MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
SEVENTH MEETING: MAY 12-14, 1994
RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA

The seventh meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order at 8:55am, Thursday,
May 12, 1994 by Ms. Tessie Naranjo, committee chair. The committee
meeting was held at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center in Rapid City, SD.
The following committee members, staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the committee:
Ms. Rachel Craig
Mr. Jonathan Haas
Mr. Dan Monroe
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, chair
Mr. Martin Sullivan
Mr. William Tallbull
Mr. Philip Walker

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist
Mr. Hugh (Sam) Ball, Archeologist

The following others were in attendance during some or all of the
proceedings:
Ms. Geraldine Arcoren, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Donna Augustine, Aroostook Band of Micmac, ME
Mr. Dave Bald Eagle, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Barbara Ball, Reston, VA
Ms. Sandra Barnum, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE
Mr. Everett Black Thunder, Flandreau, SD
Ms. Renee Boen, South Dakota Archaeological Research Center, Rapid
City, SD
Ms. Alta Bruce, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, ND
Mr. Thomas Bullhead, North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
Committee & Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, ND
Ms. Viola Burnette, Mission, SD
Mr. Michael Burney, Burney & Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO
Ms. JoAnn Conroy, Diverse Development, Custer, SD
Ms. Shirley Crane, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Francis Cree, North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment Committee &
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, ND
Mr. Chuck Davis, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Frank Delasquale, Belcourt, ND
Mr. Victor Douville, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. John Estes, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Fremont Falli, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Jane Martin Lone Fight, North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment
Committee & Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, ND
Mr. J. Fiske, South Dakota State Historical Society, Pierre, SD
Mr. Virgil Flute, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Deanna Francis, Passamadquoddy Tribe, ME
Ms. Myra Giesen, Kansas-Nebraska Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation
Mr. George Goggleye, Leech Lake Band of Chippewa, MN
Mr. DeWayne Goodface, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Cedric Goodhouse, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, ND
Mr. Robert Gough, Public Defender, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Richard Grass, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Terry Gray, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. James Haug, State Archeologist, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Raymond Houle, Dunseith, SD
Mr. George Ironshield, North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
Committee & Standing Rock Sioux, SD
Mr. Michael Jandreau, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Albert Jones, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Gordon Jones, Jr., Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Scott Jones, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. William Kindle, Chairperson, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Gordon Kitte, Santee Sioux Tribe, NE
Ms. Rose Kluth, Leech Lake Band of Chippewa, MN
Ms. Marcella LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Sebastian LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Paul Little, North Dakota Intertribal Reinternement Committee &
Devil's Lake Sioux Tribe, ND
Ms. Rosalie Little Thunder, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Roy Lone Wolf Martin, Turtle Island First Americans, Rapid
City, SD
Mr. Rusty Lone Wolf Martin, Turtle Island First Americans, Rapid
City, SD
Mr. Ruben McCloskey, United Sioux Tribes, Pierre, SD
Mr. Carl McKenzie, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Carson Murphy, BIA Aberdeen Area Office, Aberdeen, SD
Mr. Darrell Newell, Passamaquoddy Tribe, ME
Ms. Celane Not Help Him, Mni Sose, Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Marie Not Help Him, Mni Sose, Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD
Ms. Maggie Paul, Passamaquoddy Tribe, ME
Mr. Randy Ross, Rapid City, SD
Mr. Clarence Skye, United Sioux Tribes Development Corp., Pierre,
SD
Mr. Terry Steinacher, Nebraska SHPO, Fort Robinson Museum,
Crawford, NE
Mr. Ted Thin Elk, Mission, SD
Ms. Arlene Thompson, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Ben Thompson, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, SD
Mr. Ray Uses the Knife, Minnecou Itazipco, Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, SD
Mr. David Vader, Native American Coordinator, US Army Corp. of
Engineers, Omaha, NE
Mr. Carey Vicenti, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, NM
Ms. Denise Vigue, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin
Mr. Chris Wohl, Nez Perce Tribe, ID
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
Committee & Three Affiliated Tribes, ND
Ms. Judy Youngbear, Three Affiliated Tribes, ND
Mr. Terry Zontek, Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, MT

The committee and staff introduced themselves, and Ms. Naranjo confirmed
there was a quorum present. Mr. Francis Cree of the Turtle Mountain
Band of Chippewa was invited to provide an invocation for the meeting.
Mr. Michael Jandreau, chairman of the hosting Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming.

Review of the Meeting Agenda

Mr. McManamon began the meeting by reviewing the committee's
responsibilities under the act, including including monitoring
implementation, providing recommendations on regulations, assisting in
the resolution of disputes, and compiling a list and making
recommendations regarding the disposition of culturally unidentifiable
human remains in museum and Federal agency collections. He commented
that he was pleased to see so many members of the public at the meeting
and thanked Mr. Jandreau and the Lower Brule Tribe for their assistance
in the preparations of the committee meeting. Mr. McManamon explained
that the agenda had been arranged to provide the public with
considerable amounts of time to address the committee. He closed by
reminding everyone that the statute "presents everyone -- tribal people,
scientists, and museum people -- with great opportunities and great
challenges. I hope that it allows us to appreciate each other's
perspective, knowledge, and through those, gain a more complete
understanding of the past."

Implementation Update

Mr. McManamon briefed the committee on the status of efforts to
implement the statute.

The statute requires museums and Federal agencies to provide copies of
summaries of their collections that may include unassociated funerary
objects, sacred objects, and objects of culturally patrimony to all
culturally affiliated Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and
corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations by November 16, 1993. A
supplemental guidance memorandum had also requested copies be sent to
the National Park Service. Mr. McManamon provided a listing of the more
than 600 institutions that had submitted copies of their summaries to
the National Park Service.

After reviewing the list, Mr. Haas and Mr. Monroe commented that they
felt there are many institutions which are not on the list, most notably
universities and colleges, and smaller historical societies. Mr. Walker
suggested that some colleges with small collections my be unaware of the
statutory requirements. He was also concerned that some high schools
may also have human remains and suggested the committee or the National
Park Service begin communicating with secondary schools. Mr. Tallbull
expressed his concern that Federal employees may have accumulated
collections from federal lands for their private use. Mr. McManamon
responded that Federal employees are prohibited from such activities.
Mr. Haas asked if it might be possible to send form letters reminding
university departments of anthropology of the statutory requirements.
Mr. Monroe suggested that the American Association of Museums would be
willing to take an active role in getting word out regarding the
statute, but thought that the summary list did include most of the major
collections. Mr. Mcmanamon agreed to work with Ms. Naranjo in
developing such a reminder letter. Mr. Sebastian LeBeau, NAGPRA
Coordinator of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, supported the idea of
sending out a letter reminding anthropology departments of their
responsibilities under the statute.

Ms. Myra Griesen of the Bureau of Reclamation inquired if a recent
survey distributed by the National Park Service could be used to
identify collections from Federal land that are currently being curated
in non-Federal repositories. Mr. McManamon explained that the museum
property survey was being conducted by another division of the National
Park Service to identify all Federal collections that are currently in
non-Federal repositories. Once completed, the survey would be useful in
identifying each Federal agency's responsibilities regarding curation
and repatriation.

Mr. McManamon reported that the NAGPRA module of the National
Archeological Data Base (NADB) was currently operational. The data base,
accessible through the Center for Applied Spacial Technologies at the
University of Arkansas, provides online access to the statute, committee
reports, proposed regulations, and all Federal Register notices. Mr.
Walker and Mr. Haas requested that announcements of meetings and
information regarding NADB also be provided to relevant bulletin boards
on the internet. Mr. McManamon agreed.

Mr. McManamon reported that approximately $2.3 million was currently
available as grants to assist Indian tribes and museums in implementing
the statute. One hundred and six applications had been received from
Indian tribes with 110 applications coming from museums. The total
amount requested totaled over $23 million. Awards were expected to be
announced July 1, 1995. Mr. Monroe asked Mr. McManamon to outline the
criteria being used to evaluate the applications. Mr. McManamon
explained that, given the limited amount of funding and the large
demand, special consideration would be given to creative projects that
exemplified that type of dialogue between museums and Indian tribes
required by the statute. All applicants also needed to have completed
their summaries and currently be in compliance with provisions of the
statute. Mr. Walker asked if award amounts would be based on the amount
requested or if smaller amounts would be awarded to partially fund more
proposals. Mr. McManamon explained that while requested amounts would be
reduced if the proposal included ineligible activities, such as
consultation and repatriation with the Smithsonian (since that
institution is explicitly exempted from provisions of the statute), the
requested amounts would not be arbitrarily cut simply to increase the
number of awards. Mr. Walker asked how the grant monies would be divided
between museum and tribal awards. Mr. McManamon replied that while a
final decision was yet to be made, he anticipated a 50-50 split between
tribal and museum awards.

Mr. McManamon reviewed the steps that had been taken to develop and
promulgate final regulations implementing the statute. The National Park
Service had initially distributed a memorandum outlining the Department
of the Interior's understanding of the requirements, effected parties,
and necessary procedures. A draft of the memorandum had been circulated
widely among national Native American, scientific, and museum
organizations. The finalized memorandum had served as the basis for what
became the proposed regulations. A working group of Federal agency
officials was then convened to draft specific regulatory text. The
committee received the result of the working group's efforts at their
first meeting in May, 1992, and worked diligently to refine the text
prior to their publication as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on
May 28, 1993. Eighty two written comments were received during the
public comment period that, along with comments from the committee, will
serve to revise the proposed regulations. The staff is currently writing
the preamble addressing all comments received. Mr. McManamon explained
that once the final regulations were drafted, the text would be
transmitted to the Department of the Interior for internal review. He
indicated that he and the staff would be briefing various Departmental
officials regarding the final regulations and promised to immediately
inform the committee if any problems arose during the review process.

Mr. McManamon reminded the committee that the final regulations would
include a number of sections that had been reserved. Draft versions of
two of those sections -- those dealing with civil penalties and the
sample inventory -- were on the agenda for discussion. The comittee had
also asked for public recommendations regarding two additional reserved
sections -- those dealing with the disposition of unclaimed human
remains and cultural items excavated or discovered on Federal or tribal
land, and the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in
museum and Federal agency collections. Mr. McManamon explained that once
developed, these sections would be published as proposed regulations for
public comment.

Mr. McManamon also described some of the training activities in which he
and the staff were involved. A number of workshops had been organized in
conjunction with the annual meetings of Nnational Native American,
scientific, and museum organizations. An intensive, three day course on
implementing the statute had also been developed with the University of
Nevada-Reno. Ms. Naranjo commented that Indian tribes in the Southwest
were anxious to participate in training opportunities. Mr. Sullivan
described a workshop organized by the Arizona Intertribal Council which
included tribal, museum, and Federal agency representatives. He felt
that consultation had been greatly facilitated by this opportunity to
sit down with all the involved parties. Ms. Craig explained that at
least three different types of training were required: one of the type
currently being provided by the National Park Service directed at
developing the skills needed to bring home each Indian tribes'
ancestors; a second designed to assist elders in identifying sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony; and a third on developing
strategies for Indian tribe, museums, and Federal agencies to work
together. Mr. Tallbull emphasized that special training was particularly
needed for those traditional elders wary of working with written legal
documents. Mr. Monroe suggested that training include both tribal and
museum representatives to encourage dialogue.

Civil Penalties

Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. McManamon to provide the committee with an
overview of the draft regulatory section dealing with civil penalties.
Mr. McManamon explained that the statute authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to assess civil penalties against any museum receiving Federal
funds that fails to comply with provisions of the act. However,
assessment of civil penalties under these provisions requires
promulgation of regulations outlining procedures to ensure due process.
An earlier draft of this section had been discussed by the committee at
their Pheonix meeting. The current draft reflected the recommendations
of the committee at that time. The basis for both drafts was the
procedures already established to ensure due process in civil penalties
cases under provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
Mr. McManamon emphasized the importance of finalizing the civil penalty
section to provide an effective way of dealing with cases of non-
compliance. The draft consisted of 18 subsection, lettered (a) through
(r), outlining what constitutes noncompliance [subsection (a)], the
processes for notification, assessment, hearing, and appeal [subsection
(b) through (q)], and criteria for determining the penalty amount
[subsection (r)].

Regarding the definition of what constitutes non-compliance, Mr. Vicenti
suggested that the civil penalties should be directed at cases of gross
neglect and willfull non-compliance. He cautioned the committee against
writing regulations that attempt to meet every possible contingency,
warning that "people can be quite devious in finding ways around the
law." Mr. Sullivan stressed that any museum that failed to complete its
summaries or inventories, did not respond to inquires from Indian
tribes, or did not provide access to documentation should be considered
to be in non-compliance. The trigger should be when the Indian tribe and
the museum reach an impasse in the consultation process.

Mr. McManamon explained the process for notification, assessment,
hearing, and appeal of any civil penalty. Any person may bring an
allegation of non-compliance to the attention of the Secretary of the
Interior by contacting the Director of the National Park Service. The
Director will then assign staff to document the complaint and conduct an
investigation. After an allegation has been substantiated, the
Secretary will serve a notice of failure to comply upon the museum, with
informational copies to all other effected parties. The museum will then
have 45 days in which to respond -- either by paying the assessed
penalty, filing a petition for relief, or beginning discussions with the
Secretary.

Mr. Vicenti addressed the issue of into which fund collected fines
should go. The suggestion of the committee had been for those fines to
be put into the tribal grants fund. He reminded the committee that one
canon of statutory construction holds ambiguous statutory language
should be read in favor of the tribes in any law which applies to Indian
tribes. Following this canon, Mr. Vicenti stated the regulations could
be written to use penalty monies for the benefit of tribal NAGPRA
activities. Mr. McManamon concurred with Mr. Vicenti's assessment and
agreed to include the committee's recommendation to the civil penalties
regulations. Mr. Monroe asked when the committee would know whether or
not the language would be included. Mr. McManamon said the committee
could put the language into the current draft, or wait until a
definitive answer from the Solicitor's office on the matter and then be
able to insert the destination for penalty monies.

Mr. McManamon explained that in the current draft civil penalty amounts
were to be calculated as .05% of the non-complying museum's annual
budget up to a maximum of $5,000, plus a daily penalty of $100 until
compliance is achieved. The penalty amount is doubled for subsequent
failures to comply by the same museum. The Secretary may take mitigating
circumstances into consideration when determining the penalty amount.
Mr. Sullivan endorsed the approach, explaining that he thought it
imperative that the regulations avoid "awkward trap in the language of
the law which talks about the commercial value of the objects. The
remains of dead people shouldn't have any commercial value," he
continued, "and we don't want the market value of sacred objects to be a
part of the discussion." Ms. Naranjo asked the committee if the .05%
penalty amount was still the number they wanted to recommend. Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Haas discussed whether or not the $5000
limit on the .05% penalty was too low. Mr. Monroe stated that although
the purpose of the NAGPRA civil penalties was not "to generate huge
fines, we want something that is enough to get people's attention." This
amount is significant enough for an institution of any size to pay
attention. Mr. Albert Jones, general counsel to the Flandreau Santee
Sioux Tribe, expressed his concern these penalties would amount to a
slap on the hand most museums. Mr. McManamon asked what amount Mr.
Jones felt would be an adequate initial fine. Mr. Jones said a minimum
of $50,000 would be "a threat enough to promote and efficient
administration of the NAGPRA law by museums and institutions." Mr.
Monroe calculated the current fine schedule using the $5,000 limit would
amount to $36,000 per year for continuing non-compliance, not including
attorney's fees. Mr. Monroe felt this amount would make institutions
realize "it's just not viable to continue to be out of compliance." Mr.
McManamon agreed, but suggested the committee consider the deterrent
effect of a larger flat fee may have over the current draft penalty
schedule. Mr. McManamon explained the ARPA criminal penalty, when the
damage and destruction of an archeological site exceeds $500, the fine
can run up to $20,000. Mr. McManamon said for subsequent violations the
fines may not exceed $100,000. He stated that ARPA had problems with
successful enforcement and difficulty obtaining those levels of fines
due to the proofs necessary for the maximum fines, which have now been
remedied through amendments to ARPA. Mr. Haas said "the Archeological
Resource Protection Act, that is...meant to penalize someone for what
they have done...I think what we're trying to accomplish is to get
something done...try to figure out how to get them to do something."
Mr. Monroe agreed that compliance was the goal of this section, and said
in his opinion the current schedule would make continuing non-compliance
very unattractive to institutions.

Mr. Vicenti suggested inserting the phrase "economic and non-economic
damages may be determined by application of usual civil case damage
principles" in the penalty amount subsection, explaining that the phrase
would allow the Secretary to include tribal costs incurred during the
penalty process in the assessment. Ms. Pemina Yellowbird of the North
Dakota Intertribal Reinternment committee said she would like to see
tribes bringing action able to recover their costs in all cases. Ms.
YellowBird said she wanted to ensure this action would not be entirely
discretionary. Mr. Vicenti reiterated the inclusion of this language
would put three elements into the penalties process. Mr. Monroe stated
the current penalty schedule would most likely encourage museums to
abide by the dispute resolution function of the committee.

Mr. Vicenti suggested the committee consider an additional paragraph
under the penalty amount subsection to facilitate the inclusion of
economic and non-economic damages. The new paragraph allowed the
Secretary to take into consideration: 1) civil case damage principles,
including, but not limited to, an award of attorney's fees and expert
witnesses; 2) the negative impact suffered by the aggrieved party or
parties relative to the ability to bear such costs; 3) the extent to
which the non-compliant museum has failed to make attempts to negotiate
a settled, reasonable disposition of particular human remains or
cultural items; 4) the importance of the items to the performance of
traditional practices by the aggrieved party or parties; and 5) bad
faith associated with the museum's noncompliance. Mr. Monroe said he
would like to see a single option to replace both the negotiation
(number 3) and bad faith options (number 5). Mr. Vicenti responded that
he was trying to encourage negotiated settlements as the first option
before litigation as part of the NAGPRA process to settle issues of
noncompliance.

[Enter the part about what they actually decided].

Mr. Haas and Mr. Walker noted that the draft text specified that civil
penalties could only be brought against museums, not against Federal
agencies that failed to comply. Mr. McManamon explained the draft
reflects the statutory language and the fact that there already are
ample mechanisms to force Federal agencies to comply with the law. This
particular statutory provision was to provide a way to force museums to
do so as well. Mr. Sullivan asked if charges of Federal agency
noncompliance might be brought to the committee. Mr. McManamon thought
that such an issue might come before the committee as a dispute. Mr.
Haas suggested the committee provide guidance regarding the steps for
reporting Federal agency non-compliance. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Walker
suggested that the preamble of the proposed civil penalty regulations
might be used to explain these mechanisms. Mr. Monroe asked if the
committee could make a finding in a dispute between an Indian tribe and
a federal agency. Mr. Haas thought issuance of such a finding might be
apropriate, and said a finding would be a "public notice" for beginning
a federal non-compliance case.

Mr. Haas asked Mr. Vicenti to clarify the relationship between the
provisions authorizing the assessment of civil penalties and those
identifying the Federal Courts as the appropriate venue for litigation.
Mr. Vicenti responded that either method was available to Indian tribes
to ensure a museum's good faith compliance with the statute. However, he
pointed that out that higher the potential civil penalty assessment, the
more likely the parties are to turn to the courts. The statute was
crafted to strike a balance between interests and to stand up to
Constitutional tests.

Mr. Haas asked for clarification between the civil penalty provisions
and the committee's dispute resolutions process. Mr. McManamon responded
that a dispute brought before the committee might also involve
acquisations of non-compliance. Mr. Walker recommended that the civil
penalty section should make a clear distinction between a dispute and an
acquisation of non-compliance. Mr. Monroe added that he wanted to ensure
that "just because a museum fails to agree with the committee does not
mean that it is out of compliance." Mr. McManamon agreed that there
should be a clear destinction between a difference of opinion between
parties and a failure to comply.

Sample Inventory

Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. McManamon to outline the status of the sample
inventory. Mr. McManamon explained that the committee had recommended
that such a document be prepared to help museums and Federal agencies
prepare inventories for the November 16, 1995 deadline. The sample
inventory includes two sections, one describing human remains and
associated funerary objects that are culturally affiliated with a
particular Indian tribe, and a second of culturally unidentifiable human
remains. Appendix B of the regulations was reserved for the sample
inventory. The committee had reviewed an earlier version at its meeting
in Pheonix. The current draft includes the changes recommended at the
earlier meeting.

Mr. Sullivan noted that the current draft incorporated the committee's
earlier suggestions and better addressed "evidence from the tribal
communities' perspective". He suggested that the names used in the
examples -- Able, Baker, Charlie, Foxtrot -- be changes to ones with
less of a military overtone. Ms. Naranjo concurred. Mr. Walker expressed
his concern that no space was provided for multiple cultural
affiliations. Mr. Walker also recommended that examples include
citations for additional published information. Mr. Haas explained that
the Field Museum includes citations to published materials for
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Citations for culturally
affiliated human remains and associated funerary objects are only
included if the appropriate Indian tribe does not object. Mr. McManamon
stated that he felt having a comprehensive bibliography was not point.
If published site reports can assist in determining the cultural
affiliation, they should be included. Mr.Walker concurred that citations
could be particularly important for culturally unidentifiable human
remains.

Mr. Monroe raised the issue of Federal Register notification. He also
wondered if repatriation might take place without a full inventory. Mr.
McManamon explained that the statute requires the completion of
inventory and publication of a notice in the Federal Register to ensure
that all potentially interested parties knew that the repatriation was
scheduled to take place. The committee had recommended that the notice
requirements be extended to include unassociated funerary objects,
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Mr. Monroe explained
that he is in favor of the notice requirements because of the potential
damage to Indian tribes if no notice is required. Ms. Yellow Bird
outlined how the Memorandum of Understanding between the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee and the US Army Corps of Engineers
office in Omaha, NE, included provisions for notification of any Indian
tribe that might be culturally affiliated with human remains or cultural
items. Each potentially culturally affiliated Indian tribe was notified
by letter with an attached inventory and given an opportunity to become
involved. Mr. Haas stated his understanding that the notification was
intended to ensure that all culturally affiliated Indiant tribes know
about planned repatriations before they take place.

Disposition of Culturally Unidentified or Unclaimed Human Remains

Ms. Naranjo asked Mr. McManamon to introduce the discussion regarding
the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains in museum or
Federal agency collections. Mr. McManamon explained that section 8
(c)(5) of the statute required the committee to compile "an inventory of
culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or
control of each Federal agency and museum and recommend ... specific
actions for developing a process for disposition of such remains."
Section 10.11 of the regulations has been reserved for this process. Mr.
McManamon explained that testimony had been solicited at several of the
previous meeting on this topic and a number of individuals had been
asked to make presentations to the committee at the present meeting.

Mr. Jim Haug, the South Dakota State Archeologist, explained the history
of reburial in South Dakota. Discussions were initiated between state
officials and the various Indian tribe representatives in the 1980s. The
first repatriation was in 1986. He described how a state law and
regulations were developed mandating the reburial of all human remains
in the possession of the state. Another state law was later passed that
established criminal penalties for excavating or destroying graves or
human remains and provided procedures for their repatriation or
reinterment. Mr. Haug noted that museums in the state have contacted
with the South Dakota Archaeological Research Center (SDARC) for
disposition of human remains under the state statute. The majority of
the human remains being dealt with by SDARC are culturally
unidentifiable. The mandatory reburial of culturally unidentifialbe
human remains covered by the state law has been effective, according to
Mr. Haug, because it "ensures that the individuals are removed from the
public eye and are rendered inaccessible." He said the state's policy
is to keep postmortem examination to a minimum, and where the identity
or cultural affiliation is known, "little or no postmortem beyond the
confirmation of the historical or archeological data is necessary." Mr.
Haug noted that the state's policy does not allow for any new methods of
research to take place. Mr. Sullivan asked about the relationship
between the South Dakota statute and NAGPRA. Mr. Haug responded that
while the state statute stipulates that state take responsibility for
the reburial of culturally unidentifiable human remains in consultation
with Indian tribes in the state, repatriation to those Indian tribes is
also an option. Mr. Haas asked if the state statute applies to private
as well as state land. Mr. Haug replied that it applied to both private
and state lands. Mr. McManamon asked if the state statute protects
burials in situ. Mr. Haug responded that the state law makes it a felony
to disturb a burial. Mr. Haug also emphasized the importance of the data
gained from studying culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. Haas responded that there are certain kinds of questions that can be
addressed using information derived from human remains -- such as
patterns of malnutrition, child and infant mortality, and changes once
domesticated crops become utilized. He admitted that the scientific
community has not been able to clearly articulate this information to
the public at large and specifically to Indian communities. He did not
feel such scientific value outweighs the sanctity of the remains. Mr.
Sullivan asked Mr Haug how much scientific knowledge can be gained from
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Haug responded that most
culturally unidentifiable human remains are fragmentary and impossible
to trace to present-day communities.

Mr. Tallbull commented on the difference in treatment between Indian and
non-Indian human remains. He asked everyone to consider the situation of
American servicemen's remains in Vietnam. Would the American people
allow Vietnamese scientists five years to examine and study American
remains?

Mr. Thomas Bullhead, of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
Committee, explained that one of the most difficult things for Indian
people to do is to go in front of the non-Indians and attempt to talk
about things that should not be discussed in public. He spoke about the
disturbed human remains now in museum and Federal agency collections and
how people were frightened of them and what they can do. He explained
that tribal communities know that the resolution of repatriation issues
is critical to curing the sicknesses afflicting them. He thanked Mr.
George Iron Shield for providing guidance in dealing with these
difficult issues.

Mr. William Tallbull explained that the Cheyenne tribe has lived in many
different areas of the country, from the eastern seaboard into Northern
Ontario and west through Montana. "On the way," he said, "many people
have died. They must have buried them anywhere they were. Where the
graves are, the spirits are there. Where the remains are, the spirits
are there. There is a part of life that we have talked of very little,
because most people don't understand what we're talking about. We talk
about people coming home. When the people came home from the museum and
are buried at home, they all go and visit every house. This is where the
joy comes in. They are home. They they are here. They walk around
through the village and become part of us again. That's all we are
asking."

Mr. Carey Vicenti said that although he had many discussions with his
own tribal leadership, medicine people, and clan leaders to develop
ideas on how his people saw the issue, he had not heard anything from
the scientific community justifying the importance of maintaining such
collections. This lack of communication disturbed him because, without
it, "we don't know what's at stake. As Indian people, we have no idea
what it is scientists are trying to do with remains that are in their
possession..." He stated that he did not think the scientific community
had submitted overriding evidence that its wish to retain culturally
unidentifiable human remains outweighs the rights of the closest
decendents. He also requested the committee to remember that since
NAGPRA is classified as "Indian law," any ambiguity must be interpreted
to the benefit of the Indian tribes. He recommended a careful process
in developing any regulatory section dealing with the disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Time should be taken to find "a
better way." He emphasized that the committee's recommendations should
reflect the equal protection and recognition of human rights afforded
all U.S. citizens and promised to Indian tribes by treaty.

Mr. Robert Gough, attorney for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, recommended
that, in order to fulfil the United State's trust responsibility to
Indian tribes, the regulations on the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains must "comply with the language of the
remedial statute to be liberally construed to suppress (or remedy) the
evil and advance provisions liberally construed in favor of Indians and
interpreted to the benefit of the Indians. Courts have recognized a
quasi-property right vested in the nearest relatives of the deceased
rising out of the duty to bury the dead. It's the right that every
mainstream American takes for granted. For Native American people, to
assure that their dead remained buried requires a Federal statute."
Following this principle of construction, Mr. Gough continued, "the
closest decendents of even culturally unidentified remains are the
present-day tribes who therefore have a responsibility to rebury these
human remains." He stated this responsibility has always been reserved
to the tribes, that "no treaty grants or surrenders to the United States
the graves, the human remains, or grave goods of ancestors." Mr. Gough
supported the inclusion of geographic association with aboriginal lands
as a primary consideration for tribal notification and in making
determinations of disposition for culturally unidentified human remains.
Mr. Gough was concerned that focussing on establishing associations and
cultural affiliations with present day tribes as a prerequisite for
repatriation would ignore the spirit, intent, and equities of the law,
and result in far fewer remains and objects being repatriated. Mr. Gough
spoke in favor of consultations as part of the decision to repatriate
culturally unidentified human remains. Mr. Gough said that numerous
Indian tribes have gone on the record as accepting trust
responsibilities for all culturally unidentified human remains, and that
"while the degree of relationship of these tribes to the disinterred or
unburied human remains may vary, they are of prior and superior right to
that of Federal agencies, museum, or other institutions which presently
holds these remains."

Mr. David Vader, Native American Coordinator for the Omaha District
Corps of Engineers, outlined the Omaha District's process for consulting
with the Indian tribes regarding final disposition of Native human
remains excavated or discovered on Corps projects. He explained that the
Omaha District has developed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding
excavations and discoveries on Corps lands. The MOA states that the
Corps of Engineers does not own human remains and recognizes priority of
reburial. Mr. Vader stated that under the MOA, agreements, human remains
are returned to Indian tribes in the region or known to have
historically occupied the region "unless there was overwhelming evidence
that remains were non-Indian." The MOA specifically uses the aboriginal
territory as decided in the U.S. Court of Claims to identify the proper
recipients for Native American human remains. He sees the current
consultation process as very complete and thorough. Mr. Vader concluded
by saying that the Omaha District was committed to reburial and would
like to continue with repatriations "as fast as we possibly can."

Mr. Carson Murdy, archeologist for the Aberdeen Office of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, explained the distinction between "acquisition of
scientific knowledge" and "the application of scientific knowledge to
practical problems." He explained that the application of scientific
knowledge to any given practical problem occurs "when a certain
scientist determines that there is a problem of some urgency to be
solved... and applies a certain portion of that [data, analysis, and
theory]...to come up with a satisfactory solution." Mr. Murdy stated
that the study of archeological collections "is the scientific process
of building up a reservoir of data and knowledge on the human
condition." He said he felt the real damage to tribal communities'
heritage was being done through "geomorphological processes of wave
action and the depredation of relic hunters." He pointed out that
through analysis of recovered human remains of the Arikara, unusually
high incidence of middle ear infections and disease were discovered in
the population. The present-day Arikara community was surveyed, and the
same high incidence was found, and "a concerted effort has been made to
treat and help alleviate this problem in the modern population." Mr.
Murdy said that although the methodology and technology to be able to
closer affiliate partial human remains and culturally unaffiliated human
remains is still under development, there may be a time when science can
do that, and he supported maintaining those collections until such a
process is available. Noting the difference between tribal communities'
view of human remains and Mr. Murdy's reference to human remains as
"pools of data," Mr. Monroe asked Mr. Murdy how one should go about
reconciling and/or "advancing dialogue between those ways in which
people understand, believe, feel, [and] perceive human remains?" Mr.
Murdy responded that viewing human remains as data sets "is essential to
the scientific process," but did not think this would be "an impasse to
cooperation." Mr. Haas stated he did not think the scientific community
had not sufficiently addressed the question of what may be lost under
repatriation.

Correspondence from Hui Malama I 'Na Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei

Mr. Monroe summarized a request for guidance from Hui Malama I Na Kupuna
'O Hawai'i Nei, a nonprofit, Native Hawaiian organization incorporated
under the laws of the State of Hawaii for the purpose of providing
guidance and expertise in decisions dealing with Native Hawaiian
cultural issues, particularly burial issues. Hui Malama asked the
committee for guidance on whether a museum or Federal agency might
undertake additional scientific studies of human remains once the
cultural affiliation of those remains had been determined.

Mr. McManamon explained that the question was precipitated by a
situation in Hawaii in which the United States Marine Corps excavated
approximately 1,500 human remains and numerous associated funerary
objects from the Mokapu Peninsula on Oahu. The human remains and
associated funerary objects are being curated by a private museum. Hui
Malama has made several requests that no studies outside those
specifically required to comply with the statutory requirements be
conducted. There seems to be general agreement between the Marine Corps,
the curating museum, and Hui Malama that the human remains and
associated funerary objects are Hawaiian.

Mr. Monroe stated that he thought that Hui Malama was asking the
committee for a general opinion regarding the authorities for additional
scientific study, and not a finding for a specific situation. Can a
museum or Federal agency conduct additional scientific research on human
remains once cultural affiliation has been determined? He explained
that he could not see any justification for additional studies contrary
to the explicit wishes of the culturally affiliated tribe or Native
Hawaiian organization. The only exception that he could see would be if
the study was of major benefit to the United States as authorized under
section 7 (b) of the statute. Mr. Haas commented that the "major
benefit" excemption only applied if the humam remains or cultural items
were "indespensable for completion of a specific scientific study, the
outcome of which would be of major benefit to the United States." Mr.
Sullivan explained that it seemed clear to him that the statute offered
no basis for further research if the cultural affiliations of the human
remains and associated human remains could be determined. The committee
concurred. The committee declined to discuss whether any other statute
might be used to authorize additional scientific research.

Future Activities

Mr. McManamon raised the issue of the committee's next meeting. Mr.
Monroe suggested having the next meetings in the New York and the
Pacific northwest. Ms. Francis and Ms. Vigue agreed that a meeting in
the Northeast would be appropriate. Ms. Naranjo stated that the
committee needs to go to as many different areas as possible in order to
hear from as many tribal communities as possible. Mr. Haas asked Mr.
McManamon if it would be possible to have two more meetings before the
end of the calendar year. Mr. McManamon agreed to look into it. Mr.
Monroe explained that two more meetings would allow the committee to
hear discussion on an expanded tribal contact list for NAGPRA purposes.
The committee agreed that the next meeting would take place in the
Northeast in late August to early September. Mr. Haas stated that it was
important to bring more voices before the committee. Mr. Monroe
suggested that upcoming committee meetings include hearing testimony
from representatives of both the tribal and scientific communities.

Mr. McManamon outlined the status of the various regulatory sections
that had been previously reserved. The sections on civil penalties and
the sample inventory would be published as proposed regulations for
public review and comment as soon as possible. The committee would then
be able to review the comments and a revised draft before final
publication. Text for the remaining three reserved section -- dealing
with the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remians in
museum and Federal agency collections; the disposition of unclaimed
human remains and cultural items from Federal and tribal lands; and
future applicability of the statute -- could be developed for the
committee's review at an upcoming meeting. Ms. Naranjo recommended that
discussion of the latter sections be put on the agenda for the next
meeting.

Public Comment

Ms. Rose Kluth, archeologist for the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa,
informed the committee that many of the summaries received by the tribe
indicated that museums and Federal agencies were deciding what objects
fit the categories of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and
objects of cultural patrimony. These summaries did not provide
information on the whole collection. She thought that a number of
museums and Federal agencies may have not sent summaries at all because
they could not readily identify something that fit one of the
categories. Ms. Kluth also disagreed with several of the presentations
previously heard by the committee regarding the benefit to tribal
communities of studies of human remains. She asked that the next draft
of the regulations be sent to each tribal chair and NAGPRA
representative, and that the comment period by longer than thirty days.
Ms. Kluth also stated her support for increasing the amount of NAGPRA
grant funding.

Mr. Thomas Bullhead talked about the magnitude of the repatriation
effort and the importance of bringing relatives home. "We all come here
in a good way," he said, refering the the presence of members of the
North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee at the committee's
meeting, "and we want to leave in a good way." He spoke about the
strength of the cannupa, the pipe, and his respect for it. Finally, he
explained the importance of the three songs -- the flag song, honor
song, and veteran's song -- members of the North Dakota Intertribal
Reinterment Committe had sung to honor the committee.

Mr. George Ironshield of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
Committee explained that through the cannupa everyone become relatives.
For Lakota people, he explained, everything is sacred, "even little
stones, pebbles, and rocks that people don't pay much attention to." He
cautioned everyone against viewing NAGPRA grants as a bone thrown to
hungry dogs.

Mr. Scott Jones, public relations officer of the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe, objected to competative grant process "pitting one tribe against
another.

Mr. Sebastian LeBeau, Cultural Preservation Officer of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, requested Mr. Haug cite examples of how "you can tell
a Lakota skeleton from a Crow skeleton from an Apache skeleton. If the
technology exists, bring it out." He stated that the Lakota people
object to museums or Federal agencies retaining human remains waiting
for "some great advance in genetics."

Mr. Terry Gray, NAGPRA representative of the Rosebud Sioux, pointed out
that the 1992 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act
recognizes tribal values and authorizes tribes and Alaskan Native groups
"to assume all or any part of functions of the State historic
preservation officer with respect to tribal lands." He asked the
committee to take into consideration the cultural resource management
duties tribal governments are now assuming, and allow unidentified and
unaffiliated human remains to be repatriated under cultural resource
managerment responsibilities. Mr. Gray suggested that the committee
include official presentations from tribal elders on the agenda to help
understand the tribal views and better bridge the gap between the non-
Indian and Indian point of view.

Mr. Paul Little, Cultural Heritage Director of the Devil's Lake Sioux
Tribe, stated that tribal elders have ways of determining the cultural
affiliation of culturally unidentifiable human remains. He explained the
it comes as no surprise that there are graves in various places,
"because our people traveled all over. We know who they are. There is
no problem in us taking care of our people. They don't belong to you.
They don't belong to us. But we are here to take care of them." Mr.
Little said he was thankful for the committee listening and being
educated about different ways.

Ms. Jane Martin-Lone Fight, of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa and the
North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment Committee, spoke about her
concerns that publishing inventories of human remains in the Federal
Register was being used by Federal agencies as an excuse not to
repatriate. Ms. Martin Lone Fight said that the Turtle Mountain Chippewa
and the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee oppose the
requirement. Mr. McManamon explained that section 5 (d)(3) of the
statute requires publication of a notice in the Federal Register. The
Archeological Assistance Division of the National Park Service regularly
provised assistance to museums and Federal agencies in drafting and
expediently publishing the notices. Ms. Martin-Lone Fight asked if a
Federal agency was required to publish such a notice if it was working
in good faith with the appropriate Indian tribes. Mr. McManamon
explained that it is the statute itself that requires publication in the
Federal Register notice. The notice is required to ensure that all
parties that might be interested know the repatriation is about to take
place.

Ms. Deanna Francis, representative of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, explained
to the committee how her people are able to identify some remains. She
talked about the remains of two individuals brought back from the Maine
State Museum. Tribal representatives asked the two "identify yourselves.
They did. One was an elderly woman. The other was a young woman who was
very scared. We got the paperwork some days later from the museum. The
young woman had an unhealed trauma in her chest...according to the
archeological data, she had been killed." Ms. Francis stated "There are
no unclaimed human remains. All human remains will be claimed."

Ms. Pemina Yellowbird of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment
committee (NDIRC), explained that the tribal governments represented by
the NDIRC would like to see a copy of the final regulations before they
are published in the Federal Register. The NDIRC does not want a
situation where tribes are "forced to live with a set of regulations
that do not protect our interests, and do not adequately and even
clearly reflect the intent, the letter, or the spirit of the law." Ms.
Yellowbird said the regulations' preamble was problematic for the tribes
because they have not seen the text or had the opportunity to comment on
it. Ms. Yellowbird requested another public comment period and public
hearings on the regulations before final regulations are published. Ms.
Yellowbird said she does not think it right that very ancient remains be
listed as culturally unidentifiable. She questioned the value to science
of such culturally unidentifable human remains. "All these remains are
our relatives," she said. "We will take care of them." Only
archeologists benefit from keeping these human remains. Indian
communities must bare the trauma and damage from this situation. Ms.
Yellowbird explained that the strong emotions evident at the meeting
came from the fact that these were their relatives being discussed. "I
will not compromise my relatives by scientific study or being held in
collections." Ms. Yellowbird read a draft proposal regarding the
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. She suggested
that such remains should be repatriated by the consensus of the present-
day Indian tribes from each region. The closest national park or other
parcel of Federal land should provide four sites as potential locations
for reinterment.

________________________________________________________________________

Ms. Naranjo spoke about the differences of tribal communities' wishes
concerning reburial. While she understands the need for reburial, Ms.
Naranjo pointed out that for the Pueblos, "we're most interested in the
spirit of the remains, not necessarily the material portion of that
remain...I would not want to see any Pueblo person be interred up in
North Dakota or South Dakota area. I would rather have it stay where
it's at rather than it being moved." Ms. Naranjo said a plan for
culturally unaffiliated remains should be developed region by region.
Ms. Naranjo stated she continues to see the regulatory language as being
an impediment to understanding the regulations, especially for tribal
people. She said what the committee has done "is to try to create
situations so that we, as Indian communities, would be able to
participate in the process." Ms. Naranjo explained that in her
traditions, the world and what happens exists in balance, and she was
not going to "close myself...to consideration of scientific analysis in
some situations." She thanked all the speakers and said she would
continue to balance all the statements the committee hears.

Mr. Francis Cree, a member of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment
committee (NDIRC), stated that the focus was on the spirits and respect
of [human] remains. He asked that the committee remember the great
discrimination and continuing destruction of Native graves. Mr. Cree
said he has been working on different kinds of claims with the U.S.
government for 30 years, always with his hands tied behind his back. Mr.
Cree stated the same thing was happening at the meeting. He said he
wanted to bring this before the committee and thanked them for hearing
him.

Mr. Raymond Uses the Knife, Cheyenne River council member and chairman
of the CRST Cultural Affairs committee, addressed the committee on the
subject of tribal human remains and objects in the possession of museums
not receiving federal funds. He said he fears these objects will be
sold on the international market because there is no way to bring such
institutions in under NAGPRA compliance. Mr. Uses the Knife asked the
committee how his tribe should handle institutions that claim they do
not have to comply with NAGPRA. Mr. Sullivan suggested Mr. Uses the
Knife contact the American Indian Ritual Repatriation Foundation in New
York City. Mr. Uses the Knife thanked him, and said he was already
talking with that organization. Mr. Uses the Knife explained that many
personal items of the Minnicoujou Lakota killed at Wounded Knee were
being found in many private institutions; and "the sincerity of my
reason for being here is that those types of things that have [been]
done in the past, the pain and the hurt that was inflicted upon the
people still remain today...we still feel that pain and the horror that
happened to us 103 years ago...anybody keeping things like that is
totally, totally ridiculous."

Ms. Marcella LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux tribal council member, thanked
the committee for coming to Rapid City. She also expressed concern over
private institutions and non-tribal individuals possessing human remains
and sacred things. Ms. LeBeau explained a little about the racism her
community lived through, and why people were so distrustful. Ms. LeBeau
said that she felt something good would come out of being there as a
group, and thanked the committee for listening.

Mr. William Tallbull, Review committee member, spoke of his concerns in
visiting museums and not knowing what was in the collections. He spoke
of a visit of some elders to a museum one time; "...they didn't realize
that the museum had human remains, medicine bundles in the basement. We
were treading over human bodies, medicine bundles. A desecration that we
did there, by treading over the top of them, caused an accident to
happen outside immediately after the old folks left...As we all know as
Indian people, whenever there's an accident, there's a reason for
it...once with another load of people, a similar situation
happened...when I went to a Chicago museum, I had to stop at the door
and ask if it was safe to go in there...I was told by the curator that
people came and did the blessings so that people wouldn't be going where
they shouldn't go. This is how we view the museum, very careful....we
have 45 medicine bundles that [are] close to home, that we cannot
touch...somehow they were acquired, and they're in the basement, and we
refuse to go over there. That's been some of the things that I have
walked in on, not knowing what they have...I was visiting a museum where
I ran across my grandfather's two medicine rattles. It was a very
emotional time for me to find these. I don't know how the museum got
ahold of them, but apparently it was grave robbery material...so, when
it comes to acquiring things, from people, I'm wondering if there are
stolen items...I'm wondering, if there could be something where the
museum wouldn't be taking stolen property all the time, if there was
something that would get information...from medicine bundles.
Especially if we got a man bringing in a medicine bundle. You know that
young man does not own the bundle, yet they go ahead and take it. I
find that a problem." Mr. Tallbull stated he was very concerned with
especially the spiritual health of the people; "and, it makes me wonder
why this country continues to deny us religious freedom. We've been
denied our pursuit of spiritual health...the people that sit here and
talk about scientific study...I don't thing they know anything about
spiritual health."

Mr. Tim Mentz, Standing Rock Sioux Cultural committee member, spoke to
the committee on his concerns regarding a deadline the Nebraska State
Historical Society (NSHS) was attempting to impose on his tribe for
submitting a claim to unprovenanced human remains and unassociated
funerary objects which the Pawnee Tribe was requesting for repatriation.
Mr. McManamon responded that such a deadline does not conform to the
NAGPRA statute. Mr. Mentz agreed that this was his understanding as
well, but the NSHS was still insisting that if no claim was made by a
date, the tribe had waived the right to such a claim. Mr. Mentz
requested the Park Service and the committee keep looking at the trust
responsibility in administering NAGPRA.

Mr. Victor Douville, member of the Rosebud Sicangu Consultation
committee, addressed the committee concerning the lack of direct input
from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in the passage of NAGPRA. He said that
rumors going around say that what has already been drafted will become
law, and that "the Secretary [of the Interior] will begin to assert his
paternalism." Mr. Douville said that during the Review committee
meeting, he has seen this is not the case, and agrees with the direction
the committee is taking. He supported having the tribes be the ultimate
authority in decisions about repatriation, rather than having the tribes
be dictated to by Federal agencies and museums. Mr. Douville requested
that more funds be made available to assist tribes for NAGPRA
activities. Mr. Douville invited the committee to have a presentation
made by his department to develop a better understanding of his people.
He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. George Goggleye, representative from the Leech Lake Chippewa, said
he resented the "paternalistic attitude" of the scientific presentations
on Culturally Unidentified human remains. He asked the committee to let
tribal communities decide the issue their own way. Mr. Goggleye stated
there had to be consultation with the tribes "because you don't know
what a funeral object is to us." Mr. Goggleye thanked the committee for
listening to him.

Ms. Donna Augustine, representative of the Micmac, said that although
some in the scientific community may feel hurt or offended by the
comments of the native people, she asked that they understand how hurt
and offended the native people are that their ancestors are in
collections. Ms. Augustine stated that there is a fundamental difference
that the scientific community does not understand, and is also not
appropriate to talk about in public. Ms. Augustine said that she did not
know how the scientific community could disturb or handle tribal
ancestors, that perhaps they don't know the harm they are doing. Ms.
Augustine wanted the representatives of the scientific community to
understand that these human remains, "they're not just remains, they're
not bone to be studied, you're dealing with spirits as you touch those
remains."

Mr. Carl McKenzie, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, asked the committee to consider
closer consultation with the tribes and allowing them to translate the
regulations into their own language before sending the regulations out
as final.

Mr. Richard Grass expressed his frustration that tribal communities were
having to go through this process, and that his people's rights were
still being sacrificed "to cover up the fraud of the United States." Mr.
Grass expressed his appreciation for the committee, and asked that his
people be brought back for reburial.

Mr. Cedric Goodhouse, of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, commented that
he was glad Mr. Murdy made his presentation, because Mr. Goodhouse felt
those arguments reminded everyone why NAGPRA had to be enacted in the
first place.

Mr. Sebastian LeBeau, NAGPRA representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, thanked the committee for coming and listening to the concerns of
people in the Plains area. Mr. LeBeau said the regulations should
always favor the Indian perspective regarding repatriation, and the
fines under civil penalties should go immediately to the aggrieved
tribe. Mr. LeBeau emphasized that a Federal Register notice should
"never, ever hinder or impede the repatriation process." Mr. LeBeau also
requested that the need for NAGPRA compliance be made clear to
universities and colleges, whether their collections were "historic" or
"pre-contact."

Mr. Darrell Newell, representative of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, requested
that culturally unidentified inventories also be sent to tribes in the
region those remains came from. Mr. Newell was concerned that
"inventories and summaries that we are receiving are incomplete or
nonexistent based on predetermined...basis [of] exclusively scientific
data and not other considerations..." Mr. Newell asked that the
understanding of non-experts, everyday people who will be affected be
taken into consideration during the writing of regulations.

Mr. Dave Bald Eagle, Cheyenne River Sioux, addressed the committee, and
said he appreciated the beginning of the repatriations. Mr. Bald Eagle
said he would continue speaking to people around the world about peace,
unity, friendship, and better relationships in the world. Mr. Bald Eagle
thanked the committee for coming and wished them all a safe journey
home.

Mr. Everett Black Thunder, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, commented to the
committee that tribal people should have more input for the regulations,
and he saw them now as very museum-friendly. Mr. Black Thunder supported
Mr. Little's suggestion that tribal elders be invited to the committee
meetings for educating the committee about the tribes in different
regions.

Ms. Rachel Craig, Review committee member, addressed the meeting and
said she appreciated hearing everyone's comments. She said that in her
home area in Alaska, the land is known by who traveled in it, and place
names are taken from the people buried there. Ms. Craig told the
meeting, "it was my job to do a survey of these cemetery sites and
historical places...I took the ancestors' names of those people who were
buried there...so all of these people that are buried out in the country
singly are known to us...whose family they are." Ms. Craig said she was
so happy to hear the tribes in the Plains had as much concern for their
ancestors and were willing to claim them all as her own community. She
explained the difficulties she had faced in being chosen to represent
diverse Native people in Alaska on the committee, and how the committee
had to develop a base for their decisions. Ms. Craig thanked everyone
for listening.

The meeting was closed at 5:25 p.m. on Saturday, May 14, 1994.

Approved:

/s/ Tessie Naranjo August 18, 1995
Tessie Naranjo, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee