. Nadine Horne, Georgia Council of American Indian Concerns and
Recognized First Nations Advocacy Group, Augusta, Georgia, stated that
if the Indigenous people of North America did not recognize the
Canadian/United States border, and consider themselves all one related
group, they would total close to ten million people. Ms. Horne stated
she first became aware of the desecration of grave sites when she moved
to the Southeast and said it is time for the study of Native American
ancestry to stop. Ms. Horne spoke in opposition of state-recognized
Indian groups, emphasizing that only the Federal government should have
the right to recognize tribes. She described actions taken by her and
others to oppose the state recognition process in Georgia, including the
passage of Resolution 4:96:1996. Ms. Horne suggested that
Federally-recognized Indian tribes should sponsor tribes that are
historical, sovereign governments, but are not Federally recognized. A
committee of Federally-recognized elder leaders should be formed to hear
repatriation issues. A plaque should be dedicated commemorating the
history of what has happened to Native ancestors' human remains so it
will not happen again.

Mr. Jonathan Leader, Deputy State Archaeologist for South Carolina,
explained the duties of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology (SCIAA), including research on behalf of the state,
updating the state's archaeological site files, and curating all state
materials, which can include materials covered by NAGPRA. Mr. Leader
then explained SCIAA's policy of protection of all burial sites,
limitations imposed on research of such burial sites and their human
remains, and a policy of leaving inadvertently discovered human remains
in place, except when vulnerable, in which case they are reinterred with
input from lineal and cultural descendants. Mr. Leader reported that
SCIAA was able to complete all notifications on time as required by
NAGPRA. In the course of this work, contact was established with
several area groups, of which only two are Federally recognized, and
many concerns were raised regarding disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Leader described some problem areas of
NAGPRA, including: the disenfranchisement of appropriate but
non-Federally-recognized Indian groups; lack of funding; regulations
written by those who will be implementing them; requiring compliance
before regulations; ignorance on the part of Federal agencies, museums
and collections regarding NAGPRA; and misunderstanding of NAGPRA,
resulting in jurisdiction delays in a recent case regarding grave
looting and transportation of grave goods.

Dispute over a Carved Wooden Figure from Hawaii

Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. Haas to chair this portion of the meeting. Mr.
Haas explained that the committee role was to facilitate the resolution
of disputes between parties. The committee‘s recommendations are not
binding on any party. Mr. Haas welcomed representatives of the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei, and the Museum
of Natural History at Roger Williams Park, and anounced that the two
Native Hawaiian organizations had agreed to make a single presenation.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei.

Ms. Linda Delaney, Land and Natural Resources Officer with the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, thanked the committee for the opportunity to make her
presentation and introduced the other representatives of the two
organizations. She pointed out that both Office of Hawaiian Affairs and
Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei are explicitly recognized as Native
Hawaiian organizations in the statute.

Ms. Lani Lapilio, counsel to the Native Hawaiian Historic Preservation
Council, explained that Native Hawaiians refer the this type of carved
figure as ki‘i la‘au -- ki‘i meaning image and la‘au meaning wood. The
museum‘s records describe this figure as an idol. This figure is not
typical, being elaboratly and forcefully carved and decorated. The form
is consistant with its function as ki‘i aumakua, a figure that serves as
a receptacle for an an ancestral diety or family god. Aumakua practice
continues today and selling one would be unthinkable. Ms. Lapilio
stressed that the museum provide no evidence that it obtained the ki‘i
aumakua with the voluntary consent of an individual that had the right
to sell, trade, or give away the item.

Mr. Kunani Nihipali, po‘o or leader of Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i
Nei, introduced his personal aumakua, noa, which serves as an image of
how he sees his ancestors. The ki‘i aumakua held by the museum also
represents a sense of place, a sense of continue struggle for
sovereignty, a continued belief within Hawaiian cultural practices.
These ki‘i are not for sale.

Mr. Edward Ayau, with Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei, explained
that the form, size, and shape of this ki‘i lau are consistent with an
aumakua image. Aumakua are one of the few Hawaiian spiritual practices
that have survived to the present day. Further, the majority of aumakua
with a documented provanance originated in burial caves. Mr. Ayau stated
that he, Mr. Nihipali, and Ms. Kanahele were recognized as traditional
religious leaders. He to discount Mr. Davenport , Mr. Cox, and Mr.
Hurst‘s assertions that the carved figure was a fishing spear rest based
on their lack of familiarity with Hawaiian ethnography and religion.

Musuem of Natural History at Roger Williams Park

Ms. Nancy Derrig, superintendent of parks for the city of Providence,
that the carved wooden support figure was originally acquired by the
Museum of Natural History at Roger Williams Park as a loan from the
Providence Franklin Society in 1916, and became part of the permment
collection when the society dispanded in 1922. When she assumed her
present position in 1985, Ms. Derrig discoverd that the support figure
was missing. The thief was eventually brought to justice and the support
figure returned.
***

After presentations by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hui M_lama I Na
K_puna O Hawai`i Nei, and the Museum of Natural History at Roger
Williams Park, the Committee made the following comments regarding the
Hawaiian figure in an effort to formulate a finding on the repatriation
of that figure. The Committee was concerned about the lack of available
evidence in the case and about the use of Dr. William Davenport as an
expert based on his admitted lack of expertise in Hawaiian culture.

On the issue of standing under NAGPRA, the Committee recognized both the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hui M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei as
having standing under NAGPRA.

On the issue of sacred object, the Committee found that the figure was a
sacred object, and therefore falls under the purview of NAGPRA, for two
reasons: one, the figure was shown to be devoted in a ritual context to
sacred activities, and two, the figure is needed to renew old
ceremonies. The Committee determined that the figure was, in fact, an
`aumakua image, as claimed by the Hawaiian organizations.

On the issue of cultural patrimony, the Committee was not convinced that
the figure was an object of cultural patrimony, in part because of the
personal nature of the figure and the ability of chiefs to hand down
such figures from generation to generation. Similarly, on the issue of
funerary object, the Committee could not find absolutely that the figure
was a funerary object, based on the evidence that not all such figures
originally came from burial caves.

On the issue of right of possession, the Committee expressed an opinion,
based on written evidence presented by all three parties and on
observation of the figure in photographs, that the figure was not
manufactured as a curio but was obviously used as originally intended.
Further, the Committee felt the figure was alienated before 1819, which
would be in the Kapu period of Hawaiian history, denoting use as
intended as an `aumakua. The Committee found a lack of evidence that
the figure was alienated by someone with a right to alienate the figure.
Since the figure is an `aumakua, the Hawaiian delegation claimed that no
one would have had the right to alienate that figure. Finally, the
Committee determined that based on the evidence presented by the Museum
of Natural History at Roger Williams Park that the Museum does not have
right of possession of the figure.

The Committee made a finding that in the case of the Hawaiian `aumakua
figure that the Museum of Natural History at Roger Williams Park should
repatriate the piece jointly to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hui
M_lama I Na K_puna O Hawai`i Nei. The Committee was clear that this
finding relates only to this particular piece. Mr. McManamon discussed
wording of the finding for publication in the Federal Register and
suggested that a letter be sent to each of the three parties detailing
the Committee's finding.

Future Meeting

The Committee decided to hold their next meeting in Oklahoma in March of
1997, with emphasis on discussion of culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

Other Matters Before the Committee

In response to a request from Betty Washburn, the Committee will send a
letter to Ms. Washburn in acknowledgement of her last letter, presented
to the Committee at the Billings meeting, and expressing the hope of the
Committee that Ms. Washburn keep the Committee informed of any further
developments in the discussions with the Hearst Museum concerning the
Satanta shield dispute.

The Committee received an update from Mr. Joseph Schomaker, Cultural
Resource Manager with the Department of Energy Ohio office concerning a
dispute in the state of Ohio over a pipeline project which uncovered
five complete burials and 15 to 20 partial burials. Mr. Schomaker
reported that currently there is an agreement by the involved Indian
tribes to reach repatriation without a formal dispute.

In response to the requests of the Oakland Museum of California and De
Anza College in Cupertina, California, concerning repatriation of
culturally unidentified human remains to an Ohloni group, the Committee
will send letters detailing the information that the Committee deems
necessary in terms of proof of consultation with Federally-recognized
tribes that these organizations need to consult with in their individual
cases before repatriation with the proposed non-Federally-recognized
Ohloni group.

The Committee determined it would be inappropriate to respond to a
request from the confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in
Washington regarding human remains discovered on Army Corps of Engineers
land since the issue is currently under litigation in Federal court in
Oregon.

Public Comment

Ms. Nadema Agard, Repatriation Director of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,
stated concern over certain situations that had occurred during
repatriation visits. One, the right of a museum to limit access of
repatriation representatives to only objects of individual Indian
tribes, i.e., Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and not all Sioux items. Mr.
Monroe and Mr. Haas replied that museums need to provide access to all
material that is potentially affiliated with her Indian tribe. Two, her
Indian tribe considers all birth amulets to contain human remains in the
form of umbilical cords, and considers repatriation necessary because of
their personal nature. When museums claim inconclusive determination of
whether the amulets contain human remains, Ms. Agard wanted to know what
her Indian tribe can do to see that they are returned. Mr. Richard
Edwards stated that some birth amulets were made for sale to tourists
and that some beaded sole moccasins were used before burial; so research
needed to be conducted on these items to determine their true purpose.
Ms. Agard replied that she was aware of that fact and that tribal elders
can determine which amulets and moccasins are eligible for repatriation.
Mr. Haas replied that birth amulets would probably not be considered
human remains under the definition of NAGPRA, but they could be
requested as unassociated funeral objects or sacred objects. Mr. Monroe
added that each would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis,
taking into consideration provenance information and testimony by
traditional religious leaders. Three, Ms. Agard inquired about possible
change in NAGPRA regarding private collectors, and Ms. Naranjo and Mr.
Haas both stated they were unaware of any changes. Four, Ms. Agard
asked about the legality of museums exhibiting objects that Indian
tribes have claimed as sacred objects. Mr. Sullivan stated that
although such exhibition would be unethical, it was not illegal, and
repatriation is the only way to protect those objects.

Ms. Joyce Bear, Historic and Cultural Preservation Officer of the
Muskogee Creek Nation, stated that Native Americans are frustrated and
angry; that for the first time they have the power and opportunity to
repatriate Native American human remains and items that should never
have been taken in the beginning. She emphasized how painful it was to
have these human remains away from where they belong and how important
it is to repatriate them. Ms. Bear encouraged Indian tribes who are not
Federally recognized to become Federally recognized in order to have
power on a government-to-government level. Ms. Bear suggested honoring
culturally unidentifiable human remains by putting them in a national
cemetery of the state in which they were found.

Mr. Bobby C. Billie, Spiritual Leader, Independent Traditional Seminole
Nation of Florida, expressed concern that the Committee needed to
respect Indians and their knowledge of what to do with human remains and
materials, regardless of whether the Indian tribes are Federally
recognized or not. He stated Indians know the importance of
repatriating their ancestors' human remains and materials and should be
allowed to deal with them immediately. Mr. Billie stated that these
human remains and materials should have been left alone in the first
place, and he is concerned that human remains continue to be dug and he
cannot stop this because he is not Federally recognized. In response to
a concern about archaeological jobs, Mr. Billie stated that the
archaeological jobs will not be lost because the archaeologists will be
busy reburying Native American ancestors, which his Indian tribe cannot
do due to their beliefs.

Ms. Connie Cascales, Director of the White County Historical Museum in
Indiana, reported on the successful repatriation of five human remains
found three years ago in Indiana, and reported on a task force that is
currently being developed to handle addition human remains that are
found. Ms. Cascales then asked about the legality of a proposed
mausoleum-style burial ground to be built in a state park in Indiana.
She asked if this type of burial was legal, where the human remains
would be marked and could later be removed. Mr. McManamon replied that
without knowing the specifics of the case, he could not address the
issue properly.

Ms. Barbara Crandell, of the Native American Alliance of Ohio, spoke
about participation of non-Federally-recognized Indian groups in the
repatriation process. She stated that in the case of the Native
American Alliance of Ohio, these were Native Americans who would not be
eligible for Federal recognition but should not be excluded from
participating in repatriation of ancestral human remains and objects.
She stated that the Native American Alliance of Ohio wishes to
communicate on matters of repatriation with the Committee and with other
tribes, both Federally recognized and non-Federally recognized, and that
they do not wish to be granted any other benefits or take anything away
from the Federally-recognized tribes.

Mr. Bill Day, Director of Cultural and Historic Preservation of the
Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana and the Chairman of the United
South and Eastern Tribes Cultural and Heritage Committee, strongly
expressed the opinion that the Committee does not have the right to
repatriate to non-Federally-recognized Indian groups, and his tribe is
prepared to take action against this type of repatriation if necessary.
Mr. Day suggested that any non-Federally-recognized Indian groups
seeking to repatriate should go through the recognition process as his
and other tribes have done. Mr. Day expressed concern about a
repatriation that took place in Pensacola, Florida, for which he feels
there was not sufficient consultation with the appropriate Indian
tribes, and that the Federal agencies involved consulted with
inappropriate parties before repatriating to an inappropriate tribe.
Mr. Day has an additional concern with the Historic Preservation
Division of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History regarding
lack of consultation. Mr. Day then asked why Mr. Haas presented
information on the first draft of the proposal for the disposition of
culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains to a forum of
the Society of American Archaeology before this was made available
through the Federal Register, and stated that he considered this a
breach of faith. Ms. Naranjo replied that it was a decision made in
order to receive feedback from as many people as possible on the first
set of draft recommendations in order to better construct the second
draft. Mr. Day asked for time to discuss an issue before the Committee
at the next NAGPRA Committee meeting.

Mr. Richard Edwards, Professor of Law at University of Toledo College,
stated he was deeply affected when the representatives of Oneida Nation
of New York asked the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin to give the traditional
closing in their presentation for repatriation of the Oneida wampum
belt. Mr. Edwards expressed hope that more Indian tribes could get
together like the two Oneida groups and come to agreement. He suggested
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs could possibly develop a special
category of Indian tribes eligible for NAGPRA that are not Federally
recognized, and he urged the Committee members to follow their hearts
and not necessarily the law in the matter of repatriation to
non-Federally-recognized Indian groups. Mr. Edwards expressed concern
over the use of the term "sovereignty" as related to Indian tribe. Mr.
Edwards urged the Committee to follow the Corrow court case carefully,
and he expressed concern that the jury and court decided the issues
differently than the Committee. Regarding the Hawaiian figure dispute,
Mr. Edwards urged the Committee to consider right of possession even
more carefully in the future, particularly with regards to continued
possession on the part of museums and specific proof of inalienability.

Ms. Nadine Horne, a Mohawk Indian and a member of the Haudenosaunee,
stated that Indians need to make decisions regarding repatriation
issues. She recommended that if a committee is formed to hear issues
regarding repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains, it
should consist of only Federally-recognized Indian groups. Ms. Horne
stated that if a national summit occurred, such as was discussed, that
Native Americans should meet before the meeting and present their
overall view as one. Ms. Horne believes that state reburial laws are a
stumbling block for Federally-recognized Indian tribes. She feels that
state-recognized Indian tribes have access to more information than
other Indigenous people, such as Mr. Billie and even some
Federally-recognized Indian tribes.

Ms. Beverly Ironshield, Standing Rock Nation, South Dakota, stated that
she was attending the meeting out of support for the Southeastern Indian
tribes because of her feeling that "we are all related." Ms. Ironshield
also stated that no one has the right to keep these human remains and
materials and that they need to return to their home.

Mr. David Jumper, NAGPRA Representative of the Seminole Tribe of
Florida, briefly expressed agreement with Mr. Billie and Ms. Sekatau's
comments.

Ms. Shannon Larsen, E.E.C. and Vida Verde, stated that she feels the
intent of what the Committee was trying to do was good, but she feels
that it is unfair that individuals like Bobby C. Billie, who is a
traditional Indigenous person, do not have full rights to protect their
ancestors and do not have any standing under NAGPRA. She stated that
Mr. Billie is recognized by Indian nations and has been asked to do
reinterment numerous times, but since he is not recognized by the
Federal government, he has no rights and does not receive any
information concerning NAGPRA or any related topics. Ms. Larsen stated
that she hopes the Committee will go forward with their work and help
those who are who they say they are even if they are not Federally
recognized. Ms. Larsen expressed a concern of Mr. Billie about why the
Florida SHPO still issues permits to excavate burial grounds and an
additional concern about intentional excavations. Mr. McManamon replied
that the intent of the law was not to prevent archaeological excavations
on Federal land but to require consultation with appropriate culturally
affiliated Indian tribes. Mr. Monroe added that the Committee could not
reply to that issue without further detail, but that he would be happy
to discuss the situation personally. Mr. Jumper expressed concern about
excavation before identification. Mr. McManamon replied that in many
cases cultural affiliation is clear, and when it is not clear, the
Federal agency involved is responsible for determining which Indian
tribes need to be consulted. Mr. McManamon reported that in some cases
agencies and Indian tribe are developing written agreements on what to
do with future inadvertent discoveries. Mr. Haas added that in cases
where excavations occur on private or state lands, once items go to
institutions under Federal mandate the objects are covered by NAGPRA
under the future applicability sections. Ms. Larsen stated there are no
good reasons for any further excavations on Federal land.

Ms. Naida Lefthand, Assistant Director for the Kootenai Culture Program
of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and NAGPRA Coordinator
for the Kootenai Tribes of Montana, Idaho and British Columbia, thanked
the Committee for the decisions made in the Oneida dispute and the
Hawaiian figure dispute. She then expressed the hope that all Indian
tribes would work together in order to effect repatriation of all human
remains.

Ms. Ella Sekatau, Medicine Woman and Spiritual Leader for the women and
children of the Narragansett Tribe, expressed disagreement with the use
of the term "prehistoric" concerning Native American history, and stated
that there are no culturally unidentified or culturally unidentifiable
human remains. Ms. Sekatau stated that if ceremonies for reburial are
given with good faith, there can be no mistakes, and that especially in
the case of partial human remains, any ceremony would be beneficial.
Ms. Sekatau is opposed to the use of maps detailing the territorial
boundaries of her Indian tribe when determined by others.

Mr. Lee Tippett, South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office,
expressed concern that if Native Americans take extreme views and are
not willing to listen, the resulting litigation between museums and
agencies and Native Americans may affect the NAGPRA Act itself. Mr.
Tippett urged Native Americans to have patience with museums and
agencies in order to avoid that type of potential litigation.

Closing

Mr. Lawrence Hart gave the closing blessing. The meeting was adjourned
at 4:30 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 1996.

Approved:

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