1
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 2, 3, & 4, 2000
JUNEAU, ALASKA
VOLUME II
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 2
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
8:30 a.m.
Monday, April 3, 2000
Ballroom 1
Centennial Hall Convention Center
Juneau, Alaska
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Martin Sullivan, Chair
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. Lawrence H. Hart
Ms. Vera Metcalf
Mr. Armand Minthorn
Ms. Tessie Naranjo
Mr. John O’Shea
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAIR’S WELCOME – MARTIN SULLIVAN ...... 4
INVOCATION – WALTER SOBOLEFF ...... 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA ...... 5 MARK MCCALLUM ...... 5 SUSAN MARVIN ...... 17 TERRY FIFIELD ...... 30 YARROW VAARA ...... 38 STEVE HENRIKSON ...... 52 BREAK ...... 71
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA ...... 71 STEVE HENRIKSON ...... 71 ROSA MILLER AND CHERYL ELDEMAR ...... 78 GARY SELINGER ...... 90 DIANE PALMER AND IRENE SHIELDS ...... 108 ALLISON YOUNG ...... 115 LUNCH ...... 133
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA ...... 133 FREDRICK ANDERSON ...... 133 ROSITA WORL ...... 138 RON WILLIAMS ...... 147 KENNETH GRANT ...... 151 PATRICK MILLS ...... 160 THOMAS MILLS ...... 173 BEATRICE BROWN ...... 175 BOB MAGUIRE ...... 175 ROSITA WORL ...... 183 RICHARD DALTON, SR...... 184 BREAK ...... 188
1999 REPORT TO CONGRESS ...... 189
PUBLIC COMMENT ...... 195 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR...... 195 ALVIN MOYLE ...... 203 NORMAN HARRY ...... 226 PEMINA YELLOW BIRD ...... 234 MEETING RECESS ...... 260
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 4
1 CHAIR’S WELCOME – Martin Sullivan
2 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Good morning, everyone. We’re
3 going to begin our morning session, so I would like
4 to ask that you find a seat and then we’ll begin.
5 This morning we will start with an invocation
6 and we are joined by Dr. Walter Soboleff, who is the
7 chairperson of the board of trustees of the Sealaska
8 Heritage Foundation. We are honored to be here,
9 Dr. Soboleff, and we look forward to your invocation.
10 Thank you for being with us. You can use one of the
11 microphones up here.
12 INVOCATION – Walter Soboleff
13 WALTER SOBOLEFF: May we bow in prayer. (Native
14 Alaskan language.)
15 Our Father God, no matter where we are, You
16 continue to follow us and to love us and to sustain
17 us with the material things of life, yea, even the
18 spiritual. We thank You for this time that we may
19 discuss concerns of our life. We thank You for those
20 who join us in that solution. Grant mercy to our
21 errors, renew a right spirit within us today. We
22 pray in the Master’s name and for His sake. Amen.
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We have made a few changes to
24 the schedule. Is Mr. Paul White with us this
25 morning. He had been originally scheduled for the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 5
1 invocation, and we will arrange that for a different
2 point in our program.
3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA
4 MARTIN SULLIVAN: This morning’s session is
5 primarily for the purpose of hearing about
6 implementation of NAGPRA here in the state of Alaska,
7 and we have ten or eleven presentations that we
8 expect to hear this morning. The committee members
9 and I look forward to it, and if we are set, Lesa, in
10 terms of our activities then we’ll begin.
11 The first presenter is Mr. Mark McCallum from
12 the Tongass National Forest.
13 MARK MCCALLUM
14 MARK MCCALLUM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
15 committee members. My name is Mark McCallum. I’m an
16 archeologist with the Tongass National Forest in
17 Petersburg, a small community about 90 miles south of
18 Juneau. I thank you for this opportunity to speak
19 this morning and to share with you some of the
20 progress that the Tongass National Forest in Alaska
21 has made in implementing repatriation requirements of
22 NAGPRA.
23 Before I begin, I’d like to recognize and thank
24 the Organized Village of Kake and the Klawock
25 Cooperative Association, two Federally recognized
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 6
1 tribes, for their permission to share information
2 with you today about a repatriation we made two years
3 ago. We had hoped that some of the council members
4 from the Organized Village of Kake could appear
5 today, but due to conflicts with a big basketball
6 tournament here last week, they weren’t able to make
7 it. You’ll hear from me and some of the next few
8 speakers about some of the progress that Tongass
9 National Forest has made in implementing NAGPRA, the
10 Tongass being the largest National Forest in the US
11 at some over 17 million acres.
12 In general the Tongass reported relatively few
13 human remains and associated funerary objects to the
14 tribes as a result of NAGPRA. We deal with about 20
15 Federally recognized tribes on the Tongass and about
16 that many regional and village corporations that were
17 created under the Native Claims Settlement Act.
18 Since submitting the inventories to the appropriate
19 tribes, we’ve received few claims for repatriation.
20 It appears that most tribes acknowledge the cultural
21 affiliation of the items covered by NAGPRA, but for
22 several reasons they have not made formal claims for
23 their repatriation or return. Some tribes appear to
24 be deferring decisions until they can make plans with
25 the community. Some tribes have indicated a desire
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 7
1 to curate or store items in a local facility, some of
2 which have not been constructed yet. Other tribes
3 continue to talk with their local elders about the
4 protocol of receiving repatriated items. In general,
5 I would characterize the Tongass National Forest
6 compliance with NAGPRA as we’ve completed our
7 inventories, we’ve continued to consult with the
8 tribes and are awaiting their claims for
9 repatriation.
10 You’re going to hear several examples of the
11 implementation of NAGPRA on the Tongass today, and
12 I’d like to focus on the return of a cedar bentwood
13 burial box. Although this story truly begins
14 hundreds of years ago, for reasons of cultural
15 sensitivity and respect for the Tlingit people of
16 Kake and Klawock, I will focus my story on the last
17 half of the latter century. This report that I’ll
18 share with you today chronicles the journey of a most
19 incredible cedar box. It was in 1949 that a trapper,
20 William Vickers, was traveling along the west coast
21 of Kuiu Island, an island about a hundred miles south
22 and west of Juneau, when on his daily travels, he
23 came across a rock shelter with some bentwood burial
24 boxes in them. And for whatever reason, Mr. Vickers
25 decided to take one as a souvenir.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 8
1 About 23 years ago, then president and chairman
2 of Xutsnoowú, a local village corporation, informed
3 the Forest Service that he had heard about a Native
4 burial box being offered for sale to art dealers in
5 the Seattle area. Mr. Johnson, the president at the
6 time, requested Forest Service help to retrieve the
7 box because he believed they came from Admiralty
8 Island, the traditional lands of the Xutsnoowú
9 people. Later that same month a Juneau resident
10 reported to the regional archeologist seeing a young
11 man at a Seattle mall trying to sell a shaman burial
12 box containing a skull with long black hair attached.
13 After making a few contacts with some art dealers in
14 the Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia area the
15 Juneau resident was able to obtain the name of the
16 man who was attempting to sell the box.
17 This woman passed on the information to the
18 regional archaeologist and this is before the passage
19 of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act
20 parenthetically. The archaeologist requested the
21 intervention of the regional law enforcement staff
22 who conducted an investigation to determine that the
23 gentleman in Seattle was acting as a sales agent for
24 Mr. Vickers, the man – the Seattle – the fur trapper
25 that took the box in 1949.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 9
1 Despite intervention from Mr. Vickers’s
2 Congressional Representative, Senator Hiakawa
3 (phonetic), the Forest Service obtained a search
4 warrant and retrieved the box from his California
5 home in 1977. At that time, the Forest Service spent
6 some time consulting with Sealaska Corporation, the
7 regional corporation here in Southeast Alaska, and
8 through that consultation determined that curation at
9 the Alaska State Museum was the most appropriate
10 option at the time. The box has been there ever
11 since.
12 The box returned to Alaska and, as I said, has
13 been curated at the State Museum since. We consulted
14 with Sealaska. The land where the box was taken has
15 since been conveyed to Sealaska Corporation under
16 provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
17 Act. There were provisions that allowed regional
18 corporations to select historic and cemetery sites as
19 part of their conveyance. And that site has since
20 been conveyed to Sealaska Corporation.
21 Despite having been at the museum since 1977,
22 very little formal study has ever been done on the
23 box. The box contains a human head, other human
24 bones and an assortment of funerary items, most of
25 which have never been examined. The box is made of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 10
1 cedar and is telescoping. That is, it’s a box inside
2 a box. It lifts up. It’s notable for its antiquity
3 and design elements. Earlier radiocarbon dating
4 indicate that the box dates to about 700 years old.
5 It’s intricately painted and carved, making it one of
6 if not the earliest known example of northwest coast
7 line form design.
8 In November of 1995, we provided an inventory of
9 human remains and associated funerary objects to the
10 Klawock Cooperative Association and the Organized
11 Village of Kake. Ethnographic information indicated
12 that the area where the box came from was jointly
13 shared by people who now lived in those two
14 communities, Kake and Klawock. We also sent an
15 inventory to the Tlingit and Haida Central Council
16 here in Juneau, as well as the Kake Tribal
17 Corporation, the Klawock Henya Corporation, and the
18 Sealaska Heritage Foundation. So we provided
19 inventories to six tribal groups.
20 Since both the Organized Village of Kake and the
21 Klawock Cooperative Association represent clans from
22 the traditional area of the box, we encouraged them
23 to discuss amongst themselves the ultimate
24 disposition of the box. The Klawock Cooperative
25 Association president wrote a letter in November of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 11
1 ’97 to the Organized Village of Kake acknowledging
2 their cultural affiliation with the box while
3 delegating authority for repatriation to the
4 Organized Village of Kake.
5 In September of 1996, Dawn Jackson, who’s now a
6 staff member of the Organized Village of Kake,
7 completed a master’s thesis focusing on the
8 repatriation of this bentwood box. Mrs. Jackson’s
9 thesis outlined the box’s history and described the
10 local process of determining cultural affiliation and
11 proper cultural protocol.
12 In February of ’98, the Forest Service received
13 a request from the Organized Village of Kake to
14 repatriate the bentwood box with several other
15 cultural items we had reported in our ’95
16 inventories. A notice of inventory completion was
17 published in the Federal Register in April of ’98.
18 The notice recognized the relationship of shared
19 group identity between the Organized Village of Kake
20 and the Klawock Cooperative Association. The Forest
21 Service did not receive any competing claims to the
22 items listed in the Register notice, and the Forest
23 Service met with Alaska State Museum staff and the
24 Organized Village of Kake council at the museum in
25 June of 1998 where we officially transferred
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 12
1 ownership of the box. The Organized Village of Kake
2 has decided to continue storing the box at the museum
3 until a time when they wish to have it returned to
4 the community.
5 Because the box appears to be an early example
6 of northwest coast line form design, the tribe has
7 expressed an interest in documenting the box, and
8 we’ve offered to help in that effort to work with the
9 tribe and the museum to record the attributes of the
10 box. It appears right now that the sentiment of the
11 village elders is to rebury the box, probably at its
12 original location since that land now belongs to
13 Sealaska Corporation. So the intent of the tribe is
14 to record the box before it’s reburied, and we hope
15 to work with them in that endeavor.
16 The return of the bentwood box to the Organized
17 Village of Kake marks an incredible journey, first
18 taken illegally by a trapper in 1949, the box’s
19 ultimate disposition could have had a much different
20 ending. Fortunately, citizens came forward and
21 shared their knowledge of the box with Forest Service
22 law enforcement, who succeeded in returning the box
23 to Alaska. If these two events had not happened,
24 chances are the box would remain in private ownership
25 today.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 13
1 The Forest Service has successfully complied
2 with NAGPRA and returned the box to its rightful
3 owners almost 50 years after it was first stolen.
4 And we’re committed to working with the Organized
5 Village of Kake and the Klawock Cooperative
6 Association in helping them record the box before its
7 ultimate return to its proper place. And that’s my
8 report.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much,
10 Mr. McCallum. Do members of the Committee have
11 questions or comments?
12 Armand.
13 ARMAND MINTHORN: You mentioned earlier that,
14 and I think this was in reference to the bentwood
15 box, there was some carbon dating conducted?
16 MARK MCCALLUM: Right.
17 ARMAND MINTHORN: How was this carbon dating –
18 how was the actual dating coordinated with the
19 affected Native peoples?
20 MARK MCCALLUM: There was consultation involved.
21 That was not something that I was directly involved
22 in. Apparently, inside the box was a small pouch of
23 charcoal and that was the material that was used for
24 the radiocarbon dating, and that was done in
25 consultation with Sealaska Corporation prior to the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 14
1 passage of NAGPRA, who seemed to have the closest
2 affiliation with the box.
3 ARMAND MINTHORN: And then within the Tongass
4 National Forest, is NAGPRA a budget line item?
5 MARK MCCALLUM: No, it is not.
6 ARMAND MINTHORN: So then how do you — how do
7 you work with and implement NAGPRA?
8 MARK MCCALLUM: The funds that cover NAGPRA are
9 through our regular heritage program funds that is a
10 line item in the budget. So they are not displayed
11 distinctly from our other heritage activities.
12 ARMAND MINTHORN: So is the heritage activities
13 or heritage source, is that enough to — are you still
14 having problems?
15 MARK MCCALLUM: Well, I feel like — again, I’d
16 characterize the Tongass as being in compliance with
17 NAGPRA. I don’t have a sense from my colleagues that
18 lack of funding has prevented us from implementing
19 NAGPRA. If you want to talk about other program
20 areas, that might be a different story. But I think
21 as I mentioned in my opening remarks, fortunately,
22 over the years very little had been collected. So I
23 think comparable to other Federal agencies or other
24 units of Federal agencies perhaps we didn’t report as
25 much, so it didn’t create a workload like perhaps
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 15
1 down in the desert Southwest, some of the forests
2 down there.
3 ARMAND MINTHORN: And then earlier in your
4 presentation you were citing that you were waiting
5 for the tribes or Native peoples to come forward to
6 begin your repatriation process.
7 MARK MCCALLUM: Uh-huh.
8 ARMAND MINTHORN: Is there — I guess why the
9 waiting? Is there problems?
10 MARK MCCALLUM: In — in terms of us returning
11 items?
12 ARMAND MINTHORN: Yes.
13 MARK MCCALLUM: No, not a problem. In
14 discussing this with the tribes, again, I guess if I
15 had to characterize it, I’d say that most of the
16 groups are not really in a position to accept the
17 items back. Either they haven’t decided what to do
18 with them or they don’t have the facilities to
19 properly care for them. They are either in the
20 process of building a cultural center or making
21 arrangements with other facilities, or they’re still
22 consulting with the local elders about the proper
23 protocol of accepting those items back into the
24 community.
25 In most part, as we’ve consulted with the tribes
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 16
1 on other issues and sort of bring this up informally,
2 it’s sort of, well, we’re not ready to get them back
3 yet. We don’t — we don’t have a place for them or we
4 don’t really have a plan yet for — for what to do
5 with them. And that’s a generalized statement.
6 ARMAND MINTHORN: Okay.
7 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Jim.
8 JAMES BRADLEY: I’d like to thank you for your
9 presentation. Often when the Forest Service comes
10 before us it’s under less happy circumstances, and I
11 think you’re to be congratulated for taking the
12 initiative to build those relationships with tribes,
13 especially before NAGPRA compelled you to do it. I
14 would hope that the work that you’re doing might be a
15 model for other forests and demonstrate that NAGPRA
16 compliance can be a good thing for the Forest Service
17 instead of just another obstacle they have to put up
18 with.
19 MARK MCCALLUM: Yeah, I think you’re right.
20 It’s fortuitous that back in 1977, again, before the
21 passage of the Archeological Resource Protection Act,
22 that the Forest Service had that active an
23 intervention. And I think you’re right. I think if
24 we look as NAGPRA as an opportunity we can really
25 build some great relationships, and I think one of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 17
1 the things that the Forest Service in Alaska has
2 excelled in is the tribal consultation arena and
3 working with the tribes.
4 JAMES BRADLEY: Keep it up.
5 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Lawrence.
6 LAWRENCE HART: I too just want to echo what Jim
7 has stated regarding this report. Mr. McCallum, it’s
8 a very excellent report. Thank you.
9 MARK MCCALLUM: Thanks.
10 LAWRENCE HART: Thank you.
11 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other comments from the
12 Committee members?
13 We appreciate your being with us.
14 MARK MCCALLUM: Thank you.
15 MARTIN SULLIVAN: And it was very informative.
16 Thanks, Mr. McCallum.
17 The next presentation is by Susan Marvin, from
18 whom we heard yesterday as sort of a surrogate, but
19 today you’re talking about the Alaska Region of the
20 Forest Service in general, is that right?
21 SUSAN MARVIN
22 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes. Again, thank you for the
23 opportunity to make this presentation to you here in
24 Juneau. I should begin by giving you my apologies
25 for the title that I gave this paper. I used the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 18
1 often the method of, I guess you can say, newspapers
2 in getting your attention by a misleading headline.
3 But in a sense it’s true. The topic that I’m going
4 to talk about is the repatriation of human remains to
5 a non-Federally recognized tribal group, the Auk
6 Kwaan. Now, we did eventually work out arrangements
7 that the remains were repatriated to the Tlingit and
8 Haida Central Council here which are a recognized
9 tribe. But I just wanted to take this opportunity to
10 go through the history of this particular case as a
11 way of encouraging you to come up with the final
12 guidelines that you’ve been discussing yesterday and
13 at previous meetings so that we do have some set
14 direction that we can follow in situations such as
15 this.
16 This case actually began back in 1987 when
17 cremated human remains were discovered during a
18 cultural survey and testing program that was
19 undertaken by the Alaska Office of History and
20 Archeology. This office was conducting a survey to
21 determine if any cultural sites existed within the
22 proposed highway improvement for the Glacier Highway
23 about 15 miles northwest of here, downtown Juneau.
24 The human remains were found in a test pit that was
25 excavated. They were left in place and the pit was
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 19
1 backfilled. The proposed highway improvements were
2 never constructed at this location but actually a
3 bypass was built several hundred feet uphill from
4 this location.
5 In 1991, shortly after the passage of NAGPRA,
6 the Forest Service archeologist — this is, by the
7 way, out of the Sitka office for the Tongass National
8 Forest. The Forest archeologist at that time went
9 out and recovered the human remains as a first step
10 towards their eventual repatriation. The removal of
11 these individuals, as I said, occurred soon after the
12 passage of NAGPRA in 1990 but it was before any draft
13 regulations were published. So the archeologist was
14 basically working under their own interpretation of
15 what NAGPRA meant, you know, in how to carry out that
16 Act.
17 The Forest Service did err at this time because
18 the archeologist did not notify the Auk Kwaan nor did
19 he notify the Central Council of the Tlingit Haida
20 Indian Tribes of Alaska — I’ll just call it the
21 Central Council from now on — before he removed those
22 remains. The carbon sample collected from charcoal
23 associated with the remains revealed an adjusted date
24 of about 210 years ago. The remains were studied by
25 a physical anthropologist hired by the Forest Service
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 20
1 who identified that there were two individuals that
2 were cremated, and the Forest Service then determined
3 that these individuals were probably members of the
4 Auk Kwaan people that lived at this winter village
5 site for several hundred years.
6 This site was first noted by Europeans during
7 George Vancouver’s voyages of 1794. Soon after the
8 Europeans settled in the Juneau area this area became
9 popular as a picnic area in the 1920’s, and the
10 Civilian Conservation Corps constructed recreation
11 facilities here in 1937 and 1938, which were
12 basically picnic shelters, trails, picnic tables, a
13 recreation building. In 1991, the Forest Service
14 also proposed to construct improvements to these
15 recreation facilities. In March of 1992, the Auk
16 Kwaan notified the Forest Service by telephone of
17 their concern for other burial sites located in this
18 recreation campground.
19 The Forest Service spent the better part of 1992
20 and 1993 going through the compliance process for
21 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
22 Act. And then in August of 1993, they continued
23 their — the Forest Service continued the consultation
24 with the Auk Kwaan, and at this meeting they
25 explained the history of why the remains were removed
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 21
1 in the first place and the Forest Service’s intention
2 to repatriate these remains as soon as possible.
3 Through a series of meetings, letters, and
4 teleconferences, solutions were reached to ensure the
5 protection of the Native site during the construction
6 phase for the recreation improvements. These
7 solutions were documented in a Memorandum of
8 Understanding with the Auk Kwaan that was signed in
9 1994 and a Memorandum of Agreement with the SHPO and
10 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in
11 1995.
12 The improvements were completed in 1995 with
13 constant, on-site monitoring by a Forest Service
14 archeologists and an Auk Kwaan representative
15 throughout the construction phase. No further
16 evidence was discovered during the — in the
17 construction area during the construction.
18 In 1996 the Forest Service had a teleconference
19 with the Auk Kwaan in which it was discovered that
20 both the Auk Kwaan and the Forest Service were
21 actually waiting for each other to respond back and
22 forth on the direction from the Auk Kwaan on how to
23 repatriate these remains. In the meantime, the
24 Forest Service agreed to and contracted to have a
25 bentwood burial box constructed for the remains so
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 22
1 that once they were repatriated they’d be in the
2 proper facility for that.
3 In June 1997 and again in 1998, the Forest
4 Service wrote to the Auk Kwaan requesting direction
5 on how they wanted us to proceed in this
6 repatriation. In April of 1998, we found that the
7 Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida tribes had
8 agreed to represent the Auk Kwaan. and from that
9 point on we worked both with the Auk and with the
10 Central Council since they are a Federally recognized
11 tribe. We mentioned in this letter that we would
12 wait until the Central Council told us how they would
13 like to have the remains repatriated.
14 Finally, in January 1999, again we gave kind of
15 a history because the process had taken so long, gave
16 kind of an updated history about the entire project
17 and how we had acquired these remains in the first
18 place. The Central Council followed this up with an
19 official letter requesting repatriation of the
20 remains in June 1999. We published our Notice of
21 Intent to Repatriate in the newspapers in mid and
22 late August, and once the 30-day comment period had
23 passed in late September and in which we received no
24 conflicting claims, these remains were transferred to
25 the Central Council in late September 1999. The
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 23
1 Forest Service hopes to assist the Auk Kwaan in a
2 memorial ceremony that will take place towards the
3 end of this month.
4 So in conclusion, the Auk Kwaan were able to
5 recover the remains of their ancestors and the
6 Central Council was able to represent the Auk Kwaan
7 in this instance. The process that we did follow did
8 actually follow your draft principles of agreement
9 for cases such as these where you have, according to
10 the NAGPRA term, culturally unidentifiable remains,
11 but in actuality they are not in the real sense.
12 It’s just that the group is a non-Federally
13 recognized tribe. So I just wanted to use this as a
14 case example to encourage you to come up with a final
15 direction and guidelines so that in the future we
16 know what the process is that we should follow. So
17 that’s all. Thank you.
18 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We appreciate your report.
19 Thank you very much, Ms. Marvin.
20 Questions or comments from the committee
21 members?
22 Armand.
23 ARMAND MINTHORN: Within the Alaska US Forest
24 Service region, how many forests or districts are
25 there?
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 24
1 SUSAN MARVIN: How many forests are there? Two.
2 ARMAND MINTHORN: Two?
3 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes. There is both the Tongass
4 National Forest is the largest national forest in the
5 Forest Service. It has about 17 million acres. And
6 the Chugach National Forest, I believe, is about six
7 million acres located up in central, southeast
8 Alaska, near Anchorage. So they’re very large
9 national forests.
10 ARMAND MINTHORN: Then the previous speaker,
11 Mr. McCallum, cited the heritage as a source of
12 working in implementing NAGPRA. Is this what the
13 other forest does as well?
14 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes. There’s just one budget
15 line item for all of the work that falls under
16 heritage, and NAGPRA is one of those activities that
17 would be funded out of that budget. And although I
18 would say certainly it’s never enough to do all that
19 we need to do and NAGPRA is part of that.
20 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Jim.
21 JAMES BRADLEY: I appreciate your report, too,
22 and I again commend you for doing a really terrific
23 job and setting a good model. I think one of the
24 things that’s frustrating for us as we go around the
25 country is to see how differently these issues are
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 25
1 handled within agencies by region. And it seems as
2 though you folks have done a good job, even though
3 you don’t have funds earmarked for NAGPRA compliance.
4 Since I don’t work for the Forest Service, I don’t
5 understand how those decisions are made, but where is
6 the discretionary authority to determine whether
7 funds are going to be steered towards NAGPRA
8 compliance or some other program?
9 SUSAN MARVIN: The ultimate decision lies with
10 the Forest supervisor for that national forest, and
11 he is considered what we call the line officer that’s
12 responsible for the decisions made. And so for the
13 Tongass, it would be the Forest Supervisor who is
14 down in the Ketchikan office that makes that
15 decision. Certainly, Forest archeologists make
16 recommendations on where they see the priorities are,
17 but basically it’s the line officer that calls the
18 shots on where the money is actually spent.
19 JAMES BRADLEY: Sort of like park
20 superintendents in the National Park Service.
21 SUSAN MARVIN: That’s right.
22 JAMES BRADLEY: To what degree, and let’s see if
23 I can ask this in an appropriate manner, to what
24 degree are the Forest supervisors — is that the
25 right —
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 26
1 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes.
2 JAMES BRADLEY: — responsive to directions from
3 Washington DC about the implementation of Federal
4 laws, given that they as the line officers have to
5 juggle a lot of competing requests? What I think
6 we’re trying to figure out is where do we put our
7 efforts in trying to get better NAGPRA compliance?
8 Do we work with the line officers, do we work with
9 DC, or do we need to work with both?
10 SUSAN MARVIN: Well, I guess I would say with
11 the way authority is passed down through the Forest
12 Service, it comes from the Washington office,
13 especially if it relates to policy matters for
14 providing direction, for implementing particular
15 acts, that would come down from our Washington
16 office, giving us direction saying you will spend
17 efforts on this particular item. So I would say
18 working with the people in our Washington office.
19 JAMES BRADLEY: Do you feel that clear direction
20 on this issue has come from the Washington office?
21 And this is not to put you on the spot.
22 SUSAN MARVIN: Well, when NAGPRA was originally
23 passed, certainly the Washington office sent out the
24 Act itself, you know, with a cover letter saying, you
25 know, we had certain due dates that were set forth in
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 27
1 the Act that we needed to meet, in which the Alaska
2 region, the National Forest in the Alaska region did
3 do their summaries and their inventories to meet
4 those dates. But in one sense, the Forest Service
5 manual, which is kind of a handbook of how-tos and
6 direction on how we would implement things like
7 NAGPRA within the Forest Service, that manual was
8 last — it’s about 20 years out of date, and there’s a
9 process going on right now to update that manual,
10 which we hope to complete say within the next year or
11 so, that would include specific direction on
12 implementing NAGPRA. And so it’s been a process of
13 working with the Park Service folks in the NAGPRA
14 office on giving us help and direction on how the
15 repatriation process works, but not actually specific
16 direction out of our Washington office on that. We
17 get that more from the Park Service folks, like Tim
18 McKeown here.
19 JAMES BRADLEY: Is it important that you
20 continue to receive that assistance from the Park
21 Service?
22 SUSAN MARVIN: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I would say
23 very important, yes.
24 JAMES BRADLEY: Thank you.
25 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. John.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 28
1 JOHN O'SHEA: I had one or two questions about
2 your example that you gave us. Now, is this being
3 treated by the Forest Service as an inadvertent
4 discovery on Federal land.
5 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes, it was being as an
6 inadvertent discovery.
7 JOHN O'SHEA: Because you know, so in that sense
8 then, the process that was followed was correct, and
9 it isn’t a process that we’re even really worried
10 about in terms of culturally unidentified remains.
11 SUSAN MARVIN: I guess in the sense the
12 culturally unidentifiable remains as that relates to
13 non-Federally recognized tribes, you know, your
14 guidelines are pretty straightforward in that sense
15 that we need to —
16 JOHN O'SHEA: On Federal lands.
17 SUSAN MARVIN: Right.
18 JOHN O'SHEA: Yes. The thing we’re wrestling
19 with is this issue of culturally unidentifiable when
20 they’re not on Federal land. And in fact, as a model
21 your model doesn’t work if it had not been on Federal
22 land because you would have technically had to come
23 here to receive authorization to do the repatriation.
24 Thank you.
25 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other questions?
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 29
1 Armand.
2 ARMAND MINTHORN: The handbook that you
3 mentioned, that can be very helpful to your staff,
4 but I guess what other efforts have the Forest
5 Service taken to educate the staff with NAGPRA
6 implementation enforcement?
7 SUSAN MARVIN: I really couldn’t speak for the
8 National Forests nationally. I do know that we have
9 a NAGPRA coordinator who is located in our
10 southwestern regional office. His name is Frank
11 Wozniak. I’m sure he’s been at previous meetings.
12 And we also use his knowledge to assist us in
13 implementing NAGPRA and going through the
14 repatriation process for individual — he’s a national
15 kind of assistant, even though he is actually in the
16 southwestern regional office.
17 ARMAND MINTHORN: Does Tongass National Forest
18 have a NAGPRA coordinator?
19 SUSAN MARVIN: I would say that each of the
20 Forest archeologists serve in that capacity.
21 Presently the Tongass has three Forest Service
22 National Forest archeologists, and Terry Fifield, who
23 you will hear from next, is a zone archeologist. So
24 everyone has that duty as part of their job.
25 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Thanks, again,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 30
1 Ms. Marvin. We appreciate it.
2 We’ll hear next from Terry Fifield, also
3 representing Tongass National Forest, and from
4 Ms. Yarrow Vaara.
5 TERRY FIFIELD
6 TERRY FIFIELD: Good morning, and thank you very
7 much for the opportunity to come here and tell yet
8 another happy story. First I wanted to introduce
9 myself. As Sue said, I’m the — my name is Terry
10 Fifield. I’m the zone archeologist for the Prince of
11 Wales Island zone, which means I cover two ranger
12 districts that encompass approximately two and a half
13 million acres, basically Prince of Wales Island and
14 the outlying islands off of the west coast of Prince
15 of Wales Island. So far you have heard from the
16 regional archeologist, which is the top of the
17 heritage hierarchy in Alaska. Mark is the acting
18 Forest archeologist for the Tongass, and I’m the next
19 level down. I’m basically what might be called a
20 district archeologist in other places, but I cover
21 two districts, so I’m a zone.
22 What I want to talk to you about is a situation
23 on the north end of Prince of Wales Island where
24 we’ve had the discovery of some really ancient human
25 remains and a really good relationship that’s
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 31
1 developed with the tribes in the concerned area,
2 between the tribes and the Forest Service and the
3 research institutions that have been involved in the
4 project. And just as a little bit of background, on
5 Prince of Wales Island we have a lot of limestone
6 bedrock and a very intensive karst situation. So
7 there have been about 600 inventoried caves on Prince
8 of Wales Island.
9 A few years ago, Jim Dixon with the Denver
10 Museum of Natural History kind of recognized that
11 those caves offered the potential for temporary
12 shelter for people that might have been moving into
13 the Americas at the end of the last ice age. Because
14 the coast is submerged these days and the caves that
15 would have been inland in those days are ideal places
16 where you would have human activity, preservation,
17 and the opportunity for discovery all sort of focused
18 in the same locations. So for about six years he had
19 been looking for these types of situations, without
20 any luck, I might add.
21 At the same time, paleontological investigations
22 were going on in the island in several different
23 caves, and the principle paleontologist involved was
24 Tim Heaton with the University of South Dakota. He
25 started his work in 1992 with excavations in a cave
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 32
1 called El Cap Cave that had 12,000-year-old bear
2 remains that also had a 3,000-year-old cultural area,
3 charcoal with two projectile points and very little
4 other material there that was not associated with the
5 paleontological work.
6 So continuing on with his work in subsequent
7 years, Dr. Heaton was working on the north end of the
8 island in 1996. Animal remains dating back 40,000
9 years, grizzly bear and black bear, had been
10 discovered in this cave. And in 1996 he had planned
11 a two-week field season to more intensively excavate
12 in the cave. And on the last day of his planned
13 field season, he probed a very wet area in a back
14 chamber in the cave and came up with human remains,
15 human bones. And these were a jaw bone broken in two
16 pieces, a pelvis that had been chewed on by a large
17 carnivore, and two vertebra, lumbar vertebra. At
18 that point we had no idea what the date of it was,
19 but the association suggested that they might be very
20 old. They were about two and a half feet from a
21 35,000 year old brown bear skeleton, where it had
22 been discovered the previous year. And so we were
23 quite excited about the possibilities of what this
24 might represent in terms of shifting paradigms and
25 peopling of the America theories and whatnot.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 33
1 So we had one very lucky situation right at that
2 point was that Tim Heaton was working with Fred
3 Grady, who is a preparator at the Smithsonian, and
4 between them they were aware of their NAGPRA
5 responsibilities. They immediately ceased work and
6 spent the rest of that day working in a different
7 passage of the cave quite a bit removed from where
8 the bones had been discovered. They also radioed the
9 Forest Service immediately with a kind of a cryptic
10 message that Terry needed to get to the cave as soon
11 as possible, there’s something going on.
12 And so the next morning, anticipating I don’t
13 know what, I chartered a helicopter and made it to
14 the beach below the cave where they met me with a
15 tray full of the materials they had found, which were
16 the bones I mentioned plus two bone artifacts. They
17 then escorted me up to the cave and I looked at the
18 area where they had excavated the bones. And after
19 inspecting it and satisfying myself that they had
20 stabilized it appropriately, all of us, them and I,
21 left the site for the season and went back to the
22 beach. I took possession of the artifacts and
23 briefed them on what was going to happen next and
24 then I went back to my office in Craig. This was a
25 Saturday afternoon.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 34
1 That afternoon five or six o’clock when I got
2 back to the office, I immediately called the tribal
3 presidents of the Craig and Klawock tribal
4 governments and talked to them on the phone, let them
5 know what we had found, and kind of conveyed my
6 excitement about what we had found, and let them know
7 that I was notifying them under the terms of NAGPRA
8 of this inadvertent discovery.
9 The next happy thing that happened, on Monday
10 morning I contacted Cheryl Eldemar on the Central
11 Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, and
12 Cheryl was then the cultural resource specialist and
13 I think NAGPRA coordinator at the time as well for
14 Central Council. And between us, we decided that we
15 needed to consult broadly, and Cheryl suggested that
16 I consult as locally as possible and so stay with the
17 — get our advice from the local tribes, from the
18 Craig and Klawock tribal governments. And we also
19 decided to work with Hydaburg and Kake, who are the
20 Organized Village of Kake and the Hydaburg
21 Cooperative Association, who are adjacent tribal
22 governments.
23 And so with Cheryl’s help again, we sent out
24 invitations and an information sheet to the tribes
25 letting them know what had been found and the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 35
1 situation and inviting them to a meeting that was
2 sponsored by the Klawock Cooperative Association. I
3 believe it was on the Thursday of that week. So it
4 was five days after discovery of the materials that
5 we convened a meeting of — three tribes were
6 represented at this meeting. And at that meeting, I
7 explained the situation again, described what had
8 been found. I didn’t bring the materials to the
9 meeting.
10 I made an offer that was presented by the Denver
11 Museum of Natural History by Jim Dixon to provide
12 analysis and curation of the materials at the cost of
13 the museum and to assure that they were protected and
14 to enter into a temporary agreement with the Forest
15 Service for the housing of those materials. So I
16 made that presentation, and at the end of that
17 meeting, the Klawock Cooperative Association, the
18 tribal council after some debate decided to pass a
19 resolution. They passed a resolution that permitted
20 the shipment of the materials to Denver, the curation
21 in terms of physical anthropological analysis,
22 radiocarbon dating, which was AMS dating, so
23 minimally destructive radiocarbon analysis, and DNA
24 testing were all discussed at that meeting.
25 Their one provision was that if during
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 36
1 excavations in subsequent years, if the area turned
2 out to be a burial ground, they wanted us to come
3 back in and consult with the tribal council again.
4 And by burial ground they meant if — we discussed
5 this and if we had found additional individuals or
6 evidence that there was more than one person there,
7 that they would want us to come back in and consult.
8 Later that same week, the Craig Community
9 Association, the tribal government in the village
10 seven miles south of Klawock met and passed a similar
11 resolution with the same provisions with the one
12 addition that they wanted to review any media
13 releases that we made for sensitivity before they
14 were released to the media, and we really have stuck
15 with that one. They have reviewed all of our media
16 releases and most of the professional papers and
17 things that have come out of this.
18 So all of those things having been done in great
19 detail, we proceeded along with planning the research
20 and Jim Dixon wrote a National Science Foundation
21 grant to fund the archeological work the next year,
22 and we had those — the research design was reviewed
23 by both the Craig and Klawock Tribes. I should go
24 back and say that the Organized Village of Kake
25 decided to defer to Klawock and so pulled out of the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 37
1 direct consultation process on an ongoing basis, so
2 we just keep them informed at this point.
3 So the NSF proposal funded the research the
4 following year. It also included some provisions
5 that really assure that we continue to stay in
6 contact and consult. It funded two internships, the
7 interns to be selected by the Craig and Klawock
8 tribal governments in consultation with me, and it
9 also funded trips to the museum for tribal leaders to
10 meet with the people doing the analysis and research
11 at the museum and to just get a look at what was
12 going on so they could see that we weren’t just
13 storing the materials and doing nothing with them.
14 And both of those provisions were implemented.
15 A nice pickup on this too was that after the
16 first year, we were running short of money in the
17 research funding and I approached Sealaska about
18 putting two of their natural resources internships
19 with the project. And they were really happy with
20 what they had been seeing up to this point and
21 decided to take us up on that offer, and for the last
22 two years we have had two Sealaska interns placed
23 with the project and funded entirely by Sealaska. So
24 I’m hoping that that leads to an ongoing relationship
25 even beyond this project where we can do some
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 38
1 cooperative work.
2 I think that I’m going to let it go at that. I
3 see lots of places that the implementation of NAGPRA
4 here has led us to some relationships that have great
5 potential for developing further projects and
6 relationships in the future and I just am really
7 encouraged to be working with an agency these days
8 whose philosophy is kind of in line with my personal
9 philosophy. So I’m very pleased with what happened,
10 and I’d like to turn you over to Yarrow Vaara from
11 Klawock who has been an intern with this project for
12 three years now.
13 YARROW VAARA
14 YARROW VAARA: (Native Alaskan language.) Good
15 afternoon — morning, I mean. My name is Yarrow
16 Vaara, and in honor of my ancestors I speak my native
17 language to you today. Let me briefly translate what
18 I just said to you. I said good day and thank you
19 all for coming. I am a woman of the Tlingit Nation.
20 My Tlingit name is S’ak jayei, which was my
21 grandmother’s name. I’m a Raven moiety from the
22 Gaanax.adi Clan of Klawock, which was originally in
23 Tuxikan, and I’d like to thank you for inviting me
24 here today.
25 I’d like to say that I’ve been involved in this
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 39
1 project that Terry was talking about for the last
2 three years. I was one of the interns selected by
3 the Craig Cooperative Association, or excuse me, the
4 Craig Community Association, I mean, the first year
5 this project started, and then since then I’ve been
6 an intern for the past two years funded through the
7 Sealaska Corporation, and I’ve been really, really
8 interested to be a part of this project.
9 I’ve done a lot of research beyond the actual
10 fieldwork, and I’d like to read a few excerpts from a
11 paper that I recently presented at the Thirtieth
12 Arctic Research Workshop at Boulder, Colorado, that I
13 was invited to give over spring break just recently.
14 And this paper is basically related to some of the
15 research that I have done that has been trying to
16 relate some of the cultural significance of the
17 research that’s been done which is how I see my role
18 in this has been in learning from them but also in
19 trying to find what I can contribute to it as well.
20 So I’ll just read a few excerpts from that, and if
21 anybody is interested I do have a few copies of this.
22 Part of the agreement made with the tribes
23 included the participation of Native students in the
24 fieldwork, and since 1997 six Native students and one
25 Native teacher have had the opportunity to work on
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 40
1 this project, and I’m honored to be one of them.
2 Like I said, it’s been supported by the local tribes,
3 the local elders and the regional corporation.
4 Initially, I had a few misgivings about disturbing
5 the remains of this ancient man, who could
6 potentially be one of my own ancestors, and our
7 people believe (Native Alaskan language), that the
8 soles of our people never die and they can be
9 offended if their bones are mistreated.
10 One of the spiritual beliefs of my people
11 regards bones as being sacred. Thus, animal and fish
12 bones had to be treated with respect in order to
13 ensure their rebirth. For example, the salmon cycle
14 to whom the Tlingit owe much of their rich culture,
15 when the salmon were harvested, it was very important
16 to return all of their bones back to the stream from
17 which they were caught. And if any of the bones were
18 not returned to the water when that salmon returned
19 again it would be deformed. And human bones were
20 treated in much the same regard. The bones of the
21 deceased were perceived as containing some essential
22 element of their personhood, which is directly
23 related to the Tlingit belief in reincarnation, and
24 so all of the bones are treated very respectfully in
25 every situation.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 41
1 And so I was really nervous about even applying
2 for this position. I didn’t really know how to deal
3 with it, and so I went and talked to several of the
4 local elders. And they told me lots of stories, some
5 of which I have been able to use and some of them are
6 confidential, more or less. But for the most part,
7 they all supported the project after learning about
8 what it was and where we were going with it, in terms
9 of the education that can be gathered in order to
10 corroborate the oral history that our people tell,
11 that the Tlingit people have lived here in Southeast
12 Alaska since time immemorial.
13 And to me, one of the most important results of
14 the scientific studies from this project come from an
15 isotope analysis that was done originally on the
16 human bones that suggest that his diet was primarily
17 based on marine resources. He subsisted on fish, a
18 way of life that the Tlingit people still utilize
19 today and is also very much a part of who I am.
20 Learning that this ancient man had lived on the same
21 type of foods created in my mind a strong bond
22 between him and myself.
23 At the dawn of this millenium, the indigenous
24 population of Alaska alone hunted, fished and
25 gathered resources of Alaska, constrained only by
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 42
1 environmental conditions and their technological
2 capabilities. Today the issue of subsistence is a
3 very big one in Alaska and we are fighting bitterly
4 to be able to continue our subsistence lifestyle
5 because it’s not just a way of obtaining food but is
6 symbolic of every part of our culture and history,
7 and there are many stories that tie the Tlingit
8 people to particular places.
9 I think that the scientific evidence here is
10 really important in tying those oral histories
11 together and I think that a lot can be done with
12 that. The Tlingit history, like many indigenous
13 peoples, is passed down orally through songs and
14 stories, telling of clan migrations and ownership.
15 And I believe that the evidence of human occupation
16 is carried through these stories.
17 And there has been studies documented throughout
18 southeast Alaska for about the last 10,000 years by
19 several archeological sites. From Dixon Entrance up
20 the Chilkat Peninsula, many tools and cultural sites
21 have been discovered, and I think that the oral
22 history really ties together with those studies that
23 have been done in proving that people have lived
24 here, and I think that’s real interesting, and I’m
25 just fascinated to have been a part of that.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 43
1 Like I said, I’ll just read a few excerpts from
2 it. I won’t read you the whole thing because you
3 have a copy of it there. But after returning from
4 the site, working out there, getting my hands dirty,
5 and learning about all these different processes and
6 different organizations that are involved, I was
7 really excited to continue on with my education and
8 really motivated to study more. And because of that,
9 I have gone on to do a considerable amount of
10 research, a lot of which is documented in this paper.
11 And I’m just really, really glad that this
12 opportunity has been available to me to carry on and
13 the cooperation of all the different parties involved
14 I think has been a great example of what we can do
15 beyond consultation, and I hope that this will lead
16 to a lot more relationships building from that, and I
17 would just like to thank you very much for your time.
18 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, both of you. We
19 appreciate hearing about the project.
20 Committee members have questions or comments?
21 Let’s start with Tessie.
22 TESSIE NARANJO: Terry, thanks for bringing
23 Yarrow to us. You talked about relationships, both
24 of you, and that’s been an important process of
25 NAGPRA. And you talked about the relationships that
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 44
1 was established between your work and the Sealaska
2 Corporation, at least that’s the one that we heard
3 about. And then the result of that are the interns
4 that are a part of this work effort. And so we have
5 seen what’s happened, and thank you. I just
6 appreciate that a Native person is part of this work
7 that you all are doing.
8 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Jim and then Armand.
9 JAMES BRADLEY: Two quick comments, first to
10 amplify what Tessie said, thank you both. I mean,
11 you’ve both done a terrific job here. I think as you
12 know personally and as everyone in this room knows,
13 this has been a long and often very painful process,
14 and sometimes we say, why are we going through this.
15 Well, you guys are the answer. That’s the right
16 answer and that’s why all the effort is worthwhile.
17 My other comment is isn’t it too bad that the same
18 sensitivities and skills weren’t employed when
19 remains were found in Kennewick.
20 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Armand.
21 ARMAND MINTHORN: I think this is a good example
22 of involving tribes in this kind of a project. I
23 think it not only gives Native peoples an
24 opportunity, but it gives them a direct involvement,
25 and that’s what’s important when the tribes and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 45
1 peoples are directly involved. And I guess this
2 would be a question that I would pose to Susan Marvin
3 after we’re — maybe when we take a break, you know,
4 if there’s any other programs like yours throughout
5 the region in Alaska.
6 I’ve got several questions. What is a field
7 season?
8 TERRY FIFIELD: A field season is the length of
9 time that the crew spends in the field doing their
10 investigation and excavations. It can vary in
11 length. In this case, it’s been the first week of
12 June through the second week of August for 1997, ’98,
13 ’99, and 2000 will be probably the final field season
14 at the project.
15 ARMAND MINTHORN: And are these field seasons
16 planned with the Native peoples as far as what is
17 excavated and why?
18 TERRY FIFIELD: Not in great detail. I attend
19 council meetings and inform the councils of the
20 scheduling of the materials. They reviewed the first
21 research design in terms of the excavations. In the
22 entranceway of the cave and outside of the cave there
23 is a campsite, a 9,200-year-old campsite that’s the
24 same age as the human remains. And so investigations
25 in the last two and a half years have focused outside
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 46
1 of the cave away from where the human remains were
2 discovered.
3 And so we’ve — I’ve discussed it with the tribal
4 councils, but we’ve asked for input, but you wouldn’t
5 exactly say — we haven’t received a lot of specific
6 input into the design of the field methods, other
7 than to have people come up to observe. We’ve had
8 several representatives of the tribes come up and
9 visit the site to see what was going on and to
10 comment.
11 ARMAND MINTHORN: Well, I guess, and Tim, you
12 can correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that
13 through the Archeological Resources Protection Act,
14 there has to be a permit secured before any
15 excavations are conducted on Federal lands, that
16 within that permitting process there has to be
17 involvement of tribes, and also within the National
18 Historic Preservation Act there has to be direct
19 contact with tribes and their involvement. Is that
20 correct, Tim?
21 TIMOTHY MCKEOWN: I’m actually not quite sure if
22 — is there an actual ARPA permit in this case?
23 TERRY FIFIELD: No, there isn’t. I think — the
24 Forest Service is conducting the excavation —
25 ARMAND MINTHORN: On Federal lands?
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 47
1 TERRY FIFIELD: — on Federal lands. The
2 excavators, the Denver Museum of Natural History’s
3 crew are under volunteer agreements with the Forest
4 Service.
5 ARMAND MINTHORN: Then why isn’t there an ARPA
6 permit?
7 TIMOTHY MCKEOWN: Armand, this is one of those
8 situations where the agency is doing the work on its
9 own land.
10 ARMAND MINTHORN: Okay.
11 TIMOTHY MCKEOWN: So they don’t have a piece of
12 paper called an ARPA permit, but they must behave as
13 if they — under the rules of ARPA, and obviously have
14 been consulting with the tribes, with Klawock and
15 Craig.
16 ARMAND MINTHORN: Okay. And then you mentioned
17 ancient remains. What is the current situation with
18 these?
19 TERRY FIFIELD: All of the human remains that
20 have been recovered are being curated at the Denver
21 Museum of Natural History right now under a temporary
22 agreement. They still remain the property of the
23 Forest Service. They’re under basically a loan
24 agreement to the museum for analysis.
25 ARMAND MINTHORN: And of course the analysis is
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 48
1 agreed upon by or have involved the tribes?
2 TERRY FIFIELD: Both tribes passed resolutions
3 specifically allowing the analysis and conservation,
4 curation, yes.
5 ARMAND MINTHORN: Okay. And I guess that would
6 answer my last question as far as when the actual
7 inadvertent happened and then the tribal presidents
8 were involved or contacted, and this was part of my
9 concern because the artifacts were removed and there
10 are certain criteria that is involved when you remove
11 artifacts from a site.
12 TERRY FIFIELD: Right. Yes. Notification took
13 place within the time limits that are stipulated in
14 NAGPRA, and I — the only thing that was a little bit
15 out of line is they removed them from the ground
16 before they recognized what they were, because they
17 were working in a dark cave in soupy mud, and so they
18 weren’t really sure what they had until they got them
19 out into the light and washed them off. And so at
20 that point, they realized what they had recovered and
21 they stopped their excavations and contacted me.
22 ARMAND MINTHORN: And a final question, where
23 the ancient remains were recovered, the site, what
24 types of security measures are there to protect the
25 site?
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 49
1 TERRY FIFIELD: Initially, we began to design a
2 steel gate as in the recreation types of gates that
3 are placed on other caves in other parts of the
4 country that are — you know, let bats in and let air
5 pass, but the cost is quite high. We had spent about
6 $14,000 on materials the first year and getting them
7 up there with a helicopter. This site is 500 feet
8 above sea level and a half mile from the shore in a
9 rainforest, so it was kind of expensive getting this
10 stuff up there. And then we realized that the floor
11 that we were mounting this gate on was dirt, and we
12 hadn’t excavated down to bedrock, and so even if we
13 put the gate up, it would be a simple matter to
14 tunnel under the gate.
15 So we deferred putting the gate up, and we went
16 to the local community. There’s a community called
17 Port Protection that’s about three miles from the
18 site, and there were several people there that
19 already knew about the site and were very interested
20 in it. And we developed a stewardship agreement with
21 those people whereby they would visit the site
22 periodically and keep an eye on it and also talk to
23 people in the community about preserving it and its
24 importance, you know, trying to apply some peer
25 pressure within the community to value the site and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 50
1 leave it for future research. I provided them with
2 photographs of the way the site had been left in the
3 fall so that they could monitor effectively
4 throughout the winter, and we have had that in place
5 for the last three years and it’s been effective up
6 to this point. We haven’t had any damage, though we
7 are still debating whether to put a gate up.
8 Another party involved in this is the Tongass
9 Cave Project, which are a group of avocational
10 cavers, and some of the other values in the caves in
11 terms of pristine quality of the caves and cave
12 decorations and whatnot are also being considered in
13 how the cave is being protected and managed, and so
14 we have to weigh quite a few different values in how
15 we go about protecting it in the long term.
16 ARMAND MINTHORN: One final question, the
17 ancient remains that are being curated, what is the
18 eventual plan for these remains once the studies are
19 completed?
20 TERRY FIFIELD: The plan hasn’t been finalized.
21 Promises have been made that they will come back to
22 the island if that’s what the tribes want. First
23 there are — no formal repatriation request has been
24 begun. We have been discussing it. It’s a little
25 bit of an awkward point. We haven’t really resolved
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 51
1 that. Of course, the questions of cultural
2 affiliation and whatnot are going to arise as we do
3 that, and so there’s a — there are local repositories
4 being developed in southeast Alaska that may help us
5 solve some of those problems in terms of bringing
6 them back to southeast Alaska, back to home.
7 There are some people in Klawock who would like
8 to see them reburied in the cave. There’s some
9 people who would like to see them brought back to
10 planned museums in Klawock or Craig that have not yet
11 been — that are not very far along in their planning.
12 So we have some work to do in that arena.
13 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other questions from the
14 committee members?
15 Lawrence.
16 LAWRENCE HART: Just a comment. We have
17 indicated that we’re hearing some good models of
18 cooperation and collaboration between Federal
19 agencies and tribal groups, and this even goes beyond
20 that. It’s such an ideal model when tribes can have
21 an input through students like Yarrow. And I commend
22 the Sealaska Corporation for making that possible.
23 I’ll just be really fascinated about what is finally
24 revealed. And again, I think it’s really just an
25 excellent model.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 52
1 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you both. We appreciate
2 learning much more about the project and appreciate
3 your coming to be with us.
4 TERRY FIFIELD: Thank you.
5 YARROW VAARA: (Native Alaskan language.)
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We have time, I think, for
7 perhaps one more presentation and discussion before
8 we take a break, and Mr. Steve Henrikson from the
9 Alaska State Museum is the next presenter.
10 STEVE HENRIKSON
11 STEVE HENRIKSON: Good morning, and I’d like to
12 thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to
13 bring information to you in regard to the
14 implementation of NAGPRA in Alaska. I think there
15 are some incredibly exciting things that are
16 happening, and I wanted to bring a few of them up
17 before you today. I’m Steve Henrikson. I represent
18 the Alaska State Museum here in Juneau. I’m also the
19 chairman of the repatriation committee for Museums
20 Alaska, a statewide organization that represents over
21 40 museums and cultural centers in Alaska. And
22 Museums Alaska has been very active in the diffusing
23 of information about NAGPRA and helping to answer
24 questions that come up among the various individual
25 museums in the state.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 53
1 As far as the Alaska State Museum goes, we’ve
2 been fairly active in this area, both in terms of
3 compliance with NAGPRA and also doing some activities
4 that may be NAGPRA related but aren’t actually talked
5 about in the Act. We’ve distributed our inventory
6 and our summaries of the collections throughout
7 Alaska. We’ve had numerous consultations with
8 various Native groups around the state, including one
9 where we brought 14 Tlingit and Haida elders to the
10 museum here in Juneau and to our sister organization,
11 the Sheldon Jackson Museum in Sitka.
12 As far as repatriation itself, we have returned
13 three sets of human remains to the Tlingit and Haida
14 Central Council who was acting on behalf of the Auk
15 Kwaan, and we’ve also had several — we have ongoing
16 discussions involving some other artifacts with
17 several other organizations around the state.
18 I think to best inform you what’s been happening
19 here, I thought I should show some slides of some of
20 the activities that have been happening. I would
21 like to point out that I have received the consent of
22 the affected clans that I’ll be showing slides of,
23 and that is the T’aaku Yanyeidí, the Angoon
24 Dakl’aweidí, the Angoon Deisheetaan and the Sitka
25 Kiks.ádi Clans, and also the Kootsnoowoo Heritage
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 54
1 Foundation. So if we could get the lights, and Mark,
2 would you mind turning on the projector?
3 I had a couple slides to start out of are a
4 consultation with Tlingit and Haida elders and clan
5 leaders that took place several years ago in Juneau
6 and in Sitka. We received a NAGPRA grant to fund the
7 travel and lodging for the elders, who came from as
8 far away as Chernovtsy, Russia. One of the elders
9 was living in Siberia, and we actually were able to
10 bring him over. We worked closely with the Sealaska
11 Heritage Foundation, Cheryl Eldemar, as well as —
12 excuse me, Tlingit and Haida Central Council, Cheryl
13 Eldemar, and Dennis Demmert of the Sealaska Heritage
14 Foundation in deciding which elders to select. And
15 that was done partially on the basis of the artifacts
16 in the collection, but we also wanted a wide
17 distribution throughout southeast Alaska.
18 Okay. I guess this isn’t working. Thank you.
19 One of the elders who attended, Oscar Frank, from the
20 Teikweidí in Yakutat, while we were looking at
21 objects in the collection he discovered from his clan
22 an ancient headdress that he had only heard about as
23 a youngster. I think that’s one of the more exciting
24 things about consultations is the possibility of
25 making some discoveries that no one ever intended,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 55
1 which is exactly why I think it’s good to consult
2 broadly in terms of both the people who you consult
3 with as well as the objects that you look at, since
4 many of the objects are poorly or imperfectly
5 documented.
6 The first repatriation that I know of to one of
7 the southeastern Alaska groups was this wolf hat that
8 belongs to the T’aaku Yanyeidí Clan. This is a photo
9 of it at the Anchorage Museum where it was exhibited
10 for quite a few years in their permanent exhibit
11 area, but it actually originated from the Juneau area
12 just south of here as the Taku Glacier and the
13 homeland of the T’aaku people includes the Juneau
14 area and south of here. Next slide.
15 This is a photo of a T’aaku chief lying in state
16 wearing this very headdress, and this photograph was
17 one of the bits of information used by Harold Jacobs
18 in writing the repatriation claim for this particular
19 artifact. And indeed the claim was successful, and
20 several years ago this hat was repatriated just a few
21 feet away from where we are now sitting. It was
22 first brought out at one of Sealaska Heritage
23 Foundation celebrations that generally happens in
24 Centennial Hall.
25 And this is a photo of it. That’s Walter
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 56
1 Soboleff there in the foreground, who we heard from a
2 little while ago. Harold Jacobs is standing at the
3 other end in the Chilkat robe. Harold has been one
4 of the more proactive individuals involved in
5 repatriation here and in actually writing claims.
6 And in my experience, I think that while the agencies
7 and corporations and tribes are supportive of
8 repatriation and interested in seeing it happen, it
9 really — the success of this all hinges on the
10 individuals that are involved in this work who really
11 make it a point to take it to the limit. And Harold
12 is one of the people who has been instrumental in
13 bringing many of the objects back.
14 And this is Harold wearing this wolf hat at a
15 recent ceremony in Sitka. Since the hat has come
16 back to Alaska, it’s probably been used at least two
17 dozen different memorial feasts and other ceremonies,
18 and it’s becoming a much more well known through that
19 exposure within the traditional, cultural context.
20 And this is an elder, Jimmy Walton, of the Sitka
21 Kaagwaantaan Clan speaking at a totem pole raising in
22 Sitka wearing the Wolf Hat.
23 Another person that I would like to talk about
24 this morning is Mark Jacobs. He is a caretaker for
25 the Dakl’aweidí Clan of Angoon, who has also been
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 57
1 very active in repatriation. He was one of the
2 elders that we brought in for our consultation, and
3 he has been able to put forward several claims
4 through the Kootsnoowoo Heritage Foundation on behalf
5 of his clan for artifacts at various museums. One of
6 the first objects that he received back was this
7 ancient killer whale dagger that had been in the
8 collection of the Seattle Art Museum. And that
9 dagger is said to be very ancient and forged from a
10 meteorite.
11 This is the full length of it. It’s about two
12 and a half feet long. It’s more like a sword than a
13 dagger, beautifully sculpted with a two-headed killer
14 whale on the pommel. This is a photo of the dagger
15 in its ceremonial use in Angoon. I should mention
16 that many of these objects that have come back are
17 currently housed in museums and cultural centers. I
18 think there is a great deal of interest being shown
19 in finding protected places to take care of these
20 objects, since they are incredibly significant.
21 Another object that Mark and his clan have
22 received back is this killer whale hat that had been
23 in the collection of the Denver Museum of Natural
24 History, and it was returned several years ago, and
25 like the wolf hat and the killer whale dagger, this
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 58
1 has been used for at least several dozen different
2 ceremonies since it has been back to Alaska. And the
3 clan has an agreement with the National Park Service
4 in Sitka that allows for the curation and exhibition
5 of these objects by the Park, but then the Park does
6 in essence check those out or it lets them go out
7 freely whenever there is a ceremonial event.
8 This is a photograph of Mark wearing a replica
9 of the killer whale hat. Prior to the original
10 coming back, Mark had his son Harold carve a replica
11 of that hat, which is shown here in use. Mark is
12 holding another ancient hat, an original frog hat,
13 which has an interesting story behind it. It was
14 sold by someone who didn’t have the authority to sell
15 it several decades ago and it came up for auction at
16 Sotheby’s in the early ‘80s. The Alaska State
17 Museum, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, and Tlingit and
18 Haida Central Council pooled their resources and
19 succeeded in purchasing the hat at the auction. I
20 think at the time it set a record for the purchase
21 price of a hat. I think it was something in the
22 neighborhood of $65,000.
23 And part of the agreement which was entered into
24 before the actual purchase was made was a part of
25 this was that the clan would have access to the hat
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 59
1 whenever they needed it for ceremonial purposes, but
2 then when it wasn’t being used for within the — by
3 the clan, it would be stored in the Alaska State
4 Museum and used for educational purposes. This is
5 the hat itself. It’s said to be over ten generations
6 old, and it’s a copy of an even older hat, which
7 after it wore out it was decommissioned and a new hat
8 was carved.
9 This is a photograph of actually two frog hats.
10 They’re — like the killer whale hat, there is a
11 replica of the frog hat that was carved, not by the
12 clan, but by the dealer who originally purchased the
13 hat from a person in Sitka. Part of that agreement
14 was that the dealer would have an exact replica
15 carved and the person that had the hat would then
16 switch the original for the replica. During the time
17 the replica was in use, it attained a certain amount
18 of prestige, and now it’s used alongside the original
19 at many ceremonial occasions. And I think the
20 replica, it is a crest hat, but it doesn’t have as
21 much esteem attached to it as the original, and so
22 the replica is kind of used as a stunt hat if they’re
23 going outside or in a canoe or something like that.
24 They’ll use it if it’s somewhat going to be a
25 dangerous situation.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 60
1 The museum consults with clan members on how we
2 would like to see things carried out. The museum
3 isn’t involved in dictating how the objects are
4 handled, but we have certain concerns that we make
5 aware to the clan, and they have been very interested
6 in working with us on this. And even in this
7 situation when a speech was being made outside and it
8 started to rain, several people came forward with
9 their umbrellas to adequately shield the frog hat.
10 That’s Al Perkins, by the way, wearing the frog hat.
11 He’s the caretaker of the artifacts for the Kiks.ádi
12 Clan in Sitka.
13 There are several other artifacts that come from
14 the Kiks.ádi that have agreements established with
15 them. These are two Chilkat robes that came from the
16 clan that are in the collections of the Alaska State
17 Museum and then the other one is in the National Park
18 Service. And this isn’t a NAGPRA issue particularly,
19 but in these situations we’ve been able to work out a
20 ceremonial use agreement where the clan has free use
21 of the material and then during the interim it stays
22 at the museum and it can be used for educational
23 purposes in consultation with the clan.
24 This is a beaded shirt that was purchased in
25 1993 by the Alaska State Museum from a private
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 61
1 collection. When this came up, we approached the
2 Kiks.ádi and told them about that and offered to let
3 them go after it if they wanted to. And they thought
4 about it and they couldn’t raise the money needed for
5 this. So then the museum offered to use state funds
6 to purchase this shirt back, and then in return the
7 clan said that they would not repatriate it under
8 NAGPRA, but if they wanted it back they would
9 reimburse the state for the money that we put out for
10 it. So in essence they have a 99-year ability to
11 just reimburse the state for this, and this — we were
12 able to take this out of private hands and put it
13 into a public collection. And now it has a similar
14 agreement to that of the frog hat that it can be
15 checked out and used for ceremonial purposes.
16 The state museum has made some efforts to
17 continue to collect Native Alaskan objects working in
18 and around NAGPRA, although NAGPRA does not really
19 give very much guidance in terms of continuing to
20 collect artifacts. We still have that as a mission
21 for our institution. And so every time an object
22 comes available to us that we are thinking that is a
23 Native object of some great significance, we consult
24 with who we view as the appropriate Native groups, if
25 that can be determined, and try to work out an
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 62
1 agreement with them prior to making any action with
2 regard to the acquisition.
3 This is a Tlingit war helmet that came up at an
4 auction in France that we bid on several years ago.
5 We went in with the Sealaska Heritage Foundation and
6 the Sealaska Corporation to raise $100,000 to bid on
7 this hat, and we also involved the Tlingit and Haida
8 Central Council. We were writing up our agreement
9 the night before the auction, and at 3:00 a.m. I
10 received a call from France asking for our bid. And
11 I bid our whole amount in about 15 seconds, and we
12 lost this piece by about $350,000. It sold for
13 nearly half a million dollars, and is now in the
14 Cooperstown Indian Museum. It’s part of the Thaw
15 Collection.
16 But in spite of this defeat, we have succeeded
17 on several occasions in purchasing objects in
18 consultation and with active participation from the
19 Native groups, yet this is somewhat speculative
20 because we have no formal guidance on how to actually
21 do this sort of thing. And of course, since we are
22 responsible for state funds, we can’t agree to expend
23 state funds unless we have some certainty that what
24 we’re doing is appropriate and legal and all that,
25 but there’s really no good way, to my knowledge, of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 63
1 really finding out what’s appropriate or what’s
2 proper.
3 And finally, I wanted to just tell you about a
4 consultation trip that I had the privilege of being
5 invited to go on with the Kootsnoowoo Heritage
6 Foundation and about 15 clan leaders and elders from
7 the various clans in Angoon, which is, I guess, about
8 50 miles south of here on Admiralty Island, one of
9 the traditional and ancient Tlingit communities here.
10 This happened in January of 1999, and the trip
11 included the American Museum of Natural History, the
12 National Museum of the American Indian and the Field
13 Museum, and we spent nearly a month on the road
14 looking at those various collections. And we had
15 some really amazing finds there.
16 The community of Angoon has a really rich and
17 interesting history. There are about a dozen or so
18 clans living there, each with their traditional crest
19 and crest objects, many of which are now in museums
20 around the country and some of which were destroyed
21 in a bombardment by the US Navy in 1882. This is an
22 artist’s depiction of that event. The bombardment
23 actually burned down pretty much the entire village,
24 and it also killed six members of the community
25 there. The bombardment happened over a dispute, a
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 64
1 misunderstanding between some of the white business
2 owners and the Navy and the Native community there,
3 but because of this event, many of the — most, the
4 oldest objects from Angoon no longer exist. And some
5 of the objects from Angoon that are in museums only
6 exist now because they weren’t there at the time of
7 the bombardment. They were in museums in the lower
8 48, and I think it’s based on this trip that was
9 taken, I think that became very clear from the
10 beginning, that the clans are seeing their material
11 now only because they had been collected, and so that
12 put it in a little bit different light. Next slide.
13 This is what the town looks like today. That’s
14 the — basically, that’s the main part of the town
15 where the bombardment took place, and while none of
16 the original houses are there, there are a row of
17 houses there that are at least 100 years old on their
18 traditional clan sites. And in that area to this day
19 they’re still digging up shrapnel and unexploded
20 ordinance from the bombardment.
21 This is the American Museum where the first week
22 and a half was spent, and the opening ceremonies
23 there. It was a really touching moment when the
24 group first arrived in the collections room and among
25 the shelves where all of these artifacts were stored,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 65
1 these are — the comment was made that this is
2 probably the first speaking of the Tlingit language
3 that was heard by those artifacts in over a century
4 in some cases.
5 That’s a typical aisle where artifacts are
6 housed there, and the group was given free access to
7 these aisles by Martha Graham. It wasn’t — they had
8 a list of everything that the museum could identify
9 as being from Angoon. It was — everything was pulled
10 in advance. But the staff there at the American
11 Museum allowed the members of the delegation to
12 freely look down all the rows, and it was because of
13 that freedom of access that a very important
14 discovery was made inadvertently.
15 This is the group looking down one of the rows.
16 Harold Jacobs was part of this group, and he went
17 down one of the aisles and saw a carved head of a
18 beaver sculpture sticking out from one of the rows.
19 And he thought it looked familiar but he couldn’t
20 quite place it, and then he thought about it again
21 and went back, and suddenly it dawned on him what it
22 was. And it was a canoe prow figure that once was
23 mounted on the bow of a dugout canoe, and that was
24 one of the only artifacts that survived the
25 bombardment. The canoe was out on an expedition away
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 66
1 from the village when the bombardment took place, and
2 the story goes that John Paul came back around the
3 point off of Angoon and saw smoke on the horizon and
4 as the canoe came in to shore he realized what had
5 happened to the community. No one really knew what
6 happened to that canoe prow figure, and here it
7 turned up several thousand miles away in New York.
8 This is part of the delegation going over
9 documentation, and this is one of the other great
10 finds was this ancient beaver dish at the — back in
11 the museum collection. This is the only existing
12 photograph of the canoe prow figure in existence.
13 It’s a very poor photo from the 1880s, but it shows
14 the canoe prow figure mounted on the bow of a
15 Deisheetaan canoe, and it’s on the basis of this
16 photo that Harold recognized the prow figure when he
17 saw it in the collections room.
18 This is after the discovery was announced,
19 everything stopped and several hours were spent going
20 over the history. And Mark Jacobs had heard the
21 history as a young man and he told that at the time,
22 and it was decided right then and there that a
23 repatriation claim had to be put in right away
24 because there were several elders in Angoon that were
25 very old and they really wanted the canoe prow figure
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 67
1 to come back to the community as quickly as possible.
2 This is Garfield George. He is now the
3 caretaker of the beaver canoe prow figure, which was
4 repatriated I think in five or six months after the
5 claim was put in, it was — everything was signed,
6 sealed and delivered on it. One of the fastest
7 repatriations that I’ve heard about, and I think a
8 lot of that is due to Martha Graham and her staff on
9 trying to really get that through as quickly as
10 possible.
11 Part of the trip also was going to NMAI in the
12 Bronx. This is their storage facility, which looked
13 more like a penitentiary of some sort. But we spent
14 half a day there to actually receive an artifact back
15 that had been previously filed for under NAGPRA.
16 This was an ancient bear dagger, and that’s Kevin
17 Olbrysh there of the NMAI repatriation staff. They
18 were very accommodating, and I think the delegation
19 felt very welcome when they came to NMAI and
20 especially when they got a chance to look at some of
21 the objects there because they discovered some long-
22 lost precious objects there as well.
23 This is a photo, a detail of a photo from the
24 1904 potlatch, and a number of these headdresses were
25 discovered at NMAI when the group visited there to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 68
1 pick up the bear dagger. The staff graciously
2 allowed the individuals in the delegation to actually
3 wear these headdresses for the first time in probably
4 a hundred years, and almost everyone in the
5 delegation found something from their clan there that
6 they could put on for this returning ceremony. This
7 is Dennis Starr and John Jacobs. This is Dan
8 Johnson, and this is the late Matthew Fred. This is
9 actually the returning ceremony. There was a balance
10 between the Eagle and Raven sides, and since this was
11 an Eagle artifact that was being repatriated, the
12 dagger was returned to the Raven side who then turned
13 it over to the Eagle side.
14 This is Peter Jack who received the dagger on
15 behalf of his clan, and the dagger is now — has been
16 returned to the Teikweidí and it’s on loan to the
17 Alaska State Museum, and it’s been used at several
18 memorial feasts.
19 Finally, getting back to the canoe prow figure,
20 there was a welcoming ceremony for it last fall.
21 This is the community of Angoon. The Kootsnoowoo
22 Corporation and I think the Forest Service chartered
23 a catamaran to come down from Juneau. The canoe prow
24 was shipped to the Alaska State Museum on loan from
25 the clan and it was transported down to Angoon for
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 69
1 this return ceremony. It was a little choppy that
2 day so they resisted the urge to lash it on the bow
3 of the catamaran, and they just had it inside, which
4 was great.
5 This is the cat coming into the Angoon dock,
6 where there was almost the entire community turned
7 out for this, many of this dressed in their regalia,
8 and welcomed the catamaran with singing and dancing.
9 The canoe prow figure in this shot is being offloaded
10 and being met by the members of the clan, the
11 Deisheetaan. These are some dances that took place
12 right on the dock, and then later that evening a
13 welcoming ceremony was held in the gymnasium there.
14 Here is the prow being taken up the gangway.
15 The prow figure was laid out on a table with
16 some of the other artifacts, and about halfway
17 through the event a member of the community came in
18 with a shell from the bombardment of Angoon that had
19 been excavated during the building of a house, and
20 that’s that metallic lunt to the left of the canoe
21 prow.
22 The canoe prow and some of the other artifacts
23 are laid out there on the table. Several of those
24 have been also returned back under NAGPRA. And this
25 is Mark Jacobs on the left and Peter Jack on the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 70
1 right telling the story of the beaver canoe prow
2 figure. And they pointed out that while the prow
3 figure disappeared in the 1920s, the canoe survived
4 for a while longer until it was wrecked on the beach
5 during a storm. And because that canoe was so
6 significant to the people, they actually gave the
7 canoe a funeral just as if it was a person because it
8 was — it was because of that canoe that the community
9 survived after the bombardment.
10 That was the only canoe that was left that they
11 needed for subsistence after all their food and other
12 canoes were destroyed during the bombardment. So
13 everyone, every clan owed their lives to that canoe
14 and all the descendents owed their lives to the
15 canoe, and so the return of this prow figure was of
16 incredible significance to the community. And I
17 think it’s — I think this is why repatriation exists.
18 And this is a typical display of artifacts at a
19 memorial, including the two daggers there on the
20 table are both items that have come back through
21 NAGPRA.
22 I think that’s all the slides I had. Again, I
23 just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to
24 provide some information this morning.
25 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Steve. What we
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 71
1 will do is take a break. There may be some questions
2 from committee members, but we’ll just pause for 15
3 minutes and come back. Thank you very much.
4 BREAK
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Most of the committee members
7 are here. I suspect that there may be a question or
8 a comment for Steve Henrikson. So Steve, if you
9 could come up here and join us again, we would
10 appreciate it.
11 We’re waiting for Armand. Oh, here you are.
12 STEVE HENRIKSON
13 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much for giving
14 us an overview of all the activities. I’ve heard
15 informal comments from different committee members.
16 Anyone want to begin questions or comments?
17 Yes, Vera.
18 VERA METCALF: When you apply for NAGPRA grants
19 for museums, is that — I know there is a certain
20 amount that we have to apply for, is that an adequate
21 amount for your consultation purposes? I ask this
22 because in Alaska, I know transportation is very
23 expensive and you mentioned that you have consulted
24 with several tribes. The amount that is budgeted for
25 museums, do you feel that amount is adequate for
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 72
1 consultation purposes in Alaska?
2 STEVE HENRIKSON: Well, it’s — I think that, as
3 you say, the distances are so great and the travel
4 expenses are so high for most of the state, I would
5 hate to suggest that the money that’s there is really
6 enough. My sense is that very few consultations have
7 taken place that involves bringing a significant
8 number of people in from the bush in to visit some of
9 the museum collections. I think those are more the
10 exception than the rule where you have an entire
11 group, a delegation from a community coming to do a
12 consultation.
13 Individuals, there’s probably more consultations
14 that involve one or two people coming to a museum,
15 but that’s barely adequate. In any given community
16 there are different lineages and different social
17 systems that would, in an ideal world, indicate that
18 you should have representatives of each of those
19 divisions coming to a consultation. And there’s
20 also, I think, an advantage to that in that there’s a
21 synergy that develops and people can talk to each
22 other at the museum at the time this is happening.
23 As I witnessed with the Kootsnoowoo group, I think
24 people really got a lot out of being able to talk
25 things over with their colleagues while they were at
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 73
1 the museum and while everything was in front of them
2 and fresh in their mind.
3 So I guess in that sense, I don’t think there is
4 a sufficient amount of funds that have, at least so
5 far, been able to be used for consultations here in
6 Alaska. I think we’ve just started hitting on the
7 tip of the iceberg of the potential for
8 consultations.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other questions, committee
10 members?
11 Armand.
12 ARMAND MINTHORN: Susan, are you still here?
13 SUSAN MARVIN: Yes.
14 ARMAND MINTHORN: If we could — a question that
15 I forgot to ask Mr. Fifield was what process was
16 going to take place to establish cultural affiliation
17 on the ancient remains that he gave in his report, if
18 we could discuss that some time today.
19 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Armand, I think I’ve been
20 informed that Rosa Miller, who is a clan mother of
21 the Auk Kwaan, wishes to respond to Sue’s
22 presentation and offer a Native perspective on it.
23 Maybe that would be the good way to do it.
24 ARMAND MINTHORN: All right. And then a
25 question for you, Steve, one of the agenda items for
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 74
1 this meeting here, this three-day meeting, is
2 contamination of artifacts and/or remains. During
3 your slide presentation, many of the things that were
4 brought back or beginning to be brought back through
5 the repatriation process, were any of these artifacts
6 tested for contamination?
7 STEVE HENRIKSON: I’m not certain. I believe
8 the beaver canoe prow figure, it seemed like at some
9 point I saw some paperwork suggesting that it had
10 been tested and cleared, but the other objects I’m
11 not sure of.
12 ARMAND MINTHORN: Would — I guess, what kind of
13 considerations then could you give toward ensuring
14 that these artifacts aren’t contaminated?
15 STEVE HENRIKSON: Well, as far as the objects
16 that I spoke about, most of those were from other
17 museums, and I’m not sure what their procedures are,
18 if any, to really guard against any potential health
19 hazards. As I say, the only one that I am informally
20 familiar with is the beaver canoe and I believe that
21 that prow piece had been tested. And I think, my
22 sense just generally is that that issue is becoming
23 more prominent in the minds of museum people, and I
24 think they are starting now to make that part of the
25 routine is to try to look into the records to see
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 75
1 what treatments have been done on things.
2 In our museum, we’re somewhat fortunate in that
3 we’re so far north that a lot of the insects that eat
4 artifacts in the lower 48 can’t live up here, so in
5 many cases, the museums haven’t used as much in the
6 way of pesticides. It’s more common, I think, to
7 freeze artifacts to control insects than it is to use
8 DDT or arsenic or something like that.
9 ARMAND MINTHORN: So then what steps is your
10 museum going to take?
11 STEVE HENRIKSON: Well, we haven’t had any
12 claims for artifacts at this point, so this is
13 hypothetical, but any kind of a return would include
14 a thorough review of all the conservation records to
15 find out if the object had been treated, and if so
16 with what. And also our conservator has gotten some
17 arsenic test kits to use to be able to take a swab
18 off of an object and send it into a lab and then
19 they’ll give us a readout as to what kind of
20 contaminants it may have.
21 MARTIN SULLIVAN: I have a question related to
22 the helmet that was on auction in France, which
23 subsequently went to the Thaw Collection. Was one of
24 the reasons for bidding on that a belief that it
25 would fall under the definition of a sacred object
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 76
1 within NAGPRA?
2 STEVE HENRIKSON: Well, there was no
3 documentation on that particular helmet, and so all
4 we could go on is the knowledge that at least some of
5 the warriors’ helmets from southeastern Alaska were
6 and are considered to be what under NAGPRA you would
7 call cultural patrimony. So in that the — it wasn’t
8 something that any of us could rule out as not being
9 subject to NAGPRA, so we proceeded as if we knew for
10 sure it was, and as time went on possibly new
11 information might show at some future point that it
12 either is or is not cultural patrimony, but we
13 proceeded as if it was.
14 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Thanks.
15 Vera.
16 VERA METCALF: In your slide presentation there
17 was several tribes mentioned. I was wondering why
18 some of them are not here to maybe provide a Native
19 perspective.
20 STEVE HENRIKSON: Well, I — Harold Jacobs was
21 planning to be here, but for health reasons he wasn’t
22 able to make it over here from Sitka. But the — and
23 I should point out that a prime player in the
24 Kootsnoowoo consultation is here with us today.
25 Leonard John was on the staff of the Kootsnoowoo
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 77
1 Heritage Foundation, and basically administrated the
2 grant for the corporation and did all the groundwork,
3 and he really deserves a pat on the back for the work
4 that he did. It was a very complicated task, just
5 the travel arrangements would have almost required a
6 Ph.D. in being a travel agent, but he got through it
7 really well. And he is to be congratulated.
8 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. We
9 appreciate hearing from you, Steve.
10 Let me make a general comment. We have a number
11 of additional presentations that have been scheduled
12 for this morning, and we want to make sure that there
13 is adequate time to hear from everyone. The
14 committee feels quite privileged that we are here and
15 able to learn from all of you who are on the agenda,
16 and we do not want to shortchange anyone’s time.
17 This afternoon there are a couple of items on
18 the agenda that we think can be accomplished more
19 quickly. The discussion of our committee’s 1999
20 Report to Congress we will take up when the
21 presentations are done. The two items that were
22 scheduled this afternoon for 2:30, the disposition of
23 remains from Florida and Washington State, we of
24 course did yesterday, so we have some additional
25 time.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 78
1 So I’m going to ask the committee members your
2 preferences, but I would recommend that we go as far
3 this morning as we can do so and then allot some
4 additional time at the beginning of the afternoon so
5 that we can finish up with the reports and
6 presentations. Good.
7 I have had a request for an opportunity to
8 respond to Sue Marvin’s presentation, and the request
9 is on behalf of Rosa Miller who is a clan mother of
10 the Auk Kwaan who is here with us. Are you here with
11 us right at the moment? Yes. Would you come forward
12 then? You can come over to the microphone over here.
13 Thank you.
14 ROSA MILLER AND CHERYL ELDEMAR
15 ROSA MILLER: Good morning. My name is Rosa
16 Miller. I am the tribal leader of the Auk Kwaan. My
17 Tlingit names are Tsais Taan, Stewoo, Syana-aat, the
18 last one given to me was 1986, Nax-gee-see. I am of
19 the Raven moiety, the Dog Salmon Clan, and I come
20 from the Yaxtey Hit, which means Dipper House. My
21 mother, who was the matriarch of our clan, was Bessie
22 Visaya, very well known. She was the matriarch of
23 the Yaxtey Tans. She was also — we are what our
24 mother is. Her Tlingit name was Kochgoon. My father
25 was James Miller. He was of the Eagle moiety. His
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 79
1 Tlingit name was Utshoowoosah. He was a chief of the
2 Wooshkeetaans. He was a Shark from the Shark House.
3 And his father was James Booth Miller, Tlingit, also
4 known as Salmon Creek Jim. His Tlingit name was Shan
5 Soox. He was the chief of the Auk Kwaans at the time
6 of his death. And his wife, my grandmother, was Mary
7 Booth Miller, who was a Wooshkeetaan, and her Tlingit
8 name was Tlah.a. My mother’s parents were Mary Tsa
9 Tate Springer, whose Tlingit name was Stewoo, and she
10 was Auk Kwaan. And my grandfather was George
11 Edwards. His Tlingit name was Shakakoonee. He was
12 Dakl’aweidí from the Killer Whale Tribal House up in
13 Klawock.
14 I got a letter from the Forest Service to come
15 to a meeting, and this was May of 1992, and this was
16 in regards to our ancestors that they had dug up in
17 1990. It took them two years to get ahold of us. I
18 was hoping Cheryl would be sitting by me because I’m
19 not too good on dates. I have a lot on my mind, so
20 if she could come here and sit by me, I would
21 appreciate it.
22 There was a lot of people at this meeting and we
23 didn’t get anything resolved. They passed out a lot
24 of papers. It was just the start of many meetings.
25 When Cheryl finally got involved in it, I was tickled
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 80
1 for her to stand up and tell them, she was talking
2 about the reams and reams of papers I was receiving
3 from Forest Service.
4 We had many meetings with them from 1992, and
5 they made us a lot of promises. And I thought we
6 were finally getting something accomplished when they
7 turned away from meeting with me and went to our
8 former chief. I was very disappointed that they did
9 that, but they didn’t have any success in meeting
10 with him because he didn’t know all that much. I
11 think Cheryl should say something about that, how
12 they changed.
13 CHERYL ELDEMAR: Thank you, Rosa. And just
14 briefly, my name is Cheryl Eldemar and I was the
15 former cultural resource specialist for the Central
16 Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes from the
17 period of 1993 to ’97 and then again for a year ’98,
18 August of ’98. And in that capacity during the time
19 Rosa is referring to, the Forest Service was doing
20 remodeling if you will to the Auk Rec area that Rosa
21 is referring to, and as part of that process
22 consulting with affiliated tribes.
23 Through the process of consultation, there were
24 many factors, one being negotiating with the Forest
25 Service potential ways to honor the traditional group
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 81
1 associated with that area, which meant incorporating
2 into the renovation or the remodel some additional
3 architectural and sculptural-type items, things that
4 would commemorate in a real way the indigenous group
5 to that area. In negotiating with the Forest Service
6 on issues like that to come to a mutual agreement on
7 how the Forest Service could accomplish their goals
8 and also, you know, accomplish the goals of the Auk
9 Kwaan, decisions would be made during the meetings,
10 or not decisions, but things would be negotiated in
11 the meetings and in follow-up sessions, things that
12 were alluded to agreement would not manifest in the
13 written agreement.
14 So the consultation became frustrating because
15 it was clear to us decision makers were not a part of
16 the consultation process. To successfully complete
17 the consultation as required under NAGPRA things
18 would be suggested or requested by the tribe, the Auk
19 Kwaan. The Forest Service would reply positively.
20 We would come back to the table trying to sign off on
21 the agreement, and those things requested were not
22 reflected, clearly a frustration.
23 It’s my perception that in the interests of time
24 and trying to complete the consultation process, the
25 Forest Service began to consult with someone other
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 82
1 than Rosa Miller, thereby completing their
2 consultation requirements. It was a very frustrating
3 and actually surprising thing to witness. And
4 there’s more to this issue that Rosa will continue
5 on, but hopefully that clarifies what Rosa was
6 talking about. Is that correct, Rosa?
7 ROSA MILLER: Yes. In getting back to the
8 remains that the Forest Service removed from our
9 village site, they told us that they had found it and
10 they moved it. Without notifying us, they moved it
11 and reburied it, and I guess somebody else came
12 across it. At that time they put it in a plastic bag
13 and took it to Sitka, again without notifying us. So
14 notifying us that meeting May of 1992 was after the
15 fact. It was a very frustrating time for me. I was
16 at my wit’s end as to what to do. A lot of times I
17 prayed, and I cried. It was very hard.
18 They made a lot of promises and the grant that
19 was submitted for us was denied. They did not do
20 what we requested in making of the burial boxes. I
21 requested to do it the traditional way, to have
22 Harold Jacobs do the box. Instead they turned to
23 somebody else, and then it was not traditional. And
24 we usually have a memorial dinner after the reburial.
25 That was part of what the grant was going to be for.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 83
1 The box, it was beautiful. It — you’ll have to
2 excuse me. This is very emotional for me.
3 When we finally — I reached a point where I
4 couldn’t take any more, and my cousin was listening
5 to me talking at a meeting and she was kind of
6 shocked by what had been going on. So she called
7 some friends in Washington DC, and not too long after
8 that I got a call and we met with Fred Salinas and
9 Pete Griffin. At that meeting, they told me that
10 that they received a call from Washington DC and they
11 were told to finish it, to end it, to do whatever we
12 wanted them to do, and I was very happy that we were
13 finally going to be receiving our ancestral remains.
14 They paid our way to Sitka. I got my cousin,
15 Lemome Metungding (phonetic) to go with me because it
16 is our custom. Her role was that of a pallbearer.
17 It is our custom to have someone. I’m of the Raven
18 moiety and I had to get someone of the Eagle moiety,
19 so I asked her to play that role, and she went with
20 me. They paid our way. They said they would have
21 funds for us when we got there. There was none. And
22 we were going to be there until 6:00 p.m. that
23 evening.
24 Well, we finally — they finally agreed to give
25 us something, because like I said, we were going to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 84
1 be there over six hours. We got a car rented for us.
2 At the end of the day we went back and the remains
3 were returned to us, and we went to the airport and
4 brought them back. And we stored them because we had
5 others that we still hadn’t received. The
6 Wooshkeetaans were trying to get their remains back
7 from the police station.
8 And a grant was written for us and that was
9 denied, and we met again. I called the Forest
10 Service and Pete Griffin met with us, and I asked him
11 what went on and he said it was denied, and I told
12 him it didn’t surprise me. I said you still have a
13 responsibility. You made promises to us. One way or
14 the other we are going to have the memorial dinner.
15 We just can’t leave it. We did the reburial in
16 September. I was hoping to have it done by then, but
17 we’re still waiting. Do you want to say something
18 about that grant?
19 CHERYL ELDEMAR: Just to be brief and maybe
20 highlight the frustrations or areas for room for
21 improvement, I appreciated Ms. Marvin’s presentation
22 from the Forest Service this morning. And while we
23 are nearing the end result, which is the successful
24 return of ancestral remains, the perspective as to
25 the method by which we get there differs. A very
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 85
1 long process, since the early ‘90s, Rosa referencing
2 the final stage here while the remains are physically
3 returned from where they came, which is now
4 designated as Federal land, is not an option for them
5 to return the remains.
6 On top of that is the issue of the practical
7 financial aspects and the other aspects required to
8 complete the repatriation ceremony. Clans are being
9 asked to recreate or come up with reburial
10 ceremonies, and those things are taxing. And fairly,
11 this clan asked for support from the Forest Service
12 initially, and I was with Rosa on those occasions
13 when the Forest Service distinctly implied that they
14 would be there to the end to help with that, you
15 know, obligation.
16 In the final stages, we are grateful the Forest
17 Service did provide financial assistance to a degree,
18 but did not complete the required process. They
19 implied a relationship with the Park Service that
20 could ensure the balance required to fulfill that
21 obligation would happen, and in fact, fell short of
22 the mark, the Park Service denying the request. My
23 perception is there may be even some cultural issues.
24 The decline cites things like, well, this is a party,
25 is considered kind of something that can’t be funded
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 86
1 because of the perception of the party association.
2 I think there are some cultural issues there.
3 But the frustrations being from my perspective
4 that people in decision making authority or power are
5 not at the table when the consultation is going on,
6 and it’s frustrating to say we’re consulting with you
7 as required under NAGPRA but the people at the table
8 don’t have the authority. And it’s burdensome on
9 clan people and those of us who represent those
10 institutions, Federally recognized tribes, to help
11 that process through. That’s very frustrating. And
12 I think it’s a key factor in prolonging this.
13 Through this whole session, we’ve had a change in
14 administration with the Forest Service. Fred Salinas
15 is recently new. That’s a significant issue.
16 I think we have to be realistic too about the
17 financial issue in tribes, clans implementing
18 repatriation and completing the process. As
19 southeast Alaska becomes more successful in having
20 particularly human remains come back, every claim
21 I’ve worked on in helping with clans, they want the
22 remains to go back to from where they came. And when
23 we know that situation, which we do in some, they all
24 want them to go back to where they came, which in
25 many cases now for us the Tongass National Forest is
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 87
1 a significant landholder.
2 And I don’t know — I must say in my experience
3 to date the Forest Service has been accommodating in
4 a very, I guess for lack of a better word, quiet way
5 of allowing remains to return. I sense there’s no
6 formal policy on this, but it’s starting to become an
7 issue, and I understand you may hear testimony from
8 another tribal elder who can attest to that. Here
9 the Auk now have an area that’s a recreational area,
10 cannot return the remains to that, do not want to,
11 and so the whole frustrating ordeal of negotiating
12 and the time it takes, those are I think the
13 underlying frustrations.
14 And I would also just like to comment that I
15 believe we are making progress, that the Forest
16 Service, like we, are learning. It’s a learning
17 process. We’re learning together that, you know,
18 they are human beings in those positions, and carry
19 their perspectives. But to have known that human
20 remains were extracted when this law was in existence
21 and put in plastic bags and sent to an office in
22 Sitka is pretty amazing.
23 Did I cover everything, Rosa?
24 ROSA MILLER: Yes. I would also like to talk
25 about the remains we repatriated from the museum
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 88
1 here. We met with Steve Henrikson, and he was very
2 cooperative. We had no problems there. He took care
3 of it.
4 Before we actually did the reburial, I felt with
5 all the turmoil going on with us, we went out on
6 ceremonies. Cheryl was part of one of them, and it
7 was a very, very emotional experience. Each one
8 experienced a different feeling. I can’t explain it.
9 But we did this for a year, because of the fact that
10 we were going to be reburying our ancestors. And
11 each time we did these ceremonies, it just seemed
12 like we were — I can’t explain it. It was just very
13 emotional, a lot of praying, singing.
14 And at the completion of our ceremonies, we
15 would select an area, and you could feel where it
16 would be best to put it, at least that’s the
17 experience we had. I just walked, and wherever it
18 felt this was the place to put it, we put food there,
19 and we would walk away. And always when we did that,
20 there was eagles sitting up in the trees and they
21 would start talking as if to thank us. Like Cheryl
22 and my grandson said, it was awesome.
23 But with the museum, it was — like I said, they
24 were very cooperative, and we reburied our ancestors.
25 They had the boxes made, and my son Perry Miller made
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 89
1 the boxes. And we reburied those at the cemetery so
2 they won’t be disturbed again. We put that small box
3 on top my grandfather, Shan Soox.
4 The other six, the last six we repatriated got
5 reburied. When they were building the city of
6 Juneau, they had a court order to exhume all our
7 ancestors so they could build the city of Juneau.
8 That’s how the Evergreen Cemetery was founded. My
9 mother showed me where they put our ancestors. In
10 the words of my mother, she said, this is what they
11 did. They dug a hole here, a big hole, and they
12 dumped all our ancestors in there, just covered them
13 up. There’s a big slab of concrete there, and that’s
14 where we put the last six.
15 And I had to really request that. They wanted
16 us to put them somewhere else. I said no, this is
17 where our other ancestors are here, and I would very
18 much like for them to be with them. And I thank
19 Steve for all the help he gave us. So we had one
20 that went through without a problem and one we’re
21 still working on. So this is what we’ve gone
22 through. Thank you.
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you both very much.
24 Comments or questions from the committee?
25 CHERYL ELDEMAR: Thank you.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 90
1 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you. We appreciate
2 hearing from you.
3 We’ll next hear from Gary Selinger representing
4 the University of Alaska Museum.
5 GARY SELINGER
6 GARY SELINGER: Good morning, everybody.
7 LAWRENCE HART: Good morning.
8 GARY SELINGER: My name is Gary Selinger, and
9 I’m the NAGPRA coordinator for the University of
10 Alaska Museum in Fairbanks.
11 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Could you move a little closer
12 to the mic, Gary?
13 GARY SELINGER: Yes.
14 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you.
15 GARY SELINGER: My name is Gary Selinger. I’m
16 the NAGPRA coordinator for the University of Alaska
17 Museum in Fairbanks, and I’ve been in that role since
18 1993.
19 My museum in Fairbanks is the archeological
20 repository for Federal and state collections since
21 1926, and our collection consists of about 4,500
22 different accessions representing about a million
23 objects in addition to 900 sets of human remains.
24 The collection represents cultural areas from all
25 over the state of Alaska, and we presently serve as a
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 91
1 repository for the National Park Service, the BLM, US
2 Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Department
3 of Defense including the Army, the Air Force, Coast
4 Guard, Department of Aviation, Department of Energy.
5 The list goes on and on. Presently we have
6 repatriated 450 sets of human remains and
7 approximately 3,500 funerary objects in 14 different
8 claims, and we have three claims that are pending
9 presently.
10 Alaska is a very confusing situation because the
11 land status is just a mosaic of Federal land, state
12 land, Native land claims, private landowners, and to
13 add to it prior to statehood in 1959, the entire
14 state of Alaska was a territory of the United States.
15 So all of the archeological collections prior to
16 statehood belong to the Federal Government. And when
17 we had to comply with NAGPRA in 1993 for the two
18 deadlines of ’93 and ’95, we had to search out the
19 4,500 collections that we have to figure out which
20 Federal agencies were responsible. We wrote letters
21 to most of the Federal agencies asking for
22 assistance, either financially or giving us staff to
23 do the inventories, do the summaries. We received
24 zero from anybody, from all the Federal agencies in
25 the state. So we were essentially on our own. We
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 92
1 hired a lot of students, and we were in compliance
2 for the Federal agencies. We took on that chore.
3 As a result we’re what they’re calling we’re in
4 possession of the collections, but we’re not in
5 control of the collections. So when I get a
6 repatriation claim, I don’t have the right to do the
7 repatriation directly. I have to go through a
8 Federal agency. So we can do the consultation, but
9 then I have the Federal agency wanting to do a second
10 consultation to verify that the information that we
11 have is correct, although we have the collections and
12 the Federal agencies a lot of times could be in
13 southeast Alaska, could be in Anchorage. They’re
14 spread all over. So it puts a burden on the Native
15 community to have essentially two consultations
16 because of this bureaucratic situation.
17 An example of what’s going on, and I wanted to
18 give you an example of something that’s happened
19 recently. The Nome Eskimo community gave a
20 repatriation claim, sent a repatriation claim to me
21 on January 3rd, 2000, and it was for ten sets of human
22 remains and funerary objects from a place called
23 Sledge Island, which is about 25 miles west of Nome.
24 And one of my first chores to do is to figure out the
25 land status, which Federal agency is responsible. So
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 93
1 the Bureau of Land Management in Anchorage has been
2 helping me tremendously figure out which agency is
3 responsible through their land office.
4 Well, we found out that the Coast Guard, this
5 land was given to the Coast Guard in the 1920s
6 because they were thinking of building a lighthouse
7 station on Sledge Island because of all the whaling
8 ships that were coming in. So I was very confused as
9 to who in the Coast Guard I was supposed to deal
10 with. So I called Tim McKeown and we got the name of
11 legal council in Alameda, California. But in the
12 meantime, I called the Coast Guard Museum in New
13 London, Connecticut, and they had discussed with me
14 that they had prepared some repatriations. To make a
15 long story short, from January 5th to the present time
16 today, I have not received anything from the Coast
17 Guard giving me authorization to do the repatriation
18 or anybody in charge. They have been passing it
19 between Alameda, California, Washington DC, and New
20 London, Connecticut.
21 What’s amazing to me is they were trying to
22 figure out if it was real property versus personal
23 property, the human remains. Real property, my
24 understanding, is real estate, land and buildings.
25 So since the human remains were from the ground, they
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 94
1 thought it was a real property issue, so that was
2 Alameda, California. Then they decided the human
3 remains were taken away, so that’s personal property.
4 That’s something you could pick up and carry away, so
5 that transferred to the Washington DC office. It is
6 not resolved. We have spent January, February and
7 March, and now it’s the beginning of April and I’m
8 still at the beginning.
9 The Nome Eskimo community, I was in Nome and I
10 met with them at a council meeting, and I was told by
11 the Coast Guard that they were going to write a
12 letter authorizing myself and my museum to do the
13 repatriation on behalf of the Coast Guard. I called
14 several times over the following month asking where
15 that letter was, and apparently the letter was
16 sitting on somebody’s desk. And then I called three
17 days ago before I came to this meeting and I was told
18 the letter had never been written and they were
19 confused as to how to word an authorization letter
20 letting me do the repatriation.
21 So I’ve been lied to by the Coast Guard. I’ve
22 been sent back and forth all over the country. And
23 one of the real issues that I see here is that there
24 is no mechanism to go after a Federal agency like
25 this. There’s civil penalties. If my museum was
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 95
1 doing something like this, I’d be in a desperate
2 situation right now legally. But with the US Coast
3 Guard, I think they just felt that I would go away
4 after a while, but I can’t go away.
5 We’re trying to comply with a Federal law, and I
6 don’t understand why these Federal agencies that are
7 not involved with repatriation to a greater extent,
8 why they are totally ignorant of the law. I had to
9 essentially teach them what NAGPRA is. They don’t
10 have anybody in charge. There’s no list that I can
11 go to to figure out who I should call in a situation
12 like this. So I feel this is something the Coast
13 Guard and I’m sure many other Federal agencies that
14 don’t deal with NAGPRA very much — it wastes a lot of
15 time. We’re having tremendous delays as a result of
16 this.
17 I have several issues. This was a problem with
18 the Coast Guard. I’m having trouble also with
19 Federal Register notices. We have had a claim that
20 I’ve been working on, and I sent in a draft. I
21 usually write the Federal Register notices or the
22 Federal agency that’s responsible for the collection
23 will work with me, and we send the Federal Register
24 notice into the National Park Service office in
25 Washington DC.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 96
1 We sent one in at the beginning of January and
2 just three days ago, four days ago, well, it was
3 March 30th, I was sent a notice that it was finally
4 published. It took three months. Now, with the 30
5 days that the notice has to be published for, that’s
6 a four-month period. I think it’s really important
7 to realize, I know a lot of people here are from
8 outside of Alaska, but our ground is frozen for the
9 majority of the year in Alaska. And when I’m working
10 with Native groups in the northern part of the state,
11 we have a very, very small window of opportunity to
12 do reburials.
13 And as a result when I see these delays, things
14 like the Coast Guard taking four months not even to
15 do anything yet, and then I’m looking at potentially
16 another two to three months of waiting for a Federal
17 Register notice to be published, we’re — the real
18 impact is on Native communities in Alaska not being
19 able to do their reburials in a timely fashion.
20 So what’s going to happen with my Sledge Island
21 case is that we’re going to have to hold the remains
22 in the museum until next year, 2001, and they will do
23 the reburials then, and this has been going on for
24 four months now. And it just seems absurd to me, we
25 finally have the Federal agencies working properly
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 97
1 within the state of Alaska, but I’m having trouble
2 with the Federal agencies outside of Alaska. The
3 delays, we’ve had delays before where the reburials
4 actually had to take place the following year, and
5 there just doesn’t seem to be an adequate reason for
6 this.
7 The Federal Register notices, I’m having
8 difficulty. I’m sent drafts back from the National
9 Park Service office, and there are errors on those
10 drafts. I correct them, and then I get a next draft
11 back and the errors were not corrected from my edits.
12 And we’re just going around and around and around,
13 and it takes just months and months.
14 A couple of years ago, it was very, very prompt.
15 And I told the office that because of our
16 seasonality, with the small time period that we have
17 to do the reburials in Native communities, that I
18 think our Federal notices need to be a priority
19 especially as we’re approaching summertime. And the
20 office would listen, and a few years ago we were able
21 to get them out in 30 days or 40 days. But now we’re
22 at a 90-day time period just to get the notices
23 published. So that’s another issue I’ve been dealing
24 with. The delays, like I said, are really a problem
25 for Native communities when they’re writing grants to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 98
1 do reburials, the community is preparing for
2 ceremonies, and they excavate the ground, and then
3 the human remains don’t return to the village and
4 they have to wait for the following year.
5 Another issue that Cheryl Eldemar was talking
6 about is reburial on Federal lands, and this issue is
7 starting to come up with Native communities that I’m
8 working with. I think it’s important for folks to
9 realize here that Alaska has 366 million acres and
10 240 million, or 66 percent, is managed by the Federal
11 Government. So no doubt it’s going to occur many,
12 many times where Native groups are going to want to
13 rebury on the original burial site, and this is going
14 to end up being on Federal land.
15 We have a case right now in Eagle, Alaska that
16 I’m waiting for a Federal Register notice to be
17 published that they want to — there’s a small piece
18 of land in the village that’s controlled by the
19 Bureau of Land Management, and they want to rebury
20 these human remains on that piece of land. That was
21 the original place those people were buried, and the
22 Bureau of Land Management will not allow it.
23 They — I have a copy here, I just have one copy,
24 but we could pass it around, the Bureau of Land
25 Management in 1998, July 1, passed a policy to not
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 99
1 allow burials on Federal land for the Bureau of Land
2 Management. The only exception is if there was a
3 partial removal, a partial skeleton and we can
4 reunite the human remains and that would be on
5 Federal land, they would allow that. Like a lot of
6 times skulls were taken, and if you could reunite and
7 identify the original burial site where the rest of
8 the remains are, the Bureau of Land Management will
9 allow that to happen. But this seems like a legal
10 policy and the Bureau of Land Management is not
11 allowing any of the Alaska Native groups that I’m
12 working with to do reburials on those Federal lands.
13 So that’s — I think that’s a really important issue.
14 It’s going to continue rising to the surface. People
15 are very, very frustrated.
16 The Bureau of Land Management specifically told
17 me that they do not want the responsibility of
18 managing those human remains on their lands again.
19 They’ve repatriated them. They’re removed. They’re
20 away. They don’t want the fiscal responsibility.
21 They don’t want any financial burden. They don’t
22 want to protect the remains from pot hunting. They
23 just don’t want any part of it. And I can understand
24 and be sensitive to that issue, but I think it’s
25 really important that some kind of compromise be
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 100
1 worked out with the various Federal agencies and the
2 Native communities in the state because we have so
3 much of our land caught up in Federal land.
4 One other issue I wanted to talk about is we
5 have a lot of material, archeological collections
6 that were excavated in the state of Alaska and
7 removed from the state and actually removed from the
8 United States and brought to other institutions
9 around the world. And these collections were legally
10 collected with 1906 Antiquities permits, and there is
11 no mechanism for our museum who actually is the
12 Federal repository on the collecting permits, but the
13 collections have never come back to the country,
14 there’s no mechanism for me to get those collections
15 and be in compliance with NAGPRA.
16 A prime example is in Point Hope, Alaska, the
17 Iputak Collection (phonetic). This material, it has
18 about 500 sets of human remains and thousands and
19 thousands of objects, associated funerary objects.
20 The American Museum of Natural History has the
21 majority of the human remains, my museum has some
22 associated funerary objects, and the Danish National
23 Museum in Copenhagen has the rest of the material. I
24 have written numerous letters trying to get them just
25 to send me an inventory so I could compile an
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 101
1 inventory from all three institutions and provide it
2 to the Point Hope folks, and they do not respond.
3 When I’ve talked to the Bureau of Land Management for
4 assistance, they say that this is a State Department
5 issue and it isn’t an agency issue.
6 But there are collections, I’ve gone through our
7 records, there’s collections in Tokyo, Germany,
8 London, all over the world that were collected with
9 an Antiquities permit, they belong to the United
10 States Government, the Federal Government, and we are
11 not able to comply with NAGPRA with those collections
12 because they are out of the country and they are
13 untouchable. And there just has to be a mechanism to
14 get that material back home, back to the United
15 States, so that it could be repatriated if that’s
16 what the Native communities want or at least be put
17 in the repositories that are designated on the
18 Antiquities permits.
19 Those are the majority of the issues that have
20 come up in working with NAGPRA at my museum. I want
21 to say that over the years Tim McKeown’s office, even
22 though there are some problems with Federal Register
23 notices now, Tim McKeown’s office has provided us
24 with a tremendous amount of guidance when there has
25 been confusion, especially at times of the 1993 and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 102
1 1995 deadline. It’s always a place that I could call
2 to get help, and I’m very concerned about a
3 reorganization. I’m going to find it very difficult
4 to find someplace to call to get guidance on NAGPRA
5 issues. I’m not a lawyer. We don’t have legal
6 council available to figure this out, and there’s a
7 lot of problems that I think are going to continue
8 coming up. The training programs that Tim has put on
9 through the University of Nevada have been
10 tremendous. We have had a couple here in Alaska, and
11 I think for everybody, they have benefited. It’s a
12 very important thing to continue is to have that
13 office intact. And I’m upset from the information
14 that I heard yesterday.
15 The only additional thing I want to say is that
16 my museum was in 1990 very scared of the NAGPRA
17 legislation. Some of our past curators were worried
18 that we were going to give away all of our
19 collections and have nothing for research and for our
20 educational mission, but now that I’m looking back on
21 it after ten years, we have developed some fantastic
22 partnerships, collaboration, relationships, whatever
23 the word should be, with NAGPRA communities all over
24 the state of Alaska. And I think although we’re
25 repatriating things that are very appropriate to be
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 103
1 repatriated, such as funerary objects and human
2 remains, it has not been a threat to research or
3 education. And I see with our exhibits and research
4 and publications, they’re really done in
5 collaboration with Native communities now, and I
6 think we have benefited as a result of NAGPRA much
7 more than it’s been detrimental to anything in my
8 institution. Thank you.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much for your
10 comprehensive report, Gary.
11 Comments and questions from committee members?
12 Jim.
13 JAMES BRADLEY: Just some brief comments. Thank
14 you for your report, and as a museum director also
15 and nominated to this committee by the AAM, it’s
16 great to hear another museum director talk about not
17 only the difficulties in complying with this law but
18 the opportunities that the law has presented for new
19 partnerships, so I appreciate your comments. Not
20 that it’s any consolation, but the issue about
21 reburial on Forest Service land has come up in other
22 parts of the country.
23 And John, I wonder if that’s something that you
24 might be able to pursue back in DC within the
25 Department. It sounds as though these are reasonable
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 104
1 requests. I mean, there ought to be a reasonable way
2 to deal with this. Could you look into that and get
3 back to us on that at some point? Thank you.
4 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other comments?
5 John, first.
6 JOHN O'SHEA: I had one comment. You know, I
7 don’t quite understand why you’re doing all this
8 NAGPRA work on behalf of the Federal agencies. I
9 mean, is that part of your agreement with the Federal
10 agencies in terms of being the Federal repository?
11 Because most museums would say those negotiations
12 and, in fact, even the inventory process would be not
13 your responsibility but the Federal agency that owned
14 the collections responsibility.
15 GARY SELINGER: That’s a great question, and
16 that was discussed in my museum when the Federal
17 agencies failed to provide assistance or even
18 participate in a minimal manner. We could have done
19 like so many other museums did and just say, okay,
20 all of these collections are Federal, we are not
21 responsible, no compliance. But I think it’s very
22 important to take a look around at where we are.
23 This is the state of Alaska, and our museum has
24 worked with Native communities for years, and my
25 children go to school with Native kids in Fairbanks.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 105
1 It’s our community. And we felt very, very
2 responsible regardless of what the Federal agencies
3 were going to do or not going to do to make an effort
4 to comply with NAGPRA on behalf of the agencies.
5 And sometimes I look at it and I go, this was
6 the most stupid thing that we ever did, because I
7 look at other institutions like the American Museum
8 of Natural History in New York, they separated out
9 Federal collection. And there is no compliance
10 essentially, and it’s not their responsibility. We
11 could have done the same thing, but we decided not
12 to. We decided to work with the communities and I’m
13 suffering as a result of it. But I think the
14 relationships and the trust we have established with
15 Alaska Natives is outstanding, and I would never go
16 back on what we did. I think it was the correct
17 thing to do. Maybe bureaucratically, legally it was
18 absurd.
19 JOHN O'SHEA: Well, financially it was
20 probably —
21 GARY SELINGER: Financially it was crazy. I did
22 a report, we spent — we were getting money from the
23 provost. We spent like a quarter of a million
24 dollars to pull it together. No compensation from
25 anybody. It was state funds for Federal agencies.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 106
1 But I really think it was the appropriate thing to do
2 given where Alaska is situated, where our community
3 is situated in Fairbanks, and like I said the
4 relationships and the trust that we’ve developed I
5 think is part of that, and that’s been very
6 beneficial.
7 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you.
8 Armand.
9 ARMAND MINTHORN: I guess it really bothers me
10 to, I guess, hear again what BLM is doing, and
11 throughout our meetings most recent we’ve heard
12 continuing citings of BLM and what they’re not doing.
13 And I guess I would like to ask you, Gary, if I could
14 have a copy of that policy that you mentioned about
15 the no reburial on BLM lands, if I could get a copy
16 of that?
17 GARY SELINGER: Yes. I have this one right
18 here.
19 ARMAND MINTHORN: But I guess, you know, this is
20 where it’s going to be important for the Federal
21 compliance to be maintained as a priority, the
22 Federal agencies and lack of compliance is no excuse.
23 They do have a responsibility to implement the law as
24 mandated, and the Coast Guard I think is one agency
25 that we have not heard very much about, but it’s
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 107
1 clear that there’s problems here with Coast Guard.
2 And I would like to cite the Coast Guard as one
3 agency that we need to hear directly from as far as
4 compliance with the law and what steps they are
5 taking to implement this law as a Federal agency.
6 You know, I truly sympathize with you what
7 you’re going through. You shouldn’t be taking the
8 responsibility of the Federal agencies. It’s their
9 responsibility. And I think as we come on our
10 agenda, the Federal compliance, and I think this is
11 one issue that we need to cite, not only is this
12 university having a problem, but I think there are
13 others as well that are carrying the brunt of the
14 responsibility that Federal agencies are supposed to
15 be carrying. And it’s not fair that you as a
16 university should be doing their job. It’s their
17 job, period.
18 And I guess I would again cite my concern with
19 the reorganization within the NAGPRA offices here,
20 and I do share your concern with the guidance that
21 you will look toward getting through the NAGPRA
22 offices. And I would ask Mr. Robbins to convince me
23 that this reorganization is going to be consistent
24 and maintaining continuity with tribes and museums
25 and universities and Federal agencies. That’s all.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 108
1 GARY SELINGER: Thank you.
2 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. We
3 appreciate it.
4 GARY SELINGER: Thank you.
5 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Our published agenda next
6 would have included Judy Bittner, who is the State
7 Historic Preservation Officer. She is not feeling
8 well and not able to come here. So we’ll go to Diane
9 Palmer representing the Cape Fox Corporation.
10 DIANE PALMER AND IRENE SHIELDS
11 DIANE PALMER: Thank you. My name is Diane
12 Palmer, and with me today is Irene Shields. On
13 behalf of Cape Fox Corporation and the Saanya Kwaan
14 Tribe, we would like to thank the committee,
15 Mr. Robbins, and the staff from the Park Service for
16 giving us this opportunity to make a presentation to
17 you today.
18 Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaska Native
19 corporation that was organized pursuant to the Alaska
20 Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. On November 6,
21 1999, Cape Fox Corporation, on behalf of the Saanya
22 Kwaan Tribe, filed repatriation petitions under
23 NAGPRA with the Field, Peabody and Burke Museums,
24 Cornell University, as well as with the National
25 Museum of American Indian and the National Museum of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 109
1 American History. The majority of our claims were
2 made for the return of artifacts taken by the
3 Harriman Expedition of 1899. The Harriman Expedition
4 explored the coast of Alaska and it included a large
5 contingent of well-known scientists, writers and
6 artists, such as C. Hart Merriam, John Muir, Edward
7 S. Curtis, Frederick S. Dellenbaugh, to name just a
8 few.
9 In July of 1899 on its return voyage, the
10 expedition stopped at old Cape Fox Village and began
11 removing totem poles and other cultural items from
12 houses and they even went as far as to remove a
13 chief’s house. Those who removed the objects knew
14 that the inhabitants had left the village because of
15 illness, but they made no attempt to secure
16 permission or authority to remove these objects.
17 Some of the participants were critical of the action
18 in removing the sacred objects and objects of
19 cultural importance from within the village and from
20 the burial grounds, but to no avail.
21 Aside from the filing of our repatriation
22 claims, there is currently a project underway under
23 the direction of Smith College Science Center, which
24 will retrace the Harriman Expedition 100 years later,
25 and will include noted scientists, writers and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 110
1 artists of today. A feature-length documentary film
2 for PBS will be made about the original expedition,
3 the expedition of 2000, and the changes that have
4 occurred in Alaska over the past 100 years.
5 The return of the Cape Fox artifacts on July
6 12th, 2000, in conjunction with the Harriman
7 Expedition retraced, is receiving overwhelming
8 support from several agencies, including the National
9 Museum of American Indian. Irene Shields just
10 returned from New York on a site visit to the museum,
11 and she can tell you of her visit and the
12 significance of this event to her people.
13 IRENE SHIELDS: Hello. My name is Irene Shields
14 Dundas. My Tlingit name is Kaalaax Tlaa. I am
15 Dakl’aweidí Killer Whale Seal under the Eagle moiety
16 from the Cedar House of Keex Kwaan from Kake, Alaska.
17 I’m Neix adi.
18 I’m here today on behalf of the Saanya Kwaan
19 Tlingit from Cape Fox Village Saxman. The Saanya
20 Kwaan is made up of three different clans, the Neix
21 adi, Eagle Beaver Halibut; the Teikweidí, Brown Bear;
22 and the Kiks.ádi, Frog People. For the last seven
23 years I have been researching and trying to locate
24 all the items that were stolen from the Harriman
25 Expedition. The expedition had taken nine totem
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 111
1 poles ranging from six feet to 42 feet tall, and they
2 also had taken a whole tribal house, masks, box
3 drums, two canes — or a few canes, two Chilkat
4 blankets, and burial posts from the graves. Most of
5 our clan property is held at the National Museum of
6 the American Indian, and there are other things that
7 are at the Field Museum, the Peabody, the Burke and
8 Cornell University.
9 Last summer I was contacted by the Harriman
10 Expedition Retraced. They informed Cape Fox
11 Corporation that they would like to have some of the
12 clan property to be returned in July 2000. On behalf
13 of the Saanya Kwaan, Cape Fox Corporation filed for
14 the repatriation of claims. As soon as we learned of
15 the Harriman Expedition Retraced, the clans have been
16 meeting twice a month in preparation for the return
17 of our clan property. The clans have been seeking
18 proper protocol from clan elders. The clans were
19 only given six months to get prepared for the
20 welcoming home celebration. Normally it would take
21 two to three years for a celebration.
22 Some of the museums have been contacted by the
23 Harriman Expedition Retraced, so we may speed the
24 repatriation process up. It is sad to hear that the
25 Federal Register is so backed up and that our
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 112
1 property may not be put in the Federal Register in
2 time. Our people will be prepared for the return by
3 July 12th, 2000 on the Harriman Expedition Retraced.
4 We’re preparing for something that may not happen by
5 July, but we’re hoping that we can get the items
6 returned by July.
7 DIANE PALMER: In addition to the support from
8 NMAI, we have also just received official
9 notification from the Peabody regarding our claim
10 with the Peabody. I would ask that Barbara Isaac and
11 Anne-Marie Victor Howe from the Peabody make a brief
12 statement regarding our claim.
13 BARBARA ISAAC: This is just a very short
14 statement from the Peabody Museum. We have processed
15 the claim from Cape Fox, and the director came to the
16 decision that we would be pleased to return the totem
17 pole that is in our collection. And we would like to
18 emphasize the fact that in presenting a notice to the
19 National Parks, or probably not the National Parks
20 office, the new office, we hope that it will be
21 processed as promptly as possible, so that this, the
22 whole of this can get underway and the village and
23 the corporation can get their plans set. We actually
24 have a draft here with us that we’re agreed on for
25 the notice in the Federal Register. So I’d like to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 113
1 hand it to Tim and see that it goes in as promptly as
2 possible. Thank you very much.
3 DIANE PALMER: Finally in closing, I would like
4 to thank the Peabody for meeting with us and helping
5 us out. We would also like, you know, to just
6 request in light of the critical timing of our
7 repatriation effort that due consideration be given
8 to the filing of the notice in the Federal Register.
9 Due to the high costs associated with transporting
10 large totem poles across the United States, it is our
11 intention to apply for a NAGPRA grant to help defray
12 some of these costs. That — we’ll be precluded from
13 filing for that until notice has been filed in the
14 Federal Register.
15 We’ve also been, as Irene mentioned, involved in
16 several fund raising efforts with the clan members to
17 help pay for these costs associated with the
18 shipments as well as with the ceremony that will be
19 held. We would like to thank you again for your time
20 and your commitment as individuals to this committee,
21 as well as to the Park Service. Thank you.
22 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you both. We appreciate
23 it.
24 Are there comments, Tessie?
25 TESSIE NARANJO: Clarification please. You
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 114
1 mentioned, Irene, that July was your — the time that
2 you were planning for the return of these remains.
3 Again, tell me how many, which ones. Barbara talked
4 about the totem pole, but it’s more than that.
5 IRENE SHIELDS: Yes. Well, the Harriman
6 Expedition had stolen a whole tribal house, which is
7 in the National Museum of the American Indian, a
8 42-foot totem pole, there are several dancing canes,
9 two Chilkat blankets, two burial posts. There’s two
10 totem poles at the Burke Museum, a totem pole at the
11 Field Museum, a totem pole at the Cornell University
12 and the totem pole at the Peabody. So about
13 altogether there is about 32 different items that the
14 Harriman Expedition had taken.
15 TESSIE NARANJO: I guess I’m trying to lead up
16 to something because if the Federal Register is one
17 of the tools that will block the return of these
18 remains, I’m trying to encourage, and I want maybe
19 some response from Mr. Robbins about an assurance
20 that a Federal Register will be pushed along so that
21 the deadline for that July will be met.
22 Mr. Robbins, any comment on that?
23 JOHN ROBBINS: I’ll certainly do what I can.
24 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Just for clarification, the
25 materials that are in the National Museum of the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 115
1 American Indian go through a separate process for
2 return.
3 DIANE PALMER: Correct.
4 MARTIN SULLIVAN: And are you hopeful that that
5 is going to be quick enough to meet the deadline?
6 IRENE SHIELDS: Yes. We met with them last
7 month, and they’re speeding their process up as fast
8 as they can.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: All right. Tessie?
10 Jim?
11 JAMES BRADLEY: Tessie asked my question.
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, thank you all and
13 very best of luck in getting this accomplished.
14 We’ll turn next to Allison Young who is
15 representing the Aleutian/Pribolof Islands
16 Association.
17 ALLISON YOUNG
18 ALLISON YOUNG: Can you hear me all right?
19 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes.
20 ALLISON YOUNG: I have a tendency to be very
21 loud, which I think is a result of working in the
22 Aleutians and having to shout over the wind all the
23 time.
24 Hello. As you know, my name is Allison Young.
25 I am the cultural heritage director for the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 116
1 Aleutian/Pribolof Islands Association, which is a
2 nonprofit Native association for the Aleut people of
3 the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands region. We are a
4 member organization. We have 12 tribal members, 12
5 tribes, and 12 of the 13 tribes that are in the
6 Aleutian and Pribolof Islands region. So we serve
7 through social programs and health programs and
8 cultural heritage and educational programs for the
9 people of our region.
10 I would like to thank the review committee for
11 the opportunity to speak to you about repatriation
12 among the Aleut people, and I would also like to
13 thank the Tlingit people for hosting this meeting in
14 their traditional territory.
15 I put on the tables before you this morning a
16 little packet of papers that’s a map of the Aleutian
17 region. The first page of that map shows the
18 traditional territories of the Aleut political groups
19 as they were recognized in the 1760s by Russian
20 historians and explorers. The second page of the map
21 of the little packet shows the incredible distances
22 that are covered in the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands
23 region. Our region is 100,000 square miles. We
24 serve 12 Aleut communities in that region, two in the
25 Pribolof Islands and the other remaining communities
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 117
1 throughout the Aleutian chain. And the distances, as
2 you can see the air miles between the villages and
3 Anchorage, which is our central hub, are extreme.
4 And often travel limits many, many of the programs
5 and things that we can do for all the programs that
6 we provide to the people of our region.
7 The last two pages is a preliminary list of
8 going by island group in the Aleutian archipelago and
9 the organizations with standing to claim for
10 materials from those island groups. And this list is
11 the result of a year of work with the tribes and
12 village corporations and the regional corp in our
13 region in trying to begin to do some preliminary
14 organization around how we will handle repatriation
15 in our region. There are 27 groups with standing to
16 claim in the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands region.
17 There are 13 tribal governments and 13 village
18 corporations and one regional corporation. So we
19 have a tremendous amount of cooperation for things
20 that occur in our region.
21 The efforts in our region began first in 1995
22 with the tribal government of St. Paul, who applied
23 for and received a repatriation grant to begin to do
24 some consultation with museums in the lower 48 from
25 whom they had received inventories. And this was the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 118
1 first effort to really begin to open up a dialogue
2 with those institutions, to visit collections. Most
3 of the time it was the first time that any Aleut
4 person had seen any of that material. The museums
5 are so remote from our region and travel costs are so
6 expensive that most people cannot visit institutions,
7 and therefore, they don’t have access to their
8 traditional materials.
9 In January of 1996, there was a meeting in
10 Unalaska to begin to discuss repatriation in our
11 region, and that was organized by Rick Knect, who is
12 the director of the just newly opened Museum of the
13 Aleutians. And he worked with some of the local
14 tribes and the tribal government of St. Paul to have
15 this organizational meeting, to learn about
16 repatriation, to discuss the genesis of Aleutian
17 collections throughout the United States and around
18 the world, to discuss NAGPRA procedures for which
19 there had been no training whatsoever in our region
20 at all. So the first time people had a chance to
21 really begin to look at NAGPRA and the procedures
22 that were in place and try to learn about how that
23 might be implemented in our region. And then there
24 was some development for a regional plan for
25 repatriation, how we might go about conducting
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 119
1 repatriation.
2 In 1996, the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska as a
3 result of this meeting applied for a NAGPRA grant and
4 received a grant to begin to organize a repatriation
5 commission, to use the summaries and the inventories
6 that were received from institutions to develop a
7 database that would help open dialogue with museums
8 about the collections and possible repatriations.
9 They were also charged with developing a repatriation
10 manual that would help organize and provide some
11 process for people to begin to follow as they learned
12 the NAGPRA process and set forth some of the
13 procedures for consultations and eventual
14 repatriations in our region.
15 In 1998, the Aleutian/Pribolof Islands
16 Association organized the cultural heritage program
17 that I direct. It was the first regional cultural
18 heritage program to be developed for the people of
19 the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands. And I was hired
20 straight out of the basement of the University of
21 Alaska Museum to go to Anchorage and start this
22 program, so it’s a fledgling cultural heritage
23 program.
24 And one of the first things that we were charged
25 with was trying to revitalize repatriation efforts in
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 120
1 the region, as well as revitalizing language. The
2 Aleut language has less than 200 speakers, 200 fluent
3 speakers. And there are about 3,000 Aleuts from the
4 Aleutian and Pribolof Islands regions. So 200 is not
5 a very significant number when you’re trying to help
6 a language survive, as well as trying to operate
7 many, many other programs to revitalize cultural
8 traditions in our region.
9 So one of the first things that I did was sit
10 down with the tribes and try to find out when people
11 call the office and say okay, now that you’re there,
12 when is our stuff going to come home? And, people
13 actually called me and asked me that question. I
14 said, well, that requires some work on our part and
15 that requires a lot of work with museums, and I think
16 we need to get started. So one of the first things
17 that we did was hold a workshop, a one-day workshop
18 and I rounded up some funds to bring people in from
19 throughout our region just to have a preliminary
20 overview of NAGPRA. Like I said, there was some
21 training in Unalaska in ’96 but no formal training
22 beyond that. And so people needed an introduction,
23 what does this law really mean, what does the other
24 law that relates to repatriation, the NMAI Act,
25 because we really felt that people needed that
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 121
1 introduction before they really made the commitment
2 to go forward with this tremendous amount of work
3 that it would take.
4 Subsequent to that, I was asked by the
5 Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska to revitalize the
6 repatriation grant that they received in 1996, and we
7 worked — I immediately called Tim McKeown’s office in
8 DC and said how do we revitalize this grant that’s
9 been languishing due to, you know, this fact that
10 there — there were just not enough staff funds
11 available to hire staff and to implement the grant
12 and how do we do this?
13 And so through negotiations with that office and
14 negotiations with the Qawalangin Tribe, we began work
15 immediately to try to complete the work that was set
16 out in that grant and to that effort we’ve had two
17 regional repatriation meetings that have — the result
18 is that we have an organized repatriation commission
19 in our region. The commission office is — I am the
20 regional repatriation coordinator and the regional
21 repatriation office is backed up by tribal
22 resolutions and resolutions from the village
23 corporation and the Aleut Corporation, which is our
24 regional corporation. And so we have a — and our
25 mission is to try to implement NAGPRA, organize a
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 122
1 commission, open dialog with museums, and to make a
2 very extensive database from which we can begin to
3 figure out how material might come back to Alaska.
4 We — the first meeting that we had in March of
5 1999 was basically an education and planning meeting.
6 We were very, very, very lucky to have Tim McKeown
7 come to Alaska and work to directly train people in
8 NAGPRA. We also had two people from the
9 Smithsonian’s repatriation office at the National
10 Museum of Natural History come and make a
11 presentation about repatriation through the
12 Smithsonian Institution.
13 And then we invited people like Vera Metcalf,
14 John Johnson, and Cheryl Eldemar to come and talk
15 with the tribal representatives and village
16 representatives from our region about how other
17 Alaska Native groups have organized repatriation in
18 their region. And we were tremendously guided by the
19 material that they brought, all the questions that
20 they answered, the procedures manuals that they
21 brought, the resolutions — samples of resolutions and
22 their own repatriation manuals. And that really
23 provided the impetus that we needed to then turn
24 around and say, okay, now how do we — now that you’ve
25 had a chance to speak with other people how would you
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 123
1 like to see this operate in the Aleutian and Pribolof
2 Islands region?
3 We had a meeting just last September in which we
4 organized the structure of our repatriation
5 commission. We have one representative from the
6 Aleut Corporation and then we have one representative
7 from each of the communities who represents both the
8 tribal government and the village corporation. And
9 so all the voices from our region can be represented
10 at the table which is what we critically believed was
11 important.
12 We put together the first — the second draft of
13 our repatriation manual. At the first meeting we sat
14 down and tried to discuss what elements of a
15 repatriation manual were important things that we
16 needed to ask, knowledge that we needed to try to
17 gain, and then at the second meeting we sat down and
18 went through that repatriation manual item by item.
19 And the second draft is being reviewed by the members
20 of the repatriation commission.
21 We came up with a future plan for what we would
22 like to do. We reviewed the preliminary database,
23 extremely preliminary database that I was able to put
24 together from the limited amount of information that
25 we have from institutions that hold Aleut material.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 124
1 And we went to the Anchorage Museum of History and
2 Art to do a sort of mock consultation to just to get
3 people used to being in museums, to talk to curators,
4 to look at how collections are stored, the kind of
5 records that may or may not exist in an institution.
6 We were also very, very lucky last March to have
7 the same kind of mock consultation at the National
8 Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian when we
9 were there for the opening for a very small but
10 highly important Aleut exhibit that’s in Washington
11 DC now. And we were very, very fortunate that Tom
12 Killion and — I’m sorry, my brain has gone completely
13 blank — helped us organize that meeting and make that
14 information — we wanted the same sort of introduction
15 to documents and objects and that sort of thing. And
16 it was the same time many of those objects had heard
17 Aleut spoken and that was an amazingly powerful
18 experience for all of us.
19 We have not had any formal repatriations in our
20 region. We had the return of an Aleut mask which
21 made the front page of the New York Times, and we
22 were all over the press with the Aleutian and
23 Pribolof Islands’ protest of the sale of a burial
24 mask at Sotheby’s which we were very successful in
25 the protest. The mask was subsequently purchased and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 125
1 then donated to the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands
2 Association.
3 And last October at the Alaska Federation of
4 Natives Convention, we put the mask on display at the
5 Anchorage Museum of History and Art so that it’s
6 accessible to as many Aleut people as possible and
7 then available for all Alaska Natives and for non-
8 Native people to come and learn and enjoy. And we
9 believe that we’d put it on display through
10 consultation with elders and religious leaders, and
11 they believed that it was truly by having this mask
12 on display it was a significant way to teach others
13 about Aleuts and to protest the holding of those
14 sacred objects in private collections that are not
15 accessible to Aleut people or Native people whose
16 other material is held.
17 Our priorities at present are to begin
18 negotiations with institutions for the return of
19 ancestral human remains and funerary objects. The —
20 we hope that many of the materials can be reburied at
21 the sites from which they were removed. This will
22 require a tremendous amount of research because many
23 of the records are not as thorough as we would like,
24 so in some ways it will be very exciting. We’ll be
25 reading back through ship logs to find out where
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 126
1 collectors might have been, when they were with
2 collecting expeditions or with the Alaska commercial
3 company where they may have purchased material or
4 what islands they may have been on and had the
5 opportunity to then remove material from burial caves
6 or archeological sites.
7 We hope that — and then we’ll have to negotiate
8 very seriously with the Fish and Wildlife Service to
9 return those objects to the land. Fish and Wildlife
10 is more than willing to return objects, have them
11 reburied on archeological sites. The problem is
12 access, and if you look at this map, you can see that
13 it’s a long way from the airport in Anchorage to some
14 of these archeological sites, and the vast majority
15 of them are only accessible by boat. And the Fish
16 and Wildlife has the only boat in the Aleutian and
17 Pribolof Islands region that has a — other than the
18 Aleut people who are all busy commercial fishing in
19 the summertime, and therefore their boats are not
20 available to us. The Fish and Wildlife has the only
21 boat that we may be able to use to get back to some
22 of these sites.
23 I was recently discussing access to the islands
24 with the Coast Guard, and they were trying to — we
25 may have some opportunities for returning materials
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 127
1 there when they’re running training missions in the
2 far western Aleutians, when they go to do Bering Sea
3 drift net observations. So we may have some other
4 opportunities for those kinds of returns.
5 Our other priority is the identification of
6 sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.
7 The approach that we are taking is to work with the
8 traditional religious leaders, who are the Russian
9 Orthodox priests in the Aleutian and Pribolof Islands
10 region. There are six Russian Orthodox priests who
11 serve the churches in our communities. Four of those
12 priests are Aleut priests. And then we will also
13 work with the Bishop and possibly the Metropolitan of
14 the Russian Orthodox Church of Canada and America to
15 identify sacred objects. And we plan to bring
16 together a team of priests and the bishop and elders
17 who can help us identify and document objects of
18 cultural patrimony and help us identify and describe
19 the protocols that will be necessary for making a
20 claim to those objects and the protocols that we will
21 need to maintain those objects when they are returned
22 to the communities of their origin.
23 The repatriation challenges that we basically
24 face in our region are distance, the tremendous
25 amount of money that it costs to have people travel
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 128
1 outside of our region. Just to get to Anchorage
2 alone, most of the tickets are $800 or more. Travel
3 is tremendously difficult because of weather
4 conditions. The US Coastal pilot says that we have
5 the worst weather in the world, and anybody who has
6 ever traveled there will definitely attest to this
7 fact. Those of us that have slept on the floor of
8 many of the airports in our region will understand
9 that this is very true.
10 We applied for a NAGPRA grant earlier this year
11 in which I proposed taking all of the members of our
12 repatriation commission to Boston for training in
13 August, and the budget to get those people from the
14 communities all the way to Boston and back was
15 $40,000, and that was for a seven-day trip. So we
16 promptly revised that application and said, how about
17 if we hold this training seminar in Anchorage and
18 then we can invite other people from Alaska to it.
19 We figured that it was a much more economically
20 feasible approach than shipping everybody outside.
21 And those are some of the challenges that we face.
22 Many of our communities, the planes — one of our
23 communities is only served by a plane once a week.
24 Some of our communities there are just planes twice a
25 week. The weather prohibits travel. One of our
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 129
1 communities did not have a plane this past summer for
2 28 days, and that means not only do they not get mail
3 but they don’t get groceries. And so it’s a
4 significant impact upon the work. It’s going to take
5 us a tremendous amount of time when we get about to
6 returning materials back to the islands and the
7 communities to try to negotiate just the return
8 alone.
9 The other challenges that we face are that the
10 institutions are extremely remote and coordinating
11 the information from those institutions back to our
12 communities, a lot of times institutions will say,
13 well, you know, we have things on our internet, on
14 our web site, or we can send it to you on a disk.
15 Well, we are not — we don’t have that kind of
16 technology in the villages. Some of the villages
17 don’t have internet connections in the village
18 offices. They may have it in the schools, but they
19 don’t have it in the villages. They don’t have it in
20 the tribal governments. The technology is so diverse
21 for sending that information out electronically that
22 it really isn’t an effective way of dispersing
23 information. So we have to go back to the standard
24 Xerox machine and black and white photograph which we
25 believe is a little more effective in our case.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 130
1 I have a very real concern, and I wish to echo
2 Gary’s sentiment, that the restructuring of the
3 office in which Tim McKeown serves. Over the last
4 two years that I have been actively involved in
5 repatriation in our region, I have turned time and
6 time and time again to that office for advice and
7 guidance and just general assistance, and the thought
8 that we may not have anyone to turn to to provide
9 that guidance is going to make this job incredibly —
10 it’s hard enough as it is to go into institutions and
11 see this material and try to work with elders who
12 have lost so much of their past. It’s hard enough to
13 face those challenges without having anyone upon
14 which you can rely to give you straightforward advice
15 and helpful advice and thoughtful advice.
16 And that is a major concern for our region and
17 I’m sure for many of the people in this room, because
18 all of us are still struggling with how we make this
19 work. And in the Aleutian region, we are taking baby
20 steps to try to make it work, and we need the support
21 and the guidance that we get from that office. Thank
22 you.
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Great. Thank you very much.
24 Tessie.
25 TESSIE NARANJO: A comment, Allison. It’s good
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 131
1 to match face and voice. I talked to you by phone in
2 spring of 1998 when you were expressing an interest
3 in coming down to my area Santa Fe for a cultural
4 conference that included language and repatriation,
5 and it was at that time also that Tim was involved in
6 two repatriation workshops. So I knew you before. I
7 knew the voice but now I know the face. Thanks,
8 Allison.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes, Vera.
10 VERA METCALF: I have a quick question for you,
11 Allison. You mentioned the repatriation commission.
12 You have a commission. How is that funded, or is
13 that supported from the corporation?
14 ALLISON YOUNG: It was funded until September,
15 the end of the fiscal year in 1999 through the grant
16 that the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska received. At
17 the moment it is not funded by any other funds than
18 the funds I have in the cultural heritage program at
19 the Aleutian/Pribolof Islands Association, which do
20 not allow us to have regional, face-to-face meetings.
21 And the teleconference meetings that we have been
22 able to have usually run about $250 a piece, so I
23 have an extremely limited budget for those
24 teleconferences. We have had one — we have had two
25 so far, and I hope to have several more, but the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 132
1 budget is getting a little tight for those sorts of
2 things.
3 We have applied for two NAGPRA grants to
4 continue the work in our region, one for research and
5 one for — one for research and documentation and one
6 for training for people to attend the training that’s
7 offered through the University of Nevada, Reno. But
8 at the moment there aren’t any other funds available.
9 And I’m thinking about just taking up bank robbing in
10 order to support the cultural heritage program,
11 because I think it’s the only way I’m going to get
12 some serious funds to do it. So if you see me on the
13 evening news, you’ll know that I’m a criminal and not
14 a repatriation coordinator anymore.
15 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Allison.
16 We’ll break now for lunch. It’s almost 12:20.
17 Committee members, can we resume at 1:30 or not?
18 TESSIE NARANJO: He wanted to say something.
19 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Oh, I’m sorry. Armand.
20 ARMAND MINTHORN: I just had one question for
21 Gary Selinger, while you’re still here. Is your
22 university doing work for the Forest Service?
23 GARY SELINGER: We are the repository for the
24 Forest Service collections. So if an archeologist
25 gets a permit from the Forest Service to do an
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 133
1 excavation on Forest Service land, when the research
2 is done that material comes to our museum for
3 protection in perpetuity.
4 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, and for those whom
5 we haven’t had the opportunity to hear from yet, we
6 will continue as soon as we resume and finish off the
7 list of presenters that was scheduled.
8 I’ve had one request from Lawrence that we
9 resume at 1:45 instead of 1:30. How do committee
10 members feel? Is that all right? 1:45 it will be.
11 Thank you.
12 LUNCH
13 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE IN ALASKA
14 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We’re going to resume with our
15 afternoon session and we’re apologetic for being a
16 little late in getting started. As I said earlier,
17 we want to be very sure that all of the individuals
18 who are listed for testimony regarding implementation
19 of NAGPRA here in Alaska have time to do so, and we
20 will arrange it this afternoon to make sure that
21 that’s the case.
22 The next person on our schedule to hear from is
23 Fredrick Anderson of the Native Village of Naknek.
24 Mr. Anderson, are you here? Good afternoon.
25 FREDRICK ANDERSON
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 134
1 FREDRICK ANDERSON: My name is Fredrick
2 Anderson. I’m from Naknek, Alaska. I’m an Aleut.
3 Naknek is a village about 300 air miles from
4 Anchorage. We’re located on the last peninsula at
5 Bristol Bay. I traveled about 800 miles to get here.
6 I’m a former tribal council board member of six
7 years, and I’m an enrolled member in the Naknek
8 Native Village council, a Federally recognized tribe.
9 I’ve also served as a representative and spokesman
10 for my tribe on the Alaska Intertribal Council and as
11 the Bristol Bay Region’s elective representative on
12 the AITC executive council. The AITC, Alaska
13 Intertribal Council, is the largest tribally elected
14 council in Alaska and represents Native people at the
15 grassroots level.
16 I have served these last six years as my tribe’s
17 repatriation chairman for a committee of one, me.
18 During my short tenure as the project director, I
19 have had a large turnover in administration. I have
20 worked under nine different administrative personnel.
21 I have been the only constant, as a part-time,
22 temporary employee. I was interested in artifacts
23 and Native spiritual objects well before I became
24 involved with NAGPRA for some 25 years. My private
25 research resume was used to secure the NAGPRA grant.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 135
1 I didn’t plan on applying to be the project
2 director for this NAGPRA project but only did so when
3 I realized that the information and knowledge
4 gathered would leave my area in the mind of an
5 outside anthropology student. The major fieldwork at
6 the site of concern, Paug-Vik, was done in 1985 on
7 the Naknek River, with some follow-up work in 1961
8 and ’73.
9 I have been working on the NAGPRA project for
10 about one year, and as in my past I have truly
11 enjoyed the research and discovery. My greatest
12 dilemma so far, with the exception of local politics,
13 has been in finding two enrolled elder members of my
14 tribe who are physically able to travel to the
15 museums with me to identify our objects and spiritual
16 pieces. I did an exhaustive search throughout my
17 region and throughout the state. I must also mention
18 that one of my biggest problems has been the
19 vagueness of inventories that come from museums.
20 The person that helped me in NAGPRA Washington
21 has been Tom Ball. He suggested that since I
22 couldn’t find two qualified elders to travel, to
23 purchase a video camera to document the collections
24 in my travels, which I will then present to my elders
25 upon my return. It has recently grown more difficult
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 136
1 because we have lost one of our most knowledgeable
2 elder males. I have also experienced awkward and
3 frustrating intertribal politics, which I will not go
4 into, which prevented me from including elders from
5 other tribes.
6 I’m trying to avoid speaking too much about the
7 politics involved in this project that is both
8 spiritual and sensitive. I have gathered and I am
9 compiling NAGPRA research information and have gotten
10 a commitment from my council to include a library
11 research area in our new tribal building. I feel it
12 is important that the information I gather be
13 available for study in a respectful place. My video
14 documentation will also be available to students and
15 other interested parties in the culture of our area.
16 The subject of human remains has always been a
17 very sensitive one for me, and I believe Native
18 people have a different and a special relationship
19 with the skeletal remains of our people. I have been
20 shown human remains stored in boxes with index
21 numbers on them. These boxes are opened to reveal
22 human remains with little square holes cut in them
23 where samples were taken out with identified small
24 numbers and black letters written permanently on the
25 bones. That act in itself brings deep thought and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 137
1 haunts me.
2 I’m also deeply concerned about the final
3 treatment of our ancestral remains when they’re
4 finally returned to our tribes. I strongly believe
5 the remains should be treated with the greatest
6 respect and be given a proper Native spiritual
7 ceremony. It would be a final irony and a blasphemy
8 for the ancestral remains to be treated by European
9 and Russian religions, especially if that particular
10 religion was instrumental in oppressing the very
11 people they’re blessing, and especially those
12 religions that suppressed and forbid the Native
13 people from living their spiritual lifestyles since
14 contact.
15 So I strongly urge tribes in this gathering to
16 do the proper thing, the proper Native ceremony for
17 your people, their final interment, do so out of
18 respect for their feelings and the very context with
19 the lifestyle and the spiritualism of their lives
20 that is the context. I speak as an enrolled member
21 of my tribal council. I speak as a member of the
22 Aleut Corporation and also as a Sealaska member and a
23 voting member.
24 In closing I would like to thank Tim McKeown,
25 Laura Mahoney, Tom Ball of Washington, who have
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 138
1 helped me through this complicated startup period and
2 always being supportive and knowledgeable. I also
3 want to thank Gary Selinger of Fairbanks for his
4 patience and his knowledge throughout this project.
5 Thank you.
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
7 Questions or comments from anyone? We really
8 appreciate your coming to be with us. Thank you.
9 We’ll next hear from Rosita Worl on behalf of
10 the Sealaska Heritage Foundation.
11 ROSITA WORL
12 ROSITA WORL: Mr. Chairman, members of the
13 NAGPRA committee, Dr. Robbins, Dr. McKeown. Thank
14 you for the opportunity to address the committee.
15 For the record, my name is Rosita Worl. I serve on
16 the board of directors of Sealaska Corporation, which
17 is a recognized tribe for special statutory purposes
18 in over 100 legislative acts, including the Native
19 American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
20 Sealaska is a corporation which holds title to a
21 portion of our aboriginal land base in southeast
22 Alaska. We have approximately 30,000 Natives who are
23 shareholders and descendants. Sealaska is unlike
24 other corporations in that we maintain a major focus
25 and dedicate a significant portion of our annual
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 139
1 budget to the educational, social and cultural
2 interests of our people. Sealaska also provides a
3 significant portion of the Sealaska Heritage
4 Foundation’s administrative budget, and of which I
5 serve as president. The mission of the foundation is
6 to perpetuate and enhance the Tlingit, Haida and
7 Tsimpshian cultures of southeast Alaska.
8 We have viewed NAGPRA as holding great promise
9 for Indian people and cultures and we commend those
10 who have dedicated themselves to the implementation
11 of this Act. We are especially gratified for the
12 commitment made by the members of this committee, who
13 have demonstrated a fair and reasonable approach to
14 its implementation and who have earnestly sought
15 reconciliation to the competing views that are
16 associated with the implementation of NAGPRA.
17 However, I believe it would be fair to state that we
18 all realize that improvements to the law and its
19 implementation process can be made. It is thus with
20 due respect that I outline some of my concerns with
21 the implementation of NAGPRA.
22 The first deals with the yeilsheishoox or raven
23 rattle identified by the Taylor Museum as number
24 5034. The raven rattle was in the possession of the
25 Taylor Museum for Southwestern Studies of the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 140
1 Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center as of November 18th,
2 1993. The Central Council of Tlingit and Haida
3 Indians of Alaska filed a repatriation claim for the
4 subject rattle on October 27th, 1995. We were advised
5 by the Taylor Museum that they were no longer in
6 possession of the raven rattle.
7 Without going into a lengthy review of the
8 museum’s disposition of the rattle, its purchase by a
9 collector, its attempted sale to another museum, and
10 the ensuing investigation of these questionable
11 circumstances, we were ultimately advised that the
12 United States attorney in Denver had referred this
13 issue to the National Park Service for possible civil
14 penalty. We are concerned that this case, which is
15 in its fifth year, nothing has been done since the
16 Park Service received the referral by the United
17 States Attorney’s office. I am particularly
18 concerned about a statute of limitation.
19 I would respectfully and formally request that
20 the committee place this issue on its action list and
21 request that the National Park Service take whatever
22 measures are necessary to ensure first that the time
23 period does not lapse to pursue a possible civil
24 penalty and resolution of this issue. The integrity
25 of this Federal law must be ensured. Insofar as the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 141
1 rattle itself, a number of things have happened which
2 makes it clear to us that the spirit of the
3 yeilsheishoox wants to come home.
4 On April 20th, 1999, I testified before the US
5 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight
6 Hearings. I offered a number of recommendations
7 which I believe are of interest to this committee.
8 One of those recommendations included the placement
9 of the NAGPRA program in another administering agency
10 that would not have the inherent conflict of interest
11 which exists in the office of chief archeologist
12 within the National Park Service. I concur and
13 support the resolution of the National Congress of
14 American Indians that recommends placing the NAGPRA
15 program in a neutral office and identified the OMB
16 office.
17 Despite the reshuffling of personnel, of which
18 we were apprised yesterday, the conflict has not been
19 resolved. I believe my position is affirmed by
20 yesterday’s response from a regional Park Service
21 agency to the committee in which it declined to
22 accept the recommendations offered by this committee
23 in the Chaco Culture National Historic Park issue.
24 This refusal, together with an apparent lack of
25 response and action by the central office to resolve
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 142
1 the issue, makes it clear in my mind that a conflict
2 of interest exists.
3 I think it is even now of greater importance
4 that this issue be resolved since the conflict of
5 interest now entails the standing of the NAGPRA
6 committee itself. As we well know, the committee was
7 created by Congress and has specific authorities,
8 including facilitating the resolution of any disputes
9 among Indian tribes and Federal agencies. If we
10 cannot come to the NAGPRA committee and believe that
11 the NAGPRA committee has certain kinds of
12 authorities, then the whole question of the validity
13 of the law, in my opinion, is at stake and so this
14 issue must be resolved.
15 I would also note for the record my concern that
16 the personnel shifts noted yesterday will cause
17 further backlogs, delays and inefficiencies in the
18 implementation of NAGPRA, and I think that the
19 committee must look at this very carefully. I think
20 that it goes beyond personnel. I think it is a
21 policy issue that will have impact on your work and
22 the work of NAGPRA, and thus, I think that the
23 committee must become closely involved with this
24 issue.
25 I also made another recommendation to Congress
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 143
1 to amend NAGPRA to allow for the prompt reburial of
2 culturally unidentifiable human remains. I would
3 note a major difference between Native Americans and
4 the larger American society. Most Native Americans
5 believe in a duality of spirit in which the spirit
6 resides both with the human remain and the other part
7 travels to a land of the dead, wherever that may be.
8 And this is unlike most Western beliefs where when
9 someone dies their spirit goes to Heaven or other
10 places. This is why we are insistent that all Native
11 American human remains be returned to the tribes.
12 I would request that all our culturally
13 unidentifiable human remains be reburied in the same
14 way that our country has honored and buried all
15 unidentifiable human remains of military personnel
16 and so rightly symbolized by the Unknown Soldier. I
17 believe that the unknown Native American human
18 remains deserve the same treatment and respect.
19 Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
20 express my comments and recommendations, and again,
21 thank you for coming to Alaska and I want to invite
22 you back again.
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you so much.
24 Comments or questions from committee members?
25 We’ll start with Vera.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 144
1 VERA METCALF: Thanks, Rosita. I also want to
2 welcome my colleagues here to Alaska and thanks for
3 hosting us here. I have a question for you. Have
4 you received any results or any update on your
5 recommendations on amending NAGPRA or restructuring
6 or reorganization or the conflict of interest that
7 you mentioned, any response back from those that
8 contacted?
9 ROSITA WORL: No. I haven’t personally, and I
10 guess I was somewhat surprised that the largest
11 Indian organization in the country hadn’t received a
12 response either. But my understanding was that the
13 things that happened yesterday in terms of the report
14 that the reshuffling of personnel or those other
15 kinds of things where it was supposed to be the
16 response to that issue. I may be mistaken in that.
17 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Could I ask with respect to
18 your recommendation to us that we add to our action
19 list the potential concerns about statute of
20 limitations running out on the Park Service’s
21 scrutiny. There have been some proceedings in court
22 already, is that right? And where do things stand
23 with that particularly?
24 ROSITA WORL: My understanding is that it is now
25 resting in Park Service and that Park Service has to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 145
1 initiate the next action.
2 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Could I ask Tim or John
3 to brief us on — anybody who knows the status?
4 Carla?
5 JOHN ROBBINS: Nothing has happened.
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: So nothing has happened?
7 JOHN ROBBINS: It has been referred from Justice
8 to the Park Service, but at this time nothing has
9 happened.
10 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Are there — does the Taylor
11 Museum or any other entity have a claim in for it?
12 ROSITA WORL: We submitted a repatriation claim.
13 MARTIN SULLIVAN: So you have your claim.
14 ROSITA WORL: Yes. Yes.
15 CARLA MATTIX: Are you asking if someone has
16 submitted a request to —
17 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Well, I guess the real
18 question, Carla, is regardless of the statute of
19 limitations, if the raven rattle is in the custody of
20 the Park Service where is it headed? It’s not going
21 to stay there.
22 CARLA MATTIX: I don’t believe it’s in the
23 custody —
24 JOHN O'SHEA: It’s not in their custody.
25 CARLA MATTIX: It’s not in the custody of the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 146
1 Park Service. I believe Justice has referred or has
2 asked Interior to look into the possibility of doing
3 a civil penalty.
4 The status of where that object is is within the
5 Department of Justice’s jurisdiction or purview right
6 now. I don’t know what the status of that is, but
7 all I know is that Justice did ask us to look into a
8 civil penalty, the possibility for pursuing civil
9 penalties, but there has not been any kind of a
10 formal request to the Secretary to do a civil penalty
11 investigation. Does that answer your questions?
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Do members of the
13 committee want to comment on that?
14 Jim.
15 JAMES BRADLEY: What is the statute of
16 limitations? What kind of time interval are we
17 talking about? Carla, can you answer that please?
18 CARLA MATTIX: What was the question?
19 JAMES BRADLEY: What is the statute of
20 limitations in this particular case?
21 CARLA MATTIX: Again, we have to look at the
22 facts of the case and when it was made known to
23 individuals involved, and that’s when the statute
24 would start to run. I don’t know what the statute is
25 off the top of my head.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 147
1 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Just in the interests
2 of knowing that there will be some action, this
3 committee has been aware of this case for some time
4 and has had some concern about it. Unless there is
5 an objection, I would like to place on our follow-up
6 action list a briefing memo from the Park Service on
7 the current status and plans.
8 Other comments or questions?
9 Thank you very much.
10 ROSITA WORL: If I may once again invite the
11 committee, staff, and also all of the participants
12 here attending this conference, this meeting, I would
13 like on behalf of Sealaska Corporation and also Huna
14 Totem to invite you to a reception immediately
15 following today’s meeting over in the Sealaska
16 Building.
17 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
18 The next presentation on behalf of the Hoonah
19 Indian Association and the Huna Heritage Foundation,
20 Mr. Ken Grant, Mr. Ron Williams, and I think you may
21 have some other folks with you.
22 RON WILLIAMS
23 RON WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think
24 we have our act put together now. My name is Ron
25 Williams. I am the trustee with the Huna Heritage
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 148
1 Foundation. I’m also a trustee with the Snail House,
2 which is one of the houses that’s part of the
3 T’akdeintaan Clan of Hoonah. I’ve been asked by Adam
4 Greenwald, who is the head of the Snail House, to
5 represent him here today. We want to thank the
6 committee for this opportunity to voice our concern
7 on a repatriation petition that we submitted to the
8 University of Pennsylvania Museum for 39 objects, and
9 I think the latest petition now includes 45.
10 In the late winter of 1995, a representative
11 from the University of Pennsylvania Museum came to
12 Juneau and met with several of the Snail House
13 members and showed a video of Snail House objects.
14 There were 39 of them, and they were all identified
15 as Snail House objects. There was no question about
16 it that these were Snail House objects and they were
17 in compliance with NAGPRA as being objects that could
18 be repatriated. These were objects that were
19 obtained for the museum by Louis Shotridge.
20 We first submitted the first petition to the
21 museum September 1995, and then thereafter we
22 submitted four or five different addendums at the
23 request of the museum for additional information.
24 The latest one, which asked for whether or not these
25 objects were in compliance with NAGPRA or not, and
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 149
1 they had told us that they were and then they asked
2 if they were. And when we were — we felt that we had
3 been following the NAGPRA procedures and guidelines
4 and then after all these kinds of questions that the
5 Pennsylvania Museum was asking us that we wondered if
6 they were. And we wondered whether or not there’s a
7 standard that’s set up as to when is it time for them
8 to turn over these articles to us because they seem
9 to find different reasons for not doing so, and in
10 going over the rules and regulations that there
11 doesn’t seem to be a standard. There doesn’t seem to
12 be a cutoff. There doesn’t seem to be a deadline set
13 up for that. If there were I think we probably would
14 have had those objects by now, because it’s been five
15 years since the first petition.
16 As I said that originally there were 39 items,
17 and then as we went along we uncovered six more
18 items, which now there are 45 items that belong to
19 the Snail House people of Hoonah. We wondered about
20 their inventory, whether there are more or not and
21 whether it would be permissible for us to review
22 their records, whether or not, you know, we don’t
23 know whether that is permissible.
24 There’s also confusion on compliance, such as
25 deadlines, and also where can we go for help. If it
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 150
1 weren’t for Tim McKeown I think we wouldn’t have
2 gotten this far. We seemingly would have been kind
3 of floating around by ourselves. It boils down to
4 the University of Pennsylvania Museum and us. And it
5 doesn’t seem right, especially when there’s a Federal
6 law that’s supposed to protect our rights. Where
7 could we get technical assistance? Where is a good
8 place to do that? We don’t have any handle on that.
9 There must be somewhere we can go to get good
10 technical assistance or even where the University of
11 Pennsylvania could go to get technical assistance
12 that would go ahead and get them to move this stuff
13 over to our house.
14 We have a policy in the Snail House on all of
15 our articles, and we do have some articles and
16 artifacts that belong to us, and Adam Greenwald is
17 the caretaker of those articles. But we have quite a
18 concern about the storage of those articles. And we
19 do bring those out when protocol requires us to bring
20 all of those out. We’re concerned about storage for
21 fireproof and other environmental concerns, and we
22 did make a — apply for a grant to the National Park
23 Service when we listed that as one of the primary
24 items that we needed and our grant proposal was
25 denied.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 151
1 Once again, we appreciate your listening to us,
2 and hopefully we can have a resolve on this very
3 shortly. We did jointly with the Hoonah Indian
4 Association write a letter to the University of
5 Pennsylvania asking them when would be a good time
6 for us to visit them this summer. It’s been three
7 weeks and we haven’t heard a word from them yet.
8 Again, we’re talking about deadlines and they don’t
9 seem to have that problem of a deadline. I thought
10 we had Indian time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
11 members of the committee.
12 KENNETH GRANT
13 KENNETH GRANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members
14 of the committee. My Christian name is Kenneth
15 Grant. I am the president of the Hoonah Indian
16 Association, a Federally recognized tribe located on
17 Chichagof Island, about 20 minutes as LAB flies or
18 wings flies from here, about southwest of here. We
19 have about 600 members registered in the Hoonah
20 Indian Association. I’m not going to go into great
21 detail about Hoonah, but there are four of the
22 original clans that were in that area on the first
23 contact with Europeans. The names are Kaagwaantaan,
24 which is the Wolf Clan, the Chookaneidi were the
25 Glacier Bay people. I think theirs was the bear.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 152
1 The Wooshkeetaan were the Shark Clans, and the
2 T’akdeintaan. And we do have other clans in our area
3 now that are recognized and very much a part of the
4 community.
5 I’d like to address some of those that are
6 sitting here and listening, too. I know I have my
7 father’s people out there, the Kaagwaantaan, and
8 others, the Chookaneidi, the Wooshkeetaans,
9 Shungookeidee. I want to recognize you. (Native
10 Alaskan language.)
11 I addressed my opposite lineage, which is what
12 we do. We recognize our opposite lineage. I
13 respectfully addressed them and I asked forgiveness
14 if I say anything here that might offend them. I
15 think what is most important here is that we bring
16 back the objects, bring back our ancestral objects.
17 The Hoonah Indian Association has been involved
18 with repatriation for some time. Our first
19 repatriated item, object, was remains of a
20 Wooshkeetaan that was within the Glacier Bay National
21 Park Boundaries, and I can’t remember the exact year,
22 but it was about four or five years ago. This object
23 was one of the objects that was collected by
24 Dr. Ackerman, Robert Ackerman from Washington State
25 University. These are only a portion of what
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 153
1 Ackerman had collected years ago, and I might add
2 that I do have questions regarding the area in which
3 the objects were collected from. He was under
4 contract with the Park Service to do some digs,
5 archeological digs, but he went outside the park
6 boundaries and collected the items from Tongass
7 National Forest areas, but he was gracious enough to
8 release the human remains and also associated
9 funerary objects. But we were able to repatriate the
10 human remains and the objects and we also returned
11 the remains from the location that it was collected
12 from.
13 The next object that we were a part of was by
14 Swanson Harbor Jim, I mean, the remains of Swanson
15 Harbor Jim. This was done just recently, last year,
16 in fact. Last year I addressed the Smithsonian
17 committee on repatriation, expressing my concern for
18 the collection of items in which a human body had
19 been separated, in which one was kept in a museum and
20 the other portion was lost. A portion that we
21 repatriated was returned to our original homeland in
22 Swanson Harbor, which is where the T’akdeintaans come
23 from.
24 And I ask Richard Dalton if I make a mistake,
25 forgive me. He is my brother and clan leader,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 154
1 Mr. Dalton. Is he here? Just raise your hand,
2 Richard. Just raise your hand. He’s our clan leader
3 and was very instrumental in the return of Swanson
4 Harbor Jim. It might interest you that Swanson
5 Harbor was the homeland of the T’akdeintaan Clan of
6 which I am a member of and also Ron sitting beside me
7 here and I have got some brothers back here.
8 The next item we repatriated was the eagle hat.
9 It belonged to the Kaagwaantaan Clan. It came from
10 the Denver Museum of Natural History. And I would
11 like to commend the Denver Museum of Natural History
12 for their sensitivity. I think they handled it very
13 well and were very receptive to our claim. And I
14 heard someone say earlier that the wheels turn very
15 slowly, and I agree. They turned very slow for us.
16 But the Denver Museum was able to release the hat to
17 us technically on a loan basis, pending the Federal
18 Register requirement.
19 We were told that the Federal Register
20 requirement would take at least a year before they
21 could officially transfer title to the hat, but
22 knowing how urgent that it was for our Kaagwaantaan
23 Clan to receive the hat, they went ahead and we
24 signed a loan paper in which they released the object
25 to Hoonah Indian Association. And if everything goes
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 155
1 well, next year during the time of potlatches Denver
2 Museum will come up and they will officially transfer
3 the title to Hoonah Indian Association and we in turn
4 will transfer it to the Kaagwaantaan Clan.
5 You’ve heard Brother Ronald here talk about the
6 Snail House objects at the Pennsylvania Museum. Just
7 a side bar to Snail House for other people that are
8 listening out there, the Snail House is one of the
9 names that it is known by. The real name is
10 Mt. Fairweather House. Tsulxaan Hit is the real
11 name. And the house that I come from is a sub-unit
12 of Tsulxaan Hit. The house I come from comes from
13 under Mt. Fairweather. It is called Gaanxaa Hit.
14 And my mothers, I call them my mothers, have made me
15 their spokesman during the potlatches.
16 I would like to comment on the objects that are
17 in the museum. Last year Hoonah Indian Association
18 took an elder, and I’m only a pre-elder, but they did
19 consider me an elder too, so we went east and we
20 observed the American Museum of Natural History in
21 New York City and very frankly I was appalled at what
22 I saw. I was overwhelmed of what I saw. Our whole
23 culture, the very objects that we hold with great
24 pride were sitting there in a museum, and we wonder
25 why our clans are weak today. It was a manifestation
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 156
1 when I saw it. It was just overwhelming. And then
2 we went — the New York Museum of Natural History was
3 very, very receptive, very cooperative. We didn’t
4 receive any ill treatment. I would like to commend
5 them, too. But we haven’t begun to repatriate
6 specific items yet, but I know there are many objects
7 there that are repatriatable. And then we went over
8 to the Field Museum where we met the same
9 overwhelming numbers of objects that belong to our
10 people.
11 From this experience there were a couple of
12 items that became very apparent. The first item that
13 I thought was counterproductive to us as a tribe and
14 for what we were there for was the fact that the
15 information at the time of acquisition was not
16 readily available. The field notes at the time of
17 accession or whatever the museum uses were not very
18 apparent. The names were very sketchy, the clans
19 were very sketchy, and many of the objects were
20 identified simply by having an elder there that
21 recognized the clan lineage and the emblems there.
22 And along with this we have found that — the
23 second point I wanted to make was that the
24 requirement that NAGPRA has for a preponderance of
25 evidence that the tribe has as a claimant is very
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 157
1 difficult to obtain in this time period that we’re in
2 because many of our elders are gone now, those that
3 really have firsthand knowledge of the objects, and
4 those that are present with us now have health
5 problems that make it very difficult to travel a
6 great distance in the amount of time and the walking
7 that you have to do to view the objects, and this is
8 another point that I found that was counterproductive
9 in the repatriation.
10 Another difficulty that we experienced is the
11 cost involved. Someone had mentioned earlier, but
12 before I close I would like to express the fact that
13 I have a very deep concern that if we don’t bring
14 these things back within a very short window, I know
15 we’ll lose a lot of our elders before they get to
16 view their objects again, and if there is any way
17 that you can speed up the process, I think it would
18 be very helpful to our culture in Alaska.
19 In closing, I’ve heard very many remarks made
20 regarding thanking Tim McKeown, and we chime in, too.
21 We thank him and we’d like to see if you’re
22 restructuring that you keep him in there. Thank you
23 very much.
24 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you. Thank you both.
25 Committee members, start with Jim Bradley.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 158
1 JAMES BRADLEY: I want to thank you both for
2 your presentations, and it makes me a little ashamed
3 as a museum professional to think how we deprive you
4 of things that you need, and NAGPRA is one way in
5 which we can work together. There are certainly
6 others, so I hope museums will continue to work with
7 you and that you will be patient with us.
8 Just a comment, John, for you. I think
9 sometimes we think about the backlog and it’s this
10 sort of bureaucratic thing and a lot of numbers.
11 This is where the backlog really matters, you know,
12 where peoples’ lives are at stake, where the
13 continuity within community will be broken because
14 it’s going to take three years to get a notice
15 published. And when we are pushing to get the
16 backlog done, it’s because we’re being pushed and
17 rightfully so, so I hope you’ll take that back.
18 Tim, do you — can you give me an update on the U
19 Penn issue with these folks? Is this a dispute? Is
20 this a pending dispute? What is this, in your
21 estimation?
22 TIMOTHY MCKEOWN: I think the representatives
23 from Hoonah probably know it better than I do. And
24 if I might ask the question, has the university made
25 a decision on it? Have they decided to repatriate?
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 159
1 I don’t know that.
2 RON WILLIAMS: It seems like they have decided
3 not to repatriate with the number of roadblocks they
4 have put in front of us. I’m not sure what you’re
5 talking about when you’re talking about a dispute.
6 JAMES BRADLEY: Well, what I want to know is
7 where the problem is, and I think what I’m going to
8 do is John or Tim, can you — let’s put this on our
9 action list. I’d like to know from the Department’s
10 point of view, is the university museum in
11 compliance, have they met their obligations, where
12 are things stuck. These folks deserve an answer
13 back.
14 TIMOTHY MCKEOWN: I can check tonight to see if
15 we have a notice on it. I just don’t know that fact.
16 JAMES BRADLEY: All right. If you can do that.
17 RON WILLIAMS: A couple of items, if I may.
18 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.
19 RON WILLIAMS: One is in 1944 the town of Hoonah
20 burned, and at that time we lost a lot of these
21 articles, and these articles that we’re talking about
22 now left Hoonah prior to that fire. So the return of
23 these articles would be just tremendous for the
24 people of Hoonah. The other is the Hoonah Indian
25 Association has in plans building a museum. Now,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 160
1 some of these items that we’re talking about here are
2 still good for ceremonial uses and I think some of
3 the other items could be placed in the Hoonah Indian
4 Museum in Hoonah. So these two things tied together,
5 you know, it just makes — it would be wonderful if we
6 could get those items back.
7 KENNETH GRANT: Mr. Chairman, to follow up on
8 the question, a dispute was mentioned here, there was
9 competing claims. The gentleman sitting next to me,
10 my brother Ron, and the organization I represent had
11 issued competing claims to it, but we have recently
12 reconciled the dispute and we have joined forces now,
13 and we even use the same letterhead.
14 LAWRENCE HART: Very good.
15 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Questions from the committee?
16 I was going to ask about the objects that are
17 herein the room with us, the items that are here —
18 KENNETH GRANT: I think they’re going to follow
19 up on those.
20 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both very,
21 very much.
22 KENNETH GRANT: Thank you.
23 RON WILLIAMS: Thank you.
24 PATRICK MILLS
25 PATRICK MILLS: I would like to call the Mills
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 161
1 family to come forward please. I would like Matthew
2 Lawrence — not Matthew Lawrence, Frank O. Williams to
3 come forward please.
4 (Native Alaskan language.) I thank you all for
5 allowing us to stand here and display our deeds to
6 our house called the Snail House, the Mt. Fairweather
7 House. When this house was built — before I go into
8 this, I would like to acknowledge our clan elder,
9 Richard Dalton, Sr. Richard. Richard Dalton, Sr.,
10 has been our guidance for our clan for a while now
11 since Richard Shakely, Sr., died. My Tlingit name is
12 Skadúsa. I’m a T’akdeintaan man. I am also a child
13 of the Wooshkeetaan people, what is known as the
14 Sharks.
15 At a time when we talked about our regalia and
16 about this stuff here, we’re going to come to explain
17 it. But now first before we explain something about
18 the regalia here, I’m going to give a little story
19 about our family. As a young man in the ‘50s, very
20 young, I listened to my grandmother. She was always
21 giving us sage advice about our life, our culture,
22 and who we are. As a young man, it came she always
23 told us, this is where your family comes from. We
24 came down the Copper River. This is where we come
25 from.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 162
1 After the Copper River, we were Lituya Bay.
2 Before we were Lituya Bay, we were called Coho Clan.
3 Because there was a dispute among the Luknaxada
4 families, the T’akdeintaan was formed on an island in
5 Lituya Bay on the seaward side of the island is
6 called — it’s the name of our clan, T’akdeintaan.
7 This island is called Centopath Island today by
8 LaProuse when he lost his 18 men at the pass there,
9 when they were sucked out into the entrance. Those
10 of you who do not know Lituya Bay, that is just like
11 pulling the plug on a drain on a sink. And once you
12 start going that way toward the entrance, there’s no
13 turning back. Big motorboats have trouble going
14 through the pass, five fathoms, and when a southwest
15 is blowing you might as well stay home in the harbor.
16 Because Snail House was being built around the
17 ‘20s, this house we’re talking about today where this
18 stuff comes from was built at the same timeframe
19 Shotridge was taking regalia from Hoonah. Now, as
20 this raven — as this brass hat over here, this brass
21 hat is called a loon hat. I’m sure some of the Park
22 Service people saw the same identical brass hat in
23 the Museum of Pennsylvania. This brass hat was made
24 out of a cannon. We wanted to show people how rich
25 our family and our house was that we acquired their
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 163
1 weapons from them and we made a hat out of it. And
2 that’s how you do it. And the twin one is over there
3 at the University of Pennsylvania, the twin hat to
4 this brass one.
5 As you can see, this other hat, a red one, this
6 beautiful hat here, this hat was made by David
7 Williams, a Chookaneidi man from Hoonah, a master
8 carver whose work is in the Smithsonian, whose work
9 is everywhere, whose work is an integral part of the
10 Hoonah culture. This hat was made by David Williams.
11 At the time it was made, there was some talk about
12 how we were going to go back to being Coho people
13 again and we were going to come from T’akdeintaan
14 House, because we come from one Coho Clan, where this
15 is our what we call our grandmother’s hat when we
16 lived in Lituya Bay. And when our Uncle Shorty died
17 in 1957 there was a big fight over this hat with the
18 Coho people because they said it was their hat.
19 When we finally settled the claim, it turned out
20 it was our uncle’s hat, our grandmother’s brother,
21 Shorty Alexander Wilson. Now, because of that,
22 because of this, this other hat is called a
23 shakee.at, a thing on the head. This shakee.at has
24 the Raven history of the king salmon and the
25 grandchildren of the king salmon — I mean of the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 164
1 raven, his grandchildren. And there’s a story about
2 how the raven caught the king salmon and how he
3 tricked his grandchildren out of the king salmon, how
4 he ate the king salmon himself, how he called it in
5 from the water. (Native Alaskan language,) come
6 here, I can see you jumping out there. It’s a long
7 story.
8 There’s another — these other bears, these bears
9 that are surrounding the raven, because
10 Mt. Fairweather, Lituya Bay, our homeland, our
11 country, Mt. Fairweather House was surrounded by
12 bears all the time, bears all over, the roads and the
13 bear trails are wide as this because the bears dig on
14 both sides of the trail all the time to eat the
15 roots. I used to crab fish up there. I seen these
16 things. Because all these stuff that was handed down
17 from our great uncles down to the nephews, this is
18 why we stand here today.
19 This other blanket, this other blanket over
20 here, it’s another Lituya Bay blanket. The bears,
21 the people inside, as you can tell that our people,
22 our family had carried on our culture for a while.
23 I’m sorry that I didn’t get to bring a lot more
24 pictures. We still have stories told about all these
25 things by our grandmother on tape of Lituya Bay, of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 165
1 Snail House, of Head House, Kashaya Hit.
2 There’s many different things that were taught
3 today while we were taught. We were always taught by
4 our grandmother and our grandfathers and our
5 grandmothers and our aunties, if you don’t know who
6 you are, you won’t be able to defend yourself.
7 Everybody will do anything to you. In our Tlingit
8 way, sometimes we feel that Huna Heritage Foundation
9 does this to us. This is why they can’t get their
10 stuff right away because we’re standing there in
11 front of them, we’re standing there with this stuff,
12 this stuff, our deeds. We’re standing there with all
13 the names of all the people that ran the house.
14 Peter Hopkins was the original founder. Peter
15 Hopkins, his nephew, in a Tlingit way, Matthew
16 Lawrence stood up for Peter Hopkins. Matthew
17 Lawrence is our uncle. And I’d like to introduce you
18 to Matthew Lawrence’s true nephew here, Frank O.
19 Williams, Jr. This man here, he can sit here if he
20 wants to testify about it. And that’s one of the
21 house leaders here.
22 When the time that we talked about our rights,
23 we came across some artifacts in the museum in
24 Anchorage telling us who was in the house at the
25 time, 1928, 1933, when Shotridge was coming through.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 166
1 We connect ourself, our family here and here to that
2 time period, to the house. This is why we’re here
3 today. There isn’t anyone that paid our way into
4 town to come here. There’s no one that paid our way
5 to the Heritage Foundation workshops. We’re shunned
6 by the corporation because we have dual claim on the
7 same house as someone else, but we still hold our
8 deeds right here. These are the deeds. This man’s
9 name here is a high name in our house, Kochkuteh. He
10 composed a lot of songs.
11 I have a written history here of my family, but
12 I’m talking now because it’s the traditional Tlingit
13 way. The only thing I’m going wrong is I’m sitting
14 down. In order for me to respect my uncles and my
15 aunties, I should be standing up. I should be
16 standing here by my brother here, but I’m forced to
17 sit here. In our house we do not use the word
18 protocol. It’s respect that we use, and there’s only
19 one way you earn your respect, and that’s how it is,
20 you earn it. Nobody hands it out to you. Because we
21 feel strong about our culture, about our identity,
22 about who we are, that’s why we’re here. I would not
23 let someone stand up here and give my history for me
24 and say that this is their house, they let me speak
25 for them. (Native Alaskan language), that’s not the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 167
1 way.
2 Now, because we connect our time to the house in
3 the time period when Shotridge was here and we’re
4 still connected today. For a long time, in 1944, as
5 the gentleman here sat and said that Hoonah burned
6 down in 1944 or ’45 — I wasn’t born yet — that we
7 lost a lot of regalia. That’s why it was sad to see
8 the Angoon pictures this morning. But every year in
9 years and years after, after the town burned down in
10 Hoonah, a first class city was formed and an
11 anti-potlatch ordinance was passed, no more
12 potlatches in Hoonah, 1946. These stuff came out
13 every year after the potlatches were banned in
14 Hoonah. They came out and potlatched, all these
15 brothers, all these brothers. We didn’t pay
16 attention to the potlatch ordinance saying no more
17 potlatches in Hoonah. We stood up for who we were.
18 That’s why we still hang on to our stuff. That’s why
19 when we say where’s the stuff from the museum, we
20 kind of hang our heads a little bit.
21 We all know in Tlingit life when you say, chuk,
22 chuk, chuk, go away, chuk, chuk, don’t come back, go
23 away, don’t want you by me, the things will stay
24 away, and they never come back because the Tlingit
25 mind is so strong. They’ll say, I’ll show you. I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 168
1 won’t be back. This is why my family sitting here
2 today, standing here, when it’s time to go to the
3 museum we would like to go down Eagles and Ravens
4 together. We would like the Eagles to help us, their
5 fathers, and in a Tlingit way, our children.
6 We cannot have our Tlingit Tribe and our society
7 without our fathers, without our grandfathers,
8 because if you don’t have your fathers and your
9 grandfathers on the other side of you there is no
10 balance, there is no balance in your life, and when
11 your balance is off center, your world spins in a
12 lopsided way, and it flips people off. It throws
13 them off as it’s turning. This is why we value our
14 culture. We value the way our uncles taught us. We
15 value the very ground we walk on. We value the food
16 that we eat. We go to our uncles’ places. After
17 they die we go back there again. We take their best
18 foods that they liked and we serve them at the
19 potlatches.
20 And not only do we have potlatches to pass on
21 our regalia, we have potlatches to give names off at
22 the same time, uncle, nephew, auntie to niece. This
23 is how our names stay in the houses, and this is why
24 many of us are still here from the same houses.
25 Because one of the house leaders was Archie White, my
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 169
1 nephew has his — my brother has his name. His name
2 is George. My brother George has his name. And Mike
3 Wilson, another house leader, Mike Mills, our other
4 brother, Senior, has his name.
5 And we also, because our moms and our dads were
6 married, my dad is a Wooshkeetaan man and because
7 they say birds of a feather flock together, they hang
8 together, Wooshkeetaans and their children. They all
9 hang together. So as a result of this, some of the
10 names in the Snail House, some of the names of the
11 other people, I have nine brothers, eight brothers,
12 nine counting me, are named for a lot of people in
13 the Snail House, one after another.
14 We have this blanket here, this Chilkat blanket
15 — when one of the house leaders — when the house
16 leader died, my grandmother’s brother married the
17 widow. In the Tlingit way, when you’re groomed to
18 take your uncle’s place, you’re taught, they pick you
19 out, they watch for the smart one. They pick you
20 out, they train you in the ways, they train you to be
21 Tlingit, to follow all the rules and laws of your
22 people. Because the house leader died, our uncle was
23 grooming — they were grooming him to take his place.
24 And this man, this house leader’s name was Archie
25 White. His widow married my uncle. My uncle was a
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 170
1 young man at the time, but the widow was very old,
2 and this was assurance to our family that we would be
3 standing here today saying this is my house.
4 Now I’m saying to you, it’s not just our house.
5 There’s many people from Snail House, many different
6 people. At the same time, I’ll tell you this. We’re
7 not just from one house. At different times in our
8 life we came from different houses. For example,
9 Mr. Grant here was talking, Kenny, he said he came
10 from Gaanxaa Hit. Well, when we left Lituya Bay, my
11 family was living in Gaanxaa Hit in Graves Harbor
12 also, is why my father always said, we’re closely
13 related to Mr. Grant. So we do have our history.
14 And there are so many houses to talk about, I can’t
15 get them all straight. So at the time when Leonard
16 married this woman, the widow of the house leader, so
17 that the nephew could step into his uncle’s spot,
18 after he got married, the son of Mrs. Archie White
19 name of Joe White, presented him with this blanket,
20 she was so happy that her mother married somebody
21 from her house again.
22 This is why we stand here and why we say we’re
23 from Snail House. Many people say we’re from another
24 house. I thank them very much for reminding me and
25 reaffirming my other identity. I don’t deny which
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 171
1 houses I come from, because there are so many houses
2 and so many different time periods and different
3 areas that our family come from. And at the time
4 Shotridge was collecting, these were the members of
5 the leaders of the house, Peter Hopkins, Archie White
6 and Mike Wilson. Mike Wilson is my grandmother’s
7 brother. Shorty Wilson is the one with the coho hat,
8 another uncle. Mike and Frank Wilson was another
9 uncle from the house. So you can see I had a house
10 full of relatives over in Snail House.
11 I will reiterate what I’m saying again. We’re
12 not the only ones from the house. There’s a lot of
13 us from the house. I’m telling you is I’m standing
14 here in place of our great uncles, the leaders of the
15 house. And because the Heritage Foundation doesn’t
16 allow us to go anywhere when they have workshops, up
17 in Anchorage, down there in Washington, even in
18 Juneau. We’re not invited. We stay home. We stay
19 home in Hoonah, because our Heritage Foundation is
20 now in Juneau and it’s supposed to be a village
21 corporation.
22 I did not want to be negative about anything. I
23 wanted to state what I told you. However, I’m a
24 person that will say what he believes is right and
25 because our uncles had paved the way for us by
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 172
1 building the house, by marrying into the house. And
2 there’s another thing too. We were sitting here
3 following one of our uncles before, but he happened
4 to marry a Raven and when he married a Raven, he took
5 himself out of the leadership of the family. He was
6 no longer our leader. And that’s the way our
7 grandmother was and that’s the way our father was,
8 when one of my sisters married a Raven, there was a
9 lot of trouble in our house. A special blanket had
10 to be made before my dad could accept it, and I doubt
11 if he ever did. Because double, when you marry
12 somebody from your own clan, it gets real hard.
13 You’re shunned. In this case, when my sister and her
14 husband had a child, her name was Little Slave.
15 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Sir, with great respect and
16 with regret, I would ask if you could finish up
17 because we do have other people who have been
18 scheduled as well.
19 PATRICK MILLS: All right. I’ll go ahead and
20 stop here, and I would like one lady to come forward
21 please. I will let the rest of my brothers say what
22 they have to say. I’m sure I did not want to get
23 emotional or anything about this, but for people that
24 been putting on our culture and our parties for years
25 and even up to the last year, that we displayed our
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 173
1 regalia at the parties. This is why you’ll
2 understand that sometimes we get a little bit
3 defensive when we’re not allowed to speak for our
4 stuff. And sometimes when we do have to come in, we
5 have to speak like we are and we don’t hardly put
6 time constraints on anything and when we want
7 something to be done right we go there and help out,
8 and we are still a part of the community in Hoonah.
9 We never left our town except to go in the service.
10 I’ll go ahead and I’ll let these other members
11 of my family —
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Well, if I can, as you know,
13 we did not have you on the schedule and we consented
14 and agreed and it’s been important for us to hear
15 from you, but we really must have other voices who
16 have been planning to come and we regret we can’t
17 accommodate any further. Thank you.
18 PATRICK MILLS: All right.
19 THOMAS MILLS
20 THOMAS MILLS: Okay. I’ll be really short and
21 sweet. My Tlingit names are Kochkuteh, and he is the
22 master of Snail House. My other Tlingit name is
23 Kotieh (phonetic), and he is also a biggie in the
24 house. My father is Wooshkeetaan. He comes from Nu
25 Hit (phonetic). My grandfather on my dad’s side is
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 174
1 T’akdeintaan. So he is our grandfather and we’re
2 grandchildren and we’re T’akdeintaan also.
3 My mother always explained to us, her Tlingit
4 name is Yakwaantlaa. Before she was born, they
5 already knew that she was going to be a woman, and
6 she was designated as the Daughter of Mt. Fairweather
7 House. Her dad, Paul Brown, who is Kaagwaantaan, had
8 composed a song for her and to this day it’s known as
9 the Katherine Mills song, and lately it’s called the
10 Paul Brown song again, but that’s just a minor
11 misinterpretation.
12 Mother always explained to us that we’re just
13 like royalty because of who we are. She says that we
14 can wear any emblem under the Raven as long as we
15 have acknowledged it first. So basically we used to
16 go over to Excursion Inlet from Hoonah with
17 grandmother, and that is always before Easter and we
18 start gathering our foods and sometimes we come back
19 and enter school after Thanksgiving or shortly before
20 Thanksgiving. All this time we are gathering foods
21 and we are listening to grandmother and working and
22 telling us all these stories while mother and father
23 worked in a salmon cannery.
24 We are going to have Beatrice Brown say a few
25 words. She was raised up in Snail House, so she
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 175
1 pretty much knows who actually lived there, if it’s
2 okay.
3 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Please do understand, we only
4 made arrangements this morning for you to speak and
5 others who have agreed in advance to speak were
6 limited in time. We have many other people who wish
7 to speak this afternoon, so with all respect we must
8 soon, very soon, finish.
9 BEATRICE BROWN
10 BEATRICE BROWN: Mr. Chairman, since the time —
11 there’s so much, I know there’s a time limit on
12 everything that’s happening here. On my comment, I
13 think I’ll write it down on paper and present it
14 along with Mr. Mill’s comments on how I feel, so I
15 wouldn’t take any of your time, if that’s okay.
16 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. Thank
17 you. Yes, it is, and we will add it to the record.
18 Thank you.
19 The last presentation for this session is from
20 Mr. Bob Maguire, Denakkanaaga.
21 BOB MAGUIRE
22 BOB MAGUIRE: Can you hear me all right?
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes.
24 BOB MAGUIRE: Good afternoon. It’s an honor to
25 speak before the committee. It’s a formidable task
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 176
1 to follow people like Rosita and the people from
2 Hoonah. In traditional fashion, I would like to also
3 thank the Tlingit people for hosting the meeting, and
4 we are in southeast Alaska and we’re all very well
5 aware of that now. Thank you very much people from
6 Hoonah for explaining, especially your clan history,
7 to us. I’d also like to thank individually several
8 people. One is Vera Metcalf who sits on your
9 committee. And although she is not designated as an
10 Alaskan representative, all of us especially from the
11 Interior area are real proud to have Vera on your
12 committee and all the work that you people do.
13 This is my first opportunity to attend a
14 national review committee meeting. It’s been
15 extremely educational and I have a real heartfelt
16 appreciation for the tasks and the work that you do
17 on this committee. I’m relatively new to NAGPRA work
18 but I’ve been real privileged to work in the interior
19 of Alaska along with Alaska Native people in
20 different programs for about the past 30 years. I
21 have two goals maybe this afternoon. One would be to
22 try to convey to you on the committee and also people
23 in the audience just the uniqueness of Alaska and the
24 vast distances and sizes that we have to deal with,
25 and then share with you two positive examples. I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 177
1 think I got a sense today that you on the committee
2 enjoy hearing positive things that happen in NAGPRA
3 and I think we have two with Denakkanaaga.
4 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We hope for them.
5 BOB MAGUIRE: As I said, I’m currently employed
6 by Denakkanaaga, and we are a very poor, shoestring
7 corporation. We operate under authorization from
8 resolution from Doyon Limited, which is the regional
9 profit corporation, which is recognized as a Federal
10 tribe for the interior. It’s very difficult to
11 describe the interior of Alaska to people. I know
12 I’ve met some people in the audience here that it’s
13 their first time to Alaska, and you are in Alaska,
14 but you’re in southeast Alaska, and there are so many
15 different regions. And I’ll just try to describe a
16 little bit to you about the Doyon region.
17 Doyon is the largest private landholding
18 corporation in the United States and certainly one of
19 the largest ones in the world, somewhere around 14
20 million acres. The Doyon area stretches from the
21 Canadian border on the east. It’s bordered on the
22 north by the Brooks Range. It’s a land of great
23 majestic rivers such as the Yukon, the Kuskokwim, the
24 Koyukok, the Tanana. It’s the land of magnificent
25 salmon runs, caribou herds. We have our mother
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 178
1 mountain Denali that watches over everybody in the
2 interior. We have 44 Native communities recognized,
3 Federally recognized Native communities within our
4 area, so I hope that gives you a sense of the — it’s
5 a vast, vast area.
6 Those people that know me know that I tend
7 sometimes to tell stories, so maybe I can give an
8 example of that size. Quite a few years ago we had a
9 fairly naïve candidate who decided to run for the
10 state representative’s seat, and he thought that it
11 would be really nice if he went around the interior,
12 which is basically the whole Doyon region, by canoe
13 to visit everybody. So he started early after he
14 declared his candidacy, and when freeze up came he
15 was still about a third of the way down the Yukon
16 River. So it’s a big area to get around and it’s the
17 home of Athabaskan people. We have nine different
18 Athabaskan language groups, not dialects, but
19 language groups represented in our area. Some of
20 those groups that you’re familiar with perhaps, the
21 Deg Hitán, the Koyukon, Gwitchin, the Holikachuk.
22 The memorial potlatch tradition is a central part of
23 Athabaskan culture in the interior.
24 And with that, I’ll just kind of shift over to
25 Denakkanaaga’s work. We’re in the third year of our
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 179
1 NAGPRA grant. We have to give a lot of credit to two
2 individuals, Cathi Ipalook who wrote our first grant
3 for Denakkanaaga, and Caroline Brown who followed up
4 with that. We have focussed on education. It’s
5 still a problem. Inventories have been sent out, but
6 it’s probably a similar situation that we have to a
7 lot of other places. Oftentimes the inventories have
8 been misdirected or there are so many layers, there’s
9 regional corporations, there are village
10 corporations, there are nonprofit corporations and so
11 we’re still in the process of educating people in our
12 area as to what has been taken in terms of the human
13 remains and artifacts.
14 The interior was visited extensively by
15 researchers, anthropologists, explorers such as
16 Hrdlicka, deLaguna, Oswald and others, and we were
17 constantly trying to update our database as well, as
18 most other NAGPRA areas are doing. One of the things
19 in our grant this fall was that we would host a
20 statewide NAGPRA conference, and Denakkanaaga was
21 very honored to host that. We tried to bring NAGPRA
22 representatives from each area of the state. Vera
23 Metcalf was — we were honored to have her from Bering
24 Straits. We had Jana Harcharek from the North Slope.
25 We had Harold Jacobs who we heard of and saw pictures
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 180
1 of today from southeast. And perhaps it was the
2 first time in Alaska that we’ve had all of the NAGPRA
3 people together for a couple of days just to share
4 concerns, and it was a real educational opportunity
5 for all of us.
6 Along with that, we brought representatives from
7 seven or eight different interior communities as sort
8 of scholarship people to learn about the workings of
9 NAGPRA. And out of that we had a young lady, she was
10 22 years old, from the community of Eagle, and her
11 first name is Karma, which we thought was a real
12 appropriate name. This was her first experience with
13 NAGPRA. During the process of the conference, she
14 learned that there were human remains at the UAF
15 museum, and again, we’d like to thank Gary Selinger.
16 I think he’s a real unique person in terms of what he
17 does at the UA museum.
18 And Karma consequently went home from the
19 conference, and she’s on the traditional council.
20 And she’s pretty much organized on her own the
21 repatriation request and it’s gone on, and of course
22 it’s now held up with two things. One is the problem
23 of getting the notice, and I understand it’s on the
24 bottom of the pile, so we’re number 40-something
25 perhaps. And as Gary Selinger pointed out, our
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 181
1 window of opportunity for burials in the summertime
2 is pretty limited, so if there’s anything, that’s
3 just another, I guess, another note to that
4 continuing problem.
5 And the Eagle repatriation is also plagued with
6 the reburial location. The original location is now
7 occupied by the Federal government. I believe it’s
8 the headquarters for the Yukon Charlie Rivers
9 Preserve. And they now have their headquarters
10 building there, and we’ve pretty much been told that
11 we cannot rebury on the Federal grounds, and that we
12 asked for the policy and that’s the one which I
13 believe you’re going to get from Mr. Selinger. But
14 we think it’s a real heartwarming example of a young
15 person Karma’s first experience with NAGPRA, and she
16 took it on her own to go back to her home community
17 and work on this repatriation. So we’re real hopeful
18 that sometime this summer that that reburial can
19 happen in Eagle.
20 Our other reburial in the interior that’s of
21 significance was in the Village of Anvik, which has
22 significant collections in several museums. A year
23 and a half ago in August, we had six individuals that
24 were returned from the University of Pennsylvania
25 Museum, and we’d like to express our support that we
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 182
1 received from them. These individuals were returned
2 to Anvik and as somebody else mentioned in tradition.
3 It’s traditional in the interior also that somebody
4 act as a customary pallbearer or escort with these
5 people, and they had several moving experiences with
6 the individuals who had been living at the museum for
7 some 90 years. And these people stayed with them in
8 their hotel room and they made sure that somebody was
9 there at all times.
10 And then when they returned to Anvik, there was
11 the problem that initially the funerary objects had
12 all been detailed as to which individual they went
13 with, but in the 90-year period that had become
14 confused or lost. So the community took it upon
15 itself that in the burial container that they would
16 put an extra tray on the top and put all the funerary
17 objects, since they had no way of knowing which ones
18 went with which individual, on the top. And so that
19 they all belonged to all the individuals.
20 Following the burial, we were all in the
21 community hall and we got the word that everybody
22 should go outside, and there was this magnificent
23 rainbow that people still talk about today that went
24 exactly from the community over to the graveyard.
25 And everybody still talks about that that is a sign
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 183
1 that the work we do in NAGPRA is a good thing to do
2 because that’s a sign that those people are happy now
3 that they’re back in their rightful ancestral home.
4 So with that, on behalf of NAGPRA, I’d like to
5 thank the committee again and I hope that — we also
6 echo our concern about the restructuring of the
7 department, so thank you.
8 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you.
9 Questions or comments?
10 Rosita.
11 ROSITA WORL
12 ROSITA WORL: Mr. Chairman, I beg the indulgence
13 of the committee, but we have a requirement to
14 respond to the Ravens for bringing out their hat, and
15 so if I might I would just like to ask the Eagles to
16 stand. I know we have Kaagwaantaan, Shangukweidí,
17 Wooshkeetaan, and if they would just stand and thank
18 the Mills family and the T’akdeintaan for bringing
19 out their at.oow and it’s just required for us to
20 respond and to also thank and acknowledge them for
21 showing us their family and their clan treasures.
22 (Native Alaskan language.)
23 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
24 Thank you, Mr. Maguire.
25 We’re going to finish up. Mr. Richard Dalton,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 184
1 Sr., had originally been scheduled for public comment
2 tomorrow, but had requested to be accommodated today,
3 and so we will do so if he is here.
4 RICHARD DALTON, SR.
5 RICHARD DALTON, SR.: Ladies and gentlemen, can
6 you hear me? Can you hear me now? Okay. Thank you
7 for giving me this chance to speak on behalf of my
8 grandfather’s body that we repatriated a year ago. I
9 have to have the statements to you so that you will
10 have the idea of what we got going. I’m a short
11 distance speaker, so you don’t have to worry about
12 me.
13 I’d like to give you a brief history on Swanson
14 Harbor, who we repatriated. He was out in Juneau for
15 the year of 1928, and he was brought in, all we had
16 was the brains that we repatriated, and came down a
17 year ago we had a memorial service for him. I will
18 talk about the disposition of ancestral human remains
19 of Swanson Harbor Jim. We repatriated remains from
20 the National Museum of Natural History museum in
21 April. We want to rebury him in Swanson Harbor
22 homeland where his family lived, land of the
23 grandfathers.
24 This forest land and the home site is there. I
25 talked to Forest Service about this. We want to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 185
1 rebury him and place a monument or head marker. They
2 said to me away from the home site. I will show it
3 to you on a map what they were saying to me. From
4 the home site on the other side he told me to keep it
5 quiet, don’t put in the news, we place a cross of the
6 grave on September 1. He said to make it a small
7 one, a monument that he’s talking about, maybe a
8 little cross or something, but they’re telling us not
9 to put anything on there. That’s what they were
10 talking about.
11 We want to place a permanent monument marker,
12 gravestone memorial, but I think they will oppose it.
13 Federal agencies should support this, especially on
14 land that belongs to our grandfathers, not make us
15 hide about it or talk about it. We need to be
16 amendment to legislation to allow reburial Federal
17 land. So this is what this is about right here in
18 the news. I put it on the news, so we let them have
19 it anyway, whether they like it or not it was there.
20 It was done by T’akdeintaan, who comes from Swanson
21 Harbor.
22 Early a while ago they were talking about
23 Mt. Fairweather. That’s where the first, the flood
24 of the year, when they had the Mt. Fairweather over
25 the T’akdeintaan, they had a potlatch over there,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 186
1 perhaps they had about 50 different regalia. That’s
2 what they paid it back with since there was no money.
3 And I’m talking about right now what the Forest
4 Service gave to me. That’s right in this spot here,
5 in this little spot. I finally buried my grandfather
6 on this little island right here, but they told me
7 not to get on this other side of the river. 1928
8 since he’s had that land over there on Federal
9 ground. It’s Forest Service, and that thing kind of
10 disturbed me a little bit, and I guess it disturbed a
11 lot of people in Hoonah as well, because 1903 nobody,
12 not even you, can have an application, a land, 160.
13 All of our grandfathers were that way and uncles,
14 they were told you cannot have any application on the
15 land of BLL. That how did he get that, that’s a
16 question to me on Federal Forest Service.
17 That’s began to make me wonder about some of
18 these things a little bit. Here this archeologist
19 investigation in icy strait region, southeast Alaska,
20 1971 was done by Ackerman. As you can tell, Kenny
21 Grant and the others talked about it, but it was
22 confirmed 5,000 years before Christ Jesus. Yesterday
23 I prayed in Tlingit. That’s the kind of teaching
24 they gave to my uncles and my grandfathers. And
25 their constitution was that way, the totem pole that
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 187
1 we have a Raven, an Eagle, got their own
2 constitution. And from Hoonah we got a grandfather
3 and we got an uncle and a brother and we got a clan
4 mother on the totem pole.
5 I’m the lowest one down here. That’s the leader
6 of T’akdeintaan. We try to keep that down to let it
7 on a history for our children from now on to maybe
8 thousands of years. So it gives us a good question
9 about our territory, when the Federals start telling
10 us keep it quiet, we don’t like to go by daylight —
11 we operate by daylight all the time. That’s the only
12 way we like to do things.
13 So I mentioned that I was not for long speeches,
14 so I’ll just leave you alone with what that is.
15 Thank you very much for hearing me. We hope that we
16 will be able to let our homeland with our
17 grandfathers with a burial. That’s where they need
18 to be buried. If we can get a monument for him, one,
19 two, three, maybe that’s all, I don’t know how it’s
20 going to work but it’s going to have to. That’s what
21 we want. We want it from Hoonah. It was done by
22 IRA. It was done by AMB, T’akdeintaan. That’s what
23 we are. Thank you very much.
24 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Dalton.
25 We have several items for committee discussion
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 188
1 and at 4:00 o’clock we were scheduled for a public
2 comment period at which several speakers have already
3 been identified. So I want to ask the committee, do
4 you want to take a short break now, and then we will
5 return — no?
6 Armand.
7 JAMES BRADLEY: You stay.
8 LAWRENCE HART: You stay here, Armand.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We will take a ten-minute
10 break and resume. Thank you.
11 BREAK
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We will take a few moments to
13 discuss the committee’s 1999 Report to Congress. A
14 lot of our ideas have been expressed by us and to us
15 in the last several days seem to me at least to bear
16 on how we structure that report. We’re then going to
17 have the public comment period that has been
18 scheduled, and I have four individuals who have
19 requested and have gotten time on the agenda. We’ll
20 begin with Mr. Alfred McKinley when we start public
21 comment, and then we will have several comments with
22 respect to a dispute that has been underway for some
23 time, Mr. Alvin Moyle and Mr. Norman Harry, and
24 finish with Pemina Yellow Bird.
25 Tessie.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 189
1 TESSIE NARANJO: May I say something real, real
2 quickly. Mr. Robbins yesterday said that he had on
3 hand a particular paper with regard to the
4 restructuring, and I was just wondering if he had
5 that paper available.
6 JOHN ROBBINS: Let me find that and I’ll bring
7 it.
8 1999 REPORT TO CONGRESS
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Okay. Let’s start then with a
10 few minutes on the committee’s 1999 report, which I
11 hope we can prepare and pretty well draft by the time
12 that we leave here, leave Juneau. It seems to me as
13 I have heard us talk about our concerns, and we do
14 have a copy before us of the 1998 report, which took
15 some time to actually deliver to Congress, that
16 several things seem to be obvious. One, we don’t
17 want to delay the submission of this report by any of
18 our own activities and we certainly want to push it
19 as quickly as we can.
20 Secondly, I’ve heard expressed from the
21 committee a number of concerns that really fall into
22 the realm of priorities and policy in implementing
23 NAGPRA, and these would include things like our
24 concern which is shared by many people about the
25 backlog, both in publishing Federal Register
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 190
1 notifications as well as the backlog in completing
2 the databases of inventories and summaries, secondly
3 our concern about current and future budgets being
4 adequate to support the national effort, and we may
5 want to talk about that in a little bit more detail,
6 thirdly, and obviously, our growing concern about
7 Federal compliance issues and the need to call
8 attention to the concerns about Federal agency
9 compliance as we report to Congress.
10 We have been given, I guess, an early or
11 preliminary report on the proposed restructuring
12 activities, but I suspect that we want to say
13 something about the sequence of events in 1999 that
14 led the committee to seek an appointment which we got
15 with Secretary Babbitt’s executive assistant, at
16 which time we expressed some of our concerns. And we
17 may well want to comment upon the importance of
18 keeping the program moving in the right direction
19 with this restructuring.
20 So those are just some very quick things that I
21 have heard from you in the last couple of days.
22 Let’s take a minute or two to talk about how you want
23 to approach things. Tessie and I have, I think, been
24 designated responsibility for trying to put this in
25 writing and we’ll try to work on it overnight, but I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 191
1 would like to hear from committee members.
2 Who wants to start? Vera.
3 VERA METCALF: I just have a question on the
4 1998 report, the distribution list, I’m wondering
5 where it went to and if this ’99 report is going out
6 sometime, do you have a listing of where the report
7 went out to, the ’98 report?
8 JOHN ROBBINS: The 1998 report was sent to the
9 chairs of the Senate and House committees that are
10 responsible for Interior affairs, and I understood
11 that — oh, here we have it. I’ll pass this around.
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Other comments from committee
13 members?
14 Jim.
15 JAMES BRADLEY: John, I haven’t — excuse me, I
16 haven’t seen what you brought up yet, but I wanted to
17 follow up Vera’s question. When was this report —
18 this is the Report to Congress on 1998 activities and
19 it says on the cover that this is August 1999. When
20 was that actually distributed?
21 JOHN ROBBINS: The date is at the top of that
22 memo.
23 JAMES BRADLEY: And that is?
24 MARTIN SULLIVAN: That is last week, March 29th,
25 2000.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 192
1 JOHN ROBBINS: Right.
2 MARTIN SULLIVAN: So that’s part of our concern.
3 We are — it appears that we have been remiss in
4 getting our report together and in fact we know that
5 it has wended its way much too slowly through the
6 review and final authorization, I guess, in the Park
7 Service.
8 JAMES BRADLEY: And was there a cover letter
9 that went with this report?
10 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes, we have that.
11 JAMES BRADLEY: Okay. Thank you.
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: If I could add one other
13 thought that I think I’ve heard expressed by folks,
14 we have used for a few years running a format for
15 this report that includes a lot of statistics on
16 implementation, budgets, number of grants, number of
17 repatriations achieved and so forth, and what I think
18 I have been hearing from everybody is that while we
19 know that has to be in the report that this is a
20 particularly a time in which policy and direction of
21 the program are the key concerns. And so I would
22 like to propose that we, Tessie and I, as we work on
23 a format for this, really emphasize the issues about
24 policy, direction, management, so forth, and we find
25 a way to work the statistics in, either as an
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 193
1 appendix or as some later part of it, but that we
2 don’t overload it with a lot of numbers.
3 JOHN O'SHEA: I think that’s a good idea, Marty,
4 that if we put most of the statistical summary in the
5 second part, then the first part can be really within
6 the policy issues that we want to address, and it may
7 not be a very long document. We can probably, you
8 know, following on the ideas you were saying the real
9 issues are kind of the state of implementation in
10 terms of the increasing backlog, Federal compliance,
11 and then also probably addressing the issue of the
12 restructuring and what our concerns are with regard
13 to how that will affect the implementation.
14 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Jim.
15 JAMES BRADLEY: I’m really glad that you and
16 Tessie will at least get us started, and I think the
17 outline that you have described is a great place to
18 start. Obviously this is an annual report, but I
19 think there’s also the opportunity to look at how
20 this committee has functioned over the last ten
21 years. And with you two going off as individuals who
22 have the long view here, our elders so to speak, I
23 think is a time to be a little reflective about what
24 we think this process has done and where we are at
25 this point in time. I’m not trying to say that we
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 194
1 should make this a soapbox for issues other than the
2 report to Congress, but I think it’s important to put
3 this particular year’s events in the context of the
4 service that you two have had. So if you keep that
5 in mind, that would be helpful.
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thanks.
7 Anyone else?
8 Okay. Well, I think we have a direction to
9 start with and we’ll try to have a draft for you
10 tomorrow morning. We have a lot of business
11 remaining on our agenda, including what I hope is
12 going to be the completion of a policy document on
13 culturally unidentifiable remains that will represent
14 the direction that we have long sought to have it
15 represent, which is strong guidance to all parties
16 and guidance that, at least in my view, moves in the
17 direction of repatriation.
18 Jim.
19 JAMES BRADLEY: Can I make a comment on that?
20 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes.
21 JAMES BRADLEY: Let me just make a comment on
22 that also, for the members of the committee and for
23 the audience. I had hoped to have another version,
24 version six, this afternoon, but it’s in my computer
25 and refuses to come out, so Lesa has promised to help
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 195
1 me extract it. And I’m going to try to get a copy of
2 that so that you all can look at that tonight and
3 we’ll be ready to talk in the morning, and there will
4 be copies for everyone in the morning as well.
5 PUBLIC COMMENT
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: All right. If there is no
7 objection then, I would like to move to the public
8 comment period. I’ve had a request from Mr. Alfred
9 McKinley to make a presentation and it has to do with
10 the issues that we have been learning about today.
11 So Mr. McKinley if you would go first, I would
12 appreciate it.
13 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR.
14 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR.: Thank you very much for
15 giving me this opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members
16 of the committee. My name is Alfred McKinley, Sr.
17 I’m an Eagle Shark Wooshkeetaan. And my dad comes
18 from Hoonah, my father’s people, and my leader is
19 Richard Dalton that just spoke here recently, who we
20 respect very much. Our clan leader is Mr. Samuel
21 Hanlon, Sr., from Hoonah, Alaska.
22 Everything that was said was right on the — I
23 guess you might say in the English, right on the
24 (portion of comment inaudible).
25 My uncle was Gilbert Mills, their father, and I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 196
1 guess we’re passing on the same information, but
2 there were some things that were omitted. I guess
3 we’re here to more or less testify on artifacts that
4 were taken out of Alaska and so forth. But some of
5 the things that I was taught, we were taught by my
6 grandfather. My grandfather’s name was Eldred Mills.
7 I guess you will probably see his name on the 1906
8 Allotment Act, helping our people trying to stake out
9 these lands that were staked out in Glacier Bay and
10 so forth, and we do have a Native Allotment Act in
11 Gustavus, also. And I’m well familiar with all the
12 things that was said here. I’m also familiar with
13 the migration of our people, but it will take too
14 long to mention that.
15 But since we’re on the subject of all these
16 artifacts that are coming down. But I told our Shark
17 family that is here in Juneau — actually, Juneau
18 actually this is the Wooshkeetaan Shark country right
19 here in Juneau. I wanted to let you know that,
20 Wooshkeetaan Shark Country. And Bernas Bay
21 (phonetic) also belongs to the Wooshkeetaan.
22 We had eight tribal houses here, but I don’t
23 want to go too far in that subject. But all the
24 things that are — I just want to mention the fact
25 that all of these things that are coming down like my
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 197
1 tribal sisters got involved in taking these skeletons
2 that were actually — that were buried that were taken
3 out of here. And I told him that it’s 400 years ago,
4 and I says, well, how do you know it’s ours? I asked
5 him, but he says I don’t know. And I told him right
6 then from the way I was taught you have to be extra
7 careful when you say it is ours, especially when it
8 comes to witch doctor, in Tlingit we call (Native
9 Alaskan language.) There’s a proper way to bury
10 these things in our culture, and that’s the other
11 things that wasn’t mentioned. But you have to let us
12 know if you may if this is a witch doctor or not.
13 And I told my side of Shark family, be sure you
14 know what you’re doing because if you do the wrong
15 things, your side of the family is going to go like
16 hotcakes. And after that he said, holy mackerel, we
17 didn’t know that. Well, that’s why you have to be
18 careful how you do things. In Tlingit you say
19 (Native Alaskan language.) That’s how we call that,
20 not just any way. I can speak the Tlingit language,
21 too. In fact, I’ll be going to University of Alaska
22 just to learn how to write in Tlingit so I can pass
23 on my knowledge what I was taught by my Eagle Shark
24 family.
25 In my culture, what was actually missed is what
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 198
1 I’m actually telling people what is missed, that I am
2 an Eagle Wooshkeetaan and my uncle told me, Gilbert
3 Mills, he told us we don’t talk about the
4 Chookaneidi. The Chookaneidi are my great — my
5 grandfathers, since my dad, his father was
6 Chookaneidi. We don’t talk about the Chookaneidi
7 Tribe and we don’t talk about the Eagle Wolf clan,
8 Kaagwaantaan. In other tribes, the other tribes that
9 are on the Eagle side, we don’t talk about them and
10 they are not supposed to talk about our family
11 either. It’s very simple. But those are the type of
12 things that I want you to know since you are going to
13 be passing on all these artifacts that are being
14 claimed.
15 You want to make sure it’s theirs or ours. If
16 it’s the Ravens’, I cannot get involved with it. If
17 it’s the Eagles’, if it’s our side of the family,
18 yes. And so any, if it’s a Shark family, the
19 Kaagwaantaan or the Chookaneidi, I cannot get
20 involved with that. It goes to — it should actually
21 go to them direct. I just wanted to let you know
22 that. And sometimes there are some politicians among
23 our people that are trying to get involved with these
24 types of things.
25 And I also have other things that like I said, I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 199
1 could talk all day and put you guys to sleep if I
2 testify, but since I have been given the opportunity,
3 I wanted to let you know. You actually should —
4 actually, it’s parliamentary, we only should only
5 talk about directly related to the artifacts that’s
6 coming in here. Otherwise, you should actually as
7 the chairman, or someone should call the point of
8 order and get up and say state your point. I’m also
9 familiar with parliamentary. And I just want to let
10 you know that — a little of this type of things I
11 know.
12 I know my leader and the leader of the
13 T’akdeintaan, Richard Dalton, can actually state that
14 too. With me, I was in the Armed Forces. I left
15 Hoonah in the ‘50s, but I still knew my culture, so I
16 transferred around in the Federal government. I was
17 in Albuquerque, New Mexico four years, Denver,
18 Colorado. So I was all over the place, the United
19 States. So I also go out in the field and audit. So
20 I used to enjoy that because in a different age, you
21 would say the auditors are here, watch out. I used
22 to get a bang out of that, you know.
23 But I just wanted to alert you to that as far as
24 all these things that are related to these things
25 that are being passed on to give to the right tribe,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 200
1 and if it’s a (Native Alaskan language), witch
2 doctor, we have to be extra careful among our people.
3 In Tlingit, they say (Native Alaskan language.) I
4 know one family that fiddled around with stuff like
5 that and their family were just gone like that
6 because they didn’t listen.
7 I’m a kind of a person, I used to say a (portion
8 of comment inaudible), like seaweed for example,
9 we’re not allowed to eat seaweed in our culture,
10 otherwise some member in the family is going to die
11 or slip away. I used to say (portion of comment
12 inaudible), but I’m going to eat that seaweed? No.
13 I want to put that aside and I don’t want any of my
14 family to die. That’s what I was telling them a
15 little while ago.
16 They also asked me how I got my name McKinley.
17 Well, how did you get yours, that’s my answer.
18 Because my grandfather is David McKinley on the Eagle
19 side, and he’s the one that used to tell us. I also
20 explained to him that in our tribal they’re similar,
21 the Raven and the Eagle are similar. When we build a
22 house, okay, you have one house on our side. If the
23 family got too big, you build another house, and they
24 gave it — a leader was designated to stay in there,
25 and he was the leader of that house. Another one —
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 201
1 if it gets too big, they build another house, and
2 they gave it a different name as we went on. And
3 that’s how our different houses were built, but they
4 gave it a different name. But there’s only one
5 leader. We don’t have chiefs. I want to verify
6 that. We don’t have chiefs, leader. We only have
7 one leader. If we have one leader in our clan, so
8 it’s the Raven or the Eagle.
9 I just wanted to make that short, but if I
10 testify about all these things, you know, but since
11 we’re talking about subject of passing all these
12 things down to us that were taken out, we have to be
13 extra careful, make sure it’s our side of the family.
14 And if it belongs to our side of the family, the
15 Raven can’t say anything. If it belongs to the
16 Raven, we can’t say anything. In Tlingit they say
17 (Native Alaskan language), and that’s how it’s run.
18 So that’s — I just wanted to bring that to your
19 attention, no uncertain terms, that’s what my uncle
20 told me.
21 And I used to be a sergeant in the military, so
22 sometimes when it gets me angry, my sergeant comes
23 out of me. I don’t think you want to hear that. But
24 I was in the military about 50 years ago, you know,
25 so but I was glad to be home. And when I was in
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 202
1 Albuquerque they gave me a name Alfredo. My
2 supervisor was from Gallup — Albuquerque, New Mexico
3 — I mean Gallup, New Mexico. Her name was Anne
4 Marie. I think I bored her to death with our
5 culture, so when I was leaving Albuquerque, she said,
6 Al, we’re going to give you a name. They had a big
7 party for me when I leaving Albuquerque and that’s
8 how I got the name Alfredo. I just wanted to bring
9 that to your attention.
10 I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, for
11 allowing me to say something. Just what I’m saying,
12 short subject, right to the point, but I can go back
13 to Glacier Bay and all these things, you know, but if
14 I told you about Glacier Bay between Hoonah and what
15 I learned and Glacier Bay used to belong to us.
16 There were about four or five tribes that came from
17 there. One actually got extinguished, but those four
18 today that came from there. It’s the T’akdeintaan,
19 like what they said, I think they had the bigger land
20 than anybody else, Wooshkeetaan, that’s me,
21 Kaagwaantaan, that’s the Wolf, Eagle Wolf, and the
22 Chookaneidi. There were four that’s actually living
23 today. But one of them got extinguished. In Tlingit
24 they say (Native Alaskan language), all gone.
25 I just wanted to let you know that, you know,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 203
1 and I know lots of history, but since we’re —
2 subjects related to the artifacts, I just wanted to
3 bring this to your attention. But there are a lot of
4 things I know, our culture, our subsistence, which I
5 do not agree with the name subsistence. But that’s
6 all I wanted to say.
7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this
8 opportunity to speak to you.
9 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. McKinley.
10 ALFRED MCKINLEY: Thank you.
11 MARTIN SULLIVAN: The next commenter will be
12 Chairman Alvin Moyle of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone
13 Tribe.
14 ALVIN MOYLE
15 ALVIN MOYLE: I’d like to thank the NAGPRA
16 review committee for allowing the Fallon Paiute-
17 Shoshone Tribe to be present today and to make
18 testimony once again on reference to the Spirit Cave
19 remains. I’ve been to the Santa Fe meetings, Silver
20 Spring and the Salt Lake City meetings, as most of
21 you that’s here are well aware of. I feel it
22 important that I maintain our efforts to be present,
23 to be able to speak, to be able to answer any
24 questions that you may have in regards to our
25 request. I have also with me, it’s stated in this
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 204
1 paper, but I also have with me two of our tribal
2 members which are also our staff members which are
3 also part of our, basically our cultural committee
4 that we have. They are Rochanne Downs on my far
5 left, Donna Cossette sitting next to me.
6 We have come before you today once more to
7 provide you with an update of where we’re at today
8 with our claim that we submitted in 1995. With that
9 paper, we also have attached to that other materials
10 that relate to the Great Basin people, our people,
11 also some other relevant material in there which it’s
12 in this paper that we spoke on, but it is for
13 reference for you. And I would like to begin at this
14 time with my statement.
15 I am Alvin Moyle, Chairman of the Fallon Paiute-
16 Shoshone Tribe of western Nevada. I am here to
17 present testimony on behalf of the Fallon Tribe.
18 Seated next to me are two of the members, which I
19 have already announced. I have testified before the
20 review committee several times on the subject of the
21 tribe’s request for repatriation of the human remains
22 known as the Spirit Cave remains and the associated
23 funerary objects. Today, I will first briefly
24 provide the committee with some background, and then
25 update the committee on the events that has
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 205
1 transpired since last November’s committee meeting in
2 Salt Lake City, Utah.
3 Some of the background. In 1940, human remains
4 were removed from Spirit Cave, in the Grimes Point
5 area of the Stillwater Mountain range in the state of
6 Nevada. The cave burial was only a few miles from
7 our reservation and in the heart of our judicially
8 recognized aboriginal territory. The remains were
9 unearthed by archeologists working for the Nevada
10 State Park Commission under a permit issued by the
11 Department of Interior. For the last 60 years, the
12 remains have been stored at the Nevada State Museum.
13 Our tribe did not know of these events until 1995 and
14 have sought repatriation of the remains and
15 associated funerary objects since then. Our tribe is
16 the only tribe that seeks repatriation of the objects
17 found in the Spirit Cave and no tribe contests our
18 claim to repatriation.
19 Repatriation of the Spirit Cave remains is
20 profoundly important to the tribe, and I would like
21 to correct that. I would like to say to our tribe.
22 It is our opinion that the respect we have for our
23 people and our ancestors is not recognized by the
24 scientific society. We believe that this individual
25 is our ancestor and should not be held by others who
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 206
1 declare ownership for scientific purposes. As young
2 children we have been taught to respect our elders
3 and their teachings. It is our spiritual belief that
4 graves, human remains, and all objects buried with
5 our people must be left undisturbed. We ask that the
6 Spirit Cave individual be given the same respect that
7 we give all of our burials. The excavation, display
8 and continued retention of the Spirit Cave remains
9 have violated our core religious and spiritual
10 beliefs. We ask that the NAGPRA review committee
11 recommends and supports that Spirit Cave remains are
12 returned to the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe.
13 I would like to now describe several significant
14 and positive developments that have taken place in
15 the repatriation process. Prior to the Salt Lake
16 meeting — and at the Salt Lake meeting I did announce
17 to the committee that the state director of the BLM
18 office in the state of Nevada asked the Fallon
19 Paiute-Shoshone Tribe to provide him with evidence
20 relevant to the affiliation of the Fallon Tribe with
21 the Spirit Cave remains. The subject that I’m going
22 to speak on right now is that issue.
23 Tribal submissions. At the meeting held in Salt
24 Lake City you may recall our request for repatriation
25 was made to BLM’s Nevada state director. The Fallon
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 207
1 Tribe was asked to submit material that would
2 substantiate cultural affiliation. The tribe has
3 made several submissions to BLM in support of its
4 repatriation request. In December 1999, we submitted
5 eight reports from six scholarly experts. The
6 reports were prepared by experts in the fields of
7 anthropology, biology, burial practices, ethnography,
8 folklore, linguistics, archeology, and DNA.
9 The tribal submissions show that the Spirit Cave
10 remains are culturally affiliated with our tribe.
11 For example, they show that the Spirit Cave remains
12 was discovered within the aboriginal territory of the
13 Northern Paiute people, the Spirit Cave remains
14 shares distinctive biological features with
15 contemporary Native Americans, evidence of burial
16 patterns in the Great Basin show remarkable cultural
17 continuity in the region from Spirit Cave remains
18 time to that of historic Northern Paiute, linguistic
19 evidence and cultural adaptations support the
20 continuous presence of the Ute-Aztecan people in the
21 Great Basin over the past 11,000 years, origin
22 stories of our people as well as our recognized name
23 evidence our origin in the Great Basin over 11,000
24 years, DNA and serum albumin studies, while of very
25 questionable use in this matter, are consistent with
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 208
1 our claim of cultural affiliation.
2 The materials also convincingly refute the
3 principal theory relied on by our opponents, the
4 hypothesis that our people, Numic-speakers, replaced
5 a prior and distinct culture. The expert reports
6 show that this theory is not supported by any
7 available scientific evidence. We also submitted to
8 BLM a position paper which summarizes the expert
9 reports and gives the tribe’s perspective on BLM’s
10 obligations to the tribe under NAGPRA. Eight copies
11 of the expert reports and the tribe’s position paper
12 were sent to Dr. McManamon to be forwarded to each
13 member of this committee. I’m not sure if you
14 received that. You did. Thank you.
15 Finally, we recently submitted to BLM two papers
16 written by highly regarded Great Basin experts, which
17 further support our claim that the remains are
18 culturally affiliated. Dr. Aikens’ paper, in
19 particular, argues that Ute-Aztecans have been in the
20 Great Basin for at least 11,000 years. As I stated
21 earlier that paper is in your packet. In summary,
22 the materials we submitted strongly support our claim
23 that the remains and associated objects are
24 culturally affiliated to our tribe.
25 I’d like to talk a little on, in which case you
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 209
1 do have this material before you, the Nevada State
2 Museum, and I do believe that I have stated this in
3 earlier meetings with you. And as far as the
4 relationship that I could say that we do not have as
5 far as a good relationship with the Nevada State
6 Museum, in which case I will read on on this material
7 here.
8 The Nevada State Museum has been the custodian
9 of the remains for 60 years and until recently has
10 been an ardent opponent of repatriation. We are
11 pleased to report that in January 2000 the museum
12 took a more constructive position. After we
13 submitted our expert reports, BLM forwarded them to
14 the museum to provide the museum an opportunity to
15 review and comment on the reports. In response, the
16 director of the Department of Museums, Library and
17 Arts of the State of Nevada wrote that his staff
18 respects the opinions of the scholars the Fallon
19 Tribe has retained and recommended that their
20 opinions be given serious consideration. He wrote
21 that the Department feels that the remains are indeed
22 Native American. The director also explained that,
23 due to changes in the museum’s staff, the museum is
24 no longer assuming a lead in scientific studies of
25 the Spirit Cave remains. I’m going to have to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 210
1 retract that first statement that I made in regards
2 to that, but I will get to the subject and the issue
3 of what the — as far as the Nevada State Museum had
4 done in a couple of cases here.
5 Tribal consultation with BLM. At the last
6 review committee meeting, I reported that BLM had
7 declined to consult with us any further on the Spirit
8 Cave remains matter. After that meeting,
9 Dr. McManamon wrote to the Nevada state director to
10 inform the state director that the committee
11 recommends continued consultation. After further
12 correspondence from the tribe, the state director
13 agreed to consult with us. In a meeting on March 17,
14 the state director informed us that, one, BLM
15 believes the remains are Native American; two, there
16 appears to be no active requests to engage in
17 scientific testing of the remains and BLM is no
18 longer considering that option; and three, our
19 request for repatriation is currently being reviewed
20 by BLM, the National Park Service, the BIA, and the
21 Interior Solicitor’s Office at the DC level.
22 We are pleased with the progress we have made to
23 prove the cultural affiliation between the tribe and
24 the remains and objects found in Spirit Cave. We
25 hope that a decision to repatriate the Spirit Cave
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 211
1 remains is made promptly so that the remains can be
2 returned to the tribe and our ancestor can continue
3 on his spiritual journey. That is important to us.
4 In recent complications. The following is a
5 demonstration of how Federal dollars have been used
6 against our tribe and we have been forced to defend
7 ourselves without any Federal assistance. What I am
8 going to be speaking on now is that issue of things
9 that happened in reference to some of the museums’
10 relationships with others, I’ll call those others
11 opponents of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe.
12 I would again like to point out the unfair and
13 unfortunate financial burden that has been put on our
14 tribe to repatriate our ancestor. The museums and
15 other agencies are being Federally assisted to
16 establish their cases against Indian people. Our
17 legal team, scholarly experts and travel to all of
18 these valuable nationwide meetings have been
19 supported solely by tribal dollars. We have
20 repeatedly applied for Federal assistance and
21 unfortunately we have been denied every time.
22 Although our working relationship has improved with
23 the new Nevada State Museum administration, we are
24 still unfortunately dealing with the unforeseen
25 damages from the previous administration.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 212
1 In 1998 busts were constructed from the remains
2 of three Lahontan Basin individuals taken from Spirit
3 Cave, the Wizards Beach in the Pyramid Lake area and
4 the Carson Lake from the Fallon, Nevada area. We
5 requested BLM not to allow these busts to be publicly
6 displayed until the Spirit Cave issue was resolved.
7 They have agreed and the museum was ordered by BLM to
8 no longer display these busts. In October 1999 at a
9 meeting titled “Clovis and Beyond – Peopling of the
10 Americas Conference” in Santa Fe, New Mexico, we
11 learned that a second reproduction of the busts
12 existed and again the busts were put on display.
13 We discovered that Dr. Sharon Long, who is a
14 person that lives in the Nevada area, was contracted
15 by the Nevada State Museum to construct the busts
16 from the skull of the Spirit Cave individual, which
17 was supported by public funds. The tribe contacted
18 the Nevada State Museum about the displayed busts at
19 the Clovis and Beyond conference and we were informed
20 that Dr. Long without permission made a second set of
21 the busts and copyrighted them for her own personal
22 use and professional advancement.
23 We have sent two letters inquiring about who
24 gave Dr. Long permission to retain a copy of the
25 busts, who gave her permission to display these
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 213
1 busts. We have discussed this issue with museum
2 representatives and they have assured us verbally
3 that they are looking into this, but since January we
4 have not received any updates or written
5 correspondence which addresses this matter. We have
6 only gotten verbal responses to our letters.
7 According to the museum, Dr. Long claims that she is
8 the copyright owner of these busts and can display
9 these busts at her discretion with or without
10 permission from BLM, the Nevada State Museum or the
11 Fallon Tribe.
12 We asked how can Dr. Long be the copyright owner
13 of an item that was made from Federal dollars — or
14 with Federal dollars, that is, with privileged
15 information. We are bringing this issue as a way to
16 demonstrate the many additional problems that the
17 Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe has been faced with when
18 working to repatriate our ancestor. We do not agree
19 that this individual had the right to take privileged
20 information, create a bust, copyright it and then use
21 it for her own personal, professional, and financial
22 advancement.
23 I would like to go ahead and proceed further and
24 make comments to the committee regarding the proposed
25 rule for the culturally unidentifiable remains. I
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 214
1 will have to state that after having the opportunity
2 to sit in yesterday’s meeting that some of these
3 comments are now made from that meeting. I do not
4 feel that it is appropriate or ethical that an
5 important meeting regarding the development of a rule
6 making policy for the disposition of culturally
7 unidentifiable remains be held in a location where
8 tribal participation is limited.
9 I sincerely feel that the NAGPRA review
10 committee recommends that a meeting be held in a more
11 central location in the lower 48 states to allow more
12 tribal comment and participation in all policies that
13 may affect the return of our people. To make any
14 final recommendations at this meeting will be a
15 blatant disregard to all tribes’ participation and
16 input and violate government-to-government
17 relationships, tribal sovereignty, and your trust
18 responsibilities.
19 I would like to state also, separate from this,
20 that this is no reflection against the tribes that
21 are located in the Alaskan country. It is just a
22 matter that I feel that in coming here I felt it was
23 good. This country is beautiful. Although this
24 country is beautiful and has a lot of resources and
25 you can appreciate it for what the people must have
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 215
1 had years ago. But today we’re in another society
2 and I feel that to be fair to the tribes in the
3 Southwest, tribes on the East Coast, tribes down in
4 the Northwest and plains countries, that a meeting
5 such as this, I hope that the committee and the
6 National Park Service and the Federal government
7 realize that it should be held in another location at
8 another time to continue on on this matter before a
9 decision is made.
10 I will continue. After listening to the
11 comments of the National Park Service representatives
12 regarding the Chaco Canyon dispute, it is inevitable
13 that NAGPRA is moved from the National Park Service
14 for the purpose of impartiality. The Fallon Paiute-
15 Shoshone Tribe feels that the NAGPRA review committee
16 was established to assist tribes and the Federal
17 Government in the process of the return of Native
18 Americans. By attending this session of the NAGPRA
19 review committee we sense that the scientific
20 society’s political relationship with the Federal
21 government will influence adverse policies and
22 override the intent of NAGPRA.
23 By the National Park Service agency’s refusal to
24 recognize the review committee’s recommendations, it
25 is evident that the review committee’s
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 216
1 recommendations are becoming nonbinding and
2 powerless. We are of the opinion that the
3 reorganization of the staff without input from the
4 review committee and the tribes is a demonstration of
5 yet another way to influence a compromise.
6 Yesterday there was repeatedly mention of
7 compromise, and it is our opinion, and I do believe
8 it is a number of tribes’ opinion, that I don’t think
9 if you look at it the way we look at it that you
10 could even begin to bring that word out of the
11 dictionary. It does not fit. In our beliefs, in our
12 traditional ways, there is no compromise for what
13 would be the outcome of skeletal remains, artifacts
14 or funerary objects. They are something that is as
15 sacred today as they were when that person was
16 buried. The word compromise is — it’s — I would like
17 the committee to look at that in a way where you can
18 analyze that for what does it really do in this case.
19 I will continue on. NAGPRA is human rights
20 legislation and is not compromise legislation.
21 Language must be drafted that supports immediate
22 repatriation of our ancestors without catering to the
23 interests of the scientific community. It is your
24 responsibility to develop recommended language in
25 that supports the intent of NAGPRA as human rights
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 217
1 legislation. Museums, universities and other Federal
2 agencies must comply with NAGPRA and shall repatriate
3 our ancestors immediately without any further
4 consideration and noncompliance of NAGPRA.
5 I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
6 update you on our efforts to repatriate the Spirit
7 Cave remains and for your help in bringing about
8 consultation with BLM. We will continue to keep you
9 advised and, if necessary, we will call upon you for
10 assistance. We may need to ask the committee to make
11 findings regarding the cultural affiliation of the
12 remains and objects found in Spirit Cave under
13 Section 8(c)(3) of NAGPRA or to facilitate a
14 resolution under Section 8(c)(4).
15 The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe would like to
16 publicly thank and acknowledge the contributions of
17 Dr. Tessie Naranjo and Dr. Martin Sullivan and wish
18 them well with their future endeavors. We would like
19 to acknowledge that we are glad that you have
20 traveled to hear the repatriation concerns of our
21 Alaska relations. We also ask that you respect the
22 concerns of our stateside relations that could not
23 travel and attend this meeting to hear and provide
24 testimony to the policy making decisions regarding
25 the disposition of our ancestors. That completes my
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 218
1 testimony.
2 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chairman Moyle. We
3 appreciate your coming and being with us very much.
4 ALVIN MOYLE: Thank you.
5 JOHN O'SHEA: Could we ask questions?
6 MARTIN SULLIVAN: If you wish, John. Sure.
7 JOHN O'SHEA: Could I ask a question?
8 ALVIN MOYLE: Yes.
9 JOHN O'SHEA: I was interested in one thing, in
10 reading the documents you sent us and in your
11 presentation today, you do make reference to DNA
12 samples. Were DNA samples collected?
13 ALVIN MOYLE: Not to our knowledge. What was
14 asked of us in a meeting that goes back to probably a
15 month before the Salt Lake City meeting, we were
16 asked by the state of Nevada BLM director of
17 different items that, you know, basically as I read
18 them off that he was going to require from us to
19 provide him with his — I guess you could say his
20 material that he would want to make a determination
21 or as far as the decision of the Spirit Cave remains.
22 And when he asked that, basically what he asked us to
23 do is to get into archeology, anthropology,
24 linguistics and so on, DNA and so on.
25 So we as the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe began
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 219
1 a search for scientists that were in those fields.
2 And in that search and in our findings, we did work
3 with a person by the name of Fredericka (name
4 inaudible) in that subject. The determination that
5 we find in there as far as DNA, as far as what the
6 DNA could be recognized up to a certain degree as far
7 as proving affiliation. But there is an area also
8 there that it cannot relate directly to the same
9 people because of the years span.
10 JOHN O'SHEA: But what I was curious about was
11 in your written statement today you make a claim that
12 the DNA evidence and the albumin evidence although
13 you suspect it, in fact, it’s consistent with your
14 claim. And I just wondered what evidence you’re
15 referring to there.
16 ALVIN MOYLE: Well, I was basically referring to
17 studies that she had made in the Great Basin.
18 JOHN O'SHEA: Okay. So it’s nothing directly
19 connected with the —
20 ALVIN MOYLE: Nothing directly to the remains,
21 no.
22 JOHN O'SHEA: And the one other thing I’d point
23 out is I don’t think you can blame the scientific
24 community for Chaco Canyon’s rejection of our Hopi
25 finding. I think if you were here yesterday, most of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 220
1 the scientific organizations specifically supported
2 the review committee’s findings in that case.
3 ALVIN MOYLE: That was probably when I went out
4 to take a break. Okay. I’ll retract that statement.
5 JOHN O'SHEA: Thank you.
6 ALVIN MOYLE: I thank you for listening to the
7 remaining part of my testimony.
8 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
9 We’ll next — Armand, I’m sorry.
10 ARMAND MINTHORN: Mr. Moyle, I truly want to
11 thank you for being so persistent and so patient.
12 Starting way back at Silver Spring you’ve continued
13 to make testimony here before the committee on the
14 Spirit Cave man, and I truly appreciate the time, the
15 effort and the resources that you spent to have this
16 brought to our attention. And I truly appreciate
17 that. You know, throughout your testimony, you cite
18 all the things that the tribe has done to demonstrate
19 the cultural affiliation and I believe that your
20 efforts are well worth their intent, and I truly
21 believe that your efforts have made a cultural
22 affiliation determination, and it’s a matter now of
23 how these papers are going to be interpreted by the
24 BLM. And I truly hope that if there is any
25 assistance that the committee can do to assist you,
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 221
1 please don’t hesitate to ask. Don’t hesitate to
2 bring anything to our attention about this.
3 In your testimony you cited a request, that your
4 request is being reviewed by the BLM, the National
5 Park Service, the BIA and the Solicitor’s Office. I
6 guess my question for the Park Service is where is
7 this review at and where is it within the Solicitor’s
8 Office.
9 ALVIN MOYLE: Okay. On March 17th — excuse me.
10 CARLA MATTIX: The Park Service is not directly
11 involved in this case, nor is the BIA. The final
12 decision is going to have to be made by the Bureau of
13 Land Management. They are, however, consulting with
14 these other Interior agencies to, I think, make a
15 fully informed decision. I know that from the
16 Solicitor’s Office we’ll be discussing this actually
17 later this week. It’s my understanding we have a
18 meeting scheduled. And that’s as much as I can tell
19 you about the status of where this decision is.
20 ARMAND MINTHORN: Did you have something,
21 Mr. Moyle?
22 ALVIN MOYLE: I thought that first of all that
23 the question might have been directed toward me, but
24 I was going to explain that our meeting of December
25 or last month on March 17th that we had been informed
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 222
1 by the BLM state of Nevada director that our
2 submittals that were given to him were sent to the DC
3 office. And that he felt that — and he just told me
4 that the Department of Interior was going to be
5 reviewing our materials, but he did mention the
6 Solicitor’s Office also. So we felt, my putting the
7 BIA in my testimony was that I feel that the BIA
8 should be involved and I’m not sure if they are. But
9 we feel a trust responsibility there to our people,
10 not only our people but to all of the Native American
11 people. The BIA should be there supportive of that.
12 I did include that and I did intend to try to get
13 ahold of Kevin Gover on that subject.
14 DONNA COSSETTE: And also can the Fallon Tribe
15 also participate in that meeting or is it a closed
16 meeting?
17 CARLA MATTIX: It’s a closed meeting because
18 it’s with legal — involving legal council advice. I
19 don’t know about Kevin Gover’s office or the BIA, but
20 I do know that the Solicitor’s Office Division of
21 Indian Affairs is participating in the Solicitor’s
22 Office review. So to answer your question, that’s
23 what I can tell you.
24 ALVIN MOYLE: Thank you.
25 DONNA COSSETTE: We were never really informed
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 223
1 of who were the actual participants and who was
2 reviewing it. That’s the part we did not get an
3 answer to.
4 ARMAND MINTHORN: And then, Carla, when do you
5 expect the Solicitor’s Office review to be completed?
6 CARLA MATTIX: I can’t — I really don’t know the
7 answer to that. It’s not my specific case. BLM
8 attorneys would be completing the review, but we all
9 are going to meet this week to talk about it. I’m
10 sure they will have some formal review shortly
11 thereafter, but I can’t promise that.
12 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Jim.
13 JAMES BRADLEY: Just two quick follow-ups to
14 Armand’s question. First I want to also thank you
15 for coming. You’ve come to many meetings and I
16 remember when you first came to Santa Fe and thought
17 you’d get an answer, and I wanted to say, boy, I hope
18 you’re patient, and you have been patient and thank
19 you for that. It seems to me that we as a committee
20 are charged by the Secretary to look at the
21 implementation of this law and I realize that this is
22 not an issue directly for the Park Service now, but
23 the BLM, the Solicitor’s Office, the BIA are all
24 divisions of or all branches of the Department of the
25 Interior, and I think from that point of view it is
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 224
1 within our purview to try to track this and make sure
2 that these people get a timely review. So I would
3 ask you, John, if you would make sure this goes on
4 the action list and that you keep us apprised of the
5 status of this issue please.
6 JOHN ROBBINS: I will do my best.
7 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Lawrence.
8 LAWRENCE HART: I have a concern about Sharon
9 Long’s activity or action. If it doesn’t violate the
10 law, I think it borders on it, and is there anything
11 that can be done, Carla?
12 CARLA MATTIX: I think that BLM it sounds like
13 have attempted to work with the museum to prevent the
14 display of these busts and it sounds like this
15 particular person, I don’t know the details of this
16 incident at all, but she’s kind of taken upon herself
17 to make extra copies, and I’m not sure what the
18 status of her employment relationship with the museum
19 is, if she’s under contract, if there’s some term in
20 her contract that prevents her from doing this
21 activity or prevents her from copyrighting things
22 made under funding from her employment with the
23 museum. So I think you would have to look into the
24 nature of her relationship with the museum and there
25 might be some sort of — I don’t think there’s any
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 225
1 criminal provisions or even civil provisions that we
2 could pursue, but the museum might be able to pursue
3 something under, you know, cooperation with BLM. I
4 would have to look at it in a little more detail.
5 LAWRENCE HART: I would be pleased if something
6 would be attempted to rectify this.
7 MARTIN SULLIVAN: I think it’s situations that
8 many of us had been involved in. If this individual
9 had been an employee, she would not have a shred of a
10 claim to be able to do what she’s doing. So it may
11 come down to the nature of the contract that was
12 signed between her and the museum, which we haven’t
13 seen, but it certainly doesn’t appear to be
14 appropriate.
15 Okay. Thank you very much again, Chairman
16 Moyle.
17 ALVIN MOYLE: I would just like to add one more
18 statement, is that I appreciate the committee taking
19 the time to ask a few questions of me. I feel that
20 after hearing the questions that I have been able to
21 explain further and I appreciate your asking that.
22 And I will look forward to coming before you again if
23 and when this review is done. I do not feel that it
24 should be decided on by one person. I’m not sure if
25 it’s going to be one person or more people at the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 226
1 Department of the Interior. I do feel that the forum
2 that you have that I would be able to once more
3 appear on — I don’t want to appear forever, but I
4 would think that sooner or later our ancestor will be
5 returned. One ending statement to Mr. Bradley, in
6 saying that I’ve been at meetings repeatedly, I think
7 I stated at our first meeting that I will not stop
8 until he is returned. He is a part of us. Thank
9 you.
10 MARTIN SULLIVAN: We will hear next from
11 Chairman Norman Harry of the Pyramid Lake Paiute
12 Tribal Council.
13 NORMAN HARRY
14 NORMAN HARRY: Mr. Chairman, members of the
15 committee, I realize that we’re under time
16 constraints, so if the committee wishes, if you don’t
17 have a full agenda tomorrow and you want to end on
18 time today, you know, I would be more than glad to
19 provide my testimony tomorrow as well. So I will
20 leave that in your good hands.
21 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Well, I think we would prefer
22 to be able to hear from you now and finish it.
23 NORMAN HARRY: Thank you. Good afternoon,
24 Mr. Chairman and members of the NAGPRA review
25 committee. For the record, my name is Norman Harry
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 227
1 and I’m the tribal chairman for the Pyramid Lake
2 Paiute Tribe from northwestern Nevada. I bring
3 greeting from the Kueyuete Takuta Numu people
4 (phonetic) from Pyramid Lake and other tribes within
5 the Great Basin. I would like to first thank the
6 committee for allowing the opportunity to address our
7 concerns not only of our tribe but also express our
8 concerns of many of our brother and sister tribes
9 from the Great Basin. I want to thank our northern
10 Alaskan Native brothers and sisters for their
11 generous hospitality and warm welcome.
12 I have distributed to members of the committee a
13 written testimony and with letters of support from
14 many of the Great Basin tribes supporting not only
15 the Fallon Tribe but also the Pyramid Lake Paiute
16 Tribe as well. The Pyramid Lake Tribe has
17 continually monitored the actions of this committee.
18 We have also followed the Kennewick case very
19 closely, and we believe the decision from the
20 Department of the Interior in acknowledging that the
21 Kennewick remains were Native American was a very
22 significant, favorable decision for the tribes across
23 the nation. However, following this announcement, it
24 was very disappointing to learn that the Department
25 of the Interior also was going to allow DNA testing
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 228
1 to continue to determine affiliation.
2 The Pyramid Lake Tribe is watching these
3 decisions very closely as we have a vested interest.
4 We have an ancient relative, Wizard Beach remains,
5 which have also been determined to be over 9,000
6 years old. And just as you heard from Fallon Paiute-
7 Shoshone Tribe with their Spirit Cave remains, which
8 have also determined to be over 9,000 years old, our
9 present-day reservations are only 50 miles apart, but
10 our aboriginal boundaries were within the entire
11 Great Basin, which encompasses portions of six
12 western states. Both tribes will continue to work
13 together and have combined resources to have our
14 ancestors returned to their rightful place amongst
15 our people and our relatives.
16 In our opinion, the Department of the Interior
17 may be allowing a very bad precedent to be
18 established. As most DNA experts can testify that
19 DNA testing is not going to prove whether the
20 Kennewick remains are determined affiliated to be
21 Yakama, Colville or any of the other tribes
22 associated within this region. Our position on DNA
23 and other destructive analysis testing is reflected
24 in our written, our submitted written testimony. We
25 have also attached to the very last page an opinion
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 229
1 on the use of genetic analysis and cultural
2 affiliation determinations for your review and
3 consideration. And this is something we may want to
4 like to see incorporated into the principle and
5 agreement, and I’m going to read that for the record.
6 “The review committee having considered the
7 current abilities of the science of genetics or DNA
8 analysis is of the opinion that this science cannot
9 provide information that is helpful in determining
10 cultural affiliation. It is the opinion of the
11 review committee that in its current state, genetics
12 cannot provide sufficient evidence to even establish
13 significant possibility of biological relationship.
14 Further, biological relationship is not relevant to
15 determination of cultural affiliation because tribal
16 traditions do not require biological relationship for
17 cultural affiliation. Therefore, the review
18 committee hereby expresses its opinion that
19 information obtained by genetics or DNA analysis is
20 not relevant to determinations of cultural
21 affiliations provided for in subsection 7(a)(4) of
22 NAGPRA.”
23 Basically as stated earlier, we believe that
24 information from genetics or DNA testing is not
25 relevant to determinations of cultural affiliation.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 230
1 The geographic boundaries of our present-day
2 reservations were only recently formally established.
3 But we all know prior to colonization, our
4 traditional ancestors knew no boundaries. Our
5 ancestral people within the Great Basin traveled very
6 extensively and today we have relations throughout
7 the basin. I know this concept has been explained to
8 this committee on many occasions by tribes from
9 Alaska to Florida and all points in between. It
10 should be quite apparent by now to this committee the
11 traditional and spiritual values and beliefs are
12 consistent with our relations across North America.
13 As a tribal leader, it was very disheartening to
14 witness yesterday the National Park Service, the
15 Federal agency which oversees the authorization and
16 implementation of NAGPRA, to not take serious the
17 recommendations of your committee, specifically with
18 respect to the Chaco Canyon issue and the recent
19 restructuring of the regulatory authority of NAGPRA.
20 To sit in the audience and hear a very simple
21 question asked from your committee such as what is
22 the statute of limitations related to the violations
23 of the Act and to receive a response from the
24 director and a solicitor from the National Park
25 Service not getting a direct answer but in a
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 231
1 roundabout way saying I don’t know, leaves me with a
2 perception of frustration, disappointment and grave
3 concern.
4 The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has taken very
5 aggressive measures in protecting our resources
6 within the exterior boundaries of our tribal lands,
7 specific to land, water, etcetera. Recently we have
8 taken on the mining industry in Nevada and the Army.
9 We will continue to protect our precious resources
10 for the next generation and beyond. The repatriation
11 of our ancestors are our most important resource and
12 we have committed to exhaust all available measures
13 to make this happen. We believe this is part of our
14 destiny. We have continually worked effectively in
15 cooperation with many other agencies to achieve
16 resolutions to significant issues but not
17 jeopardizing or compromising our traditional beliefs
18 and customs. We are here today to work with you. We
19 are also here today to express our concerns to
20 hopefully address issues we know will be major,
21 NAGPRA related issues and concerns in Indian country.
22 Yesterday, committee member, Mr. James Bradley,
23 will take an, quote, “up or down,” end quote, vote on
24 the PIA as an action item before the end of the
25 meeting. After yesterday’s announcement, we
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 232
1 respectfully request that the committee finalize your
2 position with respect to the proposed fifth draft of
3 the principles in agreement for publication into the
4 National Register so the many tribes who are not here
5 be allowed to review and submit their comments.
6 The National Park Service’s refusal to
7 acknowledge the guidance of the committee’s position
8 for consultation with tribes will set a bad precedent
9 for tribes as well, especially if they are currently
10 in negotiations with state agencies that may be in
11 the development of memorandum of agreements or
12 programmatic agreements to mitigate their issues.
13 The action by the NPS regulatory authority for
14 oversight and implementation of the Act sends an
15 exceedingly powerful message to other institutions
16 and agencies which may follow that example and limit
17 or possibly remove the effectiveness from your role
18 for dispute resolution. The Pyramid Lake Paiute
19 Tribe cannot and will not support granting standing
20 to the scientific community, as well as the museums,
21 for making decisions or a final decision with our
22 deceased relatives. That determination and
23 responsibility lies solely with the tribes.
24 We have many concerns and questions and I would
25 like to ask the committee, it was mentioned yesterday
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 233
1 that — I guess what I need to know who we can send
2 our letters to. I know we’re getting short on time.
3 But in closing I want to thank Tessie and Marty for
4 their commitment and dedication for volunteering
5 their time to this all important issue in Indian
6 Country. We wish you both the very best and may our
7 Creator watch over both of you. This will complete
8 my testimony and I will be available to answer any
9 questions the committee may have. Thank you.
10 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you very, very much.
11 Committee members have questions?
12 I have one immediate response, which is one
13 we’ve discussed a lot, which is your question where
14 do letters go. And I think that given the concerns
15 that have been expressed by many people that the
16 Secretary of the Interior is probably the right
17 person to hear about the concerns. That is just
18 personal opinion.
19 NORMAN HARRY: Am I going to get an immediate
20 response? Is that a guarantee?
21 MARTIN SULLIVAN: I wish.
22 Jim.
23 JAMES BRADLEY: I want to thank you for your
24 comments. Let me make clear what the intent of my
25 comment was yesterday. I think it’s important that
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 234
1 after years of going back and forth on culturally
2 unidentifiables that before Marty and Tessie go,
3 because I don’t know how long it’s going to be before
4 they’re replaced and how soon it would take the
5 committee to get up and going again, I want us to try
6 to finish our work. And the recommendation we make
7 would then go the Park Service to go into the Federal
8 Register so that you can get comment. The last thing
9 we want is to try to expedite this process and hide
10 it from people. The sooner we get it in the Federal
11 Register, the sooner you have something to get back
12 to us on.
13 NORMAN HARRY: Thank you for your clarification.
14 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Tessie, did you have a
15 question?
16 TESSIE NARANJO: No, I’m just nodding in
17 agreement with Jim.
18 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Yes. Okay.
19 Armand?
20 Thank you very, very much.
21 NORMAN HARRY: Thank you very much.
22 MARTIN SULLIVAN: And we’ll hear next from
23 Pemina Yellow Bird.
24 PEMINA YELLOW BIRD
25 PEMINA YELLOW BIRD: (Native American language.)
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 235
1 I can’t believe that’s the last time I’m going to be
2 saying that to you, Marty and Tessie. It kind of
3 makes me miss you guys already. My name is Pemina
4 Yellow Bird. I’m an enrolled member of the Three
5 Affiliated Tribes, the Mandan, the Hidatsa and the
6 Arikara Nations. We come from the Fort Berthold
7 Reservation in northwestern North Dakota. First I
8 want to acknowledge those peoples whose homelands I’m
9 in and to acknowledge your chiefs, your spiritual
10 leaders and say thank you to you for hosting this
11 meeting and for having us here in your beautiful
12 country.
13 There is a thing, there is a thing that the
14 women in my people do among my people that we do to
15 honor people. It’s a small thing that we do, but
16 it’s a glad heart sound, it’s an honoring sound. And
17 I think about all the years, I think since 1992, I’ve
18 been following you guys around, I’ve been raising
19 Cain, we’ve had our disagreements, we’ve had
20 agreements. There has been a lot of living and a lot
21 of being human that has happened over the years that
22 as a human being I cannot ignore that, and I wanted
23 to honor that.
24 Many, many times I was grateful for the work
25 that you two have done for indigenous peoples on
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 236
1 these very important matters. There were a lot of
2 times when Marty would speak up for Native people,
3 and I didn’t expect you to do that, and there was a
4 lot of times, Tessie, you sat on a really hot seat
5 and you didn’t waver, and I really want to honor
6 those times. I hope you guys forget about the times
7 when we didn’t get along and that you were able to
8 remember the good, good things that happened, too,
9 the good things, the ways that we worked together.
10 And so I want to honor the both of you for what
11 you did for our people over all of these years. I
12 know your work was difficult. I know sometimes the
13 things I did and said made it more difficult. But I
14 want to make that little sound, do that little thing
15 that we do for those that we’re happy the Creator
16 gave you to us. (Native American language.) That’s
17 my glad heart sound. I say thank you to you for what
18 you did. Now let’s get to work.
19 As a member of my — back home, as you know, I’m
20 a member of the North Dakota Intertribal Reinterment
21 Committee, and that we represent all the tribes in
22 North Dakota. We are the official representatives of
23 our people, tens of thousands of tribal members on
24 the issues related to reburial and repatriation, and
25 I’m here representing them today. I’m also
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 237
1 representing the board of directors of the Indigenous
2 Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. And so what I
3 have to say represents these groups.
4 We are very concerned about the discussion we
5 listened to about the backlogs, very concerned. We
6 share the committee’s concerns. Certainly we have
7 claims in there that are gathering dust, that are
8 waiting, making our ancestors suffer. The longer
9 they sit on those shelves, the longer they suffer.
10 We’re very, very concerned about these backlogs and
11 the issues surrounding reconstruction or the
12 restructuring of this whole process. We have grave
13 concerns, grave worries starting with, you know, when
14 we became involved in the movement to remove Federal
15 regulatory authority from the office of the
16 Departmental Consulting Archeologist and put it
17 someplace else in another Federal agency that would
18 be neutral because it wasn’t managing lands. You
19 know, all of those things that we have asked for,
20 none of them have come to pass, not a single one.
21 It’s still in the Park Service.
22 The Park Service manages lands. The Park
23 Service has to comply with NAGPRA. We still have a
24 conflict of interest. I think a really serious one,
25 nothing personal. You have to get used to this.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 238
1 When people say things, don’t take it personally. I
2 should have started out with that. These guys don’t
3 know. It’s not personal about you. It’s not about
4 Kate Stevenson. It’s about the fact that the Park
5 Service manages lands that cradle the bodies of our
6 relatives. They cannot do so impartially. That’s
7 already been proven.
8 So we still have the same problems we started
9 out with. How is restructuring going to increase
10 those problems? I think it’s already happening. I
11 share, my people share the committee’s concerns about
12 continuity. What’s going to happen? We don’t even
13 have staff now that’s been working on this issue
14 that’s going to work on it in the future. I’m
15 hearing that we don’t even know what Dr. McKeown’s
16 role is going to be. What if he’s no longer working
17 on the national implementation of NAGPRA? What are
18 we going to do?
19 We sat here all day long yesterday and listened
20 to people say, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t
21 know. Myself, I don’t want to have my tribe spend
22 thousands of dollars sending me to meetings of this
23 committee to hear staffers say, I don’t know. I’m
24 really worried about that. I want to see some
25 continuity. We got to have staff working with us
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 239
1 that has a history with this issue. I’m really
2 worried about that. Only time will tell if this
3 restructuring is going to make things better or
4 worse. And you know what, in the case of our
5 ancestors, who I’m also sitting here representing
6 today, they don’t have a lot of time. They’ve been
7 suffering long enough.
8 We also have really great concerns about the
9 lack of aggressive pursuit of civil penalties and all
10 this forbearance nonsense. We have a regulatory
11 authority, who itself is supposed to be subject to
12 these civil penalties if they don’t comply with the
13 law, right? And what we’re saying is slap on the
14 wrist, one after another. Nobody is being penalized
15 for being out of compliance with the law. We have
16 these six institutions who are in a state of
17 forbearance. Why aren’t they being penalized? Why
18 do we have civil penalties? Why do we have a Federal
19 regulatory authority, if people are going to be
20 continually getting away with it.
21 We have really large, serious concerns about
22 that, particularly when that Federal regulatory
23 authority, an office, a district of it, can sit there
24 and thumb their nose at a recommendation this
25 committee makes. I’m talking, of course, about Chaco
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 240
1 Canyon. My people, our people in North Dakota, share
2 this committee’s concerns about that Karen Wade
3 letter. We fully intend to go to our Congressional
4 delegates and do something about that. What we don’t
5 know yet, but we are going to follow up on that,
6 because contrary to what the attorney from DOI says,
7 we do fear that it sets a very serious precedent that
8 all the rest of us are going to have to live with.
9 Not DOI, us indigenous nations, we’re going to have
10 to live with that. We have every right to interpret
11 that Karen Wade letter as a very serious, frightening
12 precedent. And I share your concern because, guess
13 what, we know how it feels to have Federal agencies
14 thumb their nose at us.
15 I have a real concern about what restructuring
16 is going to do to the grants monies. Are we going to
17 see a reduction in that? Are we going to see
18 reallocation of those monies? I mean, we’re talking
19 about a drop in a bucket to begin with, $75,000 to
20 implement NAGPRA? Our tribes in North Dakota without
21 any NAGPRA money, or very little of it. Standing
22 Rock is the only one that’s received a NAGPRA grant
23 for repatriation. We’re — we’ve managed to rebury
24 over 5,000 of our dead. That sounds like a lot until
25 you realize that we have thousands more to go.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 241
1 Should our tribes continue to bear the burden of
2 costs associated with locating, claiming, fighting
3 for, bringing home and reburying our ancestors? I
4 don’t think so. I don’t think so. So I’m real
5 concerned about the reallocation of those grants
6 monies, and I want to bring that up today to get it
7 on the record. And I’m also going to be talking to
8 our tribal governments about that and our
9 congressional delegates. Those monies need to be
10 increased, not decreased.
11 I want to take a look at the draft principles of
12 agreement. The draft I’ve got is draft 5. I
13 understand you’ve already moved some stuff around and
14 changed that. So if what I’m saying is already
15 obsolete, let me know or I guess I’ll find out in the
16 discussion in the morning. Right? But I just wanted
17 to share the concerns that I have so far. This won’t
18 take very long.
19 On the first page, go — oh, first of all, I’m
20 going to finally remember to do this right. I’m
21 going to tell you what I like about these draft
22 principles of agreement first, instead of complaining
23 first. There’s a lot of things in there I like.
24 There’s a lot of language in there. I can see that a
25 great deal of work and effort has gone in there to
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 242
1 acknowledge that the law was passed to protect the
2 interests of Native people and not the interests of
3 science. The plain meaning in the statute’s title
4 acknowledges that. I really like that. I really
5 like that, along with a lot of other stuff. But I
6 guess in the interests of time, and I’m very serious
7 when I say this, I’ll just say the stuff I don’t
8 like. Okay? I’m not trying to make a joke. There’s
9 a lot of really good things in here, and I really
10 want to thank you, Jim, for your hard work and that
11 of the committee for polishing, for listening to us,
12 going back to them again and working on them some
13 more.
14 And now I’m looking at 3 on the first page, “The
15 legal standing of funerary objects associated with
16 culturally unidentifiable human remains is not
17 addressed by NAGPRA.” Yesterday, was that you,
18 Marty, that said however once Native remains become
19 culturally affiliated through the consultation
20 process, it naturally follows that these funerary
21 objects will become culturally affiliated as well.
22 And I would like to propose that an additional
23 statement be made that they are, after all, the
24 property of the dead, and if the dead have been
25 culturally affiliated why are we even worrying about
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 243
1 who owns these funerary objects. They have always
2 been, they will always be the property of the dead,
3 not anybody else’s. That’s coming from a Native
4 perspective and it’s one that I think is necessary
5 here.
6 Under 4.a, the process gives primary
7 consideration, you said yesterday to the views of
8 Native people. I would like to take that a little
9 bit longer, a little bit further I mean, to the views
10 and needs, the repatriation needs of Native people.
11 That’s what it’s all about. It’s what we need out of
12 this. Not just our views and our beliefs, our
13 spiritual values, but what we need out of this whole
14 process.
15 The next page, under 5, I would like to add some
16 language that avoids any implication that any
17 standing is being granted to the science and museum
18 community beyond what the statute says. I would like
19 to avoid any even the slightest chance of that
20 happening. And so I would like to propose that
21 language be added that very concisely states the
22 specific way in which science and museum communities’
23 interests are addressed in the statute. It’s very
24 specific. It’s very restrictive, and it’s only in
25 those cases where major benefit to the United States
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 244
1 has been established. I would like that in there
2 instead of the statute acknowledges the legitimate
3 need to return control over remains to Native people
4 and the legitimate public interest in the
5 educational, historic and scientific information
6 conveyed by those remains and objects. The statute,
7 I’m afraid, the way I look at it, doesn’t acknowledge
8 a legitimate public interest. It acknowledges in a
9 very specific manner one way in which scientific
10 study may be conducted, and I would like it kept very
11 specific like that. All of us would.
12 Under B, culturally unidentifiable human
13 remains, B.1, the last sentence, in keeping with a
14 philosophy that Native peoples’ views and needs be
15 given primary consideration, I would like you to
16 switch the statements in that last sentence. I would
17 like it to read like this, “This determination must
18 be made in consultation with any appropriate Indian
19 tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and through a
20 good faith evaluation of all relevant and available
21 documentation.” Switch it, put Native peoples’
22 perspective first. A small point, but it means a lot
23 to us.
24 Under 2, I would like to add in the first
25 sentence the following language, well, I’ll read the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 245
1 sentence, “A determination that human remains are
2 culturally unidentifiable may change to one of
3 cultural affiliation as additional information
4 becomes available through ongoing consultation, joint
5 intertribal claims, or any other source.” It’s
6 through the process of coalitions, regional
7 intertribal coalitions of tribes coming forward and
8 making claims that this additional information is
9 made available. We make these joint claims based
10 upon, as you know, a preponderance of the evidence.
11 And it’s through that evidence being presented that
12 this new information comes to light, cultural
13 affiliation is established, everybody goes home,
14 right? That’s why I would like to add that language.
15 Under 3, I have to first say that our tribes
16 continue our protest of the categorization of
17 unaffiliated Native remains. We continue to assert
18 that ancestors of peoples who simply don’t have
19 Federal recognition cannot be regarded as
20 unaffiliated. They’re affiliated. They’re just
21 affiliated with indigenous peoples who don’t happen
22 to have Federal recognition. And I’m glad that that
23 point has been made in here, but I still got to
24 protest their inclusion in unaffiliated, because
25 they’re not unaffiliated.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 246
1 We also continue to protest — I’ll let you know.
2 I see that you changed from archeological
3 populations. You changed from past populations. Now
4 you’re saying a defined earlier identifiable group,
5 but you’re still saying they don’t have any
6 descendants because they’re extinct. That’s a
7 Eurocentric notion, a foreign notion that is not
8 aligned with the way Native peoples look at
9 themselves, look at ourselves. I have yet to hear of
10 a Native account of an extinct tribe. That extinct
11 business comes from non-Native people. That isn’t
12 about us. It’s about people who came here to our
13 homelands and are looking at us with a foreign value
14 system, a foreign paradigm that doesn’t apply to us.
15 But protests being submitted, you guys have it in
16 here, I’m going to comment on what you have in here.
17 Three, “An agency or museum determination that
18 human remains are culturally unidentifiable may occur
19 for different reasons.” At this point I feel the
20 need to also reiterate that the word, you know, it’s
21 at this point unaffiliated status is unproven. It’s
22 unproven. That’s only the museum’s word, the Federal
23 agency’s word, that’s their determination they’re
24 unaffiliated. Native people haven’t had a chance yet
25 to weigh in. I think it’s real important that that
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 247
1 be pointed out there in these principles as a
2 guidance for people who are reading this. When you
3 get to that point, these agencies make that
4 determination but that doesn’t mean Native people are
5 going to agree with you. Right? That needs to be
6 pointed out there.
7 Under 3.b, “Those which represent a defined
8 earlier identifiable group, but for which Federal
9 agencies or museums have determined.” I would like
10 you to add within necessarily limited methods. Those
11 determinations are based on methods that are limited,
12 they’re speculative, they’re conjecture. We’re not
13 dealing with fact at this point. That needs to be
14 pointed out because otherwise these principles are
15 going to be misleading if people are using them for
16 policy guidelines. They’re not dealing with fact,
17 and they won’t be until they sit down and start
18 consulting with tribes.
19 I really want to at this point repeat what that
20 grandmother said yesterday about the remains, how do
21 you find out who they are, where they’re from? Where
22 they’re from is where they were buried. Where they
23 were buried are the aboriginal homelands of some
24 people. That determines where they’re from, who they
25 belong to. That determination isn’t made until those
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 248
1 agencies talk to us in consultation. It’s real
2 important to point that out.
3 Under, let’s see, what is that, 3, yes, after
4 3.c or in 3.c, excuse me, “Those for which a Federal
5 agency or museum believes that evidence is
6 insufficient to make a determination,” I like that
7 language. I wanted to support that. You guys were
8 saying that yesterday. I hope you keep that the way
9 it is. And I hope you also add a statement that says
10 unaffiliated, when that determination is made by a
11 museum, it’s a temporary determination. It’s likely
12 to change, and in the Northern Plains it’s going to
13 change when that agency sits down to talk with our
14 tribes. That needs to be made really clear so
15 there’s no confusion, no ambiguity.
16 Okay. And let’s go down to under documentation,
17 the fun part. You know, I’m confused about this,
18 Jim. Can you clarify this for me? I thought you
19 guys took out that section. Then these folks said no
20 later they put it back in. That’s where it starts,
21 the sole exception is when. Did you take that out,
22 did you put it back in? Under 3 or 4.b, the second
23 sentence, “The sole exception is when completion of a
24 specific scientific study.”
25 JAMES BRADLEY: We’ve taken a bunch of that out.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 249
1 I don’t have my copy in front of me, but that’s a
2 section that’s had a lot of work done on it since
3 that version.
4 PEMINA YELLOW BIRD: So that’s really changed?
5 Well, you know what, you know what I would like to
6 see in there, you know what our people would like to
7 see in there, will somebody please tell us to whom do
8 scientists offer their standard of proof to show that
9 their study is going to be of major benefit to the
10 United States. Who do they offer their standard of
11 proof? What is their standard of proof? What kind
12 of input are tribes going to have in this standard of
13 proof business? The law is silent on that. We
14 really would like to have that question answered.
15 Maybe you’re working on it. Maybe this is
16 something we can all discuss or listen to you guys
17 talk about tomorrow. But us tribes, we’re asking
18 that question out there, to whom are these scientists
19 going to offer their standard of proof? Is it going
20 to be to tribes? We think it should be to us. We
21 think we should have some say in that. After all,
22 this is our dead that we’re talking about. We should
23 have some say in that. We should have the right to
24 concur or deny. To whom are they going to offer this
25 standard of proof and what is their standard of
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 250
1 proof? How are they going to prove that their study
2 is of major benefit, particularly when the bulk of
3 that study is based on speculation and conjecture.
4 Good question.
5 Okay. Under documentation, excuse me, 4.d,
6 “Documentation prepared in compliance with the
7 statute is a public record.” You’re aware that a lot
8 of that documentation discusses the origin of
9 burials. You’re aware that in many cases the origin
10 of burials are village sites or sites that contain
11 other burials. That language should not be public
12 record. Anything that will reveal the location of a
13 burial, original burial site should not be a matter
14 of public record. And I think that there should be
15 an exception in these principles of agreement for
16 that. I’ll tell you why, up in my country, the
17 Missouri River, the Northern Missouri River, they’re
18 expecting 30 million visitors for the Lewis and Clark
19 Extravaganza, 30 million visitors to the Missouri
20 River. Already there’s been lots of archeological
21 studies done on sites related to my people along the
22 Missouri River. I don’t want any one of those 30
23 million visitors being given access to those sites
24 that exist and that continue to hold burials because
25 they will be being looted. See, there’s a reason why
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 251
1 we got to protect that information. The public
2 should not have it.
3 Just today, I learned of a situation at Standing
4 Rock Sioux Tribe where four separate looters were
5 caught, were arrested, and their equipment
6 confiscated because they were digging graves there
7 from a Mandan village, my peoples. Just today I
8 learned that. So even without the 30 million
9 tourists coming for Lewis and Clark, we already have
10 a problem with looting of these ancient village
11 sites, and so that that information needs to be
12 protected and not made a part of the public record.
13 I realize the rest of it’s in the statute otherwise I
14 would disagree with any of it being made a part of
15 the public record. Any information about our
16 ancestors’ skeletal remains is only going to be
17 exploited by the science and museum industries who
18 make a pretty darn good living studying our dead all
19 without our permission, all of which flies in the
20 face of our original instructions and teachings and
21 violates our dead. For the record, I will resubmit
22 that protest although I know the statute provides for
23 that.
24 Finally, under D, models for disposition — well,
25 I guess it’s not really finally. We’re almost there.
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 252
1 D, models for the disposition of culturally — I’d
2 like to add the word proposed, proposed models, and
3 I’ll tell you why. Already Frank McManamon has
4 created extra legal hoops for tribes to jump through
5 when making joint intertribal claims to unaffiliated
6 remains that are not found in the statute. I notice
7 you guys quote University of Nebraska Lincoln, joint
8 claim in here. We have a big hassle because of Frank
9 that’s not found in the statute, and yet he’s telling
10 us we have to — he’s told us we have to do it.
11 The woman our tribes were working with at UNL,
12 Priscilla Grew, remember Dr. Grew? She sent a letter
13 to the review committee stating that the Omahas are
14 going to be the ones to go and repatriate, actually
15 repatriate the remains. She should not have told you
16 that. First of all, it was none of her business to
17 decide who is going to be the ones to go and get
18 them. That’s our tribe’s business to decide, but she
19 made that decision and put it in that letter. Since
20 that letter was sent to you guys, since you approved
21 our joint claim, Frank told us subsequently if the
22 Omahas don’t go pick those remains up you guys aren’t
23 getting them back. It has to be the Omahas, because
24 that’s what was in the letter.
25 I talked to this guy on the phone and Priscilla
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 253
1 Grew about it. He said that our only recourse,
2 because — and here’s the hang up, the Omahas are not
3 going to be the ones to go and literally physically
4 pick up the remains. They’re not going to be the
5 ones to go and do that. It’s going to be somebody
6 else, one of our 15 tribes in our joint claim. But
7 because Dr. Grew put that in the letter, because
8 Frank made this determination, if we want to get
9 those ancestors out of UNL when, you know, we finally
10 get through the backlog of NOIs, guess what we have
11 to do, we have to come back before you guys and make
12 another request. That’s what Frank said. Yes. I
13 don’t like that. That’s not in the statute. That’s
14 creating extra hoops for tribes to jump through.
15 That’s big brother telling us who can repatriate and
16 who can’t, and I don’t think that’s big brother’s
17 job.
18 So because we had this hassle, because there’s
19 other hassles associated with another joint claim
20 that our tribes are making with Bureau of
21 Reclamation, Frank’s making extra hoops there too. I
22 don’t know if he still can now. I don’t know how
23 that’s going to work or if all Frank’s hoops are
24 going to disappear or if we’re going to have to still
25 live with him. I don’t know, you know. I’m saying
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 254
1 make this proposed models. Don’t be telling tribes
2 how we’re going to conduct our business. We already
3 know how to do that. We already know what to do. We
4 already got the agreements among ourselves, see.
5 Okay. Thank you. That’s that.
6 Okay. Under 2, joint recommendations from
7 regional consultations, again, I’ve got a problem
8 with big brother telling us what to do. Under b, the
9 review committee recommends a process in which, 1,
10 Federal agencies, museums and Indian tribes define a
11 set of regions. Federal agencies and museums don’t
12 have to be a part of that. That’s up to us to decide
13 what region we’re going to belong to, and in fact,
14 it’s already been done. There are already dozens of
15 regional intertribal coalitions brought together for
16 the express purpose of making joint intertribal
17 claims of unaffiliated Native remains that come from
18 our collective aboriginal homelands.
19 We’ve already decided what regions there are,
20 and we’re basing that loosely upon the regions the
21 BIA has divided us up into. It’s already been done.
22 It’s already done. So you might as well take that
23 out. But what I would like to see you add in there
24 is that a tribe can belong to more than one
25 coalition. You started to acknowledge that when you
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 255
1 talked about tribes being forced to relocate, like
2 all of those southeastern tribes, a lot of them are
3 no longer in their aboriginal homelands. A lot of
4 them are, you know, put in Oklahoma. But they can
5 belong to more than one coalition depending on where
6 their ancestors are buried, right? And so that needs
7 to be part of that, just to facilitate things, make
8 things easier.
9 And I would like to see all the language in 3
10 and 4 taken out altogether, simply because a regional
11 consultation meeting should be open to any party with
12 a legitimate interest in disposition. No, sir. The
13 institution that has unaffiliated remains needs to
14 meet with those indigenous nations who are affected
15 by this joint intertribal claim and that’s it. SHPO
16 doesn’t need to be there if we’re not talking about
17 remains that came from state lands. State
18 archeologist doesn’t need to be there if we’re not
19 talking about remains that came from state lands.
20 And Federals don’t need to be there if we’re talking
21 about remains that came from state lands. We’re
22 talking a SHPO and state archeologist then.
23 We know who we’re supposed to consult with in
24 other words. We don’t need to — we don’t want that
25 process open to just anybody. That’s private. It’s
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 256
1 painful enough. It’s difficult enough dealing with
2 just SHPO or dealing with just the Corps of Engineers
3 and their archeologist. We don’t want it opened up
4 to everybody that wants, that has an interest. And
5 for that reason, we’re asking you to strike that
6 language. That’s too controlling. It’s up to us to
7 decide who we have to talk to. We’re sovereign
8 nations. We make that determination.
9 The review committee may elect to facilitate
10 regional consultation meetings as part of their
11 regular meeting cycle. That’s great. That’s great,
12 but do you want to make that part of this guidance?
13 If you’re going to be meeting say in Alaska, bring
14 all the Alaska tribes together, have a regional
15 meeting. That’s great. I like that, but I don’t
16 know about making it part of these guidelines, these
17 principles of agreement.
18 And there was one thing that I skipped over. I
19 can’t find where it is. Oh, yes, under b.2, the word
20 stakeholders. I would like that word to be struck
21 and another word to be found for that. Stakeholders,
22 it reminds me of Wall Street. We’re not talking
23 about financial stuff here. We’re talking about our
24 dead.
25 MARTIN SULLIVAN: How about parties with
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 257
1 standing?
2 PEMINA YELLOW BIRD: Why can’t you just say
3 within each region Federal agencies, museums and
4 Indian tribes consult together? Stakeholders, huh-
5 uh. We’re not stakeholders. Us guys here are
6 children of those who are suffering. We’re not
7 stakeholders. We’re their relatives.
8 I brought a resolution along today that my tribe
9 passed today dealing with opposition to DNA study.
10 Rather than read it to you and take up more time,
11 I’ll make some copies once I get a signed copy and
12 I’ll send it to you. Okay? This is also in support
13 of the testimony delivered by the Chairman of the
14 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe today and the Fallon
15 Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. I’ll put this in the mail to
16 you. It’s an official notification of our opposition
17 to DNA studies based upon their speculative nature
18 and the violation, the continued violation of our
19 dead.
20 After all of this, you know, the greatest
21 concern after all of these years of following you
22 guys around, you’ve heard me say this many, many
23 times, it bears repeating, the greatest concern of
24 the people, of the tribes in North Dakota and I can
25 say all the upper Missouri River tribes is the
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 258
1 apparent direction this committee persists in taking
2 in granting standing to the science and museum
3 industries in the decision of the ultimate fate of
4 our ancestors. And it bears repeating. That’s why
5 my tribe spent thousands of dollars to send me here
6 to tell you these people have nothing to say about
7 the fate, the destiny, of our dead. They have no
8 standing in this decision. Their needs are not to be
9 considered. Their interests are not at stake here.
10 They lost the debate on levels of scientific
11 study ten years ago when the law was passed and have
12 ever since been trying to restage that debate that
13 they lost a long time ago. Their status quo was
14 forever altered. No more can they help themselves to
15 the contents of our burials. No more can they
16 subject our dead to violation and abuse. No more can
17 they make them wander pitiful and crying and lost.
18 For once and for all, we are looking to you to
19 do the right thing by these old ones. Do the right
20 thing. Put yourselves in our shoes, you non-Native
21 members. What if that was you coming to our
22 committees, begging us, trying to get us to
23 understand when it’s your dead that’s being violated,
24 when it’s your spiritual beliefs that are being
25 ignored and trampled on for the sake of our science
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 259
1 because we say we have a right to study them, because
2 we want them to tell stories that you don’t want to
3 hear about your dead.
4 We don’t want to hear physical anthropologists’
5 stories. We want them back in the ground. Those
6 people have nothing to say that’s of any value to us.
7 All we know is that they’re crying. All we know is
8 that they’re suffering. All we know is that their
9 suffering affects us here in this world, and it’s
10 going to continue until they are back in the earth.
11 And all these years we’ve been saying the same thing
12 to you.
13 Now, you’re ready to do an up or down vote,
14 you’re ready to declare your positions on
15 unaffiliated remains. When you’re doing that, you
16 don’t forget the many hundreds of Native people who
17 have come before you and cried and humbled themselves
18 to you and begged for peace for their loved ones,
19 begged for dignity and reminded you that the science
20 and museum industries don’t have anything to say when
21 it comes to deciding what happens to our dead.
22 That’s our job, not theirs.
23 (Native American language.) Great thanksgiving
24 for listening to me today. (Native American
25 language.)
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298 260
1 MARTIN SULLIVAN: Thank you, Pemina. We are, I
2 think, finished. We are expected to be at the
3 Sealaska reception, I think, right away. So we’ll
4 conclude the meeting for today and we will see you
5 tomorrow morning.
6 MEETING RECESS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lesa K. Hagel Word Processing Rapid City, South Dakota (605) 342-3298