MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA)
REVIEW COMMITTEE
SEVENTEENTH MEETING: MAY 3-5, 1999
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND

The seventeenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Tessie
Naranjo at 8:30 a.m., Monday, May 3rd, 1999, at the Town Center Hotel,
Silver Spring, Maryland. 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:
Ms. Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources,
Stewardship and Partnership Programs, Washington, DC
Mr. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist,
Washington, DC
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, DC
Mr. Hugh G. "Sam" Ball, NAGPRA Staff, Washington, DC
Ms. Jean Kelley, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Laura Mahoney, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Mr. Jason Roberts, NAGPRA Consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, Solicitor‘s Office, Department of the Interior
(DOI), Washington, DC

The following were in attendance during some or all of the
proceedings:
Ms. Nicole Alto, Manzanita, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation
Committee (KCRC), Boulevard, California
Mr. Roger Anyon, Smithsonian Institution, Tucson, Arizona
Ms. Barbara Ball, Reston, Virginia
Mr. Steve Banegas, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Lakeside, California
Mr. Lee Banicki, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Ms. Jeannie Barbour, Chickasaw, Ada, Oklahoma
Ms. Liz Bauer, Mesa Verde National Park, Mesa Verde, Colorado
Ms. Shirley Bear, Abenaki, Manchester, New Hampshire
Mr. Richard M. Begay, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Mr. Steven Begay, Navajo Nation, Gallup, New Mexico
Mr. Stan Berryman, Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton, California
Mr. Joe Big Medicine, Southern Cheyenne of Oklahoma, Langdale,
Oklahoma
Mr. Bill Billeck, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Elizabeth Blackowl, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, Oklahoma
Mr. David Blick, US Army, APG, Maryland
Mr. Eric Blinman, Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New
Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mr. Rick Bouchard, Cultural Resources Monitor, Pechanga Indian
Reservation, Temecula, California
Mr. Bruce Bourque, Maine State Museum, Augusta, Maine
Mr. Eldred Bowekaty, Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico
Ms. Sarah Bridges, Washington, DC
Ms. Stephanie Briscoe, Pechanga Band, Menifee, California
Mr. John Brown, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Wyoming, Rhode Island
Ms. Betsy Bruemmer, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian, Washington, DC
Mr. David M. Brugge, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ms. Laurie Burgess, Smithsonian Institution, Mt. Rainier, Maryland
Ms. Wendy Bustard, Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, National
Park Service, Nageezi, New Mexico
Ms. Veletta Canouts, National Park Service, Washington, DC
Ms. Patricia ‘Trish‘ Capone, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. James Charles, Navajo, National Park Service, Tonaka, Arizona
Mr. Ron Chiago, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
Scottsdale, Arizona
Mr. Steve Chestnut, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribal Attorney,
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Terry Cole, Choctaw Nation, Durant, Oklahoma
Ms. Kirsten Collins, Navy, San Diego, California
Mr. Roger Colten, Peabody Museum, New Haven, Connecticut
Ms. Linda Cordell, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Jerry Cordova, Taos/Tesuque Pueblo, Washington, DC
Ms. Cherrie A. Corey, Independent Consultant Repatriation and
Cultural Preservation, Concord, Maryland
Ms. Nancy Coulam, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah
Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Thornville,
Ohio
Ms. Debra Deacon, Alaska Native, Jackson Heights, New York
Mr. Alan Downer, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Rochanne Downs, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Mr. Leroy Elliot, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Boulevard, CA
Mr. Jim Enote, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, New Mexico
Ms. Beth Eubanks, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Linda R. Fabbri, Office of the Chancellor, University of
California, Berkeley, California
Mr. Arnold Farley, Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General, Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Clare Farrell, Midwest SOARRING, Naperville, Illinois
Ms. Gillian Flynn, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Dabney Ford, Chaco Culture National Historic Park, National
Park Service, Nageezi, New Mexico
Mr. Paul Frechette, Abenaki, Manchester, New Hampshire
Mr. Paul Friesema, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Ms. Reba Fuller, Central Sierra Me-Wuk Committee, Tuolumne,
California
Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Mr. John Andrew Gomez, Jr., Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians, Temecula, California
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. Priscilla C. Grew, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
Ms. Ellen Gruenbaum, California State University, Fresno,
California
Mr. Louie Guassac, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, Santa
Ysable, California
Ms. Elaine Guthrie, American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York
Ms. Lesa K. Hagel, Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing, Rapid City, South
Dakota
Mr. Clint Halftown, Cayuga Nation, Versailles, New York
Mr. Clay Hamilton, Hopi/Tewa, Hotevilla, Arizona
Mr. Michael Haney, Seminole Nation, Wewoka, Oklahoma
Ms. Valerie Hauser, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC
Ms. Cleone Hawkinson, Friends of America‘s Past, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Roberta Hayworth, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri
Ms. Karen V. Heege, Takoma Park, Maryland
Ms. Michelle Heller, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC
Ms. Susan Hirano, University of California at Berkeley, Albany,
California
Mr. James Horton, Legislative Strategies, Alexandria, Virginia
Ms. Danielle Huey, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, San Diego, California
Mr. Gary W. Hume, New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources,
Concord, New Hampshire
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Mr. G. Peter Jemison, Seneca Nation, Victor, New York
Mr. Joseph T. Joaquin, Tohono O‘odham Nation, Sells, Arizona
Ms. Cheryl Johnston, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Ms. Tamara Johnston, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
Mr. Wayne Jones, Seneca Nation of Indians, Gowanda, New York
Mr. Thomas W. Killion, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Karolyn Kinsey, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri
Mr. Keith Kintigh, Society for American Archaeology, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona
Mr. Rey Kitchkumme, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, Kansas
Ms. Melinda Knapp, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio
Mr. Wilton Kooyahoema, Village of Hotvela, Hotevilla, Arizona
Ms. D. Bambi Kraus, NATHPO, Washington, DC
Mr. Carl Kron, Midwest SOARRING, Naperville, Illinois
Mr. Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office,
Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Mr. Quon Y. Kwan, Department of Energy Contractor, Columbia,
Maryland
Mr. Ronald Largo, Navajo Nation, Mariano Lake, New Mexico
Ms. Shanon LeRoy, Cayuga Nation, Versailles, New York
Ms. Millicent Little, Spirit Lake Tribe, Ft. Totten, North Dakota
Mr. Ronald S. Little Owl, Three Affiliated Tribes, ND Intertribal
Reinterment Committee, Halliday, North Dakota
Ms. Gloria Lomahaftewa, Hopi/Choctaw, Heard Museum, Phoenix,
Arizona
Ms. Marianne Long, Iowa Tribe, Perkins, Oklahoma
Mr. Edward M. Luby, Phoebe Hearst Museum, University of California,
Berkeley, California
Mr. Anthony Otto Lucio, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, New Mexico
Ms. Mary A. Ludwig, Department of Anthropology, California State
University, Fresno, California
Ms. Stephanie Makseyn-Kelley, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Desiree Martinez, Harvard University, Gabrielino (Tongva)
Nation, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Benjamin Masiel, Pechanga Cultural Resources, Temecula,
California
Mr. Manuel Masiel, Pechanga Culture Resources, Hemet, California
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville,
Ohio
Mr. Alfred McDonnell, Arnold and Porter, Counsel to the Hopi Tribe,
Denver, Colorado
Ms. Stephanie Mekis, Arlington, Virginia
Ms. Jeanette Miller, Seneca Nation, Victor, New York
Ms. Laura Miranda, Pechanga Band CILS, Escondido, California
Ms. Regina Miranda, Cultural Resources, Pechanga Native Senior
Monitor, Temecula, California
Ms. Paula Molloy, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Mr. John Moody, Abenaki, Sharon, Vermont
Mr. Michael J. Moratto, California State University, Fresno,
California
Mr. Terry Morgart, Hopi, Kykotsmovi, Arizona
Mr. Alvin Moyle, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada
Ms. Karen Mudar, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Bear Muga, Pechanga Tribe, Temecula, California
Ms. Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Mr. Ed Natay, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Rachel G. Nelson, Harvard University, Navajo Nation, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ms. Theresa Nichols, National Park Service, Aztec, New Mexico
Ms. Marilyn Nickels, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC
Mr. Robert Keith O‘Neill, American Museum of Natural History, New
York, New York
Ms. Bernice Paipa, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, Santa
Ysable, California
Mr. Matt Palus, UMDCP, Department of the Interior, Maryland
Mr. Otis Parrish, Kashaya Pomo, Phoebe Hearst Museum, University of
California, Berkeley, California
Mr. James Pepper Henry, National Museum of the American Indian,
Kaw/Muskogee, Washington, DC
Ms. Ramona Peters, Wampanoag Confederation, Mashpee, Massachusetts
Mr. Harlan Pinto, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Lakeside, California
Ms. Janice Pinto, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Lakeside, California
Mr. Jesse Pinto, Sr., Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee,
Jamul, California
Mr. George Prietto, Sycuan-Kumeyaay Mission, El Cajon, California
Ms. Dorene Elizabeth Red Cloud, Oglala Lakota, Los Angeles,
California
Mr. Tony Reyes, Pechanga, Temecula, California
Mr. James Riding In, School of Justice Studies, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona
Mr. Ronnie Rivera, Pechanga, Temecula, California
Ms. Alexa Roberts, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Delores Roberts, North Fork Rancheria, North Fork, California
Ms. Donna Roberts, Abenaki, Sharon, Vermont
Ms. Virginia Salazar, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Ms. Donna Sandoval, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, El
Reno, Oklahoma
Mr. Michael Schillai, Chaco Culture Historical Park, National Park
Service, Albany, New Mexico
Ms. Susan Secakuku, National Museum of American Indian, Hopi,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Mr. Ron Seth, Choctaw Nation, Durant, Oklahoma
Mr. Emry Shillingbreu, UMDCP, Department of the Interior, Maryland
Mr. Dan Simplicio, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, New Mexico
Mr. David Glenn Smith, University of California, Department of
Anthropology, Davis, California
Ms. Laura Smith, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Mr. Terry Snowball, National Museum of American Indian,
Potawatomi/Ho-Chunk, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Mr. Stuart Speake, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Mr. David Stewart-Smith, New Hampshire Intertribal, Webster, New
Hampshire
Mr. Brian Stockes, National Congress of the American Indian,
Washington, DC
Mr. Tim Sullivan, National Museum of the American Indian, Bronx,
New York
Ms. Dorothy Tavui, San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Valley
Center, California
Mr. Dalton Taylor, Hopi Tribe, Second Mesa, Arizona
Ms. Sandra M. Wachter, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Darlington,
Maryland
Mr. Jesse Walker, Frederick, Maryland
Ms. Yvette Weeks, Wisconsin Intertribal Repatriation Committee,
Oneida, Wisconsin
Mr. Charles T. Wilson, Chaco Canyon National Historical Park,
National Park Service, Nageezi, New Mexico
Mr. Ron Wilson, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Ms. Danette D. Woodmanski, Oneida, Wisconsin
Ms. Rosita Worl, Sealaska, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Katie Wright, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Gayle Yiotis, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC
Ms. Benita Zamora, Monitor, Temecula, California

Ms. Naranjo welcomed the Review Committee members and members of the
audience. The Review Committee members introduced themselves. Mr.
Jerry Cordova of the Pueblo of Taos gave the opening invocation.

Welcome

Ms. Kate Stevenson, Associate Director of the NPS for Cultural
Resources, Stewardship and Partnership Programs, welcomed the Review
Committee members and thanked them for their efforts concerning the
implementation of NAGPRA. She stated the NPS takes its
responsibilities towards NAGPRA very seriously, and addressed three
areas of concern recently raised in the administration of NAGPRA:
One, extensions of time for completion of inventories by museums, the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife determined that there will
be no more extensions for museums; two, the issue of fairness in the
allocation of NAGPRA grants, statistics show that 60 percent of all
grants have been to tribes and 40 percent have been to museums; and
three, the perceived conflict of interest with the NPS administration
of NAGPRA, the NPS Archaeology and Ethnography Program has been doing
an excellent job of administering this work and has direct experience
and knowledge in many areas relevant to the administration of NAGPRA,
including other areas where the NPS functions as both a land-managing
agency and an agency that has oversight in the area of historic
preservation. Ms. Stevenson stated that the NPS is committed and
serious regarding its responsibilities and will work to resolve
current and future concerns in the implementation of NAGPRA.

In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn, Ms. Stevenson stated that
the NPS does not feel that there is a conflict of interest regarding
the NPS implementation of NAGPRA. Mr. Bradley expressed concern about
the decision to deny inventory extensions, explaining that he was
aware that at least some of the affected museums were out of
compliance due to the magnitude of the task and not because of lack of
good faith. Mr. Bradley also mentioned the inequity of having
penalties for lack of compliance by museums and not Federal agencies.
Mr. O‘Shea asked if the six affected museums were considered to not be
acting in good faith since no more extensions will be granted.
Ms. Stevenson explained that the Assistant Secretary and the DOI feel
that the time for extensions has passed, but added that each case will
be considered individually and a period of forbearance will be granted
to those continuing to act in good faith. She agreed that the issue
of noncompliance by Federal agencies needs to be seriously considered.
Mr. Minthorn stated that museum extensions are a major concern of the
Indian tribes and that tribal needs and traditions need to be examined
when considering repatriation issues.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. McManamon welcomed the Review Committee members and audience
members, and thanked the Review Committee members for their work
toward the implementation of NAGPRA. He explained that the meetings,
which are business meetings for the Review Committee, are open to the
public with scheduled public comment periods and added that public
comment periods are the only appropriate times for comment by audience
members. Mr. McManamon 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.

Excavations and Discoveries

Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS continues to monitor human remains
recovered through inadvertent discoveries and planned excavation
activities, which are required to be published through newspaper
notices. Regarding the human remains found at Kennewick, Washington,
the DOI assembled a team of experts in archaeology and physical
anthropology to examine the human remains in February and March 1999,
using nondestructive recording and measurement of the human remains,
for the purpose of determining if the human remains are Native
American as defined by NAGPRA. Preliminary reports have been
completed, and various representatives within the DOI are working
toward consensus on that question. If the human remains are
considered to be Native American as defined under NAGPRA, the next
step would be to try to determine cultural affiliation and then an
ultimate disposition of the human remains. Mr. Minthorn asked who
would be making the determination of whether the human remains are
Native American. Mr. McManamon explained that would include Native
American individuals from various offices within the DOI, legal
experts, and himself.

Museum/Federal Agency Collections

Federal Register Notices: Ms. Kelley reported that to date, the NPS
has published 270 Notices of Inventory Completion, covering 15,722
individual sets of Native American human remains and 297,337
associated funerary objects. The NPS has also published 113 Notices
of Intent to Repatriate, covering 39,974 unassociated funerary
objects, 781 sacred objects, 483 objects of cultural patrimony, and
281 objects that fit both the sacred object and object of cultural
patrimony categories. She explained that there are currently 180
notices waiting to be published, 40 of which are priority notices
involving a repatriation claim. Ms. Kelley added that the NPS now has
753 inventories on file. Mr. Bradley expressed concern that the
notice publication process was delaying repatriation efforts and asked
Ms. Stevenson if there was a way to expedite the process. Ms.
Stevenson replied that on April 21st, 1999 an appeal was made for
additional resources, in part to assist with the notice process.

Grants: Ms. Mahoney explained that two types of NAGPRA grants are
available, documentation grants and repatriation grants. She reported
that the Fiscal Year 1999 grants appropriation was $2.49 million.
Approximately 3,000 grant applications were mailed to Indian tribes
and museums in August of 1998, with deadlines in the fall of 1998.
The NPS received 77 applications requesting a total of $4.4 million;
56 tribal applications representing 52 Indian tribes and 21 museum
applications representing 20 Indian tribes. She stated that six of
the 77 grant applications were for repatriation grants to Indian
tribes and added that 1999 was the first year repatriation grants were
available for both Indian tribes and museums. Ms. Mahoney explained
that the grants panel met in February and made recommendations for FY
1999 grants, which are currently awaiting approval within the DOI.
She encouraged grant applications and explained that repatriation
grants have no deadline.

Ms. Naranjo asked about the number of grants to Indian tribes and
museums. Ms. Mahoney explained that from FY 1994 through FY 1998, 116
grants were awarded to Indian tribes totaling $6.5 million and 89
grants were awarded to museums totaling $4.2 million. She added that
all museum grants are highly collaborative projects involving Indian
tribes. Mr. Bradley agreed, and explained the details of a
collaborative grant between the Robert S. Peabody Museum in Andover,
Massachusetts and eight Federally recognized Creek and Cherokee tribes
regarding the Etowah site. Mr. Minthorn asked about the makeup of the
grants panel. Ms. Mahoney explained that the panel consists of four
Federal agency officials, two of whom are Native American.

Civil Penalties: Mr. McKeown stated that nine allegations of failure
to comply with the NAGPRA statute have been received by the NPS
office. Three of the allegations were determined to not represent a
failure to comply, four allegations are under review, and the
remaining two allegations are under investigation.

Trafficking

Mr. McKeown stated that to date ten individuals have been prosecuted
and found guilty under the trafficking provisions of NAGPRA, which are
administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The most recent case
involved an individual who was sentenced in December 1998 and received
the maximum time in prison for the offense, as well as fines and money
assessed to facilitate the repatriation of those human remains. In
response to a question by Mr. Minthorn about the process of
prosecuting trafficking situations, Mr. Sullivan explained that he has
been a witness in trafficking prosecutions and stated that most cases
start at the level of the US Attorney within the state and then go
into the Federal court system within that state. He stated that it is
important that prosecutors are well informed regarding NAGPRA, as in
the cases he was involved with. Mr. McKeown added that at the
Washington DC meeting in January 1998, the DOJ and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation described their actions regarding NAGPRA.

Federal Compliance

Review of Comments on the Review Committee‘s Report: Mr. McKeown
explained that in December 1998 at the direction of the Review
Committee members, the NPS compiled the draft Federal Agency
Compliance Report, summarizing the Federal agency reports to the
Review Committee at the January 1998 Review Committee meeting. The
report was circulated to the Federal Agency officials on March 3rd,
1999 for comment, and five agencies responded. Mr. McKeown explained
that comments from the US Army Corps of Engineers clarified their
original report and contained no new information. Comments from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) included additional information from
their original report. The Air Force did not give a report to the
Review Committee in January 1998, and their response contained a new
presentation. Comments from the Bureau of Reclamation included both
clarifications of their original report and new information. The
Tennessee Valley Authority did not report to the Review Committee in
January 1998, and their response contained a new presentation and
included their NAGPRA inventory.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about a number of issues contained in
the Federal Agency Compliance Report. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS); how will FWS fulfill its responsibility to implement NAGPRA at
the regional office level, why is NAGPRA not a line item, comments
that FWS will never be totally in compliance with NAGPRA, and comments
that FWS has problems determining which Indian tribes to consult with.
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); what assurances are there that the BOR
will implement and enforce NAGPRA at a regional level and comments
that the BOR is having problems with consultation. BLM; comments that
transfers of collections in and out of Federal control have
complicated the search for NAGPRA materials, concern about how non-
Federal repositories are caring for BLM‘s collections of human remains
and artifacts, and comments that it could take years or decades for
the BLM to come into complete compliance with NAGPRA. Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA); comments that human remains and cultural items
are being held in non-Federal repositories and a question about how
they are being cared for by these repositories. Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); what
is the progress of developing guidelines for inadvertent discoveries?
Forest Service (FS); what efforts are being made to get back
collections currently held in Russia, Switzerland and Sweden, why have
summaries and inventories not been completed for all national forests,
problems with tribal consultation and what is the progress of the FS
consultation guidelines and heritage management training course for
line managers? Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); concern about how
non-Federal repositories are caring for Corps collections of human
remains and artifacts, what is the progress of summaries (46 percent
completed) and inventories (14 percent completed), what is the status
of consultation guidelines, and comments that the Corps does not have
adequate funding to properly execute NAGPRA processes. Navy; how will
the Navy fulfill its responsibility to implement NAGPRA at the
commanding officer level of each institution, what progress has been
made on inventories for the eastern US, and how will the Navy deal
with inadvertent discoveries? Department of Energy (DOE), how is the
DOE integrating NAGPRA within the mission of the DOE and are all sites
at similar levels of understanding and compliance?

Mr. Minthorn stated that it would be helpful if these agencies had a
Native American program coordinator or liaison, such as the Department
of Defense (DOD), and added that the DOD has made great efforts to
comply with the law and consult with affected Indian tribes. Mr.
Minthorn expressed concern with the NPS, the BLM, the Corps, Navy,
Marine Corps, and the FS, and stated the report is very clear that
Federal agencies are not in compliance with NAGPRA.

Mr. Bradley expressed concern about the accuracy of the reporting by
Federal agencies. He cites, for example, that the BLM is the largest
land-managing agency with 41 percent of all Federal lands under its
control and yet has identified only 534 individual sets of human
remains. Even though some human remains and items may be curated in
non-Federal repositories, agencies still need to be accountable and
comply with the law. Mr. Sullivan explained that one institution that
has been denied an extension on inventory completion is the University
of Texas at Austin, which holds collections from a number of Federal
agencies.

Mr. McManamon stated that the report could be used to identify a base
level of information provided by the Federal agencies and the problems
the Federal agencies are experiencing in implementing NAGPRA. The
information could then be used in the Review Committee‘s Report to
Congress and as a reference for Federal agencies to address specific
problems. Mr. O‘Shea asked that the comments received later by
Federal agencies be designated as such.

Department of the Interior: Mr. McManamon stated that the DOI has a
department-wide program on museum property, which in part involves
reporting by the different DOI bureaus that have museum objects in
their possession and control and reporting on their care under
curatorial guidelines. He explained that Assistant Secretary Berry
asked the DOI agencies to report on their compliance with NAGPRA, as
well as other aspects of the museum property programs. Information in
this report, when finished, could be used to update the Review
Committee‘s Federal Agency Compliance Report. Mr. McManamon added
that the NPS had no new information to provide.

Review Committee Discussion of the Federal Agency Compliance Report:
Mr. O‘Shea explained that in drafting the Report to Congress, he
outlined three basic principals regarding recommendations on Federal
compliance previously discussed by the Review Committee members: one,
NAGPRA compliance must be an agency priority; two, NAGPRA compliance
goes beyond simple documentation and inventories and must include
long-term tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis; and
three, agencies must be accountable. Mr. Bradley suggested under the
third principal that agencies should be accountable in the same manner
as institutions. Mr. Sullivan suggested specifying that agencies
should be accountable to Congressional Oversight Committees for their
compliance with NAGPRA.

Mr. Sullivan stated that the language in the draft was very clear and
strong regarding the Review Committee members‘ view on the subject of
lack of Federal agency compliance. Mr. Bradley suggested adding a
statement that the Review Committee members are concerned about the
accuracy of agency reporting. Mr. Minthorn suggested that Federal
agencies report which non-Federal repositories are holding their
respective human remains and artifacts and what efforts are being
taken to maintain their well-being. The Review Committee members
decided to establish a regular system of monitoring Federal agency
compliance through periodic updates from Federal agencies regarding
compliance activities.

Discussion of Review Committee Meeting Protocol

Ms. Naranjo stated that with the Silver Spring, Maryland meeting being
the fourth meeting of the current Review Committee and with the
election of the new Review Committee Chair at the end of the meeting,
that the development of Review Committee protocol was appropriate.

Dispute Resolution: The Review Committee members reviewed the
previously approved dispute resolution procedures (See Attachment 1)
and Ms. Metcalf raised several topics for discussion. The Review
Committee members agreed upon the following:

All dispute resolution requests should be received in the NPS office
and include all relevant background information. The Review Committee
Chair and the Departmental Consulting Archaeologist (DCA) of the NPS
will determine if a dispute will be heard before the Review Committee.
If the Review Committee Chair and the DCA determine that consideration
of a dispute is not appropriate, the requesting party may appeal that
decision to the Review Committee as a whole at a subsequent meeting.
Once a determination is made that a dispute will be considered by the
Review Committee, a 90-day time frame will be necessary to give all
parties an opportunity to prepare their information and submit it to
the NPS for distribution. Each party to a dispute will receive all
relevant information prior to the meeting. Members of the Review
Committee must avoid inappropriate contact with the involved parties,
and any communication regarding the dispute between the parties and
the Review Committee members must be through the NPS. Regarding the
expectation of resolution of a dispute, Review Committee members
agreed that each case would have to be considered individually, taking
into account the amount of information provided, the complexity of the
issues involved and the wishes of the parties to the dispute.

Protocol: All requests for nondispute presentations should be
received at least 30 days before the first day of a meeting.
Abstracts must be submitted for oral presentations and determined to
be relevant. Time limits should be established and adhered to for
presentations and public comments, irregardless of the number of
presenters. Previously, public comments have been limited to ten
minutes. Written submissions should be received in the NPS office at
least 15 days before the first day of the meeting to be included in
the Review Committee binder and will be acknowledged during the
meeting; all written information submitted will be considered by
Review Committee members and made part of the public record. Common
protocol practices will be enforced during Review Committee meetings,
ie., no participation or comment is accepted from the floor unless
specifically recognized by the session Chair.

The NPS agreed to draft the changes and present the final protocol
document for the Review Committee members‘ approval at the next
meeting. In the interim, the draft protocol will be considered as
official policy of the Review Committee.

Review Committee Operations: Ms. Naranjo stated that she had been
Chair of the Review Committee since its inception six years ago, and
felt that with the election of the new Chair a term needed to be
established. Ms. Naranjo stated that she was in favor of the round-
robin discussion practice adopted by the new Review Committee,
ensuring every member is heard on each issue. The Review Committee
members agreed to continue the current discussion practices and to
follow the model of consensus for decision making within the Review
Committee.

The Review Committee members were in favor of an established plan to
keep updated on NAGPRA-related news, progress and issues on a regular
basis, including updates through individual contact by the NPS staff
on a weekly basis. Mr. O‘Shea suggested that each member be given e-
mail access. Review Committee members agreed that having a NPS staff
member available to perform NAGPRA Review Committee duties would
greatly aid the Review Committee. Mr. McManamon stated that is one of
the areas covered by the request for additional resources previously
mentioned by Ms. Stevenson.

The Review Committee members discussed the responsibilities of the
Review Committee and how to best structure the meeting schedule to
accomplish those responsibilities, including the possibility of three
meetings per fiscal year. Mr. Bradley summarized four basic areas of
Review Committee responsibility as monitoring implementation, making
recommendations on the regulations, dispute resolution, and hearing
public comment. The Review Committee members agreed that the top
priority for the Review Committee is to develop a recommendation on
culturally unidentifiable human remains, and that meeting agendas need
to include adequate time for discussion of that subject. Mr. O‘Shea
pointed out that having regular updates from Federal agencies
concerning compliance would make monitoring these agencies easier and
less time-consuming at each meeting. The Review Committee members
agreed to try to set a main topic of discussion for each meeting ahead
of time and leave adequate time on the agenda to address these
subjects. Meeting location and topics will be published in the
Federal Register 90 days before a meeting to increase public
awareness.

The Review Committee members agreed they would like to know when
presenters and presentation topics are sponsored by authorized
representatives of Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and
corporations, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums and Federal
agencies or whether an individual is speaking personally. Priority
can be given to sponsored representatives by the submission of written
requests and information through the nondispute presentation process.

Discussion of NAGPRA Delegation

The Review Committee members discussed the possible move of NAGPRA
responsibilities from the NPS to another department and the
consequences. Ms. Metcalf, Ms. Naranjo, Mr. Minthorn, and Mr.
Sullivan were in favor of the move, citing lack of resources and
conflict of interest within the NPS as some of the reasons.
Mr. Bradley stated that he felt the Review Committee should strive to
conduct its business wherever it is assigned. Mr. Hart reserved
comment. Mr. O‘Shea stated that restructuring of the program is an
internal matter to the DOI and felt that the discussion was
inappropriate.

Review Committee‘s 1998 Report to Congress

Mr. O‘Shea compiled a draft 1998 Report to Congress, which was
provided to the Review Committee members prior to the meeting. Mr.
O‘Shea explained that the report consists of three categories, a
summary of the Review Committee‘s activities over the past year, a
section dealing with Federal agency compliance, and recommendations by
the Review Committee. He added that the Federal Agency Compliance
Report will be appended to the 1998 Report to Congress. The Review
Committee members expressed appreciation for the draft and suggested
the following clarifications and additions.

All statistics contained in the report will be updated to accurately
reflect December 31st, 1998 figures. Ms. Naranjo asked for
clarification of the eight additional full-time employees (FTEs) for
the NPS requested in the report. Mr. McManamon explained that these
positions were in addition to the current NPS staff, keeping in mind
that some staff members are contractors and not FTEs at the present
time. Mr. O‘Shea stated that many figures were taken from the Review
Committee‘s 1997 Report to Congress; for example, a request for an
additional $500,000 for the NPS to enhance administration. Review
Committee members agreed that the completed 1998 Report to Congress
should be made readily accessible to the public, such as posting it on
the NAGPRA Website. Regarding the request for $5 million for grants,
Mr. Sullivan suggested adding wording to explain the increase such as,
‘This represents a doubling of the current available appropriation but
more fully reflects the needs of Indian tribes and of museums in
implementing the law in a timely way.‘

The Review Committee members agreed to remove the section requesting
amendment of the statute to provide for a procedure that would allow
legitimate, non-Federally recognized Indian groups to participate in
repatriation of culturally affiliated human remains and objects.
Processes have been developed that allow non-Federally recognized
Indian groups to work with Federally recognized Indian tribes to
effect repatriation of culturally affiliated human remains and
materials and should be continued.

In response to instances where traditional religious leaders have been
unable to repatriate sacred objects due to beliefs preventing
disclosure of details of ceremonies or rites for which the objects are
required, the Review Committee members expressed their belief that
while there may be a standard in the law by which the appropriateness
of a claim can be evaluated, it should not be necessary for a
traditional leader to compromise religious principles in order to
repatriate a needed sacred object. The Review Committee members
inserted this recommendation into the report and added that while
they do not believe this requires emendation of the Act, the Review
Committee members would like to see the DOI move forward in
implementing this.

The Review Committee members agreed to remove the section of the
report summarizing specific figures from the Congressional Budget
Office 1990 projection regarding the Federal cost of implementing
NAGPRA, emphasize the remaining factual information, and add
clarification that the real costs of implementation have been borne by
Indian tribes, museums and universities.

Dispute Involving the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical
Park

Background Information

Mr. McManamon welcomed all the officials, representatives and experts
from the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical Park and
thanked them for attending the meeting, for the time spent preparing
for their presentations, and for the substantial amount of information
provided to the Review Committee and the NPS. He stated that the
letter from Chaco Culture National Historical Park dated April 12th,
1999 and the letter from the Hopi Tribe dated April 16th, 1999 both
specifically addressed the five areas outlined in the Review
Committee‘s dispute resolution procedures, as detailed in the March
12th, 1999 letters from the NPS to each party.

Mr. McManamon reminded the Review Committee members that they are
under no obligation to reach a finding on the issue if additional time
or information is needed, and added that any finding would be advisory
in nature and not legally binding upon the parties. Mr. McManamon
reiterated that the NPS carries out a number of responsibilities
related to archaeology and historic preservation that extend beyond
the units of the National Park system and that all decision making
within the NPS is focused on the superintendent, the regional director
and the director of each park. The extent to which individuals in the
Washington DC office and the NAGPRA staff were involved in this matter
strictly related to technical assistance that may have been provided
to Chaco Culture Historical National Park, which would have been the
same assistance provided to the Hopi Tribe and any other Indian tribe,
museum or Federal agency.

Presentations on Behalf of the Hopi Tribe

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Tribe Cultural
Preservation Office, brought greetings from the Hopi Tribe. Mr. Clay
Hamilton, research assistant with the Hopi Tribe Cultural Preservation
Office, read a statement from Wayne Taylor, Jr., Chairman of the Hopi
Tribe, in which Mr. Taylor explained that Aztec National Monument and
Chaco Culture National Historical Park have not met the intent or
standards of the law or the expectations of the Hopi Tribe with recent
cultural affiliation decisions, and stated that the implicit
assumption that nearly all southwestern Indian tribes are culturally
affiliated with the two parks seem to have become a formal
determination. The Hopi Tribe expects compliance with the letter of
the law and its fundamental intent, that human remains and patrimony
be identified and returned to the Indian tribe with whom they are
genuinely culturally affiliated. Mr. Taylor urged the Review
Committee to make no decision during the meeting, but to allow
adequate time and resources to fully consider this issue.

Mr. Eldred Bowekaty, councilman for the Pueblo of Zuni, read a
statement from Malcolm Bowekaty, Governor of the Pueblo of Zuni,
expressing support on behalf of the Pueblo of Zuni for the Hopi
Tribe‘s position on the NPS‘s incomplete and inadequate compliance
with NAGPRA, further stating that the interpretation and application
of the processes determining cultural affiliation by officials of the
Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Aztec National Monument was
inconsistent, arbitrary and self-disclosed as politically expedient.
The Pueblo of Zuni revoked its signatory approval to the repatriation
agreement for both Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Aztec
National Monument and entered for the record the All Indian Pueblo
Council resolution supporting the Hopi and Zuni Tribes‘ positions.
Mr. Anthony Lucio, councilman for the Pueblo of Zuni, read the All
Indian Pueblo Council Resolution 1999-12, passed April 22nd, 1999,
supporting the Hopi and Zuni Tribes in disputing the flawed
application of the process to determine cultural affiliation at Aztec
National Monument, Chaco Culture National Historical Park and other
parks, and asking for the NPS to reinitiate the full evaluation
process in its determination of cultural affiliation at the two parks.
Mr. Dan Simplicio, councilman for the Pueblo of Zuni, emphasized the
strong effort on behalf of the Hopi and Zuni Tribes to get other
Pueblo leaders involved in this issue and explained that the All
Indian Pueblo Council resolution would only be used for the protection
of the Pueblo culture and would not be widely distributed.

Mr. Dalton Taylor, cultural advisor to the Hopi Cultural Preservation
Office from the Village of Songoopavi, stated he was initiated into
the priesthoodship of the Hopi Tribe. He explained that oral
tradition contains the history of the migration of the Hopi Tribe, as
well as cultural, traditional, religious practices and the language
still spoken today. Mr. Taylor participates in repatriation of human
remains for the Hopi Tribe, which involves reburial as close to the
original burial site as possible. He stated that the Hopi Tribe is
culturally affiliated with the other Pueblos. He urged the Review
Committee to study this issue to try to find a solution that is good
for both the Hopi Tribe and the NPS.

Mr. Wilton Kooyahoema, cultural advisor to the Hopi Cultural
Preservation Office from the Village of Hotvela, stated he was
initiated into the priesthood society and has knowledge of the
migration patterns of the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe migrated from
all four corners of the world leaving evidence behind in the form of
pottery, ceramics, and petroglyphs detailing clan information. He
emphasized the importance of taking on the responsibility for reburial
of ancestors human remains and saying the correct prayers, and
explained that some traditions and religious beliefs need to be kept
sacred. He urged the Review Committee to think about this issue very
carefully.

Ms. Linda Cordell, director of the museum at the University of
Colorado, explained that she was an archaeologist with 28 years
experience in the Southwest. She was asked by the Hopi Tribe to
review information relevant to this matter. Ms. Cordell determined
that the processes by which the determination of cultural affiliations
were made by Chaco Culture National Historical Park were flawed.
NAGPRA legislation requires Federal agencies and museums to determine
cultural affiliation based upon multiple lines of evidence of shared
group identity, which is different from simple cultural relationships.
She stated that in reviewing the documents of Chaco Culture National
Historical Park, it was difficult to follow the path of logic of how
their determinations were made. The determinations, which were to be
made on a case-by-case basis, appeared to have been made as a group.

The issues in this case were made more difficult because cultural
affiliation is being claimed by more than one group and specifically
by groups that deny each other‘s claims. Ms. Cordell explained that
there is abundant evidence supporting Puebloan archaeological
affiliation with Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Aztec
National Monument and points out that the evidence for cultural
affiliation with the Navajo Tribe is indicated as negative evidence,
raising questions of how different kinds of evidence should be weighed
in making determinations of cultural affiliation. Chaco Culture
National Historical Park listed the cultural affiliation of the past
group as Anasazi. Ms. Cordell explained that the term ‘Anasazi‘ is an
archaeological term adapted from the Navajo, which means ‘enemy
ancestor‘ or ‘someone else‘s ancestor.‘ While there is no dispute
that for well over 200 years Navajo people and their ancestors have
been living in an area once occupied by Pueblo people, there is no
evidence that the Navajo people either built or lived in the
structures that are of concern in this issue.

She explained that while biological evidence proves intermarriage
occurred between Pueblo and Navajo peoples, that is not the same as
cultural identity. Navajo clans who claim they can trace their
ancestry to Pueblo people are still Navajo culturally and have not
been initiated or possess traditional knowledge necessary to bury
Pueblo ancestors. Ms. Cordell stressed the importance of consulting
individually with Indian tribes on a case-by-case basis to determine
cultural affiliation of human remains and associated objects due to
the confidential and sacred nature of the information.

Mr. Kuwanwisiwma summarized the Hopi Tribe‘s position that the
evaluation process used by Chaco Culture National Historical Park and
Aztec National Monument to determine cultural affiliation was flawed.
The record will show that the parks, citing volatile and
irreconcilable issues surrounding the determination of cultural
affiliation, assembled a consortium of Indian tribes in the hope that
they would agree in some manner to complete the repatriation and
reburial process. Individual tribal consultations were not conducted.
The Indian tribes were given a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
solidify the consensus among the Indian tribes regarding the
repatriation scope of work. The Hopi Tribe expressed displeasure with
this process, ultimately withdrew from the MOU in June of 1998, and
challenged the parks to comply with NAGPRA. Under the Freedom of
Information Act, the Hopi Tribe requested all documentation from the
two parks, which was also provided to the Review Committee.

The Hopi Tribe is asking the Review Committee for a complete review of
how the law was applied by the two parks. The law calls for an
evaluation of shared group identities with present-day Indian tribes
as they exist today through the traditional, political, social and
religious settings, and then a determination of whether or not that
shared group identity can be reasonably traced with a preponderance of
the evidence to an identifiable earlier group. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma
stated that no Indian tribes were given an opportunity to participate
in this process and that a homogenizing of Puebloan groups was done.
Even though some common traditions exist today within the different
Puebloan groups, their shared group identity is very unique as
Puebloan people. Currently, the Hopi Tribe has 34 living clans and
have had as many as 60 in the past. The Hopi Tribe has traditions of
eight clans and three ceremonies in Chaco Culture National Historical
Park and eight clans in Aztec National Monument.

The Hopi Tribe is asking Chaco Culture National Historical Park and
Aztec National Monument for a complete reevaluation of the process of
determining cultural affiliation working independently with all of the
Indian tribes through the consultation process and stressed that
guidelines or interpretation of the definition of cultural affiliation
needs to be addressed by the Review Committee. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma
stated that the Hopi Tribe wants the Review Committee to fully
understand both the technical and legal aspects of this dispute and
take time to consider the merits of each party before making a
finding.

Presentations on Behalf of Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Mr. Charles Wilson, superintendent of Chaco Culture National
Historical Park, stated that Chaco Culture National Historic Park
acknowledges that the determination of cultural affiliation under
NAGPRA is a sensitive issue and is further complicated in this case
due to the political nature of the dispute. The park produced an
inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, consulted
with 25 Indian tribes, and using the lines of evidence required under
NAGPRA determined that 20 Indian tribes are likely to be culturally
affiliated based on a preponderance of evidence of a shared group
identity between the people who occupied Chaco Canyon 1,000 years ago
and the present-day Indian tribes. The issue at dispute is how the
determination was made for Navajo cultural affiliation.

Chaco Culture National Historical Park believes that a one-to-one
direct cultural affiliation of a single present-day Indian tribe with
the past inhabitants of Chaco Canyon, the Chaco Anasazi, is not
supported by current archaeological, biological or geographical
evidence; the Chaco Anasazi could be characterized as being ancestral
to many of the present-day Pueblos and Indian tribes of the Southwest.
Cultural affiliation was determined in good faith by the processes set
forth in NAGPRA, and regarding the determination of Navajo cultural
affiliation specifically included expert opinion, biological,
anthropological, geographical and historical lines of evidence. Each
line of evidence was considered as having equal weight, and all lines
of evidence, both positive and negative, were taken into
consideration. Chaco Culture National Historical Park requests the
Review Committee members‘ assistance in finding common ground of the
issue of determining cultural affiliation under NAGPRA.

Ms. Alexa Roberts, anthropologist, Santa Fe office, NPS, summarized
the efforts of the NPS Santa Fe office to assist parks in making
determinations of cultural affiliation for NAGPRA inventories by
assisting with tribal consultations and providing information.
Ongoing or existing ethnographic studies relevant to the different
southwestern parks were utilized. Between June and October 1995, the
Santa Fe office conducted four multitribal/multipark consultation
meetings, and preliminary inventory data from 42 parks, including
Chaco Culture National Historical Park, were presented to 24 Indian
tribes. Notes and summaries of the information from the meetings were
sent to the parks to be used to assist parks in making cultural
affiliation determinations. Between August and November 1995, six
specific NAGPRA meetings were conducted, two of them specifically with
Pueblo representatives and one with the Navajo Nation.

Because the Navajo claim of cultural affiliation was controversial
enough to warrant a higher standard of ethnographic evidence than
Puebloan claims, the Navajo Nation was asked to submit a bibliography
of ethnographic references to Navajo cultural affiliations with those
parks with Anasazi human remains in their possession. In October of
1995, the Navajo Nation submitted a 129-page study documenting the
ethnographic literature referring to traditional Navajo associations
with 14 southwestern parks, nine pages of which specifically referred
to sites within the boundaries of Chaco Culture National Historical
Park and contain reference to traditional Navajo stories or ceremonies
in which places in Chaco play a prominent role. This study was
provided to all parks containing Anasazi resources or collections in
1997.

Ms. Roberts explained that since the submission of the NAGPRA
inventories, the Santa Fe office has provided assistance to the parks
only as requested, with the exception of sponsorship of a series of
conferences on contemporary tribal cultural affiliations with
ancestral people of the Colorado Plateau. Information from the
conferences will be distributed to conference participants and all
parks with Anasazi resources or collections.

Mr. David Brugge, anthropologist, stated that his interest for many
years has focused on the Navajos and summarized his paper entitled
‘Navajo Religion and the Anasazi Connection.‘ Southern Athabaskan
occupancy in the Southwest, Navajo ancestors, can be dated with fair
confidence back to shortly before the 1500s, with evidence that Navajo
ancestors were practicing agriculture by the early 1500s. Navajo
agriculture undoubtedly was derived ultimately from Puebloan sources,
for most of their domestic plants were descended from wild progenitors
native to regions farther to the South. The four sacred plants of
Native American agriculture are important symbols in much of Native
ritual and religion, with maize being a major motif in religious art,
thought and practice.

Navajo people traded with Pueblos and were allies with various
Puebloan groups against the Spaniards in the 1500s and 1600s. Since
one of the major impacts of Spanish rule on the Pueblo peoples was the
suppression of their religion, a natural conclusion would be that many
who fled to join Navajo groups would have been priests and other
religious individuals of the Puebloan people. Many aspects of the
present Navajo religion go back to Anasazi roots, possibly in part
through the incorporation of Anasazi people in prehistoric times and
indirectly through the immigration of Pueblo people fleeing Spanish
rule. In summary, Navajo people not only incorporated most of
Southwestern culture into their way of life but welcomed as immigrants
peoples already living in the area, thus having both cultural and
biological roots linking them to the region.

Mr. David Glenn Smith, professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, stated his specialty was in human genetics with
interest in genetic differences among Native American populations,
particularly in North America. Of interest recently has been the
establishment of ancestral descendant relationships between
prehistoric Native American groups and extant groups throughout North
America. He references a document he authored titled ‘Biological
Evidence Pertaining to the Navajo Claim of Affiliation with Anasazi,‘
which details research, by Mr. Smith and others, supporting Navajo
claims to cultural affiliation with Anasazi human remains. The study
of morphometric or skeletal biological data demonstrates differences
in Native American groups from various geographical regions. The
study of dental genetics ultimately demonstrates a close relationship
between Athabaskan and Puebloan peoples and the close relationship
between Navajo, Pueblo and Anasazi peoples. Studies of blood groups
from the 1950s show evidence for genetic interaction between Southern
Athabaskan populations and Puebloan peoples. Studies of mitochondrial
DNA, specifically haplotypes, are consistent with the association
between Pueblo groups and Navajo and suggests a substantial amount of
Pueblo admixture in Navajo peoples.

Mr. James Charles, superintendent of Navajo National Monument, stated
he was speaking as a member of the Navajo Nation, culturally
affiliated with two traditional clans by birth. He related the
traditional history of his family detailing ties to other Indian
tribes, and added that being Navajo does not preclude people from
having biological and traditional relationships with other Indian
tribes. Multiple heritage is not uncommon among Native Americans. He
asked the Review Committee to consider the question: Should a person
who is one-half Navajo and has biological relationships with another
Indian tribe be denied this dual heritage, history and culture? He
thanked the Review Committee for allowing him to share his belief and
the beliefs of the Navajo people regarding their connection to other
cultures.

Mr. Ronald Largo and Mr. Steven Begay (Translator), medicine man of
the Navajo Nation from Mariano Lake, New Mexico, recited oral
tradition linking prehistoric inhabitants of many Chacoan sites
together, including the Pueblos, the Navajos, and the Utes. At one
time these people worked together at Chaco and they each had different
responsibilities, to farm, gather wood, make baskets and pottery, and
building the ruins, which was the responsibility of the Pueblo people.
Tradition tells that the leader, called the Gambler, gave the
different groups the different languages and ceremonies, which
ultimately caused the people to separate and go to different places
taking along their specialties; the Hopis with their farming, the
Pueblos of the Rio Grande with their pottery, and the Zuni people with
their birds. Even though the people now talk differently and have
different lifeways, the stories tell that they were all one people and
came from the same place; even though the Hopi say their stories are
different, the Navajo stories are similar. Many existing traditional
Navajo ceremonies come from the places once inhabited by the Anasazi.

Mr. Eric Blinman, archaeologist and assistant director with the Museum
of New Mexico‘s Office of Archaeological Studies, stated that the
ethnohistoric view of the modern southwestern people is very complex,
taking into consideration lines of descent and lines of cultural
affiliation. When there is intermarriage between two adjacent groups,
the person coming into the group usually adopts the language and
conforms to the cultural norms of the group, creating very complex
ties. This is one reason why traditional histories can come down to
family and clan histories rather than group histories. This leads to
degrees of cultural affiliation in the prehistoric and historic
Southwest, not simply yes/no cultural affiliations. The issue in
question is the controversy of what is the nature of cultural
affiliation and what does closeness or distant cultural affiliation
mean within the framework of implementing NAGPRA, as NAGPRA does not
formally accept the concept of degrees and types of cultural
affiliation in other than the yes/no listing on the NAGPRA inventory
form. Mr. Blinman then briefly reviewed a paper he wrote and
submitted to the Review Committee which reconstructs the ancient
ethnicity in the development of southwestern cultures, from the Late
Archaic time period through the Ethnohistoric period.

Review Committee Discussion

Mr. Hart noted that in the record of the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park NAGPRA consultation meetings, the Hopi Tribe
participated in the very first meeting in June of 1990 and then again
in June of 1996, and he asked Hopi representatives the reason for
their nonattendance. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma replied that because further
consideration of the period in question would be needed, he was not
prepared to offer an explanation for why there was no documentation of
the reason, but one possibility is that the Hopi Tribe was not
involved in communications with the parks. Ms. Naranjo asked
representatives of both parties which lines of evidence were used to
make a determination of cultural affiliation. Ms. Dabney Ford,
cultural resource manager for Chaco Culture National Historical Park,
replied that for determination of Navajo cultural affiliation the
evidence was biological, oral history, geographical, expert opinion,
kinship and anthropological; for Puebloan people the lines were
biological, oral history, geographical, expert opinion, kinship,
archaeological and linguistics. Ms. Bustard stated that during the
consultation process, the Navajo Nation asserted that they did feel a
direct ancestry with the Anasazi, and Mr. Largo added that the Navajo
are stating their cultural affiliation because the ceremonies and
clans came from Chaco.

Mr. Bradley stated that determination of how cultural affiliation is
made and whether appropriate consultation occurred is important and
very much a part of the Review Committee‘s charge in implementing
NAGPRA. He raised some thoughts for the Review Committee members to
consider; how do the Review Committee members evaluate a determination
of cultural affiliation, how can multiple lines of evidence be
weighed, and are determinations of shared group identity and cultural
affiliation yes/no or measurable by degrees. He suggested that the
Review Committee members could develop guidelines for weighing
evidence to help make the process more predictable and equitable, and
added that the process of weighing evidence needs to be comprehensive,
consistent and replicable.

In response to a question by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson stated that
decisions made at the consultation meetings regarding repatriation
issues were made by the consultation committee and not the park. Mr.
Kuwanwisiwma further explained that the Hopi Tribe questioned the
process of how the park was making the determination of cultural
affiliation through the MOU and went on record as not participating in
the finalization of the MOU. He explained that a further decision was
made by the Hopi Tribe in good faith to voluntarily withdraw as a
repatriating entity after being told that if the Hopi Tribe asserted
repatriation then the Navajo Nation would also. Mr. Wilson stated
that the law was unclear regarding determinations of cultural
affiliation, allowing any Indian tribe that wanted to be put in for
cultural affiliation based on geographic and oral traditions to be
accepted, and he stated one approach would be to utilize weighing of
evidence rather than cultural affiliation being an either/or
situation.

Ms. Metcalf asked if the consultation process protected the tribal
privacy. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma replied that all meetings were an open
audience forum where primarily administrative procedure topics were
discussed. Indian tribes did not discuss traditions or religion
because that is not allowed. Mr. Minthorn asked each party if
cultural history needs to be interpreted to reach an indication of
cultural affiliation. Mr. Wilson replied that cultural history does
need to be considered. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma also agreed and added that
shared group identity is incumbent on some assessment of present-day
Indian tribes to try to determine if there can be a linkage to an
earlier group.

In response to Ms. Naranjo‘s concern about a potential conflict of
interest with Ms. Bustard‘s work involving Chaco Culture National
Historical Park and her recent work detail assignment to the NPS
NAGPRA office, Ms. Bustard and Mr. McManamon clarified that the work
detail was organized before this matter became a dispute in an effort
to reduce the backlog of notices at the NAGPRA office. Ms. Bustard
was allowed to proceed with the work detail with the understanding
that her role at the NAGPRA office was strictly limited to working on
Notices of Inventory Completion, and she was restricted from any
dealing with the current dispute, the parties to the dispute, and any
contact with Review Committee members or information. Ms. Bustard was
present at the current Review Committee meeting in her capacity as
curator for Chaco Culture National Historical Park due to her
involvement in the process of determining cultural affiliation.

Mr. O‘Shea expressed concern that in a review of the records the
primary motivation of Chaco Culture National Historical Park seemed to
be to get rid of the problem of the human remains and artifacts
through repatriation or reburial and a desire to avoid the whole
question of cultural affiliation, even though such actions were
contrary to the law. Regarding the process of determining cultural
affiliation, he stated that choosing not to weigh evidence is a form
of weighing evidence that is wrong because nothing is ever equal. And
likewise, a determination of collective cultural affiliation that says
everyone is culturally affiliated seems to be tantamount to saying
there is no cultural affiliation. The park‘s procedures seem to
follow the Review Committee‘s second effort at defining disposition of
culturally unidentified human remains where the definition of cultural
affiliation was weakened and a broader idea of relationship was
adopted. Mr. O‘Shea stated that the Review Committee members may want
to consider both cultural affiliation and cultural relationship in
this process of developing guidelines for culturally unidentifiable
human remains.

In response to Mr. O‘Shea‘s question about the park‘s decision to
treat all the collection as a group, Ms. Bustard replied that early in
the consultation process, tribal representatives seemed very concerned
that the human remains and artifacts be reburied and work was
undertaken to return all Chaco human remains to a reburial site in
Chaco designated by the consultation committee. As a result, the
collection was treated as a group. Ms. Bustard stated that she did
not believe there would have been any advantage in the determination
process to making distinctions between the human remains as the
conclusions would have been the same. Mr. Wilson added that due to
discussion and pressure during the consultation meetings to return the
burials to Chaco, he asked the consultation team to develop a way to
avoid the issue of cultural affiliation and still execute the burial,
as there was no real resolution to the issue of Navajo cultural
affiliation. After the Hopi withdrawal from the MOU in 1997, due to
the lack of total consensus with the method, the park stopped the
process and decided to follow the exact letter of the law from that
point forward. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma explained that the Hopi Tribe‘s
position is that the law clearly charges Chaco Culture National
Historical Park to determine cultural affiliation on an object-by-
object basis and, secondly, that association to a place does not meet
the standards of the law.

Mr. Sullivan asked the park about the possibility of reinitiating the
evaluation process for the determination of cultural affiliation, as
requested in the All Indian Pueblo Council resolution, or if the
park‘s position would be that the materials are as submitted. Mr.
Wilson stated that an item-by-item evaluation of 741 items would take
some time, but without guidelines for cultural affiliation, probably
no further action would be taken. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma stressed the
importance of developing guidelines for the determination of cultural
affiliation, since other parks are ready to publish in the Federal
Register. Mr. Wilson added that in addition to guidelines being
developed, the two Indian tribes in this issue need to come to an
agreement or compromise. Mr. Bradley asked Mr. Wilson if he felt that
appropriate consultation meeting the statutory definition occurred
between Chaco and the Hopi Nation, even if the Hopi believe that it
did not, and Mr. Wilson replied that it did. Responding to Mr.
Bradley‘s question regarding the appropriate role of Navajo Nation in
the repatriation process at Chaco, Mr. Kuwanwisiwma replied that the
Hopi Tribe has absolutely no dispute with Navajo interests into
clearly Navajo human remains, and until some finality is reached in
the current cultural affiliation issue, the Navajo people need to
allow the Puebloan people to expressly and explicitly be involved in
the repatriation process.

Discussion Regarding Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human
Remains

Discussion of Draft Principles: Mr. Bradley reviewed the history of
the Review Committee in dealing with the issue of culturally
unidentifiable human remains and explained that over the past few
years, the Review Committee members have made three attempts at
drafting recommendations. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Sullivan described the
first two attempts, drafted by the members of the previous Review
Committee, and the third attempt drafted by the current members of the
Review Committee in Portland, Oregon, entitled ‘Draft Principles of
Agreement Regarding Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Native
American Human Remains.‘

Mr. Bradley explained that he expanded the draft principles document
based on past comments of Review Committee members and the NPS staff..
He briefly described the draft principles document, which is divided
into three categories; the intent of NAGPRA, culturally unidentifiable
human remains, and guidelines for disposition (See Attachment 2). Mr.
Sullivan suggested that the draft principles be widely distributed,
and Review Committee members discussed circulating the document for
comment by posting it on the Website, having the NPS do a mailing, and
publishing the draft principles as a discussion document in the
Federal Register.

Request from California State University - Fresno: Ms. Ellen
Gruenbaum, School of Social Sciences, California State University,
Fresno, explained that the university has 38 identifiable human
remains for which the Federal Register notice publication has been
completed, and 122 human remains that are culturally unidentifiable.
She stated that the Indian tribes culturally affiliated with the
identifiable human remains have chosen not to accept the human remains
until repatriation can also be completed on the culturally
unidentifiable human remains. The Tuolumne Me-Wuk would like to
accept their four sets of human remains for reburial and the remaining
human remains will be accepted and buried by Santa Rosa Rancheria of
the Tachi Yokuts. Consultation has been done with all concerned
Federally and non-Federally recognized Indian groups in the area and
two petitions dated April 15th, 1999, have been prepared dealing with
this issue. The first petition authorizes a group called the Central
Valley and Mountain Reinterment Association to act on behalf of all
parties to accept the human remains, and the second petition
authorizes the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokuts to rebury the
human remains. All 15 parties to the agreement, including four
Federally recognized Indian tribes, have signed the agreement, with
the exception of the Table Mountain Rancheria, which has expressed
verbal agreement and intent to sign. Ms. Delores Roberts, North Fork
Rancheria, and Ms. Reba Fuller, Tuolumne Me-Wuk, expressed agreement
with the proposed repatriation on behalf of their Indian tribes.

The Review Committee members expressed appreciation for the
presentation and the proposal, stating that this was a good model for
a regional process of disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains, and unanimously approved the repatriation proposal. Mr.
McManamon stated that the NPS will prepare a letter to the California
State University Fresno to that effect.

Request from the Commonwealth of Virginia: After reviewing the
written documentation concerning repatriation of human remains to the
Monacan Indians by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Review Committee
members discussed the issue and agreed that more information would
need to be presented before a recommendation could be made. The
Review Committee members were specifically interested in information
confirming fulfillment of inventory requirements, documentation of
adequate consultation with other state recognized and Federally
recognized Indian tribes, and a more comprehensive proposal of a
regional model for dealing with culturally unidentifiable human
remains in Virginia, since there are no Federally recognized Indian
tribes in the state. Review Committee members added that
representation of the parties at the next Review Committee meeting
would be helpful. Mr. McManamon stated that the NPS would send a
letter to the Commonwealth of Virginia outlining the Review Committee
members‘ requests.

Request from the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology/Request
from the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources: Ms. Barbara
Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, explained that the
Peabody Museum is requesting a recommendation to repatriate human
remains and associated funerary objects from the states of Vermont and
New Hampshire, culturally affiliated to the non-Federally recognized
Abenaki. Ms. Patricia Capone explained that the 1996 guidelines for
culturally affiliating to non-Federally recognized Indian groups
established by the Review Committee were following in this process.
Consultation occurred between the Abenaki people and the Peabody
Museum in which the Abenaki people shared extensive oral tradition
information regarding their traditional territory and time depth. In
December 1998, the Peabody Museum requested letters of support from
all Federally recognized Indian groups in New England and received
letters of support from the Mohegan Indian Tribe and the Narragansett
Indian Tribe. The collections include 30 human remains and three
funerary objects; two human remains from Vermont and 28 from New
Hampshire. A relationship of shared group identity was established
for all of these human remains with the Abenaki people based on
published literature, oral tradition, and linguistic, archaeological
and historical information. Ms. Capone asked if funerary objects are
included under the law if human remains become culturally affiliated
to non-Federally recognized Indian groups. Mr. McManamon and Ms.
Mattix stated that the law calls for retention of human remains that
are not culturally affiliated but was not clear regarding funerary
objects, and stated they will try to get an answer to that question.

Ms. Donna Roberts, repatriation coordinator for the Abenaki Nation,
explained that the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi is first on the list
for consideration by the BIA for Federal recognition when the Nipmuc
petition is competed. She explained that spiritual requirements
dictate when reburials can take place, and a desire to rebury these
human remains in the fall was the reason for asking the Review
Committee for a recommendation at this time. She explained her
successful efforts getting support from area Indian tribes on this
repatriation request.

Mr. Gary Hume, on behalf of the New Hampshire Division of Historical
Resources, the Manchester Historical Association, the University of
New Hampshire and the Franklin Pierce College Department of
Anthropology, explained that the human remains listed from the state
of New Hampshire are the remaining Native American human remains in
New Hampshire museums that have not been repatriated. He explained
that the 17 human remains at issue come from 11 sites across most of
southern New Hampshire. Consultation efforts have been ongoing with
the Abenaki and other organizations regarding repatriation since 1990.
Cultural affiliation with the Abenaki has been determined through oral
tradition, geographical, time depth and linguistic information. Mr.
David Stewart-Smith presented linguistic information in support of the
cultural affiliation. Mr. Hume explained that there is unanimity
within the archaeological community, the academic community, the
Abenaki community and other tribal groups on this approach for all
human remains being recommended for repatriation.

Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that written support was not provided
from all Federally recognized Indian tribes, most notably the
Wampanoag and Wabenaki Confederacies. Ms. Ramona Peters of the
Wampanoag Confederation stated that the confederation was interested
in consulting with the Abenaki regarding protection of the
repatriation site. She added that she would bring the matter up for
discussion, but she did not see any problem with Wampanoag
Confederation support for this repatriation. Mr. Sullivan and Mr.
O‘Shea asked for some clarifications regarding the evidence presented
in the case. Ms. Capone, Mr. Hume and Ms. Roberts responded with
clarifications of the archaeological evidence, biological evidence and
oral tradition. Mr. O‘Shea then stressed the importance of keeping
the lines of evidence straight when weighing the different types of
evidence in these determinations. Mr. Bradley stated that the
recommendation before the Review Committee includes human remains that
are culturally unidentifiable due to cultural affiliation with a non-
Federally recognized Indian group and human remains that are
culturally unidentifiable because they cannot be connected with a
present-day group.

The Review Committee members approved the repatriation of the human
remains to the Abenaki Nation upon receipt of written letters of
support from both the Wabanaki Confederacy and the Wampanoag
Confederacy. Mr. McManamon stated the NPS would send letters to the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology and the New Hampshire
Division of Historical Resources outlining the recommendation. The
Review Committee members commended the parties on their presentation.

Election of Review Committee Chair

Mr. Hart thanked Ms. Naranjo for her service as Review Committee Chair
for the past six years and expressed appreciation for her leadership
of the Review Committee. Mr. Hart nominated Mr. Sullivan to be the
Review Committee Chair through June 2000, the remainder of his
appointment. Mr. Hart stated that Mr. Sullivan possessed the
experience, respect and insight necessary to Chair the Review
Committee through the challenges of the next year. Mr. Sullivan
expressed the opinion that the Review Committee Chair should be a
Native American. However, with Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Minthorn and Mr. Hart
indicating they were unable to fulfill the duties of Chair over the
next year and their subsequent approval of his nomination, Mr.
Sullivan accepted the nomination of Chair. The Review Committee
members agreed unanimously to elect Mr. Sullivan as Review Committee
Chair.

Discussion of Washington College

Regarding allegations of Washington College‘s failure to comply with
NAGPRA, Mr. McManamon explained that the NPS is in the process of
preparing a communication to the Assistant Secretary with an
evaluation of the situation, and will proceed as quickly as possible
given the current time constraints on the NPS NAGPRA staff.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the Review Committee members tentatively set the
next two meetings for August 1999 in Salt Lake City, Utah and December
1999 or January 2000 in Nashville, Tennessee.

Review of Minutes of Santa Fe, New Mexico

The Review Committee members agreed unanimously to approve the minutes
of the Santa Fe, New Mexico meeting on December 10, 11, and 12, 1998.

Public Comment

Mr. Steve Banegas, Twelve Kumeyaay Bands of Southern California and
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, stated the KCRC is a
coalition of the twelve Kumeyaay Bands of Southern California and the
six Luiseno Nations. He explained that repatriation issues are so
sacred to the Kumeyaay people that it took ten years to form this
coalition because they wanted to choose the right people. He urged
the Review Committee to consider the position paper presented by the
KCRC and explained by Ms. Laura Miranda.

Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio (NAAO), stated
that she asked to be placed on the agenda for a dispute, but was
placed in the public comment section. She explained that in May 1998
she was informed that an antique shop had in its possession and
planned to sell a human skull. Ms. Crandell purchased the human skull
and immediately turned it over to the police and then the FBI. At the
Ohio State University, a determination was made that the top part of
the skull belonged to an adult and the lower jaw belonged to a young
person between the ages of 13 and 18. Ms. Crandell was told that the
FBI was not going to prosecute the sellers because they lacked
criminal intent. She stated that trafficking in human remains is
illegal under 18 US 1170 and these individuals should be prosecuted;
therefore, she has a dispute with the DOJ. Mr. McManamon explained
that this issue was not a dispute as heard by the Review Committee,
but that the NPS could contact the DOJ and make a further inquiry into
the situation.

Mr. Alan Downer, Navajo Nation historic preservation officer and
director of the Historic Preservation Department, stated that he would
like to respond to allegations made against the Navajo Nation and
Peabody Coal Company by the Sovereign Dineh Nation at the previous
Review Committee meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. At that meeting,
the Navajo Nation was not offered an opportunity to respond. Mr.
Downer summarized a written response given to the Review Committee
members. The Sovereign Dineh Nation is not culturally affiliated with
the Navajo Nation government, and the people represented by the
Sovereign Dineh Nation are mainly individual Navajo who are resisting
relocation from the Hopi partitioned lands and Black Mesa in the
Peabody Coal Mine leasehold. The Navajo Nation Historic Preservation
Office has met regularly with the Sovereign Dineh Nation and every
place identified as being of traditional importance by the Sovereign
Dineh Nation has been or is currently being evaluated for
consideration under the National Historic Preservation Act or NAGPRA.
Human burials found on the Navajo Nation are treated in accordance
with the Navajo Nation‘s policy for the protection of grave sites,
human remains and funerary objects, which is completely consistent
with NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and involves reburial as
close to the original site as is possible.

The Peabody Coal Mine has identified, recorded and avoided a number of
traditional cultural places, including places identified by the Navajo
individuals who testified before the Review Committee in Santa Fe.
The Black Mesa and Kayenta Mines operate under a permit issued under
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which prohibits coal
mining close to cemeteries. Mr. Downer explained that the Peabody
Coal Company has made a very real effort to work with Indian tribes
and deal with the environmental consequences of the mining. In
summary, there is no basis for concluding that the Peabody Coal
Company has intentionally or systematically violated NAGPRA or the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Despite the sensational
nature of the claims made by the Sovereign Dineh Nation, in repeated
efforts the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department has been
unable to identify any actual evidence to support them.

Regarding the dispute between the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture
National Historical Park, Mr. Downer stated that while the Navajo
Nation was not a party to this dispute, the Nation is a party at
interest; the dispute is really between the Hopi and the Navajo. Mr.
Downer clarified their position that the Navajo Nation did not request
repatriation of the human remains, but simply claimed cultural
affiliation. Neither Chaco Culture National Historical Park nor the
Navajo Nation are proposing that the Navajo Nation will be physically
participating in the reburial.

Ms. Naranjo and Mr. McManamon explained that a response was not
requested from the Navajo Nation in Santa Fe out of courtesy and a
desire to not put representatives of the Navajo Nation on the spot,
and they expressed appreciation for Mr. Downer‘s presentation and
clarification of the issues.

Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, explained that
the museum was one of the six museums denied an additional extension
for the completion of inventories. The museum is committed to
completing the inventories and will be working to balance the need to
meet the deadlines with the responsibility for adequate consultation
with the Indian tribes. Regarding the issue of the determination of
cultural affiliation, Ms. Graham explained that the museum has
material from both Aztec National Monument and Chaco Culture National
Historical Park for which no determination of cultural affiliation has
been made to date.

Mr. Michael Haney, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, expressed concern
about lack of progress in repatriation of human remains and the
continual excavation of human remains. He explained that he has
participated in repatriations of over 6,000 relatives, without any
money from NAGPRA grants or his Indian tribe, and described efforts to
protect sacred sites on Federal property. Mr. Haney wants an
accounting of NAGPRA monies, how much has been given to Indian tribes,
how much has gone to museums and scientists, and for what purpose. He
emphasized the importance of traditional input and Native American
participation in ceremonies because only people active in ceremonies
should be allowed to participate in repatriations. Mr. Haney would
like to see NAGPRA administrated through the Office of Trust
Responsibility instead of the NPS.

Mr. Keith Kintigh, president of the Society for American Archaeology
(SAA), thanked the Review Committee members for their work in
implementing NAGPRA. He described comments by Senator Inouye during
Senate testimony concerning sacred objects, wherein Senator Inouye
recommended involving members of the Native, museum, and scientific
communities to develop a definition of sacred object. Mr. Kintigh
expressed hope that the Review Committee develop guidance on
determining cultural affiliation, and explained that even though SAA
argued for degrees of cultural affiliation in the law, Congress made
this a yes/no determination. One conclusion could be that there is a
relatively high threshold that needs to be reached in terms of
closeness before achieving a level of cultural affiliation. Mr.
Kintigh urged that the balance provided in NAGPRA between Native and
public interests be maintained by allowing scientific and museum
communities a significant role in the decision making process proposed
for culturally unidentifiable human remains.

Mr. Ronald Little Owl, Three Affiliated Tribes and the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee, stated that he is a spiritual
leader and his responsibilities include trying to provide answers to
questions and heal sickness. He agreed with Ms. Miranda that
spiritual people need to be sitting on the Review Committee. Mr.
Little Owl stated that he was a spiritual man, gave examples of his
ability to identify culturally unidentifiable human remains, and
stated that he would identify human remains when asked. He described
his definition of sacred as being three levels; the first level is a
spirit, the second level is language, and the third level is himself.
Mr. Little Owl explained that he wrote his definition of sacred with
his niece, Ms. Yellow Bird, and is willing to present that to the
Senate.

Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, related her
family‘s oral tradition, explaining the important but difficult task
of maintaining their heritage and identity while keeping it secret.
She stated that there are no Federally recognized Indian tribes in
Ohio, making the protection of graves and artifacts difficult if not
impossible. Amateur archaeologists and hobbyists believe they have
greater right to dig, trade and sell grave goods than Indian people
have to replace and protect them. The NAAO worked for five years to
amend cemetery laws in Ohio to include Native American burials and
grave goods. A law was passed in October 1998 under the umbrella of
cemetery laws, but the law is limited. The NAAO needs help in
protecting Native American grave sites and putting a stop to the sale
of grave goods in Ohio, and provisions need to be made in the law so
that Native American interests can be protected in states like Ohio
with no Federally recognized Indian tribes.

Ms. Laura Miranda, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in Southern
California and KCRC, explained some of the points in the position
paper presented to the Review Committee by the KCRC. The coalition
asks that the burden of proof required to establish cultural
affiliation under NAGPRA, currently preponderance of the evidence,
should be changed as it is unduly burdensome to Indian tribes;
experience has shown that oral tradition is not given as much weight
as archaeologists‘ written word. The coalition urges that regional
coalitions of Indian tribes be allowed to make shared group identity
claims under NAGPRA as a viable means of returning some of the so-
called culturally unidentifiable human remains and sacred objects.
Repatriation requests for human remains and burial goods found within
a Indian tribe‘s aboriginal territory should be honored. The
coalition disagrees with the composition of the Review Committee,
stating that the majority should be Native American, and having
representatives of museums and archaeologists on the Review Committee
creates a conflict of interest. They urge that the Review Committee
be comprised of regional review committees, with members being Indian
religious leaders and individuals from Indian nations in each region,
or in the alternative, having tribally hosted regional meetings in
addition to the regularly scheduled Review Committee meetings.

Mr. Alvin Moyle, Chairman of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe,
explained that in 1995 his Indian tribe was notified that the BLM had
in its possession through the Nevada State Museum the Spirit Cave Man,
which was taken from Spirit Cave in 1940. Spirit Cave is located well
within the boundaries of the territory of the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe.
Based upon written reports, the Nevada State Museum conducted studies
before notifying the Indian tribe of the existence of Spirit Cave Man
and fights repatriation because more study is needed. The Indian
tribe filed claim for Spirit Cave Man on May 22nd, 1998 and received
notification from the BLM four months later that the Indian tribe
would have to prove cultural affiliation to Spirit Cave Man and other
human remains found at the same time. Mr. Moyle described actions and
comments by the Nevada State Museum that exhibit antagonism toward and
disregard for NAGPRA, that seek to portray Spirit Cave Man as not
culturally affiliated with the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, and that
disparage and undermine the free exercise of tribal religion and
rights to repatriation.

Mr. Moyle explained that at an upcoming meeting the Indian tribe will
ask the BLM Nevada State director for additional time to submit
further supporting material and temporary protection of Spirit Cave
Man pending final disposition of their request for repatriation. Mr.
Moyle gave examples of specific statements by key professional
employees at the museum that were predisposed against the Indian
tribe, and stated that the museum proceeded without notification and
permission from the BLM and the Indian tribes and against the language
of NAGPRA by performing destructive testing and constructing and
displaying a bust of the Spirit Cave Man. Mr. Moyle cited examples of
vandalism of caves, including missing skeletons, subsequent to the
media attention of the Spirit Cave Man and Kennewick Man. He stated
that there is no competition among Indian tribes for the Spirit Cave
Man, and he provided resolutions from area Indian tribes supporting
the repatriation of the Spirit Cave Man with the Fallon Paiute-
Shoshone Tribe. Mr. Moyle added that many Indian tribes would be
willing to host Review Committee meetings to help offset the Review
Committee‘s lack of funding. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Minthorn expressed
their support of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and Mr. Minthorn
called for a more proactive role on the part of the Review Committee
members to see that the Spirit Cave Man issue does not end up in the
court system.

Ms. Ramona Peters, Wampanoag Confederation on behalf of the Wampanoag
Tribe of Gay Head, expressed concern about reports of mismanagement of
funds in the DOI and stated that before depositing funds collected
from civil penalties within the DOI an accounting system for control
of the funds would be necessary. She also suggested adding to the
budget a way in which the Review Committee could supply funds to
Indian tribes and museums to attend meetings and provide testimony
when necessary.

Mr. James Riding In, citizen of the Pawnee Nation and associate
professor at Arizona State School of Justice, agreed that guidelines
need to be adopted for determining cultural affiliation definitions
but stressed the importance that they be developed in the proper way.
He explained that recent actions of non-Indians have been against the
interests of Indians in an effort to favor scientific interests.
Compromise will only halt or limit Indian repatriation initiatives of
the so-called culturally unidentifiable ancestors. Due to conflict of
interest, implementation of NAGPRA should be moved from the NPS to an
agency where Native Americans can facilitate repatriation. Indian
nations should have the sole authority to make decisions regarding
placement of the NAGPRA program, Review Committee decisions and
makeup, and determinations of the disposition of Native American human
remains.

Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, the North Dakota
Intertribal Reinterment Committee and the Indigenous Peoples Council
on Biocolonialism, apologized for comments during the Review Committee
members‘ discussion at the Santa Fe, New Mexico meeting, and explained
that her comments were necessary to ensure that Native American people
were able to attend Review Committee meetings. She stated that
because of their strong spiritual beliefs North Dakota tribes have
been involved in repatriation since 1985, have reburied more than
5,000 ancestors, and participated in the passage of NAGPRA because of
the need for repatriation and the protection of ancestors. She stated
that since 1990, Indian tribes have observed a steady erosion of
protections granted by NAGPRA. She expressed concern about the draft
principles of agreement and the four subdivisions of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. She described the position of the
Indian tribes presented at the Senate Oversight Hearing on April 20th,
1999, that they are opposed to the excavation, curation and study of
all Indian human remains and graves goods, study of human remains is
not necessary to establish tribal identity, and there is no scientific
test that can conclusively identify Native American human remains as
to tribal origin. They claim all Native human remains and attendant
burial properties stolen from collective aboriginal homelands and
assert that the bodies and belongings of relatives are not the
property of any individual, institution or government. The Review
Committee has a trust responsibility to interpret the law in favor of
the Indian tribes. The Review Committee should circulate the draft
principles of agreement in the Federal Register, posted on the
Website, and in a mailing to all Indian tribes for comment. She
stated that regional intertribal coalitions remain the only method by
which the issue of disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains can be resolved. Ms. Yellow Bird requested copies of the
draft principles of agreement and the document clarifying questions of
legislative intent for the Indian tribes in North Dakota.

Closing Comments

Ms. Naranjo thanked the NAGPRA staff for their hard work. On behalf
of the NPS and the DOI, Mr. McManamon thanked the Review Committee
members for their time and attention to the implementation of NAGPRA,
the religious leaders who offered prayers, the audience members, the
presenters, and the members of the NPS staff. Mr. McManamon thanked
Ms. Naranjo for her service as Chair and congratulated Mr. Sullivan on
his election to Review Committee Chair.

Mr. Lawrence Hart gave the closing invocation. The meeting was
adjourned at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 5th, 1999.

Approved:

/S/ Martin E. Sullivan February 09, 2000
Date
Martin E. Sullivan, Chair
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee