MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
NINETEENTH MEETING: APRIL 2-4, 2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA

The nineteenth meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Mr. Martin
Sullivan at 9:30 a.m., Sunday, April 2, 2000, at the Centennial Hall
Convention Center, Juneau, Alaska. The following Review Committee
members, National Park Service (NPS) staff, and others were in
attendance:

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

National Park Service staff present:
Ms. Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, Washington, D.C. (by teleconference)
Mr. John Robbins, Assistant Director, Cultural Resources Stewardship
and Partnerships, Washington, D.C.
Mr. C. Timothy McKeown, NAGPRA Program Leader, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Carla Mattix, Solicitor's Office, Department of the Interior
(DOI), Washington, D.C.
Ms. Lesa Hagel, NAGPRA Consultant, Rapid City, South Dakota

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

Mr. Fredrick Anderson, Native Village of Naknek, Naknek, Alaska Ms.
Susan Anderson, The CIRI Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Roger Anyon, Repatriation Review Committee, Smithsonian
Institution, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Herbert O. Anungazuk, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Ms. Julia Baker, University College London Institute of Archaeology,
London, England
Ms. Graciela Barajas, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona Mr. Mark
Boatwright, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau, Alaska Ms. Judy Brown,
Tlingit, Huna Snail House, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Beatrice Brown, Hoonah Indian Association, Hoonah, Alaska Ms.
Alexus Burten, Aleut, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Donna Cossette, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada Mr.
Richard Dalton, Sr., T'akdeintaan, Hoonah, Alaska
Ms. Rochanne Downs, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada Ms.
Irene Dundas Shields, Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan, Alaska Ms.
Kolene Dunne, University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska Ms.
Marguerite Edwards, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Ms. Cheryl Eldemar, Tlingit, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Linda Fabbri, University of California, Berkeley, California Mr.
Arron Felleur, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Terry Fifield, Tongass National Forest, Craig, Alaska Ms. Dale Ann
Frye Sherman, Yurok Tribe, Eureka, California
Mr. Eric Gerber, Pechanga Cultural Committee, Temecula, California Ms.
Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, Kansas
Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York Mr. Kenneth Grant, Hoonah Indian Association, Hoonah, Alaska
Mr. Norman Harry, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Nixon, Nevada Ms. Carol
Ann Hawks, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington Mr. Steve Henrikson,
Alaska State Museum, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Brent Hicks, Colville Tribes History Department, Nespelem,
Washington Mr. Ernest Hillman, Huna Heritage Foundation, Juneau,
Alaska
Ms. Susan Hirano, University of California, Berkeley, California
Ms. Andrea A. Hunter, Repatriation Review Committee, Smithsonian
Institution, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona
Ms. Mary Irvine, Alaska State Museum, Juneau, Alaska
Ms Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Richard Jackson, Tongass Tribe, Ketchikan, Alaska
Mr. Joseph T. Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona Ms.
Maureen Johnson, Huna Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska Ms. Cheryl
Johnston, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio Mr. Bruce Kato,
Alaska State Museum, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. David Katsic, Tlingit, Alaska
Mr. Tom Killion, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Silver Spring, Maryland
Ms. Karolyn Kinsey, ASACE, St. Louis, Missouri Ms. Anna Kiss, Chicago,
Illinois
Ms. Melinda Knapp, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio Mr. David
Kwail, Yavapai Apache Nation, Camp Verde, Arizona
Ms. Patricia Lambert, American Association of Physical
Anthropologists, Logan, Utah
Ms. Lena Landry, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Mr. M. Joseph Leahy, Huna Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska Ms.
Leslie Longenbaugh, Sealaska, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Diana Loren, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. Jon Loring, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Edward Luby, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
California Mr. Bob Maguire, Denakkanaaga, Fairbanks, Alaska
Ms. Gail Mapiha'a, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Aurelia Marruffo, Pechanga Indian Reservation, Temecula,
California Mr. John G. Martin, Sr., Little Tenaktak Tribe, Juneau,
Alaska
Ms. Susan Marvin, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Benjamin Masiel, Pechanga Cultural Resources, Temecula, California
Ms. Rachel Mason, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska
Mr. Mark McCallum, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg, Alaska Mr.
Alfred McKinley, Sr., Wooshkeetaan, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Bob Metcalf, Nome, Alaska
Ms. Lynette Miller, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma,
Washington Ms. Rosa Miller, Auk Kwaan, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Patrick Mills, Huna Tribe, Hoonah, Alaska
Mr. Thomas L. Mills, Sr., Tlingit, Snail House, Hoonah, Alaska Ms.
Kathy L. Mills Marvin, Tlingit, Snail House, Hoonah, Alaska Ms. Fawn
Morris, Yurok Tribe, Eureka, California
Mr. Alvin Moyle, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, Nevada Ms.
Elena Munetz, Tlingit, Huna, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Nancy Odegaard, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Mr. Refugio
Ortez, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, El Paso, Texas Mr. Richard Owl, Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo, El Paso, Texas
Ms. Diane Palmer, Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan, Alaska Ms. Virginia
Rooney, Wrangell IRA, Wrangell, Alaska
Ms. Alyce Sadongei, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Gary Selinger, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska
Mr. G. R. Singer, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York
Mr. Chuck Smythe, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Walter Soboleff, L'eeneidi, Angoon, Alaska Ms. Yarrow Vaara,
Tlingit, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Anne Marie Victor-Howe, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Grace Villarreal, Tlingit, Huna Heritage Foundation, Hoonah,
Alaska
Mr. Frank D. Williams, Jr., Tlingit, Snail House, Mt. Fairweather
House, Juneau, Alaska
Mr. Ron Williams, Huna Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Rosita Worl, Tlingit, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau, Alaska
Ms. Judy Wright, Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma, Washington
Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, Belcourt,
North Dakota
Ms. Allison Young, Aleutian/Pribolof Islands Association, Anchorage,
Alaska

Mr. Sullivan welcomed the review committee members and members of the
audience, and expressed appreciation for the efforts made by everyone
to attend the meeting. Mr. Richard Dalton, Sr., T'akdeintaan, Hoonah,
Alaska, gave the opening invocation.

Mr. Robbins welcomed the review committee members, thanked them for
their efforts regarding the implementation of NAGPRA, and expressed
appreciation for the work of Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan, whose terms
will conclude in June 2000. He welcomed the audience members and
explained that the review committee meetings, which are business
meetings for the review committee, are open to the public with
scheduled public comment periods.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. Sullivan gave a brief review of the agenda.

Welcome

Ms. Rosita Worl welcomed the review committee and audience members and
acknowledged members of the Smithsonian repatriation review committee
and members of other Indian tribes present at the meeting. Ms. Worl
explained she is from the Thunderbird Clan, from the House Lowered
From the Sun, and a child of the Sockeye Clan from Klukwan. She
commended NAGPRA as having a profound effect on Native people by
rectifying wrongs done to Native Americans, offering hope for Native
American people to revitalize and strengthen their culture, offering
the return of the spirits of ancestors to their homeland, and
providing an opportunity for Native Americans to work with others to
build and increase their science. Ms. Worl expressed appreciation for
the work of the review committee members.

Implementation Update

Mr. Robbins explained that an agreement was reached between the NPS
and the DOI regarding restructuring of the NAGPRA program within the
NPS. As part of the restructuring, the review committee's Designated
Federal Official will be the Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships. This change will be made in the review
committee's charter when it is renewed in November 2000. For purposes
of the Juneau review committee meeting, Mr. Frank McManamon,
Departmental Consulting Archeologist, delegated the function of
Designated Federal Official to Mr. Robbins. Under the restructuring,
NAGPRA implementation will be divided into Park NAGPRA, implementation
of NAGPRA within the NPS, and general NAGPRA, implementation of NAGPRA
beyond the NPS. Mr. McManamon and Ms. Veletta Canouts, Deputy Program
Manager for Archeology and Ethnography, will supervise the Park NAGPRA
functions. Mr. Robbins will supervise general NAGPRA functions.

Ms. Katherine Stevenson, participating by teleconference, addressed
the review committee and explained that the changes described by
Mr. Robbins were the result of appeals to have someone other than a
scientist responsible for non-Park NAGPRA and to involve more Native
people in the NAGPRA process. Ms. Stevenson then explained further
changes resulting from these appeals. To address the issue of backlog
in publishing Federal Register notices, additional funds have been
made available this year to hire temporary personnel, with the hope
that the 2001 budget will include a permanent increase in funding to
enable the hiring of permanent employees. Ms. Stevenson explained
that an advisory group from the various Assistant Secretaries' offices
has been developed within the DOI to provide advice and different
points of view on issues within the DOI. Finally, because of the
perception of conflict of interest, any time a formal dispute
involving a NPS matter comes before the review committee, Mr. Robbins
will absent himself and another Federal official from an agency other
than the NPS will be delegated as the Designated Federal Official.

Ms. Metcalf asked about the source of the additional funding.
Ms. Stevenson explained that $195,000 came from NPS funds for the
current year and a $400,000 increase in base funding of the program
was requested in next year's budget. In response to Mr. Sullivan's
specific questions regarding the hiring of additional staff, how
quickly training can be accomplished, whether the staff would be
contractors or permanent employees, and whether efforts have been made
to hire Native Americans, Mr. Robbins explained that none of the
NAGPRA program experience will be lost, and added that although Park
NAGPRA and general NAGPRA implementation will be separate, staff will
be able to further utilize experience by consulting with each other.
He explained that some of the new staff may have repatriation
experience from other institutions and that until permanent funding is
available, staff would be hired as contractors. Mr. Robbins added
that diligent efforts have been made to identify candidates who are
Native American.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about the review committee's lack of
involvement in the restructuring discussions and decisions.
Ms. Stevenson stated she would value suggestions from the review
committee members regarding candidates for permanent positions,
priorities within the program, and the workplan; however, personnel
issues need to be considered under Federal personnel procedures.
Mr. Bradley asked about the assignment of current staff, and
specifically whether there would be enough continuity to assure that
the backlog and other priorities would not get lost in the
administrative shuffle. Mr. Robbins responded that discussions
between the NPS personnel office and union staff were in progress and
should conclude within the next couple of weeks. He explained that he
supervises the Archeology and Ethnography, Museum Management, and
other programs within the NPS and therefore general NAGPRA
implementation will be able to draw upon the broad expertise of a
number of programs. Mr. Bradley clarified that the review committee
was concerned about personnel issues to the extent that the momentum
gained over the last ten years in the program needs to continue.
Mr. Minthorn suggested Ms. Stevenson attend the next review committee
meeting and again stressed the importance of the review committee's
involvement in the restructuring and the program's continued progress
and momentum.

Mr. Sullivan explained that at the last meeting the review committee
requested monthly updates on the progress of implementation, the
status of the backlog, and copies of correspondence, and would again
like to request to receive these monthly updates. Ms. Stevenson
replied that she would work with Mr. Robbins on that request. In
response to a question by Ms. Metcalf regarding funding, Mr. Robbins
explained that the Kennewick project is funded by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and not the NPS. In response to a concern of Mr. Hart,
Mr. Robbins clarified that Ms. Mattix's legal advice was provided
through the Solicitor's Office at the DOI level and not at the NPS
level, and would therefore not be affected during disputes involving
NPS units.

Ms. Naranjo asked what would happen if the request for a permanent
increase in funding were denied. Ms. Stevenson explained that she is
extremely hopeful as this is the first request to be made part of the
President's budget, but added that if the request is not approved,
funds are not available from another source. Ms. Naranjo then
expressed concern regarding lack of continuity in the restructuring.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the review committee was advised at the Salt
Lake City meeting that regulations were being developed on inadvertent
discoveries and planned excavations and asked about their current
status. Mr. Robbins explained that was an issue that would be
addressed by the increased staff. Mr. Bradley explained that at the
Salt Lake City meeting, the review committee asked for, and
Mr. McManamon agreed to provide, copies of the NAGPRA program budget
for FY99 and FY00. Ms. Stevenson agreed that information could be
provided with the exception of specific salary information, and
clarified that the $195,000 figure was developed from an actual budget
and included, among other expenses, the cost to publish notices in the
Federal Register.

On behalf of the review committee, Mr. Sullivan thanked Ms. Stevenson
for her update and on behalf of Ms. Naranjo and himself, expressed
both appreciation for the efforts made to date on NAGPRA
implementation and concern over the growing backlog. Ms. Stevenson
expressed appreciation to both Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan for their
roles as founding members of the review committee and her hope that
they both would continue to be involved with NAGPRA.

Mr. Robbins explained that each review committee member had a summary
in their binder of the progress made in NAGPRA implementation to date.
Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that along with the growing backlog of
publication of Federal Register notices, that the databases for
summaries and inventories also were falling behind. Mr. McKeown
stated that there is no database for notices of inadvertent
discoveries and planned excavations, which Federal agencies are
required to publish twice in a newspaper of general readership to
notify possibly affected Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations. He explained that information regarding summaries from
98 out of a total of 1,042 institutions was entered into a database.
No work has been done on that database for some time due to other
issues. Inventories have been received from 736 institutions and
information has been entered into the database for 64, including 7
entered by Ms. Hagel since the Salt Lake City meeting. Mr. O'Shea
suggested developing a database for inadvertent discoveries and
planned excavation notices and suggested utilizing electronic versions
of inventories as a basis for speeding up completion of the inventory
database.

Mr. Robbins explained that with the increased staff, the civil
penalties interim regulations will be developed into final regulation,
hopefully within the next six months. The DOI is considering drafting
regulations for the intentional excavations and inadvertent
discoveries section instead of developing guidelines. The review
committee would be consulted at the beginning of that process.
Ms. Mattix added that the DOI is just starting the process of
developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and so no draft is
circulating. When the process reaches that stage, the law requires
consultation with the review committee, Native American groups, and
members of the museum and scientific communities, in addition to the
regular notice and comment requirements. Mr. McKeown explained there
was a summary of the various trafficking cases prosecuted under 18
U.S.C. 1170 (a) and 1170 (b). To date, 11 individuals have been
successfully prosecuted, 1 twice.

Mr. Bradley and Mr. Sullivan expressed the review committee members'
consensus that civil penalties and Federal agency compliance are a
priority and need to move forward in tandem. Mr. Minthorn emphasized
that continuity in staffing will help Mr. Robbins in his position as
Designated Federal Official. Mr. Bradley expressed concern about the
longevity of the assignment of the position of Designated Federal
Official for the review committee to the Assistant Director.
Mr. Robbins explained that the decision to continue this assignment
was confirmed at an advisory group meeting just a few days prior to
the review committee meeting. Mr. O'Shea asked that review committee
members be provided with a copy of the agreement between the DOI and
the NPS describing the restructuring, which was provided by
Mr. Robbins later in the meeting. Mr. Robbins agreed that any
questions or concerns by the public about the NAGPRA program could be
directed to him. Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about
the review committee members' lack of involvement in the
restructuring, including the fact that members were not provided
information regarding the restructuring until just shortly before the
review committee meeting.

Mr. Robbins reviewed the items on the review committee action list
from the Salt Lake City meeting that were not completed prior to the
meeting. A letter needs to be sent to the Corps of Engineers and the
Pechanga regarding their dispute, which Ms. Mattix will address
immediately following the meeting. A briefing needs to be made to the
Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks regarding
Washington College, for which a meeting is scheduled for the week
following the review committee meeting. Mr. Sullivan pointed out the
added concern of possible statute of limitations issues regarding this
case, which Ms. Mattix will confirm. For the Satanta shield issue,
Ms. Linda Fabbri, University of California, Berkeley, explained that a
long-term loan agreement is in progress between the parties. The
committee members asked for a monthly update detailing the current
status of the backlog in Federal notice publication, the status of the
six institutions under forbearance, budget issues, appropriations and
actual expenditures, incoming correspondence, and the workplan.
Mr. Robbins agreed to provide the review committee members with an
update of the status of the forbearance institutions following the
meeting. The outstanding item concerning the development of draft
guidelines for inadvertent discoveries and planned excavations was
previously addressed by Ms. Mattix as being replaced by the
development of regulations, and the issue of whether Federal agencies
can be required to prepare discovery plans will be considered during
this process. The issue of documentation of Federal agency policies
regarding the hiring of Native American religious leaders as experts
or expert consultants will be included at a future meeting when the
review committee considers Federal agency compliance. Mr. Sullivan
proposed discussing the response to the Hopi Tribe regarding notices
by Mesa Verde National Park and Aztec National Monument later in the
agenda when the review committee considers the letter from the
regional director of the NPS concerning the review committee's finding
on the Chaco Canyon National Historical Park and the Hopi Tribe
dispute.

Discussion of Status of Dispute Between the Hopi Tribe and Chaco
Culture National Historical Park

Mr. Sullivan summarized the contents of the letter sent by Ms. Karen
Wade, Intermountain Region, NPS, which basically stated that the
Intermountain Region cannot support the review committee's findings
and recommendations, which the Intermountain Region believes reach
beyond the statutory authority of the review committee and its
procedures and do not address what the review committee is responsible
for reviewing, the determination of cultural affiliation of particular
human remains and cultural items. Review committee members expressed
extreme concern over the letter and asked to what extent regions of
the NPS can independently make such a conclusion and the extent to
which that then becomes policy. Ms. Mattix explained that the review
committee members' recommendations are not binding and Ms. Wade was
able to independently make a decision under the structural
organization of the NPS. Although Ms. Mattix explained that this one
region does not speak for the policy of the DOI, review committee
members expressed concern over the precedent-setting nature of the
position taken by the Intermountain Region. Mr. Bradley expressed
frustration that the process was directed under the auspices of the
NPS and then another portion of the NPS stated that the review
committee was profoundly flawed in their application of the law.
Mr. Minthorn added that the review committee's recommendations need to
be considered as a function of the DOI as a whole in order to preserve
the process that was developed to accommodate Indian tribes, museums,
and universities. Ms. Naranjo expressed concern about the length of
time taken by the NPS from receipt of the letter by Ms. Wade to its
distribution to the review committee members. The review committee
members agreed to send a letter to the Secretary of the Interior to
clarify the status of recommendations made by the review committee and
how the recommendations will be implemented by agencies within the
DOI.

Discussion of Requests Regarding the Disposition of Culturally
Unidentifiable Human Remains

Eight Individuals in the Control of the U.S. Forest Service, Florida:
Ms. Susan Marvin presented a one-page summary of the request on behalf
of Ms. Rhonda Kimbrough, U.S. Forest Service archeologist, Florida.
The Forest Service acquired a tract of land within the Ocala National
Forest on May 11, 1990.
Human remains collected from the general area while the property was
under private ownership were discovered in a collapsed shed on the
property. Due to lack of provenience information, the human remains,
representing a minimum number of eight individuals, were considered
culturally unidentifiable, with no scientific value for further study.
The human remains were presumed to be Native American as the land
where they were found is a large, deeply stratified, aboriginal
occupation site and human dental remains are consistent with those of
Native American aboriginal inhabitants. The Forest Service initiated
consultation with the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, the Seminole Nation
of Oklahoma and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, who ultimately reached
consensus to repatriate the human remains to the Miccosukee Tribe of
Florida. A formal claim for the human remains was made on January 28,
2000. Independent traditionalists also participated in the
consultation. Since the human remains were considered culturally
unidentifiable, the Forest Service extended an offer to consult with
every Federally recognized Indian tribe in the southeastern United
States. Respondents recommended that the Forest Service continue
consultation with the above-listed Indian tribes. The Forest Service
is asking for the review committee members' recommendation to
authorize the repatriation of the human remains to the Miccosukee
Tribe of Florida.

Mr. Minthorn expressed concern over the information used to make a
determination that the human remains were Native American and the
level of expertise consulted in making the determinations.
Mr. McKeown explained that since the land was acquired before the
enactment of NAGPRA, the human remains became part of the Forest
Service collection. He added that the human remains were found within
the aboriginal territory of the Seminole Tribes. Mr. Minthorn
clarified that he supported the repatriation and did not wish to slow
the process down, but he had concerns with the Forest Service's being
out of compliance with NAGPRA in other instances. Ms. Naranjo and
Ms. Metcalf wanted to clarify that Mr. Bobby C. Billie, an independent
traditionalist representative, was in favor of the repatriation.

Mr. Hart stated that Mr. Billie seemed to favor this repatriation
through his correspondence with the review committee. Mr. O'Shea
stated that although he shared some of Mr. Minthorn's concerns and
would like to have more specific site information, he felt that the
Forest Service acted correctly in this process by determining the
human remains to be culturally unidentifiable, assessing the value of
the human remains to science, and consulting broadly. The review
committee members unanimously agreed to recommend repatriation of the
eight individuals in the control of the Forest Service to the
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. A letter to Ms. Marsha Kearney, Forest
Supervisor, detailing the recommendation was drafted at the meeting.

Four Individuals in the Control of the Washington State Historical
Society: Ms. Marguerite Edwards, Puyallup tribal council member and
vice-chair of the repatriation committee, explained that the Puyallup
Tribe previously repatriated two Puyallup individuals and seven
coastal individuals from the Washington State Historical Society. The
Puyallup Tribe is seeking to repatriate the four remaining culturally
unidentifiable human remains at the Washington State Historical
Society. The Puyallup Tribe notified all Indian tribes in the country
of their intention to repatriate the human remains and received 42
letters of support and 1 letter of objection, which was later
rescinded. Ms. Edwards read letters of support from the Tulalip Tribe,
the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma,
and the Hoonah Indian Association.

The review committee members unanimously agreed to recommend
repatriation of the four individuals in the control of the Washington
State Historical Society to the Puyallup Tribe. A letter to
Ms. Lynette Miller, Washington State Historical Society, detailing the
recommendation was drafted at the meeting.

Discussion of Draft Principles of Agreement Regarding the Disposition
of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains

Mr. Bradley and Mr. Sullivan gave a brief review of the history of
review committee discussions concerning culturally unidentifiable
human remains, including the previous attempts at forming
recommendations. Mr. Sullivan explained that several elements from
the first drafts continue to be important, including the belief that
the processes of resolving disposition should be guided by Native
Americans, an attempt to distinguish different ways in which the human
remains of Native people have become culturally unidentifiable, and
encouragement for regional solutions for addressing questions of
ancestral occupancy of land. Mr. McKeown summarized the review
committee's responsibilities under Section 8 of the statute to compile
an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains in the
possession or control of each Federal agency and museum and
recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition
of such human remains. The review committee members agreed that given
the expiration of Ms. Naranjo's and Mr. Sullivan's terms they would
strive to reach a consensus regarding the draft principles at this
meeting. Mr. Bradley then read draft five of the draft principles of
agreement regarding disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains, which was substantially similar to the version published in
the Federal Register for comment.

The review committee members discussed the draft and, based upon their
comments and comments from the audience, made several changes. The
review committee members agreed to expand on the intent of NAGPRA
described under section A.1 by adding "Repatriation means the return
of control over human remains and cultural items to the Indian tribe
or Native Hawaiian organization of origin." In section A.2, the terms
disposition and repatriation were defined with language from the
statute. In section A.3, review committee members wanted to state
clearly that even though NAGPRA does not specifically address the
issue of funerary objects associated with culturally unidentifiable
human remains, the statute does not prohibit their voluntary return.
The order of sections A.4 and A.5 was reversed. In section A.5,
although most members of the review committee were in support of the
ideas expressed in section A.5, Mr. O'Shea did not agree with the
concept, "The process be primarily in the hands of Native people."
Review committee members agreed to add the following section to the
end of section A.1, "Repatriation means the return of control over
human remains and cultural items to the nation of origin," suggested
by Mr. Hart. Ms. Naranjo suggested changing "nation of origin" to
"Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization of origin."

Following discussion of whether to delete section A.5, Ms. Metcalf,
Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Naranjo expressed concern that section A.1 was
not strong enough to stand alone and say that Native people have
primary consideration in the process, as shown in legislative and
judicial history. Mr. Sullivan suggested a third sentence for section
A.1, "While the statute does not always specify disposition, it is
implicit that disposition decisions recognize the rights and needs of
Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations." Ms. Naranjo
expressed concern that Native Americans need to have primary
consideration in the process and over the phrase "rights and needs."
Ms. Metcalf agreed with Ms. Naranjo and questioned the use of the word
"implicit." Mr. O'Shea suggested alternative wording, "While the
statute does not always specify repatriation, disposition decisions
should recognize the rights and needs of Indian tribes and Native
Hawaiian organizations." Mr. Minthorn suggested changing "should" to
"shall," which Ms. Mattix explained would be a stronger term in
statutory language. After further consideration, Ms. Naranjo
expressed concern that the statement does not say that Native
Americans have primary consideration in the process, and therefore she
could not agree to this section. Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Minthorn and Mr.
Sullivan agreed. The review committee members agreed to try to reach
consensus on this issue and worked to find language acceptable to all
members. After further discussion, Mr. Bradley read section A.5,
"While the statute does not always specify repatriation, it is
implicit that the process be guided by the rights and needs of Indian
tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations." The review committee
members unanimously agreed to this statement.

Section B.1, the order of the last sentence was reversed to give
primary consideration to Native Americans, as suggested by Ms. Yellow
Bird. Section B.2, the wording remained the same. Section B.3, this
section remained the same except for section B.3.b, where the wording
was changed to clarify that these determinations are made by Federal
agencies and museums and might change, as suggested by Ms. Yellow
Bird. Section B.4.a remained the same. Section B.4.b and B.4.c were
reversed. Section B.4.b remained the same with minor editing. Section
B.4.c was reworded pursuant to a concern raised by Mr. O'Shea
regarding the context of the citations used from the statute and
clarification by Mr. McKeown that the Act does not prohibit study but
cannot be used as the authority to do additional study after
inventories are complete. In order to protect information regarding
the location of burial and sacred sites, section B.4.d was changed to
allow for the exemption of information that falls under the Freedom of
Information Act from the public record.

Section C.1 remained the same. Mr. Bradley suggested new wording for
section C.2 in response to suggestions for more concise wording of
appropriate repatriation solutions to deal with culturally unclaimed
and unidentifiable human remains. Section C.3 was added that allows
Federal agencies or museums to seek the recommendation of the review
committee for disposition based on criteria other than those listed in
section C.2.

Section D.1 allows for repatriations to proceed when all relevant
parties have agreed in writing, the statutory requirements have been
met, and the guidelines detailed in section C have been followed. The
list of cases where the review committee recommended repatriation of
culturally unidentifiable human remains was updated. Section D.2.a
remained the same. In response to Ms. Yellow Bird's comments, Mr.
Sullivan suggested new wording for section D.2.b.1, establishing that
Native Americans determine regions for regional consultation, which
has already been done in many areas. This also removes the possible
burden of having all parties agree to regions before beginning the
process. Section D.2.b.1 reads, "The review committee recommends a
process in which Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations
define regions within which the most appropriate solutions may be
determined." The last sentence in section D.2.b.1 was deleted.
Section D.2.b.2 remained the same. The first sentence of section
D.2.b.3 was changed to read, "Regional consultations may be open to
other parties with an interest in the disposition with the consent of
the appropriate Federal agencies, museums and Indian tribes." The
third sentence of section D.2.b.3 was changed to D.2.b.4 and reads,
"Dispositions agreed upon through regional consultation meetings will
be made by the Federal agencies, museums and Indian tribes." The
original section D.2.b.4 that allowed for the review committee to
elect to facilitate regional consultation meetings was deleted in
order to prevent future conflict of interest. Section D.2.b.5
remained the same but was renumbered to D.2.b.6. Section D.2.b.5 was
added to clarify that parties could bring disputes arising in the
consultation process set forth in section D.1 to the review committee,
"If a disposition agreement cannot be reached through regional
consultation meetings, that dispute may be brought to the review
committee."

Ms. Mattix explained that the review committee recommendations will go
to the Secretary of the DOI where a rule writing team will be
assembled to put the recommendations into proper rule language. A
draft Notice of Proposed Rule Making will be published in the Federal
Register, which provides an opportunity for public comment. Based on
the public comment, a determination will be made regarding the need
for additional hearings or other public feedback. A final rule will
be drafted based on responses from the public, which will be published
for further review. At that point, the rule becomes final. The
review committee members unanimously agreed to the final version of
the principles of agreements regarding the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains (see Attachment A).

Implementation of the Statute in Alaska

Mr. Mark McCallum, Tongass National Forest, explained that he was an
archeologist with Tongass National Forest, the largest national forest
in the United States with over 17 million acres. He explained that
Tongass Nation Forest completed their inventories, consulted with
Indian tribes and are awaiting claims for repatriation. He reported
that some Indian tribes appear to be deferring decisions until they
can make plans with their communities, consult with their local
elders, or construct facilities. Tongass National Forest has received
a few claims for repatriation, and Mr. McCallum described the history
and repatriation efforts regarding a bentwood cedar box to the
Organized Village of Kake and the Klawock Cooperative Association.
The box was collected in 1949 by Mr. William Vickers, a trapper, on
Kuiu Island, 100 miles southwest of Juneau. The telescoping box
contains a human head, other human bones and an assortment of funerary
items, most of which have never been examined. About 23 years ago, an
agent of Mr. Vickers attempted to sell the box. The Forest Service
obtained a search warrant and retrieved the box from Mr. Vickers's
home. After consultation with Sealaska Corporation, the Forest
Service curated the
box at the Alaska State Museum, where it remains to date. Inventories
were provided to the Organized Village of Kake and the Klawock
Cooperative Association, based on ethnographic information, and also
to the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, the Kake Tribal Corporation,
the Klawock Henya Corporation and the Sealaska Heritage Foundation.
The Klawock Cooperative Association wrote a letter in November 1997 to
the Organized Village of Kake acknowledging their cultural affiliation
with the box while delegating authority for repatriation to the
Organized Village of Kake. A Notice of Inventory Completion was
published in the Federal Register in 1998 and, with no competing
claims, the Forest Service officially transferred ownership of the box
in June 1998 to the Organized Village of Kake, which has decided to
continue storing the box at the museum until they wish to have it
returned to the village. The box is believed to be one of the
earliest known examples of northwest coast line form design and, based
on the wishes of the Organized Village of Kake, the Forest Service is
helping to document the box before it is reburied, probably at its
original location since that land now belongs to Sealaska Corporation.

In response to Mr. Minthorn's question regarding funding, Mr. McCallum
explained that NAGPRA is not a line item but is funded through the
regular heritage program funds. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Hart thanked
Mr. McCallum for his presentation and expressed the hope that the
NAGPRA work at Tongass National Forest could act as a model for other
national forests.

Ms. Susan Marvin, U.S. Forest Service, Alaska, explained the situation
of a repatriation of human remains to a non-Federally recognized
group, the Auk Kwaan, through the Central Council of the Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes, a Federally recognized Native Alaska group. In
1987 cremated human remains were discovered in a test pit during a
cultural survey and testing program undertaken by the Alaska Office of
History and Archeology. The remains were left in the backfilled pit
until 1991 when the Forest Service archeologist recovered the human
remains for repatriation. The Forest Service did err by not notifying
the Auk Kwaan or the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of the recovery. A carbon sample collected from charcoal
associated with the human remains revealed an approximate date of 210
years ago. A physical anthropologist hired by the Forest Service
studied the human remains and identified that the human remains
represented two cremated individuals. The Forest Service determined
that the individuals probably were members of the Auk Kwaan people who
lived at this winter village site for several hundred years. The site
is now a recreation facility. Consultation with the Auk Kwaan
resulted in a memorandum of understanding with the Auk Kwaan regarding
protection of this Native site during improvements to the recreation
area, which were completed in 1995. In April 1998, the Central
Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian tribes agreed to represent the
Auk Kwaan. A January 1999 letter from the Forest Service detailing
the history of the project resulted in a claim for the human remains
by the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian tribes in June
1999. A Notice of Intent to Repatriate was published in the
newspapers and, since no competing claims were received, the human
remains were repatriated in September 1999. The Forest Service hopes
to assist the Auk Kwaan in a memorial service in April 2000.
Ms. Marvin hoped that the review committee would use this information
in developing guidelines for the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains.

In response to Mr. Minthorn's question regarding funding, Ms. Marvin
explained that both forests in Alaska, the Tongass National Forest and
the Chugach National Forest, covering a combined total of 23 million
acres, fund NAGPRA through their heritage program funds. Mr. Bradley
commended the efforts of the Forest Service in Alaska and asked who
determines whether funds are going to be utilized for NAGPRA
implementation. Ms. Marvin explained that the forest supervisor for
each national forest, called a line supervisor, is responsible for
those decisions, and authority for policy matters comes from the
Washington, D.C. office. In response to Mr. Bradley's question of
where to direct efforts to improve NAGPRA compliance within the Forest
Service, Ms. Marvin suggested working with the Washington office.
Ms. Marvin explained that the assistance provided by the NPS office in
Washington, D.C. has been very important. Mr. O'Shea pointed out that
this situation was actually an inadvertent discovery on Federal lands,
which differs from the issue of culturally unidentifiable human
remains found off of Federal land. Mr. Minthorn asked if each forest
had a NAGPRA coordinator, and Ms. Marvin explained that the individual
forest archeologists work in that capacity and there is a NAGPRA
coordinator located in the southwestern regional office, Mr. Frank
Wozniak.

Mr. Terry Fifield, Tongass National Forest, explained that he was the
zone archeologist for the Prince of Wales Island zone covering two
ranger districts, approximately 2.5 million acres. He explained a
situation regarding the discovery of ancient human remains from the
north end of Prince of Wales Island. In 1996, Tim Heaton with the
University of South Dakota and Fred Grady with the Smithsonian
Institution discovered human remains in a very wet area of a cave on
Prince of Wales Island. The human remains were removed from the cave
and Mr. Fifield was called into the site. Mr. Fifield took the human
remains and two bone artifacts to his office in Craig, Alaska, where
he called the tribal presidents of the Craig and Klawock tribes
notifying them of the inadvertent discovery under the terms of NAGPRA.
He worked with Ms. Cheryl Eldemar, Central Council of the Tlingit and
Haida Tribes of Alaska, to consult with the local tribes. A
consultation meeting was sponsored by the Klawock Cooperative
Association five days after the discovery. The Denver Museum of
Natural History offered to curate, analyze, and protect the materials
at their cost and to enter into a temporary agreement with the Forest
Service for housing of the materials. The Klawock Cooperative
Association passed a resolution permitting the shipment, curation,
physical anthropological analysis, radiocarbon dating, and DNA
testing, with the provision that additional consultation would occur
if the area turned out to be a burial site. Later that week, the
Craig Community Association passed a similar resolution, with the
addition that they wanted to review any media statements before they
were released. The Organized Village of Kake decided to defer to
Klawock Cooperative Association in the consultation process. A
National Science Foundation grant funded the archeological work,
research, two internships in conjunction with Craig and Klawock tribal
governments, and trips to the museum for tribal leaders. In addition,
Sealaska has funded two interns to the project.

Ms. Yarrow Vaara, Tlingit Nation, explained that she was selected as
an intern for the project by the Craig Community Association for the
first year and funded through Sealaska Corporation for the past two
years. She completed a lot of research concerning this project and
recently presented a paper at the Arctic Research Workshop in Boulder,
Colorado. Through an agreement with the Indian tribes, six Native
students and one Native teacher have worked on this project including
Ms. Vaara. Ms. Vaara explained her initial misgivings about
disturbing the human remains of this ancient man, due to their sacred
nature. Ms. Vaara consulted with local elders, who for the most part
supported the project after learning about the project and its goals,
including education to corroborate the oral history that the Tlingit
people have lived in southeast Alaska since time immemorial. The
results of the scientific study showing that the individual's primary
subsistence was marine resources was very important to Ms. Vaara
because the Tlingit still utilize that way of life. Ms. Vaara
explained that this project motivated her to continue her education
and research. The cooperation of all parties in this project is a
great example of what can be accomplished beyond consultation.

Ms. Naranjo, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Minthorn commended this project for
the Native involvement and the level of cooperation exhibited.
Mr. Minthorn asked if an ARPA permit was acquired for this project,
where the human remains were currently being curated, what type of
site security exists, and the final plan for the human remains.
Mr. McKeown explained that since the agency is doing the work on its
land, an ARPA permit is not required but the agency must follow ARPA
rules. Mr. Fifield explained that the human remains were still under
a temporary loan agreement with the Denver Museum of Natural History
under the tribal resolutions and that the site was being protected
through a stewardship agreement with Port Protection, a community
approximately three miles away. Mr. Fifield explained that no formal
repatriation request has been submitted, although promises were made
that the human remains would be returned to the island if that is the
groups' decision. Mr. Hart and Mr. Sullivan expressed appreciation
for this model project.

Mr. Steve Henrikson, Alaska State Museum, stated that the Alaska State
Museum has been fairly active in compliance with NAGPRA and other
activities related to NAGPRA. Inventories and summaries were
distributed and numerous consultations were held with various native
groups around the state. The Alaska State Museum returned three sets
of human remains to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes, acting on behalf of the Auk Kwaan, and discussions are
ongoing with several other organizations around the state regarding
other artifacts. With the permission of the affected clans,
Mr. Henrikson showed slides of various individuals involved in the
repatriation process and objects that have been repatriated. He
explained how some items were found unexpectedly in collections during
the consultation process and were later repatriated or are currently
in process, such as an ancient headdress from the Teikweid in Yakutat
and a beaver canoe prow figure from Angoon that was especially
significant as it was from the only surviving canoe after the
bombardment of Angoon by the U.S. Navy in 1882. The beaver canoe prow
figure was identified by Mr. Harold Jacobs during a consultation visit
at the National Museum of the American Indian, and through cooperation
of the museum, was returned to the village approximately six months
after identification. Mr. Henrikson showed slides of repatriated
objects, some in their ceremonial use, including a wolf hat from the
T'aaku Yanyeid Clan, a killer whale dagger, killer whale hat and frog
hat from the Dakl'aweid Clan of Angoon, and two Chilkat robes and a
beaded shirt from the Kiks.ßdi. He explained that many items remain
curated in the Alaska State Museum and are available for ceremonial
use. Mr. Henrikson described the museum's proactive role in trying to
locate Native cultural items and remove them from private collections.

Ms. Metcalf asked if the amounts awarded under the NAGPRA grants
program were sufficient for consultation purposes. Mr. Henrikson
explained that due to high travel expenses, many consultations involve
only one or two individuals. In any given community there are
different lineages and social systems that ideally would each be
represented in the consultation process, and in that sense, there is
not sufficient funds for consultation. Mr. Minthorn asked if the
items discussed by Mr. Henrikson had been tested for contamination.
Mr. Henrikson replied that he believed the beaver canoe prow figure
had been tested but was unsure of the other items from different
museums. He explained that museums in the Alaska region rarely had to
use pesticides due to the climate. He added that when a claim is
received, conservation records will be thoroughly reviewed and arsenic
test kits used to try to determine possible contamination.

Ms. Rosa Miller, Auk Kwaan, and Ms. Cheryl Eldemar explained their
frustrating consultation experience with the U.S. Forest Service.
Ms. Miller explained that she was of the Raven moiety, Dog Salmon
Clan, from the Dipper House, and detailed her family lineage. She
then explained a process that began in 1992 to repatriate human
remains excavated in 1990. She expressed concern over the two-year
time period taken before tribal notification of the excavation. She
explained that the consultation process consisted of reams of paper
being given to her at consultation meetings, promises being made, and
then consultation shifting to the former chief of her clan.
Ms. Eldemar explained that she was the former cultural resource
specialist for the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes.
She stated much of the frustration stemmed from promises made at
consultation meetings by people who were not in decision-making
positions. Ms. Eldemar felt that promises were made by the Forest
Service in order to fulfill their consultation requirements, but the
promises would not be upheld. She felt that the switch to consult
with the former chief of the clan was an attempt to speed the
repatriation process. Ms. Miller described the repatriation process
and explained that the human remains were reburied in September 1999.
She stated the Auk Kwaan made some requests that were not granted,
including construction of a bentwood burial box by a specific
individual and having a memorial dinner after the reburial of the
human remains, both traditional practices. Ms. Eldemar added that
although the Forest Service did provide financial assistance to a
degree, it did not complete the required process. The request for a
memorial dinner was denied due to its party nature, demonstrating a
problem with cultural issues. Ms. Miller explained a successful
repatriation through the Alaska State Museum and expressed her
appreciation to Mr. Henrikson, who was instrumental in the process.

Mr. Gary Selinger, University of Alaska Museum in Fairbanks, explained
that the museum has been the repository for Federal and state
collections since 1926, including the NPS, the BLM, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of
Defense. The collections consist of approximately 4,500 different
accessions representing about 1,000,000 objects and 900 sets of human
remains. To date, the museum has repatriated 450 sets of human
remains and approximately 3,500 funerary objects in 14 different
claims, with 3 pending claims. He explained the museum received no
assistance in response to letters sent to Federal agencies asking for
either financial or staff assistance. The museum made the decision to
fulfill compliance on behalf of the Federal agencies at state expense.
Therefore the museum is in possession of the collections but not in
control, which causes delays in the repatriation process. Federal
agencies often choose to repeat the consultation process to verify the
information, placing additional burden on the Native community.
Mr. Selinger described a claim made by the Nome Eskimo community on
January 3, 2000. The U.S. Coast Guard was found to be the Federal
agency that is responsible. Despite his attempts to make progress on
this claim, he has received no response to date from the Coast Guard.
Mr. Selinger pointed out that delays in publication of Notices of
Intent to Repatriate have serious effects in Alaska where reburials
are seriously limited by the weather, and a three-month delay in
publication can result in a year delay in the repatriation process.
He also reiterated a concern voiced by Ms. Eldemar regarding burial on
Federal lands. He cited a BLM policy that prohibits reburial on BLM
land unless reburial of a partial skeleton can reunite human remains.
He expressed concern about human remains in Federal collections that
are being held in foreign countries and frustration over the lack of a
method to have these items returned to the United States.
Mr. Selinger expressed appreciation for the role of Mr. McKeown and
his office in guidance regarding NAGPRA issues and concern over the
possible effects of reorganization. Mr. Selinger explained that
initial fears regarding NAGPRA legislation have given way to the
development of partnerships and collaboration with Native communities,
benefiting the museum in numerous ways.

Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Selinger and
the museum and added that the issue of reburial on Federal lands has
come up in other parts of the country. Mr. O'Shea asked why the
museum took on the Federal agencies' responsibility of completing the
inventory process and repatriations for Federal agency collections.
Mr. Selinger explained that the museum chose to bring the Federal
agency collections into compliance out of a sense of responsibility to
the Native communities of Alaska. Mr. Minthorn asked for a copy of
the BLM policy regarding reburial on BLM land, citing this, and the
Coast Guard case, as another example of the reason for Federal agency
compliance to be considered a priority.

Ms. Diane Palmer and Ms. Irene Shields, Cape Fox Corporation and the
Saanya Kwaan Tribe, thanked the review committee members for the
opportunity to make a presentation. Ms. Palmer explained that the
Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaska Native corporation organized
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. On
November 5, 1999, Cape Fox Corporation on behalf of the Saanya Kwaan
Tribe, filed repatriation petitions under NAGPRA with the Field
Museum, the Peabody and Burke Museums, Cornell University, the
National Museum of the American Indian, and the National Museum of
Natural History. The majority of the claims were for artifacts taken
by the Harriman Expedition of 1899, including artifacts taken from
Cape Fox in July 1899. Aside from the repatriation claims, a project
is currently underway which will retrace the Harriman Expedition 100
years later and will result in a feature-length documentary film for
PBS about the original expedition, the expedition of 2000, the changes
that have occurred in Alaska over the past 100 years, and the return
of Cape Fox artifacts on July 12, 2000. Ms. Shields added that the
artifacts taken during the Harriman Expedition include nine totem
poles, a tribal house, masks, box drums, canes, two Chilkat blankets,
and burial posts from graves. She explained some of the extensive
preparations currently taking place for the repatriation and hoped
that the Federal Register notices would be published in time for the
planned July repatriation. At this point, Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody
Museum at Harvard, submitted a draft Notice of Intent to Repatriate to
Mr. McKeown for publication. Ms. Palmer thanked the Peabody Museum
for their assistance and asked that consideration be given to strict
timing requirements when working on the publication of the notice and
added that due to the high costs of repatriating large items such as
the totem poles, Cape Fox Corporation would be seeking a repatriation
grant from the NPS once the notice has been published.

Ms. Naranjo asked for Mr. Robbins' assurance for speedy publication of
the Federal Register notices necessary for this repatriation.
Mr. Robbins responded that he would do his best. Mr. Sullivan
clarified that the materials in the NMAI go through a separate
process. Ms. Shields explained that they met with representatives of
the NMAI and they are trying to speed their process.

Ms. Allison Young, Aleutian/Pribolof Islands Association, explained
that the association is a nonprofit Native association for the Aleut
people of the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands region, with 13 tribal
governments, 13 village corporations and 1 regional corporation.
Handouts were provided to the review committee members detailing the
traditional territories of the Aleut political groups as recognized in
the 1760's by Russian historians and explorers, a map of the Aleutian
and Pribolof Islands region with detail of distances, and a
preliminary list of organizations with standing to claim for materials
from the island groups in the Aleutian archipelago compiled in
consultation with the Indian tribes, villages corporations and the
regional corporation. Repatriation efforts in the region began in
1995 with the tribal government of St. Paul receiving a repatriation
grant to begin consultation with museums in the lower 48 states. In
January 1996 a meeting was held in Unalaska to discuss NAGPRA
procedures and implementation. As a result of this meeting, the
Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska applied for and received a NAGPRA grant
to organize a repatriation commission and to develop a database using
the summaries and inventories received from institutions. In 1998 the
Aleutian/Pribolof Islands Association organized the cultural heritage
program, for which Ms. Young was hired as director, to revitalize
repatriation efforts and the language. Of the 3,000 Aleuts in the
region, 200 speak the language fluently. A one-day workshop was held
to provide a preliminary overview of NAGPRA. Ms. Young explained that
the Qawalangin Tribe's NAGPRA grant was revitalized and efforts made
to complete the scope of work outlined in the grant, resulting in two
regional repatriation meetings and the organization of a regional
repatriation commission.

The regional repatriation office is backed by resolutions from Indian
tribes, village corporations and the Aleut Corporation, and its
mission is to implement NAGPRA, organize the commission, open dialog
with museums, and to create an extensive database to reference
material. The first meeting, held in March 1999, was an educational
and planning meeting and included Mr. McKeown from the Washington
NAGPRA office and representatives from the Smithsonian repatriation
office, and Ms. Metcalf, Mr. John Johnson and Ms. Cheryl Eldemar to
discuss how other Alaska Native groups have organized repatriation.
At a September 1999 meeting, the structure of the repatriation
commission was developed with fair representation from all parts of
the region, the draft repatriation manual was reviewed, future plans
for the database were discussed, and mock consultations held. No
formal repatriations have been submitted to date. Priorities include
beginning negotiations with institutions for the return of ancestral
human remains and funerary objects and the identification of sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony working with traditional
religious leaders. One of the greatest challenges is the distances
and expense involved for travel in the region, limited technology in
some areas of the region, and limited funding available for
repatriation efforts. Ms. Young expressed appreciation for the role
of Mr. McKeown and the Washington, D.C. office in providing assistance
and concern over the effect of restructuring. In response to a
question from Ms. Metcalf, Ms. Young explained that the repatriation
commission is funded through September 2000 through the Qawalangin
Tribe's grant. Two grant requests have been submitted, one for
research and documentation, and one for training. Currently no other
funds are available.

Mr. Fredrick Anderson, Native Village of Naknek, stated that he is a
former tribal council member, an enrolled member in the Naknek Native
Village council, has served as representative and spokesman for his
village on the Alaska Intertribal Council (AITC) and as the Bristol
Bay Region's elective representative on the AITC executive council,
and has served as the Native Village of Naknek's repatriation chairman
for the past six years. He explained work done for the last year
under a NAGPRA grant concerning Paug-Vik, a site on the Naknek River,
and the difficulty he has experienced in finding two qualified elders
capable of traveling to museums to identify objects. He is currently
using video recording to document the collections which will be shown
to elders for identification of cultural objects and in the future for
educational purposes. Mr. Anderson explained that Native people have
a different and special relationship with the skeletal remains of
their people, which should be treated with the greatest respect and
given a proper Native spiritual ceremony. He thanked Mr. McKeown,
Mr. Ball, and Ms. Mahoney of the Washington office for their
assistance and guidance, and Mr. Selinger of the University of Alaska
Museum at Fairbanks for his patience and knowledge.

Ms. Rosita Worl, Sealaska Corporation and Sealaska Heritage
Foundation, explained that she serves on the board of directors for
Sealaska Corporation and as president for Sealaska Heritage
Foundation. Sealaska Corporation holds title to a portion of the
aboriginal land base in southeast Alaska, with approximately 30,000
Native shareholders and descendants. Sealaska Corporation supports
educational, social and cultural interests of Native Alaska people and
provides a significant portion of the Sealaska Heritage Foundation's
administrative budget. Sealaska Heritage Foundation's mission is to
perpetuate and enhance the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimpshian cultures of
southeast Alaska. She expressed appreciation for NAGPRA, those who
are active in its implementation, and the members of the review
committee for their continued work. Ms. Worl expressed concern about
a repatriation request submitted on October 27, 1995 by the Central
Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska for the yeilsheishoox,
or raven rattle, in the possession of the Taylor Museum for
Southwestern Studies of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center as of
November 18, 1993. At the time of the request, the Central Council of
Tlingit and Haida Indians was informed that the Taylor Museum was no
longer in possession of the raven rattle. The United States attorney
in Denver has referred this issue to the NPS for possible civil
penalty. Ms. Worl explained that no action has been taken since the
NPS received the referral and expressed concern over possible statute
of limitation issues. She hoped the review committee members would
place this issue on their action list for follow up.

Ms. Worl explained that she testified on April 20, 1999, before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearings, offering a
number of recommendations regarding NAGPRA, including placement of the
NAGPRA program in another administering agency to eliminate the
inherent conflict of interest that exists in the office of chief
archeologist in the NPS. She supports the NCAI resolution
recommending placing the NAGPRA program in a neutral office and
identified OMB as a possibility. Ms. Worl stated that the action
taken by the Intermountain Region of the NPS regarding the review
committee's recommendation on the Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture
National Historical Park issue confirms the conflict of interest. She
expressed concern that the personnel changes noted earlier would cause
further backlogs, delays and inefficiencies in NAGPRA implementation.
Ms. Worl made a further recommendation that Congress amend NAGPRA to
allow for the prompt reburial of culturally unidentifiable human
remains, adding that most Native Americans believe in a duality of
spirit in which the spirit resides both with the human remains and the
other part travels to a land of the dead, which is why Native
Americans insist that all Native American human remains be returned to
the Indian tribes. She requested that all culturally unidentifiable
Native American human remains be reburied in the same way that the
United States has honored and buried all unidentifiable human remains
of military personnel. Ms. Worl thanked the review committee for the
opportunity to comment and for coming to Alaska.

Ms. Metcalf asked if Ms. Worl received any results or update on
recommendations on amending NAGPRA. Ms. Worl explained that the only
information she received was the explanation of the reorganization
presented at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Sullivan placed the
issue of the raven rattle on the review committee's action list,
calling for a briefing from the NPS with current status and plans
regarding the issue. Ms. Worl invited the members of the review
committee, NPS staff and all attending the meeting to a reception
hosted by Sealaska Corporation and Huna Totem Foundation.

Mr. Ron Williams, Huna Heritage Foundation, explained that he
represented Mr. Adam Greenwald, head of Snail House and would like to
express concern regarding a repatriation petition submitted to the
University of Pennsylvania Museum in September 1995, subsequent to a
meeting with a University of Pennsylvania Museum representative in
Juneau during which a video of 39 Snail House objects was shown.
Subsequently, four or five addendums were submitted at the museum's
request. During consultation six additional items were discovered,
bringing the total to 45. Mr. Williams asked whether it would be
permissible for the Snail House to review the museum's records and
added that both the Snail House and the museum need technical
assistance on this matter. He explained that Huna Heritage
Foundation, jointly with Hoonah Indian Association, wrote a letter to
the museum asking when they could visit this summer but have yet to
receive a reply.

Mr. Kenneth Grant, Hoonah Indian Association, explained that the
Hoonah Indian Association is a Federally recognized Indian tribe
located on Chichagof Island, southwest of Juneau, with approximately
600 registered members. The Hoonah Indian Association currently has
four clans, the Kaagwaantaan, the Chookaneidi, the Wooshkeetaan, and
the T'akdeintaan. He described the repatriation of Wooshkeetaan human
remains and associated funerary objects from Glacier Bay National Park
boundaries approximately four years ago from Washington State
University and the repatriation of Swanson Harbor Jim last year. He
expressed appreciation for the sensitivity of the Denver Museum of
Natural History in granting a loan of an eagle hat while paperwork is
processed for the final repatriation, which should taken place within
the next year. Mr. Grant described consultation visits to the
American Museum of Natural History and the Field Museum during which
overwhelming numbers of objects belonging to the Hoonah people were
found. He expressed concern over lack of complete information
regarding the objects, with some only being identified by having an
elder present to recognize the clan lineage and emblems. He added
that the requirement of NAGPRA for a preponderance of evidence on
behalf of the Indian tribes as claimants is difficult to fulfill
because many elders are gone or have health problems that prevent
travel. He expressed concern that these objects need to be returned
within a short time period so the elders will have a chance to view
them and bring them back into their culture. Mr. Grant thanked
Mr. McKeown for his assistance and hoped he would continue to be part
of the restructuring.

Mr. Bradley thanked Mr. Grant and Mr. Williams for their presentations
and expressed hope that museums would continue to work with them in
order to return these objects. Mr. Bradley emphasized the importance
of eliminating the backlog due to its negative effect on communities.
Mr. Grant added that the dispute between the Hoonah Indian Association
and the Huna Totem Foundation has been resolved and the groups are
currently working together.

Mr. Patrick Mills, Huna Tribe, and members of his family presented
regalia from their house, the Snail House, and described the items,
such as a loon hat made from a cannon, a red hat made by Mr. David
Williams, and two blankets. He explained how his family came from
Snail House but is not considered to be part of it, nor are they
included in workshops or events because of their dual claim on the
Snail House. He emphasized the importance of knowing family lineage
and passing down family names in order to preserve your house. He
described a Chilkat blanket given upon the marriage of his uncle to
the widow of the Snail House leader, which preserved the family's
position in Snail House.

Mr. Thomas Mills, Huna Tribe, explained his family lineage and the
importance of oral tradition, which was passed down in his family
through his grandmother.

Ms. Beatrice Brown, Huna Tribe, stated that in the interests of time
she would submit her comments in writing to the review committee.

Ms. Rosita Worl and other members of the Eagle moiety thanked and
acknowledged the members of the Raven moiety for showing their family
and clan treasures.

Mr. Bob Maguire, Denakkanaaga, thanked the Tlingit people for hosting
the review committee meeting, the Hoonah people for explaining their
clan history, and Ms. Metcalf for her work on NAGPRA. He expressed
appreciation for the work of the review committee members.
Mr. Maguire explained that he is employed by Denakkanaaga, operating
under authorization from resolution from Doyon Limited, the regional
corporation which is a Federally recognized Indian tribe. Doyon
Limited is the largest private landholding corporation in the United
States holding approximately 14 million acres, with 44 Federally
recognized Native communities that speak nine different Athabaskan
language groups. Mr. Maguire explained that Denakkanaaga is in the
third year of their NAGPRA grant, which focuses on education, through
which Denakkanaaga hosted a statewide NAGPRA conference this past fall
featuring NAGPRA representatives from each area of the state and eight
different interior communities. The NAGPRA conference resulted in the
community of Eagle's submitting a repatriation request to the
University of Alaska Museum at Fairbanks. The backlog in publication
of Federal Register notices may result in a delay in the repatriation
due to weather conditions. The repatriation is further complicated
because the reburial location is located at the headquarters for the
Yukon Charlie Rivers Preserve on Federal land. He described the
repatriation of six individuals and associated funerary objects to the
Village of Anvik from the University of Pennsylvania Museum, including
a magnificent rainbow reaching from the community to the graveyard
following the burial. Mr. Maguire echoed concern regarding the
restructuring of the NAGPRA program and thanked the review committee
for their hard work.

Mr. Richard Dalton, Sr., T'akdeintaan, Hoonah, gave a brief history of
his grandfather, Swanson Harbor Jim, whose human remains were
repatriated in April 1999 from the National Museum of Natural History.
Mr. Dalton described his frustration with the U.S. Forest Service over
reburying his grandfather in his Swanson Harbor homelands, which are
now Federal lands. He explained that the Forest Service did not want
a permanent memorial at the gravesite or publicity about the reburial.
Mr. Dalton stated that legislation needs to be made to allow for
reburial on Federal lands. He explained the importance of preserving
history for children for many years. Mr. Dalton thanked the review
committee members for hearing his presentation.

1999 Report to Congress

Mr. Sullivan explained that at the Silver Spring meeting the review
committee developed two documents, the 1998 Report to Congress and the
Recommendations of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee, which were later used in discussions
with members of Congress. At the Juneau meeting, the review committee
members updated both documents, developing text for the 1999 Report to
Congress and the Recommendations of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, dated April 4, 2000.
The recommendations were updated with the intention that they could be
circulated immediately to the Congressional oversight committees and
the Secretary of the Interior, and then included in the full 1999
Report to Congress. Mr. Sullivan added that this was the last
opportunity for the current seven members of the review committee to
collectively sign a document. After discussion and minor editorial
changes of the draft prepared by Mr. Sullivan, a final version of the
recommendations was signed by the members (see Attachment B).

The review committee members agreed to use the 1998 report when
formatting the 1999 Report to Congress. Due to time constraints, the
review committee members agreed to focus their discussion on the major
issues. Mr. Sullivan prepared a draft of the major issues to be
considered. Following a brief discussion, review committee members
agreed to the text prepared by Mr. Sullivan and expressed appreciate
for his efforts in drafting this language.

"Committee Activities in 1999: The committee heard evidence during
its meetings last year of a growing concern from many organizations
and individuals about the perceived conflict of interest inherent in
the National Park Service's administration of the NAGPRA program.
This concern stemmed from the reality that many individual parks
within the NPS hold collections of human remains and cultural objects
subject to repatriation under NAGPRA, while the administrative unit
responsible for monitoring their compliance with the law is also
housed in the NPS. In other words, the same agency is tasked with
both implementation and enforcement. Native American tribal
organizations pointed to the fact that the Designated Federal Officer
then responsible for administering NAGPRA is chief of archeology and
ethnography for the National Park Service, which suggested an inherent
professional conflict of interest. After its May 1999 meeting in
Silver Spring, the committee members asked for a meeting with the
chief of staff to the Secretary of the Interior to report these
concerns. Most members of the review committee expressed support for
the idea of moving the NAGPRA program into a central unit of the
Department of the Interior, directly under the Secretary's office, in
order to establish an appropriate distance from conflicts of interest.
Senior officials of the Department of the Interior explored
administrative options over the next ten months. In March 2000, the
committee learned that the NAGPRA program would remain within the NPS
but that national implementation, national compliance, and grants
programs would be delegated upward to the Assistant Director for
Cultural Resources. Current staff would be reassigned in a variety of
ways operating within two separate units: Park Service NAGPRA and the
existing national NAGPRA responsibilities. The committee as a whole
remains very concerned that this arrangement may not be adequate to
prevent conflicts of interest or to assure sufficient staff and
resources." (The previous sentence was emphasized with italics.)

Under Specific Observations, "Inadequate Staffing and Funding: In
previous reports, the committee has noted that compliance with NAGPRA
has created a significant management burden for all tribes, museums
and Federal agencies, as well as for the central administrative unit
within the National Park Service. Now that nearly ten years has
elapsed since passage of the law, the number of inventory completions
and notices of intent to repatriate continues to grow annually." Mr.
Sullivan suggested inserting a chart with specific information at this
point, to be provided following the meeting. "Because of inadequate
staffing, the average time that elapsed between receipt of draft
inventory completions and notices of intent to repatriate by the NPS
NAGPRA office and actual publication in the Federal Register was X
days." Mr. Sullivan suggested inserting a chart with specific
information regarding the administrative backlogs in the years 1995
through 1999 and asked if Mr. Robbins could provide this information.
Mr. Robbins responded that he would see if that number would be
available without any qualifications. In response to a question by
Mr. O'Shea, Mr. McKeown explained that the average time from delivery
of a notice to the Federal Register and publication was three to five
days. "For tribes, museums, and Federal agencies, these backlogs have
resulted in frustrating delays in accomplishing the intent of the
law." (The previous sentence was emphasized with italics.) "Tribes in
northern sections of the country seeking to rebury repatriated human
remains during the few summer months when the ground is not frozen
have sometimes experienced especially poignant and lengthy delays into
the following year. As noted in our 1998 report, these delays have
the effect of undermining trust by Native peoples in the NAGPRA
process."

"The committee was pleased to learn that the NPS has allocated an
additional $195,000 in agency funds during FY2000 to begin addressing
the inadequacy of administrative resources, and that the President's
budget request for FY2001 contains a recommended permanent increase of
$400,000 for NAGPRA administration.
The committee urges favorable action by the Congress on this request.
However,
the committee further notes that Section 8 (c)(5) of the statute
requires completion of an inventory of all culturally unidentifiable
human remains. At current staffing levels, completion of this
database will require a number of years. The delay is unacceptable
because this database is an essential component for implementing
recommendations for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human
remains, and the committee is preparing to forward those
recommendations in the near future." Mr. O'Shea suggested making the
database information available through the Internet, along with the
newspaper notices of inadvertent discoveries and planned excavations.

"Federal Agency Compliance: In the early years of implementing
NAGPRA, public attention was focused on issues related to compliance
by museums and universities holding collections of Native American
human remains and cultural items. As time has gone on, it is
increasingly apparent to the review committee that compliance by
Federal agencies now represents a greater problem that calls for
vigilant oversight by the respective committees of the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives. Reports received in 1999 from a variety of
Federal agencies within the Department of the Interior, the Department
of Defense, and the U.S. Forest Service provide a clear indication
that many Federal land managers are still years or even decades away
from completing the summaries and inventories required under the law.
This is in contrast to the standard required of non-Federal museums,
which had to meet a November 1995 deadline for inventory completions."

"Further, the committee has heard credible testimony from tribal
leaders throughout the United States indicating that many regional
units of Federal agencies are failing to notify or consult with Indian
tribes in the manner stipulated by NAGPRA. Either they do not
understand their responsibilities under the law, or they are choosing
to ignore those responsibilities. As NAGPRA enters a second decade as
the nation's statutory standard for repatriation and graves
protection, it is distressing to note that Federal agency compliance
continues to reflect inadequate policy priorities and allocation of
agency resources. While good-faith efforts have indeed been made in
some agencies, the committee repeats our observation from 1998 that
'Federal compliance still falls well short of statutory requirements
and lags far behind equivalent progress by non-Federal museums.'"

Discussion of Federal Agency Compliance Reports

Mr. McKeown explained that the review committee members have a report
in their binders compiled by the DOI Museum Property Program, which is
not NAGPRA specific but does address NAGPRA issues. The review
committee also received information from three Federal agencies
concerning compliance, the Department of Energy, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Department of the Air Force. Mr. Sullivan expressed
concern about the slow pace of many agencies for completion of
inventories, and explained that when asked to give target dates for
completing inventories of NAGPRA materials in non-Federal
institutions, the BIA and BLM report no firm target dates, and the
Bureau of Reclamation will revise its inventories by summer 2000 and
provide a list of additional resources needed. Another concern is the
complicated answers given by the BLM, the BIA and the Bureau of
Reclamation when asked if they completed their inventories by the
statutory deadline of November 16, 1995. Mr. Minthorn suggested that
the Federal agencies come before the review committee to give an
update on NAGPRA compliance. Mr. O'Shea suggested providing the
agencies with a specific format for reporting information.
Ms. Naranjo expressed concern that the numbers cited in the report
were underestimated, and Mr. Bradley suggested addressing that
question to the Federal agencies and considering a site for the next
meeting that would be conducive to getting Federal agency
representatives to attend.

Discussion of Pesticide Contamination of Repatriated Objects

Ms. Alyce Sadongei, Kiowa and Tohono O'odham, thanked the review
committee for the opportunity to address the issue of pesticide
contamination of museum objects. The Arizona State Museum, for which
she is the assistant curator for Native American relations, received a
grant from the NPS to do a workshop on pesticide contamination. She
provided the review committee members with the workshop agenda,
abstract, and goals. NAGPRA funds enabled a thorough study of Arizona
State Museum records and information to determine pesticide use on
collections that date back 107 years, although pesticides have not
been used in the past 20 years, as well as the development of a
prototype for a museum database on pesticide use. Arizona State
Museum consulted with seven Indian tribes regarding what Indian tribes
wished to see incorporated in the workshop, the San Carlos Apache,
White Mountain Apache, Yavapai-Apache, Hopi, Navajo, and four southern
Indian tribes of O'odham people, Tohono O'odham, Acoma O'odham, Ak-
Chin and Gila River. The agenda developed from the tribal
consultations included tribal people, museum conservators, medical
toxicologists, chemists, industrial hygienist and public health
researcher, and included an evening presentation and discussion by the
NPS and NAGPRA office.

The workshop raised the following issues: Both Indian tribes and
museums are unaware of the potential risks of pesticide contamination
on museum collections; due to the wide variation in tribal practices
after repatriation, health hazards exist to both individuals and the
environment; there is an urgency to develop tests to screen for
pesticide presence, to identify and develop protocols for analytical
determination of quantities, and to qualify the potential health risks
depending on the intended tribal practices and disposition of the
repatriated items; there is a need to address and potentially include
tribal practices for pest control in all discussions; museum
cooperation during development of histories is important due to trade
and loan practices, with the possible incorporation of a pesticide
database, described by Ms. Nancy Odegaard, conservator at Arizona
State Museum. Further recommendations included holding this type of
workshop in different parts of the country; the need for resources to
disseminate general pesticide information; the need for museums to
prepare histories of pesticide use; clarification of the purpose and
techniques of swipe tests; consultation and direct participation of
tribal members for all testing that involves sampling; the involvement
of medical specialists in the process of health risk assessment.
Cooperative teams developed to deal with the issue of pesticide should
include tribal people, medical toxicologists, conservators, chemists
and/or industrial hygienists or public health professionals. Careful
consideration of the context of information is important and should
take into account the type and amount of pesticide present and the
possible effects of the pesticide depending on the type of body entry.
NAGPRA requires notification of the use of pesticides, but most
museums presently know little about pesticide use and its potential
hazards. Funding is needed to enable historical research and the
development of testing techniques. Ms. Sadongei expressed the hope
that the review committee would see this topic as important and
determine a path for further clarification.

Mr. Joe Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation, explained that he is the
cultural resources person for the Tohono O'odham Nation and expressed
concern that the issue of pesticide contamination was not fully
considered before passage of NAGPRA. Many Native Americans were
unaware of the potential dangers in repatriating contaminated items.
He explained that Native people do have methods to deal with
contamination, which are not for public knowledge or use. Mr. Joaquin
stated that the workshop was good for hearing the ideas of the
presenters and the information they had to share, and he emphasized
that communication was the key to dealing with this issue.

Mr. O'Shea asked if information from the workshop was going to be
distributed publicly. Ms. Sadongei explained that information was
handed out to people attending the conference and consideration is
being given to publishing the information for distribution, trying to
cover the issues and technical information. Mr. Sullivan suggested
posting the information on the NPS website in conjunction with other
NAGPRA information and also through the Technical Information Service
of the American Association of Museums. Mr. Minthorn stressed the
importance of education and developing guidelines so that Indian
tribes and museums can work to alleviate this problem. He hoped that
the review committee and the NPS could work to create guidelines
concerning this issue. Ms. Naranjo expressed concern about this issue
as it affects both humans and the environment and appreciation for the
fact that the Hopi Tribe has been especially concerned about pesticide
use and has been one of the initiators of this concern. Mr. Bradley
commended the work done on this issue and asked if the issue could be
given priority within the NAGPRA grants program. Mr. Robbins
explained that it is already an emphasis within the grants program,
that the NPS and its Museum Management program have begun to address
this problem, and a member of the NPS, Ms. Jessie Johnson, attended
the workshop.

Approval of Minutes from Salt Lake City Meeting

The review committee members unanimously approved the minutes of the
Salt Lake City, Utah meeting on November 18, 19 and 20, 1999.

Upcoming Meetings

After discussion, the review committee members tentatively set the
next meeting for November 2000 in Nashville, Tennessee, and the
following meeting in May-June 2001 in northern California, to be
coordinated by invitation of and in cooperation with the Lake County
Intertribal NAGPRA Consortium.

Election of Chair

Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Naranjo declined to participate in the selection
of chair, discussed in terms of an interim position, as their terms
will be completed in June 2000. Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Bradley, and
Mr. O'Shea declined to serve as interim chair. Mr. Minthorn stated
that he would serve as interim chair. Mr. Hart stated that he would
serve as interim chair if asked but would defer to Mr. Minthorn.
After discussion, Mr. Minthorn agreed to act as interim chair for the
review committee.

Review Committee Administration

Solicitation of Nominations for Review Committee Members: Mr. Robbins
explained that due to the conclusion of the terms of both Ms. Naranjo
and Mr. Sullivan, nominations for new members would be solicited.
Sources for the nomination for the position currently held by
Ms. Naranjo are Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations
and Native Hawaiian organizations, and nominees do not have to be
traditional religious leaders. Sources for the nomination for the
position currently held by Mr. Sullivan are national museum and
scientific organizations. A Federal Register notice was published on
February 10, 2000, outlining the specific information and the closing
date for nominations was set for June 19, 2000. Nominations should be
submitted to Mr. Robbins.
Review Committee Member Reimbursement: Mr. Sullivan reported that he
had not received his reimbursement for the Salt Lake City meeting.
Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Hart reported that they did not receive their
travel expenses from the Salt Lake City meeting.

Commendations: Mr. Sullivan suggested that Mr. McManamon and
Mr. McKeown both receive official recognition for initiating and
guiding the national NAGPRA program through its first ten years; Mr.
McManamon for his stewardship and direction of the overall program and
Mr. McKeown for the extraordinary manner in which he has been a
connecting point for all interested parties and particularly Indian
tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations that have sought to have
access to the process. The review committee members also wished to
recognize the efforts of Ms. Hagel. The review committee members
agreed to send a letter to the Secretary of the Interior with these
requests.

Action List

Mr. Sullivan expressed appreciation for the action list developed at
the Salt Lake City meeting. Review committee members were in favor of
continuing the action list to track the progress of each item. At the
end of the Juneau meeting, the following items remained on the list
for further action:
? letter to the Pechanga and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding the dispute heard at the Portland meeting;
? letter to the San Francisco Art Museum regarding repatriation (from
the Santa Fe meeting);
? contact the FBI regarding the sale of a skull in Ohio (from the
Silver Spring meeting);
? monthly updates to the review committee regarding the backlog in
publishing Federal Register notices, current status of six
institutions under forbearance, current status of civil penalties,
particularly the raven rattle, FY1999 and FY2000 NAGPRA
appropriations and FY1999 actual expenditures, FY2000 NAGPRA
workplan, current status of Spirit Cave decision, status of revision
to excavation/discovery regulations, status of proposed rule
regarding disposition of unclaimed cultural items, and incoming
correspondence;
? letter regarding the Satanta shield;
? Federal agency compliance (document Federal agency policies
regarding hiring of Native American religious leaders as experts,
document Federal agency policies regarding reburial on Federal
lands, and determine if Federal agencies can be required to prepare
discovery plans);
? response to Hopi regarding notice by Mesa Verde and Aztec; summary
of Salt Lake City meeting;
? resolution of outstanding reimbursement from Salt Lake City meeting;
? letter to Ms. Marsha Kearney, U.S. Forest Service, regarding
disposition of the human remains of eight individuals;
? letter to Ms. Lynette Miller, Washington State Historical Society,
regarding disposition of the remains of four individuals;
? 1999 Report to Congress;
? respond to NCAI resolution PSC-99-128 (after official receipt by
office); commendations for Mr. McManamon and Mr. McKeown;
? Web publication of newspaper notices;
? plans for two upcoming meetings (Nashville and northern California);
? principles of agreement (publish in Federal Register and develop
draft proposed rule);
? and highlight contamination issues (post information on web and
consider developing guidelines).

Public Comment

Ms. Dale Ann Frye Sherman, Yurok, National Congress of the American
Indian (NCAI), acknowledged that she was in someone else's land. She
spoke on behalf of NCAI, the oldest and more representative American
Indian and Alaska Native organization in the United States. The NCAI
understands that NAGPRA requires the review committee to recommend
specific actions for developing a process for the disposition of
culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains, but the
review committee needs to clarify that this does not legally restrict
Federal agencies and museums from repatriating culturally
unidentifiable human remains. The NCAI asks that the review committee
strengthen the requirement in section B of the draft guidelines for
disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains to use good
faith evaluation of all relevant available documentation in
consultation with any appropriate Indian tribe while making cultural
affiliation determinations. The NCAI expressed concern over the use
of the term "educational, historical or scientific value" found in
sections C.2 and C.3, stating that this usage reaches beyond the scope
of NAGPRA and should be removed. The important issue is the speedy
repatriation of human remains regardless of their educational,
historical, or scientific value. Under models for disposition, the
NCAI applauds the review committee's recommendation of regional
solutions for disposition/repatriation but feels the term disposition
should be clarified. The NCAI also feels that where human remains are
clearly Native American, the process for their disposition should be
determined from a Native perspective. Regional disposition solutions
should be drafted by the Indian tribes with some consultation with
Federal agencies and institutions. Ms. Frye Sherman then summarized
NCAI Resolution PSC-99-128 calling for the transfer of NAGPRA
responsibility to the Office of Management, Budget and Policy.

Mr. Minthorn asked if there has been a response to the resolution. In
the absence of a response, review committee members felt that there
should be a response from the appropriate party. Mr. Robbins
explained that when the resolution has been officially received, it
can be handled as incoming correspondence.

Ms. Martha Graham, Society for American Archeology (SAA), explained
that she is chair of the repatriation committee for SAA, the largest
professional organization for archeologists in the United States. The
SAA supports the review committee's position that museums and Federal
agencies should have an inventory process to determine cultural
affiliation, which should include consultation with possibly affected
Indian tribes and the weighting of a variety of lines of evidence.
When cultural affiliation is determined the affiliated Indian tribes
can repatriate the human remains. Ms. Graham urged Indian tribes to
consider other dispositions at this point in the process. The SAA
encourages the review committee to consider exploring the extent to
which Indian tribes, museums and Federal agencies are dealing with
culturally affiliated human remains and associated funerary objects,
which will help the review committee effectively address disputes and
develop recommendations for the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable human remains. The SAA expressed appreciation for the
progress made by the review committee on developing recommendations
for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains and the
difficult role the review committee has in the process of NAGPRA
implementation. The SAA thanked Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan for
their important contributions, resourcefulness and integrity while
serving on the review committee.

Mr. Norman Harry, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, thanked the review
committee for the opportunity to make a presentation and thanked his
Alaska Native brothers and sisters for their generous hospitality and
warm welcome. He explained that they have been following the
Kennewick human remains case very carefully and were encouraged by the
DOI acknowledgement that the human remains were Native American but
were discouraged when the DOI allowed DNA testing of the human
remains. Mr. Harry stated that the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has an
ancient relative, the Wizard Beach human remains, which also have been
determined to be over 9,000 years old. He explained that the Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe feels that the DOI may be allowing a very bad
precedent to be established by allowing DNA testing. Their position
is that information from genetics or DNA testing is not relevant to
determinations of cultural affiliation. He presented a statement
outlining this position to the review committee, which he hoped would
be adopted into the draft principles of agreement regarding culturally
unidentifiable human remains. Geographic boundaries of present-day
reservations were only recently formally established. Traditional
ancestors knew no boundaries and traveled very extensively, resulting
in modern-day relations of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe throughout
the Great Basin. Mr. Harry expressed concern over the action by the
Intermountain Region of the NPS regarding the review committee
recommendations on the Chaco dispute and its possible precedent
setting effects on Indian tribes currently working with government
agencies. He expressed further concern at having simple questions by
the review committee members go unanswered by the assistant director
and a solicitor. Mr. Harry emphasized the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's
aggressive measures at protecting their resources, including the
repatriation of their ancestors and their commitment to exhaust all
available measures in order to fulfill this goal. He requested that
any final position concerning the draft principles on culturally
unidentifiable human remains be published in the Federal Register so
that the many Indian tribes not present at the meeting would have a
chance to comment. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe cannot and will not
support granting standing to the scientific communities or museums for
making decisions regarding their deceased relatives. Mr. Moyle asked
where to send letters regarding their concerns. In closing, he
thanked Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan for their commitment and
dedication for their work in NAGPRA implementation.

Mr. Sullivan suggested sending any correspondence regarding NAGPRA
concerns to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Bradley explained that
the goal to have the principles of agreement finalized arose from a
desire to complete this work before the end of Ms. Naranjo's and
Mr. Sullivan's terms on the review committee and that the
recommendation would then go in the Federal Register for comment.
Mr. Harry thanked Mr. Bradley for his clarification.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, stated that representatives of the Peabody Museum
would like to start addressing the compliance for the return of human
remains to Alaska groups and would like to speak with members of the
Aleut Corporation, the North Slope Corporation or the Bering Strait
Corporation. Ms. Isaac asked if all future Notices of Intent to
Repatriate and Notices of Inventory Completion should be sent to
Mr. Robbins, and Mr. Robbins confirmed that they should. Ms. Isaac
gave a brief update of the efforts of the Peabody Museum to fulfill
their forbearance requirements. She summarized a draft report on the
Peabody Museum's compliance, which she also provided to the review
committee members. The Peabody Museum divided compliance into
geographical sections. By the end of the second quota period, 32
states will have been completed, accounting for approximately 7,189
human remains, slightly over quota. She explained that the final
report would also detail the number of associated funerary objects,
which is estimated between 3,000 and 4,000.

Mr. David Katsic (phonetic), Chilkat, Tlingit, explained the
importance of having human remains and artifacts returned to their
people. He agreed with Ms. Yellow Bird's comments regarding Native
American tribal sovereignty. He described how in the Tlingit culture
these items were sacred. He stated that culturally unidentifiable
human remains should not be a problem in Alaska if artifacts were
buried with the human remains because these artifacts have clan
identification. He thanked the review committee for the opportunity
to make a presentation.

Ms. Patricia Lambert, American Association of Physical Anthropologists
(AAPA), expressed appreciation for the review committee's difficult
task and conveyed support of the review committee on behalf of the
AAPA regarding the issue of the dispute between the Hopi Tribe and
Chaco Culture National Historical Park. In Section A of the draft
principles of agreement regarding culturally unidentifiable human
remains, the AAPA feels that the intent of NAGPRA is the repatriation
of culturally affiliated human remains and dealing with the issue of
unclaimed human remains. Points 4 and 5 of section A seem to be
contradictory, calling for the process to be primarily in the hands of
Native people and then calling for a balance between the needs of
Native Americans and the public interest. The AAPA acknowledges the
fact that a determination of culturally unidentifiable may change,
possibly through biological, archeological, or other lines of
information that are an important part of the process and should not
be excluded. The AAPA reiterates the point that in terms of
culturally unidentifiable human remains NAGPRA does not prohibit
studies, even invasive studies. A determination that human remains
are culturally unidentifiable does not mean that they have no
scientific value; all human remains have a story. Another important
role of culturally unidentifiable human remains is in teaching, if for
no other reason than for students to learn to identify human remains
for their protection in future excavations and inadvertent
discoveries. The AAPA firmly supports the idea of regional solutions,
particularly on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Minthorn acknowledged that science does have a role, but stressed
that science needs to recognize that these objects are not just
objects or artifacts, they are sacred. Ms. Lambert explained that she
stresses respect for all human remains in her classrooms. She then
described a situation where past study allowed the identification of a
Native American individual among a burial of Mormon settlers and
stressed the importance of studying human remains from Native
Americans and people around the world for use in forensic capacities.
Mr. Hart asked for a response from Ms. Lambert regarding the opinion
of tribal officials that there are no culturally unidentifiable human
remains. Ms. Lambert explained that for some human remains there is
no information available but for other groups evidence shows
continuity in some areas for thousands of years. She agreed that this
is a very difficult issue.

Mr. Alfred McKinley, Sr., Eagle, Shark, Wooshkeetaan, explained his
lineage and stated that he is familiar with the information being
shared today regarding the clan histories. He emphasized the
importance of following custom and rules when dealing with cultural
artifacts and human remains, especially during reburials or
discussions, and the importance of returning items to the correct
Indian tribe. He explained that culture can even limit which clans
are discussed. Mr. McKinley thanked the review committee for allowing
him to speak.

Mr. John Martin, T'akdeintaan, Sockeye House, thanked the review
committee members and people participating in repatriation activities.
He stated that the return of important Tlingit items has meant the
return of the Tlingit identity and individual values. He explained
that many years ago, the Tlingit people knew no boundaries and were
not divided into the Raven and Eagle moieties. When disease destroyed
many people, the contaminated artifacts were put in caves. These
artifacts belonged to the Tlingit Tribe but no particular clan, making
identification difficult today. Mr. Martin explained the migration of
different clans from Glacier Bay. He stated that he represented the
Tenaktak Tribe, which advocates that the repatriation of all artifacts
and human remains to the Tlingit people be completed as one blanket
resolution.

Ms. Fawn Morris, Yurok, explained the importance of human remains in
her culture. She stressed that the human remains and regalia need to
be buried with respect and dignity. She serves as commissioner for
the Native American Heritage Commission for California and described
how telecommunications companies have to stop work when human remains
are found during digging. She explained that there are no culturally
unidentifiable human remains, because where the human remains are
found is where they are from. She added that no further study needs
to be done, as living Indian culture still exists. Ms. Morris stated
that handling sacred objects and human remains goes against her
beliefs, and she hopes that the review committee members keep that in
mind when considering this issue.

Mr. Alvin Moyle, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, thanked the review
committee members for allowing him to provide an update on their
request for the return of the Spirit Cave human remains and three
other individuals excavated from Spirit Cave in 1940. He explained
that the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe is the only Indian tribe that
seeks repatriation of the human remains and no Indian tribe contests
their claim to repatriation. Since the Salt Lake City review
committee meeting, the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe provided the BLM
Nevada state director with material to substantiate cultural
affiliation through eight reports by experts in the fields of
anthropology, biology, burial practices, ethnography, folklore,
linguistics, archeology, and DNA, which also were sent to the members
of the review committee. Mr. Moyle reported that the Nevada State
Museum, previously an ardent opponent of repatriation, took a more
constructive position in January 2000. In response to the expert
reports provided by the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, the director of
the Department of Museums, Library and Arts of the State of Nevada
wrote that his staff respects the opinions of the scholars retained by
the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and recommended that their opinions
be given serious consideration. The director added that the
Department of Museums, Library and Arts feels that the human remains
are Native American and that due to staff changes, the museum is no
longer assuming a lead in scientific studies of the Spirit Cave human
remains.

Mr. Moyle explained that in response to a letter from Mr. McManamon
following the Salt Lake City meeting, the BLM state director agreed to
consult with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. In a meeting on March
17, 2000, the state director informed the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe
that the BLM believes the human remains are Native American, there
appear to be no active requests to engage in scientific testing of the
human remains, the BLM is no longer considering scientific testing,
and the request for repatriation is currently being reviewed by the
BLM, the NPS, the BIA and the DOI Solicitor's Office at the D.C.
level. The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe is pleased with the progress
made to prove cultural affiliation with the Spirit Cave human remains
and hope that a decision to repatriate the human remains is made
promptly so the human remains can be returned. Mr. Moyle described
some complications arising from the repatriation request, including
the financial burden placed on Indian tribes while museums and other
agencies are being Federally assisted to establish cases against
Native people. Mr. Moyle explained that several busts were made of
the Spirit Cave human remains and other human remains. The BLM agreed
to the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's request not to display the
busts. However, a second reproduction of the busts was displayed at
the Clovis and Beyond Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico in October
1999. Dr. Sharon Long, originally contracted by the Nevada State
Museum to construct the busts, made a second set of the busts without
permission and copyrighted them. The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and
the museum are investigating this issue.

Mr. Moyle then requested that future discussions of the draft
principles of agreement regarding culturally unidentifiable human
remains be held in the lower 48 states in a central location to allow
for more tribal comment and participation. He stated that after
listening to the discussion of the Chaco dispute, relocation of the
NAGPRA program from the NPS is inevitable for the purpose of
impartiality. After listening to comments at the meeting, The Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe feels that the scientific community's political
relationship with the Federal government will influence adverse
policies and override the intent of NAGPRA. Regarding the issue of
compromise raised in earlier discussions, Mr. Moyle explained that
according to Native American beliefs and traditional ways, there is no
compromise for what would be the outcome of skeletal remains,
artifacts or funerary objects. He emphasized that NAGPRA is human
rights legislation, and language must be drafted that supports
immediate repatriation of Native American ancestors without catering
to the interests of the scientific community. Mr. Moyle stated that
the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe would like to publicly thank and
acknowledge the contributions of Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan and wish
them well with their future endeavors.

In response to Mr. O'Shea's question regarding DNA analysis, Mr. Moyle
explained that the information provided relevant to DNA was based on
studies done in the Great Basin area, not specific DNA studies on the
Spirit Cave human remains. Mr. O'Shea pointed out that during
presentations at the meeting, most of the scientific organizations
specifically supported the review committee's findings in the Hopi-
Chaco dispute. Mr. Moyle retracted his statement regarding the
scientific community's influence on NAGPRA. Mr. Minthorn expressed
appreciation for Mr. Moyle's persistence and patience, and stated that
he felt the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe's efforts have resulted in a
cultural affiliation determination. Mr. Minthorn asked for the status
of the request made by the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe that is being
reviewed by the BLM, the NPS, the BIA and the Solicitor's Office.
Ms. Mattix explained that the final decision will have to be made by
the BLM, which is consulting with the other departments in order to
make a fully informed decision regarding the case. The Solicitor's
Office also will be discussing the case. Mr. Moyle explained that the
Nevada state BLM director informed him that the DOI and the
Solicitor's Office would be reviewing the materials. Mr. Moyle
included the BIA because he felt they should be involved in this case
in order to fulfill a trust responsibility to all Native American
people. In response to questions by Ms. Cossette and Mr. Minthorn,
Ms. Mattix explained that the Solicitor's Office meetings regarding
this case will be closed due to the legal council advice nature and
she was unsure when the review would be completed. Mr. Bradley
expressed appreciation for Mr. Moyle's efforts and hoped that the
review committee would be able to help track this issue to ensure a
timely review. He asked Mr. Robbins if he would place this issue on
the action list and keep the review committee members apprised of the
situation. Mr. Robbins responded that he would do his best. Mr. Hart
and Mr. Sullivan expressed concern over the inappropriate nature of
the actions by Ms. Sharon Long in reproducing, displaying, and
copyrighting an additional set of the busts. Mr. Moyle reiterated his
position that he would not stop pursuing the repatriation of these
human remains until they are returned to the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone
Tribe.

Mr. Gary Selinger, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, commented
on pesticide contamination of Native American human remains and
associated funerary objects in Alaska. He stated that in Alaska
diseases potentially lay dormant in the very cold permafrost soils,
especially in Alaska's northern climates. He explained that many
diseases from the 1800's and early 1900's are present, including
encephalitis, meningitis, diphtheria, influenza, tuberculosis,
syphilis, gonorrhea, whooping cough, and many others. One of the most
dangerous is tuberculosis, due to the high sensitivity of Native
Alaskans to that disease.
When doing repatriation work, Mr. Selinger recommends the use of dust
masks and surgical gloves and the subsequent destruction of any
containers used for transportation.

Ms. Pemina Yellow Bird, Three Affiliated Tribes, acknowledged and
thanked the people who hosted the meeting, their spiritual leaders and
their chiefs. She expressed appreciation for the efforts of
Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan regarding NAGPRA implementation and
showed her appreciation in a traditional way by offering a glad heart
sound in their honor. She explained that her statements represent
both the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment Committee and the
Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. She expressed great
concern over the growing backlog of Federal Register notices and the
restructuring, since it did not remove the administration of NAGPRA
from the NPS. She stated that the NPS manages lands that cradle the
bodies of her ancestors, which they cannot do impartially as proven by
the Chaco dispute. She expressed concern over continuity of staffing
during the restructuring, including the future role of Mr. McKeown,
lack of aggressive pursuit of civil penalties, and the forbearance
issue. She explained that the groups she represents intend to take
action on the letter from Ms. Karen Wade, Intermountain Region, NPS,
regarding the Chaco dispute because of the very serious precedent that
this case sets. She also expressed concern over the effect of the
restructuring on the NAGPRA grant money, which needs to be increased
not decreased.

Ms. Yellow Bird thanked Mr. Bradley for his work on the draft
principles of agreement, adding that there are a lot of positive
aspects. She then made several suggestions for clarification of the
principles based on draft five: Section A.3, clarification that
funerary objects be repatriated with culturally unidentifiable human
remains; section A.4, further acknowledgement of the repatriation
needs of Native American people; section 5, avoid implication that
standing is being granted to science and museum communities beyond
what is granted by the statute; section B.1, change the wording to
give primary consideration to the Native Americans; section B.2,
insertion of the joint intertribal claims as a source of additional
information; section B.3, she continues to protest the categorization
of culturally unidentifiable human remains and suggested clarification
that although the determination of culturally unidentifiable has been
made, Native Americans might not agree and the determination can
change; section B.4.b, clarification of the standard of proof required
and who would make the determination if studies are for the benefit of
the United States; section B.4.d, an exemption for information
regarding specific burial sites in order to protect burials; section
D, addition of the word "proposed" in the models for disposition since
these are suggestions and not requirements; section D.2.b.1, removal
of Federal agencies and museums from the process of defining a set of
regions, this should be left to Native Americans; removal of section
D.2.b.3 and D.2.b.4; throughout the document, the word stakeholders
should be replaced with Federal agencies, museums and Indian tribes.
Ms. Yellow Bird explained that she would submit a resolution to the
review committee in opposition of DNA studies based upon their
speculative nature. She emphasized that the greatest concern held by
the groups she represents is the apparent direction taken by the
review committee in granting standing to science and museum industries
in the decision of the ultimate fate of their ancestors.

Following further discussion by the review committee members,
Ms. Yellow Bird commented on draft six and made the following
suggestions: Section A, 5.a and 5.b are necessary to define the
intent of NAGPRA and help eliminate the need for constant education of
museums and Federal agencies about the law; section D.2.b.1, Native
Americans need to make determinations of regions for regional
consultations without Federal agency and museum participation; section
D.2.b.3, Native Americans have the right as sovereign nations to
determine consultation parties; and section C.2.b, the concept of
extinct Indian tribes in inapplicable to Native American people, she
explained that many Native American accounts describe remnants of
nations reduced by disease or warfare being absorbed by other Indian
tribes, and suggested wording to make clear that these determinations
are not made or agreed to by Native Americans.

Closing Comments

Ms. Metcalf, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Hart, Mr. Minthorn, and Mr. O'Shea
expressed appreciation for the efforts of Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan
in their capacity on the review committee, and presented them both
with gifts of appreciation. Ms. Metcalf cited Ms. Naranjo's assurances
to speak from a Native American heart, astuteness, and ability to fit
different viewpoints together and build consensus, and Mr. Sullivan's
ability to act as a voice of reason for those coming from different
viewpoints and to take a reasonable stand when asked for guidance,
suggestions, and support. Mr. McKeown explained his weekly contact
with Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan while they each served as review
committee chair and his desire to remain in contact. Mr. Sullivan
thanked everyone and expressed his desire to keep in touch.
Mr. Minthorn expressed his appreciation of the efforts of both
Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan and explained that their open hearts and
minds have added to the efforts of repatriation. The level of respect
both feel for others is evidenced in their actions. He hoped the
efforts of Ms. Naranjo and Mr. Sullivan would be felt by many for
years to come.

Mr. Minthorn stated that he would miss both of them and hoped to be
able to
continue with the work that they have started. Ms. Naranjo explained
that during her eight years on the review committee, she gained an
appreciation for the wide variety of tribal viewpoints and a greater
understanding of the views of people from the museum, university and
Federal agencies. She hoped that all people involved in the NAGPRA
process would continue to work toward the resolution of repatriation
issues.

Mr. Minthorn and Mr. Dalton, Sr. gave the closing invocation. The
meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 4, 2000.

Approved: Mr. Martin Sullivan, Chair
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee