MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA)
REVIEW COMMITTEE
FIFTEENTH MEETING: JUNE 25-27, 1998
PORTLAND, OREGON

The fifteenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie
Naranjo at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, June 25, 1998, at the Colonel
Lindbergh Room, Downtown Portland Embassy Suites, Portland, Oregon.
The following Review Committee members, National Park Service (NPS)
staff, and others were in attendance:

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

National Park Service staff present:
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, DC
Ms. Jennifer Schansberg, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, Solicitor‘s Office, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC

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

Mr. Roger Anyon, Smithsonian Institution, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Greig W. Arnold, Makan Cultural & Research Center, Neah Bay,
Washington
Mr. Tim Batin, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Indian Nation,
Toppenish, Washington
Mr. Richard M. Begay, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Mr. Steve Begay, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Patty Blankenship, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma,
Washington
Ms. Janine Bowechop, Makan Cultural & Resource Center, Neah Bay,
Washington
Ms. Pam Brown, University of British Columbia Museum of
Anthropology, Vancouver, British Columbia
Ms. Linda Burbach, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,
Oregon
Mr. Elgin Crows Breast, Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota,
New Town, North Dakota
Mr. Richard Dalton, Sr., DC Museum, Hoorcati, Alaska
Mr. Don Day, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community,
Stayton, Oregon
Mr. Mark DeLeon, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington
Mr. Steve Denton, Bellevue, Washington
Mr. Donald Duncan, Mendocino County Intertribal Repatriation
Project, Talmage, California
Ms. Kathleen Duncan, Jamestown S‘Klallam Tribe, Sequim, Washington
Ms. Marguerite Edwards, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Ms. Pamela Endzweig, University of Oregon Museum of Natural
History/Oregon State Museum of Natural History, Eugene, Oregon
Ms. Adeline Fredin, Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, Nespelem, Washington
Ms. Reba Fuller, Central Sierra Me-Wuk/Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk,
Tuolumne, California
Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation Program Analysis Office,
Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Martha Graham, Department of Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History, New York, New York
Mr. Dave Grignon, Menominee Nation & Wisconsin Intertribal
Repatriation Committee, Keshena, Wisconsin
Ms. Pam Hann, Native American Program, Oregon Legal Services,
Portland, Oregon
Ms. Maiya Hall, Native American Legal Aid of Oregon Legal Services,
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Ms. Peachie Hamm, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community,
Grand Ronde, Oregon
Ms. Francine Havercroft, Maryhill Museum, Goldendale, Washington
Ms. Carol Ann Hawks, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Ms. Carla High Eagle, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho
Mr. Frederick Ike, Sr., Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation,
Toppenish, Washington
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Donald Ivy, Coquille Tribe, North Bend, Oregon
Mr. Charles James, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area Office,
Gresham, Oregon
Ms. Geraldine Jim, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Mr. Roger Kelly, National Park Service, San Francisco, California
Mr. Keith Kintigh, Society for American Archaeology, Department of
Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Ms. Lena Landry, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Mr. David M. Liberty, World Citizen, Pendleton, Oregon
Ms. Cheryl L. Lohman, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community, Vancouver, Washington
Mr. Louis Malatare, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation,
Toppenish, Washington
Ms. Marilyn Malatare, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation,
Toppenish, Washington
Ms. Lynette Miller, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma,
Washington
Ms. Paula Molloy, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
DC
Mr. James D. Nason, Thomas Burke Museum, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington
Mr. David Orr, National Park Service, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Ms. Laura Phillips, Thomas Burke Museum, Seattle, Washington
Ms. Cathy Poetschat, Oregon Archaeological Society, Beaverton,
Oregon
Mr. Louis Putty, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Ms. Karen Quigley, Oregon Legal Commission on Indian Services,
Salem, Oregon
Mr. Jed Riffe, Independent Producers Services, Berkeley, California
Ms. Alyce Sadongei, National Museum of the American Indian,
Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC
Mr. Alan Schneider, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Dale Ann Sherman, Yurok Nation, Eureka, California
Mr. Kenny Paul Sonoquie, Chumash/Yuma, Quincy, California
Mr. Vincas Steponaitis, Society for American Archaeology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Ms. Dorothea Theodoratus, Consultant Central Sierra Me-Wuk, Fair
Oaks, California
Ms. Ann Tweedie, Harvard University, Neah Bay, Washington
Mr. Nicholas Valentine, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Sherwood,
Oregon
Ms. Anne Marie Victor-Howe, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Tom Visosky, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence,
Western Regional Office, San Francisco, California
Mr. Grant Waheneka, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Ms. Emily Waheneka, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Ms. Lynda L. Walker, US Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific
Region, Portland, Oregon
Mr. Nelson Wallulatum, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Oregon, Warm Springs, Oregon
Ms. Kristi Warner, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Mr. Wilson Wewa, Sr., Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon
Mr. Art Wolf, The High Desert Museum, Bend, Oregon
Mr. Frank E. Wozniak, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Judy Wright, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Mr. Fred York, National Park Service, Seattle, Washington

Ms. Naranjo welcomed the Review Committee members and members of the
audience. Mr. Minthorn gave the opening invocation. The Review
Committee members introduced themselves.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the Review Committee members and audience
members and introduced the National Park Service staff present at the
meeting. He explained that the meetings are open to the public with
scheduled public comment periods. He expressed his appreciation to
the Review Committee members for their work on implementing the
Statute. He then gave a brief review of the agenda.

Implementation Update

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

Excavations/Discoveries on Federal/Tribal Lands

Mr. McManamon stated that since 1995 the NPS office has received six
sets of notices from Federal agencies regarding disposition of
inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and/or
cultural items from Federal lands, with one set subsequently being
rescinded. Mr. Bradley commented that this number reflects a need for
the Review Committee members to pursue the issue of agency compliance.
Mr. Minthorn stated that direction for Federal agency compliance with
NAGPRA needs to come from the Washington DC offices down to the field
offices in order to ensure agency-wide awareness of, and compliance
with, NAGPRA.

Ms. Naranjo expressed concern about insufficient NPS staff and
recommended increased funding. Mr. Minthorn agreed and added the
increase in NPS staff was necessary in order for the Review Committee
to reach its goal of ensuring NAGPRA compliance. Mr. Sullivan agreed.
Ms. Naranjo asked about the number of NPS staff, and Mr. McManamon
replied that there were currently five staff members. Mr. Bradley
asked about the current backlog in processing Federal Register
Notices. Mr. McManamon explained that the NPS currently has
approximately 100 notices awaiting publication and each notice can
take several days to complete and up to three days to publish.
Mr. McKeown added that is roughly a one-year backlog of notices.
Mr. Bradley asked if a letter from the Review Committee members would
aid in getting additional support. Mr. McManamon stated that he
appreciated the sentiment and added that the Review Committee members
could also try to assist other Federal agencies in receiving
additional resources for use in implementation.

Litigation

Bonnichsen v. USACOE and Asatru Folk Assembly v. USACOE:
Mr. McManamon stated that as discussed at the Washington, DC meeting
in January, NPS and DOI staff became involved in providing technical
assistance to the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and the Corps of Engineers in attempting to resolve both
administrative and regulatory requirements related to the situation
involving the discovery of human remains at Kennewick, Washington in
the Walla Walla District of the Corps of Engineers. The NPS and the
DOI responded by letter to a series of questions asked of the Corps of
Engineers by Judge Jelderks regarding this case, a copy of which was
in the Review Committee member‘s binders.

Mr. McManamon explained that NAGPRA provides that Federal agencies can
ask the Secretary of the Interior to make decisions regarding Native
American human remains or cultural items found on Federal lands. As a
result of this provision, an agreement was reached between the
Department of the Army and the DOI whereby the DOI will be responsible
for making two specific decisions regarding the situation, including
developing a set of procedures and identifying any entities necessary
to make the determinations, as follows: one, are these human remains
of a Native American person under the definition of NAGPRA, and two,
to which group should these human remains be disposed of (returned
to). He added the agreement stipulates the Department of the Army
will be responsible for paying for the activities, investigations, and
expenses of the DOI related to fulfilling the terms of the agreement.
Mr. McManamon added that the Review Committee currently has no direct
role in this situation, and he was supplying the information in order
to keep the Review Committee members up-to-date on this prominent
case.

Mr. Hart expressed concern about the amount and types of testing being
done on the human remains. Mr. McManamon explained that as part of
the consultation process, the DOI developed a draft document dated May
12, 1998, outlining a standard format for recording human skeletons
developed by physical anthropologists and forensic scientists. He
stated the document was intended as a starting point in the discussion
process to help determine what types of analysis would be most useful
for resolving this issue. He added that there is general agreement
that a certain amount of basic evaluation needs to be conducted to
determine if the human remains are from a single individual. In
response to concerns expressed by tribal representatives regarding the
document, the DOI is currently redrafting the document in an attempt
to evaluate more precisely what examinations and tests ought to be
done and why, as well as providing information helpful in determining
cultural affiliation. He stated the introduction to the document is
useful in that it helps define the overall strategy, which is to first
determine if the human remains are Native American or not, and
therefore if NAGPRA applies, and then attempt to determine cultural
affiliation. He explained that general physical examinations,
measurements and analysis of this data would be used initially to help
answer these questions, and then additional tests would be considered
if necessary.

Mr. Bradley commented that this situation might result in a good set
of directions for recording information on inadvertent discoveries.
Mr. McManamon stated that was one factor in the DOI decision to become
involved in this case, as well as the hope that the Judge would look
at DOI involvement as a more definitive regulatory and legal
interpretation than if the Corps of Engineers or the DOJ were to
continue on their own.

Mr. Hart expressed concern that religious leaders be present prior to
any examination of the human remains. Mr. McManamon stated that
although they have not reached that level of specificity in
discussions with tribal representatives, he hoped that issue would be
discussed at an upcoming meeting with tribal representatives in July.
He added that in discussions with the DOJ, Department of the Army and
the Corps of Engineers, there has always been a willingness to
accommodate observers and ceremonies.

Mr. McManamon concluded that in an attempt to resolve the case, the
DOI, the DOJ, the Corps of Engineers, the tribes and the plaintiff
groups are attempting to mediate the litigation issues.

Providence v. Babbitt: Mr. McKeown stated that Providence v. Babbitt
is a case brought by the City of Providence, Rhode Island against a
Native Hawaiian organization, Hui Malama I Na Kapuna O Hawai‘i Nei,
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the DOI. This particular case is
one in which the Review Committee is in the process of issuing a
finding regarding a particular object under dispute. The Department
of the Interior was dismissed de facto, and the Hawaiian organizations
and the City of Providence were currently involved in settlement
discussions.

Museum/Federal Agency Collections

Notices: The NPS has received summaries from 1,031 institutions, both
museums and Federal agencies, and is currently in the process of
entering the information into a database to allow for easy
manipulation of the information.

Inventories: The NPS has received inventories from 733 institutions.

Federal Register Notices: Since 1992, when the first Notice of
Inventory Completion was published, the NPS has published 210 Notices
of Inventory Completion, covering 10,390 human remains and 264,652
associated funerary objects. These notices indicate that the museum
or agency has made a decision regarding affiliation and is ready to
repatriate upon request. Since 1992, the NPS has published 82 Notices
of Intent to Repatriate, covering 37,879 unassociated funerary
objects, 727 sacred objects, 320 objects of cultural patrimony, and
265 objects that fit both the sacred object and object of cultural
patrimony categories.

Grants: Since 1994, 112 grants totaling $6.4 million have been
awarded to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and 82
grants totaling $4.2 million have been awarded to museums.

Civil Penalties: The NPS has received six allegations, by private
individuals or tribes, regarding failure of a museum to comply with
the NAGPRA statute. Upon review, four cases did not appear to
constitute failure to comply, one case is currently under review, and
one case appears to warrant further investigation, for which the NPS
is currently soliciting information.

Regulations: A draft of the proposed regulations on future
applicability of the statute is currently being reviewed by the DOI.
Final regulations dealing with civil penalties have gone out for
public comment and are currently being developed as a final rule.
Mr. McManamon explained that the civil penalties were passed as an
interim regulation and were in force immediately, and he added that
penalties for museums found to be out of compliance are financial and
relate to the size of a museum‘s budget.

Technical Assistance

Training: Mr. McKeown explained that the University of Nevada at
Reno sponsors a NAGPRA training course taught by Judge Sherry Hutt and
Mr. McKeown, which is tentatively scheduled to be held five times in
the next fiscal year. Ms. Naranjo added that the Nevada workshop
trainings were a good way to consult with tribal people and
communities. Mr. O‘Shea suggested an abbreviated grant application
specifically to enable people to attend the workshops. Mr. McKeown
stated tuition waivers have been received through the Cultural
Resources Training Initiative within the NPS to ensure that tribes and
museums that receive grants through the NAGPRA program have the
opportunity to send a representative to these workshops. Mr. Minthorn
expressed concern about lack of adequate tribal consultation by
museums and universities resulting in incorrect determinations in
inventories regarding sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony,
and unassociated and associated funerary objects, which reflects a
need for training in this area.

World Wide Web: Ms. Schansberg stated that she has taken over World
Wide Web responsibilities for the NAGPRA program. She explained that
two sites are available. One is the NADB/NAGPRA site, which is
updated weekly and has listings of all published notices, Review
Committee meeting information and summaries, the statute, and
regulations. The other site is through the National Park Service CR
Web and has specific information relating to the NPS NAGPRA office,
the Review Committee, and grant information and applications. She
added that the NPS is in the process of developing a searchable
consultation database available through a Web interface, which will
hopefully be operational sometime in the summer of 1998.

Trafficking

Mr. McKeown stated that there had been developments in three cases
since the Washington, DC meeting. Mr. William Stevens pled guilty in
New York of trafficking in Native American human remains culturally
affiliated with the Peoria in one case and the Seminole Tribes in
another case, with sentencing to take place in June 1998. Mr. Richard
Corrow‘s petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme
Court. Mr. Rodney Tidwell was found guilty in December 1997 of
trafficking Hopi masks and sentenced on March 16, 1998 to 33 months
imprisonment and a $12,000 fine.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about the types of objects being
trafficked and inquired about possible Review Committee
recommendations regarding trafficking. Mr. Sullivan added a concern
that courts have been too lenient regarding trafficking violations,
and stated that the courts need to be made aware of the gravity of
these offenses. Mr. Sullivan added that tribal courts may be becoming
increasingly involved in handling these cases. Mr. Bradley stated
that he shared the concerns of Mr. Minthorn and Mr. Sullivan and asked
what the Review Committee members could do. Mr. McManamon stated that
publication of the successful cases where traffickers have been
apprehended and prosecuted, as well as individual Review Committee
members helping to make people aware of the trafficking prohibitions
and successful prosecutions, would be helpful.

Proposed Amendments

S. 110/H.R. 749: Mr. McManamon stated that at the time of the
Washington, DC meeting, the DOI was developing a position regarding
the two sets of proposed amendments. He explained that position was
not finalized due to lack of activity on the part of Congress
regarding the amendments and a lack of resources within the DOI. He
stated that the DOI would probably not work to develop a final
position on the amendments until Congress began to take some action.
Mr. Minthorn recommended that the DOI continue to form a position on
S. 110 and H.R. 749.

H.R. 2893: Mr. McManamon explained that a hearing was held on June
10th, 1998 on H.R. 2893, introduced by Representative Hastings from
the State of Washington. He stated that among the people giving
testimony were representatives from the Congress of American Indians,
Mr. Minthorn representing the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation, representatives of the Society for American Archaeology,
Mr. Phillip Walker, a former Review Committee member, representing the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Dr. James Chatters,
who was involved in the original discovery of the Kennewick human
remains, and Ms. Katherine Stevenson representing the DOI. He
summarized the DOI‘s position that while the DOI does not support the
current version of the amendment, the DOI recognizes that Congressman
Hastings is trying to address important issues. The DOI feels that
these issues can best be addressed through regulations and guidance,
and proposes development of additional guidance, in particular,
specific activities agencies need to undertake in cases of inadvertent
discoveries or planned excavations.

Discussion of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains Issues from the
Washington, DC Meeting

Ms. Naranjo asked for an update regarding requests brought before the
Review Committee at the Washington, DC meeting from the California
State Parks, Fort Clatsop, the State of Iowa and the State of
Minnesota. Mr. McManamon replied that regarding the California State
Parks, a letter has been sent asking that additional consultation
occur related to the human remains; regarding Fort Clatsop, the NPS is
working with the Bureau of Acknowledgment and Research, Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), on identifying additional parties that should be
consulted to resolve the issue; and regarding the States of Iowa and
Minnesota, the NPS is currently evaluating the inventory information
that was received from both states.

Review of Minutes of Washington, DC Meeting

The Review Committee members agreed unanimously to approve the minutes
of the Washington, DC meeting on January 29, 30, and 31, 1998, with
minor typographical changes.

Discussion on Federal Agency Compliance

Mr. Sullivan explained that the issue of Federal agency compliance has
been a past concern of the Review Committee members and was mentioned
in the Report to Congress by the members of the previous Review
Committee. Concern about lack of agency compliance was so great that
within the Report to Congress, the Review Committee recommended ‘that
the Secretary of the Interior take appropriate steps to ensure that
its agencies, particularly the Bureau of Land Management, immediately
come into full compliance with NAGPRA. It also recommends to Congress
that hearings should be held to request a full explanation from all
the agencies that did not meet the November 16th, 1995 deadline for
submitting inventories and gain assurance that these agencies will
comply with NAGPRA in the future.‘

At the Washington, DC meeting a number of Federal agencies gave
presentations to the Review Committee outlining their compliance with
the statute. At that time, Mr. Bradley expressed a number of comments
and concerns, which were shared by the other Review Committee members,
regarding the issue of Federal agency compliance, as follows:
Mr. Bradley expressed an appreciation for the number of Federal
agencies reporting to the Review Committee, but stated what was not
clear was the difference between the perceived level of compliance at
the top of agencies and the reality of compliance at the field levels.
He stated the major agencies the Review Committee members should focus
on are the DOI, the NPS and the BLM; DOD, Army, Army Corps of
Engineers, Navy and Marines; the USDA, the NFS. He stated four major
issues seemed to occur in the discussions: one, NAGPRA compliance must
be an agency priority; two, agencies need to understand that
compliance goes beyond the documentary requirements of NAGPRA and
includes long-term tribal consultation on a government-to-government
basis and following the requirements of the inadvertent discoveries
section of NAGPRA; three, agencies have a lot of opportunity for
interagency cooperation and assistance, including databases, training
workshops and guidance; and four, agencies should be able to cooperate
in funding strategies. Mr. O‘Shea added that accountability goes
along with consultation and needs to be considered. The Review
Committee members discussed different strategies at the Washington, DC
meeting to deal with the issue, including continuing to call
noncompliance to the attention of the Secretary of the Interior and
continuing to look to the Congressional Oversight Committee as a forum
to address issues of noncompliance.

Mr. O‘Shea stated that another issue regarding Federal agency
compliance is a jurisdictional issue of one governmental agency trying
to enforce compliance on other administratively equal agencies. He
added that the Review Committee members might be able to help the DOI
in terms of monitoring compliance with NAGPRA. Mr. Sullivan agreed
and added the next step in ensuring Federal agency compliance might be
to involve Congressional Oversight Committees.

Mr. Bradley stated that the General Services Administration (GSA)
reported at the Washington, DC meeting that they had no NAGPRA
collections, and he asked under which entities would collections by
the Works Progress Administration (WPA) fall. Mr. McManamon stated
that responsibility for WPA collections would depend on the contract
between the Federal government and the state or local historical
society or university for each particular project.

Review Committee members discussed methods to improve Federal agency
compliance, including encouraging additional funding for agencies,
noting Federal agency noncompliance in the Review Committee‘s Report
to Congress, creating an annual report on the progress of Federal
agency compliance, and individually bringing the issue to the
attention of Congressional representatives in order to promote a
Congressional Oversight Hearing on the subject. The Review Committee
members asked the NPS staff to create a report with a cover letter
from the Review Committee detailing the presentations made by Federal
agencies at the Washington, DC meeting and outlining the status of
agency compliance, which would be sent to the Secretary of the
Interior.

Discussion on Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Review of the Review Committee‘s Obligations and Constraints: Ms.
Carla Mattix explained that the Review Committee is charged both in
the statute and in their Charter with compiling an inventory of
culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or
control of each Federal agency and museum and recommending specific
actions for developing a process for disposition of such human
remains.

Request from Sonoma State University: Mr. McKeown explained that Ms.
Seana Gause from the Anthropological Studies Center at Sonoma State
University asked for a recommendation regarding the disposition of 145
individuals and 224 associated funerary objects that were excavated
from ten sites in Sonoma County and Marin County, California. The
University of Sonoma State contends that the human remains are
culturally affiliated with the Federated Coast Me-Wuk, a non-Federally
recognized Indian group in that area. Information was presented to
the Review Committee regarding the cultural history of the Federated
Coast Me-Wuk, which identifies the population back to 2500 B.P.
Mr. McKeown explained that four of the sites have date information,
which are all within the historical time period going back to 2500
B.P. He added that the Federated Coast Me-Wuk have filed a letter of
intent with the BIA Acknowledgment and Research Branch and are also in
the process of seeking reinstatement as a Federally recognized tribe
through Congress. The representatives of Sonoma State University feel
that disposition of these human remains and associated funerary
objects should be to the Federated Coast Me-Wuk, and are seeking a
recommendation from the Review Committee.

Mr. O‘Shea expressed concern for the idea that for some sites the only
basis for cultural affiliation was geographical location and for the
claim that only Federated Coast Me-Wuk have lived in the area, going
back into the Archaic period, and he asked if there was traditional
information to support this claim. Ms. Fuller explained that
traditionally Me-Wuk people are taught that they have been in the area
since time immemorial. Mr. O‘Shea also asked about information the
Review Committee members received containing a discussion of the
linguistic sequence of the area, which suggested in-migration and
displacement of certain people. Ms. Fuller replied that changes in
language could be explained by natural evolution.

Mr. Bradley asked for a brief historical and archaeological summary of
the area. Mr. Kelly gave a brief description of the area and stated
that technological patterns, settlement, subsistence, and economic
ties have demonstrated records of at least two or three millennia in
length supporting cultural affiliation for that length of time.
Mr. Minthorn stated that he agreed with Ms. Geri Emberson, an
ethnographic consultant, who wrote a letter to the Review Committee
stating that these human remains are associated with the Federated
Coast Me-Wuk, which is supported through extensive research conducted
for the purpose of Federal recognition of the group. Mr. Bradley and
Mr. O‘Shea both commented that insufficient evidence was presented to
indicate cultural affiliation of all of the human remains and
associated funerary objects in question with the Federated Coast Me-
Wuk people. Mr. O‘Shea added that in some of the later sites, a
strong case could be made based on the ethnographic and traditional
accounts, and he also suggested one solution would be to allow the
group to acquire Federally recognized status and then petition in
their own right through normal NAGPRA procedures.

Mr. Roger Kelly, Park Service Archeologist, San Francisco office,
described a cooperative agreement between Reyes National Seashore, the
Federated Coast Me-Wuk and Ms. Theodoratus for a cultural affiliation
study relative to the Seashore, to gather documentation about the
Federated Coast Me-Wuk community in its current form and to obtain
genealogical and other historical information supporting affiliation
of the members of the Federated Coast Me-Wuk with the land in
question. Ms. Fuller, Central Sierra Me-Wuk, stated she represents
five groups in a four-county area that have worked with the Federated
Coast Me-Wuk, and they acknowledge the cultural affiliation of the
Federated Coast Me-Wuk with this specific group of collections.
Mr. Kelly added that since European contact in the area in 1579-1595,
there has been known occupation of this area solely by the Federated
Coast Me-Wuk.

Ms. Naranjo observed that no representatives of either the Federated
Coast Me-Wuk or Sonoma State University were present, and added that
the Review Committee members could choose to make a decision at the
next meeting and ask the representatives to attend. Mr. O‘Shea added
that following past Review Committee recommendations, the Review
Committee members could request letters from Federally recognized
tribes in the area endorsing this disposition. Ms. Theodoratus stated
that area Federally recognized tribes and Federally recognized Me-Wuk
tribes would include the ten tribe consortium of the Mendocino Pomo,
the Marin County Coast Me-Wuk, the Lake Me-Wuk on Clear Lake, and
several Sierran Me-Wuk tribes.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about separating the sites due to the
possibility of separating artifacts and human remains, and he added
that did occur in his tribe, which caused the need for additional
ceremonies in order to return associated funerary objects to the human
remains. Mr. Bradley stated that the way the law was defined, the
human remains and associated funerary objects have to be considered
separately in any event, because if the human remains were returned to
a non-Federally recognized tribe, the human remains would be
considered culturally unidentifiable. Mr. O‘Shea asked if the law
would prohibit museums from voluntarily repatriating associated
funerary objects with culturally unidentifiable human remains.
Mr. McManamon stated that the law does not specifically preclude
voluntarily returning the items, but added that the NPS would need to
look into the matter in greater detail.

Ms. Naranjo requested that the NPS send a letter to representatives of
Sonoma State University on behalf of the Review Committee.
Mr. McManamon summarized the contents of the letter, as follows: A
statement that some of the information about the human remains was
insufficient, and a request for additional information, specifically
regarding the older sites; a request for additional descriptive
information specific to the sites and to the burials, including
information regarding artifacts; a request for information about
chronology and potential cultural affiliation with the Federated Coast
Me-Wuk from any available scientific information, as well as any
available traditional stories and history; a request for written
agreement from the existing Federally recognized tribes in the
immediate areas surrounding the site locations; and finally, a
statement that the Review Committee members plan to address this issue
at its next meeting and would appreciate the presence of tribal and
university representatives.

Discussion by Review Committee Members: Mr. Bradley stated that any
recommendations that the Review Committee members make regarding
culturally unidentifiable human remains need to be doable,
enforceable, and equitable. Mr. Bradley summarized four categories of
culturally unidentifiable human remains, and added that by placing
culturally unidentifiable human remains in different categories, there
may be different classes of solutions for dealing with the human
remains. The categories of culturally unidentifiable human remains
include those for which there is insufficient provenience information,
those for which a non-Federally recognized tribe is culturally
affiliated with the human remains, those from a clearly identifiable
archaeological population for which there is no present-day tribe, and
those from an archaeological population with insufficient evidence to
establish cultural affiliation with a present-day Federally recognized
tribe due to time depth or other factors.

Ms. Naranjo asked whether unclaimed human remains would fit under the
third category. Mr. Bradley responded that unclaimed human remains
have a separate definition under the inadvertent discoveries section
of the statute and should be considered separately from the list
culturally unidentifiable human remains categories. Mr. Sullivan
added that some human remains are considered unclaimed because the
tribe with whom they are culturally affiliated does not seek to return
or rebury them; that is a question of disposition rather than
identification and would not fall under the responsibility of the
Review Committee.

Mr. O‘Shea pointed out that in three of the four categories of
culturally unidentifiable human remains, the status of unidentified
may be transitory. Mr. Minthorn stated that he has been told many
times by Indian people that if human remains are Native American, they
are sacred and need to be treated accordingly, and he still agrees
with the principle stated in the past by the Review Committee,
‘Ultimately, decisions about what happens to human remains of Native
American individuals from anywhere in the United States and associated
funerary objects should rest in the hands of Native Americans.‘

Mr. Hart asked about the status of the Tallbull Summit. Mr. Sullivan
stated that the Tallbull Summit will occur due to a grant through the
Repatriation Grant Program at the NPS, and through the efforts of the
School of Law at Arizona State University and the Heard Museum.
Mr. Sullivan explained that whatever draft statements or
recommendations were developed by the Review Committee members at the
Portland, Oregon meeting, as well as past drafts, would be considered
at the Tallbull Summit. The goal of the Tallbull Summit is to develop
a report to present to the Review Committee and the NAGPRA Program
staff identifying where there is consensus about definitions, goals
and problem resolutions, and also to define areas of and reasons for
nonconsensus.

The Review Committee members and the NPS staff reviewed the June 12,
1998 memo from the NPS to the Review Committee regarding discussion of
culturally unidentifiable human remains (See Attachment 1). The
following comments were made regarding the memo. Regarding question
number three, ‘Was the separation of associated funerary objects from
culturally unidentifiable human remains in section 8 a drafting error
or a deliberate compromise,‘ Mr. McKeown added that the fact the text
appears more or less unchanged through the national dialogue and all
versions of the bill suggests it was drafted deliberately; however,
since some parties agreed, some did not comment, and some disagreed
suggests that it was not a compromise. Ms. Mattix agreed with
Mr. Bradley‘s statement that associated funerary objects were not
included by design and a statutory amendment would be necessary to
change that. Mr. Sullivan stated that as a member of the Panel for
the National Dialogue and after speaking with Mr. Walter Echo Hawk,
also a member of the Panel, he did not think there was a deliberate
exclusion, but for whatever reason the issue was not considered.
Mr. Minthorn recommended that the Review Committee members recommend a
statutory change regarding this issue. Mr. Sullivan added that was
one of the recommendations in the Review Committee‘s Report to
Congress.

Ms. Naranjo expressed concern about the offensive nature of the term
‘property.‘ Mr. Bradley explained that he was seeking clarification
of whether funerary objects are considered part of the burial or
property, since these two classifications are treated differently
under the law. Mr. Sullivan added that some state laws consider
funerary objects as part of burials, which is a compelling argument
for Congress to amend the statute and include funerary objects with
unidentifiable human remains.

Regarding the response to question four, Mr. Minthorn pointed out the
offensive nature of the excerpt from House Report 101-877, ‘There is a
general disagreement on the proper disposition of such unidentifiable
human remains. Some believe that they should be left solely to
science while others contend that, since they are not identifiable,
they would be of little use to science and should be buried and laid
to rest.‘ Regarding question and response five, Mr. O‘Shea asked
about the Review Committee‘s ability to recommend universal
repatriation of all human remains in non-Federal museums, specifically
concerning Fifth Amendment takings issues. Ms. Mattix stated that
right of possession and accessioning issues would have to be
considered. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the transfer of custody of
human remains might be considered differently from funerary objects
and would not fall under the takings provision.

Mr. Sullivan gave a brief review of discussions by the previous Review
Committee members regarding the issue of culturally unidentifiable
human remains. Two sets of draft recommendations were developed and
published in the Federal Register, in June 1995 and in August 1996.
Each set received a number of comments, both for and against the main
concepts expressed in each. At the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
meeting, Review Committee members expressed frustration and
dissatisfaction with the process of developing regulations and
subsequently developed the idea for the Tallbull Summit. Mr. Sullivan
concluded that the previous Review Committee members maintained
consensus throughout the process on certain concepts, including: one,
ultimately, because these are the human remains of Native people, the
resolution ought to be in the hands of Native people; two, a decision
needs to be made about whether the associated funerary objects are
covered within the realm of recommendations; and three, that those
groups that for genuine historical reasons have affiliation but are
not Federally recognized need to be brought into the process.

Mr. Bradley reminded the other Review Committee members about their
actions at the Washington, DC meeting in January 1998 regarding the
requests from the States of Iowa and Minnesota to continue the
repatriation of culturally unidentified human remains under the
authority of their own state statutes. At that time, the Review
Committee members endorsed and recommended approval of the requests
with three provisions; appropriate documentation be provided by all
Federally recognized tribes within those jurisdictions concurring with
the plans for repatriation, information recorded on culturally
unidentifiable human remains be considered public information, and
requests need to comply with all technical aspects of NAGPRA.

Mr. Bradley presented a draft set of principles for discussion, as
follows: one, the intent of the statute is clear, that the title of
the Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
makes fairly clear what the intent of the statute is, which is the
appropriate repatriation or disposition of Native American human
remains and cultural objects; two, cultural affiliation may not be the
sole basis by which decisions of repatriation or disposition are made;
three, there are at least four categories of culturally unidentifiable
human remains, which suggest probably more than one way in which
decisions on repatriation or disposition can be made; four, through
the Review Committee members‘ actions at the Washington, DC meeting
regarding the requests of the States of Iowa and Minnesota, one
possible model for the process of disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains was developed; five, the Review Committee
members need to continue to find appropriate ways for non-Federally
recognized tribes to be involved in the process of disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains; six, recommendations on the
repatriation or disposition of associated funerary objects is at
present not within the Review Committee‘s charge; and seven,
ultimately, the decisions on repatriation and disposition of human
remains and cultural objects should rest primarily in the hands of
Native people.

The Review Committee members then discussed the draft set of
principles submitted by Mr. Bradley and from that developed a draft
set of principles of agreement and other issues of discussion to be
presented at the Tallbull Summit as a basis for dialogue (see
Attachment 2).

The Review Committee members individually added numerous thoughts to
the discussion. Mr. Hart and Mr. Minthorn stated that the appropriate
repatriation of ‘all‘ Native American human remains needs to be
accomplished. Mr. O‘Shea stated that he did not agree with the
statement that ‘Ultimately the decisions on repatriation and
disposition of human remains and cultural objects should rest in the
hands of Native people.‘ Mr. Minthorn stressed the importance of good
faith efforts on the part of museums, institutions, and Federal
agencies to consult with tribes. Mr. O‘Shea pointed out that a
determination of culturally unidentifiable is not a permanent
determination, that tribes may come forward at a later date with
additional information to help determine cultural affiliation.
Mr. Hart stated that the word ‘repatriation‘ needs to be used instead
of the term ‘disposition.‘ Mr. Bradley replied that the word
‘disposition‘ most closely follows the wording of the law.
Ms. Naranjo agreed with Mr. Hart‘s concern, but suggested a definition
for the word ‘disposition‘ might clarify the issue.

Ms. Naranjo stated she wanted further discussion on inclusion of the
statement that ‘Ultimately the decisions on repatriation and
disposition of human remains and cultural objects should rest in the
hands of Native people.‘ Mr. Hart and Mr. Minthorn agreed with Ms.
Naranjo, while Mr. O‘Shea and Mr. Bradley were not comfortable with
the wording of that statement. The Review Committee members discussed
the issue and decided that while they would not reach an agreement at
the Portland, Oregon meeting, they agreed that the principle ‘What
happens to the remains of Native American individuals from anywhere in
the United States should rest in the hands of Native Americans‘ would
remain an ongoing discussion.

Mr. Minthorn stressed that culturally unidentifiable remains are
sacred, holy human remains, and are no less deserving of respect and
dignity. Mr. McManamon cautioned against using the term ‘sacred,‘
since it has a very special meaning within the statute and the
regulations. Mr. Hart pointed out that historically, some tribal
groups were deliberately exterminated and such human remains may be
part of the unidentifiable groups.

Using information from the NPS database inventory report dated January
28th, 1998, which contained no entries from the Pacific Northwest or
the Mid-Atlantic states, Mr. McKeown gave approximate percentages of
culturally unidentifiable human remains for each of the four
categories, as follows: human remains culturally affiliated with a
non-Federally recognized Indian group (all from California), 8.54
percent; human remains from an earlier group with no known culturally
affiliated Indian tribe, 13.6 percent; ancient human remains, 16.36
percent; and human remains with no provenience (includes ‘unknown‘
earlier group and determination based only on aboriginal territory),
61.48 percent. He added that the database contained information from
25 institutions and the sample was based on 3,007 individual human
remains.

Implementation of the Statute in the Pacific Northwest

Dr. James Nason, Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, stated
the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum was established 113
years ago by the state legislature and is a museum of natural history
and culture, whose primary mission and focus deals with the Pacific,
the Pacific Rim and the Northwestern Region of North America. The
Washington State Museum has received two NAGPRA grants to facilitate
implementation of NAGPRA. The first grant provided funds for
consultation visits from at least two tribal representatives from
every tribe in Washington State and the adjoining areas to review
collections and records relevant to the tribes. The first grant also
provided funds for the Washington State Museum to generate and
distribute to each tribe detailed inventory data for all ethnographic
holdings that might be or were known to be affiliated or relevant to
each tribe. This allowed the tribes to be better prepared for their
consultation visits. The second grant provided resources to
facilitate discussions with respect to archaeological site materials
and identification of sacred objects, and the issues surrounding those
objects, particularly collection management and conservation.

To date, four claims for repatriation from Washington State and two
claims from other tribes in the United States have been finalized.
Approximately 42,000 staff hours have been expended on activities
directly related to NAGPRA. While grants have provided for some staff
resources, the majority came from the activities of state-funded
staff, who have carried out NAGPRA work in addition to their other
duties, and graduate students and work study students from the
University of Washington. There is an even more substantial need for
additional resources for tribes for ongoing NAGPRA work, including
staff and operations, reburial and related research costs. Funds are
also needed for area tribes trying to establish tribal museum and
cultural heritage centers. In addition to repatriation, these tribal
institutions have broadly strengthened the whole museum community and
its educational impact on the community, and have led to the
facilitation of important research projects jointly between tribal and
nontribal institutions.

Dr. Nason concluded that NAGPRA has helped the Washington State Museum
formalize policies about the acquisition, maintenance, and exhibition
of Native American materials; it has led to an ongoing reexamination
of collections, with redocumentation adding significantly to knowledge
about materials; it has increased public awareness about central
issues involved in Native American heritage, which in turn has led to
voluntary donations of material specifically for the purpose of
repatriation; it has generated important new archival and field
research opportunities for tribal and nontribal scholars; and it has
led to new discussions about the impact of culturally sensitive
objects not currently covered under NAGPRA, including historic
photographs and tape recordings.

Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the hard work and the progress
made by the museum.

Ms. Marilyn Malatare, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation,
explained that after becoming the curator of the Yakama Nation Museum
in 1993, she held a one-day seminar on NAGPRA, with Dr. James Nason
and Ms. Kathleen Duncan among the presenters. After the seminar, the
elders came away with knowledge and a good feeling about NAGPRA. The
Yakama Nation has worked with the University of Oregon, the University
of Washington, the United States Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla Corps
of Engineers, the BLM, the Smithsonian, and the Warm Springs Tribe.
Two Corps of Engineers facility visits, at the University of Oregon
and the University of Washington, went very well, were well organized,
and had excellent staff support and respect. She stated the Yakama
Nation has yet to do any repatriations, but they are moving in a
positive way regarding NAGPRA. She said the Yakama Nation
participated in a grant with Dr. James Nason and the Burke Museum and
the American Association of State and Local History, and are working
jointly to form the American Indian Museum Association to work with
Native cultural centers and Native American run museums across the
nation dealing with NAGPRA.

Mr. Tim Batin, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation, explained
that he is studying to become an archaeologist and is working at the
Yakama Nation Museum. He stated that he has learned a great deal and
his greatest resource has been the elders, and expressed concern that
their oral history is trivialized. He explained the progress the
Yakama Nation Museum has made through the efforts of Ms. Malatare and
others, and added that the younger generations were also encouraged to
pursue fields such as archaeology in order to deal with this issue on
a professional level. Mr. Batin expressed appreciation for the work
of the Review Committee members, and their attempts to see both the
cultural and professional sides regarding NAGPRA. He stated that the
Yakama Nation also has had negative experience with the University of
California Berkeley (as described by Ms. Fuller), and added that the
Yakama Nation will write a letter in support of the Central Sierra Me-
Wuk against UC Berkeley, which they will submit to the Review
Committee.

Mr. Bradley thanked Ms. Malatare and Mr. Batin for their presentations
and expressed appreciation for their efforts and results. Mr. Hart
clarified that the statute does elevate oral history to the same
status as written records.

Kathleen Duncan, Jamestown S‘Klallam Tribe, explained that she works
under a grant from the NPS and represents the Jamestown S‘Klallam
Tribe, the Elwha Klallam Tribe, and Port Gamble S‘Klallam Tribe in
repatriation issues. She stated that with each museum she has worked
with, she has requested additional information and has sent
information, including tribal territorial maps, and added that her
tribe has some overlapping territory with a tribe that is considered
extinct. The Quileute, a neighboring tribe, is linguistically related
to the extinct tribe, and the parties have worked out an agreement to
repatriate human remains from the extinct tribe to the territory that
they came from.

When working with museums and institutions, Ms. Duncan requests that
any sensitive information provided be kept confidential and be
returned to the tribe upon completion of the NAGPRA process. She has
implemented a database program to allow for efficient data exchange
among the three tribes, as well as fulfilling speaking engagements,
both tribal and public, to inform people about NAGPRA. To date,
repatriations have occurred from three museums and six more are
ongoing. Ms. Duncan reported only one area of concern, when museums
send information to tribes and presume to know more about the object
than tribal people. Otherwise, working with museums has been a very
positive, respectful experience.

Ms. Metcalf stated she was encouraged after hearing about this group‘s
successful work, sharing of resources, and positive experiences with
museums.

Ms. Peachie Hamm, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community,
stated that she was chair of the Grand Ronde Tribe culture board,
established in 1996. The aim of the culture board is to recognize,
affirm, and collaborate the historical and contemporary cultural
achievements of the Grand Ronde people; to preserve and perpetuate
their culture with other groups and individuals with similar aims; and
to collect, preserve, and interpret articles of cultural patrimony, as
well as documents, language, oral history, songs and dances. The
culture board has been active in repatriation efforts and have worked
with several institutions. Their goal is to complete a museum, which
will be a working museum with workshops featuring cultural projects
and language.

Donald Ivy, Coquille Indian Tribe, stated that he admired and
respected the Review Committee members for their dedication and
commitment to their task. He commended their tolerance and patience
with views that were clearly at times different from their personal
views. The Coquille Indian Tribe is a tribe that was restored to
Federal recognition in 1989 through a combination of western Oregon
Indian groups. The Coquille Indian Tribe has received two NPS grants
that allowed tribal representatives to travel on the West Coast to
museums who, as a result of information provided to the tribe, may
have had objects and items affiliated with the Coquille Indian Tribe.
As a result of that repatriation project, a set of human remains will
be repatriated from the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History
in 1998. Other human remains at the University of Oregon and the
Oregon State University have been determined to be Coquille and will
be returned.

Mr. Ivy stated that he will report back to his tribe that NAGPRA is a
good tool and the Review Committee is a group of people interested in
what tribes and institutions have to say regarding this issue. He
will recommend that his tribe send a letter acknowledging the need for
more resources for the Review Committee, the NPS, tribes, museums and
Federal agencies. Mr. Ivy asked the Review Committee members to
recommend that for whatever reason human remains remain in collections
that they be cared for in a more respectful way than in boxes on
shelves and in cubby holes. He stated he will recommend that his
tribe send a letter to the Review Committee with advice to heed
suggestions regarding the process of implementing NAGPRA, such as
using a regional approach in order to help solve issues that are
relevant only in certain geographical areas of the country.

Ms. Pamela Endzweig, University of Oregon Museum of Natural
History/Oregon State Museum of Anthropology, explained that the museum
was legislated in 1935 as the official repository for anthropological
materials held by the State of Oregon, and holdings today include
ethnographic and archaeological collections. The museum‘s NAGPRA
compliance was initiated upon passage of the law in 1990 and was
supported by a NPS grant. Summaries were mailed to approximately 200
tribal groups, with about two dozen responses received initially and a
small amount continuing to arrive. Preliminary inventories for human
remains and funerary objects were mailed in 1995 and resulted in
museum visits by representatives from seven of the nine Federally
recognized Oregon tribes and one Washington tribe, with more visits
planned. The museum staff found these visits to be positive
experiences, and appreciated the opportunity to share information,
experiences, and concerns. The museum has completed one repatriation
to date, and several more await processing of submitted notices by the
NPS.

Ms. Endzweig stated that one of the main challenges the museum faces
is the reconciliation of obligations to Federal land-holding agencies
with obligations to the tribes. The Federal agencies determine the
disposition of collections from their respective lands and conduct
NAGPRA-related negotiations with the tribes. One of the initial
efforts of the museum was to determine both the agency affiliation and
the cultural affiliation of all holdings. While the museum‘s efforts
have generally been successful, special care is required to maintain
communications with all parties involved and to avoid the impression
to the tribes that the museum is shirking responsibility. Another
area of challenge may occur with competing claims of area tribes who
have overlapping cultural affiliation; however, the museum anticipates
the resolution will be negotiated among the relevant tribes without
involving the museum or the NPS. Ms. Endzweig commended the work of
the Review Committee members, and expressed appreciation for the
public forum which allows for public participation.

Dale Ann Sherman, Yurok Nation, thanked the Review Committee members
for having the meeting on the West Coast and for their efforts
regarding NAGPRA. She stated that on June 26th, 1998, she watched
President Clinton give a speech to the Chinese government in which he
admonished them to treat their people with civil rights, respect,
dignity, freedom, and equality. She stated it was ironic that the
first people of this continent have to come before the Review
Committee and beg for their ancestors‘ remains to be returned with
dignity. She asked the Review Committee members to interpret NAGPRA
as something that can be a win-win situation for tribes and museums;
all tribes are asking for is the chance to get back their ancestral
remains and bury them with respect. She stated that museums look at
NAGPRA from a scientific viewpoint but that has to be weighed against
possible benefits, and she asked of what benefit is the study of the
Kennewick man, regardless of his origin, he deserves to be buried with
respect. NAGPRA is a law that was passed to empower both sides and
has been called a compromise, but the Native Americans are the people
who compromise. Native Americans only want to rebury their ancestors
and be empowered with the sacred. She again urged the Review
Committee members to look at NAGPRA as a way for all to win.

Recommendation for Future Funding

In response to the backlog of work necessary to the implementation of
NAGPRA within the NPS Archaeology and Ethnography Program, the Review
Committee members drafted a letter to the Secretary of the Interior
requesting additional funding for the NPS staff to help in the
implementation of NAGPRA. A copy of this letter was submitted to
Mr. McManamon, which will be forwarded to the Secretary of the
Interior.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the Review Committee members tentatively set the
next meeting for November or December, 1998 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Ms. Naranjo noted that the Review Committee members appreciated the
invitation from the State of Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and
would consider that location for a later meeting.

Letter from Ms. Betty Washburn

Mr. McManamon summarized the situation with regard to the Satanta
shield currently in the possession of the P.A. Hearst Museum. Ms.
Washburn, who is the representative of the descendants of Satanta,
initially made the argument that the shield was a sacred object and an
object of cultural patrimony, and should be returned to the
descendants of Satanta. At that time, the Review Committee members
made a determination that based on the statute, the shield did not fit
the definition of sacred object or object of cultural patrimony, and
that the information provided by the P.A. Hearst Museum was a good
indication of right of possession on the part of the museum. The
Review Committee members stated they were sympathetic to the concerns
of the Satanta descendants and to the tribes that supported their
position, and wrote to the museum suggesting a possible long-term loan
of the shield to the Fort Sill Museum in Oklahoma. The current letter
from Ms. Washburn in part is asking the Review Committee members to
take whatever steps possible to support that action.

Mr. Minthorn stated that he believed the shield was a sacred item and
an object of cultural patrimony, and explained that ‘sacred‘ can have
different meanings for different tribes, which are very hard for
nontribal people to understand. In the absence of additional
information, the Review Committee members did not discuss further
details of the situation. Mr. McManamon agreed that the NPS would
work with the Review Committee Chair to develop a response to Ms.
Washburn‘s letter, stating that the issue does not fall within the
purview of the statute, but the Review Committee members sympathize
with the descendants of Satanta and inviting them to make a
presentation to the Review Committee at the Santa Fe meeting. A
letter would be sent to the P.A. Hearst Museum asking whether the
museum has come to any decisions regarding a loan to the Fort Sill
Museum.

Public Comment

Central Sierra Me-Wuk Cultural Committee

Ms. Reba Fuller, NAGPRA Project Director for the Central Sierra Me-Wuk
Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee, explained the current
situation regarding efforts to work with the University of California
Berkeley (UCB) and the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, through
the NPS NAGPRA Grant program, to address cultural affiliation for the
Sierran and Plains Me-Wuk collections. She stated that her committee
requested two conditions before agreeing to participate in the grant,
to which the museum agreed: one, the museum must recall all relevant
collections on loan, and two, access to these collections must be
restricted for consultation purposes. Subsequent to receiving the
grant, UCB did not meet the conditions requested by the committee.
The committee then requested a meeting with UCB administration
officials, which took place on June 11, 1997. At the meeting the UCB
administration‘s position became clear on three points: one, failure
to support the museum‘s request to recall a loan collection for which
the loan agreement had expired; two, support of a tenured professor‘s
possible illegal possession of said collections without a full
academic hearing; and three, to interpret reasonable access as
restricted access. She also explained that UCB stated they had no
repatriation committee or policy regarding the use of Native American
human remains for teaching. The Central Sierra Me-Wuk Cultural and
Historic Preservation Committee has two concerns; one, the UCB has
consistently and purposely evaded responsibility for implementing
NAGPRA, and two, actions preventing representation of California
Indians‘ interests at a recent UCB Academic Senate hearing reflect a
prejudice toward California Indians by UCB. Ms. Fuller concluded by
saying that her committee has found NAGPRA, though flawed, to be one
of the most significant pieces of legislation pertaining to Indian
rights.

Dr. Dorothea Theodoratus, consultant for the Central Sierra Me-Wuk
Cultural and Historic Preservation Committee, stated the allegations
presented by Ms. Fuller on behalf of the Sierra Me-Wuk were true, and
she supports their claims. She explained that she and a colleague,
Dr. Michael Moratto, both experienced a negative change of attitude on
the part of UCB when they went to UCB on the behalf of the Sierra Me-
Wuk. She stated that UCB is a university that is founded on
Californian Indian history and culture. UCB encourages demostrations
of local culture, but are unable to speak to tribes on a government-
to-government basis. Both Ms. Fuller and Dr. Theodoratus expressed
the hope that bringing this issue to the Review Committee members‘
attention would aid in the future claims of other tribes at the
University of California.

Mr. Bradley asked the NPS if the situation would be likely to result
in a dispute and expressed hope that the situation is not as bad as
presented, and if it is that people can learn and do better. Mr.
McManamon replied the NPS will be reviewing the situation.

Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation Committee

Dr. David Grignon, member of the Menominee Nation of Wisconsin, and
chairman of the Wisconsin Intertribal Reinterment Committee, explained
that the Wisconsin Intertribal Reinterment Committee is a coalition of
Wisconsin‘s 11 tribes and bands. The committee‘s main objective is to
repatriate all unidentified Native American human remains from the
state of Wisconsin and to reinter them in a neutral burial place in
their state. The committee is opposed to all types of scientific
study conducted on Native American human remains. The committee is
currently working on a grant from the NPS and will hire a coordinator
to create a database of unidentified Native American human remains.
The Menominee Nation Tribal Elders committee recently approved a plan
for the repatriation of Menominee human remains and have designated a
burial site on their reservation. He stated regarding the case of
Kennewick man, the committee believes he should be given back to the
Native people in the Northwest and placed back in the earth.
Mr. Grignon hoped the NAGPRA Review Committee can create policies and
procedures making the process easier for tribes and coalitions to
repatriate unidentified human remains.

Mr. Elgin Crows Breast, Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota and
member of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment Committee, which
is comprised of four North Dakota Tribes, recommended that
unidentifiable Native American human remains be returned to the tribes
based upon their aboriginal homelands, his being Wyoming, South
Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota. He expressed concern over Senator
Hastings‘ bill to amend NAGPRA granting the scientific community
precedent over Native Americans and an added concern that unidentified
Native American human remains would not be returned. He stated that
tribes need to have a voice in this issue. Under an Executive Order
signed by President Clinton in 1995, tribes are to be consulted on a
government-to-government basis. Mr. Crows Breast explained that he
would like help from the Review Committee to rebury these human
remains, and he added that to date he has participated in 4, 500
reburials.

Ms. Myra Giesen, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Bureau of Reclamation,
asked about the makeup of the participants in the Tallbull Summit and
strongly suggested that Federal agencies have representation at the
Summit. In the alternative, Federal agencies should be allowed to
comment on the results of the Summit. Ms. Naranjo stated that Ms.
Giesen‘s suggestion would be forwarded to Ms. Rebecca Tsosie and
Mr. Sullivan, who are coordinating the Summit.

Ms. Adeline Fredin, Colville Confederated Tribes, stated that Native
American tribes have the opportunity to object to the idea that the
Review Committee can set a standard by which tribes cannot claim their
ancestry, i.e., a date 2,000 or 5,000 years ago, and she objected to
the fact that human remains outside of the standard would be subject
to scientific research. If the Review Committee members support such
a standard, then they are not representing the interest of the tribes.
She did not believe NAGPRA was drafted to set aside a percentage of
repatriation materials for any reason. If the Review Committee
members have a different criteria, other than repatriation of all
human remains and associated funerary objects, then they need to make
that known. Tribes also need the opportunity to describe their
aboriginal territory based on ancestral information; even though many
tribes were moved involuntarily from their aboriginal lands, they
still have sacred ties. She expressed concern that provisions are
made for institutional discussions of human remains, but no provisions
are made for traditional discussion on an equal level and accorded the
same weight.

Ms. Carla High Eagle, Nez Pierce Tribe and Nez Pierce Tribal Executive
Committee, thanked the Review Committee for the opportunity to share
her opinions regarding NAGPRA. NAGPRA was designed to provide equal
protection for Native American graves and repatriation and was needed
to address the growing embarrassment and offensiveness of US policy
that allowed desecration of Native American graves. She stated the
issues of culturally unidentifiable being interpreted to exclude
funerary objects and the idea that Native American people will
ultimately decide disposition of Native American human remains were
not given the same interpretations by the Review Committee in its
discussions at the meeting that Native American value has. She
stressed the importance of the Review Committee members‘
responsibility and opportunity to provide review and recommendations
to Congress on how the NAGPRA process should and could be improved.

Mr. Frederick Ike, Sr., Yakama Indian Nation, stated the people that
made this law do not understand Native American beliefs, rituals,
traditions and customs. He expressed concern over the offensiveness
of the term ‘disposition,‘ stating that it depersonalizes or
dehumanizes human remains and implies disposing of an object or a
piece of property no longer needed or wanted. The statutory term is
‘repatriation,‘ to return or repatriate, which should be used instead
of disposition.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum at Harvard University, explained
that the Peabody Museum has a large number of human remains in their
care, and they will be working with a large number of tribes across
the United States in terms of considering the cultural affiliation of
these collections. She agreed with Mr. Bradley that the process for
determining cultural affiliation needs to be doable, and suggested
using a regional approach. She agreed with Mr. O‘Shea that a
determination of culturally unidentifiable for human remains, even if
the geographic location is known, is in no way disrespectful or
permanent. She asked that the process also provide for sufficient
time to allow for participation of all people, as well as consider
spiritual and emotional concerns. Ms. Isaac stated that while she did
not have the exact percentages of the different categories of
culturally unidentifiable human remains, a rough estimate of the
figures from Massachusetts and New England as a whole showed almost
opposite results from those detailed earlier by Mr. McKeown.

Ms. Cheryl Lohman, member of the Ronde Valley Indian Reservation,
stated that under the definition of artifacts, human remains become
‘property‘ which is an offensive word. She is concerned that Native
American ancestors lose their human rights which become property
rights. She hoped the Review Committee members would consider
reviewing this issue. She explained her tribe also has had negative
experiences with the UCB, as described earlier by Ms. Fuller.
Mr. Bradley explained that he raised the issue of property because
NAGPRA is not property law, but equal protection law, and the purpose
of NAGPRA is to guarantee that Native people have the same respect and
due process in terms of their ancestors as non-Native people.

Mr. Louis Malatare, Yakama Indian Nation, commended the Review
Committee members for the challenge they have accepted. He explained
the importance to his society of practicing their laws and traditional
ways. He cautioned not to place too much importance on continuity,
because the elders teach that over time all things change. He
explained a problem for his tribe that was created by NAGPRA; when
human remains were exposed along the bank of the Columbia River,
traditional law would have allowed for removal of the human remains to
a safe location. However, the human remains were located on Federal
land, and the law called for a notification period, even though all
concerned tribes had already acknowledged and agreed that these human
remains should be reburied. By the end of the year delay, during
which time the human remains were unprotected, the area had eroded and
the human remains were gone. He stated that in the future the Yakama
Nation will have to follow their traditional laws and protect their
ancestral human remains, and asked the Review Committee if there were
faster solutions allowed in the law to handle future occurrences.

Ms. Marilyn Malatare, Yakama Indian Nation, stated that her nation is
an oral traditional people and a living culture.

Dr. James Nason, Washington State Museum and the University of
Washington, suggested that the Review Committee members might wish to
reconsider the use of time depth in the fourth category of culturally
unidentifiable human remains, since the law calls for a preponderance
of the evidence to be used. He added that it is important for the
Review Committee members to come to some agreement about guidelines
with regard to the intent of the Congress in the passage of NAGPRA.
Prior to the passage of NAGPRA in a special briefing by Mr. Dan
Monroe, at that time the lead representative of the American
Association of Museums and later a Review Committee member, made it
abundantly clear to those present that the legislative intent was that
all Native American human remains were to be subject to repatriation
to Native American tribes, whether in collections or inadvertently
discovered, with no exceptions. Regarding the issue of cultural
affiliation with extinct tribes, Dr. Nason pointed out the possibility
of members of tribes now extinct having been absorbed by neighboring
tribes, as was the case of the Kwalioqwa people in the state of
Washington during the late 1800s, and the possibility of the existing
Federally recognized tribe making a request to repatriate human
remains, associated funerary objects and other materials previously
identified with the extinct group.

Vin Steponaitis Society for American Archeology, stated that he
thought the discussion at the Portland meeting was informative in
reminding everyone of NAGPRA‘s original intent, which was to walk the
middle road between spiritual and scientific concerns. He expressed
appreciation for the difficulty of that task and thanked the Review
Committee, the NPS and all present for trying to find that middle
road.

Regarding legislative intent on the issue of culturally unidentifiable
human remains and associated funerary objects, Mr. Steponaitis stated
that he was involved in the process of the development of NAGPRA and
attended many briefings and meetings. While Mr. Monroe and Mr. Echo
Hawk made many contributions and deserve respect for their role in
this process (as described by Mr. Nason), Mr. Steponaitis recalled
hearings with Congressional staffers who said that NAGPRA was only
going to deal with very recent human remains and funerary objects, as
well as hearing a range of other opinions on the issue. He stated the
Review Committee members should continue to focus on the language of
the law, the Congressional reports that accompanied the law, and to
consider those as the source of understanding as far as the
legislative intent.

Mr. Grant Waheneka, member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs,
Oregon and Chairman of their Culture and Heritage Committee, expressed
concern about the lack of inclusion of private property owners in the
NAGPRA statute, putting human remains at risk. He stated he has been
involved on four occasions repatriating skeletal remains, and has
dealt successfully with county sheriffs, Oregon and Washington
preservation officers, private landowners, and National Forest Service
personnel. He explained that recent law enables tribes to appoint
their own preservation officers, eliminating the need to consult with
the state preservation officers. Mr. Waheneka recommended adding
‘private land‘ to section 3 of the statute, which deals with
ownership. Mr. Sullivan stated that the Review Committee‘s most
recent Report to Congress specifically identifies the expansion of the
NAGRPA statute to cover discoveries on private land as a priority.

Mr. Wilson Wewa, Sr., Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation, stated he has heard comments from many Northwest tribes
expressing concern about the presence of Native American ancestors in
collections, the continued collection of artifacts, and the scientific
study of Native American human remains. He expressed concern about
the large amounts of money being used for scientific study and thought
that money should be given to Native Americans. He stated he agreed
with the people who gave testimony at the meeting, and added that he
would like to receive a copy of the meeting minutes.

Mr. Frank Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator for the Southwestern Region of
the US Forest Service, wanted to bring a difficult situation to the
attention of the Review Committee members. There are prehistoric
archaeological cultures in the Southwest where the Forest Service can
establish cultural affiliation and have done so; however, the
culturally affiliated Indian tribes do not reside within the
boundaries of the United States of America.

Ms. Judy Wright, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, asked the Review Committee
members for assistance for tribes dealing with museums that are
reluctant to help identify sacred objects, funerary objects, and
culturally unidentifiable human remains. She reported problems when
museums consistently report inventories as ‘unknown,‘ and are
unwilling to share information with tribes.

Closing Comments

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

Mr. Steve Begay, Navajo Nation, gave the closing invocation. The
meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 27th, 1998.

Approved:

/S/ Tessie Naranjo January 5, 1999

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