MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
EIGHTEENTH MEETING: NOVEMBER 18-20, 1999
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

The eighteenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Mr. Martin Sullivan
at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, November 18th, 1999, at the Hilton Downtown,
Salt Lake City, Utah. The following review committee members, National
Park Service (NPS) staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the review committee:
Mr. Martin E. Sullivan, Chair
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. Lawrence H. Hart
Ms. Vera K. Metcalf
Mr. Armand Minthorn
Ms. Tessie Naranjo
Mr. John O'Shea

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, DC
Mr. Jason Roberts, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, Solicitor's Office, Department of the Interior
(DOI), Washington, DC
Ms. Lesa Hagel, NAGPRA Consultant, Rapid City, SD

The following were in attendance during some or all of the
proceedings:
Ms. Mary Adair, Museum of Anthropology, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Marti Allen, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah
Ms. Bridget Ambler, Colorado Historical Society/Colorado
Commission of Indian Affairs, Denver, Colorado
Mr. Smiley Arrowchis, Northern Ute Tribe, Fort Duchesne, Utah
Mr. Shane Baker, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah
Mr. Steve Banegas, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Lakeside, California
Mr. Lee Banicki, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Ms. Jeannie Barbour, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Liz Bauer, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde, Colorado
Mr. Robert Begay, Navajo Nation, Kayenta, Arizona
Mr. Steven Begay, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Sue Ann Bilby, Utah State Parks and Recreation, Utah Field
House, Vernal, Utah
Mr. Bill Billeck, Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, DC
Mr. Charles Bunch, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Wendy Bustard, NPS, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Ms. Kathleen Callister, US Army, CSTE-DTC-DP-LP
Ms. Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Betsy Chapoose, Ute Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, Utah
Mr. Harold Charles, Jr., Quinault Nation, Taholah, Washington
Ms. Yolanda Chavez, Lake County Pomo Tribes of California,
Robinson Rancheria, California
Mr. Ron Chiago, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Committee,
Scottsdale, Arizona
Ms. Erma Collins, Native American Alliance of Ohio, McDermott,
Ohio
Ms. Donna Cossette, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Ms. Nancy Coulam, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Forrest A. Cuch, Division of Indian Affairs, Salt Lake City,
Utah
Mr. H. Paul Cuero, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Campo,
California
Ms. Dael A. Devenport, AHTNA, Inc., Glennallen, Alaska
Mr. Josh R. Dillabaugh, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte,
South Dakota
Ms. Rochanne Downs, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Ms. Susan Dublin, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Mr. Jim Dykmon, State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Ms. Linda Fabbri, University of California, Berkeley, California
Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest SOARRING, Naperville, Illinois
Ms. Gillian Flynn, Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, DC
Mr. Shawn Foster, Salt Lake City Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah
Ms. Adeline Fredin, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem,
Washington
Mr. Paul Friesema, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Mr. Glenn Fulfer, NPS, Mountainair, New Mexico
Mr. Dennis M. Funmaker, Ho-Chunk Nation, Black River Falls,
Wisconsin
Ms. Myra Giesen, Office of Policy, Bureau of Reclamation,
Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. John Gomez, Jr., Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Temecula,
California
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Mr. Dell Greek, US Army Reserve Command, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
Mr. Clay Hamilton, Hopi Tribe, Tewa, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Ms. Dee Haroy, Fremont Indian State Park, Sevier, Utah
Ms. Debra Harry, Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism,
Nixon, Nevada
Ms. Cleone Hawkinson, Friends of America's Past, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Roberta Hayworth, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Mr. Bill Helmer, Timbusha Shoshone Tribe, Lone Pine, California
Ms. Susan Hirano, University of California, Berkeley, California
Mr. Ronald Eric Hollinger, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, Owyhee, Nevada
Ms. Andrea A. Hunter, Smithsonian, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, Arizona
Ms. Priscilla Hunter, Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Redwood
Valley, California
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Lou Ann Jacobson, Anasazi Heritage Center, Bureau of Land
Management, Dolores, Colorado
Ms. Kristen Jensen, US Army, CSTE-DTC-DP-LP
Ms. Cheryl Johnston, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Mr. Kevin Jones, State of Utah, Antiquities Section, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Ms. Kathy Kankainen, Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Mr. Tad Kehl, AHTNA, Inc., Glennallen, Alaska
Ms. Roula Khawam, University of Arkansas student, Fayetteville,
Arkansas
Ms. Karolyn Kinsey, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Mr. Keith Kintigh, Society for American Archaeology, Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona
Ms. Melinda Knapp, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Mr. Terry Knight, Sr., Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Towaoc, Colorado
Mr. Wilton Kooyahoema, Hopi Tribe, Hotevilla, Arizona
Ms. Karen Krieger, Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Salt
Lake City, Utah
Mr. Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Mr. Clark Spencer Larsen, American Association of Physical
Anthropologists, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina
Mr. Bill Latady, Anasazi State Park Museum, Boulder, Utah
Mr. Sebastian "Bronco" LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle
Butte, South Dakota
Mr. Edward Luby, University of California, Berkeley, California
Mr. Anthony Otto Lucio, Zuni Pueblo, Zuni, New Mexico
Mr. James T. Martin, United South and Eastern Tribes, Nashville,
Tennessee
Ms. Iris Martinez, Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Redwood
Valley, California
Mr. Benjamin Masiel, Pechanga Cultural Resources, Temecula,
California
Ms. Carolyn McArthur, Colorado Historical Society, Denver,
Colorado
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville,
Ohio
Mr. Roland McCook, Sr., Northern Ute Tribe, Fort Duchesne, Utah
Ms. Glain Mercurow, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde,
Colorado
Mr. Duncan Metcalfe, Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Mr. Terry Mo-gart, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Ms. Pauline Girvin-Montoya, Mendocino County Intertribal
Repatriation Project, Ukiah, California
Mr. Alvin Moyle, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Mr. Ed Natay, NPS, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Theresa Nichols, NPS, Aztec, New Mexico
Ms. Bernice Paipa, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Santa Ysabel, California
Mr. Harlan Pinto, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Lakeside, California
Mr. George Prietto, Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, El Cajon,
California
Mr. A. Wayne Prokopetz, Dinosaur National Monument, NPS,
Dinosaur, Colorado
Mr. Ronald Rood, Division of State History, Salt Lake City, Utah
Ms. Virginia Salazar, NPS, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Alan Schroedl, P-III Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Brett Lee Shelton, Indigenous Peoples Council on
Biocolonialism, Oglala Lakota, Longmont, California
Ms. Dale Ann Sherman, Yurok Tribe, Eureka, California
Ms. Thelma R. Simon, Kickapoo Tribe, Horton, Kansas
Mr. Christopher Smith, Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. David Lee Smith, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago,
Nebraska
Mr. Brian Stockes, National Congress of the American Indian,
Washington, DC
Ms. Barbara A. Sutteer, NPS, Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Charlie Tapia, Pojoaque Pueblo, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Dalton Taylor, Hopi Tribe, Second Mesa, Arizona
Ms. Susan Thomas, Anasazi Heritage Center, Bureau of Land
Management, Dolores, Colorado
Mr. Marlin Thompson, Yerington Paiute Tribe, Yerington, Nevada
Ms. Rebecca Tsosie, School of Law, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona
Mr. Phil Wendzillo, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska
Mr. Larry T. Wiese, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde,
Colorado
Ms. Karen Wilde-Rogers, Muskogee (Creek) and Pawnee, Colorado
Commission of Indian Affairs, Denver, Colorado
Mr. Philip Wilson, Salinas Pueblo Missions, NPS, Mountainair, New
Mexico
Ms. Carrie Wimmer, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. Jerry C. Zamora, Yankton, Hunkpapa, Ft. Peck, Montana

Mr. Sullivan welcomed the review committee members and members of the
audience. The review committee members introduced themselves. Mr.
Minthorn gave the opening invocation.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the review committee members and audience
members, and thanked the review committee members for their work
toward the implementation of NAGPRA. He then gave a brief review of the
agenda.

Implementation Update

Mr. McManamon explained that the meetings, which are business meetings
for the review committee, are open to the public with scheduled public
comment periods. Mr. McManamon stated that review committee members had
a summary in their binder of the progress made in NAGPRA implementation.
He added that although the review committee members tend to hear the
most complicated issues regarding NAGPRA implementation, positive
interactions occur between Indian tribes, Federal agencies and museums.

Implementation of NAGPRA within the NPS, Department of the Interior
(DOI): Mr. McManamon explained that the DOI decided to review NAGPRA
implementation based on discussions at the Silver Spring meeting and at
a Congressional hearing regarding NAGPRA implementation and its location
within the Archeology and Ethnography Program of the NPS. Different
proposals were considered. The Assistant Secretary of the NPS sent a
memorandum to the Chief of Staff for the DOI recommending that the NPS
is the proper bureau to implement NAGPRA and that the Archaeology and
Ethnography Program is the appropriate office to carry out the functions
of NAGPRA implementation. In order to address criticisms of potential
conflicts of interest, the NPS recommended clarifications regarding
information presentation and program organization. In addressing
concerns about lack of adequate resources, the proposal provides for
some additional one-year positions to begin the process of overcoming
backlogs and delays in NAGPRA implementation.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about the negative effect of backlogs
and delays within NAGPRA implementation on Indian tribes. Mr. McManamon
explained that the proposal would actually be a two-step process; first,
the creation of one-year, temporary positions using available funding,
and second, the creation of permanent, full-time positions through
funding increases in the base of the program. In response to a question
by Mr. Bradley about the level of commitment for this process, Mr.
McManamon explained that the Director and the Assistant Secretary of the
NPS signed the memo. Mr. Bradley suggested that the review committee
members send a letter of acknowledgment to the NPS when there is a final
commitment.

Ms. Naranjo asked for an outline of both the NAGPRA program
operational and grants budgets for FY 1999 and FY 2000. Mr. McManamon
replied that the information was not available at the meeting, but would
be provided to the review committee members following the meeting. Ms.
Metcalf asked if the efforts of review committee members to lobby for
additional funds following the Silver Spring meeting were successful.
Mr. McManamon explained that they were helpful as far as providing
information, but did not result in any additional funds for FY 2000.

Mr. Minthorn suggested that the review committee members send a letter
to the NPS citing concern about the backlog. Mr. Sullivan asked for an
update on the status of Federal Register notice publication and database
work. Mr. McManamon stated that although he did not have specific
information at the meeting, the backlog has grown slightly as notices
are received faster than they can be published. He cited the database
as one area that would be targeted with the additional resources
requested by the NPS, adding that there has been no change in the status
of the database since the last meeting. Mr. McManamon stated that he
would provide updated information regarding the backlog of notice
publication to the review committee members.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McManamon explained that pursuant to advice from
the Solicitor's Office, emphasis has been placed on finalizing civil
penalty regulations before continuing any further investigations and/or
seriously considering the imposition of civil penalties against any
institutions. He stated that no new allegations of failure to comply
with the statute were reported since the last meeting.

Excavations and Discoveries: Mr. McManamon explained that the NPS has
been providing advice and working with the Corps of Engineers in trying
to resolve the situation regarding the Kennewick human remains. Since
the Silver Spring review committee meeting, the DOI decided some limited
destructive tests were necessary, specifically carbon-14 dating tests.
The judge in the case has given the Federal defendants until mid-March
to provide an answer to the Bonnichsen plaintiffs' request for study.
The judge further requested that the Federal defendants carefully
consider the Asatru Folk Assembly request for DNA analysis. Mr.
McManamon explained that the Federal defendants currently have experts
on DNA interpretation working to determine the likelihood that DNA study
would answer the questions posed by the court.

Mr. Minthorn asked if Mr. McManamon felt cultural affiliation could be
determined on human remains over 9,000 years old. Mr. McManamon replied
that radiocarbon dating is being done to determine the age of the human
remains. Experts are being asked to evaluate cultural affiliation by
looking at continuities and discontinuities in the different kinds of
available data, including archeological, physical anthropological,
linguistic, and traditional histories of Indian tribes in the area, to
see if there is a reasonable determination that a connection can be
made.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Minthorn asked for clarification of
the civil penalties section regarding assertions of failure to comply
with the statute between the four assertions which are under
investigation and the three assertions which are under review. Mr.
McKeown explained that cases under review are in the initial stages of
evaluation to see if the allegations have merit. Cases that are under
investigation have gone through the initial evaluation and appear to
present some indication of a failure to comply, but no actual
determination has been made. Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about lack
of staff, time, and resources to address allegations of failure to
comply with the statute.

Mr. Sullivan asked for clarification of the situation regarding the
six institutions that were granted a period of forbearance. Mr.
McManamon explained that the institutions were granted forbearance
periods following a decision that no further inventory completion
extensions would be granted. Each of the six institutions has to meet
the inventory completion requirements negotiated between the individual
institutions and Assistant Secretary Barry's office. Mr. Bradley asked
for a list of the institutions under forbearance and a list of
institutions for which there has been an assertion of failure to comply,
with details of any investigations.

Ms. Naranjo inquired about the status of distribution of the Federal
agency compliance report. Mr. McManamon stated that it was close to
completion, but was delayed due to the need for clarification from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. O'Shea expressed concern that both
the Report to Congress and the Federal agency compliance report were not
distributed after being finalized by the review committee members at the
Silver Spring meeting. Mr. McManamon apologized and cited this delay as
another example of the need for additional resources.

Dispute Resolution Procedures

Mr. McManamon explained that the draft dispute resolution procedures
incorporated two additions discussed at the Silver Spring meeting. The
first addition allows for an appeal process when a decision is made that
a dispute is not appropriate to be heard by the review committee
members, and the second addition prohibits inappropriate contact between
disputing parties and members of the review committee. Subsequent to
Mr. O'Shea's suggestion, language was added allowing appeal of each step
of the decision process regarding a dispute. The dispute resolution
procedures were approved at the meeting for Chairman Sullivan's
signature (see Attachment A).

Dispute Involving the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical
Park

Introduction: Mr. O'Shea chaired the discussion of the dispute
involving the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical Park
(NHP). Mr. Bradley recused himself from the discussion due to parallel
concerns within his institution, the Robert S. Peabody Museum of
Archeology in Andover, Massachusetts. Mr. McManamon explained that he
was present in his capacity as designated Federal official for the
review committee. Mr. O'Shea explained that the role of the review
committee is advisory in nature, offering guidance for dispute
resolution.

Presentations on Behalf of Chaco Culture National Historical Park: Mr.
Charles Wilson, superintendent of Chaco Culture NHP, summarized Chaco
Culture NHP's process of making a cultural affiliation determination for
Chaco Canyon human remains and emphasized their nine-year consultation
process. The human remains and associated funerary objects in Chaco
Culture NHP's Notice of Inventory Completion were determined on an
item-by-item basis to be Chacoan Anasazi. Chaco Culture NHP consulted
with all New Mexico Pueblos, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the
Southern and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, the Jicarilla Apache and Isleta
Del Sur. The Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation and most New Mexico Pueblos
claimed cultural affiliation with Chaco Canyon. Evidence considered in
making the determination include anthropological, archeological,
biological, geographical, historical, linguistic, and kinship evidence.
Chaco Culture NHP determined that the Navajo Nation was culturally
affiliated with Chaco Canyon human remains under NAGPRA based on a
preponderance of the evidence.

Presentations on Behalf of the Hopi Tribe: Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,
director of the Cultural Preservation Office for the Hopi Tribe,
summarized the Hopi Tribe's position that Chaco Culture NHP did not
comply with the law in the process of making its determination of
cultural affiliation. Specifically, Chaco Culture NHP made an
assumption that most southwestern Indian tribes and Pueblos were in some
manner culturally affiliated with Chaco Canyon, Chaco Canyon human
remains and culturally affiliated funerary objects. Chaco Culture NHP
considered evidence associating tribal presence and association to a
place, but did not make a determination of cultural affiliation on an
item-by-item basis. In their May position paper, the Hopi Tribe
recommended that specific guidelines for making cultural affiliation
determinations are needed. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma expressed concern that the
consultation process described by Mr. Wilson was not done with Indian
tribes individually and focussed primarily on repatriation and
disposition rather than the issue of cultural affiliation. The Hopi
Tribe pulled out of the process in January of 1997 because they felt the
cultural affiliation issue and determination was not being adequately
addressed. The Hopi Tribe would like to have the process of cultural
affiliation revisited at Chaco Culture NHP, as well as Mesa Verde
National Park and Aztec Ruins National Monument. Mr. Anthony Otto
Lucio, council member of Zuni Pueblo, explained that he read the All
Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC) resolution in support of the Hopi Tribe's
claim at the Silver Spring meeting and was present in Salt Lake City in
order to answer questions or offer recommendations on behalf of Zuni
Pueblo.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Hart expressed appreciation for Chaco
Culture NHP's efforts regarding consultation, documentation of evidence,
and the process of making their cultural affiliation determination. Ms.
Metcalf expressed concern that Chaco Culture NHP included all Indian
tribes as culturally affiliated, and she asked about the acceptability
of the AIPC for repatriation purposes. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma explained that
the AIPC resolution spoke specifically to the situations at Chaco
Culture NHP and Aztec Ruins National Monument and any other situations
would have to be considered individually. Mr. Minthorn asked about the
role of the Forest Service (FS) and expressed concern about FS
compliance in general. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma expressed dissatisfaction about
the process used by the FS to make cultural affiliation determinations
in other situations. Both Mr. Kuwanwisiwma and Mr. Wilson stated that
the FS had no significant role in this dispute.

Mr. Sullivan expressed appreciation for the vast amount of work and
effort by Chaco Culture NHP but respectfully disagreed with Mr. Hart
that the process used by Chaco Culture NHP in their determination of
cultural affiliation was completely appropriate. He suggested that
weighting of evidence might be necessary in the process of affiliation.
Mr. Minthorn asked each side to comment on a statement at the Silver
Spring meeting regarding cultural affiliation of a non-Puebloan Indian
tribe with Hopi ancestral remains. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma responded that the
comment was made by Mr. Wayne Taylor of the Hopi Tribe and reflects the
importance of respect for tribal uniqueness. Each cultural affiliation
claim needs to meet with a determination of merit and should not be
influenced by politics. Mr. Wilson explained that in discussions with
the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation expressed a serious belief of their
cultural affiliation with all Anasazi parks. Mr. Wilson explained that
after consideration of the evidence, Chaco Culture NHP included the
Navajo Nation as culturally affiliated.

In response to a question by Mr. Sullivan regarding making
determinations on a site-by-site basis, Ms. Wendy Bustard explained that
approach was deemed to be ineffective when taking into consideration
that the sites in Chaco Canyon form a whole archeologically. Indian
tribes considered themselves to be culturally affiliated with individual
sites but more specifically with Chaco Canyon as a whole. Ms. Bustard
added that archeological evidence suggests a cultural continuity from
the Archaic period through Pueblo III, with continuous occupation by a
number of tribal groups. She explained that DNA evidence suggests
significant intermarriage had occurred between Navajo and Puebloan
groups. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma expressed concern that evidence of
intermarriage was being used for an assertion of cultural affiliation,
especially given the time periods under consideration. Mr. O'Shea
pointed out that these differing concerns seem to indicate a need for
weighting of evidence in cultural affiliation determinations.

Mr. Minthorn asked each party to define preponderance of the evidence
in making cultural affiliation determinations. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma stated
that preponderance of the evidence is weighing all categories of
evidence in the law collectively and making an assessment on the merits
of each line of evidence to make a determination. Mr. Wilson stated
that preponderance of the evidence means there is more evidence one way
or the other, 51 percent, and added that Chaco Culture NHP did evaluate
quality and quantity of evidence in making their determination. Ms.
Naranjo pointed out that cultural borrowing is not the same as cultural
affiliation, and added concern that consultation was done on a group
basis and not with individual Indian tribes. Mr. Hart expressed concern
about the five-year time period the Hopi Tribe was not present in the
consultation records of Chaco Culture NHP.

Mr. Sullivan recommended Federal agencies and museums consider the
relative weight of cultural affiliation, rather than a strict yes or no
determination. Mr. Wilson expressed concern about the amount of time
and money necessary to redo the cultural affiliation determination. Mr.
Kuwanwisiwma recommended that the cultural affiliation reevaluation be
done with independent oversight outside of Chaco Culture NHP. Mr.
Wilson explained that revisiting the cultural affiliation determination
would not address this problem unless the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo
Nation resolve this issue together. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma felt that the
problem was in the application of the process, which might be helped by
a weighing of the evidence, and added that placing the dispute before
the Indian tribes would prolong the issue.

After considering the presentations by the involved parties, the
evidence presented, and the process used for making a determination of
cultural affiliation by Chaco Culture NHP, the review committee members
unanimously recommended that Chaco Culture NHP reassess its
determination of cultural affiliation while considering specific issues.
One, determination of cultural affiliation should be made on a
site-by-site basis, assessing each site based on the specific data
available. Two, while collective consultation can be useful, it should
not be used in lieu of individual tribal consultation in this case.
Three, a proper determination of cultural affiliation necessarily
requires the critical evaluation and careful weighing of all available
evidence, which should emphasize group identity, time period, specific
cultural practices and traceable cultural continuity. Four, Chaco
Culture NHP should take steps to ensure the objective character of the
determinations of cultural affiliation of the human remains and other
cultural items in the control of Chaco Culture NHP. The process Chaco
Culture NHP follows in making cultural affiliation determinations must
be seen by others to have been objective; for example, Chaco Culture NHP
might engage a qualified independent contractor to reevaluate the
information from the Chaco Culture NHP sites and offer specific
recommendations for cultural affiliation. Further, it was the unanimous
recommendation of the review committee members that Chaco Culture NHP
should withdraw its Notice of Inventory Completion and reassess its
determination of cultural affiliation. Mr. Bradley asked that a
statement be added explaining that he recused himself from the
discussion and finding.

Implementation of the Statute in the Great Basin Area

Ms. Lou Ann Jacobson, Anasazi Heritage Center, explained that the
Heritage Center, located in Dolores, Colorado, is a museum, interpretive
center, and repository operated by the BLM. The facility has
approximately three million archeological objects in its collection, all
from the southwest quadrant of Colorado. Ms. Jacobson reported that an
inventory was completed in late 1995 and includes 426 individuals and
3,610 associated funerary objects. Three individuals and 3,008
associated funerary objects have been repatriated to date. Individual
tribal consultation with 24 area Indian tribes is ongoing concerning the
remaining human remains and associated funerary objects. Mr. Minthorn
expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Heritage Center and asked
about collections in non- Federal repositories. Ms. Jacobson explained
that when the Heritage Center was completing their inventory, they
assisted non-Federal repositories in identifying BLM collections, which
were subsequently brought to the Heritage Center repository and included
in their inventory. Mr. Bradley commended the Heritage Center's
efforts. In response to a question about time periods represented in
their collection, Ms. Jacobson explained the majority of the collection
dates from Pueblo I and II, with one exception of an Archaic burial,
currently listed as culturally unidentifiable.

Mr. Alvin Moyle, Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation,
updated the review committee members on their request for the return of
the Spirit Cave human remains. For three years, the Paiute-Shoshone
Tribe has been seeking the repatriation of the human remains known as
Spirit Cave Man and three other individuals excavated from Spirit Cave
in 1940. In May and June 1999, the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe requested four
things from BLM's Nevada state director. One, a request for sufficient
time to prepare and submit reports supporting the repatriation request
was granted and the decision regarding the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's
repatriation request was delayed until December 1999. Two, a request
for temporary protection of the Spirit Cave human remains and their
relocation to a US Fish and Wildlife vault was denied on the grounds
that the vault did not meet specifications; however, the director stated
he would address concerns regarding lack of sensitivity demonstrated by
museum employees. Three, a request to provide all documentation to the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and their experts so they could evaluate and
respond to the material was granted. Four, a request to the director to
commit to three BLM-Indian tribe consultation meetings prior to the
decision was denied on the grounds that predecisional consultations were
not prudent; however, the director did indicate that further
consultation might occur to address new information uncovered in the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's research. Mr. Moyle added that area Indian
tribes fully support this repatriation request. Mr. Moyle requested a
written recommendation of the review committee members to support the
repatriation of the Spirit Cave human remains from the BLM to the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. He submitted written documentation regarding the
Spirit Cave human remains, as well as comments on the draft principles
of agreement regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, to the
review committee members.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern for the differing levels of NAGPRA
compliance within individual Federal agencies such as the BLM, as
evidenced by Mr. Moyle and Ms. Jacobson's comments. He stated that
consultation is a responsibility, not a choice. He recommended that
Federal agencies be asked to report to the review committee members on
their compliance progress, and specifically would like a report from the
BLM concerning this issue. Mr. Minthorn expressed his support of the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and his hope that this issue would not later come
before the review committee members as a dispute. Ms. Naranjo expressed
concern over the BLM's refusal to conduct what they called predecisional
consultations. Mr. O'Shea asked if the state director was going to make
the decision regarding the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's repatriation request.
Mr. Moyle stated that he was not sure who would be specifically making
the decision. Mr. Bradley expressed concern that the BLM was making a
determination without proper tribal consultation, and suggested that the
review committee members remind the BLM of statutory requirements
regarding consultation.

In response to concerns raised by Mr. Moyle, the review committee
members asked the NPS to send a letter to the BLM Nevada state director
detailing Mr. Moyle's concerns, the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's intention to
submit documentation to the BLM in December supporting their claim for
cultural affiliation with the Spirit Cave human remains, and
recommendations by the review committee members that the BLM fully
consider this information in reaching a determination of cultural
affiliation and continue consultation with the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and
other interested Indian tribes regarding the Spirit Cave human remains.
A draft of the letter was prepared and approved at the meeting.

Ms. Karen Wilde-Rogers, Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs (CCIA),
explained that the CCIA was created by statute in 1976 to serve the
interests of the two Ute nations, as well as to investigate and address
the needs of the 39 Indian tribes within Colorado. As the executive
secretary, Ms. Wilde-Rogers is the only full-time employee of the
commission. The commission is comprised of 15 members: two members are
representatives from the two Ute nations, two at-large members are
elected annually and are encouraged to be Native American residents of
the state, and the remaining members are state agency executive
directors. The commission is chaired by the lieutenant governor of the
state. Ms. Wilde-Rogers explained that the CCIA and the Colorado
Historical Society (CHS) have a unique partnership grant which enables
the CCIA to have part-time staff support for NAGPRA-related issues
through the position of NAGPRA liaison held by Ms. Bridget Ambler. This
partnership with CHS also allows the CCIA to support tribal visits to
Colorado museums and institutions for collection review. The CCIA has
had increased dialogue with the CHS and the Office of the State
Archeologist, resulting in the formation of a reinterment committee to
address the reburial process of 200 culturally unidentifiable human
remains held by CHS. The reinterment committee will be developing a
process for the culturally unidentifiable human remains, which will be
presented to the review committee members at a subsequent meeting. Ms.
Wilde-Rogers invited the review committee members to meet in the Denver,
Colorado area, and offered the support of CCIA and CHS for logistical
planning purposes.

Ms. Carolyn McArthur, CHS, explained that CHS's NAGPRA implementation
program is coordinated through the curatorial department of the
Historical Society in Denver. This curatorial department is responsible
for approximately 150,000 objects, of which 15,000 objects are
archeological in nature including 10,000 American Indian cultural
objects representing nearly 150 Indian tribes from the Southwest, Plains
and Intermountain regions. In 1995, the CHS submitted a census to the
NPS of nearly 270 ancient Pueblo people, more than 350 culturally
unidentifiable human remains and seven culturally affiliated people,
including two who were repatriated. In addition, the Colorado State
archeologist holds more than 100 human remains discovered inadvertently
in Colorado, either on state or private land. The CHS was fortunate to
receive six NAGPRA documentation grants from the NPS, which were used
for tribal consultations and a symposium to explore NAGPRA applicability
to objects in the collections of the Denver Art Museum and the CHS. CHS
currently has two projects in partnership with CCIA, including extended
consultations with six Indian tribes and five Colorado museums and a
symposium in partnership with 17 Indian tribes scheduled for October
2000. Ms. McArthur explained that the CHS and CCIA are working to
explore regional solutions for the possible disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains held at the CHS. Another important
partnership project between the CHS and CCIA is the creation of the
position of NAGPRA liaison held by Ms. Bridget Ambler, to help
facilitate these projects and to provide assistance to both Indian
tribes and museums.

Ms. Bridget Ambler, CHS and CCIA, explained that she was the NAGPRA
liaison between the CHS and CCIA, a position that was created to address
the needs and concerns of Indian tribes and museums under NAGPRA. The
position provides staff support to the CHS and the CCIA for
NAGPRA-related activities and provides information upon request to
Indian tribes, museums and Federal agencies. Ms. Ambler explained that
since holding the position, she has provided assistance or information
to over 53 Indian tribes and 22 museums and agencies across the country.
In addition to the projects described by Ms. McArthur and Ms.
Wilde-Rogers, CHS and CCIA are in the process of rehousing human remains
in a collaborative way that is both culturally sensitive and archivally
stable. Ms. Ambler stated that both the CHS and CCIA deserve recognition
for their commitment in forming this unique grant partnership to achieve
common goals. Ms. Ambler expressed hope that this experience would help
other states develop similar collaborative NAGPRA programs.

Mr. Terry Knight, Sr., Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, stated he was a
spiritual leader designated as the NAGPRA tribal person. He explained
that his goal was the repatriation of Native American human remains and
funerary objects. He expressed his appreciation for meeting the review
committee members, but explained that some people use inaccessibility of
the review committee as an excuse not to comply with NAGPRA or to delay
the process. He added that sometimes protocol is allowed to take
precedence over what has to be done, such as receiving information and
recommendations from spiritual people. Mr. Knight explained that he has
had some positive experiences with representatives of the FS and the NPS
who try to deal with the issues and accomplish the intent of the law
within the regulations. He emphasized the need to remember the original
intent of the law, which is the reinterment of Native American human
remains. Mr. Knight explained that he received copies of the BLM
policies wherein tribal spiritual people are not recognized as
consultants and therefore are not given funding to travel in order to
make recommendations regarding specific sites.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about this policy and asked Mr.
McManamon what the NPS could do to address Mr. Knight's concern. Mr.
McManamon replied that the way NAGPRA is implemented at the local level
by individual agency and museum offices allows for the possibility of
inconsistent application of consultation practices. In response, the NPS
has tried to provide technical assistance, training, publication of
successful practices, and guidance on consultation to address these
inconsistencies. Mr. McManamon suggested that if there was a specific
concern about a policy of the BLM, perhaps the review committee members
could ask the BLM to attend the next review committee meeting and be
prepared to address this issue. Mr. Sullivan asked if other Federal
agencies have policies prohibiting the hiring of traditional people as
consultants. Mr. McManamon stated that he did not know, but the NPS
could try to canvas agency representatives on that issue. Mr. Bradley
expressed his appreciation to Ms. Wilde-Rogers, Ms. McArthur, Ms.
Ambler, and Mr. Knight for their level of cooperation and the impressive
model that they presented for NAGPRA implementation.

Mr. Forrest Cuch, Director, Utah Division of Indian Affairs, explained
that Utah's state NAGPRA law was enacted in 1992 and is very similar to
the Federal NAGPRA, except that it applies to state and private land.
The Native American Remains Review Committee is comprised of seven
members appointed by the division director, four from nominations
submitted by Indian tribes and three from nominations submitted by
representatives of repositories. The committee meets as necessary to
mitigate issues pertaining to the repatriation of human remains and
funerary objects, which is roughly five to six times per year. The
state archeologist regularly attends the meetings. Current repatriation
issues include human remains removed from Hill Air Force Base and
Fremont Park. Another set of human remains discovered in front of the
Delta Center in downtown Salt Lake City are currently being studied by
the office of the state archeologist and are believed to be the
northernmost discovery of Fremont human remains in Utah. Mr. Cuch
explained that his main concern regarding these Native American human
remains is the length of time taken for the analysis. In response to a
question by Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Cuch explained that this discovery was not
on Federal land and would not fall under the Federal NAGPRA. Mr.
Bradley expressed his appreciation for the level of cooperation
described by Mr. Cuch.

Mr. Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Idaho and Nevada, explained
that the people of the Great Basin consider themselves to be one people
with only slight differences in language or lifestyle. Archeological
evidence in the Great Basin covers more than 10,000 years, but is
inconclusive when attempting to describe the cultural sequences
throughout the region. Cultural boundaries have not been conclusively
defined in the Great Basin area. Indian Claims Commission records allow
only for consideration of exclusive use lands, which represent only a
small portion of the lands traditionally associated with cultural
groups, and are of little use in cultural affiliation determinations.
Mr. Howard stated that the draft guidelines on culturally unidentifiable
human remains do not fulfill the requirement of being respectful when
calling for the speedy repatriation of human remains for which there is
little or no information. While archeologists argue that knowledge and
research benefit all people and perceive of Native American ancestors as
research specimens, contemporary Native Americans preserve the past in
their oral history and ongoing ceremonial practices and beliefs. Mr.
Howard stated that the debate between Native Americans and archeologists
is one of property, which is unsuitable when addressing the legal rights
of Indian people with regard to their ancestors. In seeking the
protection of their ancestors, Native Americans are attempting to secure
recognition of basic human rights. Mr. Howard expressed concern that
Indian tribes were informed, not consulted, about a recent educational
dig in central Nevada by the BLM. Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about
this lack of compliance by the BLM, as ARPA requires tribal permission
before a permit can be issued. Mr. McManamon added that while this is
true for activities on tribal land, ARPA requires only notification for
activities taking place off of tribal land.

Ms. Nancy Coulam, Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation,
explained that she was present to give an update on NAGPRA compliance
for the Upper Colorado Region, which covers a seven-state area from
Texas to the Idaho border, including both the Great Basin and the
Colorado Plateau. She explained that the inventory was completed and
submitted to the NPS in 1995; however, museums were funded to redo
inventory and summary reports as inadvertent discoveries were mistakenly
included in the initial submissions. The revised inventory will be
resubmitted this year to Indian tribes and the NPS. Consultation was
conducted with 30 Indian tribes through multitribal meetings, which
resulted in numerous Indian tribes claiming cultural affiliation with
portions of the collection. Repatriations have occurred for claims from
a single Indian tribe. A series of individual tribal consultations have
been initiated as the next step in the consultation process. Ms. Coulam
explained that there is not widespread agreement on the definitions of
prehistoric groups in Utah, and all Federal agencies and museums in Utah
have received identical, multiples claims for cultural affiliation with
all groups. This has resulted in a series of meeting among the agencies
to help ensure consistent definitions of these earlier groups and to
develop ways to compile and document the different lines of evidence for
cultural affiliation determinations. Since consultation has shown that
almost all Indian tribes wish to reinter human remains and associated
funerary objects as close as possible to their site of origin, efforts
have begun to try to designate specific plots of land protected under
Utah state law for repatriation purposes. Mr. Minthorn commended the
efforts described by Ms. Coulam for this division of the Bureau of
Reclamation, but pointed out his concerns about noncompliance with
NAGPRA by the agency as a whole.

Discussion of Request from the Commonwealth of Virginia

Mr. Bradley summarized the request from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
previously heard by the review committee members at the Silver Spring
meeting. The Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a request to rebury
human remains from the Hayes Creek Mound site in Rockbridge, Virginia.
At the Silver Spring meeting, the review committee members determined
that the request was reasonable if additional information was made
available. The Commonwealth of Virginia provided the information prior
to the Salt Lake City meeting. Mr. O'Shea asked for clarification of the
difference between state recognized Indian tribes, such as the eight
Indian tribes represented in this case, and Federally recognized Indian
tribes. Mr. Sullivan explained that the eight Indian tribes in Virginia
are all state recognized and all agree on the outcome of this request.
Ms. Naranjo asked if each of the eight Indian tribes were adequately
represented on the Virginia Indian Council, which provided documentation
supporting the request. Mr. McKeown explained that the Virginia Indian
Council is composed of the elected leaders of the eight state recognized
Indian tribes. The review committee members agreed unanimously to
approve the request and asked the NPS to send a letter detailing their
recommendation to the Commonwealth of Virginia. A draft of the letter
was prepared and approved at the meeting.

Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Mr. McManamon explained that museums and agencies are responsible for
determining cultural affiliation of human remains and funerary objects
in consultation with potential culturally affiliated Indian tribes. The
review committee members can make specific recommendations regarding
individual cases where cultural affiliation cannot be determined. The
review committee is also charged with making recommendations for a
general method for dealing with Native American human remains for which
a determination of cultural affiliation cannot be determined. Mr.
Bradley, Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan reviewed the review committee
members' previous attempts at drafting recommendations for culturally
unidentifiable human remains, including developing and publishing for
comment the draft principles of agreement of culturally unidentifiable
human remains following the Silver Spring, Maryland meeting. Mr.
Bradley asked Mr. McKeown to summarize the written comments received
related to the draft principles. Mr. McKeown explained that the 83
comments received prior to the meeting represented four Federal
agencies, ten Indian tribes, 13 museums, eight national tribal,
scientific or museum organizations, six state agencies, 22 universities
or colleges, and 20 individuals or other organizations. Mr. McKeown
provided a written summary of the substantive comments of the Federal
agencies, national organizations and Indian tribes to the review
committee members.

After discussion of the draft principles of agreement regarding
culturally unidentifiable human remains, the review committee members
had several suggestions and comments. Mr. Sullivan expressed his hope
that the review committee members could develop two documents related to
culturally unidentifiable human remains; one, draft regulations to
enunciate general national policy, and two, technical guidelines based
on specific models of dealing with the issue. Ms. Metcalf stated that
NAGPRA was human rights legislation that provided for Native Americans
determining the destiny of their heritage, culture and authority.

In response to a concern raised by Mr. Minthorn, section A.2 was
changed to read, "Specifically, the statute requires" and the portion of
section A.3 that read, "and is beyond the review committee's charge" was
removed. In response to comments by Ms. Tsosie, as well as the views of
several review committee members, a statement will be developed at a
later time and added to the draft principles articulating the legal
basis for the statement in section A.4.a, "The process be primarily in
the hands of Native people." Mr. O'Shea expressed concern about that
statement and stated that nothing in the law or regulations supported
the contention that decisions regarding culturally unidentifiable human
remains should be solely in the hands of Native Americans. In response
to a suggestion by Mr. Minthorn, section A.5 was changed to read, "The
statute acknowledges the legitimate need to return control over
ancestral remains and funerary objection to Native people, and the
legitimate public interest in educational, historic and scientific
information conveyed by those remains and objects."

For clarification and consistency, section B.1 was changed to read,
"Federal agencies and museums must make a determination as to whether
Native American human remains in their control are related to lineal
descendants, culturally affiliated with a present-day Federally
recognized Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or are
culturally unidentifiable. This determination must be made through a
good faith evaluation of all relevant and available documentation, and
in consultation with any appropriate Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization." In response to Mr. Minthorn and Ms. Metcalf's
suggestions, section B.2 was changed to read, "A determination that
human remains are culturally unidentifiable may change to one of
cultural affiliation as additional information becomes available through
ongoing consultation or any other source. There is no statute of
limitations on tribes in terms of making a claim."

In section B.3, the explanation was changed and the categories of
culturally unidentifiable human remains were reduced from four to three,
"An agency or museum determination that human remains are culturally
unidentifiable may occur for different reasons. At present, three
categories are recognized: a. Those for which cultural affiliation could
be determined except that the appropriate tribe is not Federally
recognized. b. Those which represent a defined earlier identifiable
group, but for which Federal agencies or museums have determined that no
present-day Indian tribe exists. c. Those for which evidence is
insufficient for a Federal agency or museum to make a determination of
cultural affiliation."

In response to comments by Mr. Minthorn, the section on documentation
was moved to B.4 and contains the following points, "a. Documentation
is required for inventory completion and determination of cultural
affiliation by Federal agencies and museums. It is appropriate that
documentation be conducted in accordance with standards defined by 43
CFR 10.9. b. Documentation does not mean the authorization of new
scientific studies or other means of acquiring or preserving additional
scientific information from human remains and associated funerary
objects. c. Documentation must occur within the context of the
consultation process and should be proportional to the importance of the
information. d. Additional study is not prohibited but must occur
within the context of the consultation process. e. Documentation
prepared for compliance with the statute is a public record."

The guideline section was changed from four specific guidelines to the
following principle; "Respect must be the foundation for any disposition
of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Human remains determined to
be culturally unidentifiable are no less deserving of respect than those
for which cultural affiliation has been established." Review committee
members felt the guideline requirements of equitable, doable and
enforceable were actually concepts inherent in any regulations.

The review committee members expressed the need for further
consideration of a number of issues, including: Use and meaning of the
words disposition and repatriation; the need for explicit language
concerning documentation requirements beyond the idea that documentation
does not mean the authorization of new studies and must occur within the
consultation process, and the appropriateness of including any
discussion regarding documentation requirements in the principles of
agreement; and the issue of study of culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Hart, Mr.
Sullivan and Mr. Bradley stated they were comfortable with the draft
principles document with minor modifications, Mr. O'Shea stated that he
was not comfortable with the document, and Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Minthorn
abstained. The review committee members asked that the NPS send a
letter of acknowledgment to everyone who submitted comments on the draft
principles of agreement regarding culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

Review Committee Meeting Protocol

The review committee members discussed the draft of the review
committee meeting protocol prepared at the Silver Spring meeting and
changed the first section to require that the next meeting location and
dates would be set before the meeting adjourned. Review committee
members agreed that although planning two meetings in advance would be
helpful, it is not possible with the next two meetings given the current
schedules of the review committee members and the upcoming term
expirations of Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan in June 2000. The review
committee meeting protocol was approved at the meeting for Chairman
Sullivan's signature (see Attachment B).

Draft Guidance on Excavation and Discovery Activities

Mr. McManamon explained the purpose of the draft guidance on
excavation and discovery activities is to provide additional information
to Federal agencies in an attempt to address inconsistencies in the way
Federal agencies apply regulations dealing with inadvertent discoveries
and planned excavations, specifically concerning consultation with
Indian tribes and processes for handling recoveries. The Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks will ultimately issue this
guidance document to Federal agencies, Indian tribes and other
interested parties. The review committee members discussed the document
and made the following changes: part of section 3.a was changed to read,
"Indian tribes with a cultural relationship," to more accurately reflect
statutory language. For clarification purposes, a portion of section 4
was changed to read, "Excavation and removal of the remains and cultural
items, if necessary, using archaeological methods and techniques."

Mr. Minthorn stated that although the guidelines were a good
framework, the actual creation of inadvertent discovery plans needs to
be done with Indian tribes at the local level and needs to include
consultation and mitigation, as the current lack of plans causes
problems. Mr. Minthorn expressed the opinion that this guidance should
be issued in the form of a mandate. Mr. McManamon replied that he was
unsure if there was authority to mandate mitigation plans, but he would
check with the Solicitor's Office to clarify the issue. Mr. O'Shea
suggested that Federal agencies could provide samples of local
mitigation agreements when giving updates of Federal agency compliance
to the review committee members. Mr. McManamon stated that although the
review committee members do not need to approve this guidance, he would
keep the review committee members informed of the progress of the draft
as well as provide updated drafts of the guidance to the review
committee members for comment.

Solicitation for Nominations for Two Review Committee Members

Both Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan's terms as members of the review
committee will expire in June 2000. The review committee members urged
the NPS to expeditiously publish notice in the Federal Register
soliciting nominations and begin consultations with appropriate groups
for the submission of nominations for two new members. A draft Federal
Register notice soliciting nominations for two new members of the review
committee was prepared at the meeting.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the review committee members tentatively set the
next meeting for April 2000 in Nashville, Tennessee, to be coordinated
in cooperation with the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), per
invitation by Mr. James T. Martin, Executive Director, USET.

Review of Minutes of Silver Spring, Maryland

The review committee members unanimously approved the minutes of the
Silver Spring, Maryland meeting on May 3, 4 and 5, 1999.

Action Items

The review committee members were in favor of establishing an action
list detailing specific actions necessary to respond to issues brought
before the review committee. Such a list would be beneficial in keeping
track of the progress of any requests made by the review committee
members. Specific requests made at this meeting included completing the
following: finding regarding the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Canyon NHP; letter
to the Field Museum regarding the Ho-Chunk war bundle claim; letter to
the Nevada State BLM director regarding the Spirit Cave human remains
issue; letter to the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains; letter to commenters regarding
draft principles on disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains; Federal Register notice soliciting nominations for two
additional review committee members; review committee meeting protocol;
review committee dispute resolution procedures; report to Congress for
1998; review of draft guidelines on discoveries and excavations;
determination if Federal agencies can be required to prepare discovery
plans; documentation of Federal agency policies regarding hiring of
Native American religious leaders as experts; response to Hopi regarding
notice by Mesa Verde National Park and Aztec Ruins National Monument;
response to James Martin regarding invitation from USET to coordinate
future committee meeting; distribution of Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's
submission regarding Spirit Cave human remains.

Review committee members also asked for the following information: a
summary detailing review committee operational and grant budget
information for FY 1999 and FY 2000; a list detailing forbearance
requirements for each of the six institutions that were denied inventory
extensions in the spring of 1999, as well as regular updates on their
progress; an update on the notice publication backlog; regular updates
on incoming correspondence; and monthly updates on the progress of
action list items. Throughout the meeting, the review committee members
expressed concern regarding lack of Federal agency compliance and asked
to have an update of Federal agency compliance at the next meeting.

Public Comment

Mendocino County Intertribal Repatriation Project

Ms. Pauline Girvin-Montoya, Mendocino County Intertribal Repatriation
Project, reviewed the troubled history California Indian tribes have had
in consultation efforts with the University of California at Berkeley,
specifically concerning repatriation issues. She explained that after
testifying at the Santa Fe hearing about the need for civil penalties
against UC Berkeley conditions have improved through the hiring of
additional staff; however, requests for information and consultation
have been denied. UC Berkeley cited internal policies and the fact that
they have been granted a forbearance period for completion of their
inventory as reasons for this denial. Ms. Girvin-Montoya expressed the
coalition's desire to provide information to UC Berkeley necessary for
determinations of cultural affiliation of Native American human remains
from the state of California. The coalition is requesting that the UC
Berkeley inventory be not accepted as final since good faith
consultation did not occur, and once again the coalition would ask for
an imposition of civil penalties against UC Berkeley for failure to work
within NAGPRA. The coalition requested that information be provided
explaining the details of the forbearance period and that the university
should be required to develop a process for Indian tribes to present
information or issues of concern to the university regarding NAGPRA.

Ms. Priscilla Hunter, Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, expressed
her understanding of the difficulties within the repatriation process
and her hope that the review committee members could help. She
explained her joy and pride in the tribal ceremonial objects found in
museums that could strengthen their Indian tribe. Ms. Hunter expressed
the hope that there would be a Californian representative on the review
committee at some point in the future and invited the review committee
members to meet in California. She asked how information could be
circulated to all Indian tribes regarding precedent setting decisions
made by the review committee members. Mr. O'Shea explained that review
committee information is available through the NPS mailing list and the
NPS website.

Review Committee Discussion: The review committee members expressed
their concern over the experiences different Native groups have had with
UC Berkeley, and Mr. Sullivan commented that the situation may comprise
a dispute. Mr. Bradley suggested that a letter be sent to UC Berkeley
detailing the concerns that UC Berkeley has not followed the process or
completed good faith consultation. Mr. O'Shea cautioned against making
precipitous decisions without representation from UC Berkeley.

Mr. Steve Banegas, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, added
that the coalition was formed to help the process, and coalition members
want to sit down as equals and work out this process.

Ms. Linda Fabbri, University of California Berkeley, explained that
the university has made great efforts to address all areas of concern
presented at the Santa Fe meeting in December 1998. The museum has a
new director as of July 1, 1999, additional staff has been hired, and an
additional allocation in excess of one million dollars was granted from
the chancellor. The university is on track to meet their December 1999
forbearance requirements. Ms. Fabbri explained that the university is
more than willing to speak with Ms. Girvin-Montoya's group about any
additional information they would be able to provide regarding cultural
affiliation determinations.

Review Committee Discussion: In response to questions from Mr.
Minthorn, Ms. Fabbri explained that the university exceeded their August
forbearance requirements, is on track to meet their December forbearance
requirements, and feels that they will meet all requirements by the end
of their forbearance period in June 2000. Mr. Bradley expressed his
appreciation of the difficulties raised by forbearance periods in
general and encouraged UC Berkeley to work with the California groups to
avoid this issue becoming a dispute. Mr. Minthorn asked Ms. Fabbri to
keep the review committee members appraised of the situation. The
review committee members agreed that a letter of concern to UC Berkeley
was not necessary at this point and encouraged the groups to meet and
work out their differences to try to prevent this issue from coming
before the review committee members again.

Mr. Steven Begay, Navajo Nation, explained that the Navajo Nation has
made three unsuccessful attempts to address the review committee members
regarding the dispute between the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Canyon. Mr. Begay
summarized a written statement, which he supplied to the review
committee members, wherein he describes in detail Navajo kinship and
oral history traditions, as well as naming several clans within the
Navajo Nation that trace ancestry to Anasazi people. He expressed the
hope that the review committee members would read and consider this
statement, even though a recommendation had already been made concerning
the dispute. In response to Mr. Sullivan's statement regarding parties
to a dispute, Mr. Begay replied that Navajo Nation recognizes this
dispute as being between the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture NHP. However,
Navajo Nation wanted to be able to comment and answer questions related
to recognition of Navajo cultural affiliation with Chaco Canyon.

Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest SOARRING, explained that Midwest SOARRING
is a nonprofit organization in the state of Illinois that helps
facilitate repatriation and protect Native burial sites in the state and
surrounding region, working under resolution from the Winnebago Tribe of
Nebraska. Ms. Farrell expressed concern that human remains from other
countries were being publicly displayed in the United States,
specifically Incan remains from Peru. As this is not covered by NAGPRA
and goes against the spirit of NAGPRA and the attitude held by Native
people regarding displaying indigenous remains, she asked if anything
could be done about this practice. Mr. Sullivan replied that this is
really an issue that the government of Peru has to be held accountable
for, and Mr. Hart added that perhaps the Smithsonian would have some
oversight of the process.

Mr. Dennis Funmaker, Ho-Chunk Nation, reminded the review committee
members of his presentation at the Santa Fe review committee meeting in
December of 1998 regarding the Thunder Clan war bundle currently in the
control of the Field Museum, in Chicago, Illinois. He further described
the Field Museum's position that they would repatriate the bundle to the
Ho-Chunk Nation if the Ho-Chunk Nation agreed to return the bundle at
such time as it was no longer needed. Mr. Funmaker stated the Ho-Chunk
legislature and traditional court both opposed such an agreement. After
discussions at the Santa Fe meeting, the Ho-Chunk Nation believed the
review committee members would ask the NPS for assistance in this matter
by writing a letter to the Field Museum expressing concern and asking
for clarification of the situation. Mr. Funmaker asked if this letter
had been sent.

Mr. McManamon confirmed that the NPS had been asked to complete this
correspondence, which had not been done. Review committee members
discussed the situation and expressed concern that the letter had not
been sent in the year's time since the Santa Fe meeting. In response to
the concerns raised by Mr. Funmaker, the review committee members
requested that the NPS send a letter to the Field Museum asking the
basis on which the museum continues to assert right of possession, given
that the object has been identified as both a sacred object and an
object of cultural patrimony under the definitions provided in NAGPRA.
A draft of the letter was prepared and approved at the meeting.

Ms. Debra Harry, Northern Paiute Nation and the Indigenous Peoples
Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB), stated that the IPCB strongly
encourages the review committee members to protect the intent of NAGPRA,
which was designed to assist Indian tribes in repatriating ancestral
remains. She stated that recent events clearly show the goal of some of
the scientific community to secure the freedom to do scientific study on
culturally unidentifiable human remains. She explained that genetic
analysis is not helpful and should not be considered in cultural
affiliation determinations. The results of cranial research show that
cranial variation is great in nearly any population across time. DNA
analysis cannot determine cultural affiliation because affiliation is a
cultural concept, not biological. Practically, DNA analysis can be used
to determine that two samples are different, but cannot be used to
absolutely say that two samples are the same or to determine if an
individual was part of a group.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnography,
Harvard University, gave an update on the Peabody's progress and plans
for inventory completion under their forbearance period. The Peabody
received a 25- month period of forbearance with regular deadlines for
reporting on required quotas. This forbearance process has meant that
the reporting and consultation process had to be simplified and the
Peabody was no longer eligible for grants from the NPS, which were
previously used to bring tribal representatives to the museum for
consultation purposes. Ten additional staff members have been appointed
to the repatriation office to handle NAGPRA consultations and
inventories and an additional eight staff members were appointed in the
collections department to verify basic collections data and do data
entry. The October 31st, 1999 deadline was met with inventory
completion on collections from 20 states. There are five states for
which the Peabody has no collections. Ms. Isaac described the
geographical approach the Peabody will use to finalize inventory
completion for the remaining 18 months of their forbearance period. She
explained that the inventory process itself has been simplified and
shortened from 18 months to six months, in order to meet forbearance
deadlines. She added that the delay in publication of Federal Register
notices allows for revision of inventory completion notices if new
information becomes available, but this is also a time-consuming
process.

Mr. Bradley expressed concern about forbearance periods and the
resulting negative effect on consultation. Mr. Sullivan summarized
Harvard's inventory as containing 4,872 human remains, including 1,186
classified as culturally unidentifiable, and asked for clarification of
the main reasons for that classification. Ms. Patricia Capone explained
that most human remains were reported as culturally unidentifiable due
to lack of information, with some exceptions from areas where there are
cultural discontinuities. In response to a request from Mr. Minthorn,
Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS would keep the review committee
members apprised of the Peabody's progress. Mr. Bradley asked for
clarification of the review committee's role in the forbearance issue.
Mr. McManamon explained that while the review committee does not have a
specific role in overseeing the forbearance issue, the NPS could keep
the review committee members informed of the progress of each of the six
institutions under forbearance.

Mr. Keith Kintigh, President of the Society for American Archeology
(SAA), commented on two different issues in the discussion of ancient
human remains; conclusions scientists draw based on available evidence
and legal questions relevant to the disposition of human remains. The
issues are closely intertwined since Native Americans' legal claims may
prevent the study necessary to answer scientific questions. Mr. Kintigh
explained that SAA agrees with the DOI that Kennewick Man, and other
ancient human remains, is Native American, but added that cultural
affiliation is still uncertain and cultural affiliation governs the
disposition of these human remains. Mr. Kintigh commended the review
committee members on their recommendation regarding the Hopi Tribe and
Chaco Culture NHP dispute. He stated that the precedents set by that
recommendation should help preserve the integrity of the definition of
cultural affiliation in the statute and help address the issue of
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Kintigh encouraged the
review committee members to treat culturally unidentifiable human
remains as separate classes with differing relationships with modern
groups and different potential to teach about the past. He suggested
the review committee members refine the categorization of human remains
that appear in the draft principles in order to move toward outlining
the scope of the tribal, scientific, and museum interests with respect
to questions of study, disposition, or repatriation. Mr. Kintigh hoped
compromise could be reached to allow the preservation of information and
repatriation, as the information learned about the past is of interest
to scientists, the public and also to Native people.

Mr. Clark Larsen, President of the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists (AAPA), expressed appreciation for the review committee
members' work in the implementation of NAGPRA. He explained that the
AAPA previously presented a letter commenting on the draft principles of
agreement and summarized some of the concerns. The regulations should
allow for the idea that disposition does not necessarily mean reburial.
Culturally unidentifiable human remains with limited or no information
do have educational and scientific value in providing an important
comparative perspective, as well as the potential for future genetic
information, and should not be speedily repatriated. Invasive testing
for radiocarbon dates and DNA analysis provides important context for
cultural affiliation and should be an option. Regional solutions for
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains are highly
reasonable, but individual sites also have enormous importance and need
to be considered.

Mr. Minthorn agreed that compromise should be reached when dealing
with Native American ancestral remains, but stressed that culturally
unidentifiable human remains are no less significant than culturally
affiliated human remains. Studies should not be allowed just because of
their classification. He expressed concern that ancestral remains were
considered a source of educational value. Mr. Kintigh expressed
optimism that compromise could be achieved between traditional interests
and scientific interests. Mr. Larsen pointed out the increased levels
of communication between scientists and Native Americans in the present
compared to 20 years ago and agreed with Mr. Kintigh that all parties
need to discuss culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Minthorn
stated that NAGPRA was created to come to a compromise between museums,
universities, Federal agencies and Indian tribes; however, some of the
compromise has been lost, particularly in some of the issues coming
before the review committee members. He stated the law should be
changed to give more voice to Indian tribes in dealing with NAGPRA and
to restore that level of compromise. Mr. Kintigh expressed concern
about the lack of Federal agency compliance with NAGPRA and expressed
appreciation for the review committee members' efforts to address that
problem.

Mr. Sebastian (Bronco) LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, explained
that he submitted comments on the draft principles of agreement
regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains, but missed the
deadline due to the NPS delay in distribution. Mr. LeBeau emphasized
that the ancestors held by museums and agencies need to be returned to
the Indian people and explained that the term "culturally
unidentifiable" does not exist for Native Americans. Mr. LeBeau stated
that he has had experience with museums wanting to provide input on the
disposition of Native American human remains, when that should be solely
a tribal decision. The intent of the Act is to rebury Native American
ancestors. He explained that the value in Native American human remains
is in healing, not what can be learned from them. Native Americans
document through oral tradition, not the written word and have a
different definition of kinship. Kinship is a relationship recognized
between Native Americans, even if the law does not recognize it.
Cultural affiliation does not mean biological affiliation and cannot be
determined by physical measurements, skin color, or language. Native
American ancestors need to go home, and the review committee members can
help by making all institutions, Federal agencies and museums fulfill
the requirements of the statute.

Mr. James T. Martin, United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), stated he
was Executive Director of USET, an intertribal organization of 23
Federally recognized Indian tribes from Maine to Florida and west to
Texas. He read USET Resolution 2015 regarding the draft principles of
agreement which states that all rules, regulations, and conditions for
the repatriation of so-called culturally unidentifiable human remains
shall be set forth only by a government-to-government process on a
regional basis with Federally recognized Indian tribes. Mr. Martin
commented on a number of topics discussed previously at the meeting. He
expressed concern about the one-year delay in action regarding the
Ho-Chunk war bundle described by Mr. Funmaker. He felt that Navajo
Nation was affected by the Chaco Culture NHP cultural affiliation
decision and should have been allowed to provide information. He
expressed a healthy disagreement with the NPS memo stating there does
not appear to be a conflict of interest and expressed the need for a
review process. Mr. Martin expressed appreciation and support for the
work of the review committee members, and offered on behalf of USET to
support any request by the review committee members for additional
funding. He suggested that the review committee have representation
from the southern and eastern part of the United States, and on behalf
of USET offered to help coordinate the next review committee meeting.

Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio (NAAO), expressed
concern regarding the legal loophole in NAGPRA as it applies to Ohio
that permits retention of culturally unidentifiable Native American
ancestors in storage facilities because there are no Federally
recognized Indian tribes in Ohio. She explained that the majority of
inventoried human remains in Ohio are culturally unidentifiable and the
majority of human remains are from mounds and burial sites in Ohio. She
cited an example of this at the Ohio Historical Society, which holds the
human remains of more than 5,000 Native American individuals, the vast
majority being considered culturally unidentifiable. In January 1998,
the NAAO presented a proposal to the review committee members to address
the repatriation issue in Ohio. The proposal calls for the
establishment of a memorial park at the Fernald Nuclear Enrichment Plant
in Hamilton, Ohio, on the buffer zone between the plant and the
community, which would be given to the Indian tribes. The creation of
this reburial memorial encourages tribal participation, is economically
feasible, fulfills the spirit and letter of NAGPRA, and provides for the
expeditious and permanent protection of Native American ancestors. Ms.
McCoard explained that the decision now rests with the Department of
Energy. She expressed hope that other states with similar situations
would consider this solution as a model for culturally unidentifiable
human remains. In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Minthorn and
Mr. Sullivan, Mr. McManamon explained that the Ohio Historical Society
is one of the six institutions currently under a period of forbearance
for inventory completion, with a scheduled inventory completion of May
2001.

Mr. Brett Shelton, Oglala Lakota Nation and Indigenous Peoples Council
on Biocolonialism, expressed his appreciation for the review committee
members' efforts and the difficulty of their task in dealing with NAGPRA
implementation. He described the purpose of the Act was not to balance
museum/scientific interests and tribal interests, but to favor Native
American human rights. The expanded evidence categories in the Act with
explicit provisions for oral tradition, historic, and folkloric tribal
evidence demonstrate Congress's intention to listen to tribal people.
Congress set a standard that Indian tribes only need to meet a
preponderance of the evidence, greater than 50 percent, in presenting
their evidence for cultural affiliation. Mr. Shelton stated that he has
seen a lot of unnecessary delay in the process of cultural affiliation
determinations. Delays caused by a scientific desire to gather DNA
evidence or complete genetic testing are not useful because
relationships cannot be established with this type of testing, as
described by Ms. Harry. The function of the review committee should be
to help expedite the process of cultural affiliation determinations.
One solution might be the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to
combine site data for culturally unidentifiable human remains from
museums and institutions with tribal information, such as Indian Claims
Commission maps, aboriginal territories and treaty territories, to
locate Indian tribes with potential cultural affiliation. Mr. Shelton
suggested implementation of GIS on a Federal level to benefit all Indian
tribes.

Ms. Rebecca Tsosie, School of Law, Arizona State University,
acknowledged the review committee members' hard work in preparing the
draft principles of agreement regarding culturally unidentifiable human
remains and added that decisions regarding the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains will have an impact on the entire law. She
explained that NAGPRA stems from the US Government's plenary power and
its trust responsibility to Indian tribes. The US Government has a duty
to protect the interests of Native people, which stems from the treaties
and history between the US Government and Indian people. Developing a
process for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains
depends upon the definition of the category of human remains considered
culturally unidentifiable and the articulation of principles to guide
the process. The category of culturally unidentifiable human remains is
dependent on the idea of cultural affiliation, a shared group identity
that is reasonably traced through time between a present group and an
identifiable past group. Scientists today argue for a narrow definition
of cultural affiliation requiring the present-day group to be Federally
recognized and to prove a biological connection to a defined,
biologically recognized earlier group. This is not a valid reading of
the statute because the statute requires that human remains be
expeditiously returned to the requesting Indian tribe when cultural
affiliation has been shown by a preponderance of evidence. A
distinction can then be made between human remains that lack any
information to tie them to some contemporary claimant group from those
that do possess that information. The standard of preponderance of the
evidence simply means more likely than not and the burden rests with the
Indian tribe. The Indian tribe can prove its claim according to its
standards, for example, by evaluating its traditions, history, folklore,
language, kinship, etcetera. Native American people have different
concepts of kinship than Anglo-American people, which might include
relationships to all Native American people within a certain region,
such as the Great Basin.

Following these principles, the category of culturally unidentifiable
human remains is minuscule. First, human remains culturally affiliated
to a non-Federally recognized group do not fall within the definition.
The only problem in this category is lack of standing to make a claim,
which can ultimately be achieved in connection with Federally recognized
Indian tribes. Second, human remains that have any information
regarding origin, whether geographical location or associated objects,
that information should be used to establish which present-day groups
possess the closest relationship. The scientific argument that passage
of time prevents a sufficiently close connection between an ancient
ancestor and a contemporary group is dependent upon definitions from
cultures that are different from Native cultures and goes against the
intent of NAGPRA to respect the cultural differences of Native people.
The fact that an earlier group did not survive into the present should
not prevent contemporary Indian tribes who stand in a relationship with
those Indian tribes that were exterminated from repatriation. Third,
human remains that are identified as Native American but have no other
information to assist in defining a contemporary claimant group may be
treated as culturally unidentifiable, in the sense that many Native
groups believe all Native people of this continent are their ancestors.

Ms. Tsosie disagreed with the argument presented by Mr. Larsen that
Native American human remains have information useful in teaching
students about human variability. She believes the important lesson to
be learned is how people differ culturally. NAGPRA needs to be read
within a broader national and international context of policy relevant
to the rights of indigenous peoples. Ms. Tsosie explained the policy of
some countries is any human remains that predate European discovery are
considered Native and should be repatriated to Native people. To deal
with this issue fairly, it is important to recognize that the legal
right to control disposition stems from the moral right of Native people
to control their ancestral remains. The government-to-government
relationship between Indian tribes and the US Government must be
affirmed, as Indian tribes are separate governments who are claiming the
repatriation of their ancestors as a political right. The idea of
regional solutions to this issue is sound as long as sufficient
consultation is completed. In response to requests by review committee
members, Ms. Tsosie agreed to furnish legal citations of cases
pertaining to the canons of construction of Indian law, as well as a
copy of her presentation.

Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes and the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee, thanked the review committee members
for the opportunity to submit comments on the draft principles of
agreement of culturally unidentifiable human remains. She stressed the
importance of the intent of NAGPRA, passed to protect the interests of
Indian tribes as opposed to the interests of science and museums, and
added that the draft principles need to emphasize this point. Ms.
Yellow Bird addressed topics raised in the draft principles. In section
a.2.c of the draft principles, the category of ancestral remains needs
to be defined by the Indian tribes. One suggestion would be defining
unclaimed Native American human remains as ancestors of those Indian
tribes who have declared in writing that they have no ceremony for
reburial or have spiritual beliefs which prohibit claiming Native
American human remains. Regarding section 3.a of the draft principles,
Ms. Yellow Bird stated that the Act does not preclude the review
committee members from addressing the issue of standing of funerary
objects associated with culturally unidentifiable human remains. She
explained her Indian tribe's position that burial property taken along
with the Native American human remains needs to be returned.

Ms. Yellow Bird agreed that section a.5 of the draft principles needs
to be removed. The only time the statute mentions scientific study is
in section 7.5(c)(b) where it addresses situations where items are
indispensable for completion of a specific scientific study wherein the
outcome is of major benefit to the US. Section 5.2 states that
documentation does not authorize the initiation of new scientific
studies of Native American human remains and associated funerary
objects. Ms. Yellow Bird explained that she was present and gave
testimony for the passage of NAGPRA, and her impression was that
Congress supported tribal opposition of scientific study. The statute
does not require that scientific educational interests be balanced with
tribal interests. The only scientific study that should be allowed is
that which an individual Indian tribe has approved.

Ms. Yellow Bird expressed concern over the lack of tribal consultation
during the process of cultural affiliation determinations by Federal
agencies and museums and the validity of the good faith evaluations made
of culturally unidentifiable human remains. She felt that section b.3
regarding categories of culturally unidentifiable human remains should
be removed from the draft principles. Human remains defined as being
culturally unidentifiable because they are associated with a Federally
recognized Indian tribe should be considered culturally affiliated. From
a Native American viewpoint, no tribal groups are extinct, as there is a
universal tribal belief that all Native Americans are related. Native
American human remains with insufficient evidence to make a cultural
affiliation determination can be claimed by individual Indian tribes or
joint intertribal coalitions in order to reach the goal of reburial of
all Native American human remains. She described the position of the
North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee as claiming all Native
American human remains and attendant burial properties taken from their
collective aboriginal homelands, and suggested several changes to more
clearly express their position.

Closing Comments

Mr. Sullivan thanked the committee members, the NPS staff, and the
audience for their patience and hard work. On behalf of the NPS and the
DOI, Mr. McManamon thanked the review committee members and the audience
for their time and attention.

Mr. Armand Minthorn gave the closing invocation. The meeting was
adjourned at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 20th, 1999.

Approved:

/S/ Martin Sullivan, Chair April 04, 2000
_____________________________ _________________
Mr. Martin Sullivan, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee