MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
THIRTEENTH MEETING: MARCH 25-27, 1997
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA

The thirteenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie
Naranjo at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at the Forum Room, Forum
Building, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. The following
Review 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 Program Leader, Washington, DC
Ms. Jennifer Schansberg, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC

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

Mr. Corky Allen, Kialegee Etvlwv, Wetumka, Oklahoma
Ms. Judy Allen, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma
Ms. Paula Allen, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Michéle Almon, Esq., McGovern, Noel & Benik, Providence, Rhode
Island
Ms. Annette Arkeketa-Rendon, American Indian Reserve and Education
Coalition, Corpus Christi, Texas
Ms. Deanne Bahr, Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri, Reserve, Kansas
Mr. Dean Barlese, Nixon, Nevada
Ms. Susan E. Baxeranis, Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas
Ms. Joyce A. Bear, Muscogee Creek Nation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma
Mr. Turner Bear, Jr., Tahleguah, Oklahoma
Mr. Gregory L. Benik, Esq., McGovern, Noel & Benik, Providence,
Rhode Island
Ms. Robin Bellmard, Otoe-Missouria, Red Rock, Oklahoma
Ms. Dolores Subia Bigfoot, University of Oklahoma Health Services,
Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Eva Big Medicine, Longdale, Oklahoma
Mr. Bill Billeck, Repatriation Office, Smithsonian Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. James Bird, Moore, Oklahoma
Mr. Richard Black, Iowa Tribe, Perkins, Oklahoma
Mr. James Black Bear, Jr., Geary, Oklahoma
Ms. Cindy Bloom, Midwest Soaring, Prairie Grove, Illinois
Mr. Kent Blunsett, Iowa Delegation, Columbia, Missouri
Mr. Jim Bradley, R.S. Peabody, Andover, Massachusetts
Mr. Robert Brooks, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Oklahoma
Ms. Tracey Brussat, Museum of Natural History, Roger Williams Park,
Providence, Rhode Island
Mr. Pedro Calimán, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Roy Callison, Park Hill, Oklahoma
Ms. Susan Callison, Park Hill, Oklahoma
Ms. Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Connie Cascales, Monticello, Indiana
Mr. Chester R. Carver, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Mr. Hugh Clubfoot, Northern Cheyenne, Lame Deer, Montana
Ms. Ellen Cordell, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman,
Oklahoma
Mr. Kent Collier, McLoud, Oklahoma
Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Thornville,
Ohio
Ms. Debora Crazdell, Thornville, Ohio
Mr. Billford Curley, Sr., Cheyenne, Lame Deer, Montana
Mr. Logan Curley, Cheyenne, Sr., Busby, Montana
Ms. Jane Dague, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Michael Darrow, Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Fort Cobb, Oklahoma
Ms. Linda Kawai`ono Delaney, Honolulu, Hawaii
Mr. John Dendy, Ft. Riley, Kansas
Mr. Steve Denson, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Nancy Derrig, Providence Parks Department, Providence, Rhode
Island
Ms. Julie Droke, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman,
Oklahoma
Mr. Randle Durant, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
Mr. Maurice Eben, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Sutcliff, Nevada
Ms. Helaire Echohawk, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Alice Edwards, Toledo, Ohio
Mr. Richard W. Edwards, Jr., University of Toledo, College of Law,
Toledo, Ohio
Mr. Allen D. Emarthle, Seminole, Oklahoma
Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest Soaring, Oak Park, Illinois
Mr. R. Lee Fleming, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Perkins, Oklahoma
Mr. Gillian Flynn, Repatriation Office, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Lee Foster, U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving
Grounds, Maryland
Ms. Leanne Fowler, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Ms. Annette B. Fraum, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman,
Oklahoma
Ms. Shannon Freeman, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Glenda Galvan, Chickasaw, Ada, Oklahoma
Mr. Hector Garcia, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Mr. Darren Geimausaddle, Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum,
Canyon, Texas
Mr. Marshall Gettys, State Historic Preservation Office, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma
Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. Curtis Gilfillan, Sac & Fox of Missouri, Reserve, Kansas
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Mr. Dell Greek, AFRC-FM-PWE, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
Mr. Marcus B. Griffin, U.S. Army Construction Engineering,
Champaign, Illinois
Ms. Lesa Hagel, Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing, Rapid City, South
Dakota
Ms. Stacey Halfmoon, Caddo, Binger, Oklahoma
Ms. Ange Hamilton, Oklahoma Indian Legal Service, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma
Ms. Cheri Haney, Yuchi Tribe, Glenpool, Oklahoma
Mr. Michael Haney, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
Mr. Jeff Harjo, Wewoka, Oklahoma
Ms. Helen Harris, Waco, Texas
Ms. Betty E. Hart, Clinton, Oklahoma
Ms. Connie Hart-Yellowman, El Reno, Oklahoma
Ms. Cristina Hart-Yellowman, El Reno, Oklahoma
Mr. Light Foot Hawkins, Cheyenne, Concho, Oklahoma
Ms. Roberta Hayworth, U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis,
Missouri
Ms. Marnita Hickman, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Princeton, Missouri
Ms. Billie R. Hoff, Caddo, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Ms. Dianna Horning, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman,
Oklahoma
Ms. Andrea Hunter, National Museum of Natural History, NAGPRA
Review Committee, Washington, DC
Mr. Vernon Hunter, Caddo Tribe, Oklahoma
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Jason Jackson, Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Mr. Greg Johnson, University of Chicago, Denver, Colorado
Mr. Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Clara Sue Kidwell, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Tom Killion, Repatriation Office, Smithsonian Institute,
Washington, DC
Ms. Frances Kilpatrick, Hominy, Oklahoma
KC Kraft, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Lisa Kraft, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Shawnee, Oklahoma
Pat Leading Fox, Pawnee, Oklahoma
Mr. David Liptz, Stecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco, Texas
Mr. Charles A. Lonechief, Pawnee Tribe, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Ms. Marianne Long, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Perkins, Oklahoma
Ms. Cynthia Longhorn, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, Tecumseh, Oklahoma
Ms. Rhonda Lueck, St. Louis, Missouri
Mr. James A. Mann, Southern Cheyenne Tsistsistas, Longdale,
Oklahoma
Ms. Arion Mayes, Boulder, Colorado
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Westerville,
Ohio
Ms. Suzette McCord-Rogers, Kansas State Historical Society,
Highland, Kansas
Ms. Roberta McGregor, The Witte Museum, San Antonio, Texas
Mr. Luther Medicine Bird, Southern Cheyenne, Oklahoma
Mr. Armand Minthorn, Pendleton, Oregon
Ms. Wildena Moffer, Caddo Tribal Council, Fort Cobb, Oklahoma
Ms. Paula Molloy, Repatriation Office, Smithsonian, Washington,
D.C.
Ms. Patricia Mercado-Allinger, Texas Historical Commission, Austin,
Texas
Ms. Gingy Nail, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Lisa Nail, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Mr. Ed Natay, National Park Service, Southwest Support Office,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Phil J. Newkumet, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Kunani Nihipali, Hui M_lama I N_ K_puna 'O Hawai'i Nei,
Haleiwa, Hawaii
Ms. Helen Norris, Pawnee, Oklahoma
Ms. Karen L. O'Brien, Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas
Mr. John W. O'Hear, Missouri State University, Missouri
Ms. Roberta Pailes, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Jennie Parker, Northern Cheyenne, Lame Deer, Montana
Mr. Fred Parton, Caddo, Oklahoma
Mr. Thurman Parton, Caddo, Binger, Oklahoma
Ms. Patrice Peakheart, El Reno, Oklahoma
Mr. Joe Pechonick, Delaware Tribe, Tribal Headquarters,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Ms. Paula Pechonick, Delaware Tribe, Tribal Headquarters,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Mr. Jim Pepper Henry, Kaw Nation of Oklahoma
Mr. John Pewamo, Kickapoo Nation, Topeka, Kansas
Mr. John Wesley Phillips, Flint, Texas
Ms. Lesley Rankin-Hill, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Charles Redcorn, Osage, Oklahoma
Ms. Jeri Redcorn, Caddo, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Minoma Red Hat, Longdale, Oklahoma
Mr. Jim Rhodd, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, White Cloud,
Kansas
Ms. Alexa Roberts, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Leah Rosenmeier, R.S. Peabody Museum, Phillips Academy,
Andover, Massachuttes
Mr. Victor Roubidoux, Iowa Tribe, Perkins, Oklahoma
Mr. Joseph Schomaker, Department of Energy, Fernald Site,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mr. Tom Shaisse, Wewoka, Oklahoma
Ms. Rolla H. Shaller, Panhandle Plains Historical Museum, Canyon,
Texas
Mr. John Sipes, Southern Cheyenne, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Calvin B. Smith, Strecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco,
Texas
Mr. David Smith, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska
Mr. Chuck Smythe, National Museum of Natural History, Washington
D.C.
Mr. Gary Spease, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Princeton, Missouri
Ms. Hannah Kihalani Springer, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kailua,
Kona, Hawaii
Mr. Marvin E. Stepson, Osage Nation Elders, Fairfax, Oklahoma
Ms. Deborah Summers, Sanford, Texas
Ms. Barbara A. Sutteer, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain
Support System Office, Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Roderick Sweezy, Southern Arapaho, Concho, Oklahoma
Mr. Virgil Swift, Wichita Tribe, Anadarko, Oklahoma
A.J. Taylor, Wichita Affiliated Tribes, Tempe, Arizona
Mr. Randy Thies, Topeka, Kansas
Mr. Russell Thornton, Smithsonian Institute, Anthropology, UCLA,
Los Angeles, California
Ms. Pat Tirrell, Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman,
Oklahoma
Mr. Keith Tolman, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma
Mr. Jack Trope, Sant'Angelo & Trope, Cranford, New Jersey
Ms. Ann Tweedie, Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Ted Underwood, Seminole Nation, Seminole, Oklahoma
Mr. Tecumseh Underwood, Seminole Nation, Seminole, Oklahoma
Mr. Curly Bear Wagner, Blackfeet, Browning, Montana
Ms. Pamela Wallace, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Judy Wallingstick, Sac & Fox, Stroud, Oklahoma
Mr. Joe Watkins, Seven Tribes of the Anadarko Agency, Anadarko,
Oklahoma
Ms. Lucy Whalley, Ft. Riley, Kansas
Mr. Melvin White Bird, El Reno, Oklahoma
Mr. Luther White Eagle, King Fisher, Oklahoma
Mr. Richard R. Whitman, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Michael Wiant, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois
Ms. Carrie V. Wilson, Quapaw Tribe, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Mr. Ed Wilson, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Robert Wilson, Concise, Oklahoma
Mr. Terry Wilson, Cheyenne, Clinton, Oklahoma
Mr. Travis Willingham, Iowa Delegation, Columbia, Missouri
Mr. Frank Winchell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District,
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Ms. Tonya Wolf, Repatriation Office, National Museum of the
American Indian, Bronx, New York
Ms. Sonya Wolff, National Museum of the American Indian, Bronx, New
York
Mr. Frank E. Wozniak, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Jacilee Wray, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington
Mr. John Wright, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania
Ms. Alma Yelloweyes, Cheyenne, Clinton, Oklahoma
Mr. Lee Yelloweyes, Cheyenne, Clinton, Oklahoma
Mr. Gordon L. Yellowman, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes, Concho, Oklahoma

A welcoming song was performed by the University of Oklahoma American
Indian Student Association Singers, and the opening prayer was given
by Ms. Joyce Shield, Miss Indian O.U. Dr. Michael Mares, Director of
the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, welcomed the Committee, the
National Park Service (NPS) staff, and the audience members on behalf
of University of Oklahoma President David Boren. Ms. Naranjo welcomed
everyone to the meeting and asked the Review Committee members to
introduce themselves.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon thanked the Review Committee members for their time and
efforts regarding implementation of the NAGPRA Statute. 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 gave a brief review of the agenda.

Implementation Update

Notices of Intent to Repatriate and Inventory Completion:
Mr. McManamon reported that the NPS has received over 870 summaries
and over 620 inventories from museums and federal agencies to date.
On preliminary review, over 270 documents were found to be incomplete,
and efforts have been made to contact the relevant museums or agencies
in order to get additional information or clarification.
Mr. McManamon pointed out that a listing of museums and agencies that
have submitted inventories and summaries to the NPS was in the
Committee binders.

Mr. McManamon stated that a breakdown of the total number of inventory
extensions for museums granted by the Secretary of Interior was in the
Committee binders. He explained to the Committee that the extension
process seemed to be moving along as expected.

Mr. McManamon stated that 164 notices of intent to repatriate have
been published in the Federal Register and 119 are awaiting
publication. He explained that the NPS tries to ensure that all of
the various aspects of compliance with NAGPRA are included in the
notices and that a signed copy of the final text is received from the
museum or agency before publication.

Grants Program: Mr. McManamon reported that the President's
proposed 1998 budget included 2.3 million dollars for Fiscal Year (FY)
1998 grants.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McManamon pointed out that in the Committee
binders, there was a copy of the new interim regulations on civil
penalties, which were published as interim rules in the Federal
Register on January 13, 1997. He added that as interim rules, they
are currently in effect.

Other Matters: Mr. McManamon stated that Mr. McKeown remains
active in providing technical assistance regarding the anti-
trafficking provisions of NAGPRA. Mr. McKeown described a recent,
significant case, resolved by pre-trial diversion, involving a museum
that sold an object at auction. He stated that the object was
returned to the tribe for repatriation.

Mr. McManamon explained that all of the Committee members whose terms
expire in April have been renominated for the Committee. He described
a recent change in the Committee's Charter, providing for renewal
terms of three years and new terms of six years, which will provide
for regular turnover on the Committee. He added that the Department
of Interior's intent is to continue the Review Committee, and stated
that hopefully the Committee nominations will be selected by the
Secretary in the near future.

Mr. McManamon pointed out that the NPS staff has done an exceptional
job in the implementation of the Statute, and complimented Mr. Timothy
McKeown, Ms. Jennifer Schansberg, Ms. Mandy Murphy, Ms. Jean Kelley,
and others in the NPS for their continued efforts regarding NAGPRA.

Mr. McKeown described the NAGPRA course available through the
University of Nevada at Reno, which is currently offered approximately
five times per year throughout the country. Ms. Naranjo suggested
that this course would be valuable for new Committee members in order
to acquaint them with NAGPRA. Mr. Hart agreed with Ms. Naranjo's
suggestion.

Compliance by Federal Agencies

Mr. McManamon stated that in response to the Committee's request at
the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina meeting for more detailed information
regarding agency compliance with NAGPRA, the NPS requested information
from federal agencies regarding compliance by the agencies as a whole
and by their individual units; a copy of this letter was included in
the Committee binders. The NPS also included a listing of federal
agency summaries received through March 10, 1997, a listing of federal
agency inventories on file at the NPS, and copies of the responses by
federal agencies to the NPS inquiry received to date.

Mr. Lee Foster, Project Officer and Program Manager for Native
People's Issues with the U.S. Army Environmental Center in Maryland,
summarized the actions of the Department of Army regarding compliance
with NAGPRA. In 1994, the Environmental Center developed a program to
locate all of the archaeological collections nationwide from Army
installations, including a determination of the existence of NAGPRA-
related materials. A total of 170 installations, occupying seven and
a half million acres of land, were investigated for compliance with
section 6 of NAGPRA, of which 97 received section 6 summary reports
and 72 received negative findings letters after a study by the St.
Louis District Corps of Engineers. The 97 summary reports have been
submitted to the NPS. Twenty installations were identified as
requiring section 5 inventory work, now in draft form and scheduled to
be completed by the end of the fiscal year. New Army regulations will
be final within the next month instructing installation commanders to
comply with all aspects of NAGPRA, including the section 3
requirements for post-Act and inadvertent discoveries.

Mr. Haas stated that agencies were required by law to submit their
inventories and asked why the Department of Army did not notify the
Department of the Interior about the lack of compliance on the part of
the Army regarding inventories, the plan of action by the Army to
complete the inventory process, and the approximate number of remains
under the control of the Army. Mr. Foster responded that this was
mostly due to the large number of Army installations. Mr. Foster
explained that the process of developing new regulations to deal with
NAGPRA took considerable time, and added that while the Army
recognizes that it is late, it is trying to catch up. Mr. Foster
added that his office has had regular contact with the NPS and
Mr. McManamon. Mr. McManamon confirmed that he has had regular
contact with the Department of Army, as well as other federal
agencies, on an informal basis regarding NAGPRA.

Mr. Sullivan asked if there was a central Department of Defense entity
that coordinates information exchange or policy development among
different service branches regarding cultural resource management.
Mr. Foster replied that there is an entity that deals with that, but
each service needs to be proactive on its own, as opposed to receiving
guidance from Defense.

The Committee discussed the issue of federal agency compliance with
NAGPRA. Mr. Sullivan asked for a characterization of the levels that
the various federal agencies understand and are proactive in complying
with NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon responded that the agencies are very
uneven in their response to NAGPRA, with varying approaches to
compliance ranging from a nationally-guided, agency-wide approach to a
local-level approach. Mr. McManamon added two final factors affecting
agency compliance: a variety of types of action taken by regional and
local agencies concerning implementation decisions regarding NAGPRA
and the governmental downsizing that occurred at the same time as
NAGPRA was enacted. Mr. Haas expressed his concern about the lack of
agency-wide response from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
Forest Service, the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. McManamon replied that the BLM submitted a summary statement and
is in the process of reviewing their collections. He added that the
BLM and the Forest Service have been working together, specifically in
Arizona and New Mexico, regarding cultural affiliation determinations.
Mr. McManamon stated that both the Forest Service and the Corps of
Engineers are working on NAGPRA activities, but do not appear to have
a comprehensive approach. He added that the Bureau of Reclamation has
submitted inventories from all but one region.

Mr. Walker raised the jurisdictional issues of federal agency
collections currently in museums and described an earlier Committee
concern about federal agencies not taking responsibility for such
collections. Mr. McManamon replied that the NPS has been emphasizing
this responsibility and stated that most federal agencies understand
this ultimate responsibility; however, some agencies may have ongoing
agreements with museums regarding responsibility for curation of such
collections. Mr. McManamon added that the NPS has been trying to
promote partnerships in such situations between agencies and museums.
Mr. Haas added that jurisdictional issues are still disputed in the
museum world and ownership of such collections is not always clear
cut.

Mr. Monroe pointed out that museums and tribes often went through
similar staff and resource reductions as the government at the same
time NAGPRA was passed, and museums are still being held accountable
for implementing NAGPRA, under threat of civil penalties. He then
questioned the impact that spotty federal compliance may have on the
potential to apply civil penalties to institutions, and asked about
possible recourse for tribes who may be negatively affected by lack of
compliance when dealing with noncompliant federal agencies.
Mr. McManamon recommended that if tribes are having difficulty dealing
with a federal agency at one level, that perhaps they could find a
more appropriate level to deal with in the agency. In response to the
possibility of assessment of civil penalties by the Secretary of
Interior while federal agencies continue to be out of compliance,
Mr. McManamon stated that this could occur, and museums could
potentially use that as an argument in their favor. He added that is
a good reason for the Secretary to try to emphasize that Interior
bureaus give this issue serious attention.

Mr. Haas raised the following issues for future Committee
consideration: how many remains are actually not being reported and
how to get the upper levels of federal agencies to give NAGPRA
priority. Mr. Haas suggested that Congress help with federal agency
compliance, and recommended addressing this issue in the Committee's
Report to Congress. Mr. McManamon stated that the Report to Congress
was one way to address the issue of federal agency compliance, as well
as the letters that were sent to federal agencies in response to
Committee discussions at the Myrtle Beach meeting. He also stated
that if there is a concern about a smaller group of agencies, a
focussed approach could be used by the Committee and the NPS in order
to determine the level of compliance.

Discussion of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Mr. McManamon summarized the process of developing regulations on
culturally unidentifiable human remains to date. In response to the
first set of draft regulations published in 1994, the Committee
received over 120 written comments. The Committee then developed the
second set of draft recommendations, which were also published and
received a number of comments. Based on the strong and varied
responses in both sets of comments, the Committee reviewed other
approaches to resolving the issue of culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

Mr. McManamon stated that one Committee recommendation was to identify
different categories of culturally unidentifiable; such as remains
that are culturally unidentifiable due to affiliation with groups
ineligible for NAGPRA. In such cases, the Committee has developed a
method of dealing with those situations that involves consultation
with recognized tribes that might have possible affiliation with the
remains before repatriation to a non-federally recognized group. He
further explained that the Committee has discussed recommendations
that would utilize geographical information of remains and objects as
a factor to aid in developing affiliation.

Mr. Monroe stated that this issue remains contentious and difficult,
particularly surrounding the category of ancient remains; that another
difficult category would be remains that are culturally unidentified
and historical in terms of age; and that the proposed geographical
affiliation recommendation had a number of problems. Mr. Monroe
emphasized the Committee's feeling that this issue is extremely
important to resolve, in order to repatriate the substantial number of
culturally unidentified remains, and he reiterated Committee's
concerns about the process of developing regulations, especially
regarding the lack of direct dialogue between members of the museum
and scientific community and members of the Native American community
on this issue. He stated that at the Myrtle Beach meeting, in
response to this problem, the Committee discussed the possibility of a
summit meeting held specifically to help develop regulations on
culturally unidentified remains.

Mr. Walker pointed out the conflicting opinions contained in the
comments that ranged from a need to resolve this issue immediately in
order to repatriate remains as soon as possible to a feeling that
hurrying the process could result in errors. Mr. Haas pointed out
that this topic has been an issue since the first Committee meeting,
and he expressed concern that some agencies and museums were just
moving ahead with repatriation of remains that other agencies and
museums would consider unidentifiable, like Tonto National Forest.
Mr. Haas recommended the summit approach to resolving this issue, and
suggested that it be named the Tallbull Summit, in honor of the late
Mr. William Tallbull. Mr. Hart endorsed the summit idea.

Mr. Monroe suggested that the Committee discuss two topics: first, a
summary of this issue to date, both for the purpose of a summit and
for future work on the subject; and second, specific ideas of how to
structure the summit. The Committee discussed the contention
surrounding the issue of ancient remains, including the reluctance of
many groups to repatriate to nonrecognized tribes without the
involvement of federally recognized tribes. One reason for this
reluctance could be the potential that standing for groups in
repatriation issues might extend into other areas not related to
NAGPRA. The Committee again discussed the partnership approach
between recognized and nonrecognized tribes acting together to
repatriate remains affiliated with non-federally recognized tribes.
Mr. Hart suggested that one of the first points in the Committee's
recommendation should be that the remains of all Native American
ancestors need to be repatriated, while recognizing that not all
tribes wish to have anything to do with their ancestors for spiritual
reasons.

The Committee then focused their discussion on the issue of ancient
remains. One problem with ancient remains is that some ancient
remains do not seem to have cultural affiliation with any present-day
tribes, while other ancient remains are potentially affiliated with an
entire group of tribes. Mr. Walker suggested following the standard
that there is a relationship of shared group identity between all
modern Native Americans and Native American remains in general,
wherever they came from.

The Committee then discussed some of the criticisms of the strategy
previously used to develop regulations on culturally unidentified, and
identified that one main criticism was that the Committee was going
outside of the statutory language in the definition of cultural
affiliation. Mr. Monroe pointed out that the Committee heard from the
Native American community that all human remains need to be
repatriated, except in cases where the affiliated tribe clearly did
not want the remains returned, and the Committee heard a number of
comments from the museum and scientific community that objected to the
notion that all remains should be returned. Ms. Naranjo stated that
the pueblos have a policy of nonreturn of human remains based on their
spiritual beliefs. The Committee then discussed the comments of the
museum and scientific community that although the Secretary of
Interior has the authority to promulgate regulations concerning the
disposition of culturally unidentified remains, there is no statutory
basis requiring return of unidentified human remains. Mr. Haas
mentioned another concern in the museum community that no guidelines
were provided for making decisions about culturally unidentified
remains. Mr. Hart pointed out that not all remains had been buried
initially, so strict use of the term "rebury" would be inappropriate
in some instances.

Mr. Monroe mentioned another category was remains that were identified
and culturally affiliated, but not specifically enough to meet the
legal tests, such as when there is a designation of Sioux, but no
designation for which Sioux tribe. Mr. Sullivan stated that another
category of unidentified remains would be remains for which there is
no information available in the catalogue records. Mr. Sullivan then
reiterated that in the first draft of the recommendations, the
Committee unanimously adopted the position that the ultimate choice
about disposition of human remains should be in the hands of Native
American people. Mr. Haas suggested putting that position in the
Committee's Report to Congress; that although this Committee was not
able to come up with recommendations on the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains, it is the position of this Committee
that the cultural affiliation of Native American human remains lies
with Native Americans, and the decisions on the ultimate disposition
of those remains should rest with Native Americans. Mr. Walker added
that there was consensus within the Committee that the associated
burial items of culturally unaffiliated remains should be treated in
the same manner. Mr. Monroe stated that associated burial items would
have different legal implications that would need to be resolved by
Congress. Mr. Haas suggested that the associated burial items could
be placed in the Committee's Report to Congress.

The Committee then discussed the details of the culturally
unidentified remains summit. Mr. Monroe summarized that the purpose
of the summit was to bring together members of the Native American
community, museum and scientific community, and federal agencies to
try to develop, through dialogue, different approaches to resolving
the issue of culturally unidentifiable human remains. The Committee
then discussed funding possibilities, including the ramifications of
trying to establish a NAGPRA grant to fund the summit versus trying to
find private funding. Ms. Naranjo suggested limiting the number of
participants in order to have better dialogue. Mr. Hart recommended
that all members of the current Committee be invited to participate,
regardless of reappointment, as well as the people who worked on the
initial legislation of NAGPRA. The Committee decided that 25 to 30
participants would be a reasonable number. Mr. Hart added that the
Northern Cheyenne people in attendance at the meeting agreed that it
would be appropriate to call the summit the Tallbull Summit.

The Committee discussed possible locations and times for the summit,
and agreed that it should take place as soon as possible, in a
location that was conducive to discussions. Mr. Monroe suggested the
summit be facilitated by an impartial, professional facilitator. The
Committee discussed summit specifics, including: participants who
were very informed about this issue; a packet of materials that would
be provided to all participants, with background information on the
topic, including testimony presented to the Committee, written or
spoken, and previous Committee discussions; participants representing
various tribes, the scientific and museum community, and federal
agencies, who are dedicated to trying to move this issue forward
through dialogue rather than simply re-articulating their position;
emphasizing the mission of trying to reach a better understanding and
some possible resolutions regarding the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Monroe agreed to
work on funding sources.

Requests Regarding Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Baylor University, Strecker Museum - Calvin Smith: Mr. Smith
summarized the efforts of Baylor University to comply with NAGPRA,
including consultation with the Wichita, Tonkawa, and Comanche groups
in order to repatriate remains. Mr. Smith reported that repatriation
efforts were being finalized on a number of remains, with a list being
supplied to the Committee, and plans were made, with approval from the
Wichita, Tonkawa and Comanche, to reinter all human remains in the
possession of the university at the common cemetery at Fort Hood,
Texas. Mr. Smith stated that the university contacted the NPS when
they were asked to turn over all of the remains to Mr. Shiloh Perkins,
whom they were not familiar with. Included on the list were some
culturally unidentified remains, all, except two, coming from
traditional Tonkawa- and Wichita-occupied areas. Mr. Smith stated
that Baylor University was seeking guidance on what to do with all of
the remains.

The Committee then discussed the issue. Mr. McKeown believed
Mr. Shiloh Perkins was a representative of a non-federally recognized,
consortium group of Indians in Texas. Mr. Sullivan felt it would be
appropriate to file a notice of inventory completion and intention to
repatriate to the recognized tribes who were consulted and invite
other claimants to come forward. Mr. McManamon asked if there was any
temporal information concerning the remains. Mr. Smith replied that
the remains were believed to be from the late archaic/early
neoAmerican periods, and could be considered ancient remains.

After further discussion, the Committee stated that Baylor University
is doing the correct thing, and that they need to make sure that all
possible tribes or groups that could have been resident in that area
have been consulted, including the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and others; that
the university documents all of the evidence, including oral history,
folkloric, biological, etcetera; that the university is moving in the
direction of making a determination of cultural affiliation; and that
once these steps have been satisfied, the university will be able to
move forward with repatriation. Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS
would send a letter to the Strecker Museum at Baylor University
detailing the Committee's points.

Department of Energy, Fernald - Joseph Schomaker: Mr. Schomaker
stated that the Department of Energy (DOE) is requesting the
Committee's recommendation regarding culturally unidentifiable remains
unearthed during a water supply project. Despite all attempts to
avoid the 30 sites along the project's right of way, three sites were
unavoidably impacted and the remains were unearthed, including one
site containing Fort Ancient remains. Efforts were made to try to
determine the tribal origin of the remains, including consultation
with four federally recognized tribes and ten state groups within the
state of Ohio, and other groups. Tribes consulted include the Eastern
Shawnee, the Absentee-Shawnee, the Loyal Shawnee, and the Miami Tribe
of Ohio. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma was also consulted, along with
the Native American Alliance of Ohio, although further negotiations
did not show a connection between these groups and the remains. The
groups that were consulted expressed their desire to have the remains
reinterred on federal land. Mr. Schomaker stated that DOE's position
is that the remains are culturally unaffiliated, based on information
from federally recognized tribes, state recognized groups, the State
Historical Preservation Office, Cincinnati Museum of Natural History,
and forensic experts. The DOE would like to repatriate the remains on
federal land.

After discussion, the Committee stated that the remains were a deed of
gift, are under the control of DOE, and clearly fit the definition of
Native American human remains under NAGPRA. Since the remains are
considered culturally unaffiliated, despite all efforts to identify
them, under the Statute the remains must be retained by the DOE until
such time as there is some clear mechanism for disposition. The
Committee suggested that the DOE consult with potentially affiliated
groups and try to develop an appropriate mechanism for the retention
of these remains until the Committee is able to develop
recommendations on the disposition of culturally unaffiliated remains
in general, and a broader decision can be made on the disposition of
these specific remains. Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS would send
a letter to the Department of Energy, Fernald Site detailing the
Committee's points.

Oakland Museum of California, De Anza College, City of Santa Clara:
Mr. Walker explained that all three groups have remains from an area
that historically was occupied by the Ohlone Tribe and that there are
no federally recognized Ohlone groups. The Oakland Museum and De Anza
College are working together, treating their collections as one group
for repatriation purposes. These two organizations have come to the
Committee with a proposal for repatriation that follows the California
reburial law; repatriation to the most likely descendants, as
determined by the Native American Heritage Commission. The City of
Santa Clara did analysis of the human remains of the one individual
and an associated artifact in their collection and determined that
these were associated with the Muwekma Band of Ohlone, a non-federally
recognized organization. Mr. Walker stated that he feels there is
insufficient documentation in each of these cases to make a
recommendation and that all of these groups are nonrecognized.

After discussion, the Committee agreed that the NPS should send a
letter to the Oakland Museum, De Anza College, and the City of Santa
Clara commending their goal of repatriation, asking for additional
documentation on chronology of tribal occupation of area lands and
details on cultural affiliation, and requiring broad consultation with
the federally recognized tribes in their general area. Mr. McManamon
added that the NPS could look at the geographical distribution of
recognized tribes and suggest some specific examples for consultation
purposes.

Henry County Historical Society: Mr. Walker explained that the
Henry County Historical Society in New Castle, Indiana, has a
collection of human skeletal remains from the local area, including
one Seneca individual and one Civil War soldier, and they are
culturally affiliating this material with the Pokagon Potawatomi
group, which is a federally recognized tribe, and the Miami of
Indiana, which is a group trying to gain federal recognition.
Mr. Walker pointed out some concerns regarding this case, including
that the Committee does not have any authority regarding the Civil War
soldier remains, that the Miami Tribe of Indiana is not federally
recognized, that the Historical Society needs to deal directly with
the Seneca regarding remains with recorded affiliation with the Seneca
Tribe, that additional consultation needs to be done with the
remainder of the Potawatomi groups and other groups in the area and in
Ohio based upon the records of the remains, and additional information
regarding the cultural history of the remains and the area need to be
provided to help determine affiliation. The Committee directed the
NPS to send a letter to the Henry County Historical Society expressing
these concerns and requesting the additional information.

Implementation of the Statute in Oklahoma and Texas

Mr. Randle Durant, Choctaw, spoke on behalf of Governor Bill Anatobe.
He stated that taking care of remains and artifacts is of concern to
the Choctaws, and added that he appreciates the great work that the
Committee is doing concerning this issue.

Ms. Marianne Long, Cultural Preservationist for the Iowa Tribe of
Oklahoma, read a statement from Mr. Jonathan Buffalo of the Sac & Fox
Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, the Meskwaki Nation. Mr. Buffalo
stated that no remains are unidentified or unaffiliated; Native
American people know who they are. He stated that his tribe knew
there were previously other tribes in their current area, and his
tribe feels it is their duty to champion the cause of these ancestors.
Mr. Buffalo explained the ceremonial process of burying the dead,
emphasized that this process has been disconnected and violated, and
stated that these remains need to be reburied.

Mr. Lee Fleming, Director of Tribal Operations for the Iowa Tribe of
Oklahoma, spoke about the importance of the Committee following the
regulations when dealing with NAGPRA issues, specifically regarding
the definition of Indian tribe. He also emphasized the importance of
returning remains immediately.

Mr. Victor Roubidoux, Treasurer for the Iowa Tribe, emphasized the
importance of repatriating to only federally recognized tribes.

Mr. Richard Black, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, described difficulties his
tribe has experienced with Missouri University regarding repatriation
issues. He added that tribal people should determine the disposition
of unidentifiable remains.

Mr. Michael Haney, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, stated that of the 39
federally recognized tribes in Oklahoma, only two are indigenous to
the area. He added that Public Law 101-601, NAGPRA, was originally
passed because of the great need for protection of Native American
graves and that the success of present-day Native Americans depends
upon the return of Native American ancestral remains. Mr. Haney
described the Sacred Sites Act, signed into law by President Clinton
on March 26, 1996, which defines what is a sacred site, mandates that
all federal agencies have procedures on how to protect sacred sites,
and describes what diminishes the integrity of the site, directly or
indirectly. Mr. Haney stated that he would like to see a moratorium
on any excavations of sacred sites for federal agencies, until Native
Americans can define what is a sacred site and what criteria need to
be followed, recognizing that not all sacred sites are burial grounds
but can, in fact, be ceremonial grounds. Mr. Haney explained that
many southeastern Native Americans are connected through the past, and
the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma are working with other Southeast
tribes toward a consensus regarding disposition of unidentified
remains. He spoke about the importance of repatriation to federally
recognized tribes. Mr. Haney expressed concern about a lack of
cooperation on the part of several museums and a lack of continuity
between federal agencies in implementing NAGPRA, and he described how
16 of 19 mounds were lost in Illinois due to erosion permits through
the Corps of Engineers. He expressed a need for a "troubleshooter"
that was familiar with and could go between the different federal
agencies regarding these issues. Mr. Haas asked Mr. Haney if there
was a southeastern coalition of tribes acting on repatriation issues,
and Mr. Haney replied that the Oklahoma tribes are currently working
on that type agreement.

Mr. Ted Underwood, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, expressed his hope
that the Five Tribes of Oklahoma, comprising over 80 percent of
Oklahoma's Native American population, would be able to establish an
organization to work together on repatriation issues. Regarding
culturally unidentified remains, Mr. Underwood stated that the
Intertribal Council of the Five Tribes passed a resolution claiming
ancestral remains belong to the nation from whose geographical
aboriginal homelands the remains came from; affiliation for remains
that come from shared geographical aboriginal homelands will be
determined by the Five Tribes. He stated that they do not recognize a
division between prehistoric and historic remains; all remains labeled
in this way belong to Native American people. He stated that the
Seminole Nation's practice is to rebury remains in the exact location
they were taken from, but since that is not always possible, a
national cemetery should be established in order to protect the
remains. Mr. Underwood stated that the Statute should be followed
regarding repatriation to federally recognized tribes, and that
federally recognized tribes should work with the nonrecognized groups
they feel are legitimate regarding repatriation claims. Mr. Underwood
then described one case where tribes working corroboratively in
Oklahoma and Florida were able to save a burial site, on county land,
from excavation.

Ms. Carrie Wilson, Quapaw Tribe, described the positive effects of
federal and state laws concerning human remains, specifically
regarding one skull, located in an antique shop, that was repatriated
through such laws. She explained that the tribes in Arkansas
repatriate on a geographical basis, when specific affiliation is
unknown. She added that two cemetery sites have been established in
Alabama state parks for reburial of ancestral remains, with a total
goal of six cemeteries. Ms. Wilson agreed with the idea of federally
recognized tribes acting together on repatriation issues on a
geographical basis, and the Quapaw Tribe wishes to stay within the
Statute regarding repatriation to only federally recognized tribes.

Ms. Lisa Kraft, Historic Preservation and NAGPRA Officer for Citizen
Potawatomi Nation, described the historical migrations and divisions
of the Potawatomi people, which resulted in the seven current bands of
the Potawatomi Nation, six in the United States and one in Canada.
She described the problem of lack of consultation with all Potawatomi
bands regarding repatriation issues. She stated that the bands in
Kansas and Oklahoma received far fewer inventory and summary listings
than the band in Wisconsin. She described the extensive geographical
areas that the Potawatomi traveled through or occupied historically.
She stated that remedies need to be found to correct this problem of
consistent consultation with only part of the Potawatomi Nation, and
that the Citizen Potawatomi Nation has passed resolutions supporting
the Statute as is, with repatriation to federally recognized tribes
only. Ms. Kraft stated that her tribe will be sending out 1,500
letters to museums and repositories stating who they are and making a
claim for copies of correspondence that has been sent to other
Potawatomi bands and not the Citizen Band. Mr. McManamon explained
that the NPS reviews the notices and tries to ensure that all tribes
have been consulted, but by the time the NPS gets the notices, the
consultation process has been completed. He added that the NPS might
be able to include an announcement or article in one of their
publications describing the situation. Mr. Walker added that when
reviewing the notices, the Committee and the NPS should be able to
require that every time any Potawatomi group is listed as a culturally
affiliated group, that all the other groups should be contacted.

Mr. Michael Darrow, Fort Sill Apache Tribe, described the different
Apache tribes and their forced historical migrations. He stated that
in an effort to deal with repatriation concerns, the All-Apache
Cultural Committee was developed between the nine Apache groups. He
stated that the Fort Sill Apache Tribe is developing its own
repatriation policy, showing the areas and times where the tribe was
located and under what names and terms. Mr. Darrow described problems
with fake Apache groups in Virginia, Alabama, and Florida, and
problems with other tribes claiming Apache remains through
intermarriage.

Mr. Virgil Swift, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, stated that they wish
to make their ancestry known and claim return of human remains as well
as associated and unassociated funeral objects from the states of
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arkansas, and
summarized the specific archaeological complexes that the Wichita and
Affiliated Tribes are claiming affiliation with. He stated that the
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes wish to enter into consultation with any
and all agencies or groups that may have an interest in overlapping of
these cultural or geographic areas, and further wish to be notified of
any associated archaeological research and the details of such
research.

Ms. Stacey Halfmoon, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Caddo Tribe, described
the Caddo homelands of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and
explained that repatriation efforts of the Caddo Tribe have been
ongoing for many years. She stated the most frequently claimed type
of object is Caddo pottery and described ongoing problems with museums
not willing to repatriate due to a supposed lack of evidence regarding
affiliation with the pottery. She also described the large number of
associated human remains the Caddo are dealing with, and stated that
their goal is to have a cemetery in each state of their homeland
designated for reburials. She stated that the Caddo Tribe claims
objects from the Spiro Mounds and that there are multiple claims
concerning two Caddo claims and added that the Caddo will not
relinquish their valid and legitimate claims even though they respect
and work closely with their fellow Native Americans. She added that
the Caddo Tribal position is repatriation to federally recognized
tribes only, and repatriation to non-federally recognized tribes could
be accomplished through or with federally recognized tribes.
Regarding the pottery claims, Mr. Walker explained that tribes just
need to show by a preponderance of evidence that objects were not
disposed of outside of the burial context in order for repatriation to
occur.

Mr. Vernon Hunter, Chairman of the Caddo Tribe, stated that the Caddo
people have their own oral history and will speak for themselves. He
added that Caddo ancestors deserve the same respect as people in
national cemeteries and he is not going to rest until they are granted
that respect.

Ms. Paula Pechonick, Delaware Tribe in Oklahoma, spoke to the
Committee about the importance of repatriation to federally recognized
tribes only.

Mr. Charles Lonechief, Pawnee Tribe, described the plans of a joint
committee, that includes his tribe, regarding repatriation issues of
Central Plains traditional remains at the Smithsonian. He described
repatriation efforts concerning remains that were in Sweden since the
1870s and are now interred at the Pawnee Indian North Cemetery. He
added that like these remains, some remains have never been buried
before, so each situation needs to be considered individually. He
emphasized the importance of the return of all remains so they can be
dealt with properly.

Ms. Glenda Galvan, Chickasaw, presented the Committee with two
traditional Chickasaw stories.

Mr. Joe Watkins, Seven Tribes of the Anadarko Agency, described the
formation of a working group of the Seven Tribes of the Anadarko
Agency which is comprised of NAGPRA and Historic Preservation
personnel of the Seven American Indian Tribes within the Anadarko
Agency of the BIA. These tribes include the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma,
the Caddo Tribe, the Comanche Tribe, the Delaware Tribe of Western
Oklahoma, the Fort Sill Apache, the Kiowa, and the Wichita and
Affiliated Tribes. The working group feels that repatriation should
occur to only federally recognized groups, including cases of
repatriation to subsumed tribes, such as the Yuchi Tribe which is
under the Muscogee Creek Nation. He expressed a concern of the
working group that to repatriate to nonrecognized tribes could
potentially assign rights and authority to groups that have come into
existence without a legitimate claim of continuity. The working group
feels that human remains, regardless of affiliation, should not be
left in museums, and culturally unidentifiable human remains should be
repatriated to the federally recognized tribes on whose aboriginal
lands the remains were found, with the Review Committee making
decisions in cases of multiple tribes claiming the same ancestral
lands. He emphasized the importance of intertribal cooperation
regarding repatriation efforts.

Ms. Dolores Bigfoot, University of Oklahoma Health Services, spoke
about the importance of repatriation for dealing with historical
trauma and grief. She described the lack of information at the grass-
roots level of Native American people, some of the contributing
factors for this, and the importance of dissemination of information
among the people. She described that part of her job is to work with
federal agencies training federal personnel to be more sensitive to
concerns of Indian people in Indian communities. She stated that it
is important that all Native Americans go through the process of
healing that takes place as things are returned to their proper order.

Mr. John Sipes, Southern Cheyenne, invited Mr. Logan Curly to give a
prayer. Mr. Sipes was concerned about the lack of communication
regarding NAGPRA issues to the Southern Cheyenne people, and he was
concerned about the procedures involved in the repatriation process.
He stated that the Sand Creek people, who make up about 85 percent of
all Cheyenne people, are recognized as a separate entity by the
federal government and should not have to follow the processes under
NAGPRA in order to repatriate. He added that the Sand Creek people
will speak for themselves on all issues. He stated that working
groups and ceremonial people need to be involved in the repatriation
process, like the law requires.

Mr. John Pewamo, Kickapoo, spoke about the importance of respecting
and listening to elders and the respect and proper treatment needed
for the dead. He stated that Native Americans know who they are and
that they still follow the traditional ways. Mr. Pewamo then asked
for the Committee's assistance regarding return of a medicine bundle
and ceremonial drums.

Mr. Maurice Eben, Pyramid Lake Paiute, described the problems his
tribe is having with the BLM, including ongoing attempts by the BLM to
continue destructive analysis, despite the tribe's repeated statements
that that is sacrilegious, and continuous efforts by the BLM to raise
the age of remains to qualify absolutely as Native American. Mr. Eben
expressed the hope that the Secretary of Interior would have the BLM
develop a policy to deal fairly with Native Americans.

Mr. Corky Allen, Kialegee Etvlwv, expressed concern that the
government deals with the largest tribes and tribal groups, such as
the Five Civilized Tribes, and the ceremonial ground people are left
out. He asked that the Committee deal with the individual etvlwvs,
tribal units, because the Muscogee Creek Nation does not represent his
etvlwv; the etvlwvs will represent themselves. He also expressed
concern that the traditional names of the etvlwvs are being lost.

Dispute over an Hawaiian Figure in the Possession of the Museum of
Natural History at Roger Williams Park

Mr. McManamon summarized that the dispute over the Hawaiian figure was
a continuation of discussions at Myrtle Beach. Mr. Haas added that
the Committee requested additional information concerning two issues:
one, the standing of this object as an object under NAGPRA, ie., as a
sacred object and/or an object of cultural patrimony and/or an
unassociated funerary object; and two, the right of possession of the
object.

City of Providence: The City of Providence made their presentation
concerning the Hawaiian figure in the possession of the Museum of
Natural History at Roger Williams Park. The position of the City of
Providence was that the object was not a sacred object as defined by
NAGPRA, and that the City of Providence had the right of possession.
Their position was supported by the testimony of four expert
witnesses.

Dr. Adrienne Kaeppler, Curator for Pacific Collections at the
Smithsonian Institution, stated that gifting of items of high value,
such as the Hawaiian figure, was a common occurrence, and in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, the City of Providence would
have right of possession of the object. She added that she did not
consider the figure to be a sacred object, since in Hawaiian religion,
an object itself is not sacred unless an `aumakua, or ancestral
spirit, is called into the object.

Mr. Herb K_ne, artist-historian and author, stated that the
Hawaiian figure was not a sacred object but was a secular, utilitarian
rack. He stated that it was most likely a fishing spear or pole rack,
as it was not strong enough or large enough to support war spears. He
added that the object was not necessary for present-day religious use,
as the formal, ancient religion that required the use of carved images
was formally abandoned in 1819 by the Hawaiian government. Mr. K_ne
explained that the figure was not sacred; `aumakua spirits themselves
were sacred and could be invoked into objects, which were usually
defined by family traditions.

Ms. Rubellite Johnson, Scholar-in-Residence at the Abigail
Kawananakoa Foundation, stated that a high level of trade existed in
Hawaii concerning similar objects at that point in time and the figure
was probably acquired and donated at an early point in time by
Mr. Daniel Aborn, a long-time resident of Hawaii, which would give the
City of Providence the right of possession of the object. She stated
that the figure was a spear rest and therefore not sacred.
Ms. Johnson added that an object itself it not sacred; spirits are
called into objects and can be called into different objects.

Dr. William Davenport, Professor Emeritus, Department of
Anthropology, and Curator Emeritus, University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, stated that the figure was a support figure, a fishing
pole or spear rest, and was not a sacred object due to the lack of
evidence that it was ever used in Hawaiian rituals or was in the
possession of persons of high rank powerful enough to have such an
object. He added that the support could not have been used on a war
canoe because it was not strong enough to support war spears.
Mr. Davenport stated that many `aumakua are not carved images but are
objects or lifeforms that occur naturally, such as an owl, a shark, a
stone, pieces of naturally-shaped wood, and thunder and lightening.

Hui M_lama I N_ K_puna 'O Hawai'i Nei and the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs (OHA): Hui M_lama I N_ K_puna 'O Hawai'i Nei and the Office
of Hawaiian Affairs made their presentation concerning the Hawaiian
figure in the possession of the Museum of Natural History at Roger
Williams Park. Hui M_lama and OHA feel that the object is a sacred
object, as defined by NAGPRA, and as such would have been too sacred
to commonly trade or gift.

Ms. Pualani Kanaka`ole Kanahele, traditional Hawaiian practitioner,
stated that the object is a sacred object, a ki`i l_`au that housed an
`aumakua; the ki`i l_`au figure was part of a larger ki`i l_`au, the
canoe. She explained that there was ritual involved with all aspects
of the war canoe, and that spirits would be called into the war spears
and the ki`i l_`au. She added that an `aumakua cannot be transferred
from one object to another, and that residual power remains when the
`aumakua leaves the object. She explained that the figure is
necessary for present-day religious practices due to Hawaiians' modern
need for connection with their land; this need has resulted in ongoing
land disputes, currently regarded by Hawaiians as a battle or war.

Ms. Lilikal_ Kama`eleihiwa, Associate Professor at the Center for
Hawaiian Studies for the University of Hawaii at Manoa, stated that
the Hawaiian figure is definitely a sacred object; it is an `aumakua,
a ki`i, an ancestor. She added that carvings with human
characteristics were always ki`i or `aumakua, and that carvings were
not just ornamental but each one was created for a specific purpose.
She explained that this ki`i, if returned, would be used for religious
purposes and be placed once again on a canoe, which would then make
the canoe itself sacred. She explained that this ki`i would have a
different mana, spiritual power, than those created today because of
its antiquity, and she doubted the figure was given as a gift, due to
its sacredness, and added that she believes that although theft took
place, such theft was not recorded in ship journals, in part due to
the later publication of journals. She stated that this lack of
documentation does not grant right of possession to the City of
Providence. She added that this ki`i was a war spear rest, and would
have been appropriate for use on canoes used in war, which were small
in order to maneuver between the islands.

Ms. Linda Kawai`ono Delaney, formerly of OHA, stated that this
object was of such a sacred nature that only the highest ranking
chiefs would have the mana to give the figure, and then it only would
have been given to a person of equal rank, such as Captain Cook was
perceived to be at first contact with the Hawaiians. She stated that
Hawaiian practitioners, for whom this ceremonial object has both past
and future import and meaning to Hawaiian spiritual health,
well-being, and success, were seeking to repatriate the ki`i `aumakua
for present-day use.

Mr. Kunani Nihipali, President of Hui M_lama I N_ K_puna O Hawai`i
Nei, explained that only true Hawaiian practitioners understand
Hawaiian traditions, and added that intellectual study is not
sufficient for full understanding of these traditions; the traditions
must be practiced in order to gain personal knowledge. He stated that
if the ki`i was returned, it would be used in traditional practices.

Ms. Hannah Kihalani Springer, Trustee, Office of Hawaiian Affairs,
stated that she called upon the names of her ancestors to bring forth
her `aumakua, and explained that different `aumakua are called forth
for different reasons. She added that when called forth, these
ancestors will give support for the matters at hand at the meeting.
She stated that practitioners of long ago provided data for
anthropologists of today and yesterday, and practitioners of today
provide information for those to come.

Committee Discussion: The Committee discussed the issues and asked
questions of both parties relevant to the issues surrounding the
Hawaiian figure and the presentations regarding the specific issues
asked by the Committee. Mr. Monroe stated that in his opinion, there
was not enough evidence presented to make a determination on the issue
of right of possession. He added that, based on the evidence
presented, the Hawaiian figure is a sacred object as defined by the
NAGPRA Statute, and therefore, the figure should be repatriated by the
City of Providence to Hui M_lama and OHA. Mr. Hart concurred with
Mr. Monroe, and added that the object was shown to be a ki`i `aumakua.
Ms. Naranjo agreed with Mr. Monroe's recommendation. Mr. Sullivan
agreed with Mr. Monroe's assessment of the issue of right of
possession, and agreed with the determination that the object was a
sacred object, but stated that he did not feel the case was entirely
clear. Ms. Craig concurred with Mr. Monroe. Mr. Haas agreed that the
figure was a sacred object as defined by NAGPRA, and felt that the
Committee should not make a recommendation regarding the issue of
right of possession due to lack of evidence.

Mr. Hart stated that he based his decision on the testimonies
presented to the Committee. Mr. Haas stated that he based his
decision on the attributes of the object itself, the testimony
presented by all parties, including traditional religious leaders
identified by Hui M_lama and OHA, and the literature presented to the
Committee. Mr. Monroe stated that he agreed with Mr. Haas and added
that it is possible for an object to be a sacred object in the
possession of a museum that has right of possession of the object.
Mr. McManamon summarized the Committee's position that the object is a
sacred object, that the Committee finds insufficient evidence to make
a recommendation regarding right of possession, and that the Committee
recommends that the City of Providence return the item to Hui M_lama
and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Committee directed the Park
Service staff to work with the Chair on the draft of the statement to
be published in the Federal Register.

Future Meeting

The Committee discussed the next meeting and set a tentative date of
late October 1997 in Washington, D.C.

Other Matters Before the Committee

Tonto National Forest: Mr. Haas summarized the issue involving
Tonto National Forest and its decision to repatriate remains that
could be considered culturally unidentified. He added the issue of
culturally unaffiliated remains still needs to be addressed by this
Committee and should not be addressed by individual agencies operating
independently, due to the possibility of important precedents being
set. After discussion, the Committee agreed that the NPS would send a
letter to the Southwest Region of the Forest Service requesting more
information on this matter and asking that the Forest Service not take
any permanent steps regarding these remains.

Minutes of Previous Meetings: The Committee approved the minutes
of the Anchorage, Los Angeles, and Myrtle Beach meetings as written.
Mr. McManamon asked the Committee members to forward any typographical
corrections regarding the minutes to the NPS.

Report to Congress: Ms. Naranjo asked the Committee members to
forward any comments regarding the draft Report to Congress to the
NPS.

Interim Chair: The Committee appointed Mr. Jonathan Haas as Acting
Chair in the event that Ms. Naranjo is not reappointed to the Review
Committee. If Ms. Naranjo is reappointed to the Review Committee, she
will remain Chair.

Public Comment

Ms. Annette Arkeketa-Rendon, American Indian Resource and Education
Coalition of Texas, described repatriation efforts of her group that
have been taking place since 1991. She stated that her organization
has a memorandum of agreement with Fort Hood Army Base concerning
repatriation. She explained the great need in Texas for grave
protection laws, and asked for support from Native Americans willing
to testify to the Texas legislature regarding that issue.

Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, spoke to the
Committee about including non-federally recognized tribes in the
repatriation process. She stated that being Indian is a matter
determined by ancestral blood and not by the federal government. She
explained that the Native American Alliance of Ohio has never asked
for federal recognition and do not plan to, but they are asking to be
included in the process of protecting ancestral sites and reinterment
of their ancestors' remains.

Mr. Maurice Eben, Tribal Council Member and NAGPRA Representative,
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, read a statement from Mr. Mervin Wright,
Junior, Tribal Chairman for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, expressing
his dissatisfaction with the way the BLM has handled repatriation
issues with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Mr. Wright stated that the
United States must be responsible and support the protection of Native
American culture; and he expressed concern that governmental dominance
of Native American society through regulation and law would destroy
cultural history and physical ancestral rights. Mr. Wright requested
a formal meeting between the NAGPRA Review Committee and the Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe.

Mr. Richard Edwards, University of Toledo, stated that regarding the
Hawaiian dispute, the Committee should take a look at the conduct of
the parties during the dispute process, particularly regarding the
prayers and singing by the Native Hawaiians, as being inappropriate.
He added that he felt the Committee should have made a finding of
right of possession by the City of Providence Museum in this case,
since the Hawaiian organizations, in his opinion, did not prove that
the Museum had an illegitimate claim of right of possession.
Regarding the definition of sacred object, he felt that the statutory
definition calls for sacred objects to be clearly "needed" and not
just "wanted" by religious leaders.

Mr. Jason Jackson, Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma, stated that the
Gilcrease Museum has been actively working to comply with NAGPRA,
conducting numerous consultations with tribal communities from across
the United States. He invited any representatives of tribes present
at the meeting to set up a consultation with the museum.

Ms. Cynthia Longhorn, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, thanked the Committee
and NAGPRA staff for coming to Oklahoma to hear comments. She stated
she was involved in the Fernald situation and agreed with the
Committee's recommendation. She stated that repatriation should be to
only federally recognized tribes. She emphasized the importance of
comprehensive consultation regarding culturally unidentified human
remains. She stated that issues this important will take considerable
time to resolve and urged the Committee to have patience.

Mr. James Mann, Southern Cheyenne Tsistsistas, stated that details
regarding Sacred Arrow ceremonies are extremely confidential and
cannot be provided or discussed with non-Cheyenne people. He
expressed concern that the Review Committee would be able to make
determinations regarding sacred objects and their powers. He stated
that federal recognition by the BIA is an inappropriate qualification
for NAGPRA participation because the BIA has placed federal
recognition on bands of tribes and has grouped tribes together in some
cases, such as the Cheyenne and Arapaho, who still maintain separate
ceremonies. He discussed the political divisions of his tribe, as
described by Mr. Medicine Bird.

Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, explained that
there are presently no federally recognized tribes in Ohio, and that
most Native Americans currently in Ohio are descendants of the
Woodland people indigenous to the area. She explained that they are a
people who have maintained their heritage, traditions, and
spirituality, staying together in an effort to maintain their
identity, but they are not federally recognized. She explained that
Ohio has numerous mounds and burial places and is a state that is
experiencing great development; therefore, many mounds and sacred
sites are being threatened. Efforts to save these mounds and their
ancestors are hampered by federal regulations and federal recognition
issues. She stated that the Native Woodland people residing in Ohio
respectfully contend for the right to participate as full partners in
the decision-making process for reburial of their ancestors unearthed
within their state.

Ms. Suzette McCord-Rogers, Kansas State Historical Society, stated
that she was assisting the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska in their
matter of cultural patrimony.

Mr. Luther Medicine Bird, Southern Cheyenne Priest of the Sacred
Arrows, spoke about political divisions with his tribe that have
resulted in a lack of information to members of the tribe regarding
repatriation issues. He stated the Mr. Lawrence Hart and Mr. Gordan
Yellowman do not provide information to the Tsistsistas Southern
Cheyenne Tribe. He added that a recent repatriation and reburial of
20 skulls from the Smithsonian was done without notification to his
tribe, and they are now requesting that the skulls be returned to the
Smithsonian until more information is provided.

Ms. Patricia Mercado-Allinger, State Archaeologist for Texas,
introduced herself to the Committee and the audience.

Mr. Jim Rhodd, NAGPRA Representative for the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and
Nebraska, stated that his tribe was experiencing a noncompliance
problem with a museum in the northern part of the country, and would
be approaching the Committee in the future if the problem could not be
resolved.

Mr. Russell Thornton, Chair of the Smithsonian Repatriation Review
Committee, described the recent changes to the National Museum of the
American Indian Act, which resulted in the creation of two new
positions on the Smithsonian Repatriation Review Committee. He stated
that the committee was currently taking nominations to fill the
positions, which were open to tribal spiritual leaders, and the
deadline for nomination was March 28, 1997. The positions will be
appointed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian, taking into
consideration the recommendations of an ad hoc committee which will
review the nominations. Mr. Thornton then stated that his committee
has been funding a travel grant problem whereby funds are made
available for tribal representatives to go to the Smithsonian and
consult with the repatriation office personnel regarding their
repatriation cases.

Closing

Ms. Naranjo thanked the NPS staff for their efforts regarding NAGPRA
and the work of the Committee. Mr. McManamon thanked the Review
Committee members for their work over the past five years, recognizing
that many of their terms will be expiring after the Norman, Oklahoma
meeting. He pointed out that the Committee has accomplished a great
deal, including: developing regulations on implementing the NAGPRA
Statute, including the civil penalties and the future applicability
sections; working together to resolve different disputes; and helping
to develop the grants program. He added that Committee members have
been extremely active in publicizing the issues involved in
repatriation in their own professions. He then presented the
Committee members with a letter from the Director of the Park Service
thanking the Committee members for their work on NAGPRA.
Mr. McManamon asked for a moment of silence in respect for the late
Mr. William Tallbull.

Mr. McManamon, on behalf of the Department of Interior and the
National Park Service, thanked the University of Oklahoma and the
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History for organizing and hosting the
meeting; the Five Tribes Repatriation Committee, the Chickisaw Nation
Dance Troupe and Gingy Nail for the public reception; the Iowa Tribe
of Oklahoma for the refreshments; the commenters and public for their
input throughout the meeting; and the Caddo Tribe for the closing
ceremony.

The Caddo Culture Club presented Caddo drum songs and the Caddo flag
song. Mr. Fred Parton gave the closing prayer. The meeting was
adjourned at 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, March 27, 1997.

Approved:

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