Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Eleventh Meeting

MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
ELEVENTH MEETING: JUNE 9 - 11, 1996
BILLINGS, MONTANA

The eleventh meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Mr. Martin
Sullivan at 9:40 a.m., Sunday, June 9, 1996 at the Homesteader Room,
Clarion Inn West, Billings, Montana. The following Review Committee
members, National Park Service staff, and others were in attendance:

Members of the Review Committee:
Ms. Tessie Naranjo, Chair
Ms. Rachel Craig
Mr. Jonathan Haas
Mr. Dan Monroe
Mr. Martin E. Sullivan
Mr. Phillip L. Walker

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, DC
Ms. Jean Kelley, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC

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

Ms. Nadema Agard, Repatriation Director, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,
Ft. Yates, North Dakota
Mr. Francis Aulde, Kootenai Cultural Committee, Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes, Elmo, Montana
Ms. Georgia Bad Bear, Crow Agency, Montana
Ms. Faith Bad Bear, Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul,
Minnesota
Ms. Morgan Baillargeon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull,
Quebec
Ms. Nancy Curriden, Custer National Forest, Billings, Montana
Ms. Connie Estep, Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana
Ms. Gillian Flyn, Smithsonian, Washington DC
Ms. Donna Garnette, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Kyle, South Dakota
Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of National History, New York,
New York
Mr. Terry Gray, Assistant NAGPRA Coordinator, Rosebud Sioux Tribe,
Rosebud, South Dakota
Ms. Emma Hansen, Plain's Indian Museum, Cody, Wyoming
Ms. Andrea Hunter, Native American Repatriation Review Committee,
Flagstaff, Arizona
Ms. Beverly Ironshield, NAGPRA, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,
McLaughlin, South Dakota
Ms. Pamela Jardine, University of Pennsylvania Museum,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ms. Ann Johnson, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, Wyoming
Ms. Laura Joss, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
Mr. Marvin Keller, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana
Mr. Thomas W. Killion, Smithsonian, Washington DC
Mr. Sebastian Bronco LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle
Butte, South Dakota
Ms. Naida Lefthand, Kootenai Cultural Committee, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Elmo, Montana
Mr. Dennis Limberhand, Billings, Montana
Ms. Zona Loans Arrow, Repatriation Committee, Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe, Ft. Yates, North Dakota
Mr. Edward Luhy, Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley,
California
Mr. Ruben McCloskey, United Sioux Tribes, Pierre, South Dakota
Mr. Ken Oransky, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Billings,
Montana
Ms. Dorene Red Cloud, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, Wyoming
Mr. Alvin Slow Bear, Oglala Sioux Tribe Rural Water Supply System,
Pine Ridge, South Dakota
Mr. Gary Smith, Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana
Ms. Barbara Sutter, NPS, Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Philip Under Baggage, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Kyle, South Dakota
Ms. Gabrielle Vail, University of Pennsylvania Museum,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mr. Rick Weatherman, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Ms. Annabel Wolf, Blackfeet, Alberta
Mr. Terry Zontek, Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana

Mr. Sullivan welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that the
Review Committee, National Park Service staff, and the audience
introduce themselves. He then asked, on behalf of the Committee, to
have a moment of silence in respect for the late Mr. William Tallbull.
Ms. Rachel Craig gave the invocation.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the members of the public to the meeting and
explained the meetings are open to the public with scheduled public
comment periods. He then thanked the Review Committee members for
their time and efforts regarding the implementation of the Statute.

Implementation Update: Mr. McManamon reported that since the last
meeting, the majority of the regulations have been published as final
in the Federal Register and are fully in force as of January 1996.
The National Park Service did address certain issues in the
regulations, per request of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
including a request that associated funerary items be placed under the
purview of the Committee's recommendations regarding the culturally
unidentifiable category.

Civil Penalties: The National Park Service also suggested that
wording be added to allow the Secretary of the Interior to determine
disposition of civil penalties; such as, use for rewards, restitution
and enforcement costs. The NPS had not received a response back on
that particular request by meeting time. Mr. Haas requested a copy of
the NPS response to the Senate Oversight Committee's requests for
additional information, which Mr. McManamon said would be provided to
the Committee.

Regulations: Mr. McManamon again emphasized that the final
regulations were published and went into effect as stated above. He
further explained that the civil penalties section, section 10.12, has
been drafted and is now in process for approval to be published as an
interim regulation; meaning, if approved for publication, it would be
immediately enforceable and in effect.

Future Applicability: Mr. McManamon pointed out to the Committee
that each had a copy of the draft of section 10.13 on future
applicability, and that this is scheduled for discussion later in the
meeting.

Summaries: Mr. McManamon reported that 870 summaries have been
received by the NPS, and 32 notices of intent to repatriate have been
published so far. The notices of intent to repatriate included the
following objects: 31,669 unassociated funerary objects, 256 sacred
objects, 20 objects of cultural patrimony, and 21 objects that are
considered both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.

Inventories: Mr. McManamon reported that the NPS has received
inventories from approximately 600 museums and Federal agencies. He
also stated that the NPS is working on compiling a list for the
Committee of the sets of human remains and associated funerary objects
that are culturally unidentifiable. To date, 76 notices of inventory
completion have been published in the Federal Register, which include
2,978 sets of human remains and 131,113 associated funerary objects.
Mr. Haas expressed a concern about the status of inventory extensions,
and Mr. McManamon stated that 84 appeals for extensions were received
from museums. Of these, 56 appeals were granted, 2 appeals were
denied, 2 appeals are currently in process, and 24 museums provided
the necessary information so an appeal was unnecessary. Mr. Haas
expressed a concern as to why some Federal agencies were not on the
list and wondered if they would be granted extensions. Mr. McManamon
said Federal agencies do not have the option of an extension. After
concern expressed by Mr. Monroe and Mr. Sullivan, Mr. McManamon
suggested that maybe this was an issue that should be addressed in
more detail later in the meeting. Mr. McManamon further suggested
that perhaps after a more formal inventory review, a specific list
could be created on agency compliance.

Grants Program: Mr. McManamon reported that for Fiscal 1996
grants, 2.2 million dollars will be available. A grant list is being
prepared and will be submitted to the Director of the Park Service and
the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife for approval. The NPS
hopes to announce the awards in early July 1996.

Dispute Update: Mr. McManamon related that in the case regarding
Satanta's shield involving the descendants of Satanta and the
University of California at Berkeley, the Committee received a letter
from Mrs. Washburn indicating that she and the others have considered
the Committee's questions about appropriateness of the claim and
decided not to pursue this matter any further. Mr. Haas questioned if
there was any response from the Hearst Museum, and Mr. McManamon
replied that to date there was not.

Enforcement: Mr. McKeown reported that in the Mokapu dispute, the
Marine Corps at Kaneohe Bay requested the Committee's recommendation
regarding disposition in light of current litigation. A letter was
sent recommending that the Marine Corps hold the remains until the
disputants have settled their issues. Recently, the Marine Corps
decided to formally make a decision, possibly as early as July,
regarding who to repatriate the remains to. Mr. McKeown then updated
the Committee on four recent trafficking convictions under NAGPRA,
administered under the Department of Justice.

Discussion of Federal Agency Compliance

Mr. Haas expressed concern about the absence of inventories from
certain Federal agencies: such as, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Haas questioned
the reason for this absence and what action the Committee could take.
Mr. McManamon cited a number of reasons for this absence including:
incomplete NPS inventory; agencies and museums working in cooperation,
with the museums reporting joint inventories; incomplete agency
inventories; agencies with complete inventories which the NPS has not
received. Mr. McKeown had an additional comment that some agencies
have submitted one inventory encompassing numerous locations.

Mr. Haas again expressed concern about agencies such as the BLM with
no listing; he pointed out that the Review Committee is charged with
monitoring the inventory and stated that the Committee should take
steps to address these Federal agencies to bring them into compliance.
Mr. McKeown reiterated Mr. McManamon's suggestion that a more formal
list be compiled in the near future, ensuring a complete inventory
list. Mr. Monroe added that after the list is compiled, Federal
agencies which have not filed an inventory should be notified that the
Committee requests an explanation of the status, reasons for the
delay, and expected completion date. Mr. McManamon suggested that the
NPS try to answer some of these concerns by the next meeting
including: how the NPS is doing, how the agencies are doing and what
their processes are, and the what the status is of the large agencies
that have not completed inventories. Mr. Monroe suggested just a
simple request to non-compliant agencies asking them to inform the
Committee as to their current filing status.

Mr. LeBeau expressed a concern that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe had
not received an inventory from the North Dakota BLM. Mr. Lebeau
further stated that the Wyoming BLM informed him that most of their
collections were housed in various museums; therefore, he was
concerned about who has legal "title" and which entity tribes should
submit repatriation requests to. Mr. LeBeau asked if Mr. McKeown
could supply specific information on which statutes, other than
NAGPRA, could force Federal agencies to comply with NAGPRA. It was
the Committee's opinion that in most instances the Federal agencies
retain responsibility for these collections.

Ms. Boen expressed a concern that the State Archaeological Research
Center in Rapid City, South Dakota, has remains that came off tribal
land, from a project that the Park Service funded, and wondered who
has responsibility for that collection. Mr. McManamon replied that
the tribe was responsible. Ms. Boen stated that in instances like
this, where the tribe was not even aware of the collection and the
Park Service had initially funded it, that the Park Service should be
responsible. Mr. LeBeau further stated that if a collection had
originated on tribal lands in South Dakota, the collections were
tribal property and repatriation should not even be a requirement.
Mr. McManamon further explained that in Ms. Boen's case, another
agency would have been responsible for funding that particular
project, and the collection was never considered a part of the
National Park Service. Mr. McManamon also stated that collections
from land that was and is tribal land would be considered existing
collections, as opposed to new excavations and inadvertent
discoveries, and should be treated as such under the provisions of
NAGPRA. The tribe would be considered either the museum or agency and
would be responsible for implementing the existing collections
portions of NAGPRA; cases would have to be looked at individually to
determine who had final responsibility.

Draft Recommendations Regarding Disposition of Culturally
Unidentifiable Human Remains in Museum or Federal Agency Collections

Mr. Sullivan summarized the key questions concerning culturally
unidentifiable human remains as follows: the question of ancient
remains and how ancient is ancient, the ability of non-BIA recognized
tribes to participate in repatriation, the linkage of associated
funerary objects with human remains, and the degree of direct
involvement of the National Park Service and the NAGPRA Committee in
the entire process. Mr. Monroe added that many comments questioned
the key underlying assumption of this entire approach; that is, of
Native Americans deciding disposition of unidentified remains. Mr.
Sullivan reiterated the Committee's tasks; to compile an inventory and
to recommend specific actions for developing a process for disposition
of unidentified remains. One suggested approach was that the Committee
develop three separate recommendations; culturally unidentifiable
human remains in museums or Federal agencies, non-Federally-recognized
tribes, and ancient remains for which there is no specific burial
location or information. After discussion, the Committee decided to
focus on developing a recommendation based on "affiliation" instead of
"affinity" so as to more closely follow the wording of the Statute.
Mr. Walker asked how many cultural affiliations have been made with
more than one tribe. Mr. McKeown estimated that 75 percent of the
notices of inventory completion published so far have had cultural
affiliation with more than one tribe. Mr. Sullivan suggested the next
step in the process should be to distribute a second set of
recommendations for comment, and asked if that could be completed
before the next meeting. Mr. McManamon stated that it would be good
to recirculate the draft recommendations and that it could be done
before the next meeting.

Mr. Monroe suggested developing an approach that would utilize
existing terminology to avoid recommendations that would require
amendment to the Statute. Mr. Haas expressed his desire to define
"shared group identity" as a first step; and that this definition
might include more than individual tribes, could go beyond the tribal
notion, and could include something other than a one-to-one direct
line between ancient remains and current tribes. Mr. Monroe said he
felt it was necessary to deal with the issue of cultural affiliation
because it was a basic premise in the Statute in solving the
unidentified remains issue. After discussion of past difficulties in
defining "shared group identity," the Committee agreed to develop
recommendations that encompass two situations; those that are clearly
within the scope of the existing Statute and regulations and others
which broaden it because of real-life situations.

Mr. Haas suggested incorporating wording such as "religious
similarities, adaptive strategies, subsistence and settlement
similarities" to define shared group identity. Ms. Naranjo agreed
with Mr. Haas's idea to use a listing of terms to define shared group
identity, and suggested additional ideas such as "language, food, and
ceremonial and agricultural items." Mr. Haas said he felt tracing
affinity and identifying shared group identity were two different
things, and that it was important to incorporate wording to that
effect.

Mr. Walker expressed his concern about the exclusion of
non-BIA-recognized tribes concerning culturally unidentified remains.
Mr. Monroe suggested making a recommendation to Congress to correct
the original oversight concerning this problem. The Committee decided
to try to formulate some language over the evening recess for further
discussion.

Over the evening recess, a new draft regarding disposition of
culturally unidentified human remains was written. Mr. Monroe
explained that the intent of the new draft was to recognize the
continued belief that it is important that Native Americans make the
decisions regarding disposition but also to try to stay within the
context of the existing statutory and regulatory language. Mr. Monroe
then reviewed the document for the Committee. Mr. Monroe stated that
one major point this document has that past drafts did not is the
concept of several tribes having shared group identity with human
remains rather than only one. Mr. Haas further pointed out that this
draft broadens the concept of shared group identity to include things
other than direct historical descent.

Mr. McManamon stated that he had some issues that he wanted to address
concerning the new draft. In the second sentence, "Tribes will be
responsible for establishing shared group identity with specific
prehistoric cultures or earlier groups," he suggested adding
"agencies, museums and tribes working in concert." After Committee
discussion, Mr. Monroe suggested "Tribes or tribes working in
cooperation with museums and Federal agencies will be responsible for
establishing shared group identity with specific prehistoric cultures
or earlier groups," thus allowing the tribes to make the decision with
or without input from other sources. Mr. McManamon's second concern
was about "establishing cultural affiliation," and the problem of then
having to define what and how much evidence is necessary to
"establish" the affiliation. His third concern was having the
National Park Service in the role of compiling the list of evidence to
determine cultural affiliation and acting as a clearinghouse for
culturally unaffiliated remains information. Mr. McManamon suggested
eliminating the wording about the Park Service compiling the list and
the clearinghouse suggestion; and instead having direct contact with
the individual museums or agencies. Mr. Haas stated that due to the
large inventory of human remains that could be classified as
culturally unidentifiable, about 100,000, there has to be a
clearinghouse; the museums have no way of knowing, without a working
list, which groups to contact for these remains, and tribes are not
going to know who has what material; and there has to be a mechanism
for linking up tribes making claims with museums who have the
materials. Mr. McManamon suggested that developing the culturally
unidentifiable list, as discussed previously in the meeting, and
providing that to the tribes would accomplish the same results without
having to create another list.

Mr. LeBeau stated that his recommendation regarding the phrase "such
as oral histories and similar patterns of settlement and artistic
traditions," would be to take out the term "artistic" and replace it
with "spiritual," because for his cultural group the concept of shared
identity is based on a spiritual perspective of who they are.
Understanding that this may not be true for all groups, he asked that
if "spiritual" could not replace "artistic," that "spiritual" be
placed in front of "artistic." His next suggestion was to remove the
word "direct" in "direct historical, geographical, temporal or
cultural links," because establishing a direct link is not a
requirement and including the word "direct" in there might complicate
the issue. Mr. Haas suggested wording to the effect of "direct
historical links or some combination of geographical, temporal and
cultural links." Ms. Naranjo agreed with Mr. LeBeau's recommendation
for removing the word "artistic," but she was not sure about inserting
"spiritual." Mr. Sullivan suggested the word "religious." Ms.
Naranjo did not agree with the term "religious," but offered the
phrase "cultural lifeways" as a way to encompass each of these. Ms.
Craig agreed with Mr. LeBeau's recommendation of the word "spiritual."
Ms. Agard, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Loans Arrow, and Ms. Bad Bear
also agreed with Mr. LeBeau's suggestion of "spiritual."

After revising the draft, Mr. Monroe explained the following changes:
first, a revised definition of shared group identity, "Shared group
identity means a relationship between a present-day Indian tribe or
tribes and an earlier group based on: (1) direct historical links
and/or (2) a combination of geographical, temporal, and cultural
links. Geographical, temporal, and/or cultural links may be
established through biological, archaeological, linguistic, folkloric,
oral traditional, or other relevant information or expert opinion";
second, the issue of "spiritual" and "artistic", "For example, a tribe
or Native Hawaiian organization may not be able to establish an
unbroken historical connection with a particular prehistoric culture,
but may be able to establish shared group identity based on clear
geographical and temporal ties to the area and time of the earlier
group coupled with additional evidence, such as oral histories and
other cultural traditions and lifeways"; third, "Tribes, or tribes
working, at their discretion, in cooperation with museums or Federal
agencies or other relevant experts, will be responsible for developing
identification of shared group identity with specific prehistoric
cultures or earlier groups"; fourth, the issue of Park Service
notification role, "The National Park Service will compile a list of
all remains that have been initially designated as culturally
unidentifiable. This list will be submitted to the Review Committee
and to tribes." Ms. Naranjo reminded everyone that these
recommendations will go out for comment, will be reviewed at the next
meeting, and then will go for another revised draft.

Draft Recommendations on Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable
Native American Remains - Category Three: Remains Which are Likely to
be Native American but which Lack Information about their Original
Burial Location

The Committee decided to discuss further recommendations on this
subject at a later date.

Repatriation by Non-Federally-Recognized Tribes

Mr. Walker wondered if it was possible to include wording in the
regulations that would encourage Federal agencies and museums to work
to repatriate to non-BIA-recognized tribes without Committee
involvement. Mr. McKeown stated that currently the regulations
require Committee involvement until there is wording that states
otherwise in the unidentifiable section. The Committee expressed
concern about the practicality of leaving the Committee directly in
the "loop" of approving repatriation to non-Federally-Recognized
tribes. Mr. Haas suggested wording that would acknowledge that an
amendment would be necessary to fully enfranchise
non-Federally-recognized tribes; however, pending such legislation,
that precedent has been set for non-Federally-recognized tribes to
claim and repatriate remains under mutual agreement; that the
Committee has recognized that as an acceptable way to repatriate these
remains. Mr. Monroe was concerned about recommending this action
without a clear-cut method for the Committee to create a workable list
of unrecognized tribes to submit for a recommended amendment to NAGPRA
as a base for museums and agencies to work from. Mr. Haas recommended
including language that encouraged, rather than required, working with
unrecognized tribes; such as, state-recognized tribes,
previously-recognized BIA tribes, or tribes that are applying for BIA
status. Mr. Walker stated that museums feel that they are in legal
jeopardy when they decide that the proper group to repatriate remains
to are not on the BIA list, and they currently feel they need the
Committee's approval in order to have legal protection in these cases.

Mr. Haas suggested the following language as recommendations for human
remains affiliated with non-Federally-recognized tribes: one, tribes
not Federally recognized are encouraged to work with museums and
Federal agencies to reach agreement on possible repatriation of human
remains and associated funerary objects; two, museums and Federal
agencies who believe they possess human remains related to
non-Federally-recognized tribes are encouraged to notify these tribes
and work with them to reach agreement on possible repatriation of
these remains and associated funerary objects; three, in discussions
over the possible repatriation of human remains and associated
funerary objects to non-Federally-recognized tribes, the involved
parties are encouraged to consult with all Federally-recognized tribes
who may have an interest in the area from which the remains
originated; four, when agreement is reached to repatriate human
remains and associated funerary objects to non-Federally-recognized
tribes, this agreement should be submitted to the Review Committee for
review and approval. On point one, Mr. Walker suggested using "tribes
not on the BIA list" instead of "tribes not Federally recognized"; for
point two, he suggested using "affiliated with" instead of "related
to"; and, for point three, he suggested using "should" instead of "are
encouraged to." Mr. Haas stated that he was trying to make
recommendations instead of requirements. Mr. Sullivan stated that he
was strongly in favor of points two and three, but felt that point one
might be giving guidance to people who have no standing under the law.
Mr. Haas replied that he was simply trying to encourage groups that
have no standing to work with Federal agencies and museums. Mr.
Sullivan also stated that he was concerned with the word "approval" in
number four and wondered if it was necessary to have the Committee
approval in this. Mr. Haas stated that his museum would require
Committee approval. After discussion, the Committee decided the word
"recommendation" would be more appropriate.

Mr. Haas stated that in the final version of the draft, he basically
made the changes as discussed previously by the Committee, NPS staff
and the audience. Mr. Haas stated he added a fifth point regarding
publishing the intent to repatriate these remains in the Federal
Register. Mr. Haas also suggested that the recommendation needs to
have an introduction with wording to the effect of "The Committee
believes that non-Federally-recognized tribes should be enfranchised,
but that this may require additional amendment to the law; and, in the
interim, this is the recommendation on how museums would encourage
museums, Federal agencies, and non-Federally-recognized tribes to
proceed." Mr. Sullivan also suggested including a brief summary of
the precedents for those agencies, museums and tribes who are not
aware of them.

After discussion, the Committee and NPS staff agreed to have the
recommendations ready for publication in the Federal Register by
July 1, 1996; allowing a 90-day public comment period. Park Service
staff would then assemble the comments for discussion at the next
Committee meeting.

Draft on Future Applicability

Mr. McKeown summarized the draft document on future applicability as
dealing mainly with three situations: a museum or agency receives new
collections or discover current collections containing potentially
affected material; a non-Federally-recognized Native American group is
determined by the BIA or Congress to be an Indian tribe; or a museum
receives funding for the first time and has to comply with the
Statute. He then pointed out that the Committee needed to discuss
appropriate time frames for completion of the summary and inventory
process under these circumstances. Mr. Haas expressed the opinion
that the Park Service should notify museums of newly recognized
Federal tribes. Mr. Walker had a concern about discoveries of new
remains that are from a collection that has already been repatriated,
and he suggested contacting the group that received the previous
repatriation and repatriating those items immediately. Mr. McManamon
said currently those items would have to go through the repatriation
process. Mr. Walker suggested the following language, "When
additional human remains, cultural items or items of cultural
patrimony from a previously repatriated collection are discovered in a
museum's collection, the museum shall notify the tribe and
expeditiously repatriate those remains." Mr. McManamon felt this was
appropriate wording, but requested a little leeway in wording the
recommendation to explain that these items would have to be materials
that would have been completely taken into account with the past
repatriation. After discussion, the Committee decided to set the time
limits of 90 days for completion of summaries after receipt or
discovery and one year for completion of inventories after receipt or
discovery.

Public Comment on Implementation of the Act in Montana

Mr. Francis Aulde, Montana Burial Council, explained that in Montana a
law was passed creating the Montana Burial Council which consists of
13 members from different tribes, coroners and universities. Through
this council an agreement was made that the closest tribe,
geographically, would take responsibility for any remains that are
found in the state. Mr. Aulde then presented a video containing two
cases of repatriation that were completed: one case where remains
were discovered and reinterred later at an Indian cemetery and one
case where remains were reinterred where they were found on private
land.

Mr. Gerard Baker, Little Bighorn National Monument, said that the
National Park Service currently has 15,237 employees, of which, 550
are Native American employees and 250 are Native American seasonal
employees.

Mr. Baker then offered a presentation on the unique situation at the
Little Bighorn National Monument regarding NAGPRA and its
implementation. According to oral history, Indian remains were
removed from the battlefield and buried elsewhere; none were
identified from the battlefield itself. Before the battle, this land
was occupied by a number of tribes; such as, Crow, Arapaho,
Mandan-Hidatsa, Blackfeet, and people from the Flathead country.
Thus, burials have been found that are not related to the battle, but
could be from a number of different groups.

The Little Bighorn National Monument does not currently seek remains
or artifacts from the battlefield, but when they are inadvertently
found identification is attempted and appropriate repatriation is
conducted. Native American remains are repatriated by the NAGPRA
Committee for the Little Bighorn, which has expressed the wish that no
military personnel be repatriated with Native Americans. Military
personnel are repatriated on site in a single grave with attendance by
the 7th Calvary. When remains cannot be identified, both the
Committee and the 7th Calvary will be invited to conduct repatriation
ceremonies as desired.

Mr. Baker related that theft has been and continues to be a problem at
Little Bighorn Battlefield. Security has been increased to try to
alleviate this problem. In the meantime, remains and artifacts
continue to be found and returned through private individuals, court
cases, and inadvertent discoveries. The Little Bighorn National
Monument will try to deal with each case as far as identification and
repatriation as quickly as possible.

Ms. Naida Lefthand, Administrative Assistant for the Kootenai Cultural
Program, gave a brief background on the Kootenai Cultural Program.
Ms. Lefthand stated that if more Native Americans worked to educate
non-Native Americans, she believes private citizens would have a
better understanding about inadvertent discoveries and would come
forward when these situations occur. According to the wishes of the
elders, remains from Montana will be reburied as close as possible to
where they were found. Thus far, 14 reinterments have occurred at the
Indian cemetery, and six reburials occurred close to the area of
excavation. The Cultural Program is currently working with Federal
agencies where remains have been previously excavated to see if they
would be willing to accept remains back onto their lands and protect
them. The group is proceeding with caution to ensure that all grave
goods are returned to be repatriated with the appropriate set of
remains, even if they are currently in different museums or agencies.
Ms. Lefthand expressed a concern that this caution not be interpreted
as lack of interest by museums or Federal agencies. Ms. Naranjo
appreciated the caution and deliberation expressed by this group, and
said that similar circumstances exist in the area that she is familiar
with. Ms. Lefthand said that they had very few elders left, and this
was causing a great deal of concern. Ms. Craig expressed the same
concern for her area.

Mr. Walker asked Mr. McManamon if there was a policy regarding the
reburial of remains on Federal land and whether the Committee could
encourage such action to take place. Mr. McManamon replied that there
is no general policy, and that it is up to each individual
superintendent. Mr. McManamon also stated that the Committee has, in
fact, been encouraging this by encouraging tribes and agencies to work
together. Mr. Zontek offered an example where successful reburial of
remains did occur on Federal lands when an inadvertent discovery
occurred in 1992 on the North Loop Canal construction in Nebraska.

Public Comment

Ms. Agard, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, stated that it was the
responsibility of everyone in the room to get to know one another; and
that despite different backgrounds, education levels, and styles of
thinking, everyone needs to work together toward the common goal of
repatriation. She urged the Committee to remember to speak in a way
that everyone can understand.

Ms. Bad Bear, Science Museum of Minnesota, asked if museums are
supposed to unconditionally return objects for repatriation. She then
stated that she was raised traditionally and believes that Native
Americans have the ability to identify unidentifiable remains. Mr.
Walker confirmed that museums are to unconditionally return objects
and that the Committee agrees with her in her recommendation to allow
Native Americans to identify these remains.

Ms. Estep, Museum of the Rockies, stated that while it is their policy
not to collect human remains, they have a small number that were
included in a donated collection. They have met all NAGPRA deadlines,
and, thus far, no repatriation has been initiated. Most of the
remains are currently culturally unidentified.

Ms. Geisen, Bureau of Reclamation, stated that in doing their
inventory, a number of individuals were documented that cannot be
located in their collections. When consulted, the Park Service
advised that since the remains could not be found, they should not be
included in the inventory. Mr. Monroe suggested including a list of
some form so as to get the information out to the tribes. Ms. Geisen
stated the Bureau did intend to include a listing of the remains with
the inventory for cross-referencing purposes.

Mr. Gray, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, wanted to add that the Indian tribes
should be the ones to determine what objects are associated with
burials.

Mr. Keller, Bureau of Indian Affairs, expressed concern that the term
"shared group identity" might be misused by some groups to unfairly
gain access to remains. He suggested that remains be handled on a
geographical location basis. Mr. Haas appreciated Mr. Keller's
concern but stated that repatriation by geographic location is not
always possible since it unfairly excludes some groups.

Mr. Killion, Smithsonian, commented on the status of the Natural
History Museum which now has a deadline imposed by the Secretary of
the Smithsonian of December 31, 1996, to complete the summary process
and June 1, 1998, to complete an inventory of all human remains and
funerary objects. To date, the Natural History Museum has repatriated
over 2,500 sets of remains; sent out inventories referencing over
8,000 sets of remains; has 42 current requests from different groups;
completed 144 ethnographic summaries; consulted 206 tribes directly;
and had 180 official visits by tribal people to the repatriation
office. Mr. Killion hoped to show that the Museum has tried to move
in line with the Committee's recommendations regarding NAGPRA and has
had some major accomplishments in the actual act of repatriation. Mr.
Haas pointed out that the Committee, while being critical of the
Smithsonian and its lack of compliance with NAGPRA, was not being
critical of Mr. Killion's office and approved of their efforts so far.
Mr. Monroe commended the Secretary for his actions and Mr. Killion's
office for the fine job they have been doing.

Mr. LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, stated that Indians should be
the ones to define "shared group identity," because they know the past
relationships among the different tribes due to their oral history.
Mr. LeBeau complimented Mr. Haas's notion of going beyond direct-line
relationships between current-day Indian tribes and ancient remains in
defining shared group identity, and suggested adding a clause about
good faith efforts in repatriation to encourage museums. Mr. LeBeau
then cautioned the Committee to be specific in their wording so the
recommendations cannot be misinterpreted. Mr. LeBeau agreed with Mr.
Walker's recommendation to immediately request remains found that
belong in previously repatriated collections. In response to Ms.
Geisen's concern about documented remains that are not currently in
agency or museum collections, he explained that he is currently
working with the Fruitlands Museum at Harvard in a similar situation.
The museum inventoried the remains, and the tribe will submit a
repatriation request for them; therefore, when they are found they can
be repatriated.

Ms. Lefthand, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, stated that her
tribe has received summaries in which the agencies or museums have
made a determination that they have no sacred objects or objects of
cultural patrimony and expressed a concern over whether they had the
right to make that determination. Mr. Sullivan assured her that the
Committee agreed it was not appropriate for museums or universities to
decide if objects are sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony.
She expressed concern over who held responsibility for a collection
currently held by the Corps and also concern about the amount of time
the process was taking. Mr. McManamon stated that since the Corps
claims the collection, they are responsible for it. Ms. Lefthand
stated that they plan to create an action plan with each museum that
they deal with to handle each situation that arises.

Mrs. Loans Arrow, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, expressed a spiritual
concern that all remains need to go back to the earth as soon as
possible, regardless if they are identified or unidentified. Ms.
Loans Arrow said she is present at the meeting despite personal
difficulties and loss, and that she believes it is extremely important
to rebury the remains so they can start anew and teach children
respect for themselves and others.

Mr. McCloskey, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, read a prepared testimony for the
Committee emphasizing the importance of repatriating remains and
funerary objects and asking for assistance from the Park Service with
early notification of meetings and workshops. Mr. McCloskey also
asked for information regarding the number of Native Americans working
for Park Service system. He supported the idea of a clearinghouse,
consisting of the BIA, Park Service and representatives from each
tribe.

Mr. Zontek, Bureau of Reclamation, suggested that when requesting
status reports from Federal agencies, as Mr. Monroe suggested, the
Committee should ask specifically which offices are responsible and
what their status is, so as to avoid getting a general, agency-wide
reply. He then asked if Federal agencies can begin the repatriation
process for unidentifiable remains, as they are interested in doing
with certain remains from North Dakota. Mr. McManamon stated that the
regulations direct museums and Federal agencies to retain culturally
unidentifiable human remains until promulgation of further
regulations, or unless legally required to or recommended to by the
Secretary. Mr. McManamon then suggested that in specific cases, after
reaching a repatriation agreement, a proposal could be brought before
the Committee who could then make a specific recommendation to the
Secretary, and that this course of action might be appropriate in this
case.

Future Activities

Upcoming Meetings: The Committee has received an invitation from
the United South and Eastern Tribes to hold the next meeting in
Catawba, South Carolina. The Committee agreed upon October 26, 27 and
28, 1996 as a tentative meeting date.

Administrivia: Mr. McManamon reviewed for the Committee those
items that the National Park Service will try to accomplish before the
next Committee meeting. These include preparing the second draft of
Committee recommendations on culturally unidentifiable remains for
publication in the Federal Register, as well as assembling public
comments for discussion at the next Committee meeting; completing the
same process for the recommendations for human remains associated with
non-Federally-recognized tribes; making staff level contact with
Federal agencies to assess compliance and having a more comprehensive
discussion on that subject at the next Committee meeting; and
assembling a list of culturally unidentifiable remains based on the
information already received from museums and agencies.

Closing

Ms. Naranjo related that the Committee was happy to fulfill Mr.
William Tallbull's request to hold this meeting in Billings, and she
asked that he be remembered while Mr. Baker gave the honor song.

Mr. Gerard Baker provided some closing words for the meeting and
provided the honor song. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, June 11, 1996.

Approved:

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