Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Fourteenth Meeting

MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
FOURTEENTH MEETING: JANUARY 29-31, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC

The fourteenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie
Naranjo at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, January 29, 1998, at the Ambassador
Room, Embassy Row Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC. The following Review
Committee members, National Park Service (NPS) staff, and others were
in attendance:

Members of the Review Committee:
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, Chair
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. Lawrence Hart
Mr. Armand Minthorn
Mr. John O‘Shea
Mr. Martin E. Sullivan

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, DC
Mr. Hugh (Sam) Ball, Archaeologist, Washington, DC
Ms. Jean Kelley, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Mandy Murphy, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Jennifer Schansberg, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Emily Robinson, Intern, Washington, DC

The following were in attendance during some or all of the
proceedings:
Mr. John-Bruce Alexander, Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland
Mr. Roger Anyon, Pueblo Zuni, Smithsonian Repatriation Review
Committee, Tucson, Arizona
Ms. Laura Perez Arce, National Museum of the American Indian,
Bronx, New York
Ms. Annette Arkeketa, Otoe-Missouria/Creek, American Indian
Resource & Education Coalition, Corpus Christi, TX
Mr. Gary P. Aronsen, Department of Anthropology, Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut
Ms. Joan Bacharach, National Park Service, Washington, DC
Ms. Barbara Ball, Reston, Virginia
Mr. Beauandre Ball, Reston, Virginia
Ms. Samantha Ball, Reston, Virginia
Ms. Lenore Barbian, National Museum of Health & Medicine,
Washington, DC
Mr. Richard M. Begay, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Marcine Ben, Tohono O‘odham Nation, Sells, Arizona
Ms. Judith Berman, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Mr. Bruce Bernstein, National Museum of the American Indian,
Washington, DC
Mr. Bill Billeck, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Bobby C. Billie, Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of
Florida, Daytona Beach, Florida
Ms. Cindy Bloom, Midwest SOARRING, Prairie Grove, Illinois
Mr. Richard M. Bogg, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Mr. Bruce J. Bourque, Maine State Museum, Maine
Mr. Gail Brown, University of Maryland, Lanham, Maryland
Ms. Justine Buck, Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn, New York
Ms. Amanda Burt, Tracy‘s Landing, Maryland
Mr. Tom Butts, University of Michigan, Washington, DC
Ms. Chris Caperton, Energetics, Inc., Washington, DC
Ms. Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Connie Cascales, White County Historical Museum, Monticello,
Indiana
Ms. Diane Cashin, University of California, Washington, DC
Ms. Miriam Chapman, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC
Mr. Ron Chiago, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
Scottsdale, Arizona
Ms. Abby Clouse, Office of Repatriation, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC
Mr. Oliver J. Collins, Native American Alliance of Ohio, McDermott,
Ohio
Ms. Cherie Corey, Concord, Massachusetts
Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Thornville,
Ohio
Mr. Bruce Crespin, US Bureau of Land Management-Native American
Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Stephanie Damadio, US Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC
Mr. Joe Day, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Bemidji, Minnesota
Mr. William Day, Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana, Marksville,
Louisiana
Mr. Evan DeBloois, US Forest Service, Washington, DC
Mr. Alan Downer, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Mr. Mark Dudzik, Office of State Archaeologist, State of Minnesota,
St. Paul, Minnesota
Mr. Maurice Eben, Pyramid Lake Paiute, Sutcliff, Nevada
Mr. Bruce Eberle, FHWA, US Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC
Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest SOARRING, Oak Park, Illinois
Ms. Natalie Firnhabe, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Gillian Flyn, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Ms. Wendy Fontenelle, Aishiwi Aiwan Museum, Zuni, New Mexico
Mr. Lee Foster, US Army Environmental Center, APG, Maryland
Ms. Myra Giesen, US Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Mr. David Guldenzopf, US Army, Baltimore, Maryland
Ms. Elaine Guthrie, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. Erica Guyer, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC
Ms. Lesa K. Hagel, Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing, Rapid City, South
Dakota
Ms. Ange A. Hamilton, University of South Dakota Law School,
Vermillion, South Dakota
Ms. Gabrielle M. Hamilton, National Museum of the American Indian-
Research Branch, Bronx, NY
Mr. Jason Harding, National Museum of American Indian, Bronx, New
York
Ms. Roberta Hayworth, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Ms. Ann Hooker, US Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC
Mr. Todd Howell, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Mr. Phil Huber, US Army, Alexandria, Virginia
Ms. Andrea Hunter, Smithsonian Repatriation Review Committee,
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Ms. Patricia Hunt-Jones, Smithsonian, Kensington, Colorado
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Gwyneira Isaac, Oxford University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Richard Jacob, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Mr. Joseph T. Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona
Ms. Jessica Johnson, National Park Service, Washington, DC
Mr. John F.C. Johnson, Chugach Alaska Corporation, Anchorage,
Alaska
Ms. Tamara Johnston, Bryn Mawr College, Narberth, Pennsylvania
Ms. Pamela Jurdine, University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA
Mr. Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Mr. Kevin Kilcullen, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington,
Virginia
Ms. Roberta Kirk, National Museum of the American Indian, Bronx,
New York
Ms. Stephanie Klodzen, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
Ms. Melinda Knapp, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Mr. KC Kraft, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. Lisa Kraft, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Norman, Oklahoma
Ms. D. Bambi Kraus, Keepers of the Treasures, Washington, DC
Mr. Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Ms. Laureen LaBar-Kidd, Maine State Museum, Augusta, Maine
Mr. Robert W. Lannan, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Ms. Shannon Larsen, EEC, Daytona Beach, Florida
Mr. Russell Leighty, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
NY
Ms. Joan Lester, Boston Children‘s Museum, Boston, Massachusetts
Mr. Ronald S. Little Owl, Three Affiliated Tribes, Smithsonian
Repatriation Review Committee, Halliday, ND
Ms. Gloria Lomahaftewa, Hopi, Heard Museum, Phoenix, Arizona
Mr. Ed Lone Fight, Three Affiliated Tribes, New Town, North Dakota
Ms. Rhonda Lueck, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri
Mr. Jason W. Lyon, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho
Ms. Melanie Marcotte, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, United South
and Eastern Tribes, Charenton, LA
Mr. Mark Marin, Field Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, US Department of Interior-Solicitor's Office,
Washington, DC
Mr. Doug McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville,
Ohio
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville,
Ohio
Ms. Kathleen McLaughlin, Navy, Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Johnny Means, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Ms. Paula Molloy, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Robert Morgan, Maine State Museum, Bangor, Maine
Ms. Karen Mudar, Office of Repatriation, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC
Ms. Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Ms. Marilyn Nickels, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC
Mr. Don Nicholson, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Ms. Nan Nixon, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Kevin Olbrysh, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Ms. Cynthia Orlando, Ft. Clatsop National Monument, National Park
Service, Astoria, Oregon
Ms. Julie Pawelczyk, American Museum of Natural History,
Washington, DC
Ms. Ramona Peters, Wampanoag Confederation, Mashpee, Massachusetts
Ms. Martha Potter-Otto, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Mr. Ferdinand Protzman, ARTNEWS, Kensington, Maryland
Ms. Teresa Raczek, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. Constance Ramirez, General Services Administration, Washington,
DC
Ms. Lynne Richardson, US Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC
Ms. Leah Rosenmeier, RS Peabody, Andover, Massachusetts
Mr. Dallas Ross, Upper Sioux Community & Minnesota Indian Affairs
Council, Granite Falls, Minnesota
Mr. Paul Rubenstein, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Mr. Allan A. Ryan, Jr., Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Katherine Sanford, Department of Anthropology, The George
Washington University, Washington, DC
Ms. Kathleen Schamel, National Resources Conservation Service,
Washington, DC
Mr. Joseph Schomaker, Fluor Daniel Fernald Department of Energy,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ms. Susan Secakuku, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian, Washington, DC
Mr. G. Singer, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Mr. John Sipes, Cheyenne, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. David Smith, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska
Ms. Laura Smith, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Mr. Chuck Smythe, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Stuart Speaker, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. Robert Stanton, National Park Service, Washington, DC
Ms. Julie Steele, National Park Service, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Mr. Vin Steponaitis, Society for American Archaeology, Washington,
DC
Mr. Brian Stockes, National Congress of American Indians,
Washington, DC
Mr. Donald Sutherland, US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC
Mr. Virgil Swift, Wichita Tribe, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Mr. Arthur M. Taylor, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho
Mr. Russell Thornton, Smithsonian Repatriation Review Committee,
UCLA, California
Mr. Michael (Sonny) Trimble, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Ms. Wendy Turman, National Museum of Health & Medicine, Washington,
DC
Mr. Christy Turner, Smithsonian Repatriation Review Committee,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Ms. Anne-Marie Victor-Howe, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Mike Volmar, Fruitlands Museum, Harvard, Massachusetts
Ms. Tawanda Wallace, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Mr. Andy Wallo, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Ms. Lucy Whalley, US Army Corps of Engineers, Champaign, Illinois
Ms. Betty White, National Museum of the American Indian, Bronx, New
York
Ms. Sue Wieferich, Rural Housing Service, US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC
Mr. Clyde (Joe) Williams, Upper Sioux, Rosholt, South Dakota
Mr. Ron Wilson, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC
Mr. Lawrence R. Wolfe, US Department of Agriculture, Rural Utility
Service, Washington, DC
Mr. John Wright, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. Frederick York, National Park Service, Seattle, Washington
Mr. David Young, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC
Mr. Terry Zontek, Bureau of Reclamation - Great Plains Region,
Billings, Montana

Ms. Naranjo welcomed the new and returning Review Committee members
and greeted members of the Smithsonian Review Committee present in the
audience. Mr. Minthorn gave the opening invocation. The Committee
members introduced themselves.

Introduction of New Members of the Smithsonian Repatriation Review
Committee

Mr. Russell Thornton, Chair of the Smithsonian Institution
Repatriation Review Committee, explained that due to a legislative
amendment, the Smithsonian Repatriation Committee had two new members,
Mr. Ronald Little Owl from the Three Affiliated Tribes, Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota and Mr. Richard Dalton from the Native
Village of Una, Alaska. Mr. Thornton then introduced Ms. Andrea
Hunter, Mr. Roger Anyon, Mr. Christy Turner, and the Committee
Coordinator, Gillian Flyn.

National Park Service Welcome

Mr. Robert Stanton, Director of the Park Service, offered greetings to
the Committee members on behalf of Secretary Babbitt, the Department
of the Interior (DOI) and the NPS. He expressed his appreciation of
the Committee members‘ work. Mr. Stanton stated that the members of
the NPS embrace the intent and spirit of the NAGPRA Act, and he
personally committed his support to the efforts of the Committee. Mr.
Minthorn expressed a concern about lack of government-to-government
consultation between the NPS and tribes, particularly in the
Northwest. Mr. Stanton replied that the NPS has a total of seven
regional directors, each overseeing a number of parks. He stated that
he would communicate directly with the seven regional directors, who
would communicate with the park superintendents, to enhance the
communication and coordination between the NPS and tribes.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the Review Committee members and members of the
audience, and explained that the meetings are open to the public with
scheduled public comment periods. He expressed his appreciation to
representatives of Federal agencies and other organizations for
attending the meeting and for their work in preparing presentations
for the Committee concerning implementation of the NAGPRA statute. He
then gave a brief review of the agenda.

Administration of Federal Advisory Committees

Ms. Miriam Chapman, with the Division of Law, DOI, explained the
history and purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
FACA was established in 1972 in order to promote balance and fairness
among committees reporting to the Executive Branch of the government,
by providing for open meetings and balanced, public input. Each
agency within the Executive Branch is allowed a certain number of
committees, with DOI being allotted approximately 12. An advisory
committee consists of a group that is established or utilized by the
Executive Branch to obtain advice or recommendations; ‘utilized‘
meaning the committee is tied closely to an executive agency and has a
quasi-public status. Advisory committees operate under group
consensus or advice. Ms. Chapman explained that the NAGPRA Review
Committee meets the requirements of an advisory committee under FACA.

One exclusion to FACA is the Unfunded Mandates Act which exempts
intergovernmental communications from the requirements of FACA, such
as meetings between Federal officials and elected officials of state,
local and tribal governments who are acting in their official
capacities and such meetings are solely for the purpose of exchanging
views, information or advice that relates to the implementation or
management of an existing program. Each portion must be met to
qualify for the Unfunded Mandate exemption.

Ms. Chapman explained some crucial elements of advisory committees
under FACA: decisions and recommendations shall be advisory in nature
and based upon taking of evidence; a Charter shall be developed and
approved; meetings shall be open to the public, with public notice
given to all interested parties; interested parties shall be permitted
to attend, appear before or file statements with the committee; and
everything provided for committee consideration shall be made
available for public consideration and copying, such as reports,
statements, and letters. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does
apply to advisory committees, with the exception of personal notes.
The formation of subgroups within advisory committees is acceptable
for the purposes of fact-finding and fact-gathering; the subgroup must
report its findings to the full committee as part of the open, public
process.

Personal liability of NAGPRA Review Committee members is low, since
the Committee members are acting as a group in making recommendations
to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary is then responsible
for making a decision regarding the recommendations. Ms. Chapman
explained that the NAGPRA Review Committee members need to inform the
other members and/or recuse themselves from any potential conflict-of-
interest matters brought before the Committee.
She explained that if the Committee, while acting under FACA, was
cited in a lawsuit, the Justice Department would take steps to remove
the Committee as a party to the lawsuit or defend the Committee. She
encouraged the Committee members to call the Division of General Law
with any questions regarding FACA matters.

Implementation Update

Mr. McManamon explained that each Committee member had a summary in
their binder of the progress made in NAGPRA implementation since the
previous Review Committee meeting in Norman, Oklahoma in March 1997.

Excavations/Discoveries on Federal/Tribal Lands

Mr. McManamon explained that the Committee members had information
regarding Klamath Tribes v. USACOE, Bonnichsen v. USACOE and Asatru
Folk Assembly v. USACOE in their binders for review, but no action was
necessary regarding these cases on the part of the Committee members.

Museum/Federal Agency Collections

Summaries: Mr. Sam Ball reported that to date, NPS has received
1,018 summaries from institutions nationwide. He explained that 29 of
the summaries have been entered in the NPS database, and he is
currently working on completing this task. Mr. Bradley asked if NPS
knew the approximate percentage of the total number of summaries that
have been received. Mr. McManamon replied that NPS has received a
large percentage of the total, since most of the medium and large
museums have already submitted a summary. In response to Ms.
Naranjo‘s concern about noncompliance of universities, Mr. McManamon
explained that specific cases have been investigated. Mr. Sullivan
asked when an accurate indication of the level of compliance will be
determined. Mr. McManamon replied that although this information
could be obtained, priority has been given to completion of
inventories containing culturally unidentifiable human remains in an
effort to repatriate those items. He added that the summaries are a
description of the types of materials contained in a collection and an
invitation for inquiry by tribes concerning those items, whereas the
inventories are item-specific lists that sometimes contain time-
sensitive issues. Mr. Hart inquired about a follow-up process for
incomplete summaries. Mr. Ball replied that as he enters the
summaries into the database, he has been double-checking with the
museums regarding which tribes were contacted concerning the summaries
and requesting any additional information that is needed. In response
to Mr. Minthorn‘s concern about addressing noncompliance, Mr.
McManamon stated that rather than reviewing all summaries in an effort
to ensure compliance, museums or Federal agencies that are
specifically cited as being out of compliance are being investigated.

Inventories: Ms. Kelley stated that as of January 13, 1998, the
NPS has received 713 inventory submissions, of which 184 are completed
inventories with only culturally unidentifiable human remains,
representing over 110,000 individuals. Of the 713 inventories
received, letters were sent to 213 institutions and Federal agencies
regarding incomplete submissions, with a substantial response on the
part of the institutions and Federal agencies regarding these letters.
Mr. O‘Shea inquired about the electronic format requirement of the
inventory submissions, and added that his institution, the University
of Michigan, was out of compliance due to not submitting their
inventory in an electronic format. He asked what format should be
used. Ms. Kelley replied the institutions and Federal agencies should
provide instructions for accessing the electronic format they provide
so the NPS would be able to access it, but conversion to the NPS
database will have to be done manually. She added that this
requirement is waived in cases where institutions and Federal agencies
do not have electronic capabilities. Mr. Bradley asked about the
number of inventory extensions and their status. Ms. Kelley replied
that 58 institutions received inventory extensions, with ten
outstanding to date. Extensions were originally for three years, with
that term expiring at the end of 1998.

Notices: Ms. Kelley stated that as of January 28, 1998, 187
Notices of Inventory Completion had been published in the Federal
Register covering 10,051 individuals and over 258,000 associated
funerary objects, and 75 Notices of Intent to Repatriate had been
published covering 37,702 unassociated funerary objects, 513 sacred
objects and 177 objects of cultural patrimony, with 114 objects
meeting the requirements for both sacred objects and objects of
cultural patrimony. Currently, 70 notices await publication, and two
to five new notices arrive each week. She added that the notices can
be accessed on the NPS website, which is updated weekly.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McManamon reported that for any allegation of
museum noncompliance, a careful evaluation of the facts of each case
is undertaken. Currently, two cases of possible noncompliance are
being investigated, with ongoing communication with each museum. He
explained that the DOI, specifically the NPS, is responsible for
investigation of allegations of museum noncompliance. Mr. O‘Shea
asked about Federal agency noncompliance, and Mr. McManamon explained
that the Review Committee is responsible for overseeing Federal agency
noncompliance and can review cases on a dispute-resolution basis. The
most appropriate channel for a tribe or other interested party to take
concerning possible noncompliance by Federal agencies should be to
bring the issue to the NPS staff or before the Committee.

Providence v. Babbitt: Mr. McManamon reported that in the case of
Providence v. Babbitt, et al., the Court has dismissed the Secretary
of the Interior from the case, also effectively eliminating the NPS.
He added that the judge has scheduled settlement talks between the
Native Hawaiian organizations and the City of Providence, Rhode
Island, and that the DOI was not asked to participate in the
discussion.

Regulations

Future Applicability: Mr. McManamon explained that future
applicability concerns how museums and Federal agencies handle items
or human remains that come into their collections subsequent to the
inventory and summary process. Future applicability text is currently
circulating within the DOI. After final approval at the Assistant
Secretary level and the Office of Management and Budget, the text can
be published as final in the Federal Register.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McManamon stated the civil penalties
regulations are currently in effect as interim regulations. The
public comment process has been competed, and the final civil
penalties regulations can be published in the Federal Register after
completing the review process within the DOI and the Office of
Management and Budget.

Technical Assistance

Grants: Ms. Murphy explained that two types of grants are
available; documentation grants available to tribes or museums, and
repatriation grants available to tribes. Approximately 2,000 Fiscal
Year 1998 grant applications were mailed out in August 1997, with a
tribal deadline of November 21, 1997 and a museum deadline of December
5, 1997. A total of 80 applications were received, 57 from tribes and
23 from museums, including three repatriation grant applications from
tribes. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern for the lack of grant
applications and asked for possible reasons. Ms. Murphy replied that
perhaps some museums may feel that having submitted summaries and
inventories, the process is completed. She encouraged museums to
apply for grants to facilitate discussions with Indian tribes. She
added that the grant process itself may be intimidating, and
encouraged people to contact her with questions or comments regarding
the grant application and process. Mr. Minthorn expressed concern
about equal treatment for all tribes in the grant process, especially
tribes with inadequate resources to fully participate in the process.
Mr. Bradley encouraged museums to help tribes by sharing their
expertise in the grant application process, in order to promote grant
activity.

Training: Ms. Murphy explained that the University of Reno at
Nevada continues to sponsor a NAGPRA course, which will be offered a
total of five times in 1998. The course was revised to include a
legislative history of the NAGPRA law, an overview of current case
law, practical exercises concerning NAGPRA and discussion of the
grants program. The instructors are Mr. McKeown, Ms. Murphy and The
Honorable Sherry Hutt, Phoenix, Arizona.

Worldwide Web: Ms. Murphy described the NAGPRA information that is
available through sites on the Worldwide Web, including the NPS Links
to the Past system and the National Archaeological database. She
stated that the NAGPRA portion of the National Archaeological database
had over 6,000 hits in 1997. She explained that a search engine is
now available, which will be especially helpful for researching notice
information for specific museums, tribes, or by types of objects. She
also described the new Native American Consultation database, which
provides specific information on tribes regarding the consultation
process.

Proposed Amendments

Senate Bill 110, H.R. 749 and H.R. 2893: Mr. McManamon explained
that the DOI has been working on a formal response to S. 110 and H.R.
749, and added that H.R. 2893 had not yet arrived at the DOI for
comment. He described S. 110 as changing the NAGPRA statute in four
ways: one, requiring written consent by tribes or Native Hawaiian
organizations for excavation or removal of Native American human
remains or funerary objects on Federal or tribal land; two, changes
regarding notification of inadvertent discoveries; three, including
associated funerary objects with culturally unidentifiable human
remains, a past Committee recommendation; and four, requiring that
monies recovered as part of civil penalties be provided back to tribes
affected by such lack of compliance. He described H.R. 749 as
generally recognizing the need for investigation or study of certain
kinds of human remains or funerary objects that might otherwise fall
under NAGPRA and a set of steps to carry out that investigation.

Mr. Bradley asked what the Committee‘s role was concerning proposed
statutory changes. Mr. McManamon explained that the Committee can
make recommendations to Congress or to the DOI concerning a response
to the proposed statutory changes. He added that one of the parts of
S. 110, concerning consideration of associated funerary objects with
unassociated human remains, was a past Committee recommendation. Mr.
Minthorn asked about tribal representation or involvement concerning
the proposed legislation. Mr. McManamon stated that a number of
offices concerned with tribal rights are involved in reviewing the
proposed legislation, including the Indian Affairs Division with the
Solicitor‘s Office, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs.

Role of the Department of Justice

Department of Justice (DOJ): Mr. Don Nicholson, attorney with the
Criminal Division, DOJ, explained that the Criminal Division has a
three-part role concerning NAGPRA, and more specifically, the
trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. 1170: one, working with the NPS in
developing a source book of materials regarding NAGPRA which included
statutory material, regulatory material, legislative history and
relevant case law, and have continued to update these materials; two,
acting at the home office level as a coordination and support center
for United States Attorneys involved in prosecution of trafficking
cases; and three, cosponsoring with the NPS an annual overview
training course dealing with NAGPRA and ARPA. Mr. Bradley asked about
the wide discrepancy in sentencing of trafficking cases. Mr.
Nicholson replied that discrepancies are due to lack of specific
sentencing guidelines. He added that sentencing guideline proposals
are currently being developed.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Ms. Lynn Richardson, point
of contact for NAGPRA issues at the FBI, stated that the role of FBI
headquarters is to support the field offices in their investigation
efforts. One priority is educating the field agents on NAGPRA,
through trainings and information. She encouraged people to contact
FBI field offices if potential trafficking situations arise. She
explained that since NAGPRA is a relatively new law, it is difficult
to prosecute NAGPRA trafficking cases, and added that agents and US
Attorneys need support, through witnesses, liaisons, and informants.
Mr. Bradley asked what steps could be taken if the field office
decides not to pursue a certain situation under NAGPRA. Ms.
Richardson explained in those cases, individuals could contact her
office or the Office of Indian Country Investigations. She added that
some cases could be prosecuted under other laws, such as interstate
theft of stolen property, government reservation crimes or Indian
Country crimes.

Compliance by Federal Agencies

Department of the Interior

National Park Service: Ms. Schansberg reported that the NPS issued
a service-wide summary on October 27, 1993, which was then distributed
to all Native American tribes, Alaskan Native villages and Native
Hawaiian organizations. A total of 100 inventories were received from
different parks. Of those, 55 were distributed to culturally
affiliated tribes, 68 contain culturally unidentifiable inventories,
and some pertained to both. A total of 26 Notices of Inventory
Completion and five Notices of Intent to Repatriate were published in
the Federal Register, and 39 Notices of Inventory Completion are in
the review process, with three close to publication. Guidance
information consists of a video and workbook that will be sent to both
tribes and superintendents of parks in the near future, as well as
guidelines with detailed step-by-step instructions pertaining to the
different aspects of NAGPRA and a summary and inventory revision memo.
She added that it is standard operating procedure with the NPS to
maintain government-to-government relationships with tribes and engage
in continual consultation.

Mr. Bradley asked to what extent the NPS has complied with NAGPRA.
Ms. Schansberg stated that the NPS has complied fully with NAGPRA by
meeting all deadlines for summaries and inventories, not withstanding
small changes that will be continually made as new information becomes
available. Mr. Bradley then asked about how Memorandums of Agreement
(MOA) fit legally in the compliance structure. Mr. McManamon replied
that in both cases where MOAs were considered to deal with the
disposition of certain Native American human remains and funerary
objects, the MOAs were ultimately determined to be out of the
perimeters of NAGPRA and the park superintendents involved are
currently working to resolve issues of cultural affiliation in other
ways. Mr. McManamon explained that the ultimate responsibility for
determining cultural affiliation rests with the superintendents of
each park. If tribes or museums feel a determination is
inappropriate, the Committee could potentially become involved in
resolving the dispute. Mr. Minthorn asked if there was a
comprehensive list detailing compliance by region and by park. Ms.
Schansberg replied that that information was available and could be
organized in that manner.

Fish and Wildlife Service: Mr. Kevin Kilcullen, Federal
Preservation Office for Fish and Wildlife Service, explained that the
primary goal of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to protect and
restore the Nation‘s wildlife populations and their habitat. Two key
programs of the Fish and Wildlife Service are directly involved with
NAGPRA, the land management aspect and the law enforcement division.
Fish and Wildlife Service has field offices in every state and most
territories and possessions of the United States, including seven
regional offices, over 700 field offices, 500 national wildlife
refuges and almost 100 national fish hatcheries, encompassing over 92
million acres of land. Fish and Wildlife Service is a decentralized
organization with most of the decisions being made at the regional
office level or lower. In 1996, Fish and Wildlife submitted a
consolidated inventory to the NPS, but due to a request for additional
information and revisions, it is currently listed as incomplete. Fish
and Wildlife Service has completed a summary, which will be submitted
to the NPS. Day-to-day responsibility for NAGPRA issues rests at the
regional office level. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have a line
item budget for NAGPRA; funding comes from general funding for museum
collections. All Fish and Wildlife offices are expected to follow the
guidance set out in the cultural resource management and museum
collections sections relating to NAGPRA issues.

Mr. Kilcullen then outlined some of the problems the regional offices
have in dealing with NAGPRA issues, as follows: determining the
appropriate tribes to contact regarding NAGPRA, especially in the
Southeast; lack of information on existing collections; competing
claims from multiple tribes for the same collections; small tribes‘
limitations and difficulty in responding to requests for information;
tribal misunderstanding of NAGPRA, resulting in inappropriate requests
for repatriation; and an active land acquisition program resulting in
almost 100,000 new acres per year. He added that the Fish and
Wildlife Service is in compliance with NAGPRA concerning the inventory
and summary requirements concerning information available at the time
of submission, and that inadvertent discoveries and intentional
excavations will never be 100 percent in compliance due to its ongoing
nature.

Mr. Sullivan asked about the extent of materials that would qualify
under NAGPRA definitions. Mr. Kilcullen stated that the Fish and
Wildlife Service inventory includes approximately 500 entries, some
multiple, consisting of a relatively small percentage of their total
archaeological collections. Mr. O‘Shea asked about the efforts made
to locate Fish and Wildlife collections held by other agencies or
institutions. Mr. Kilcullen explained that while new collections are
still being discovered, Fish and Wildlife did have a fairly good idea
of where to look and are following up on all collections with letters
and phone calls.

Bureau of Reclamation: Mr. Terry Zontek, NAGPRA Coordinator for
the Great Plains Region for the Bureau of Reclamation, explained that
the Bureau of Reclamation is found in the 17 western states and was
formed in 1902 through the Reclamation Act to develop irrigation
projects in the western states. That responsibility has evolved over
the years to include flood control in municipal, rural and industrial
water supplies. Currently the Bureau of Reclamation is involved
mainly with water management issues, not developing large projects.
Most of the archaeological collections of the Bureau of Reclamation
originated from the development of large projects starting in the
1940s. Bureau of Reclamation is a decentralized agency with the main
responsibility for NAGPRA compliance resting with the regional or area
directors.

Ms. Myra Giesen, NAGPRA Contact with the Program Analysis Office for
the Bureau of Reclamation, explained that the Bureau of Reclamation
submitted an agency-wide summary in November of 1993, and each of the
five regions submitted an inventory under the state headings of
California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah, for total compliance
under NAGPRA. The inventories encompass a total of 1,300 culturally
unidentifiable individuals with approximately 60,000 associated
funerary objects from 160 sites that are currently held in 19
different repositories, and 150 affiliated individuals with 1,100
associated funerary objects from 18 sites that are currently held in
six different repositories. The Bureau of Reclamation has published
one Notice of Inventory Completion and no Notices of Intent to
Repatriate. Inadvertent discoveries and planned excavations have
mainly occurred on tribal lands and are dealt with on a case-by-case
basis. Ms. Giesen explained that Bureau of Reclamation is working to
develop better coordination between the regions and area offices to
improve accountability on an agency-wide basis. Currently, the Bureau
of Reclamation‘s Native American Affairs Office is developing
consultation protocol for tribal consultation. Mr. Zontek added that
some regional offices are working on developing comprehensive
agreements with tribes such as the Oglala Sioux.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Ms. Stephanie Damadio, National
Curator for the BLM and the DOI, described the Bureau of Land
Management‘s responsibility to manage public lands, including the
authorization of mineral extraction, timber operations, recreational
development, and protection of the health of the cultural and natural
environment. The BLM is the largest Federal land-managing agency and
currently manages 270 million acres, approximately 41 percent of all
lands under Federal ownership. Since 1812, individuals and
institutions have been conducting scientific expeditions on public
lands, excavating and collecting millions of objects, which were then
transported to hundreds of non-Federal repositories, including
universities, museums and historical societies over the past 185
years. In 1906, permits were issued under the Antiquities Act for
Excavations, and in the mid 1980s, the BLM itself was specifically
delegated permitting authority. Constant land transfers in and out of
Federal control complicates the search for NAGPRA materials.

Research indicates that the BLM is responsible for one of the largest
collections in the DOI, consisting of millions of museum objects,
approximately 99 percent of which are housed in non-Federal
repositories. The resources available to the BLM to accomplish NAGPRA
tasks are limited. The BLM has 13 individuals primarily involved with
NAGPRA, most of whom hold a variety of other responsibilities. To
date, the BLM has completed the work toward the potential repatriation
of 453 human remains and 7,167 objects, representing thousands of
hours of inventory and analysis by non-Federal museums and BLM staff,
as well as tribal work. This work has involved interaction with over
200 museums and approximately 150 tribes and Native Alaskan villages
and corporations.

Mr. Bradley asked if the BLM had an idea of the number of human
remains that are yet to be processed and the extent of BLM compliance
under NAGPRA. Ms. Damadio stated that due to the vast number of
individual occurrences of excavations that took place, that number may
never be exactly determined. She explained that BLM feels it is in
compliance with NAGPRA since it is currently working on a process to
determine where BLM collections are located, and added that decades of
work will be necessary to know the total universe of NAGPRA-related
BLM collections. Mr. Bradley stated if the BLM is decades away from
knowing their total NAGPRA-related collections, then they are out of
compliance with the NAGPRA statute. Ms. Marilyn Nickels, Group
Manager for the BLM, replied that part of the difficulty is that the
permits were not issued by BLM and so BLM does not have those records.
Attempts have been made to survey the records at the Smithsonian and
at the NPS, which has been partially helpful. On the collection side,
even if collections can be traced to a repository, most repositories
do not maintain collections by the place of origination. The BLM is
working with many museums who are conducting their own inventories,
and until museum inventories are complete, it will be difficult to
know what material is from BLM collections and what material is from
the individual museum. In response to Mr. O‘Shea‘s concern that
Federal agencies be held to the same standard as museums, Ms. Nickels
replied that the statement that this task will take decades is an
expression of the BLM‘s commitment to keep working on the job until it
is complete.

Mr. Sullivan asked if tribes have been consulting the BLM concerning
human remains discovered during the course of tribal review of records
or if the BLM is informing tribes after the BLM discovers human
remains or objects. Ms. Damadio replied that the BLM has been
informing the tribes of any NAGPRA-related items, and the BLM is
proactively contacting tribes and trying to begin consultation due to
the lengthy process involved. Mr. Minthorn asked if the items being
held in non-Federal facilities were being cared for in an appropriate,
cultural manner, with no study being performed. Ms. Damadio stated
that they are being cared for in a professional manner, but that
noninvasive study would be necessary to help determine affiliation.

Mr. Michael (Sonny) Trimble, Corps of Engineers Center for Expertise
for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections (CX-
CMAC), explained that the Corps is responsible for two things,
curation and collections management and the national NAGPRA program.
He stated that since many Federal agencies do not have the resources
to do this type of work, the Corps has contracted to do curation and
NAGPRA-related work for Federal agencies, including the BIA and BLM.
He explained the four-step program that the Corps has found to be the
most effective in researching and locating Federal collections, as
follows: one, extensive research at the Federal agency level; two,
extensive research at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
level: three, aggressive comparison of the data from both of these
sources; and four, comparison of the data with collections currently
in museums. He added that in recent work for the BIA in five states,
he believes that the Corps found 95 percent of the BIA‘s collections,
and the Corps is currently working on a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the BIA to complete this work in four more states.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Mr. Donald Sutherland, BIA,
explained that the BIA has no known NAGPRA items on BIA-owned
premises. All BIA collections are in non-Federal repositories. The
BIA is currently working to repatriate a collection from one museum in
Arizona, and is currently funding a four-year study with the Arizona
State Museum at the University of Arizona to assess their collection,
which contains between 3,000 and 4,000 human remains and their
associated funerary objects. He also described a pilot program with
the Northern Arizona Museum to assess repatriation costs in order to
determine the magnitude of future costs of later repatriations, and
added that Native American tribes are being consulted concerning these
efforts.

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Ms. Ann Hooker, Federal
Aviation Administration Historic Preservation Officer, described the
functions of the Federal Aviation Administration as regulating
commercial spaceport operations and space launches, navigable air
space, air craft and airmen, with a primary mission of safety. She
explained that the FAA actually owns very little land, as most
airports are privately owned and are open for public use, with the
exception of Washington National and Dulles airports. She explained
that the FAA does not currently have any objects or human remains that
fall under the provisions of NAGPRA, and added that the FAA is
currently working on developing guidelines for inadvertent discoveries
found on FAA land.

Federal Highway Administration (FHA): Mr. Bruce Eberle, Historic
Preservation Officer for the Federal Highway Administration, explained
that the FHA is a grant-and-aide agency and is not a land-managing
agency. The FHA generally works as a contractor for Federal agencies
building roads on Federal, tribal and state-owned lands. Discussions
concerning any materials recovered during construction involve the
Federal or state agency on whose land the objects were found and the
appropriate tribe. Mr. Minthorn asked about coordination with tribes
on these projects. Mr. Eberle replied that some states are aggressive
in setting up periodic meetings with different tribes, while other
states coordinate with tribes on a case-by-case basis when there are
proposed projects in certain areas of the state. Mr. Eberle added
that the FHA is working to develop an initiative that will inform more
people about FHA public outreach and public participation programs.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Ms. Kathleen
Schamel reported that the NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation
Service, is a technical assistance agency. The NRCS does not own land
and has very few collections from cultural resource projects, which
are curated in local museums or historical societies. The NRCS works
directly with private landowners to implement conservation practices
on their lands. She explained that in order to follow NAGPRA and
National Historic Preservation Act requirements, each NRCS employee
who will be on private lands is required to undergo a week-long
cultural resource training program familiarizing them with the
resources, the laws, and their responsibilities under these laws. Ms.
Schamel explained that if cultural resources are found, The NRCS tries
to leave the resource in place if possible; otherwise, a cultural
resource specialist evaluates the resource and proceeds with
mitigation and consultation with appropriate Native American tribes.

Ms. Schamel stated that the NRCS has five known collections currently
housed in state or local museums, consisting of items not relevant to
NAGPRA. She explained that three sets of human remains were found in
New Mexico, two of which were reburied at the site in consultation
with the local tribe and the other set of human remains were the
result of a homicide and were turned over to the state police lab.
She explained that in each state, the NRCS office has an agreement
with the SHPO to address inadvertent discoveries of human remains, and
provided two examples of these state level agreements to the Committee
members. She described one successful project with the NRCS and the
Klamath Tribe, which resulted in permanent protection of burials
exposed by erosion.

Mr. Bradley expressed his appreciation of the NRCS‘s proactive work
with tribes and encouraged them to continue. Mr. O‘Shea asked about
Federal responsibility versus private landowner responsibility. Ms.
Schamel replied that the decisions regarding the amount of Federal
involvement in the development and implementation of cultural resource
projects is determined by the landowner. She explained that the NRCS
only asserts jurisdiction over human remains or cultural items found
when the owner forfeits jurisdiction. She stated that landowners have
been very willing to work to protect cultural resources. Mr. Sullivan
asked about the varying state laws regarding protection of burials on
private land. Ms. Schamel explained that the NRCS contracted to have
an analysis of state reburial and repatriation laws prepared, which
was sent to all of the NRCS cultural resource specialists and
coordinators. Mr. Minthorn asked how the NRCS and the SHPOs could
help tribes become aware of the work of the NRCS. Ms. Schamel replied
that the NRCS has a national programmatic agreement outlining their
function, as well as requiring state level agreements between the NRCS
and SHPOs and between the NRCS and tribes, although there have been no
tribal requests regarding development of these agreements to date.
Ms. Schamel said she would address this issue with the NRCS Federal
preservation officer and the Native American coordinator. She added
that the NRCS would welcome tribal input on revision of their natural
cultural resource training program in order to promote NRCS‘s programs
with tribal representatives and governments and to improve
consultation with tribes.

Rural Housing Service (RHS)/Rural Business Cooperative Service
(RBS): Ms. Sue Wieferich, Environmental Protection Specialist and
Federal Preservation Officer for the RHS and the RBS, stated that USDA
Rural Development was created in 1994 through the combination of
several agencies, and currently consists of the Rural Housing Service,
the Rural Business Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utility Service.
She explained that RHS and RBS are both grant and loan guarantee
agencies for private individuals and businesses, and do not own or
possess lands, unless by foreclosure, a rare occurrence. She added
that in those instances, Rural Development is required to follow the
provisions of the Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requiring
environmental assessments before resale of any acquired property,
including appropriate measures to protect any cultural resources
present on the site. Ms. Wieferich explained that neither RHS or RBS
have any collections, and therefore, have not filed any summary or
inventory reports with the NPS.

Mr. O‘Shea asked what steps would be taken if cultural resources were
found on foreclosed property and asked if collections would possibly
go into non-Federal repositories. Ms. Wieferich replied that all
issues regarding cultural resources would have to be resolved before
property could be resold, and resources are generally protected
through easement or covenant, unless there was immediate danger to the
resource. Mr. Minthorn expressed a concern that tribal consultation
needs to be done.

Rural Utility Service (RUS): Mr. Larry Wolfe, Senior Environmental
Protection Specialist and Federal Preservation Officer for RUS,
explained that the RUS provides financing through its insured and
guaranteed loan programs for construction and expansion of facilities
that distribute electric power in rural areas and the development of
water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas and small towns
with populations of less than 10,000. The RUS does not own land and
does not have any collections of Native American cultural items, and
therefore, has not filed any summary or inventory reports with the
NPS. Further compliance with NAGPRA on each project includes
consultation with the appropriate agency officials with jurisdiction
on the land resource; including SHPOs for private land, tribal
historic preservation officers (THPO) for tribal land, and the
appropriate cultural resource specialist of the Federal agency for
Federal land.

National Forest Service (NFS): Mr. Evan DeBloois, Federal
Preservation Officer for the NFS, explained that the NFS was
established in 1905 and is the land-managing agency of the Department
of Agriculture, currently managing 191 million acres of public land.
The NFS is a multiple-use agency, accounting for approximately 25
percent of the recreational use of Federal lands in the US, as well as
timber areas, watershed management for municipal water systems, mining
interests, and grazing. The NFS is divided into nine regional offices
with approximately 120 Forest administrative units. Activities on NFS
land can be either NFS initiated and managed, or they can be permitted
activities, such as installation of power lines or oil and gas
pipelines.

Mr. DeBloois explained the majority of collections from prehistoric
sites from NFS lands came from permitted activities; museums and
universities on NFS land doing research, while a small amount came
from NFS initiated activities. In response to problems with the
identifications of previously existing collections, pre-1905, the NFS
initiated an effort nationwide to identify all NFS collections in the
mid 1980s. The NFS discovered materials in approximately 135 museums
and institutions in the US and elsewhere, including Moscow,
Switzerland and Sweden; some collections have not been found.

Mr. DeBloois reported that summaries and inventories have been
completed for all National Forests, except approximately six, with
relatively few human remains being identified in most cases. The
Southwest Region of the NFS, headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
has the largest number of human remains with approximately 5,500, most
of which are pre-1990, and have current repatriation efforts underway
on approximately one-third, including 450 human remains recovered
during the Roosevelt Dam construction in the 1920s. 1,100 human
remains were collected since 1990 and are in the process of
repatriation. Consultations have been held with 52 tribes to date.

The California Region of the NFS identified 150 human remains and have
consulted with 40 tribes in the repatriation process; half of the
human remains have been repatriated with the remainder in process.
The Alaska Region identified 42 human remains and are ready to
repatriate those human remains; however, lack of response from some
tribes and intertribal conflicts are currently causing a delay in the
repatriation process. The remaining regions have relatively small
numbers of human remains: Intermountain Region identified no human
remains or cultural items; Region One identified one individual; the
Great Basin Region identified 17, half were repatriated and the
remainder are in process; the Pacific Northwest Region identified less
than 12 human remains. These human remains are primarily in museum
collections, which in some cases is the cause of the delay. He added
that in Alaska, a number of human remains were repatriated directly
from the museum to the tribes; the NFS was only involved due to
requests for reburial on NFS land.

Mr. DeBloois reported the NFS has completed 90 to 95 percent of their
NAGPRA responsibilities, and are well on the way to repatriating the
human remains and cultural items which have been identified and
requested by tribes. He added that the NFS needs to clarify the
discrepancies between the NPS list of completions and the NFS lists,
to make sure the NPS has the complete information available.

Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the NFS‘s initiative and
progress and inquired about fiscal constraints. Mr. DeBloois replied
that the only fiscal concerns are in Alaska due to tribal requests to
rebury human remains in caves on NFS land. Prior to reburial, the NFS
is responsible to ensure the reburials will have no effects on other
cultural resources. He explained that the NFS funded one full-time
position to do the inventories. He added that an estimated cost to
finance the reburials of human remains was $5.5 million, but so far no
tribes have requested that the NFS fund reburials. Mr. Minthorn asked
if NAGPRA was a line item budget for the NFS. Mr. DeBloois replied
that it was a priority but not a line item. Mr. Minthorn then
expressed frustration with the NFS, stating that some regions
considered sending a letter to tribes as adequate consultation. Mr.
DeBloois replied that there are problems regarding tribal consultation
within the NFS, and added that the NFS is drafting a set of
consultation guidelines to strengthen performance at the field level,
including the need for decision-making NFS personnel at consultations.
Mr. O‘Shea commented that the NFS does generate a lot of human remains
on NFS land in Michigan, contrary to Mr. DeBloois‘s experience in the
Southwest. Mr. O‘Shea commented on instances where NFS individuals
were unaware of NAGPRA requirements, even recently, and suggested
guidelines might be necessary in order to get all Forests within the
NFS at the same level of understanding and compliance in NAGPRA.

Mr. Sullivan asked about training programs for NFS archaeologists and
any recommendations Mr. DeBloois might have regarding improved
understanding and compliance of NAGPRA in the NFS. Mr. DeBloois
replied the NFS has a NAGPRA training course called the Heritage
Program, for the Heritage Specialists, which they are trying to offer
in every NFS region, and are trying to establish a heritage management
training course for line managers covering a variety of cultural
resource acts. He added that the NFS is a line-management agency with
four levels of management: the Chief of the NPS, the Regional
Forester, the NFS Supervisor and the District Ranger, and support
staff, and said this course should give the managers a better idea of
their personal responsibilities in this process.

Mr. Hart expressed concern with the NFS issuing permits concerning
areas with sacred sites without tribal consultation, as happened with
the Northwest Cemetery Association case. Mr. DeBloois replied that
case elevated the NFS‘s concerns regarding consultations with tribes
involving a variety of topics, in an effort to become aware of
concerns in advance of activities. Ms. Naranjo expressed concern
about looting. Mr. DeBloois replied that the NFS has a law
enforcement agency that is concerned with this issue and has been
successful in prosecutions and arrests. However, the main problem in
preventing looting, especially in the Southwest, is the large amount
of land and small number of people. Mr. Minthorn expressed hope that
the NFS would carry out their trust responsibility by managing all
Forests in one manner and developing a consultation process on a
government-to-government basis with tribes.

Department of Defense

Army: Mr. Lee Foster, Native American Program Coordinator with the
US Army Environmental Center, explained that the Army Environmental
Center‘s primary concern is cultural and natural resources on the 12
million acres managed by the Army. The Army‘s primary mission is to
maintain a combat-ready trained force, calling for intensive
management of Army lands. In 1994, the Army Environmental Center
initiated a centrally-funded nationwide program to bring the Army into
documentary compliance with NAGPRA, assisted by the CX-CMAC St. Louis
District. Of the 167 installations investigated, 97 required
preparation of a section 6 summary, which were completed in September
of 1996. These reports included listings of tribes potentially
interested and affiliated with NAGPRA items. Twenty installations
required section 5 inventory reports, which were completed in
September of 1997. Individual installations were responsible for
initiating consultation and affecting repatriation to the appropriate
tribes. In an effort to comply with NAGPRA, the Army developed Army
Regulation 200-4, directing installation commanders to comply with
NAGPRA requirements as well as the full range of statutory and
regulatory requirements of concern to Native Americans. He added that
the Army has used examples from other agencies in developing processes
and MOAs.

Army Corps of Engineers: Mr. Paul Rubenstein, Army Corps of
Engineers, stated that the Corps‘ primary mission includes navigation,
flood damage control, recreation and environmental management, and
manages roughly 10 percent of total Federal lands. The Corps is
organized into 39 districts overseeing 459 lakes. Individual Corps
districts pursued first steps toward NAGPRA compliance in 1993, with a
Corps-wide program initiated in December of 1994 managed by the CX-
CMAC St. Louis District, with help from contractors in the three CX-
CMAC districts. The Corps reviewed an estimated 141,000 cubic feet of
archaeological collections with an estimated 3,660 skeletal remains.
NAGPRA was funded as a line item beginning FY 1995.

Mr. Rubenstein stated the CX-CMAC‘s missions include NAGPRA
compliance, management of archaeological collections for the Corps,
and assisting other DOD services and government agencies, which will
be accomplished through a wide range of specialists within CX-CMAC.
One of the biggest jobs related to the NAGPRA process is locating the
collections within the various curation facilities around the country.
To date, all Corps collections have been identified in the Western and
Central parts of the country, and slightly more than half have been
identified in the eastern part of the country.

Of the 39 Corps districts, 100 percent have initiated section 6
summary research and 46 percent have completed summaries, 64 percent
have initiated section 5 inventory research and 14 percent have
completed inventories, and consultation has been initiated in 75
percent of Corps offices. The Corps is working on consultation
guidelines similar to the Army guidelines, to promote better
understanding within the individual districts regarding consultation
and developing consultation processes. The Corps estimates all
collections will be located by FY 1999, all inventories will be
completed by FY 2007, and all reports to tribes and the NPS will be
completed by FY 2008. Mr. Rubenstein added that even though NAGPRA is
a line item, the Corps still does not have adequate funding to
properly execute NAGPRA processes, although they are trying to
increase the amount yearly.

Mr. Minthorn asked who the CX-CMAC contractors are. Mr. Rubenstein
said he would provide the names to Mr. Minthorn. Mr. Bradley
congratulated the Corps for making NAGPRA a line item and encouraged
them to seek assistance for funding problems. Mr. O‘Shea asked about
accuracy in locating Corps‘ collections. Mr. Trimble explained that
the processes for locating human remains are thorough, and they feel
they are probably within 3-5 percent of locating all human remains.
Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about tribes being unable to repatriate
related human remains and associated funerary objects due to the
Corps‘ estimated completion of inventories in FY 2007. Mr. Rubenstein
replied that the Corps is trying to ensure flexibility within the
consultation guidelines to allow district commanders to work with
tribes in that sort of situation. Mr. Hart commended the Corps for
actions taken with regard to the inadvertent discovery of human
remains on Canton Lake in Oklahoma and the consultation and subsequent
reburial that took place.

Navy: Mr. Kathleen McLaughlin, Consultant with the US Navy,
stated that the Navy is a decentralized organization, with NAGPRA
responsibility delegated to the commanding officer at each
installation. Each installation received a program note outlining
responsibilities under NAGPRA. Individual institutions can request
funding to bring themselves into compliance. An informal survey found
the majority of Navy collections containing NAGPRA items to be in the
western US. The Navy contracted with CX-CMAC to inventory all Navy
collections for NAGPRA components and complete summaries and
inventories when indicated. Most Navy collections in the western US
have completed inventories as of January 1998. The eastern US has yet
to be inventoried, although those installations feel they have very
few objects applicable to NAGPRA. The CX-CMAC report on Navy
collections is expected to be completed in September of 1999 detailing
the locations of NAGPRA objects, at which time applicable inventories
and summaries will be completed.

The Navy is currently working on training personnel to deal with
inadvertent discoveries, due to problems with inadvertent discoveries
found on Navy installations. The Navy has developed extensive
training and guidance programs including an introductory class
presenting an overview of all historic preservation legislation,
including NAGPRA; a historic preservation law and section 106 class,
which includes a two-hour NAGPRA section; a week-long Native American
Traditions and Cultures course developed in consultation with Keepers
of the Treasures, with at least 50 percent of the instructors being
Native American. The Guidance includes development of the US Navy and
Marine Corps Guide to Native American Groups, which contains tribal
information and consultation guidance, and the Twentieth Century
Warriors brochure, designed to break down barriers between military
personnel and Native Americans.

Mr. Hart asked Ms. McLaughlin to comment on human remains discovered
at Pensacola, in which the consultation and reburial occurred with
non-Federally recognized groups. Ms. McLaughlin replied that
situation occurred at the same time the final regulations were being
published, and unfortunately the situation was not handled according
to regulations. The Navy is working on advising Pensacola on correct
consultation procedures. Mr. Minthorn asked how the Navy will bring
all installations to the same level of understanding and compliance
with NAGPRA and tribal consultation. Ms. McLaughlin replied the Navy
is working with the DOD to develop draft policy principles for DOD
activities in Indian country and on tribal trust resources, as well as
developing internal policies for consultation processes and compliance
with section 3 inadvertent discoveries.

General Services Administration (GSA)

Ms. Constance Ramirez, Federal Preservation Officer for the GSA,
reported that the GSA has no NAGPRA collections.

Department of Commerce (DOC)

Ms. Stephanie Klodzen, Office of Real Estate Policy and Major
Programs, stated that the DOC is a diverse agency comprised of 12
bureaus, two of which are land-holding agencies, the National
Institute of Centers and Technology (NICT) and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH). Combined, NICT and NOAH
control about 14,000 acres and do not have any collections of Native
American human remains. She described one project in Boulder,
Colorado where a successful MOA was developed to deal with inadvertent
discoveries on a project, although none were found, and one situation
where a proposed NOAH laboratory in Alaska was relocated to avoid
disturbance of Native American artifacts.

Department of Energy (DOE)

Mr. Andy Wallo explained that the DOE has a comprehensive cultural
resource management program, which covers NAGPRA. Site-specific
cultural resource management plans will be prepared for each site
under the guidance for the DOE-wide program. In addition, field
offices are provided guidance from the NPS, general NAGPRA
information, and other agencies in order to achieve comprehensive
programs and compliance. The Federal Historic Preservation Officer
for the DOE is responsible for managing the cultural resource
management program, including NAGPRA compliance. The DOE sites have
been informed about and directed to proceed with NAGPRA requirements,
and all major sites have compiled the summary and inventory
information. The designated historic preservation contact at each DOE
site ensures compliance with consultation requirements of NAGPRA. DOE
sites are strongly encouraged to seek and identify Native Americans
who have cultural affiliations with the sites and DOE controlled
lands.

Site management mechanisms are developed to provide tribal
representatives with information regarding all site activities.
Tribal committees developed by the tribes are involved in NAGPRA-
related decisions where multiple tribes are affiliated with a site.
DOE currently has MOAs with tribes regarding the Nevada, Idaho, and
Washington sites, and the sites are required to undertake
comprehensive archaeological survey work to discover locations of
archaeological sites and likely locations of burials in the early
planning stages of any land-use decisions. On-site monitors at many
sites include tribal representatives. The DOE attempts to identify
Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations who might have
affiliation with an area that could be disturbed by a project. The
DOE has provided guidance and cultural sensitivity training for all
personnel, in most instances with tribal representatives participating
in the training. A long-term initiative that the DOE is considering
is including their cultural resource program guidance and policy
statements in a DOE directive.

Mr. Minthorn asked if NAGPRA was a budgeted line item in the DOE. Mr.
Wallo replied that the DOE is trying to have NAGPRA integrated into
the mission of the DOE program and each site would have NAGPRA as part
of their operations, rather than a stand-alone item. Mr. Minthorn
expressed concern with DOE sites that were behind in understanding and
complying with NAGPRA. Mr. Wallo replied that the DOE is working to
get all sites at similar levels of understanding and compliance,
through the DOE directive and active steps with individual sites.

Discussion on Federal Compliance

Members of the Committee: Mr. Bradley expressed an appreciation
for the number of Federal agencies reporting to the Committee, but
stated what was not clear was the difference between the perceived
level of compliance at the top of agencies and the reality of
compliance at the field levels. He stated the major agencies the
Committee members should focus on are DOI, NPS and BLM; DOD, Army,
Army Corps of Engineers, Navy and Marines; USDA, NFS. He stated four
major issues seemed to occur in the discussions: one, NAGPRA
compliance must be an agency priority; two, agencies need to
understand that compliance goes beyond the documentary requirements of
NAGPRA and includes long-term tribal consultation on a government-to-
government basis and following the requirements of the inadvertent
discoveries section of NAGPRA; three, agencies have a lot of
opportunity for interagency cooperation and assistance, including
databases, training workshops and guidance; and four, agencies should
be able to cooperate in funding strategies. Mr. O‘Shea added that
accountability goes along with consultation and needs to be
considered.

Mr. Bradley explained that public requests for information under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has decreased tribal willingness to
reveal sensitive information and materials. Mr. McManamon stated that
NAGPRA does not prevent FOIA requests. Exemptions from FOIA do occur
under the National Historic Preservations Act (NHPA) and ARPA, and
consultation concerning those issues can be exempted, so it would be
possible to shield information if discussions relevant to NAGPRA
occurred simultaneously with discussions under ARPA and NHPA.

Mr. Sullivan suggested a statement to the Secretary of the Interior
that at the operational level both the BLM and the NPS need a lot more
attention on the priorities of NAGPRA, i.e., consultation and
government-to-government processes. He added that although the
Secretary and the Review Committee cannot independently approach
Federal agencies and demand compliance, individuals should approach
their representatives regarding implementing another round of
oversight hearings on the issue of Federal agency compliance.

Mr. Sullivan agreed to work with Mr. Bradley to prepare specific areas
for discussion regarding Federal agency compliance with NAGPRA at the
next Committee meeting. Mr. Minthorn asked about a process to hold
Federal agencies accountable for requests of the Committee at the
current meeting. Mr. McManamon stated the NPS could develop a summary
of Federal agency presentations, to be shared publicly. Mr. O‘Shea
agreed and added that highlighting agencies who are not in compliance
may have a positive effect and bring about priority changes within
those agencies.

Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Current Status and Next Steps: Mr. Sullivan stated that the
Committee is charged with developing a set of recommendations for the
Secretary of the Interior regarding the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. Mr. McManamon stated that two sets of
recommendations were developed by the previous Review Committee and
were published in the Federal Register for comment, one in June 1995
and one in August 1996, copies of which were in the Committee members‘
binders; both sets of recommendations received a large number of
comments from the public. Discussions of the recommendations at
subsequent Committee meetings resulted in a sense of frustration on
the part of Committee members with the process of developing
recommendations and alternatives were discussed. At both the Norman,
Oklahoma and the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina meetings, the Committee
members discussed different forums for developing recommendations on
the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. Bradley asked for a summary of what qualifies as culturally
unidentifiable human remains under the law and for clarification of
the exclusion of associated funerary objects with culturally
unidentifiable human remains under the purview of the Review Committee
in making recommendations to the Secretary; was that exclusion a
simple drafting error or a deliberate compromise in the drafting of
NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon first apologized for the offensive nature of
the general concept of culturally unidentifiable human remains, and
stated that the use of that term was for accuracy in terms of the law.
The definition of culturally unidentifiable under the law is human
remains for which cultural affiliation could not be determined
reasonably. Cultural affiliation is defined as a reasonable
connection between a past or ancient group and a contemporary
Federally recognized tribe or its lineal descendants; if any of those
components do not exist, then human remains are considered culturally
unidentifiable.

Mr. McKeown addressed the exclusion of associated funerary objects in
the treatment of culturally unidentifiable human remains. He
explained that within the NAGPRA law, objects in collections can be
claimed in two ways, through lineal descent or through cultural
affiliation; if neither of those apply, the human remains are
considered culturally unidentifiable. In the excavation provisions of
the law, human remains can be claimed by lineal descent, by a tribe
when human remains or objects are found on tribal land, or by
aboriginal occupant using the land claims map. Within the statute,
cultural affiliation involves both a spatial and temporal component
and is a higher priority than aboriginal territories. Mr. McKeown
stated that the concept of culturally unidentifiable human remains
appeared very late in the legislative history of NAGPRA, in H.R. 5237
introduced by Senator Udall on July 10th, 1990. It occurred in two
versions of that bill and in two versions of S. 1980, introduced by
Senator Inouye. In each of those bills, the term occurred only once
and was exactly the same as it appears currently in NAGPRA.

Request by the State of Minnesota: Mr. Dallas Ross, Chairman of
the Upper Sioux Community in Minnesota and Chairman of the Minnesota
Indian Affairs Council, thanked the Committee for allowing him to
testify. Mr. Ross stated that this issue is important to all Indian
people living in Minnesota and the surrounding states, as well as all
people living in Minnesota. However well intentioned, NAGPRA did more
harm than good regarding repatriation of culturally unidentifiable
human remains in Minnesota. Minnesota developed a reburial program,
the Minnesota Native American Reburial Project, in 1991, which is
overseen by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, an organization of
all 11 Federally recognized tribes in Minnesota. The program has very
strict guidelines and procedures for the repatriation of affiliated
and culturally unidentifiable human remains. The program has four
components: one, to identify Native American human remains existing
in various collections in the state; two, to create an inventory and
database of all available information regarding these human remains
and associated burial items; three, to identify the individuals and
prepare the human remains and associated burial items for reburial;
and four, to arrange for the reburial ceremonies. Since the
implementation of the Minnesota reburial law, approximately 1,000
human remains have been reburied. Since NAGPRA was enacted,
repatriation efforts have been stopped on approximately 1,500 human
remains which have been conclusively determined to be culturally
unidentifiable. Under NAGPRA, the human remains will remain in
institutions indefinitely, since cultural affiliation will not be
determined.

On behalf of the Dakota people, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council,
the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota archaeological community, Mr.
Ross asked the Committee to allow the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
to repatriate these human remains and associated burial objects for
reburial to the tribal communities presently residing in the regions
where the human remains originated. He stated he was not claiming the
human remains themselves, but claiming the right to return them to who
they rightfully belong to, the earth and the Creator.

Mr. Joe Williams, Upper Sioux Tribe, stated that he has been involved
in repatriation issues for a number of years, and repatriation used to
be a simple process. Oral history describes Native ancestors and
their past. Traditions changed among the Native Americans who
traveled across the country depending on their circumstances, and
those changes have to be considered. Initially, Dakota people were
happy when NAGPRA passed because they believed they could repatriate
their ancestors‘ remains, but eight years later they are still unable
to repatriate these human remains. NAGPRA is too complex for people
to understand.

Mr. Mark Dudzik, Minnesota State Archaeologist, read a letter sent to
the Committee members on December 17, 1997, requesting to repatriate
culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary
objects recovered from Minnesota sites to the Minnesota Indian Affairs
Council, on behalf of a coalition of Minnesota organizations
representing the State‘s American Indian community, academic
community, archaeological community, and the State of Minnesota
itself. He stated that the submitted inventories documentation
greatly exceeds the minimal requirements of NAGPRA and conclusively
demonstrate that these prehistoric human remains are not readily
associated with contemporary Indian people, nor will a connection of
that sort be established in the foreseeable future. He stated that
NAGPRA in effect has disturbed the repatriation processes occurring in
Minnesota, processes which had been formed by the people most
affected, the tribal people of the state of Minnesota. In completing
the inventory in September of 1997, 500 affiliated human remains and
1,500 culturally unidentifiable human remains were listed. The
proposed repatriation is a local solution, with support of the
affected people, the people of the state of Minnesota, tribal and
academic.

Ms. Naranjo asked if contact has been made with descendants of past
inhabitants of the Minnesota area and what their feelings were
regarding this issue. Mr. Dudzik replied that while some potentially
affected communities have been contacted, others would need to be
consulted. Mr. Ross added that some groups that historically occupied
the Minnesota area are either nonexistent or so diminished that it is
difficult to locate them, even though efforts have been made to
contact descendants of these groups. Mr. Ross stated that even if
affiliation of the human remains could not be determined, they would
be more closely affiliated to the people that had occupied the area
the longest, the Native American people, and certainly not European or
Spanish people. Mr. Minthorn asked what would happen if there was a
tribal disagreement concerning human remains. Mr. Dudzik replied that
the goal of the process would be to discuss the process as a solution
mutually agreeable to any affected parties. He felt that any disputes
would be worked out about between the Indian Affairs Council and the
community that voiced the concern. Mr. Minthorn clarified that rather
than a dispute about the human remains or the process that he was
concerned about possible disputes regarding reburial locations. Mr.
Ross replied that he would be open to offers for space for reburials
due to limited space in Minnesota. Mr. Williams added that tribal
spiritual practitioners would not argue or have disputes among each
other, but will do the reburials in an honorable way.

Mr. O‘Shea asked about the number of prehistoric human remains
compared to relatively recent human remains within this group of
culturally unidentifiable and what types of data recording had been
done. Mr. Dudzik replied that approximately 90 percent would be more
ancient people. All data collection is at the discretion of the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. Data recording has included
anthropometric measurements, review of site records and circumstances
of burial recovery, examination of funerary objects, and some
instances of x-ray and radiocarbon and AMS dating. Mr. O‘Shea asked
what would happen with the information obtained from data collection
regarding these human remains. Mr. Dudzik said he would need to
consult with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council regarding the
information. Mr. Ross clarified that the Minnesota Indian Affairs
Council has made extensive efforts to consult with all affected tribes
and will continue to consult with any tribes that have possible
affiliation with the area.

Mr. Hart stated he was in favor of a process to allow this program to
continue, and added that some of the human remains were his ancestors.
Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation of the presentation by the group
and also thanked them for demonstrating a model for dealing with
culturally unidentifiable human remains. He apologized for NAGPRA
slowing the Minnesota repatriation process down. Mr. Minthorn
expressed his understanding and support for the repatriation actions
of this group, and he expressed the need for the reburial of ancestral
remains. Ms. Naranjo appreciated the joint efforts of the various
groups in trying to repatriate these human remains.

Request by the State of Iowa: Mr. Sullivan stated before the
Committee can make a recommendation regarding the State of Iowa
request, further consultation with Federally recognized tribes needs
to occur. Ms. Naranjo expressed appreciation for the different
agencies and tribes working together on repatriation issues. Mr.
O‘Shea asked about the legality of states proceeding with repatriation
under state law. Ms. Mattix replied that under the supremacy clause
of the Constitution, Federal law supersedes state law, so the states
would need to follow NAGPRA regulations. She added the Committee
members could make a recommendation to specific states to continue
their processes.

Final Discussion on Requests from the States of Minnesota and Iowa:
Mr. O‘Shea agreed with making a recommendation regarding the requests
from the States of Minnesota and Iowa, but added that he did not think
the recommendations should apply to any other programs without further
consideration of each case. Mr. Minthorn stated the Committee or the
NPS needs to develop a specific process so that a separate
recommendation would not be necessary for each situation.

Mr. Bradley stated he had three areas he would like clarified: one,
it was his opinion that associated funerary objects could not be
included with human remains in this process; two, whether culturally
unidentifiable human remains would be treated differently due to their
reason for being considered culturally unidentifiable, i.e., lack of
information, lack of documented connection with present-day tribe,
connection with non-Federally recognized tribe, no connection with
present-day tribes; and three, whether the process of recommendations
for these situations would result in regulations being developed for
the process of dealing with culturally unidentifiable human remains.
Ms. Mattix and Mr. McManamon replied that the law appears clear about
dealing only with culturally unidentifiable human remains and not
associated funerary objects, but that further research on the topic
could be done. The question of developing regulations out of any
recommendation would depend on whether the law grants the Secretary
authority to implement regulations concerning culturally
unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. McManamon suggested the following questions be presented to the
States of Minnesota and Iowa concerning their requests; one, whether
the States would be able to categorize the human remains (as discussed
previously by Mr. Bradley) in order to have different treatment
processes; two, a process of identification of which sets of human
remains would be repatriated; three, whether the States would provide
pertinent information regarding study of human remains and provenience
data; four, whether the States would provide formal documentation
regarding discussions with other groups; and five, whether the States
would disclose specific repatriation details for possible location of
sites should the human remains be identified at a later date.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about further categorization of human
remains, and stated that categorization subjects human remains to
risks and disrespectful treatment. Mr. Sullivan suggested the NPS try
to formulate lists of concerns and suggestions prior to Committee
meetings in order to expedite the process, and added that he hoped
there would be formal closure of these requests at the current
meeting. Mr. Ross added the requested information either has been
compiled or is currently in the process. He explained that regarding
study information, he would recommend that information be available to
the public. He invited the Committee to Minnesota for a future
meeting. When asked about inclusion of associated funerary objects
with culturally unidentifiable human remains in the repatriation
process, Mr. Ross replied that those have been included in past
repatriations; however, if the law excluded the associated funerary
objects, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council would proceed with
repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains with the hope
of later repatriating the associated funerary objects.

After discussion, the Committee members each supported the following
statement to be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior: The
Review Committee endorses and recommends approval of the requests from
the States of Iowa and Minnesota to rebury culturally unidentifiable
human remains within their possession or control, with three
provisions; that appropriate documentation be provided by all
Federally recognized tribes within those jurisdictions concurring with
the plans for repatriation, including an opportunity for any group
within the process of BIA recognition to comment on the plans, that
the information recorded on the culturally unidentifiable human
remains be considered public information, and that the requests comply
with all technical aspects of NAGPRA.

Request by Fort Clatsop National Memorial: Ms. Cynthia Orlando,
Superintendent of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in Astoria, Oregon,
described a repatriation issue concerning the Chinook, which is non-
Federally recognized, and Fort Clatsop National Memorial. As a result
of a gift in 1962, Fort Clatsop National Memorial has possession of
one human skull and certain associated funerary objects removed from
the vicinity of Seaside, Oregon in 1925. Excellent documentation of
the occupation and use of the area dates back to the early 1800s. The
Chinook is the contemporary successor group to a number of local
bands, including the Clatsop. The Chinook have long expressed
interest in repatriating the human remains and funerary objects. The
Chinook are currently seeking Federal recognition and are confident
that their status will be returned. The Chinook asked Fort Clatsop to
move ahead with repatriation efforts. Ms. Orlando asked for a
recommendation from the Review Committee to the Secretary for
deaccessioning the Clatsop materials from NPS collections and
repatriating them to the Chinook, and added the Chinook would be
submitting a tribal resolution in support of the request in early
February.

Mr. Bradley asked who and where are the closest Federally recognized
tribes. Mr. York, anthropologist for the NPS in Seattle, Washington,
stated the closest Federally recognized group within Oregon is a
confederacy called the Siletz Tribe, approximately 100 miles south,
and within Washington it is the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, approximately
100 miles north. Mr. Sullivan explained that under the statute only
Federally recognized tribes can participate in repatriation; one
solution has been repatriation to a non-Federally recognized group
with the consent and participation of Federally recognized tribes in
the region. Mr. York explained the Shoalwater Bay Tribe has offered
to act in that capacity, but the Chinook Tribe was not comfortable
with that method. Ms. Naranjo suggested the tribe work with the
Shoalwater Bay Tribe in repatriating the human remains. Mr. Sullivan
agreed and added that although the affiliation between the human
remains and the Chinook is well documented, the law is clear regarding
requirements for participation in repatriation, and repatriation in
the manner desired by the Chinook is not possible without
Congressional amendment to the law. Mr. Bradley recommended the next
step in moving toward repatriation would be that the Chinook get
letters from the nearest Federally recognized tribes endorsing the
repatriation. Ms. Orlando suggested a letter from the Committee would
clarify the situation. Mr. Sullivan agreed.

Request by California State Parks: Mr. Bradley explained that the
request from the California State Parks involved eleven pieces of
human remains, representing several individuals, and funerary objects.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the records did not contain any adequate
consultation with Federally recognized tribes. Mr. Bradley suggested
the Committee members respond, that although they appreciate the
initial submission, further documented consultation needs to occur
with area Federally recognized tribes. Mr. McManamon agreed to draft
a letter to the California State Parks regarding the issue.

Discussion of DOE Fernald Site: Mr. Bradley, responding to
presentations from members of the Native American Alliance of Ohio,
stated that the actions taken by the DOE at the Fernald Site,
subsequent to the Norman, Oklahoma meeting, regarding a specific set
of culturally unidentifiable human remains need to be clarified as not
setting a precedent. He reviewed portions of the transcript from the
Norman, Oklahoma meeting, where the situation was initially introduced
to the Committee, and concluded that while retention of culturally
unidentifiable human remains in the ground was discussed during the
meeting, comments from Committee members ultimately resulted in
statements that the DOE needed to finish consultation with the groups
that appear to have a connection with the human remains.

Mr. Joseph Schomaker, Federal Cultural Resource Coordinator for Fluor
Daniels at the DOE Fernald Site, explained that DOE did consult with
the Federal tribes and all interested parties, and proceeded with
retention in the ground of the human remains in a designated area at
the Fernald Site. The human remains would be accessible if tribes
claimed the human remains in the future. Mr. O‘Shea asked how the
human remains were being held in the ground. Mr. Schomaker responded
that he could not reveal the details, except to say that the process
was completed through consultation with spiritual leaders. Mr. O‘Shea
stated that unless there was a specific recommendation by the
Secretary, there was a violation of the law. Mr. Schomaker explained
that at the Norman meeting, it was not clear whether the situation
actually came under NAGPRA, since the human remains were part of a
deed of gift to the DOE. Mr. McManamon stated that when the DOE
accepted responsibility, the human remains became part of a Federal
collection, and therefore came under NAGPRA regulations.

Mr. McManamon raised two issues from the point of view of the NPS;
that no documentation was provided regarding consultation from
Federally recognized tribes and no information provided regarding the
appropriateness of the curation method. Mr. Bradley stated that he
did not feel that these actions were illegal; the group retained the
human remains in a particular manner. Mr. Bradley emphasized that
these actions were not a repatriation or a reburial, but simply
retention of the human remains until the Committee can make a
recommendation. Mr. McManamon explained that although the DOI is not
against the reburial of skeletal remains and funerary objects,
retention in the ground, as it occurred at the Fernald Site, was not
the intention of the DOI in its letter to the DOE.

Discussion of Chaco Canyon: Mr. O‘Shea asked about the status of
repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains at Chaco
Canyon. Mr. McManamon stated that due to procedural problems during
the repatriation process, the Park is currently investigating the
issues of cultural affiliation further before making any determination
about appropriate steps to take regarding the situation.

Committee Members: Mr. Sullivan suggested that the new Committee
members receive minutes of past Committee meetings relevant to the
issue of culturally unidentifiable human remains and copies of all
comments received in response to the two draft recommendations
regarding treatment of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr.
Hart reminded the Committee of Mr. William Tallbull‘s statements in
February 1995 urging the Committee to make recommendations regarding
culturally unidentifiable human remains, and stressed the importance
of holding the Tallbull Forum to help resolve this issue. Mr.
Sullivan added that efforts are underway to develop the Tallbull
Forum, which could occur in September of October 1998.

International Repatriation

Keepers of the Treasurers‘ Report on International Repatriation:
Ms. D. Bambi Kraus, Executive Director of Keepers of the Treasures,
explained that Keepers is a membership organization whose members,
including tribes, Native and non-Native individuals, give direction to
a 15-member board of advisors and give feedback from their regions on
regional priorities. One of the current projects for Keepers is an
Administration for Native Americans Grant to look at international
repatriation. Ms. Kraus is working on that report, along with Ms.
Connie Hart Yellowman and Mr. Eddie Ayau. The report will create a
record of what needs to be accomplished for outstanding items,
including human remains, located in collections outside of the US, and
will include a list of case studies and the countries that have been
contacted to work with Native tribes on items held in their
collections. She explained that Keepers does not participate in
repatriation, only individual tribes can participate. She provided a
list of case studies that will be included in the report to the
Committee members. St. Lawrence Island groups have worked with
Switzerland to have 242 ancestral remains and 554 associated funerary
objects returned to Alaska, raising the concern of how long the
process takes. Canada and Denmark have also worked well with Native
Americans and Native Hawaiians. Germany and England still have some
legal and policy issues to address within their own countries before
they will be ready to return any items.

In addition to this report, Keepers is creating and collecting
resources for tribes and museums relevant to the issue of
international repatriation, such as recent reports containing lists of
collections in foreign museums and a database developed by a
researcher from the United Kingdom (UK) concerning Native American
human remains sent to the UK and European museums and institutions.
The last part of the report would be issues concerning the future of
international repatriation: one, having an organization, such as
Keepers, serve as a clearinghouse of information specific to
international repatriation; two, an organization working in a policy
development role, for example, to encourage the US Federal Government
to work more with retrieving human remains and objects, to standardize
a process for tribes and foreign institutions to follow, or to review
the NAGPRA Act to determine the feasibility of amending the Act to
include provisions for international repatriation; and three, formal
recommendations for the success of international repatriation,
including compilation of foreign laws and receiving institution
practices on the American side. She added that it is important not to
give up on international repatriation because it is a long process,
many times taking a minimum of two to three years to complete a
repatriation.

Mr. Bradley commended Keepers on their work, and asked specifically
about the number of Chugach human remains listed on the case study
list. Ms. Kraus replied that she was uncertain of the exact number
but it was less than the amount repatriated by St. Lawrence Island.
Mr. Bradley then asked about the differences in foreign countries‘
willingness to repatriate human remains, i.e., Denmark compared to
Germany or England. Ms. Kraus replied one reason may be that Denmark
obtained an Antiquities Act permit to excavate from Alaskan soil, with
a provision that collections would be returned and permanently housed
in Alaska. Mr. Minthorn recommended that the NPS work to develop a
process of dealing with foreign countries on a government-to-
government basis to assist tribes with international repatriation and
help tribes stress the importance of international repatriation
directly to the foreign countries. Mr. McManamon replied that if the
Committee members would like to see that action, the NPS could work on
that with the Keepers of the Treasures and the State Department and
report to the Committee at the next meeting. Mr. Minthorn suggested
that Native Americans foster a relationship with foreign countries who
are very empathetic and sympathetic toward Native Americans, possibly
through the media, and these relationships might help create a process
to facilitate repatriation.

Mr. Sullivan explained that other developments of interest to tribes
are occurring regarding international repatriation: one, recently
more European countries are ratifying and becoming signatories to the
Unesco Convention on Cultural Property; two, in April 1997, the United
States and Canada signed an agreement for the protection of cultural
property of Indigenous peoples; and three, the Council of Europe, an
organization dealing with issues that affect the European community,
has recently been holding discussions on Indigenous cultural property.
Mr. Hart stated that ecclesiastical groups and institutions in Europe
also need to be included in the process of locating Native American
human remains. Mr. Bradley stated that efforts also need to be made
to return items that left the US illegally, and the FBI has a good
database for reporting stolen items.

National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI): Ms. Laura Perez
Arce reported that NMAI is currently working to return human remains
to Latin America and the Caribbean. The museum has had a successful
repatriation to Peru and has collections from ten other Latin American
countries. Mr. O‘Shea asked the legal basis under which these
repatriations take place. Ms. Perez Arce replied that they are done
under the initiative of the museum, which is a Federal agency.

Treatment of Sacred Objects and Objects of Cultural Patrimony with
Pesticides

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Tribe, explained that the Hopi Tribe has
been concerned with the issue of contamination of cultural objects
through insecticide use by museums. He stated that this issue is of
concern to the Hopi Tribe, since some objects will be reused
subsequent to their repatriation. He described activities of the
Peabody Museum in Boston to provide the Hopi Tribe with historical
records of insecticide use on items that the Hopi Tribe would be
interested in repatriating; that report detailed three items that were
exposed to insecticides that the Hopi Tribe would be interested in
repatriating and detailed precautionary measures to use when handling
the items. This knowledge is important for the Hopi because the
affected items, called Kachina friends or Kachina masks, will
ultimately be distributed to various Hopi individuals for use.
Nationwide, the Hopi Tribe has approximately 440 Kachina friends, of
which 58 have already been repatriated.

The Hopi Tribe asked the NPS and the Review Committee to begin a
systematic educational effort throughout the United States for
institutions that are subject to NAGPRA, concerning the health effects
of insecticide use on various items, including prayer sticks and
textiles. Discussions should take place about items remaining in
museum custody if safety becomes an issue regarding certain items. A
concerted effort is needed on behalf of the Committee, the NPS,
museums and tribes to make insecticide use and contamination a
national issue. Museums have a moral, ethical and legal
responsibility to give tribal people information on use of chemicals
and also guidance as to levels of contamination and precautionary
measures.

Ms. Naranjo asked about the possibility of this issue being presented
at the next AAM meeting. Mr. Bradley replied that he was unsure if
the topic could be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, but he
did feel the information should be distributed to the museum
community. Mr. Sullivan suggested an article be placed in Adviso,
AAM‘s monthly newsletter. Mr. O‘Shea suggested that the Hopi Tribe
needs to concentrate initially on the museums that have been
identified as using insecticides on Hopi objects and work out
specifics of insecticide usage, the amount of contamination,
precautionary measures and potential agreements to hold items until
they can be decontaminated. Mr. Minthorn asked how the NPS can
educate museums and universities in regard to different types of
contamination of cultural items. Mr. McManamon replied that the issue
could be publicized in Common Ground, the NPS newsletter, and also
brought out through presentations to different groups. The NPS might
be able to provide funding through the NAGPRA Grants Program to
develop guidelines or surveys relevant to this topic. Mr. Bradley
suggested including the topic on the NPS website.

Ms. Ann Hitchcock, Chief Curator for the NPS, stated that the NPS has
specifically identified the need for treatment history to accompany
repatriated objects, and in cases where history is not available for
specific items, museums usually have records of the type of treatment
given to different objects during certain time periods. She added
that professional literature contains a great deal of information on
handling human remains that have been treated, for example, a recent
Conservo-Gram article on testing and handling materials treated with
arsenic. She also expressed the need for research on removing
residual contamination, and suggested that grants be developed to do
research in this area. Mr. Minthorn stated that tribes have a right
to have total histories on the treatment of human remains and funerary
objects, not just regarding contamination issues.

Nomination of a Seventh Member

Mr. Hart began the discussion of the nomination of the seventh member
of the Review Committee by explaining that the seventh member would be
selected by the Secretary of the Interior from a list of persons
developed by the current Committee members. He added that possible
qualities to look for in developing the list would be a person that
has a legal background, a person from a geographical region not
currently represented on the Committee, a person able to provide
diversity to the Committee, a person who is Native American, and
finally a gender consideration, because Ms. Naranjo was currently the
only woman serving on the Committee. Mr. O‘Shea suggested a person
with expertise in medical and molecular issues.

Mr. O‘Shea introduced Mr. Clark Spencer Larsen, a skeletal biologist
from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Mr. Sullivan
introduced Ms. Vera Metcalf from Nome, Alaska. Ms. Naranjo introduced
Mr. Jack Trope, attorney with Sant‘Angelo and Trope, New Jersey; Mr.
O‘Shea, Mr. Minthorn and Mr. Hart objected. Mr. Bradley introduced
Ms. Ramona Peters from the Mashpee-Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts.
Mr. Minthorn introduced Mr. Patrick Lefthand from the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Montana; Ms. Naranjo expressed concern
regarding his geographical region. Mr. Hart nominated Mr. Alan
Downer, from the Navajo Nation of Arizona; Ms. Naranjo expressed
concern regarding his geographical region. Mr. Bradley introduced Ms.
Rose Tyson, a physical anthropologist from San Diego, California. Mr.
Minthorn introduced Mr. William Day, from the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of
Louisiana; Mr. O‘Shea objected. Mr. Hart introduced Judge Steve
Russell, from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, residing in San
Antonio, Texas, and Ms. Julie Droke, Registrar and Repatriation
Specialist of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History; Mr. Sullivan
expressed concern regarding her geographical location.

After discussion, the Committee members consented to the following
list of names for submission to the Secretary of the Interior for
consideration for the seventh Committee member: Ms. Vera Metcalf, Ms.
Ramona Peters, Mr. Patrick Lefthand, Mr. Al Downer, and Ms. Julie
Droke.

Report to Congress

Mr. Bradley suggested the 1995 - 1997 Report to Congress be viewed as
the report of the former Committee members and be submitted as such.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the former Committee members, Ms. Rachel
Craig, Mr. Phillip Walker, Mr. Jonathan Haas and Mr. Dan Monroe,
should be allowed to review the Report and comment to Ms. Naranjo or
the NPS. The Committee members agreed.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the Committee members tentatively set the next
meeting for late June 1998 in Boise, Idaho.

Public Comment

Ms. Annette Arkeketa, of the Otoe-Missouria, Muskogee Creek, Iowa
and Cherokee Tribes, stated she works as a civilian for the Army and
is co-chairperson for the American Resource and Education Coalition, a
group dealing with Native American issues in Texas. She described an
MOU between the Coalition, Fort Hood and the Comanche Tribe for the
care of the Comanche National Indian Cemetery established at Fort
Hood, Texas. The cemetery is a direct result of compliance with
NAGPRA by the Army. She suggested other Federal agencies should set
aside lands for reburials of inadvertent discoveries because reburial
of human remains close to their original burial site is important to
some tribes. She reminded archaeologists and museum people that
NAGPRA is a Native peoples‘ protection law, and she opposes H.R. 2893.
She recommended all Committee members be Native people, that all
Federal projects that encounter burials should be stopped immediately,
and that more information is needed from the DOJ regarding enforcement
of NAGPRA. She thanked all Indian people who have helped in the
repatriation effort.

Mr. Gary Aronsen, Department of Anthropology, Yale University,
welcomed the Committee members. He stated that consultation is a
complex problem for Federal agencies, institutions and Native American
people. Training and guidance are important, but in his experience,
the best way to handle consultations is for agency personnel to speak
plainly with and gain first-hand knowledge of Native Americans.

Mr. Bill Billeck, Smithsonian Institution, in response to Ms.
Giesen‘s comments, explained that the Smithsonian publishes a summary
of all Smithsonian Review Committee activities on the Internet. Mr.
Sullivan suggested a link from the NPS website to the Smithsonian
website.

Mr. Bobby Billie, Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of
Florida, stated that he is from the original Seminole Nation and that
his history comes from the beginning of time, while the United States
are only 300 years old. As the original people, they have a right to
protect their people and their ancestors. Their ancestors have a
right to be placed sacredly and peacefully in the ground and not be in
museums. They have a right to freedom of their spirits, and they need
somebody to speak for them since they cannot speak for themselves. He
added that animals have a right to freedom of their spirits and should
also be returned back to the earth from museums. Mr. Billie explained
that if his ancestors get angry, something will happen to the earth.
It is time for the United States to respect the cultures of his
nation.

Ms. Cindy Bloom, American Indian Council of Illinois Repatriation
and Sacred Sites Committee and Vice President of SOARRING, explained
that Midwest SOARRING is an organization that works to protect burials
in the Midwest and also on repatriation issues, and added that she has
supported Mr. Billie in letters. Federal agencies have been giving
excuses for their noncompliance, but museums and universities face the
same problems. Estimates of taking an additional 20 years to come
into compliance is deplorable, because Native people face many, many
issues getting their ancestors back for reburial without waiting that
long.

Mr. Bruce Bourque, Maine State Museum, stated that he perceived
potential problems with some areas of discussion at the meeting. He
said that at the New York Review Committee meeting, Mr. Walter Echo
Hawk stated, ‘We didn‘t get everything we wanted, but we can live with
what we got,‘ demonstrating the compromising nature of the NAGPRA
drafting process. Mr. Bourque stated that when considering the spirit
of the law versus the letter of the law, over attention to the spirit
of the law might separate it from the original spirit of cooperation
in which the law was drafted. He was concerned about opinions that
actions taken regarding repatriation to the Mashpee community under
the Wampanoag Tribe of Martha‘s Vineyard are perceived as precedent-
setting, as well as the idea that Federally recognized tribes feel
that they can deal with all issues relevant to culturally
unidentifiable human remains. He feels that respect for the letter of
the law and a return to the original spirit of NAGPRA as one of
compromise is needed, thus allowing archaeologists and educators a
chance to assert the immeasurable value of ancient and culturally
unidentifiable human remains and funerary objects as sources of
enlightenment about the North American past.

Mr. Oliver Collins, Native American Alliance of Ohio, stated that
out of 7,000 burial mounds, village and ceremonial sites originally in
the state of Ohio, less than 700 remain today. He described his
experience in 1986 of having to watch a burial mound destroyed by
amateur archaeologists; 27 graves were disturbed, the artifacts were
collected, and the human remains were thrown to the side. He stated
that over 7,000 artifacts were removed from the mounds, but only 2,000
are documented today. After extensive discussions with the amateur
archaeologists and the Ohio Historical Society and after a period of
study of the human remains, the Native American Alliance of Ohio was
allowed to rebury the human remains, but not the burial goods. The
Alliance later leased the site to protect the mounds. He stated that
on January 25, 1998, Ohio House Bill 429 passed the Ohio House of
Representatives, 95 to 0, to protect all cemeteries including Indian
cemeteries. The Alliance will be active in seeing that the bill passes
the Senate. He questioned the cutoff date in Ohio of 1660 AD for
determining cultural affiliation. All human remains determined to be
older than that date are considered culturally unidentifiable, and he
asked the Committee to try to eliminate that arbitrary designation.
In responding to Mr. Day‘s comments, Mr. Collins stated that in 1986
when the mound was destroyed, he contacted every tribe in the US and
no tribe was interested in helping with the reburial of the human
remains, unless paid to do so.

Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, explained
that the Native American Alliance of Ohio works in Ohio to preserve
and protect mounds and sacred sites and have successfully passed
legislation to protect the human remains of all people. She came
before the Committee to present a plan for the respectful retention of
culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary
objects in the ground on DOE land, and added that the plan was
developed and implemented in response to discussions at the Review
Committee meeting in Norman, Oklahoma in March 1997. On May 25, 1997,
five complete sets of human remains, one complete set of canine
remains and fragments from 19 individuals were respectfully placed in
the ground by DOE personnel at the Fernald Weapons Site, and at no
time did the Native American Alliance of Ohio take possession of the
human remains. The DOE also communicated with the Federally
recognized tribes in the area. She stated that the Native American
Alliance of Ohio is petitioning the DOE for additional land to
accommodate the thousands of culturally unidentifiable human remains
in the state of Ohio. The land would become a park, remaining under
the auspices of the Federal Government. This action is supported by
the Crosby Township, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the
Native American Alliance of Ohio, Crosby Township‘s historical
society, state legislative representatives and grassroots
representations. She asked the Committee for a recommendation to
enable museums, historical societies and universities to release
culturally unidentifiable human remains. This plan would allow human
remains to be reburied and protected, and if technology could be
developed that would later identify the human remains, they could then
be repatriated by their descendants. The park grounds could be
utilized as an educational facility and possible museum site, to show
the history of the times and the lifestyles of the people, without
compromising the sanctity of the burials. Mr. Minthorn asked about
the number of culturally unidentifiable human remains in Ohio and the
amount of land needed from the DOE. Ms. Crandell replied that the
number is over 4,000 human remains; the Ohio Historical Society has
over 3,500 human remains and only eight are identified. She explained
that the Federal Government has offered the use of a designated green
space for this park, but she is not sure how many acres are involved.

Mr. William Day, Director of the Cultural and Heritage Program for
the Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana and Chairman of the Culture and
Heritage Committee of the United South and Eastern Tribes, listed his
concerns with the Federal agency presentations before the Review
Committee: with the Navy presentation, inaccurate tribal and
consultation information on the US Navy and Marine Corps Guide to
Native American Groups map, question of the extent and accuracy of
information regarding the Southeast tribes in the Navy culture
courses, inaccurate claims of the Navy and Corps of Engineers that the
majority of collections exist in the western US; with the DOE
presentation, lack of consultation with Tunica-Biloxi Tribe; with the
Corps of Engineers presentation, lack of adequate consultation with
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe. He explained that in regard to the Hastings
bill, H.R. 2893, there is opposition to that bill and any legislation
that advocates study of human remains and the United South and Eastern
Tribes will fight its passage. Mr. Day commended Mr. McKeown‘s advice
and responsiveness regarding NAGPRA issues.

In response to remarks by the Native American Alliance of Ohio, he
explained that the Tunica were the last known mound builders in the
Mississippi Valley. The Tunica have a museum in the shape of a mound
where artifacts from over 150 burials are now housed, after years of
litigation to get the remains back from Harvard University and
restoration necessary after the remains were inadequately housed. He
stated that Harvard University was unethical in its purchase of those
materials from the grave robber and in their inadequate curation of
the materials, and added that they never actually paid for the
collection. He encouraged the Committee to follow the law and deal
only with Federally recognized tribes in all issues regarding NAGPRA
and repatriation; that some groups are trying to use NAGPRA as a step
toward Federal recognition and not out of true concern for the human
remains and artifacts. He suggested that any non-Federally recognized
group wishing to participate in NAGPRA go through the process of
recognition with the BIA or work with Federally recognized tribes to
repatriate the human remains. He stated he was not aware of the
Native American Alliance of Ohio or their ethnic makeup. He is
offended by the notion that white people are reburying these human
remains, however well intentioned. He supports the actions of the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council in their repatriation efforts, adding
that Minnesota may be the origin of the Tunica people. Mr. Day
explained that he has been working with the Advisory Council of
Historical Places to have traditional cultural authorities put back in
the regulations and for signatory authority on MOAs on government
agency projects where it would impact a site of a particular tribe,
and expressed his disappointment that the NPS and DOI and other
Federal agencies opposed those two items.

Mr. Alan Downer, Director of the Navajo Nation Historic
Preservation Department, stated that he participated in the
negotiations leading up to the passage of NAGPRA, and feels that since
NAGPRA was the result of dialogue among museums, the archaeological
community and Native Americans, that any amendments to NAGPRA, such as
the Hastings bill, H.R. 2893, also be the product of similar dialogue.

Mr. Maurice Eben, Tribal Councilman for the Pyramid Lake Paiute
Tribe, stated his tribe has had repeated problems dealing with Federal
agencies, including a recent statement by Ms. Marilyn Nickels of the
BLM that NAGPRA did not apply to the BLM. BLM estimates of 20 years
to reach compliance with NAGPRA regulations are ridiculous. He added
agency compliance needs to be enforced. Regarding human remains, such
as Wizards Beach Man estimated to be 9,200 years old and Spirit Cave
man estimated to be 9,400 years old, tribal people know who these are,
regardless of lack of documentation by the professional world. The
science of archaeology is too young and its methods are unacceptable
for making determinations of cultural affiliation. He stated the
National Congress of American Indians Repatriation and Reburial
Commission, for which he is Chairman, opposes H.R. 2893 and supports
S. 110. He explained that before NAGPRA was enacted, his tribe was
involved in repatriations from the Nevada State Museum and the
University of Nevada at Reno, but those repatriations have stopped.
He feels this is due to a lack of understanding and difficulty
implementing NAGPRA on the part of both tribes and agencies. Mr. Eben
suggested the Committee have an attorney versed in Indian law on hand
to answer questions, and added that a national NAGPRA office would be
helpful to address issues on an ongoing basis. He emphasized the fact
that Native Americans are the experts regarding their ancestors‘ way
of life.

Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, stated a concern about
double reporting of items on Federal agency and also on the curating
museum‘s inventories and summaries. She stated the Bureau of
Reclamation will be contacting museums to try to identify and remove
double listings. She suggested the NAGPRA Review Committee and the
Smithsonian Institution Review Committee try to coordinate providing
information to the public, and she asked if the minutes of the Review
Committee meetings are available to the public. Mr. McKeown replied
that minutes of the meetings are available on the Internet and
complete transcripts are available on disk from the NPS. Ms. Giesen
then asked how the NPS could get funding for additional staff and
suggested the Review Committee make a recommendation to Congress for
additional funding.

Mr. Joe Joaquin, Mr. Joaquin, member of the Tohono O‘odham Nation
of southwest Arizona, agreed with Mr. Day‘s opposition of the Hastings
bill, H.R. 2893, and gave his support to NAGPRA in the hope that his
tribe will get back their ancestors‘ human remains. He explained that
his tribe needs to deal with repatriation of human remains in their
own way, which is reburial in one designated location, to ensure
future protection of the human remains and associated funerary
objects. He explained that they are capable of identifying their
ancestors and the Federal and state agencies they deal with understand
that. He emphasized consultation needs to occur and agencies need to
listen to tribes during these discussions. He hoped the agencies
would listen to what was said at the Review Committee meeting.

Ms. Shannon Larsen, EEC, explained efforts made by Mr. Billie to
repatriate human remains from Cape Canaveral National Seashore. A
letter was sent to at least 30 different tribes and nations throughout
the southeastern United States concerning Mr. Billie‘s efforts to
repatriate the human remains, and not one objection was received. His
repatriation request was still denied because Mr. Billie was not able
to prove he is a lineal descendant or from a culturally affiliated
tribe, and also because non-Native people reviewed Mr. Billie‘s
letter. She described another situation where Mr. Billie tried to
repatriate human remains and was asked to provide information that he
is not able to provide under traditional law. Mr. Billie was allowed
to repatriate only when Mr. Fred Dayhoff, a ranger from the
Everglades, supported Mr. Billie in a letter, making the same claims
that Mr. Billie had made. Ms. Larsen stated that after helping Mr.
Billie with hundreds of repatriations, she needed to say that no more
permitting should be allowed for removal of human remains and funerary
objects, that these items can never be returned to their original
positions or sometimes even with their original items.

Mr. Ronald Little Owl, Three Affiliated Tribes and the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee, agreed with Mr. Billie that human
remains cannot be owned. He explained that he has been involved with
repatriation since 1982 when he first reburied excavated human remains
and artifacts. He stated that human remains do not belong in museums
and should be returned to Indian people for repatriation and reburial.
He added that he would identify any human remains determined by the
scientific community to be culturally unidentifiable, and that he
would do this for free. Mr. Little Owl explained a consultation
problem with the Corps of Engineers because they have considered brief
telephone conversations as consultation. He is very cautious and will
not consult with anyone by himself, only when another tribal member is
present and only after careful consideration of the situation. He
described the oral history of his tribe as including mention of
dinosaurs, as well as geographic connections with the Biloxi Tribe and
the Cocopah Tribe. He said that in an effort to prove to the science
world that Native people have been here for a long time, he has
invited the other members of the Smithsonian Review Committee and the
NAGPRA Review Committee to witness a sun dance and a traditional
burial.

Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, stated that the
treatment of Native American human remains is a holocaust situation,
the destruction of the pasts of millions of American Indians. She
added that the term culturally unidentifiable implies that the ancient
ones had no culture, no connection to recent generations, and that
recent generations had no knowledge of the ancient ones and received
nothing from them in terms of language, tradition, customs, memories
or stories. She added that Native Americans do not refer to these
human remains as culturally unidentifiable. Only after colonization
were the mounds unearthed, and in 1894, the Smithsonian Institution
issued a report acknowledging that the ancient ones of the mound-
building eras were the ancestors of present-day Indians. She added
that the plan of the Native American Alliance of Ohio, as described by
Ms. Crandell, is a good solution for the culturally unidentifiable
human remains.

Mr. John Sipes, Cheyenne from Oklahoma, expressed concern about
lack of protocol for ceremonial people in government-to-government
relationships. His tribe has a traditional government that has been
excluded from NAGPRA activities. The Cheyenne Tribe will back all
nations trying to prevent excavations; burial grounds and ceremonial
sites need to be left alone. Ceremonial people and old people need to
be consulted regarding Native history and culture.

Mr. Vin Steponaitis, Society for American Archaeology (SAA), stated
that in his experience the NAGPRA process has, in most cases, worked
and done positive things, including improved dialogues between Native
Americans, archaeologists and museums. He stated, in response to Ms.
Yellow Bird, that he also worked on the passage of NAGPRA and he
remembered the discussions between the Indian organizations and the
museum and archaeological organizations resulting in many, many points
of agreement, with more grounds for consensus than dispute. NAGPRA
was ultimately a compromise between spiritual concerns and scientific
concerns. He urged people to engage in dialogue rather than assuming
that people with different viewpoints are acting in bad faith. NAGPRA
cannot be construed as a mandate for new studies of human remains,
which is very different from prohibiting any study. Mr. Hart asked
Mr. Steponaitis to speak to SAA‘s position regarding H.R. 2893. Mr.
Steponaitis replied that after review of the bill, SAA‘s repatriation
committee supported the bill in its current form. SAA does not oppose
repatriation and feels that where there is cultural affiliation, the
tribe that is culturally affiliated has a moral right to request human
remains and the associated funerary objects, and H.R. 2893 does not
prevent repatriation that would occur under NAGPRA. He explained that
H.R. 2893 had two main provisions: one, a provision that provides
opportunities for scientific study prior to repatriation under certain
circumstances, consistent with SAA‘s belief that the study of the past
is important; and two, a provision that would allow, in cases where
there may be cultural affiliation, human remains to be claimed by a
tribe on whose aboriginal territory, as adjudicated by the Indian
Claims Commission, those human remains were found.

In responding to Mr. Day‘s comments, Mr. Steponaitis clarified that it
was a professional looter who collected the Tunica artifacts and
disposed of the bones from the burial sites. The reason the offer was
made to buy the Tunica collection was only to prevent sale of the
collection on the open market, and was not a common occurrence. If
the museum had not offered to buy the collection, it would not be in
the Tunica-Biloxi museum today. The reason the looter was not paid
for the collection was that the looter did not, as he previously
asserted, have title to the collection, nor did he have permission
from the landowner to excavate.

Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, stated she was
happy to see the Review Committee members again and offered support to
Mr. Bobby Billie on behalf of the tribes of the state of North Dakota.
She expressed concern about the Bureau of Reclamation and the way they
turned over human remains in their collections, consisting of a piece
of a jaw and a skull shard, to the Smithsonian. She stated that the
agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Smithsonian was
formalized in a MOA without tribal consultation, and added she has
since learned that this practice has been followed by the Corps of
Engineers and the NPS. She then asked if Federal agencies were, in
fact, responsible for repatriating human remains and burial goods
excavated from lands they manage or not. She also expressed concern
with the procedures to bring a grievance before the Review Committee,
and added that having the NPS review potential grievances is a
conflict of interest. Ms. Yellow Bird explained that when the Bureau
of Reclamation was discussing their MOA with the Oglala Tribe, they
did not mention her tribe‘s request to develop an MOA regarding
treatment and disposition of unmarked human burials found on land
managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in tribal aboriginal homelands.
She added that her tribe has been very successful in negotiating a
similar MOA with the US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District and the
Western Area Power Administration, and she added that there has been
no response to their proposal to the Committee to publish their MOA in
the Federal Register as an example to other tribes. She stated, as
part of the national tribal coalition that helped put together NAGPRA,
they were very clear that the language in NAGPRA prohibited new
scientific study, and added that the tribes in North Dakota will
vigorously defend that language and will oppose any scientific
analysis, because it is directly opposed to their spiritual beliefs.
Contrary to statements made by the BIA, there was no consultation with
her tribe regarding sending human remains to the University of Arizona
for study. She explained that a Bureau of Reclamation plan for doing
inventory of human remains in their control includes the use of
radiography, and added that was also without the notification and
consent of her tribe. In response to Mr. Steponaitis‘s statements,
Ms. Yellow Bird accepted his invitation to participate in a dialogue,
but stated that nothing he would say would change her opinions.

Ms. Yellow Bird welcomed the new members of the Committee and stated
her appreciation for past Committee members. She cautioned the
Committee members not to take comments or disagreements personally,
that she and others are expressing their experiences and opinions on
these matters with full respect for the Review Committee. She
requested, on behalf of the tribes in North Dakota, that the Review
Committee compile information regarding compliance, which Federal
agencies are in compliance, which are not and for what reasons; which
Federal agencies have developed processes for consultation on a
government-to-government basis with tribes concerning inadvertent
discoveries, intentional disinterments, and protection and
preservation plans; which Federal agencies have a budgeted line item
for NAGPRA; and which Federal agencies have NAGPRA as an established
agency priority.

Ms. Yellow Bird thanked Mr. McManamon for his acknowledgment of the
offensive nature of the term culturally unidentifiable human remains.
She asked the Committee to maintain their recommendation that the
decisions regarding disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains are determined by Indian people. She explained the official
position of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee, if
human remains were taken from their collective aboriginal homelands,
they will be returned for reburial on Indian lands. They reject the
notion that scientific analysis can conclusively identify a set of
human remains as to tribal origin; identification can and has been
determined by Native peoples. The North Dakota Intertribal
Reinterment Committee proposes that tribal NAGPRA representatives and
spiritual leaders form regional intertribal coalitions to decide on a
consensus basis what will happen to these human remains, and that all
decisions be left to Native Americans regarding their ancestors. Ms.
Yellow Bird stated that the Tallbull Forum should be attended by
individuals representing their Indigenous nations on these intertribal
coalitions, and Native Americans should lead the discussions. These
relatives deserve the right to rest in peace and need to be returned.
She expects to receive a letter from the Review Committee answering
her questions about how Federal agencies are going to be penalized for
being out of compliance with the law and how to bring a grievance
against the NPS for deciding which issues the Review Committee will
hear.

Closing

On behalf of the Committee members, Ms. Naranjo thanked the NAGPRA
staff for their hard work. On behalf of the Secretary and the DOI,
Mr. McManamon thanked the Committee members for their work in
preparing for and attending the meeting, the members of the audience
for their presentations and comments, and the NAGPRA staff for their
hard work.

Mr. Minthorn gave the closing invocation. The meeting was adjourned
at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 31, 1998.

Approved:

\S\ Tessie Naranjo August 5, 1998
Tessie Naranjo, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee