Introductory title image for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior and the National Center for Cultural Resources to include the official arrowhead of the National Park ServiceImage of the official National Park Service arrowhead and a link to ParkNet The National NAGPRA title image on a green background with an historic image of native baskets next to water and reed-type river grass - image by Edward S. Curtis, courtesy of NPS Resources for navigation image bar including tribes, museums, agencies, public and press linksimage for tribes linkimage for museums linkimage for agencies linkimage for public linkimage for press link

Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Review Committee

Meeting Minutes


Sixteenth Meeting

 

MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA)
REVIEW COMMITTEE
SIXTEENTH MEETING: DECEMBER 10-12, 1998
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

The sixteenth 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, December 10th, 1998, at the Kiva Room, Hotel
Santa Fe, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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
Ms. Vera Metcalf
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
Ms. Jennifer Schansberg, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, Solicitor's Office, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC

The following were in attendance during some or all of the proceedings:
Ms. Rebekah Agen, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Martin Aguilar, San Ildefonso Pueblo, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Bridget Ambler, Colorado Historical Society/Colorado Comm. of Indian
Affairs, Denver, Colorado
Mr. Lisa Anderson, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Liz Anontow, Mohawk, Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Kurt Anschuetz, Rio Grande Foundation, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Roger Anyon, Smithsonian Institution, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Kerem Ar, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Mr. Manuel Archuleta, Picuris Pueblo, Penasco, New Mexico
Ms. Barbara F. Aripa, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Kristen Astor, Congresswoman Heather Wilson, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Donna Augustine, Micmac, Rexton, New Brunswick, Canada
Mr. Duane L. Aure, National Park Service, Pecos, New Mexico
Ms. Jeannie Barbour, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Mr. Dean Barlese, Pyramid Lake Paiute/Warm Springs, Nixon, Nevada
Mr. Jake Barrow, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Raymond Basquez, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, Temecula,
California
Mr. Timothy G. Baugh, Wichita, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mr. Alan Beaverhead, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Ronan,
Montana
Mr. Chauncy Beaverhead, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Ronan,
Montana
Ms. Glenna Begay, Navajo, Kayenta, Arizona
Mr. Steven Begay, Navajo, Window Rock, Arizona
Mr. Gary S. Bennally, Navajo Tribe, Arizona
Mr. Leonard Bennally, Navajo Tribe, Big Mountain, Arizona
Ms. Ellyn Bigrope, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mescalero, New Mexico
Ms. Elizabeth Blackowl, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, Oklahoma
Ms. Cindy Bloom, Midwest SOARRING, Naperville, Illinois
Ms. Terry Bodnar, National Park Service, Aztec, New Mexico
Mr. Jim Boll, National Park Service, Mountainair, New Mexico
Ms. Caroline Brown, Denakkanaaga, Athabaskan Interior, Fairbanks, Alaska
Mr. John Brown, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Wyoming, Rhode Island
Mr. David M. Brugge, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mr. Rex Buck, Jr., Wahapum, Ephrata, Washington
Ms. Nancy Burghs, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Amanda Burt, Rudnick, Wolfe, Epstien, and Zeidman, Tracy's Landing,
Maryland
Ms. Wendy Bustard, Chaco Canyon, National Park Service, Nageezi, New
Mexico
Ms. Leslie Butler, student, Las Vegas, New Mexico
Ms. Rosemary Caye, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Elmo,
Montana
Ms. Kathleen Callister, US Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah
Ms. Patricia "Trish" Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Donna Cassett, Paiute, Fallon, Nevada
Ms. Colleen F. Cawafor, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem,
Washington
Mr. Rodney Cawston, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Mr. Bryant Celestine, Alabama Coushatta Tribe, Livingston, Texas
Mr. Walter Celestine, Alabama Coushatta Tribe, Livingston, Texas
Mr. Ron Charlie, Acoma Pueblo, Acoma, New Mexico
Mr. Dale L. Clark, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Julia Clifton, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Terry Cole, Choctaw Nation, Durant, Oklahoma
Mr. Kent Collier, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, McLoud, Oklahoma
Ms. Cherrie A. Corey, Concord, Massachusetts
Ms. Donna Cossette, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Mr. Bruce Crespin, Bureau of Land Management, Native American Office,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Robert Cry, Tohono O'odham, Topary, Arizona
Mr. George Daingkau, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Fort Cobb, Oklahoma
Mr. Leland Michael Darrow, Fort Sill Apache, Fort Cobb, Oklahoma
Mr. Joe Day, Leech Lake Band of Chippewa, Bemidji, Minnesota
Mr. Jeff Denny, National Park Service, Carlsbad, New Mexico
Ms. Eula Doonkeen, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Ms. Brenda Dorr, Maxwell Museum, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Ms. Katherine Dowdy, Ozark, Missouri
Mr. Alan Downer, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Patricia Duff, US Navy, San Francisco, California
Mr. Michael L. Durglo, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Pablo,
Montana
Mr. Maurice Eben, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Nixon, Nevada
Mr. David D. Echo Hawk, Kaw Nation of Oklahoma, Kaw City, Oklahoma
Mr. Roger Echo Hawk, Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado
Mr. Robert Edgerton, US Army Environmental Center, Commerce City,
Colorado
C. Ellis, Reno, Nevada
Mr. Alan D. Emarthle, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole, Oklahoma
Ms. Amy Espinoza, New Mexico State University student, Las Cruces, New
Mexico
Ms. Linda R. Fabbri, Office of the Chancellor, University of California
at Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest SOARRING, Naperville, Illinois
Ms. Gillian Flyn, National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Dabney Ford, National Park Service, Chaco Culture, Nageezi, New
Mexico
Mr. Steven Fosberg, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Lance Foster, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Yvonne Francisco, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona
Ms. Adeline Fredin, Colville Tribe, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Cheryl A. Frost, Southern Ute, Ignacio, Colorado
Ms. Dody Fugate, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Glenn Fulfer, Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument,
Mountainair, New Mexico
Ms. Reba Fuller, Central Sierra Me-Wuk Committee, Tuolumne, California
Mr. Dennis M. Funmaker, Ho-Chunk Nation, Black River Falls, Wisconsin
Mr. George Garvin, Ho-Chunk Nation, Black River Falls, Wisconsin
Mr. Thomas Gates, Yurok Tribe, Eureka, California
Ms. Julia Geffroy, Picuris Pueblo, Penasco, New Mexico
Mr. Craig Gerlad, University of Alaska, College, Alaska
Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Pauline Girvin y Montoya, Mendocino County Intertribal Repatriation,
Ukiah, California
Mr. William Gollnick, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Myron Gonzales, San Ildefonso, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Robert Gough, Estate of Crazy Horse, Rosebud Sioux NAGPRA, Rosebud,
South Dakota
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Mr. Paul Graham, Utah National Guard Cultural Resources, Draper, Utah
Mr. Dell Greek, US Army Reserve Command, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
Mr. Orville Greendeer, Ho-Chunk Nation, Black River Falls, Wisconsin
Mr. Glen S. Greene, Stratigraphic Services, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Priscilla C. Grew, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska
Mr. David Grignon, Menominee Nation, Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation
Committee, Keshena Wisconsin
Ms. Suzanne Griset, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri
Mr. David Guldenzopf, Department of the Army, APG, Maryland
Mr. Gilbert Gutierrez, Santa Clara Pueblo, Espanola, New Mexico
Ms. Lesa K. Hagel, Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing, Rapid City, South
Dakota
Mr. Clay Hamilton, Hopi Tribe, Hotevilla, Arizona
Ms. Lynne Harlan, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North
Carolina
Mr. Frank Harrison, Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes, Concho, Oklahoma
Ms. Sebra Harry, Pyramid Lake Paiute, Nixon, Nevada
Ms. Valerie Hauser, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC
Mr. Dale Hayden, Museum of Indian Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Roberta Hayworth, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri
Ms. Lorraine Heartfield, Stratigraphic Services, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Milton Herrera, Tesuque Pueblo, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Tony Herrera, Cochiti, Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico
Mr. Brent Hicks, Colville Tribe, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Susan Hirano, Office of the Chancellor, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Ms. Holly Houghten, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mescalero, New Mexico
Mr. Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Owyhee, Nevada
Mr. Audie Huber, Umatilla Tribe, Pendleton, Oregon
Mr. Robb Hunter, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Mary Alice Jaosin, Navajo, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mr. G. Peter Jemison, Haudenosaunee, Victor, New York
Mr. Joseph T. Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona
Ms. Dyan J. Jojola, Isleta Pueblo, Atlixco Coalition, Isleta, New Mexico
Mr. Larry A. Jordan, Colville Tribe, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Eunice Kahn, Dineh, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Clara Sue Kidwell, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
Mr. Tom Killion, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
Mr. Keith Kintigh, Society for American Archaeology, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona
Mr. Lyman Kionute, Sr., Caddo, Binger, Oklahoma
Mr. Rey Kitchkumme, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, Kansas
Mr. Jim Langford, The Coosawattee Foundation, Calhoun, Georgia
Ms. Signa Larralde, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Lisa M. Leap, Grand Canyon National Park Service, Flagstaff, Arizona
Mr. Sebastian "Bronco" LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte,
South Dakota
Mr. Pat Lefthand, Kootenai Tribe, Polson, Montana
Mr. Larry Littlebird, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Ronald Sam Little Owl, Mandan Sioux, ND Intertribal Reinterment
Committee, Halliday, North Dakota
Ms. Gloria Lomahaftewa, Hopi/Choctaw, Heard Museum, Phoenix, Arizona
Mr. Garfield Long, Jr., Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee,
North Carolina
Mr. Edward M. Luby, Phoebe Hearst Museum, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Ms. Rena Martin, Maxwell Museum, Bloomfield, New Mexico
Ms. Sandra Kaye Massey, Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
Ms. Carolyn McArthur, Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado
Ms. Susan McCabe, Silver City, Nevada
Mr. David McNeece, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Sybil Melik, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Thomas Merlan, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. James Mermejo, Picuris Pueblo, Penasco, New Mexico
Ms. Jess Mermejo, Picuris Pueblo, Penasco, New Mexico
Mr. Richard Mermy, Picuris Pueblo, New Mexico
Ms. Sibel Melik, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Tim Mentz, Sr., Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, North Dakota
Mr. Bob Metcalf, Nome, Alaska
Mr. Miles R. Miller, Yakama/Nez Perce, Wapato, Washington
Ms. Susan Miller, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
Mr. Mark Mitchell, Tesuque Pueblo, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Marsha Monestersky, Sovereign Dineh Nation, Kaibito, Arizona
Ms. Liz Montour, Mohawk Nation Kahnawake, Denver Museum of Natural
History, Denver, Colorado
Mr. John Moody, Abenaki, Sharon, Vermont
Ms. Grace Moore, Colville Tribe, Nespelem, Washington
T. Morquart, Hopi FDN/COO, Flagstaff, Arizona
Ms. Judy Morgan, State of Nebraska, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska
Ms. Kaea J. Morris, Geo-Marine, Inc., El Paso, Texas
Mr. Chris Morton, student, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Loretta Moseley, National Park Service, Mountainair, New Mexico
Ms. Colleen M. Moses, Colville/Nez Perce, Coulee Dam, Washington
Mr. Alvin Moyle, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Ms. Lynn Murdoch, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, Idaho
Mr. Ed Natay, Intermountain Support Office, National Park Service, Santa
Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Theresa Nichols, National Park Service, Aztec Ruins, Aztec, New
Mexico
Ms. Nila Northsun Wright, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Mr. Ernest Ortega, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Roger Paini, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Fred Parton, Caddo, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Ms. Lucille Parton, Caddo, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Mr. Joe Pechonick, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Dewey, Oklahoma
Ms. Paula Pechonick, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Dewey, Oklahoma
Ms. Susan Perlman, SWCA, Inc. Environmental Center, Albuquerque, New
Mexico
Mr. James Pepper Henry, National Museum of the American Indian,
Kaw/Muskogee, Bronx, New York
Ms. Elaine F. Peters, Ak Chin Indian Community, Maricopa, Arizona
Ms. Ramona Peters, Wampanoag Confederation, Mashpee, Massachusetts
Mr. Peter M. Pino, Pueblo of Zia, Zia Pueblo, New Mexico
Ms. June-el Piper, Navajo Nation employee, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Delores Poncho, Alabama Coushatta Tribe, Livingston, Texas
Mr. Clyde Qutsuisivama, Hopi, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Ms. Leta Rector, Cherokee, Sapulpa, Oklahoma
Mr. Joby Redcorn, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Marla Redcorn, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Soy Redthunder, Colville/Nez Perce, Elmer City, Washington
Ms. Judy Reed, National Park Service, Pecos, New Mexico
Ms. Charla Reeves, Peoria Tribe, Miami, Oklahoma
Mr. Steven Rezz, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Janie Rhinesmith, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe, Livingston, Texas
Mr. James Riding-In, Arizona State University, Pawnee Nation, Tempe,
Arizona
Mr. Jed Riffe, Independent Producers Services, Berkeley, California
Ms. Alexa Roberts, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Donna Roberts, Abenaki, Sharon, Vermont
Mr. Austin Rock, Santa Clara Pueblo, Espanola, New Mexico
Mr. Jerry Rogers, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Dallas Ross, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Granite Falls,
Minnesota
Mr. Victor Roubidoux, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Perkins, Oklahoma
Mr. Ed Roybal, Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Mr. Gary Roybal, Bandelier National Monument, Pueblo of San Ildefonso,
New Mexico
Mr. Victor E. Roybal, Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe, Las Cruces, New
Mexico
Ms. Elizabeth Sackler, American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation
Foundation, New York, NY
Ms. Alyce Sadongei, Kiowa/Tohono O'odham, Tucson, Arizona
Ms. Virginia Salazar, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Merton Sandoval, Jicarilla Apache, Dulce, New Mexico
Mr. Randy Sandoval, Jicarilla Apache, Dulce, New Mexico
Ms. Sarah Schlanger, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe, New
Mexico
Ms. Cherie Schick, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Gary Selinger, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska
Ms. Janet Seville, Lyons, Illinois
Ms. Velda Shelby, Ktunaxa Nation, Pablo, Montana
Mr. Benny Shendoah, Jr., Pueblo of Jemez, Jemez, New Mexico
Ms. Patty Shinn, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Quapaw, Oklahoma
Mr. Jon M. Shumaker, Ak Chin Indian Community, Maricopa, Arizona
Mr. Dan Simplicio, Zuni, Zuni, New Mexico
Mr. Alvin Slow Bear, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South Dakota
Mr. Phil Sosywisana, Maricopa/Pima, Laveen, Arizona
Mr. David Lee Smith, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Nebraska
Mr. Joseph Sotranz, Ojibwa, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Joseph Standing Bear, White Earth Ojibwa, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Joseph Suina, Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico
Mr. Simon E. Suina, Cochiti Pueblo, New Mexico
Mr. Virgil Swift, Wichita Tribe, Oklahoma
Ms. Gloria Swingson, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Mr. Robert Tabor, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Concho, Oklahoma
Ms. Dorothea Theodoratus, Central Sierra Me-Wuk Committee Consultant,
Fair Oaks, California
Mr. Russell Thornton, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Smithsonian
Repatriation Review Committee, University
of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Mr. Stan C. Timentwa, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Mr. Robert Tomarawash, Wahapum, Ephrata, Washington
Ms. Carmelita Topuha, Navajo, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Linda Towle, National Park Service, Mesa Verde, Colorado
Mr. Joe Toya, Native, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Christy Turner, Smithsonian Repatriation Committee, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona
Ms. Teresa Valencia, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Salt Flat, Texas
Mr. Ernest M. Vallo, Sr., Acoma Pueblo, Acoma, New Mexico
Ms. Margaret Vazquez-Giffey, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas,
New Mexico
Mr. Elmer Vigil, Tiwa Tesuque Pueblo, Tesuque, New Mexico
Mr. Jose L. Villegas, Sr., Petroglyphs Por Los Ninos Coalition, Santa
Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Hollis Walker, Santa Fe New Mexican Newspaper, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Joe Watkins, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Mr. Roy Weaver, Bandelier National Monument, Pueblo of San Ildefonso,
New Mexico
Ms. Yvette Weeks, Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation Committee, Oneida,
Wisconsin
Mr. William Whatley, Pueblo of Jemez, Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico
Ms. Lucy Whalley, US Army, Champaign, Illinois
Ms. Germaine White, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo,
Montana
Mr. Don Whyte, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde, Colorado
Mr. Larry T. Wiese, National Park Service, Mesa Verde, Colorado
Mr. LeRoy Williams, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Mr. Tom W. Wilson, Colville/Nez Perce, Coulee Dam, Washington
Ms. Kathy Womer, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Danette D. Woodmansee, Oneida Nation, Wisconsin
Mr. Frank E. Wozniak, Southwestern Region, Forest Service, Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Mr. Katie Wright, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
Mr. Mitch Wright, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Gardnerville,
Nevada
Ms. Bonnie Wutlunee-Wadsworth, Shoshone-Bannock, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Bill Wyatt, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara - Three Affiliated
Tribes, Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. Gordon Yellowman, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Concho,
Oklahoma
Mr. Phil Young, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Hal Zelkind, Department of Interior Office of the Inspector General,
Lakewood, Colorado

Ms. Naranjo welcomed the Review Committee members and members of the
audience. Governor Manual Archuleta of Picuris Pueblo gave the opening
invocation. The Review Committee members introduced themselves.

Mr. Jerry Rogers, Superintendent of the NPS Southwest Support Office,
welcomed the Review Committee members and audience members to Santa Fe
and offered the support of the NPS Southwest Support Office throughout
the course of the meeting.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the Review Committee members and audience
members. He explained that the meetings, which are business meetings
for the committee, are open to the public with scheduled public comment
periods; however, most of the public comment time was reserved for
individuals requesting an opportunity to speak prior to the meeting.
Mr. McManamon expressed his appreciation to the Review Committee members
and NPS staff for their work on implementing the Statute. He then gave
a brief review of the agenda.

Implementation Update

Mr. McManamon explained that each Review Committee member had a summary
in their binder of the progress made in NAGPRA implementation since the
previous meeting in Portland, Oregon in June 1998.

Museum/Federal Agency Collections

Summaries: The NPS has received summaries from 1,032 institutions and
is currently in the process of entering the information into the
database.

Inventories: The NPS has received inventories from 733 institutions and
is currently reviewing the inventories. Mr. Bradley asked what
percentage of the expected total of agencies and institutions are
represented in the report. Mr. McManamon replied that given the length
of time the law has been in effect and the level of outreach activities
of both the NPS staff and the Review Committee members, that
approximately 90 percent of required organizations have complied.

Federal Register Notices: To date, the NPS has published 249 Notices of
Inventory Completion, covering 13,803 individual sets of Native American
human remains and 291,807 associated funerary objects. The NPS has also
published 106 Notices of Intent to Repatriate, covering 39,873
unassociated funerary objects, 776 sacred objects, 429 objects of
cultural patrimony, and 281 objects that fit both the sacred object and
object of cultural patrimony categories. In response to a question from
Ms. Naranjo, Mr. McManamon stated 134 notices were awaiting publication.
He explained that the process of publication is time-consuming in order
to ensure compliance with the statute, and the NPS has only one to two
full-time staff available to work on notice publications. Ms. Naranjo
recalled discussions at the Portland meeting concerning the need for
additional resources for the NPS, which resulted in a letter from the
Review Committee members to Secretary Babbitt. Mr. McManamon explained
that there has been no response from the Secretary to date. Mr.
Minthorn stated the backlog is causing delays in repatriation
determinations and suggested a follow-up letter to the Secretary. Mr.
Hart added that in addition to letters from the Review Committee, more
tribal support is needed in seeking additional funding.

Grants: Since 1994, 116 grants totaling $6.5 million were awarded to
Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and 89 grants totaling
$4.2 million were awarded to museums. In 1998, grants totaling $2.3
million were awarded to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations,
and four grants were awarded to Indian tribes for repatriation of human
remains, funerary objects and other cultural objects. The NPS received
49 proposals for tribal grants and 19 proposals for museum grants for
Fiscal Year 1999. Mr. Minthorn stated tribal consultation needs to be
emphasized to museums and institutions.

Extensions: In 1995, 58 institutions were granted time extensions for
inventory completion. To date, 51 institutions completed work on their
inventories and one institution is still under a time extension. Mr.
McManamon explained that after an original extension deadline of
November 16, 1998 passed, six museums made an appeal to the Secretary
for additional extensions. Ms. Naranjo expressed concern at the limited
information provided in the request for extension from the University of
Texas at Austin.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McManamon stated the civil penalties regulations
were published as interim regulations and are in force. The civil
penalty process involves an individual or group bringing an organization
suspected of not being in compliance with NAGPRA to the attention of the
Secretary. The NPS staff conducts an initial review of the situation
which is followed by contact with the involved organization and further
investigation as necessary. Ms. Mattix explained the Secretary is
authorized by the Act to assess civil penalties on any museum that fails
to comply with the requirements of the Act. Mr. Minthorn disagreed with
granting additional time extensions. He stated that civil penalties
need to be enforced, again substantiating the need for additional
resources for the NPS to implement NAGPRA. Mr. McManamon explained that
requests for additional resources for civil penalty implementation have
been made at the program level, which have been unsuccessful. He added
that additional support from the Review Committee might be helpful. Mr.
O'Shea cautioned against a blanket refusal of extensions to all
institutions, as some have been acting in good faith.

Native American Consultation Database: Ms. Schansberg stated that the
Native American consultation database became available on the World Wide
Web on November 6, 1998 and contains all hard copy consultation
information maintained by the NPS since 1992. Information on the
database is searchable by tribe, state, county, contact name,
reservation, and Air Force installation. Information from the remaining
military installations and Federal agencies will be added in the future.
Two different types of reports can be generated using the database, a
full data report containing tribal association with land claims
established judicially by the Indian Claims Commission and a NAGPRA
contact report. Items of particular interest to Indian tribes can also
be listed in the database, at the discretion of individual Indian
tribes.

Excavations/Discoveries

Bonnichsen v. USACOE: Mr. McManamon reported that in consultation with
Indian tribes and working with the Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Justice the NPS completed a document that provides for documentation,
analysis, interpretation and disposition of the human remains found at
Kennewick, Washington. A draft of this document was previously
discussed at the Portland meeting. A team of experts will be assembled
in the spring of 1999 to conduct the initial examination, documentation
and interpretation of the human remains, which are currently being held
at the Burke Museum, University of Washington.

Trafficking

Mr. McKeown stated that there have been eleven successful prosecutions
under the NAGPRA statute since 1992. Three of the individuals were
prosecuted for trafficking in Native American human remains and the
remaining individuals were prosecuted for trafficking in Native American
cultural items. Since the Portland meeting, one person was convicted
for selling a Navajo medicine bundle for $6,000 in Arizona.

Overview of Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains

Mr. McManamon explained that for the past three to four years, the
Review Committee members have been working on the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains and have made three attempts at drafting
recommendations, including a draft at the previous meeting in Portland,
Oregon entitled "Draft Principles of Agreement Regarding the Disposition
of Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains." The drafts
were designed as a starting point for more detailed discussions about
culturally unidentifiable human remains. He stated that some of the
different categories of culturally unidentifiable human remains
contained in the draft principles might be represented in the requests
before the Review Committee members at the Santa Fe meeting and might
lead to additional ways of addressing the general situation of
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Ms. Mattix emphasized the need
for consistency among recommendations regarding individual cases.
Mr. McKeown described the database of culturally unidentifiable human
remains and associated funerary objects. The database contains
information on both culturally affiliated and culturally unidentifiable
human remains in order to compare their geographical locations.
Inventories from 57 institutions were entered into the database and
include 8,061 culturally unidentifiable human remains and 24,952
associated funerary objects. Of the database entries, 82 percent of
culturally unidentifiable human remains and 99 percent of associated
funerary objects came from a known location (where both the state and
county were identified); 69 percent of culturally unidentifiable human
remains and 87 percent of associated funerary objects came from a known
earlier group (PaleoIndian, Archaic, Anasazi, Sinagua, Plains Woodland,
etc.); 14 percent of culturally unidentifiable human remains and four
percent of associated funerary objects were affiliated with a known
ancient group (PaleoIndian or Archaic designation).

Specific Requests Regarding The Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable
Native American Human Remains

Request From Carlsbad Caverns National Park/Guadalupe Mountains National
Park

Mr. Jeff Denny, Curator at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, explained he
was speaking on behalf of both Carlsbad Caverns National Park and
Guadalupe Mountains National Park for a request to repatriate culturally
unidentifiable human remains and funerary objects from three known sites
within park lands to a unified group of twelve Indian tribes who have
demonstrated traditional, cultural and historical relationships to the
Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains regions. The twelve Indian
tribes are the Mescalero Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Fort Sill
Apache Tribe, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zia, Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo, Pueblo of Zuni, Comanche Tribe, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. Despite
contact with other Indian tribes and New Mexico pueblos, the parks have
not received responses from any other groups. All three sites are
within the aboriginal territory of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, as
determined by the Indian Claims Commission, and are adjacent to the
aboriginal lands of the Chiracauha Apache, Fort Sill Apache Tribe,
Western Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Kiowa Tribe, Comanche
Tribe, and Apache Tribes of Oklahoma.

Mr. Denny reported that during consultation meetings with the Indian
tribes, a consensus agreement was developed which stated that the
remains should be repatriated and returned to their original locations.
The twelve Indian tribes agreed to seek repatriation of the materials as
a group and that no definitive determination of cultural affiliation of
the remains with a specific Indian tribe would be sought. He explained
that the parks were proposing to use the standards provided in the
inadvertent discovery section of NAGPRA to repatriate these individuals
to this group of Indian tribes that demonstrated a cultural relationship
to park lands.

The human remains and funerary objects from two of the known sites were
believed to be from the Archaic period in West Texas and Southeastern
New Mexico, which is approximately 6000 BC to 500 AD, based upon the
type and dating of the materials from the first site. Although no
direct line has been established through archaeology or anthropology
that would tie Archaic period people to modern-day Indian tribes in this
region, many of the groups do place Archaic period populations into
their oral histories. The surface materials from the first site were
most likely associated with the Mescalero Apache, due to their known
frequent use of the area. The only information available for the third
site is the location; however, the human remains and funerary objects
are presumed to be Native American since they were found in association
with Native American pictographs, and there are no records or stories of
Anglo or historic American burials in that area. Within the immediate
vicinity of the third site, there is evidence of at least three
different cultures, the Archaic period, the Joronado-Mogollon period and
the Apache occupation of the Guadalupe Mountains.

Ms. Ellyn Bigrope, Mescalero Apache Tribe, explained the Guadalupe
Mountains are sacred to the Indian tribe, one of the sacred dances of
the Indian tribe came from the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Indian tribe
still has strong ties and interests to the mountains. She expressed the
desire of the Mescalero Apache Tribe to be one with the other 11 Indian
tribes to repatriate these human remains for proper reburial.

Mr. Merton Sandoval, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, expressed concern that the
human remains are in the possession of the NPS and explained that this
group of Indian tribes, with the support of the Carlsbad Caverns
National Park, has come together to ask that the human remains be
reburied as soon as possible. He stated that through oral traditions,
legends and stories, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has ties to the Carlsbad
Caverns.

Mr. Michael Darrow, Fort Sill Apache Tribe, stated that one of the
ceremonies of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe comes specifically from the
Guadalupe Mountains. He stated that one of the reasons for NAGPRA is
for Native American remains and related practices to be treated with the
same degree of respect accorded to non-Indian Western society practices.
Exhuming, sampling, studying, documenting and exhibiting human remains
of any age is considered disrespectful by the Indian tribe, and age and
relative connection with currently existing cultures are not criteria
for determining the degree of respect to be accorded to human remains
and associated items. He explained that although his people have a
great regard for knowledge, learning and science, they need to be
acquired legitimately in a culturally appropriate context. The proposal
appears to be appropriate and is acceptable to the Fort Sill Apache
Tribe.

Mr. George Daingkau, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, thanked the Review
Committee for allowing the presentation of the proposal and stated the
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma sent their regards. He explained the tribal
council unanimously consented that the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma would
join with this proposal and continue to help in any way, so that the
ancestors would be put in their final resting place.

Mr. Clyde Qutsuisivama, Hopi Tribe, explained that oral tradition of the
Hopi Tribe shows migration of clans through the area, and prayer
offerings are still made to these regions. He stated these remains are
not considered abandoned by the Hopi Tribe, and the Indian tribe
supports the request proposed by the two parks.

Review Committee Discussion: The Review Committee members agreed that
this situation provides a very good model of a regionalized effort to
repatriate culturally unidentifiable human remains, and the two parks
and the tribal groups have done an excellent job working together toward
this goal. Mr. Minthorn stressed the importance of oral tradition and
need for protection of the human remains and funerary objects after
reburial, since they would be returned at or near their original
locations on NPS land.

The Review Committee members agreed that the repatriation of human
remains and funerary objects proceed and emphasized the importance of
the following points: consideration of the issue of cultural
affiliation and the conclusion that these human remains were culturally
unidentifiable for the purposes of NAGPRA; consultation with Indian
tribes having potential interest in the human remains and funerary
objects; adherence to the guidelines of NAGPRA and the required
documentation; consideration of the potential scientific and educational
value of these human remains and funerary objects, as well as the future
likelihood of a determination of cultural affiliation; and finally, the
parties have come before the Review Committee to ask if the return of
these remains and funerary objects to the Indian tribes is appropriate,
despite the fact that a firm cultural affiliation has not been
determined. Mr. McManamon stated that a letter would be sent from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Director of the NPS outlining these
points and the recommendation for repatriation, which would be followed
by a Federal Register Notice of Inventory Completion.

Request From Harvard University

Ms. Trish Capone, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, stated that the museum is seeking a recommendation from the
Review Committee to the Secretary of the Interior to allow repatriation
of two sets of culturally unidentifiable human remains from Uxbridge and
Concord, Massachusetts to a non-Federally recognized Indian group, the
Nipmuc Nation of Central Massachusetts. The Peabody Museum followed the
five-step process outlined in an August 1996 Review Committee
recommendation: One, consultation with the Nipmuc Nation confirming the
individuals were from Nipmuc traditional territories; two, an attempt to
determine cultural affiliation using historical, archaeological and oral
tradition as evidence; three, consultation with Federally recognized
groups with a potential geographical interest in the area (the Wampanoag
Confederation provided a formal letter of support for each case and the
Stockbridge-Munsee confirmed that the individuals were from a
traditional area of the Nipmuc Nation and provided oral support for the
repatriation); four, an agreement between the Peabody Museum of
Archeology and Ethnology, the Nipmuc Nation, and the Wampanoag
Confederation to repatriate to a non-Federally recognized Indian group;
and five, a request for a recommendation to the Secretary of the
Interior that these remains be repatriated to the Nipmuc Nation.

Mr. John Brown, Narragansett, stated due to time date and geographical
location the claim is clearly Nipmuc. He explained that the
Narragansett Tribe was not consulted on this matter, but supports
repatriation of these remains to the Nipmuc Nation and would have
written a letter of support in favor of the repatriation due to ancient
ties with the Nipmuc people.

Review Committee Discussion: The Review Committee members agreed to
recommend repatriation of the two sets of culturally unidentifiable
remains to the Nipmuc Nation from the Peabody Museum at Harvard. Mr.
O'Shea commented about the need for guidance encouraging consultation on
a broad basis, perhaps erring on the side of inclusion. Mr. Minthorn
once again stressed the importance of consultation and the need for
follow-up to museums and universities on the definition of consultation.
He pointed out many avenues are available to gather consultation data.
Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS would draft a letter from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Peabody Museum at Harvard outlining the
recommendation, which would then be followed by a Federal Register
Notice of Inventory Completion.

Request from the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco

Committee Discussion: Mr. Hart explained that the Fine Arts Museum of
San Francisco is requesting a recommendation from the Review Committee
for disposition of 91 objects which the museum considers to be
associated burial goods excavated in approximately 1902 from Point
Richmond, Contra Costa, California. After discussion, the Review
Committee members stated that based on lack of information the objects
could not be determined to be objects of cultural patrimony, sacred
objects, or funerary objects. The NPS will write a response to the Fine
Arts Museum requesting additional information to determine if the
objects are covered by the statute.

Request from the Commonwealth of Virginia

Committee Discussion: Ms. Mattix explained to the Committee that the
letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia was an informational letter
provided to the Review Committee. The reburial discussed in this
particular situation did not fall under NAGPRA since the human remains
were excavated on private land and the Virginia burial law does not
appear to establish the Commonwealth's control of the human remains. No
action was required on the part of the Review Committee members.

Request from the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council

Mr. Dallas Ross, Chairman of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and
the Upper Sioux Community of Dakotas, stated he was back before the
Committee to discuss the proposal by the Minnesota State Archaeologist
and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council as to the disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains in the possession of the
council. Mr. Ross expressed confusion regarding the Review Committee's
recommendation at the January 1998 meeting in Washington DC and the
information requested in subsequent letters from Mr. McManamon and the
NPS office. The letters required the consent of Indian tribes outside
of the state of Minnesota while allowing repatriation to Indian tribes
or reservations only within the State of Minnesota. The council has
taken great pains to contact everyone that should be contacted and to
meet the other requirements that were set forth by the Review Committee
in contacting additional Indian tribes. As noted in the documentation,
not all Indian tribes have responded. Mr. Ross asked what an acceptable
time period would be to wait for a response from these Indian tribes, to
fulfill the requirement of written consent. He stated he did not wish
to give the impression that he was trying to speed this process along in
order to avoid communication, and stated he will continue to communicate
with other Indian tribes until these human remains are reburied. He
feels the human remains do not belong to the people who have them now,
including the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. They belong to the
earth which is protecting them and the Creator that created the place
for them.

Mr. McManamon apologized for the delay in the response from the NPS
office to the council and the Minnesota State Archaeologist and any
confusion created by correspondence. He explained that the
correspondence was a direct result of the Review Committee member's
recommendations and suggestions at the January 1998 meeting. One of the
concerns of the Review Committee members at that time, which the NPS
attempted to address in the letter to the council and the state
archaeologist, was the concern that the human remains in question had
been recovered from within the state of Minnesota and would have been
subject to the state laws if NAGPRA did not exist. The request from the
council and the state archaeologist was essentially to follow the state
procedures. The Review Committee members were concerned that Federally
recognized Indian tribes or non-recognized Indian groups currently not
residing within the state of Minnesota might also have an interest in
the disposition of these human remains. The Review Committee members
asked the council and the state archaeologist to ensure that
representatives of those Indian tribes were aware of this plan,
Federally recognized Indian tribes needed to provide written concurrence
with the proposed repatriation and non-Federally recognized Indian
groups were given an opportunity for comment, a notice of inventory
completion needed to be published in the Federal Register, and any
documentation that exists for the culturally unidentifiable human
remains would be available for educational and scientific uses.

The Review Committee members asked the NPS to look at the inventory and
ensure that it was complete. Thereafter, the NPS responded in writing
to the council and the state archaeologist that a preliminary review of
the inventory submission indicated the information for the culturally
affiliated and culturally unidentifiable inventories was complete. Mr.
McManamon stated that following the Santa Fe meeting, the NPS would
review the issue to determine the reason for the use of the word
"preliminary" and confirm that the inventory was complete. Mr. Ross
responded that all available information on the human remains had been
provided.

Mr. McManamon explained that the conditions listed in the letter were
not formulated by the DOI but were based upon the Review Committee
members' discussion at the January meeting. The standard of written
concurrence in this situation was very high, especially with the large
number of Indian tribes involved. In this situation the council was
dealing with an entire state, and in past discussions the Review
Committee members have dealt with much smaller groups. When issuing
recommendations for repatriation to non-Federally recognized Indian
groups, the Review Committee members have always required written
concurrence from potentially affiliated Federally recognized Indian
tribes. The Peabody Museum was very careful to have that type of
information available regarding the Nipmuc situation before coming to
the Review Committee. Mr. McManamon stated the Review Committee could
change its recommendation to require consultation within a certain time
period, rather than written concurrence.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. O'Shea reminded the other Review
Committee members that the requirement of concurrence was to protect the
rights of Federally recognized Indian tribes, and added that
consultation time limits might have implications in later situations.
Mr. Bradley commented that the standard of written concurrence was very
high and perhaps what the Review Committee members meant was a standard
of notification. Ms. Mattix stated the Review Committee members could
change the recommendation to a different standard, but they needed to
document reasons for the change. Mr. O'Shea expressed concern about
changing from a standard of consent to a standard of notification, which
may be considered unacceptable in other circumstances. Mr. Bradley
stated in this case he felt there had been sufficient consultation and
discussion on the part of the council and the state archaeologist,
resulting in agreement between the two parties on how to proceed with
repatriation of the culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. McKeown pointed out the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council provided
the Review Committee members with what might be considered a record of
consultation, including documentation of letters and telephone calls,
which is the requirement for Federal agencies in terms of inadvertent
discoveries or planned excavations. Mr. Ross added that during the
course of his presentation, he received two letters of concurrence from
individuals present at the meeting representing the Indian tribes at
issue in this discussion, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Standing
Rock Sioux Tribes, Spirit Lake Sioux and the Three Affiliated Tribes.

The Review Committee members changed their recommendation to ask for
written evidence of notification and a record of consultation, as
provided by the council. They advised the council to proceed with
publication of their Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal
Register and then repatriation. Mr. Minthorn stated the situation
substantiates the need for clarification of what consultation means.
Mr. Hart added the situation also points to the urgency of establishing
recommendations on the disposition of culturally unidentified human
remains.

Request from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Ms. Priscilla Grew, NAGPRA Coordinator and Vice Chancellor for Research
at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL), stated she was
presenting a request to repatriate culturally unidentifiable human
remains currently under the control of the UNL state museum. On
September 1, 1998, UNL Chancellor James Moeser signed an agreement with
representatives from a group of Indian tribes from the Great Plains.
The nations represented at the meeting claimed culturally unidentifiable
human remains listed in the UNL inventory. At that meeting, Chancellor
Moeser stated the policy of the UNL was to work toward the repatriation
of all Native American human remains, affiliated and culturally
unidentifiable, currently held at the UNL, in a systematic, accurate and
respectful manner in compliance with Federal law. He apologized on
behalf of the UNL for the insensitive and grievous treatment of Native
American human remains.

A letter was sent to the Review Committee members requesting a
recommendation for repatriation of the culturally unidentifiable human
remains, and a copy of the inventory of those human remains and the
September 1st agreement were included. The group of Indian tribes
making the claim include the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, Santee Sioux Tribe
of Nebraska, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Ponca
Tribe of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, North Dakota Intertribal
Reinterment Committee for the tribes of North Dakota, including the
Three Affiliated Tribes (Arikara, Mandan and Hidatsa), Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe, Turtle Mountain Band of Ojibwa, Spirit Lake Nation, Iowa
Tribe of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, Yankton Sioux Tribe,
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Rosebud Sioux Tribe.
Meetings with representatives from these Indian tribes were held in
Lincoln, Nebraska, where tribal representatives selected Ms. Pemina
Yellow Bird of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee to chair those meetings and make a
presentation on behalf of this group of Indian tribes to the Review
Committee.

Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes and the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee, stated that she was present as chair
of a working group assembled to deal with the issues at the UNL. On
September 1, 1998, the group made a joint intertribal claim to all of
the so-called culturally unidentifiable human remains in the possession
of the UNL. All of the signatory Indian tribes to the claim are
Indigenous nations who have aboriginal homelands within the state of
Nebraska. The group made the claim for these ancestors out of a desire
to show respect and a promise to bring them home. These human remains
were abused, mistreated, disrespected, seriously traumatized, and
harmed. Ms. Yellow Bird stated that the law is very clear; NAGPRA
contains a mechanism that allows for joint intertribal claims made by
Indian tribes that have a shared or collective aboriginal homelands. The
group came before the NAGPRA Review Committee after being threatened
with lawsuits by individuals from the science and museum industries to
stop the repatriation, and to prevent further development of that
situation. She explained that the group has established a shared group
identity and through oral history can show their relatives lived within
what is now known as the state of Nebraska.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Bradley asked for the status of both
affiliated and culturally unidentifiable human remains at the UNL. Ms.
Grew replied that on September 30th draft Notices of Inventory
Completion for all of the culturally affiliated human remains were sent
to the NPS. The notices for the Omaha Tribe, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska,
and Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma were published in the Federal Register. The
NPS staff was currently reviewing the notices for the Pawnee, Arikara,
and Wichita Tribes, two notices involving Alaskan human remains, and one
notice for a joint claim for human remains from the state of Nebraska
from a group of Indian tribes. She explained that the total number of
individually distinct human remains at the University of Nebraska is
approximately 1,700, and the group of culturally unidentifiable human
remains presently before the Review Committee included 152 individuals.
She stated that the UNL complied with NAGPRA requirements in the
preparation of summaries and inventories. The group of human remains
before the Review Committee today and another group from the state of
Nebraska were previously identified as culturally unidentifiable due to
a past standard to affiliate human remains with single Indian tribes.
In the evolution of the implementation of NAGPRA, shared group
affiliation has been implemented. During the past year, controversial
events at the UNL heightened the consciousness of the responsibilities
under NAGPRA, and the UNL decided to take a proactive approach to work
within these evolving procedures. Ms. Yellow Bird added that the issue
before the Review Committee at the Santa Fe meeting dealt with 152
culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains, many of which
came from UNL teaching collections and had no known affiliation.

Mr. Bradley asked about the UNL's consultation history. Ms. Grew
replied that consultation was confined to affiliated groups and was not
attempted on any of the culturally unidentifiable human remains. She
reported that the UNL had one repatriation through the Federal Register
process in 1995 to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska and Ponca Tribe of
Oklahoma and one repatriation pursuant to state law in 1991 for the
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska initiated pre-NAGPRA. Ms. Yellow Bird commented
the UNL demonstrated in the best possible way how to consult with Indian
tribes by asking questions to determine what the Indian tribes needed
and wanted. The UNL was very gracious, accommodating, respectful and
went above and beyond the call of duty in many respects.

Mr. Sullivan asked about the possibility of non-Native American human
remains being included in this group of culturally unidentifiable human
remains. Ms. Grew replied that Dr. Mory Janson (phonetic), a consultant
from Wichita State University, examined the human remains. Any definite
non-Native American human remains were not included in this group. All
other human remains were included in the group of culturally
unidentifiable human remains, and no further research or analysis will
be conducted in accordance to the Indian tribes' preference. Given
their history and the type of collection assembled over 100 years of
archaeological collecting, the UNL feels it is likely that these are
Native American human remains and therefore it is legitimate to bring
them before the Review Committee.

Mr. O'Shea stated he remained conflicted in making a recommendation
given that this situation seemed a little abrupt compared to the
presentation regarding the situation at Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Ms. Yellow Bird replied that the law was very clear and states that
joint intertribal claims of ancestral Native American human remains can
be made based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The group has
established a shared group identity by gathering together indigenous
nations that can claim what is now known as the state of Nebraska as
aboriginal homelands. Tribal identification does not need to be proven
by scientific certainty but can be based on oral history and geographic
occupation.

Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Bradley, Ms. Naranjo, Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Hart, and Mr.
Minthorn recommended that the repatriation should proceed. Mr. O'Shea
remained conflicted about the recommendation. Mr. McManamon stated that
the Secretary of the Interior would send a letter to the UNL stating
repatriation of the 152 culturally unidentifiable human remains from UNL
to this group of Indian tribes could proceed.

Implementation of the Statute in the Southwest

Pueblo of Cochiti

Mr. Joseph Suina, Governor of the Pueblo of Cochiti, explained that the
Pueblo people are among the least changed with European contact. The
Pueblo of Cochiti, with a population of 1,000, is considered one of the
traditional Pueblos of New Mexico. The way of life of Cochiti is very
enhanced in terms of ceremonial life, and the theocratic government is
at the core of their daily existence. A matter of concern to the Pueblo
of Cochiti is confidentiality of certain Pueblo knowledge. The
confidentiality issue is not a matter of Indian/non-Indian, some
knowledge is reserved for certain groups or certain individuals within
the Pueblo of Cochiti and is given to individuals based on maturity,
gender, and commitment. The Pueblo of Cochiti attempted to have things
returned through the NAGPRA process beginning in 1996. Even after a
religious leader identified items that were important to the Pueblo,
they were unable to repatriate the items because of the requirement to
explain what the items were for and when they were used. He stated that
the Pueblo of Cochiti would walk away from these items that are very
important and sacred rather than reveal this information.

Mr. McManamon explained that sacred objects by the definition in NAGPRA
are specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native
American religious leaders for the practice of Native American religions
by their present-day adherents. The NPS and the Pueblo agreed that some
of the objects are sacred, and for those objects the NPS is in the
process of announcing their availability for repatriation. However,
other objects identified by the religious leaders appeared in a physical
sense to be utilitarian objects. The NPS, while considering its
responsibility to maintain scientific collections for educational
purposes, felt that those particular objects did not fit the quite
strict and limited intent of sacred object that Congress identified in
the statute.

Mr. Roy Weaver, Superintendent of Bandelier National Monument, stated
that while he respects the difficult position of the Pueblo of Cochiti,
22 affiliated Indian tribes have an interest in the collection at
Bandelier. His concern is the other Indian tribes could return
subsequent to this situation and request repatriation of items that they
previously were unable to determine if they were used as sacred objects.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Hart thanked Governor Suina for his
focused and succinct presentation and commented that for an Indian tribe
to walk away from objects needed in traditional ceremonies due to
confidentiality issues was remarkable and also very tragic. Mr.
Minthorn stated that each Indian tribe has their own way of life with
different ideas of what is sacred and varying degrees of sacredness.
The NPS is determining what is sacred, and they have a broad
interpretation, which does not consider specific Indian tribe's
interpretations of sacred. The NPS needs to be aware of and consider
each way of life. Governor Suina's discussion of what is sacred and the
unwritten laws of the Pueblo of Cochiti needs to be considered. This
issue will come before the Review Committee again, and the Review
Committee needs to clarify for the NPS what is sacred and how sacred can
be interpreted.

Ms. Naranjo stated that as a Pueblo person she understood what Pueblo
people should know. She stated the traditional leaders who have looked
at the objects know what is sacred and have passed on that knowledge to
the NPS. The NPS needs to know and respect that these objects have
meaning. Mr. McManamon emphasized that the NPS is not trying to be
disrespectful and understands the position of the Cochiti people, but
the definition of sacred objects in the law is very restricted. The
Review Committee has discussed in the past that sacred can and does have
a broad meaning in some religious contexts, both to Native American
people and to other religious people, but the statute was more narrowly
framed than that. He added that this is one of the dilemmas that the
Review Committee has regularly faced and will continue to face in terms
of how to administer the statute.

Mr. Sullivan suggested if the NPS is concerned about setting precedent
for projectile point collections as sacred items, perhaps they can
consider the precedent of the Pueblo of Cochiti and their spiritual
leaders valuing their private information and cultural ways so strongly
that they would relinquish their claim on the objects. Mr. O'Shea
stated he understood the NPS problem as a governmental agency obliged to
follow the law and suggested a case-by-case interpretation of this type
of issue might be a viable solution, rather than trying to use these
issues as precedent setting. Mr. Bradley commented that the law is very
strict in the definition of sacred objects. The law is also very clear
in that traditional religious leaders within the community are the
authority on that subject, and on the basis of no other evidence
suggested that's enough evidence to say that should be seriously
considered.

The Review Committee members recommended that the 53 sacred objects
requested by the Pueblo of Cochiti be repatriated.

Rio Grande Foundation

Mr. Kurt Anschuetz, Program Director for the Rio Grande Foundation for
Communities and Cultural Landscapes in Santa Fe, New Mexico, explained
that his remarks are also on behalf of Ms. Cherie Scheick, the
Foundation's president. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity
to address the Review Committee regarding two issues. The first issue
is the belief that existing legislation recognizing Native Americans'
rights to repatriation and reburial establishes a precedent that
society's recognition of the specialness of places containing ancestral
Native American graves transcends the question of public versus private
land ownership. The second issue is concern about the lack of
recognition of Native American grave sites as special places due to
their nonconformity to the predominate Judeo-Christian definition of the
physical context and structures of cemeteries. Such sites located on
private lands are often disturbed out of greed or spite. He suggested
that society needs to shoulder the responsibility of reminding
landowners that willful destruction of graves on private property
represents a significant violation of society's rights.

Fallon Paiute Shoshone and Pyramid Lake Paiute

Mr. Dean Barlese, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, stated that he has learned
from oral history that people were created from Mother Earth from the
dirt and given life by the Creator and upon death are returned to the
Mother Earth. He stated that repatriation is difficult to talk about
and is dealt with slowly in his Indian tribe so people do not get hurt.
He believes in prayer and the teachings of the old people. Having their
ancestors removed from their graves has harmed his people, causing
sickness and loss.

Mr. Alvin Moyle, chairman, Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe, explained that
in October 1996 his Indian tribe was notified the BLM had in its
possession the Spirit Cave Man, which was taken from Spirit Cave in
1940. Spirit Cave is located within three miles of their present-day
reservation, well within the boundaries of the territory of the Paiute
Shoshone Tribe. Based upon written reports, the BLM conducted studies
before notifying the Indian tribe of the existence of Spirit Cave Man,
however the type of studies is unknown. The Indian tribe filed claim
for Spirit Cave Man on May 22, 1998 and received notification from the
BLM four months later that the Indian tribe would have to prove cultural
affiliation to Spirit Cave Man and other human remains found at the same
time. He described actions by the BLM that show lack of recognition of
Native American beliefs, traditions, customs and Native American
people's respect for their elders. Mr. Moyle states his Indian tribe
will be proceeding with the claim for Spirit Cave Man and hoped the
Review Committee would assist in their claim.

Mr. Maurice Eben, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and Chairman of the National
Congress of American Indians Repatriation and Burial Site Protection
Commission, stated the BLM was on an active course of changing the
history of Indian people. The BLM classifies any human remains or
funerary objects from the Great Basin that are older than 600 years as
culturally unidentifiable. Tribal history is documented in the Great
Basin as far back as 9,000 to 33,000 years. The BLM does not fulfill
their responsibility to consult, has conducted studies on Spirit Cave
Man since 1990, and claimed at the Washington DC meeting in January 1998
that an additional 20 years is needed to comply with NAGPRA. Mr. Eben
gave a specific example of a site identified for the public which was
subsequently destroyed, after specific tribal requests not to publicly
identify the site. Mr. Eben stated that such actions by the BLM need to
stop. Mr. Eben supports moving the responsibility of implementation of
NAGPRA from the NPS, as outlined in Hawaiian Resolution 98-002, to the
Office of Policy Management and Budget in order to eliminate conflict of
interest.

Review Committee Discussion The Review Committee members apologized
for the short time period available for this presentation and for the
group being placed in the section of the meeting reserved for discussing
implementation of the statute in the Southwest instead of the section
reserved for culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Virgil Swift
gave his presentation time to the Paiute Tribes. The Review Committee
members suggested scheduling this situation at a later meeting for
further discussion. The Review Committee members asked the NPS staff to
send a letter to the BLM stating that serious concerns have been raised
regarding this situation, urging the BLM to make an expeditious
determination regarding the human remains, and asking the BLM to provide
a record of their consultation history with the Indian tribes. Mr. Hart
and Mr. Minthorn expressed concern regarding the BLM's actions,
specifically the lack of consultation with Indian tribes and not
following the law. Mr. Minthorn recommended that Federal agencies make
an updated report on NAGPRA compliance to the Review Committee.

David Brugge

Mr. David Brugge, retired from the NPS, presented DNA evidence showing
similarities between Indian tribes in the same geographic locations,
such as the Navajo and Pueblo people.

Pueblo of Jemez

Mr. Benny Shendoah, Lt. Governor of the Pueblo of Jemez, welcomed the
Review Committee members to New Mexico and introduced Mr. Whatley. Mr.
Shendoah expressed appreciation to the following organizations for their
cooperation and the utmost respect given to their traditional leaders
during repatriation efforts; the Robert S. Peabody Museum at Phillips
Academy, the Peabody Museum at Harvard, the Maxwell Museum at UNM, the
Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, and the Pecos National Historical
Park. He acknowledged the cooperation of the Kiowa Nation, Comanche
Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Pueblo of
Cochiti, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Wichita Nation,
Santa Clara Pueblo, Pueblo of San Ildefonso and Pueblo of Santo Domingo.

Mr. William Whatley, Preservation Officer and Director of the Department
of Resources for the Pueblo of Jemez, described the extremely positive
repatriation efforts undertaken by the Pueblo of Jemez encompassing over
2,000 Native American human remains, 1,800 associated grave objects and
550 unassociated objects recovered from the Pueblo of Pecos. In 1836,
the population of Pecos Pueblo left their home in response to Spanish
depredations and relocated to Jemez Pueblo. In 1936, the US Government
passed an act that formally merged the Pueblo of Pecos into the Pueblo
of Jemez. Within that act, all rights to property, titles, interests
and claims on behalf of the Pecos people were vested in the tribal
administration of the Pueblo of Jemez. In 1991, the traditional leaders
initiated a search for their missing ancestors.

In 1996, an intertribal consultation meeting was hosted at the Pueblo of
Jemez where preliminary information regarding the status of the missing
ancestors was provided. A proposal by the Pueblo of Jemez was presented
to seek the repatriation and eventual reinterment of all ancestors from
Pecos National Monument without regard to racial discrimination or
segregation. A general consensus was reached by all Indian tribes. Mr.
Whatley stated that the NAGPRA negotiations proceeded flawlessly with no
opposition or obstacles by any Federal agencies; the highest degree of
respect was provided to traditional and secular leaders, tribal council
and governors. Every notice submitted was published in the Federal
Register, with the exception of the NPS notice submitted in May 1998.
The Pueblo of Jemez hopes to see the NPS notice published in the near
future. Once the notice process is complete, tribal consultation will
occur to set the time and the place for the repatriation.

Wichita Tribe

Mr. Virgil Swift, Wichita Tribe, stated he brought greetings from the
Wichita Tribe of Oklahoma and thanked the Hopi Tribe for allowing him to
come to their land.

Mr. Timothy Baugh, Wichita Tribal Archaeologist, explained the Wichita
and Affiliated Tribes were involved in repatriation activities before
the passage of NAGPRA. Tribal beliefs include reburial of human remains
in areas as close to the original grave as possible; however, that
presents a number of problems, including lack of protection of the human
remains. Therefore, the Wichita Tribe wishes to establish a cemetery at
their administrative complex outside of Anadarko, Oklahoma. Another
area of concern is academic reports used to determine cultural
affiliation with sites being accepted as evidence by the NPS without
peer review. This process led to the initial exclusion of the Wichita
Tribe as a culturally affiliated Indian tribe with the human remains
from the Pueblo of Pecos. The Wichita Tribe has presented multiple
lines of evidence of Wichita presence at Pecos but continue to be
informed that more evidence is needed. Mr. Baugh expressed concern with
the Review Committee composition when museum directors with potential
conflicts of interest are allowed to sit on the committee, even though
such members may disqualify themselves from such discussions.

Consideration of Issues Related to Confidentiality

Mr. Jerry Rogers, NPS, stated that the NPS has a very wide range of
interactions with Native Americans in the course of administering NAGPRA
and the National Historic Preservation Act, participating in the
development of tribal cultural heritage programs, and in the creation of
the Keepers of the Treasures organizations. These responsibilities have
resulted in the NPS being privy to information necessary to determine
cultural affiliation, lineal descent, and the classification of objects
as funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony;
information that sometimes runs to the very heart of what it means to be
a tribal member. The NPS tries to understand and respect restricted
information while dealing at the same time with the requirements of the
US Constitution to treat everyone equally by conducting business in the
open and having a sound basis on record for any decisions. Laws like
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are difficult to deal with under
circumstances such as NAGPRA, but they do protect all people and
actually help assure Native Americans that Federal agencies are
operating in the open. Several issues arise when decisions are based on
sensitive or confidential material; how to collect the information in a
way that does not put it at risk, how to retain the information, and how
to live up to the desired level of confidentiality.

Certain sections of Federal laws offer limited opportunity for
protection of confidential information. One section of the National
Historic Preservation Act 1992 amendments authorizes a Federal agency to
withhold information when the agency believes that releasing the
information would place a historic, sacred or archaeological site at
risk. The National Parks Omnibus Act of 1998, section 207, gives
authority to withhold information on the nature and location of objects
of cultural patrimony in National Park system units. Mr. Rogers stated
that a complete answer to this question is not possible due to the
nature of the republic of the US, but a better situation regarding the
issue of confidentiality should be possible.

Mr. Peter Pino, Tribal Administrator for the Pueblo of Zia, explained
that the population of Zia has increased from 97 tribal members in 1890
to 870 people at the present time. He stated that the Pueblo never
recruited people to become part of their religion and never volunteered
any information about the burial rights of their people. The passage of
NAGPRA and other Federal laws forced the Pueblo to share information.
He explained that people from the mainstream exploit tribal knowledge
and information for their own gain and gave examples. Mr. Pino thanked
the Review Committee members for their efforts regarding repatriation
and for coming to New Mexico.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Bradley thanked Mr. Rogers and Mr.
Pino for their presentations and encouraged Mr. Rogers to continue
looking in the Federal statutes for sections that help protect
confidentiality. Mr. McManamon explained that the protections in the
National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act refer to locations and information about the locations.
If objects can be associated with a place either recognized as an
archaeological resource or historic property, then the confidentiality
might be more easily assured. Mr. Hart stated the summer issue of
Common Ground contained articles regarding protection of information and
the subject of intellectual property. Mr. Minthorn stated that the
issue of confidentiality reinforces the need for Federal agencies to
keep the Review Committee members appraised of their level of compliance
with NAGPRA and reinforces the responsibility of Federal agencies to
protect sites in their jurisdictions, including protection of human
remains and sacred objects.

Federal Compliance with the Statute

Bureau of Reclamation

Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), explained that the
Bureau of Reclamation has lands in 17 western states and provided a map
to the Review Committee members and audience members outlining those
lands. Ms. Giesen also provided a contact list of Reclamation NAGPRA
personnel. She stated that NAGPRA responsibilities within the Bureau of
Reclamation are decentralized; however, in order to promote coordination
of NAGPRA efforts, the Commissioner's Office developed a part-time
position to deal exclusively with NAGPRA-related issues, which Ms.
Giesen currently holds. Efforts are being made to educate Reclamation
personnel directly involved with NAGPRA, with two informational meetings
held within the last year. In addition, information regarding
Reclamation's activity concerning NAGPRA will soon be available on the
Bureau of Reclamation Website. Summaries and inventories have been
submitted to the NPS, and Reclamation is currently addressing areas
identified as being incomplete by the NPS. Efforts are being made to
better coordinate tribal consultation within the Bureau of Reclamation.

One area of concern is double reporting of collections on both museum
and Federal agency inventories. Ms. Giesen urged careful evaluation of
inventories with that in mind. The Bureau of Reclamation had two
inadvertent discoveries in the past year and worked within the NAGPRA
process toward repatriation. Reclamation is working to develop
comprehensive agreements with Indian tribes where inadvertent
discoveries are likely to occur, and would appreciate working models of
agreements currently available from Indian tribes or other
organizations.

Mr. Bradley appreciated hearing from a Federal agency that is making a
good faith effort to comply with NAGPRA. Mr. Minthorn asked about the
development of protocol for tribal consultation, as described at the
Washington DC meeting. Ms. Giesen replied that the guidance protocol is
available on their Internet Website. Mr. Minthorn asked what the time
frame would be for completing the inventories. Ms. Giesen replied that
she needed to evaluate the responses from the affected regions but hoped
the inventories could be completed within a year. She added that budget
issues were a concern, as discussed previously during the meeting.

Bureau of Land Management

Mr. Steve Fosberg, New Mexico BLM, stated he was going to give the
Review Committee members a status report of local BLM efforts in terms
of NAGPRA compliance. Inventories for NAGPRA materials were completed,
starting inside the state and working outward. In 1992 and 1997, the
New Mexico BLM mailed maps to all Indian tribes with ties to New Mexico,
on which the location of sites containing NAGPRA materials were plotted.
Through codes affixed to the maps, Indian tribes were able to request
detailed documentation concerning particular areas or sites. The New
Mexico BLM has located roughly 230 sets of human remains, 70 sets of
associated funerary objects and 40 sets of unassociated funerary objects
in various repositories throughout the US.

While the BLM inventory is essentially complete, materials occasionally
come into the control of the BLM and need to be added, for example
through seizure of pot hunters' collections. The BLM has funded an
annual NAGPRA update report with the Museum of New Mexico to compile
information on such materials. To date, the BLM has not repatriated any
human remains from the museum; however, the BLM received inquiries
regarding repatriation and is discussing the situation with both the
Hopi and Navajo.

In response to a question from Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Fosberg explained that
inadvertent discoveries were handled at the field office level, through
consultation with local Indian tribes. Ms. Naranjo asked about the
status of future applicability regulations and a time frame for their
completion. Mr. McManamon replied that the future applicability
regulations were drafted and are circulating within the DOI for
publication as proposed rules, and he stated that the NPS could try to
get the regulations published before the next Review Committee meeting.
Mr. Minthorn stated that while he felt BLM as a whole is not in
compliance with NAGPRA, Mr. Fosberg's presentation was a good indication
that the New Mexico BLM is making very good efforts to comply with
NAGPRA and work with the Indian tribes. Mr. Minthorn emphasized the
need for Federal agencies to give an update report to the Review
Committee and for the Review Committee to monitor the Federal agencies,
as well as the museums and universities.

National Forest Service

Mr. Frank Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Southwestern Region of the
United States Forest Service (USFS), stated he was going to provide the
Review Committee members with a summary regarding NAGPRA compliance by
the Southwestern Region of the USFS. NAGPRA is handled at the regional
level of the USFS, which has nine regions. Summaries from the 11
national forests in the Southwest Region were provided to the NPS and 53
Indian tribes in 1993; inventories were completed in 1995. Collections
from the Southwest Region include more than 5,000 human remains and more
than 15,000 associated funerary objects, and are located in institutions
nationwide.

Site-by-site abstracts of the inventory were compiled, since the
inventory covered approximately 50,000 pages of information. The
abstracts and draft Notices of Inventory Completion were sent to 51
Indian tribes and the NPS in March and April of 1996. In May 1996, a
listing of culturally unidentifiable human remains was completed and
submitted to the Review Committee. The Southwest Region of the USFS has
repatriated more than 150 sacred objects and objects of cultural
patrimony and 800 sets of human remains and associated funerary objects
to Indian tribes in Arizona and New Mexico. All forests within the
Southwest Region of the USFS have continued to consult with interested
Indian tribes on heritage resource (cultural resource) issues.

In response to a question by Mr. Hart regarding culturally
unidentifiable human remains, Mr. Wozniak explained that of the more
than 400 sets, most come from southern New Mexico. Mr. Minthorn asked
if USFS field offices have consultation guidelines. Mr. Wozniak
explained that the USFS issued a very broad document at a national level
regarding consultations, but there are no specific guidelines. He added
that is a matter that will be addressed within the USFS by an appointed
group of officers within various regional offices. Mr. Minthorn asked
if Mr. Wozniak could further investigate the issue and report his
findings to the Review Committee.

Mr. Wozniak also described a USFS course on NAGPRA implementation that
is offered nationwide. He stated that no repatriations have occurred to
date within the Southwest Region of the USFS; however, the USFS received
one request regarding 1,200 human remains at Tonto National Forest from
the Hopi Tribe and the Salt River Pima Maricopa Tribe and are now
awaiting action on the part of these Indian tribes and other culturally
affiliated Indian tribes to initiate the repatriation process. Mr.
Wozniak explained that the USFS has always encouraged Indian tribes
working together, especially due to the reality of archaeological
cultures in the Southwest where a number of Indian tribes have the
potential for cultural affiliation with a wide variety of human remains.

Discussion of Federal Agency Compliance Report Draft

Mr. McManamon explained that at the Review Committee members' request
the NPS drafted the Federal Agency Compliance Report based upon
presentations made by Federal agencies to the Review Committee at the
January 1998 meeting in Washington DC, as well as points of discussion
by the Review Committee members at that time. He stated the report
might be useful in the Review Committee's next Report to Congress, and
suggested first sending the report to Federal agencies for updates on
their NAGPRA compliance status. He suggested that the Review Committee
members might consider returning to Washington DC in order for Federal
agencies to give updates to the Review Committee. Mr. Sullivan added
that the Review Committee has never met with Secretary Babbitt and
suggested seeing if the Secretary could find time to address some of
these urgent issue, specifically the compliance of entities within the
DOI.

Proclamation

Ms. Naranjo announced that Mr. Gary E. Johnson, Governor of the State of
New Mexico, proclaimed December 10, 1998 as American Indian Ancestors
Day and called for a moment of silence in honor and tribute to Native
American ancestors who have been exhumed throughout this country.

Consideration of a Situation Between the Central Sierra Me-Wuk and the
Hearst Museum

Ms. Reba Fuller, NAGPRA Project Director for the Central Sierra Me-Wuk
Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee, explained that as
presented at the Review Committee's Portland, Oregon meeting in June
1998, the Central Sierra Me-Wuk has two ongoing concerns regarding the
University of California at Berkeley (UCB); one, UCB has consistently
and purposely evaded responsibility with NAGPRA, and two, actions
preventing representation of California Indians' interests at a recent
the UCB Academic Senate hearing reflect a prejudice toward California
Indians. As described in a May 18, 1998 letter from the Central Sierra
Me-Wuk to the Secretary of the Interior, the Central Sierra Me-Wuk are
also concerned about the recent request by the UCB Phoebe Hearst Museum
of Anthropology for another extension to complete their inventory, and
respectfully asked the Secretary of the Interior to deny the request and
invoke civil penalties.

The Central Sierra Me-Wuk Committee requested that the NAGPRA Review
Committee address the following concerns: Why the UCB Administration
does not take NAGPRA compliance seriously; why the UCB Administration
does not allocate sufficient resources to facilitate compliance; why the
UCB Administration has failed to implement NAGPRA policies and a campus
review committee; and why the UCB Administration has failed to resolve
interdepartmental issues that have and will continue to impede
compliance with NAGPRA.

Ms. Dorothea Theodoratus, consultant to the Central Sierra Me-Wuk
Committee, explained that she worked with the Central Sierra Me-Wuk on
their repatriation grant with the UCB. Since the UCB does not have a
complete NAGPRA inventory, the Indian tribes have actually been working
on the UCB inventory. She explained that the UCB does not have a forum
for tribal complaints or issues; the UCB has engaged in degrading
dialogue with and concerning Indian tribes; and the UCB has supported a
single professor, Mr. Tim White, who has claimed possession of human
remains which he will not release to the main museum. Additionally, the
UCB Administration does not support the Phoebe Hearst Museum in
fulfilling its NAGPRA obligations.

Ms. Pauline Girvin Y Montoya, Project Director of an intertribal
consortium of Northern California peoples of Mendocino County,
California, explained that she was sent by the elders council of the
consortium to support Ms. Fuller in her contentions regarding the UCB.
She submitted a memorandum requesting to intervene as a party in real
interest at a hearing of the Privilege and Tenure Committee on the
matter of Mr. White, but was not afforded an opportunity to address the
panel. To date, no response has been made by the UCB to the request to
intervene. The consortium entered into a consultation grant with the
UCB to determine cultural affiliation of human remains; however, the
bulk of the grant money and effort has been to work on the uncompleted
UCB inventory. The consortium feels that the extension request of the
UCB is not a good faith request, and insufficient funds have been
allocated to the museum staff to complete the inventory process. She
expressed concern that she was informed the previous night about
additional Mendocino excavations, information previously not provided in
the consultative process.

Mr. Edward M. Luby, Associate Archaeological Specialist and NAGPRA
Coordinator at the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, UCB, thanked
the Review Committee for addressing the situation between the Phoebe
Hearst Museum and the Central Sierra Me-Wuk Cultural and Historic
Preservation Committee. In the fall of 1996, the museum in partnership
with the Central Sierra Me-Wuk began a NPS funded project, whose purpose
was to review museum documentation and archaeological collections in
order to make determinations concerning the status of human remains held
by the museum. The project was significant for two reasons; one, three
of the leading researchers in California archaeology and ethnography,
including Dr. Theodoratus, agreed to participate in the project, and
two, the grant was designed as a Native American internship program, a
position eventually filled by Ms. Fuller. The internship provided an
opportunity for Ms. Fuller to be trained in museum practices and
standards and the museum staff to be trained in culturally appropriate
collections care and consultation techniques. The project ended
September 30, 1998, and although not all goals were reached due to the
greater than anticipated amount of work, the parties agreed to continue
to work actively together.

Planned inventories of human remains and associated funerary objects
were not produced for two reasons; first, the Central Sierra Me-Wuk
indicated they did not want the museum to make recommendations regarding
cultural affiliation and indicated that a scientific study of
collections from Sierra Me-Wuk associated sites should take place, and
second, the consultants did not make recommendations concerning cultural
affiliation. Several weeks into the project, Ms. Fuller learned that
human remains controlled by the museum were on loan and requested that
they be returned. All human remains used for teaching were recalled
shortly thereafter; however, Professor White did not comply. The UCB
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research supported the museum's case
and brokered a sharing arrangement wherein the human remains would be
available in the weekday mornings for museum staff and weekday
afternoons for Professor White.

Ms. Linda Fabbri, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research at the UCB,
reported that the Phoebe Hearst Museum reports directly to the Vice
Chancellor for Research, who in turn reports to the Chancellor. After
Professor White refused to comply with the request to return the human
remains, a demand was made for the materials. Professor White then
turned to the academic senate to have the matter reviewed by the Senate
Committee on Privilege and Tenure. A list of possible witnesses for the
hearing was provided, but the hearing has not taken place regarding
Professor White's grievance. The meeting discussed by Ms. Montoya was a
prehearing wherein the parties agreed that the matter was of sufficient
importance to warrant a full hearing. A committee is currently being
formed to advise the administration on NAGPRA issues and will be
comprised of faculty members, senate members and outside representation.
Nominations are with the Chancellor, and the committee should be in
place by the end of January 1999. Ms. Fabbri added that in the UCB
request for inventory extension, additional funds were provided to help
the museum staff.

Review Committee Discussion: After hearing the presentations regarding
this issue, the Review Committee members discussed the following
concerns: Ms. Metcalf expressed concern that Mr. White was viewing
academic freedom and the academic senate process as greater than NAGPRA
and added that she would not support another extension to the UCB. Mr.
O'Shea reviewed the academic senate process with Ms. Fabbri and asked
for the parties' response to the claim that some of the human remains in
question are not Native American. Ms. Fuller stated that was a
statement made by Professor White. Mr. Luby replied that although some
human remains are known to be non-Native American, the overwhelming
majority are Native American with documented proveniences from
well-known archaeological sites. Mr. Luby clarified that a physical
inventory exists of the more than 100 catalogue records of human remains
under discussion, but it is not an inventory as described in NAGPRA.
Mr. Minthorn requested that the Review Committee members closely monitor
this issue and added that good faith tribal consultation continues to be
of utmost importance. Mr. Bradley questioned the parties regarding
access to the human remains and to what degree the museum has control
over the human remains. Mr. Luby explained that any person associated
with an Indian tribe who wants to enter the room for cultural care of
the human remains would be encouraged and permitted to go into the room
during the museum's allotted weekday morning time slots. He stated that
museum staff periodically check to make sure all human remains are still
in the room. Ms. Fuller and Ms. Montoya confirmed that they have access
during those times, but added there is no process to ensure that
Professor White is not in the room more than his allotted time. Mr.
McManamon asked the parties about the repercussions of denial of the
extension request. Ms. Fuller replied that throughout this situation
the UCB has not acted in good faith. She hoped that the extension
request would be denied and civil penalties would be assessed. Mr. Luby
responded that a denial of extension would be devastating to the museum
and might have negative effects on NAGPRA inventory work at the UCB.

The Review Committee members agreed to include the following in a letter
from the Review Committee members to the UCB Administration. Mr.
Bradley stated that the goal was a speedy resolution of the issue and
expressed concern that denying an extension request and assessing civil
penalties might impede the process. Mr. Bradley agreed with Mr.
Minthorn's suggestion for approval of the extension request only with
strict provisions and added that the process will be closely
scrutinized, with the UCB on the brink of civil penalties. Mr. Hart
stated that a professor's right to due process within any university
must not be allowed to circumvent the law. Mr. Sullivan suggested
stating the Review Committee members are profoundly distressed at the
inadequate progress of the UCB in its inventory completion, given that
one extension has been granted and three NAGPRA grants funded to assist
in the process.

Public Statement - James Bradley

Mr. Bradley publicly explained a statement he made regarding Mr. John
Brown of the Narragansett Tribe and apologized for any offense or
disruption the statement may have caused to Mr. Brown, the Narragansett
Tribe, the other Review Committee members and the audience.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the Review Committee members tentatively set the next
meeting for April or May 1999 in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Review
Committee members emphasized the need to discuss Federal agency
compliance and culturally unidentifiable human remains issues at
upcoming meetings.

Review of Minutes of Portland, Oregon Meeting

The Review Committee members agreed unanimously to approve the minutes
of the Portland, Oregon meeting on June 25, 26 and 27, 1998 with minor
typographical changes.

Public Comment

Mr. John Brown, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and NAGPRA
Representative for the Narragansett Tribe, stated that the Narragansett
Tribe has had an issue with Harvard Museum for a number of years
regarding repatriation of human remains and materials from the
Barrington, Johnston and Tiverton, Rhode Island areas. Harvard
questions the standing of the Indian tribe and the fact that the Indian
tribe inhabited the state of Rhode Island. The Indian tribe gave
Harvard the oral history of the Indian tribe and written proof in the
form of the Federal recognition notification issued by the Assistant
Secretary for the BIA published February 2, 1983. The Indian tribe is
reluctant to provide any further written history as it is often
erroneous, especially writings by Mr. Frank G. Speck, who was escorted
from Rhode Island by Mr. Brown's grandfather and great-grandfather. Mr.
Brown then made a statement on behalf of Mr. Bill Day that the United
South and Eastern Tribes support the concerns raised in the November 25,
1998 letter from the Hawaiian organization regarding Mr. McManamon. Mr.
Brown also asked that the Review Committee consider the issue raised in
a letter Mr. Brown presented to the Chair on the first day of the
meeting.

Ms. Trish Capone, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, stated that NAGPRA requires museums and Federal agencies to
use all types of readily available evidence listed in the regulations,
including oral tradition, to make cultural affiliation determinations,
which the Peabody Museum has been trying to do. She clarified that the
funerary objects from Johnston, Rhode Island, mentioned previously by
Mr. Brown, were determined to be culturally affiliated with three
groups, the Narragansett, the Wampanoag Confederation and the Nipmuc
Tribe. She encouraged people to refocus frustration with the cultural
affiliation process on trying to make that process better and not on
diminishing relations with museums.

Mr. Robert Gough & Ms. Amanda Burt: Mr. Gough, attorney for the Rosebud
Sioux Tribe NAGPRA Committee and the Estate of Crazy Horse, explained
that he was before the Review Committee with Ms. Burt in order to
address a matter of great concern with regard to the compliance of
institutions with requirements both in the spirit and the letter of
NAGPRA. The matter involves Washington College of Chestertown, Maryland
and a collection of Indian artifacts held by the college for 65 years,
recently sold at auction at Sotheby's in New York.

Ms. Burt explained that Washington College is a private liberal arts
institution with approximately 1,000 students. She stated that the
college possessed a fairly modest collection of Native American
artifacts, most notably of which included a shirt attributed to Crazy
Horse and a double-train eagle feather bonnet attributed to Chief Red
Cloud. These artifacts were housed in glass trophy cases in the college
library. In 1992, visiting Cheyenne poet Lance Henson discovered the
collection in the library and raised concerns about the proper
disposition of the artifacts. Ms. Burt wrote an article for the student
newspaper at the time and since that point has been working with the
estate of Crazy Horse and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to obtain further
information in the matter. In 1996 the entire collection, with the
exception of the bonnet, was sold at Sotheby's. The shirt which
appraised for $60,000 to $90,000 was sold at auction for over $200,000.

Mr. Gough detailed communications with the college wherein the college
determined based upon private expert opinion that it did not fall within
the purview of NAGPRA and therefore did not have to file summaries or
inventories. The parties represented by Mr. Gough allege that
Washington College is an institution of higher learning, received
federal funds after November 16, 1990, and have exerted control over the
Albee collection, which may contain unassociated funerary objects,
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Washington College
has failed to comply with the timely filing of either a summary or
inventory as required under NAGPRA. The parties further allege that the
college's failure to comply with NAGPRA has resulted in the sale of the
collection without proper notice to the Indian tribes or the estate and
that said sale materially damaged the Indian tribes and the estate
through the loss of any opportunity for tribal examination,
investigation, research, or potential repatriation. He stated that a
matter of particular concern is the critical need for action by the NPS
in enforcing the provisions of NAGPRA, particularly the civil provisions
in this case. The parties are demanding that the Secretary of the NPS
make a determination of noncompliance and assess appropriate civil
penalties pursuant to 45 CFR section 10.12 against Washington College
for its failure to complete the required summary and inventory.

Over the past 60 years Washington College has had these items in its
possession including the scalp shirt which it publicly declared it
believed to have been owned and worn by Crazy Horse and the feather
bonnet purported to have belonged to Chief Red Cloud, along with
numerous other items donated by the Albee estate. Mr. Gough informed
the Chairman of the College Legal Affairs Committee that he represented
the estate and the Indian tribe and was seeking information regarding
the shirt. He advised the Chairman that the items may be subject to
NAGPRA and provided him with a copy of NAGPRA with the appropriate
sections highlighted. A request to view the shirt and materials at that
time was denied on the grounds that materials were being appraised and
undergoing conservation activities. Mr. Gough was not informed of plans
to sell the collection until after the sale had taken place. The
parties are seeking the Review Committee's assistance in ensuring action
by the NPS, enforcing the provisions of NAGPRA and for a determination
with regard to the noncompliance of Washington College, including an
assessment of the appropriate civil penalties against Washington College
for its failure to complete summary and/or inventories as required and
for its sale of the collection shortly thereafter.

Review Committee members expressed concern about the situation and asked
the NPS to respond. Mr. McManamon explained that the NPS has initiated
an investigation. He agreed that the information provided by Mr. Gough
warranted an investigation into the matter. As per procedure, the first
action of the NPS was to write to the college, present them with the
information, and ask the college to evaluate the information and provide
a written response. He stated the college has responded to the
allegations, but the NPS needs to evaluate that response, which
basically states that the college does not think the law applies in this
particular case. The NPS has been attempting to get information about
the criminal investigation that was undertaken and that has been
mentioned in some of the correspondence.

Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that the Review Committee worked with the
NPS staff in developing language stating institutions should provide
summaries of all holdings and not determine what objects are sacred or
are objects of cultural patrimony. Mr. Sullivan asked the NPS if
Washington College received that letter. Mr. McManamon stated that they
would find out. Mr. McKeown explained that the mailing list for the
letter was a compilation of all Departments of Anthropology in the AAA
Guide plus all museums listed in the American Association of Museums
listing. Mr. Gough explained that the college was aware in 1992 of the
NAGPRA law, which was documented in letters to the NPS.

Mr. David Grignon, Menomonee Tribe of Wisconsin and Chairman of the
Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation Committee, explained that the
committee is a coalition of 11 Indian tribes and bands located in
Wisconsin, including the Menomonee Tribe, Ho-Chunk Nation, Forest County
Potawatomi, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, Stockbridge-Munsee, Sac and Fox
Nation, and the following Lake Superior bands of Chippewa; Bad River,
Red Cliff, Lac Courte Oreilles, St. Croix, Lac Du Flambeau, and Mole
Lake. The mission of the committee is the repatriation and reinterment
of Native American human remains now held in museums and other
organizations, and specifically that human remains originating from
within the exterior boundaries of the state of Wisconsin be reburied in
a centrally located cemetery in Wisconsin. The committee strongly
believes that final decisions regarding the disposition of Native
American human remains from anywhere in the United States and associated
funerary objects should rest solely in the hands of Native Americans.
No further scientific analysis should be performed on any Native
American human remains now being held in museums or other institutions,
and any documentation of analysis should be turned over to the Indian
tribes. The committee believes that culturally unidentifiable human
remains should be turned over to regional tribal coalitions, such as the
Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation Committee, for repatriation. Mr.
Grignon suggested a list of museums that receive Federal monies should
be developed, the Review Committee meeting agenda should be developed
far in advance to avoid scheduling errors, and the 30-day response time
for claims mandated by NAGPRA should be reevaluated.

Mr. Clay Hamilton, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, read a letter from
the Hopi Tribe to the NAGPRA Review Committee into the record, wherein
the Hopi Tribe requested that the Review Committee members seriously
evaluate and make findings regarding processes leading to the
determination of cultural affiliation of human remains, specifically
regarding human remains and funerary objects at Chaco Cultural National
Historical Park, Aztec Ruins National Monument and other national park
areas holding human remains and funerary objects determined to be
culturally affiliated with the Hopi Tribe. He urged the Review
Committee to seriously consider cultural affiliation determinations by
Federal agencies, such as the NPS and the BLM, that are based upon
political interests.

Mr. Ted Howard, Shoshone Paiute Tribe, stated that the Shoshone Paiute
Tribe and neighboring Indian tribes in the Great Basin area disagree
with the BLM directive which does not allow reburial of Native American
human remains on Federal lands. They ask that the directive be
withdrawn because Indian tribes support the return and reburial of
ancestors and funerary objects to their original resting place. Mr.
Howard questioned the process and authority of the panel of experts that
will be examining the Kennewick Man remains. He expressed concern
regarding the Native American consultation database, especially
highlighting items of particular interest, due to confidentiality and
safety issues regarding cultural items and sacred sites. He stated that
Native Americans need to define what is sacred, including the category
of funerary objects. Mr. Howard concluded by saying his Indian tribe
supports Hawaiian Resolution Number 98-002.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Assistant Director of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, explained the Peabody Museum has one of the
largest NAGPRA-related collections in its care, with 2,458 human
remains. Since 1995, the museum has consulted with over 200 Indian
tribes in 31 states regarding repatriation activities and through grants
have provided travel funds for almost 50 Indian tribes. She explained
that consultations in most cases have been rewarding, informative and
successful, but in some cases the staff has been threatened and
insulted. She described a successful consultation process with the
Haudenosaunee Tribes, resulting in the cultural affiliation of almost
250 individuals.

She stated that consultation is difficult when there are contested
claims of cultural affiliation, as in the situation involving seven
funerary objects from the area of Tiverton, Rhode Island, claimed by
both the Wampanoag Confederation and the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
After ten months of consultation and research, the Peabody staff found
the funerary objects to be most likely affiliated with the Wampanoag
Confederation. After publication, Mr. Brown made a counterclaim on
behalf of the Narragansett. Ms. Isaac reported that the Peabody had
problems interacting and consulting efficiently with Mr. Brown. The
Peabody received oral information and were ultimately told by Mr. Brown
that further information was not necessary since the Federal Recognition
Notice of 1983 took precedence over any other forms of cultural
affiliation. Ms. Isaac stated that the Peabody Museum is ready to
repatriate the seven funerary objects but are unable to make a
determination of cultural affiliation at the present time since each
group has presented contradictory and exclusive evidence based on oral
tradition. The museum needs a ruling on whether a Federal recognition
notice overrides all other forms of evidence for cultural affiliation.
Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS would provide an answer to that
question, since it is essential in order for the Peabody Museum to move
forward on this issue.

Peter Jemison, Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules and
Regulations, stated the committee represents the Iroquois Nations,
Seneca Nation of Indians, Tonawanda Band of Seneca, Cayuga Nation,
Onondaga, Mohawk, and Tuscarora Nations, as well as six nations in
Ontario. He stated that he was not before the Committee asking for a
specific action or recommendation but was explaining their concern about
the label of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Jemison
explained that the Peabody Museum at Harvard has given the dates 900 AD
and 950 AD as the years the Haudenosaunee may have come into existence.
Similarly the Rochester Museum and Science Center of New York has stated
that 950 AD is the year the Haudenosaunee came into existence. The
Haudenosaunee reject the notion of "prehistoric" people, and through
oral history, their history begins with the creation of Turtle Island
and runs through the present time. The Haudenosaunee want to register a
desire to see their ancestors' remains returned, any and all presently
held by the Peabody Museum at Harvard and the Rochester Museum and
Science Center. Mr. Minthorn emphasized that NAGPRA has been set down
for Native Americans to get back what is important to them, and when an
Indian tribe can substantiate their affiliation through oral histories,
ethnohistories, song and dance, that's sufficient evidence. He added
that agencies, museums, and universities need to be sensitized to an
Indian tribe's cultural way of life or belief system and cannot assign
dates of creation. Ms. Metcalf commented that NAGPRA was intended to
protect Native Americans and should not be used as a means to document
or redefine when Europeans arrived.

Mr. Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation, stated that the Chickasaw Nation
is engaged in ongoing deliberations and consultation with state
officials in their indigenous homeland, which include Mississippi,
Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, and South
Carolina. The Intertribal Counsel of the Five Civilized Tribes has been
working on a policy statement which basically allows whichever Indian
tribe that was predominant in a particular geographic location to become
the lead Indian tribe in negotiations with that state. The Chickasaw
Nation is involved in areas including Tennessee and Mississippi.
Tennessee state law does not provide for consultation with Native
American people, considers all graves equally, and does not address
artifacts, burial goods or funeral objects that are defined in NAGPRA.
Current state law mandates that when a cemetery is terminated by the
courts any exhumed remains are to be reinterred and interested parties
are to be consulted. However, since funerary objects and artifacts are
not covered by the law they often remain in limbo until ownership is
assigned by the state archeologist or the Federal Government. Members
of the NAGPRA Committee of the Intertribal Counsel of the Five Civilized
Tribes met with Tennessee State officials in October to discuss possible
changes in state legislation regarding state burial laws and protection
of Native American grave sites and artifacts. The council requested
that Native Americans be given the same rights and consideration that a
family would enjoy under the state cemetery law which allows families to
visit the sites if they can prove ancestry. Amendments to legislation
will be presented to the Tennessee State Legislature at their next
session, and they have indicated that they will consider and probably
will pass some of those laws. The council sent a letter to the Dr.
McManamon's office requesting the NPS to facilitate a series of meetings
with the state governments and state and local agencies in order to
promote consultation with state officials which are now starting to take
place.

Mr. Keith Kintigh, President-elect of the Society for American
Archaeology (SAA) and Professor of Anthropology at Arizona State
University, stated he was representing the SAA in his presentation. He
described two areas Indian people and archaeologists can work together
by trying to extend NAGPRA protection to private lands and trying to
develop ways to coerce Federal agencies to comply with NAGPRA. NAGPRA
was written to balance important tribal concerns about their ancestors
with legitimate scientific and broader public interests. Because of
this need for balance, NAGPRA directs everyone to seriously consider
both traditional and scientific knowledge in making determinations of
cultural affiliation. People making decisions regarding NAGPRA,
including the Review Committee members, need to hear the most carefully
articulated evidence drawn from both traditional and scientific world
views.

Mr. Sebastian "Bronco" LeBeau, Tribal Cultural Historic Preservation
Officer for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, stated he was responsible
for all repatriation and preservation activity for the Indian tribe, as
well as establishing their tribal archives. He explained the Indian
tribe has initiated three repatriation requests with three different
museums seeking the return of cultural items and artifacts. The
repatriation process was successfully completed for two of the
institutions, the Harvard Museum in Massachusetts and the Heard Museum
in Arizona. The final request with the Wyoming State Museum in
Cheyenne, Wyoming proceeded with consultation, an agreement between the
Wyoming State Museum and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was reached to
repatriate the items, and a Notice of Intent to Repatriate was submitted
to the NPS. The notice was returned to the Wyoming State Museum by the
NPS based upon a finding by the Departmental Consulting Archaeologist
that battlefield collections might not have standing under NAGPRA. The
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe feels the NPS, whether intentional or not,
tried to establish a presumption of authority that it could rule that an
Indian tribe had incorrectly identified or categorized an object held by
a museum available for repatriation. The Indian tribe was also
concerned that the NPS contacted the Wyoming State Museum and not the
Indian tribe and that the NPS took an excessive amount of time to
respond to memos from the Indian tribe. On November 30th, 1998, the NPS
sent a memo to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe stating that the notice
will be published. Mr. LeBeau explained that although the situation was
resolved, he wanted to present the issue to the Review Committee.

In response, Mr. McManamon explained that all draft notices are reviewed
in the NPS office to ensure objects being described fit the categories
under NAGPRA and that the necessary steps have been taken to determine
the appropriate cultural affiliation. This is to ensure the Act is not
abused. After the notice was reviewed in the NPS office, it was felt
that there was no need for the objects to be considered under NAGPRA
because they did not fit any of the categories that NAGPRA covered. The
NPS then contacted Mr. Robert Gant of the Wyoming Division of Cultural
Resources regarding the finding and explained that the objects could be
returned to the Indian tribe without going through the NAGPRA procedure.
The Indian tribe was not contacted, as per standard procedure, since
contacting all tribal groups regarding repatriation issues is not
feasible. Mr. McManamon stated that upon receipt of the redraft, the
NPS will publish the Notice of Intent to Repatriate.

Ms. Ramona Peters, Wampanoag Confederation, stated she was present to
offer a tool to members of the Native American community actively
involved in repatriation. She states that the Wampanoag people are
particularly concerned about the repatriation process because the
Wampanoag are first encounter people, the English having landed 20 miles
from their village on the Mayflower. The Wampanoag Confederation has
developed a number of methods and tools that are helpful in the
repatriation process, which they would like to share with other Indian
tribes. These include samples of communications with museums, the
creation of maps designating territorial homelands, and a very elaborate
database for information management. She explained that she would be
presenting the information that evening to any interested people. Mr.
Bradley thanked Ms. Peters for sharing the tools developed by the
Wampanoag Confederacy and expressed the hope that other Indian tribes
will be able to use these tools.

Ms. Donna Roberts, Abenaki, explained the Abenaki homeland consists of
Vermont, New Hampshire, Western Maine, North Central Massachusetts, and
Southern Quebec Province. She stated that while she represented a
number of groups at the meeting, she works for her ancestors. The
Wabenaki Confederacy (phonetic) is a group of five council fires,
Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Micmac (phonetic), Malecete (phonetic) and
Abenaki, with the Abenaki being the only non-Federally recognized Indian
group. She stated that some members of the scientific community are
attempting to undermine and dismantle the NAGPRA process by using the
terms culturally unassociated and culturally unidentifiable. She
described two situations where sacred objects are still in the
possession of institutions despite attempts by the Abenaki to repatriate
the items. She stated that Indian tribes need to make decisions
regarding what is sacred; traditional knowledge comes from the
ancestors, not science.

Ms. Kathy Womer, Colville Confederated Tribes, explained that the
Colville Confederated Tribes comprises 12 bands; the Palouse, Chief
Joseph Band of Nez Perce, Nespelem, Colville, Moses Columbia, San Poil,
Lakes, Wenapchee, Entiat, Methow, Chelan and Okanogan. The Colville
Tribe is one of five tribal claimants for the Kennewick Man, who may be
a descendent of the Palouse. She presented and read Resolution 1998-876
from the Colville Tribe, which described the Indian tribes' position
regarding Kennewick Man and their nationwide efforts regarding NAGPRA.
Ms. Womer explained that in 1854, Chief Seattle of the Suquammish Tribe
was documented as saying that human remains and final resting places of
ancestors are sacred. Ms. Womer described the intense need for the
intended work of NAGPRA to progress and stated the Colville Tribe is
working on a nationwide effort to promote intertribal cooperation to
support NAGPRA. Ms. Womer presented and read a statement from the
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee of San Diego County,
California.

Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes

Mr. Alan Emarthle, Seminole Nation, Ms. Jeannie Barbour, Chickasaw
Nation, and Mr. Terry Cole, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, were present on
behalf of the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes. Mr.
Emarthle presented and read the NAGPRA policy statement developed and
agreed to by the Indian tribes of the Intertribal Council of the Five
Civilized Tribes. The council Indian tribes are the Cherokee Nation,
the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Muskogee Creek
Nation and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, representing over 300,000
Native American people nationwide. Ms. Barbour added that the policy
statement was designed in the hope that it would stimulate consultation
with other Federally recognized Indian tribes. Mr. Hart commended Mr.
Emarthle, Ms. Barbour, and Mr. Cole for sharing the policy document, and
added his appreciation of the chairs of the five participating Indian
tribes. He stated that the policy document was a model that ought to be
followed. Mr. Bradley added his appreciation for this type of
collaborative effort.

Sovereign Dineh Nation

Mr. Leonard Bennally, Sovereign Dineh Nation, described the continued
destruction of Anasazi and Dineh burials on Black Mesa by the Peabody
Western Coal Company despite repeated attempts by Dineh elders to
protect the sites. He stated that the Sovereign Dineh Nation would like
to repatriate burial and associated funerary items of ancient Anasazi
and Dineh burials and are asking for protection of the burial sites.

Mr. David Brugge stated through his work in the 1950s and 1960s, he is
aware that Black Mesa contains both recent and prehistoric burials.
This issue falls between NAGPRA and ARPA, and he hoped that it was
within the NAGPRA mandate.

Ms. Marsha Monestersky, Sovereign Dineh Nation, stated that this case is
unique in that the rights of indigenous people to protections entitled
under Federal law are being subverted by tribal governments funded by
the mining revenues and created by the mining companies. Judge Raymond
Child, DOI, found that the Navajo Nation shares nothing of the $45
million annual royalty received from the mine with the members of the
Navajo Nation who reside in the proximity of the mine and suffer from
the effects of that same mining. He revoked the Peabody Western Coal
Company's mining permit because of the numerous violations of the rights
of the Dineh people, including the destruction of sacred burial sites.
His decision was overturned upon appeal, in which the coal company was
joined by both the Hopi and Navajo tribal governments. Ms. Monestersky
asked the Review Committee members what kind of protection can be
obtained for burial and sacred sites of the people of Black Mesa. Ms.
Monestersky added that they have been in contact with the Historic
Preservation Department for both the state of Arizona and the Navajo
Nation, as well as the Office of Surface Mining, with no results.

The Review Committee members were deeply concerned about this issue and
asked the NPS what action could be taken regarding these allegations.
Mr. McManamon replied that this situation falls on tribal land and
tribal governments are sovereign on tribal land. He suggested that the
Review Committee express its concern to the tribal government and send
letters to the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs. He stated that he did not believe the NPS could conduct
an investigation into this matter. Ms. Mattix stated that she would do
further research on the situation to see if it is an ARPA violation.

Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe

Mr. Ed Roybal, cacique of the Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe, stated that
the Indian tribe is not Federally recognized but wants to be included in
repatriation discussions concerning human remains and funerary objects
taken from the areas of their ancestral home grounds. He stated that
the Indian tribe has had discussions regarding ancestral remains from
the areas of White Sands National Monument, Guadalupe and Carlsbad
National Parks, Gila Cliff Dwellings, Fort Bliss, as well as other
Federal agencies and the Air Force. Mr. Roybal explained that the
Indian tribe is the direct descendants of the Piro, Tompiro, Humanos,
Manso and Tiwa Indians of lower New Mexico. He provided the NPS with
written documentation regarding their affiliation to the geographical
area he described from Dr. Howard Campbell, professor of anthropology at
the University of Texas at El Paso, Nick Hauser, anthropologist, Logan
Slagel (phonetic), tribal attorney, Betsy Brandt, professor at Arizona
State University, information from the Indian Health Service, and a
statement from the San Diego Museum of Man. He stated that between 400
and 800 human remains have been excavated from their ancestral lands.

Mr. Victor Roybal, tribal elder of the Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe,
read a letter from the Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe to the NPS and the
NAGPRA Review Committee on September 25, 1995, requesting that the
Indian tribe be placed on the official NPS list of interested parties
regarding NAGPRA and be listed as a culturally affiliated Indian tribe
of the Salinas National Monument. The Indian tribe is the culturally
affiliated aboriginal Indian tribe of the Masilla Valley with documented
lineal descent to the Piro Pueblos. The Indian tribe's oral history
indicates cultural affiliation with White Sands National Monument, Gila
Cliff Dwellings and Petroglyphs National Park. According to House and
Senate reports on the final NAGPRA bill, unrecognized tribes are to be
afforded the same right as recognized Indian tribes once cultural
affiliation has been established.

Ho-Chunk Nation

Mr. Dennis Funmaker, Ho-Chunk Nation, explained that the Ho-Chunk Nation
wanted to present a concern to the Review Committee regarding their
attempt to repatriate the Thunder Clan war bundle in the possession of
the Field Museum of Chicago, Illinois. He stated since the Field Museum
did not have adequate time to respond, the Ho-Chunk would like to
request a formal hearing with the Review Committee at a later date. The
Field Museum submitted a proposal for repatriation, which the Ho-Chunk
Nation rejected mainly due to the requirement that the bundle will be
returned to the Field Museum if it is ever alienated from the Ho-Chunk
Nation. The Ho-Chunk Nation disagrees with the Field Museum's
contention of right of possession. Ho-Chunk Nation traditional people
explicitly state that all sacred objects, unassociated funerary objects
and objects of cultural patrimony are inalienable. The Ho-Chunk
appreciate the offer of the Field Museum, but feel they cannot partly
own the bundle. If the war bundle cannot be repatriated without the
compromise, there will probably be no repatriation.

Mr. Orville Greendeer, Ho-Chunk Nation, explained that the Ho-Chunk
Nation historically split into two groups and one group relocated to
Nebraska, taking the war bundle. He explained that leaders of clans
group have the knowledge to say what direction will be taken with a war
bundle, but even the leaders do not own them. All history and guidance
relating to war bundles is held within oral history, and only one
Thunder Clan elder remains who knows the story of this war bundle. Mr.
Greendeer stated that return of the war bundle with no clause on its
release is vital to the Ho-Chunk Nation.

Mr. George Garvin, Ho-Chunk Nation, explained that even though the war
bundle was with the Nebraska Ho-Chunk, the Wisconsin Ho-Chunk continued
talking about the bundle in rituals. He stated that the two Ho-Chunk
groups were one Indian tribe living in two places and were separated due
to government relocation programs. Mr. Garvin stated that there should
be no compromise when sacred items are returned.

Review Committee Discussion: The Review Committee members discussed the
issue and felt that repatriations should occur without conditions.
Realizing that the Field Museum was not represented and did not have a
chance to respond at the meeting, the Review Committee members asked the
NPS to send a letter to the Field Museum outlining their opinion
regarding this issue and asking for further consideration by the Field
Museum. If the issue escalates to the dispute level, the parties can
come before the Review Committee for a more thorough discussion and
presentation and the Review Committee members can issue a finding.

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Mr. Pat Lefthand, Kootenai Tribe, stated that he does repatriation
activities for the Kootenai Tribe with Ms. White, for which they have a
low-key ceremony. He explained how excavated human remains have been
treated with a lack of respect, with their removal from the ground and
the dirt surrounding the burials being discarded. The Kootenai have
very confidential ceremonies and information. Rather than disclose the
information, the Indian tribe would probably choose not to repatriate
funerary objects. He concluded by saying his prayers were with the
Review Committee members in a hope that their actions would favor Native
Americans.

Ms. Germaine White, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, explained
that the elders have guided the return of ancestors' remains, with a
preference that human remains be returned to where they were taken from.
Therefore, the Indian tribe opposes BLM's instructional memo 96-97 that
prohibits the Indian tribe from that practice. Ms. White asked the
Review Committee to bring the Indian tribe's objection to the attention
of the BLM and the DOI.

Closing Comments

Ms. Naranjo thanked the NAGPRA staff for their hard work. On behalf of
the Secretary and the DOI, Mr. McManamon thanked the Review Committee
members for their time and attention to the implementation of NAGPRA,
the members of the NPS staff for their work at the meeting, the people
providing the invocations and presentations for the meeting, and the
audience for their attention and comments.

Mr. Armand Minthorn gave the closing invocation. The meeting was
adjourned at 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, December 12th, 1998.

Approved:

/S/ Tessie Naranjo May 5, 1999
Tessie Naranjo, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee

 

  
Home
Frequently Asked Questions
Law and Regulations
Online Databases
Grants
Training
Notices
Documents and Publications
Review Committee
Special Topics
Contact National NAGPRA
navigation bar image with links to ParkNet, Links to the Past, FOIA, Privacy, Disclaimer and FirstGov Image link to ParkNet, the National Park Service websiteimage link to Links to the Past, the National Park Service's Cultural Resources websiteImage link to the National Park Service's Freedom of Information Act Image link to the National Park Service's Privacy PolicyImage link to the National Park Service's Disclaimer, Liability and Ownership notice Image link to the U.S. Government's FirstGov official web portalImage link for First GovImage link for NPS Search EngineImage link for ParknetImage link for Links to the PastImage link for FOIA PrivacyImage link for Disclaimer

PMM