MINUTES

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

FIFTY-SEVENTH MEETING

November 18-19, 2015

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background 4 The 57th Meeting of the Review Committee 5 Welcome 7 Nomination and Election of Chair 7 Report: National NAGPRA Program Report on NAGPRA Implementation in FY 2015 7 Inventories, Summaries and Notices 7 Civil Penalties 7 Grants 8 Regulations 8 Technical Assistance 8 Program Manager 8 Nomination of Review Committee Member 8 Report: NAGPRA Inventory Analysis Reports 9 Presentation: Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 9 Presentation: The Chickasaw Nation 10 Presentation 10 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 10 Presentation: University of Oklahoma Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History10 Presentation 10 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 11 Finding of Fact Request by The Osage Nation on Clarksville, MO, Mound Group Cultural Affiliation and Disposition 11 Presentation 11 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 12 Review Committee Motion 12 Review Committee Motion 12 Public Comment – November 18, 2016 12 Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas 12 Mr. Frank Wozniak 12 Subcommittee Discussions and Appointments 13 Review Committee Motion 13 Action Item: Initial Discussion of the Review Committee 2015 Report to Congress 13 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – National Park Service 14 Presentation 14 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 14 Review Committee Motion 14 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – Tennessee Valley Authority 15 Presentation 15 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 15 Review Committee Motion 15 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – Texas State University 16 Presentation 16 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 17 Review Committee Motion 18 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – University of Denver Museum of Anthropology 18

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 2 Presentation 18 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 18 Review Committee Motion 19 Presentation: Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup 19 Presentation 19 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 20 Presentation: National Park Service, Park NAGPRA 20 Presentation 20 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 20 Presentation: Forest Service 21 Presentation 21 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 21 Presentation: Columbia Plateau Inter-Tribal Repatriation Group 21 Presentation 21 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 21 Presentation: Indiana University 22 Presentation 22 Presentation: Indiana University/Native Village of Barrow 22 Presentation 22 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 22 Public Comment – November 19, 2015 22 Ms. Erin Gredell, Ms. Linda Langley and Mr. Bertney Langley 22 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 23 Ms. Robin Dushane 23 Ms. Jaime Lavallee – Working Group on International Repatriation 23 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 23 Ms. Jaime Lavallee – Individual Comment 24 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 24 Ms. Jan Bernstein 24 Review Committee Questions and Discussion 24 Action Item: Discussion of the Review Committee 2015 Report to Congress 24 Discussion: Upcoming Meeting Dates and Locations 25 Closing Comments 25 Traditional Closing 25 Meeting Adjournment 25

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 3 Background

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee was established under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., which was signed into law by President George Bush on November 16, 1990.

Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3006 (c) and (h), the Review Committee is responsible for – 1. Designating one of the members of the committee as chair; 2. Monitoring the inventory and identification process conducted under sections 5 and 6 to ensure a fair, objective consideration and assessment of all available relevant information and evidence; 3. Upon the request of any affected party, reviewing and making findings related to- A. The identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or B. The return of such items; 4. Facilitating the resolution of any disputes among Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants and Federal agencies or museums relating to the return of such items, including convening the parties to the dispute if deemed desirable; 5. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains that are in the possession or control of each Federal agency and museum and recommending specific actions for developing a process for disposition of such remains; 6. Consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the committee affecting such tribes or organizations; 7. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out this Act; 8. Performing such other related functions as the Secretary may assign to the committee; 9. Making recommendations, if appropriate, regarding future care of cultural items which are to be repatriated; and 10. Submitting an annual report to the Congress on the progress made, and any barriers encountered, in implementing this section during the previous year.

The Review Committee is organized and administered according to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (2006).

Six Review Committee members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior from nominations by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, traditional Native American religious leaders, national museum organizations, and scientific organizations. At least two of the members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. One Review Committee member is appointed by the Secretary from a list of persons developed and unanimously approved by the other members.

The Review Committee reports to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the Review Committee’s charter, the Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service (NPS) serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to the Review Committee. The DFO oversees the activities of the Review Committee and coordinates administrative and staff support to the Review Committee on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.

Additional information about the Review Committee – including the Review Committee’s charter, membership, meeting protocol, and dispute procedures – is available at the National NAGPRA Website, http://www.nps.gov/nagpra (click on “Review Committee”).

Notice of this Review Committee meeting was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2015 (80 FR 34169- 34170).

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 4 The 57th Meeting of the Review Committee

The 57th meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Ms. Melanie O’Brien, DFO, at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, November 18, 2015. Ms. O’Brien confirmed the attendance of the Review Committee members, and stated that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements were met regarding the publication of the meeting notice and agenda prior to the meeting. Ms. O’Brien welcomed newly appointed Review Committee members, Ms. LindaLee (Cissy) Farm, Ms. Heather Edgar, and Mr. Patrick Lyons. Mr. Lee Frazier, The Chickasaw Nation, offered an opening prayer for November 18, 2015. Mr. Mario Garza, Miakan-Garza Band of Coahuiltecan Indians, offered an opening prayer for November 19, 2015. Ms. O’Brien introduced the National NAGPRA Program staff present at the meeting. Ms. O’Brien thanked The Chickasaw Nation for hosting the meeting. On November 18, 2015, The Chickasaw Nation hosted a cultural event and tour of the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur, OK.

Review Committee members present – Mr. Armand Minthorn – Chair Ms. Heather Edgar Ms. LindaLee (Cissy) Farm Mr. Patrick Lyons Mr. Dennis O’Rourke Mr. Steve Titla

Designated Federal Officer present – Ms. Melanie O’Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service

National Park Service/Department of the Interior staff in attendance – Ms. Lesa Koscielski, Contractor, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service Ms. Carla Mattix, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior Mr. Stephen Simpson, Senior Attorney, Division of Indian Affairs, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior

Persons in attendance during part or all of the meeting (names and affiliations as provided by attendees) – Mr. Todd Ahlman, Texas State University, Center for Archaeological Studies, San Marcos, TX Ms. Nekole Alligood, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, Anadarko, OK Ms. Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, Denver, CO Ms. Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC Mr. Shane Anton, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ Mr. Timothy Begay, Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, Window Rock, AZ Mr. Steve Beleu, Oklahoma Department of Libraries, Oklahoma City, OK Ms. Susan Benton, Southern Methodist University, Southlake, TX Ms. Jan Bernstein, Bernstein & Associates, Denver, CO Mr. Bill Billeck, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, DC Ms. Raelynn Butler, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, OK Ms. Deanna Byrd, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, OK Ms. Mary Carroll, U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, CO Ms. Betsy Chapoose, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah, Fort Duchesne, UT Mr. Arden Comanche, Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico, Mescalero, NM Ms. Jacqueline Cook, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, WA Ms. Morgan Currey, The Osage Nation, Pawhuska, OK Mr. Clayton Dumont, Klamath Tribes, San Francisco State University, Concord, CA Ms. Robin Dushane, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca, MO Ms. Pat Ezzell, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN Mr. Barker Fariss, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA Ms. Susie Fishman-Armstrong, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, OK Ms. Tamara Francis-Fourkiller, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Binger, OK Mr. Lee Frazier, The Chickasaw Nation, Ada, OK ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 5 Ms. Angela Garcia-Lewis, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ Mr. Mario Garza, Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians, San Marcos, TX Ms. Sheila Goff, History Colorado, Denver, CO Mr. Andrew Gourd, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Ms. Erin Gredell, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, CT Mr. Matthew Griffin, The Chickasaw Nation, Sulphur, OK Mr. Bobby Harris, The Osage Nation, Pawhuska, OK Ms. Somier Harris, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Binger, OK Ms. Amber Hood, The Chickasaw Nation, Ada, OK Ms. Holly Houghton, Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico, Mescalero, NM Ms. Andrea Hunter, The Osage Nation, Pawhuska, OK Mr. Jordan Jacobs, University of California – Berkeley, Berkeley, CA Ms. Andrea Knife Chief, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, OK Mr. Bertney Langley, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Elton, LA Ms. Linda Langley, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Elton, LA Ms. Jaime Lavallee, University of Arizona, Regina, SK Mr. Marc Levine, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, OK Ms. Lisa Little Iron, Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona, Sacaton, AZ Mr. Thomas Maher, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN Ms. Sierra Mandelko, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Region, Muskogee, OK Mr. Anthony Monoessy, Comanche Nation, Oklahoma, Lawton, OK Ms. Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY Ms. Madonna Myer Mr. Alden Naranjo, Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, Ignacio, CO Ms. Cassandra Naranjo, Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, Ignacio, CO Ms. Angela Neller, Wanapum Heritage Center, Columbia Plateau Inter-Tribal Repatriation Group, Beverly, WA Ms. Megon Noble, University of California – Davis, Davis, CA Ms. Sarah O’Donnell, The Osage Nation, Pawhuska, OK Ms. Shannon O’Loughlin, Washington, DC Mr. Brice Obermeyer, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Emporia, KS Ms. Kim Penrod, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Binger, OK Mr. Kirk Perry, The Chickasaw Nation, Ada, OK Ms. Susanna Pyatt, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, OK Mr. Charles Red Corn, The Osage Nation, Skiatook, OK Ms. Jennifer Reeder, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Binger, OK Ms. Helen Robbins, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL Ms. Lexie Rue-Harris, USDA Forest Service, Booneville, AR Ms. Elisa Ryan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation – Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, CA Mr. George Shannon, The Osage Nation, Skiatook, OK Ms. Lauren Sieg, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, DC Mr. Jerry Shalo, The Osage Nation, Skiatook, OK Ms. Marianne Shuler, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN Ms. Martina Smith, University of California – Berkeley, Berkeley, CA Mr. Terry Snowball, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian, Suitland, MD Mr. Monty Stick, The Chickasaw Nation Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Mr. Ian Thompson, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, OK Mr. Larry Turk, National Park Service, Chaco Canyon National Park, NM Ms. Vehoae, Edmond, OK Mr. Michael Walters, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Ms. Valorie Walters, The Chickasaw Nation, Sulphur, OK Ms. Brittany Wheeler, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL Ms. Reylynne Williams, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ Mr. Joe Wolf, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, OK Ms. RuthAnn Wood, Maryland ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 6 Mr. Frank Wozniak, USDA Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM Ms. Karen Wurzburger, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Lakewood, CO

Welcome

Ms. Valorie Walters, Executive Officer, The Chickasaw Nation Cultural Center, welcomed the Review Committee to Oklahoma on behalf of Chickasaw Governor Anoatubby. Ms. Walters acknowledged the vital work of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and thanked the Review Committee for their work on NAGPRA implementation.

Nomination and Election of Chair

Ms. Farm nominated Mr. Minthorn as chair. Mr. Titla seconded the nomination. A vote was taken, and Mr. Minthorn was selected to serve by unanimous vote. Mr. Minthorn agreed to serve as chair.

Report: National NAGPRA Program Report on NAGPRA Implementation in FY 2015

Ms. O’Brien stated that the activities of the National NAGPRA Program for the FY 2015 are summarized in the year-end report and available on the National NAGPRA Program website. Ms. O’Brien provided a brief update on NAGPRA implementation in the National NAGPRA Program.

Inventories, Summaries and Notices A total of 181,342 individual sets of human remains have been listed in inventories by 1,025 museums and Federal agencies. Of those, 57,159 have been identified as culturally affiliated and 124,183 have been listed as culturally unidentifiable. A total of 1,140 summaries have been received from institutions and Federal agencies. Since 1992, 52,855 individual sets of human remains and over 1.3 million associated funerary objects have been listed in notices published in the Federal Register. In FY 2015, a total of 134 notices were published under NAGPRA. To date, 6,418 culturally unidentifiable human remains have been resolved through the NAGPRA process. This includes 2,768 individual sets of human remains published in notices under 43 CFR 10.11, culturally unidentifiable human remains, and 3,650 individual sets of human remains published in notices based on a recommendation by the Review Committee to the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, 7,484 human remains have been moved from a culturally unidentifiable inventory to a culturally affiliated inventory. The National NAGPRA Program report includes information on the required reporting of repatriation information by Federal agencies. Ms. O’Brien noted that the increased numbers of notices published in recent years shows a significant amount of activity by the NAGPRA community – Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations and museums and Federal agencies – working together toward resolution.

Civil Penalties The National NAGPRA Program report contains an explanation of the civil enforcement process, which Ms. O’Brien summarized. NAGPRA allows for the Secretary of the Interior to assess civil penalties against a museum that fails to comply with the requirements of NAGPRA. The process and list of different ways that a museum might fail to comply with the requirements of NAGPRA are set out in section 10.12 of the NAGPRA regulations. The responsibility for civil penalties and civil enforcement has been delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. In total, the National NAGPRA Program has received allegations of failure to comply against 108 museums. Investigations have been completed for allegations against 40 museums, of which 19 museums have been found to have failed to comply and 21 museums have been found to not have failed to comply. In FY 2015, investigations were completed on allegations against seven museums. Ms. O’Brien stated that the majority of the failures to comply relate to submission of an inventory.

Mr. Minthorn asked what could be done to hold Federal agencies responsible for NAGPRA implementation requirements, as the civil enforcement process does not apply. Ms. Mattix stated that entities can bring concerns about Federal agencies to the Review Committee, who in turn can request an explanation or information from the Federal agency. Other remedies might include action through an administrative appeal body within the Federal agency or through Federal district court. Mr. Minthorn stated that noncompliant museums should be invited to ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 7 report on their progress at future Review Committee meetings. Ms. Mattix stated that invitations to report could be issued on concluded investigations. When asked by Mr. Titla whether any noncompliant museums were located in Oklahoma, Ms. O’Brien stated that the National NAGPRA Program has a practice of separation of the civil enforcement process from her role as National NAGPRA Program Manager, in order to support and achieve the Assistant Secretary’s goal to use NAGPRA’s civil enforcement provisions to bring institutions into compliance. As a result of this practice, Ms. O’Brien is not necessarily personally aware of which museums are involved in or have completed the investigation process. Mr. Titla agreed with Mr. Minthorn’s recommendation, and stressed the importance of NAGPRA compliance.

Grants Ms. O’Brien stated that in FY 2015, the National NAGPRA Program received the highest number of grant applications for the past ten years. A total of 1.74 million dollars was awarded through 23 consultation and documentation grants and 25 repatriation grants to 20 museums and 18 Indian tribes. The independent grants panel noted the level of dedication of Indian tribes and museums to the overall goals of repatriation demonstrated through the grant projects.

Regulations Ms. O’Brien stated that the National NAGPRA Program continued to work on review and revision of the NAGPRA regulations at 43 CFR Part 10. On November 5, 2015, final regulations were published at 43 CFR 10.7, Disposition of Unclaimed Human Remains, Funerary Objects, Sacred Objects, or Objects of Cultural Patrimony. The regulation is related to Section 3 of the Act, the discovery of human remains or cultural items on Federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990. The regulations contain the definition for “unclaimed” – items for which a tribe or lineal descendent have been identified as having an interest in those items but have not come forward to make a claim or for which a Federal agency cannot identify a related tribe or lineal descendant – and a process through which a Federal agency can determine a way to move forward with the cultural items either through transfer to an Indian tribe or through reburial or reinternment of the cultural items.

In response to a question by Ms. Farm, Ms. O’Brien stated that the National NAGPRA Program anticipates using the information submitted in response to requirements of 43 CFR 10.7 to develop a searchable online database. The timeline for release of this information will depend upon when the information is received, and the National NAGPRA Program hopes that institutions will not wait until the deadline to submit their lists to the National NAGPRA Program.

Technical Assistance The National NAGPRA Program works to provide technical assistance through trainings and direct interactions. Ms. O’Brien stated that the goal of the National NAGPRA Program in FY 2015 was to be more responsive to inquiries related to NAGPRA. To this end, the National NAGPRA Program made an effort to respond in a timely manner to all inquiries by phone and email, as well as to devote additional time to working directly with NAGPRA constituents and attend conferences. The Program supports scholarships for NAGPRA constituents to attend NAGPRA trainings offered by the National Preservation Institute across the country. Training videos are available on the National NAGPRA Program’s YouTube channel, including the most recent NAGPRA Basics training recorded in November 2014.

Program Manager Ms. O’Brien stated that, in July 2015, she was selected to be the Program Manager for the National NAGPRA Program, following Ms. Sherry Hutt’s retirement October 1, 2014.

Nomination of Review Committee Member Ms. Shannon O’Loughlin resigned her membership on the NAGPRA Review Committee effective May 3, 2015, when she became a Federal employee. The Review Committee and the National NAGPRA Program would like to acknowledge Ms. O’Loughlin’s contributions to the Review Committee and wish her the best in her future endeavors. The Department of the Interior advertised for nominations for one member of the Review Committee, to be nominated by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations or traditional Native American religious leaders. The Department of the Interior is seeking additional nominations, and the process was open until December 14, 2015. Additional information on the nomination process and the Review Committee can be found on the National NAGPRA Program website.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 8

Report: NAGPRA Inventory Analysis Reports

Ms. O’Brien provided an update on the two reports prepared by the program in April 2014, in response to the Review Committee’s request from its 52nd meeting, and sent via email to the federal agencies and museums listed in the reports. The reports are posted on the National NAGPRA Program website. One of the reports identifies the museums and federal agencies that have culturally affiliated human remains not yet listed in Notices of Inventory Completion (CA report). The other report identifies the museums and federal agencies whose culturally unidentifiable inventories appear to indicate that consultation was never initiated with respect to human remains in the culturally unidentifiable inventories (CUI report). The reports have been updated and are on the National NAGPRA Program website. Ms. O’Brien summarized the changes in the reports since April of 2014.

The number of museums and Federal agencies on the CA report decreased from 124 to 88, a reduction of almost 30 percent. Five basic reasons were identified for the decrease. In over 60 percent of the cases, the change was due to clarification of data listed in the database, with identification of a notice published prior to the initial report or of errors in data reporting. In approximately 35 percent of the cases, notices were published subsequent to the April 2014 report. In about 2 percent of the cases, the National NAGPRA Program clarified data or identified duplicate entries. In less than 1 percent of the cases, the museum or Federal agency clarified control of the human remains, and in less than 1 percent of the cases, human remains previously identified as culturally affiliated were subsequently listed as culturally unidentifiable.

The number of museums and Federal agencies on the CUI report decreased from 300 to 261, a reduction of approximately 13 percent. Four basic reasons were identified for the decrease. In almost 68 percent of the cases, the institution provided additional information that it had distributed copies of the inventory to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations prior to the initial report. Other reasons include distribution of inventories subsequent to the initial report and clarification of data in the inventory and database by either the institution or the National NAGPRA Program. The National NAGPRA Program will continue to update the information in the reports and post the updated versions on the National NAGPRA Program website.

Presentation: Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs

Ms. Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, Chairwoman Emeritus of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, stated she was pleased to address the Review Committee on the twenty-fifth anniversary of NAGPRA. Ms. Andrews-Maltais stated that the NAGPRA law has played an integral role in the partnership of tribal nations and the Federal government working for the return and reinternment of the ancestors. Ms. Andrews-Maltais stated that while there is no easy way to reconcile the way ancestral remains were treated in the past, important strides have been made with NAGPRA. Despite the tremendous impact made so far, a lot of work remains. The important progress made in NAGPRA implementation through the efforts of NAGPRA constituents, the Review Committee, and with the support of the Department of the Interior, underscore the Administration’s commitment to Indian country and dedication to improving consultation. The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs has been hearing from Indian tribes regarding 43 CFR 10.7 and the consultation process. Improved communication and the identification of the needs of NAGPRA constituents will strengthen relationships and allow better protection and preservation of the sacred ancestors.

The Review Committee members thanked Ms. Andrews-Maltais for her comments and expressed appreciation for the hard work. On behalf of his tribe, Mr. Titla noted that his tribal leaders in Apache country appreciate the improved communication between the Administration and tribes. Mr. O’Rourke thanked Ms. Andrews-Maltais for her comments highlighting the importance of broadening and deepening lines of communication among all NAGPRA entities. Mr. Minthorn stated that while important work has been done, funding levels continue to be a consistent challenge in implementation of this law. Mr. Minthorn stated that having the Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs be a part of the Review Committee meetings would benefit this work, and hoped that Mr. Washburn would be able to attend future meetings in order to better understand the process, current frustrations, and priority of NAGPRA within Indian country.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 9 Presentation: The Chickasaw Nation

Presentation Mr. Kirk Perry, Executive Officer for The Chickasaw Nation Division of Historic Preservation, provided an update on NAGPRA implementation. The Chickasaw Nation has completed repatriations in each state of their aboriginal homelands, which include Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. In the NAGPRA database, 27,965 ancestors are listed as being from these five states, with over 100 total listings for The Chickasaw Nation. Mr. Perry described the varied experiences of The Chickasaw Nation working with institutions and Federal agencies, ranging from cooperative consultation to opposition. Several Federal agencies have successful relationships and positive consultation practices with The Chickasaw Nation and other southeastern tribes, including the Federal Highway Administration in Mississippi, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Mississippi Department of Transportation. In addition, The Chickasaw Nation shares long-standing relationships and common goals with other southeastern tribes, including those on the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Mr. Perry stated that the southeastern tribes have been able to work together and reach agreement for repatriations with shared group identity.

The culturally unidentifiable rule has allowed The Chickasaw Nation to successfully begin consultation and repatriation of culturally unidentifiable collections by proactively contacting institutions that hold collections from their aboriginal homelands. Mr. Perry stated that work on completed repatriations has produced relevant information about affiliation that is useful in working with new institutions and informing the proactive protection of potentially threatened sites. Mr. Perry described the repatriation work of The Chickasaw Nation that falls outside the scope of NAGPRA, including efforts that predate NAGPRA, repatriations with the Smithsonian Institution, and ongoing international repatriation efforts. Despite their progress, the work remaining is significant, to address collections in the databases, ongoing discoveries, and the identification of new collections. Mr. Perry stated that Chickasaw Governor Bill Anoatubby has established a mission to enhance the overall quality of life of the Chickasaw people; repatriation is one way to fulfill this mission. Mr. Perry thanked the Review Committee for the opportunity to speak.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Perry described the numerous steps The Chickasaw Nation has taken in their ongoing international repatriation efforts. Mr. Minthorn asked The Chickasaw Nation to continue to update the Review Committee on its NAGPRA implementation progress. Ms. O’Brien stated that the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) is currently working to develop resources and information on international repatriation. The AAIA recently held its first international repatriation conference. The National NAGPRA Program is happy to provide information, directly and through its website. Ms. Mattix stated that there are no effective U.S. laws with respect to international repatriation. At this point, international repatriation efforts are generally addressed diplomatically on a case-by-case basis. The Review Committee could provide information to the Department of the Interior to help raise the level of awareness and involvement with other agencies, including the Department of State. Mr. Minthorn encouraged the development of a coordinated process to assist Indian tribes with international repatriation efforts. The Review Committee members acknowledged The Chickasaw Nation’s dedication and progress in their international repatriation efforts, and felt that their process could serve as an example for other international repatriation efforts.

Presentation: University of Oklahoma Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History

Presentation Mr. Marc Levine, Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (Sam Noble Museum), provided an update on NAGPRA implementation. Mr. Levine was joined by Ms. Susie Fishman- Armstrong, Archaeology Collections Manager, and Mr. Michael Walters, Graduate Research Assistant. Mr. Levine stated that all key NAGPRA personnel are relatively new in their positions and have been working diligently to move forward with NAGPRA implementation while untangling the institution’s complicated history. In 1993, a summary was submitted, and in 1995 inventories and draft Notices of Inventory Completion were submitted. The notices were not published as it was later determined that the minimum number of individuals and associated funerary objects were inaccurate due to the use of primary records rather than physical counts. In addition, there

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 10 was a misconception among staff that the notices did not have to be published until repatriation claims were made. The notices were withdrawn in 2006.

In the past year, the Sam Noble Museum has made important progress toward fulfilling NAGPRA implementation requirements. Ms. Jan Bernstein, Bernstein & Associates, was hired as a consultant to help develop and write a NAGPRA compliance strategic plan, completed in February of 2015. The strategic plan provides a roadmap for publishing Notices of Inventory Completion for all culturally affiliated and culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Sam Noble Museum within 10 to 12 years. Work has begun under the strategic plan, including design and initial implementation of a new collections databases system, organization of NAGPRA files, consultation with Indian tribes on two separate projects, the successful submission of a NAGPRA grant application, and the planned initiation of a physical inventory process beginning in January 2016. In October 2015, The Chickasaw Nation submitted a claim to repatriate 21 culturally unidentifiable human remains and 66 associated funerary objects from southern Oklahoma. This was Sam Noble Museum’s first request for culturally unidentifiable collections, which they hope to resolve to the satisfaction of all parties in early 2016. Mr. Levine stated that the Sam Noble Museum would continue to work to fulfill its obligations under NAGPRA and would update the Review Committee on its progress. Mr. Levine thanked the Review Committee for the opportunity to present.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Mr. Lyons asked for information on staff funding. Mr. Levine stated that the current NAGPRA staff positions were already in place, and the physical anthropologist work would be funded through the NAGPRA grant. Volunteers assist with the work when possible and with tribal consent. Mr. Levine noted it would be helpful for the museum to have a fulltime NAGPRA coordinator. Mr. Minthorn asked about the 10- to 12-year completion timeframe and the new database system. Mr. Levine stated that was an estimate based upon the extensive collection, complexity of the process and current staffing, although the timeframe may be revised after the first year. Ms. Fishman-Armstrong stated that she developed the new database system, which is working well. Although a work in progress, Ms. Fishman-Armstrong offered to share the structure of the database with interested parties. Mr. Minthorn commended the consultation efforts described by Mr. Levine. The Review Committee expressed appreciation for the progress and efforts of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History toward NAGPRA implementation.

Finding of Fact Request by The Osage Nation on Clarksville, MO, Mound Group Cultural Affiliation and Disposition

Presentation Ms. Andrea Hunter, Director and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, The Osage Nation, presented a request from The Osage Nation to the Review Committee to make a finding of fact to resolve the following two questions: first, whether the human remains and associated cultural items removed from the Clarksville Mound Group site located in Pike County, MO, are culturally affiliated with The Osage Nation; and second, whether the appropriate disposition of the human remains and associated cultural items from the Clarksville Mound Group is to The Osage Nation or to the Sac & Fox NAGPRA Confederacy. Ms. Hunter was joined by Ms. Sarah O’Donnell, NAGPRA Assistant, and Ms. Morgan Currey, Assistant Attorney General. The Osage Nation submitted documentation supporting the request. A copy of the documentation was provided to the Review Committee members prior to the meeting and made available on the National NAGPRA Program website. Ms. Hunter summarized the request.

The Clarksville Mound Group (Site 23PI6) was a Late Woodland to Mississippian period site with approximately ten mounds located in Clarksville, Missouri. The site was first impacted in 1962 by the construction of a sky lift tourist attraction, which destroyed nine mounds and contributed to the loss of the majority of human remains and funerary objects. In 1995 and 1996, the City of Clarksville and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) removed a minimum of 22 individual human remains and 2 associated funerary objects from the last mound. In 2006, the human remains exhumed from the site during the initial 1962 site construction were transferred to the Missouri SHPO from private collectors and the University of Missouri. At final count, there are a minimum of 29 individual sets of human remains and 2 associated funerary objects awaiting disposition.

Ms. Hunter stated that, in February 2013, the Sac & Fox NAGPRA Confederacy submitted a claim for all individuals from the Clarksville Mound Group, citing a relationship of shared group identity due to the site’s location within Pike County, MO, which is identified through treaties as part of the historic tribal lands of the Sac & ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 11 Fox tribes. After publication of the Notice of Inventory Completion on July 30, 2013, The Osage Nation contacted the Missouri SHPO to submit a competing claim and request transfer of control to The Osage Nation, on the basis that the individuals interred at the site date to a prehistoric period that predates Sac & Fox tribes’ occupancy of the area and correlates to the ancestral Osage occupation of Missouri. In the two years following the request, the Missouri SHPO has not made a decision regarding cultural affiliation of the human remains and cultural items from the Clarksville Mound Group site.

Ms. Hunter stated that pursuant to NAGPRA regulations, 43 CFR 10.2 (e) and 10.14 (c), The Osage Nation’s claim of cultural affiliation is based on multiples lines of evidence – geographical, archeological, linguistic, oral tradition, historic, kinship, anthropological, biological and folklore – and summarized the evidence submitted in the documentation. Ms. Hunter stated that based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Osage people are culturally affiliated with the individuals and associated funerary objects from the Clarksville Mound Group.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee commended the very thorough and extensive information presented, and asked clarifying questions. In response to a question by Ms. Farm, Ms. Hunter stated that there has been no communication regarding this issue between The Osage Nation and the Sac & Fox tribes. In addition, following The Osage Nation’s submission of a cultural affiliation claim, the Missouri SHPO has not responded to or consulted with The Osage Nation.

Review Committee Motion Mr. O’Rourke made a motion that the Review Committee make a finding of fact that the minimum number of 29 sets of human remains and the 2 associated funerary objects from the Clarksville Mound Group are culturally affiliated with The Osage Nation. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Minthorn followed the practice of the chair only voting in the case of a tie.

Review Committee Motion Regarding the second part of The Osage Nation’s request, the Review Committee stated that the determination of the most appropriate claimant is inherently the responsibility of the institution, in this case the Missouri SHPO. While the Review Committee would like to see this matter progress toward resolution, they have insufficient information to override the Missouri SHPO’s previous cultural affiliation determination with the Sac & Fox NAGPRA Confederacy. Ms. Mattix stated that this situation was essentially a competing claim, and it is now the responsibility of the Missouri SHPO to consult with The Osage Nation and consider the competing claim.

In an effort to facilitate positive progress, Ms. Edgar made a motion that the Review Committee strongly recommends that the Missouri SHPO, pursuant to NAGPRA regulations, determine the most appropriate claimant in this case within the next six months, in consultation with The Osage Nation and the Sac & Fox NAGPRA Confederacy. If the Missouri SHPO cannot make such a determination within six months, the Review Committee requests that the Missouri SHPO notify the Review Committee of the barrier to doing so. Mr. Titla seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Minthorn asked The Osage Nation to provide updates to the Review Committee.

Public Comment – November 18, 2016

Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, extended a formal invitation for the Review Committee to meet at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN.

Mr. Frank Wozniak Mr. Frank Wozniak, National NAGPRA Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, described a successful international repatriation effort involving Chugach National Forest and the Chugach villages of southeast Alaska with the Danish National Museum.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 12 Subcommittee Discussions and Appointments

Ms. O’Brien summarized the status of the Review Committee’s subcommittees and their membership as of the previous Review Committee meeting. These include the subcommittee on the 2015 report to Congress, the subcommittee on the dispute procedures, the subcommittee on the CA/CUI reports, the subcommittee on the issue of “balance,” the subcommittee on lands for reburial, the subcommittee to consider ambiguities in the statute, and the subcommittee to arrange a meeting with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. After discussion, the Review Committee members agreed to retain only the subcommittee on the report to Congress for 2015 and 2016 (members O’Rourke and Lyons), and incorporate the other topics for consideration under a general subcommittee of the whole, which can communicate to discuss outstanding issues and report back to the full Review Committee at regular meetings. Outstanding issues that the Review Committee noted for future consideration include lands for reburial, identification of potential ambiguities in the statute, CA/CUI reports and the potential development of consultation guidelines, identification of topics for discussion for a meeting with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, and coordination of such meeting with the National NAGPRA Program. The Review Committee asked the National NAGPRA Program to coordinate regular teleconferences for the subcommittee of the whole.

Review Committee Motion Mr. O’Rourke made a motion that the Review Committee constitute a subcommittee of the whole. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote.

Action Item: Initial Discussion of the Review Committee 2015 Report to Congress

Mr. O’Rourke summarized the current draft 2015 report to Congress, which was provided to the Review Committee members for consideration prior to the meeting. Mr. O’Rourke stated he incorporated structural changes, in large part in an effort to streamline the report, as well as the suggested changes submitted by the Review Committee members. Mr. O’Rourke reviewed the list of barriers to NAGPRA implementation and the recommendations to Congress.

The barriers to NAGPRA implementation include:  Lack of adequate staffing and support within the National NAGPRA Program, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums and Federal agencies  Failure to properly report inventories from museums and Federal agencies, including failure to properly inventory federally controlled collections curated in non-Federal repositories, failure to properly report the scope of consultation activities with lineal descendants, Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains and funerary objects, and failure to submit notices for culturally affiliated human remains and funerary objects  Lack of appropriate locations for reburial  Additional layers of administrative review by the National Park Service (for which Mr. O’Rourke asked for input from Review Committee members)  Need for amendments to the Act and its regulations to provide clarity

The recommendations to Congress include: 1. Fulfill the statutory requirements of NAGPRA by providing adequate and consistent staffing and support to the National NAGPRA Program. 2. Continue to support and increase grant funding, especially to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations that will build institutional capacity and meet the requirements of Congressional policy of Indian self- determination. 3. Enact legislation to further and consistently protect Native American burials by providing methods to protect public lands or allow tribes to acquire public lands in order to provide areas for reburial. 4. Support broader opportunities for reburial of Native American ancestors on Federal lands, including National Parks. 5. Support Federal agency compliance with NAGPRA, including expedited completion of inventories of Federal collections in non-Federal repositories. 6. Support stronger enforcement measures by the Review Committee and the National NAGPRA Program, as well as the Secretary of the Interior, to better deal with compliance issues.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 13

Ms. O’Brien stated that the National NAGPRA Program has a plan to address the staffing issues within the National NAGPRA Program, and encouraged the Review Committee to consider the structure of the recommendations in light of the increased requests for grant funding by NAGPRA constituents. The Review Committee welcomed comments from those present regarding the report to Congress.

Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – National Park Service

Presentation Mr. Larry Turk, Superintendent, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, National Park Service, Mr. Timothy Begay, Navajo Nation Historical Preservation Department, and Karen Wurzburger, National Park Service, Intermountain Region Office of Indian Affairs and American Culture, appeared before the Review Committee. Ms. Wurzburger stated the request is for the joint disposition of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains of two individuals and eight funerary objects to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico & Utah. Chaco Culture National Historical Park is located in northwestern New Mexico. Some Indian tribes consider the canyon as sacred ancestral land, and members of at least 25 Indian tribes continue to consult, advise, and take an active role in the stewardship of the park today.

In 1938, Chaco Canyon National Monument took custody of two individuals and eight associated funerary objects as part of the Harkness Collection, believed to have been collected from within a 100-mile radius of Shiprock, NM. The Harkness Collection was initially documented as a temporary loan, however no official loan paperwork has been located and there are no copies of correspondence with Mr. Harkness after 1938. In 1959, the NPS wrote to the General Services Administration (GSA) claiming title to the collection through voluntary abandonment on park land. In 1963, the GSA determined that the NPS could consider the Harkness Collection abandoned property with title vested in the NPS. Physical anthropological and textile analysis determined the human remains to be Native American but yielded conflicting information regarding age and potential cultural affiliation. Chaco Culture National Historical Park engaged in three separate face-to-face consultations with 18 Indian tribes, and was in contact with 13 additional Indian tribes who did not participate in the face-to-face consultations.

Chaco Culture National Historical Park has determined the human remains to be culturally unidentifiable with careful consideration of the lack of specific provenience or contextual information, the conflicting osteological and textile analyses yielding vastly different date estimates, and the information and recommendations provided by the consulting Indian tribes. Due to their documented connections to aboriginal lands within the 100-mile radius noted in the collection records for the Harkness Collection, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico & Utah have agreed to jointly accept control of the two individuals and eight associated funerary objects on behalf of all of the consulting tribes. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; and the Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona provided letters in support of this disposition; no consulting tribes expressed opposition to the disposition.

Mr. Timothy Begay stated that this simple recommendation would correct a wrong and allow the Native American human remains to be put back into the ground where they belong. Mr. Begay noted that there is agreement among the area Indian tribes on this issue, and thanked the Review Committee for their time and consideration.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee commended Chaco Culture National Historical Park for their due diligence and consultation efforts, and asked clarifying questions of the information presented.

Review Committee Motion Mr. Titla made a motion that the Review Committee recommend to the Secretary that the proposed joint disposition of the two human remains and eight associated funerary objects to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico & Utah proceed under the agreement. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 14 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – Tennessee Valley Authority

Presentation Ms. Patricia Ezzell, Tribal Liaison, Mr. Tom Maher, NAGPRA Coordinator, and Ms. Marianne Shuler, Staff Archaeologist, Tennessee Valley Authority, appeared before the Review Committee. Ms. Ezzell provided a brief history of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA was established as a Federal corporation in 1933 to help develop the Tennessee Valley region, covering all of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia. As in 1933, the TVA remains committed to serving the people and improving the quality of life in the valley in the areas of energy, environment and economic development. The TVA is self-supporting and governed by a nine-member policy making board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The TVA’s construction processes through the years have led to the excavation of hundreds of archeological sites.

Mr. Maher summarized the CUI disposition request of the TVA for the joint disposition of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains of one individual and two associated funerary objects to the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Shawnee Tribe, the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Dixon Creek site (40SM113) was first identified during a surface survey of the planned Hartsville Nuclear Plant, located adjacent to the Cumberland River in middle Tennessee. Like many of TVA’s nuclear plant projects, construction of the Hartsville Nuclear Plant was deferred and ultimately canceled. Additional survey and excavations of the Dixon Creek site took place from 1974 to 1976, during which one individual and two associated funerary objects were removed. Reconstruction of the excavation indicates occupation of the Dixon Creek site from approximately 500 B.C. through A.D. 1450. Chronological evidence provided by the funerary objects indicates the burial dates from A.D. 1050 to A.D. 1450. The TVA consulted with interested Indian tribes. Following the NAGPRA process and with tribal agreement, the TVA determined that, although clearly Native American, there was not sufficient evidence to determine cultural affiliation with any federally recognized Indian tribe, and an agreement for joint disposition to the above-mentioned tribes was developed.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee asked clarifying questions of the information presented. In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Maher stated that the TVA has control over many thousands of NAGPRA objects but possesses almost none, although the items within this agreement are within the possession of the TVA. The TVA works in partnership with non-Federal repositories housing collections under the TVA’s control. Due to the size of the collections, the TVA is working through the process in consultation with tribes on a site-by-site basis. Mr. Minthorn and Mr. Titla expressed concern that consultation should be ongoing and face-to-face. Ms. Ezzell described the TVA’s consultation process, which is based on positive relationships with the Indian tribes. Face-to-face consultations have and do occur when possible. However, due to their large collections and frequent consultations, face-to-face consultation does not occur regarding every request. Mr. Minthorn asked for a copy of TVA’s consultation policy. Ms. Ezzell stated TVA has a consultation process, which she would be happy to provide. Ms. Mattix clarified that the TVA is required to follow the NAGPRA process, and Ms. O’Brien stated that the TVA has submitted required inventories and summaries. Mr. Ian Thompson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, stated that the TVA has worked to create a strong relationship with his tribe. Distance is an issue, and at times phone consultations have been at the request of the tribe. Mr. Minthorn asked that the TVA regularly update the Review Committee on its NAGPRA implementation.

Review Committee Motion Mr. Titla made a motion that the Review Committee recommend to the Secretary that the proposed joint disposition of one individual and two associated funerary objects to the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Shawnee Tribe, the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma proceed under the agreement. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 15 Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – Texas State University

Presentation Texas State University Mr. Todd Ahlman, Director of the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University, summarized the CUI disposition request of the Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University. Mr. Ahlman was joined by Mr. Mario Garza, Cultural Preservation Officer, Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians, and Ms. Tamara Francis-Fourkiller, Chairman, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. Mr. Ahlman stated that Texas State University has received a disposition request from the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians and a competing request for cultural affiliation and repatriation from the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. Mr. Ahlman summarized the request, which includes Native American human remains representing a minimum of six individuals from two sites.

In February 1983, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from site 41HY161 on the Texas State University campus in the City of San Marcos, Hayes County. Osteological analysis was conducted and the human remains were determined to be of pre-contact Native American ancestry. Radiocarbon dating in 2010 found that one set of human remains is approximately 3,500 years old and the other is approximately 500 years old. Consultation was conducted in 1995 with Indian tribes having aboriginal connections with Texas. There are currently no federally recognized tribes with aboriginal or tribal lands in Hayes County, TX. At that time, the human remains were not found to be culturally affiliated with any Indian tribe. In July 2014, the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People, a nonfederally recognized Indian group, submitted a request for the disposition of the human remains. Following consultation, Texas State University determined that the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People has a connection with the human remains based on oral tradition, geography and similar cultural practices. In August 2015, Texas State University engaged in consultation with 26 federally recognized Indian tribes regarding the proposed disposition. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and The Osage Nation of Oklahoma responded and indicated that site 41HY161 is out of their ancestral territory. On September 16, 2015, the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma submitted a request asking that the human remains from site 41HY161 be culturally affiliated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. In October 2015, Texas State University requested additional information from the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma in order to assess cultural affiliation, and this information was provided to the Review Committee.

In February 2008 and April 2009, human remains representing a minimum of four individuals were removed from site 41HY163 on Wonder World Drive, City of San Marcos, Hayes County, TX. Osteological analysis was conducted and the human remains were determined to be of pre-contact Native American ancestry, dating from approximately A.D. 645 to A.D. 735. In 2010, consultation was conducted by the City of San Marcos, TX, in cooperation with the Center for Archaeological Studies, with the representatives of seven Indian tribes with aboriginal territory in Texas. At that time, the City of San Marcos determined the human remains to be culturally unaffiliated with any of the consultant Indian tribes. In July 2014, the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People, a nonfederally recognized Indian group, submitted a request for the disposition of the human remains. Following consultation, Texas State University determined that the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People has a connection with the human remains based on oral tradition, geography and similar cultural practices. In February 2015, Texas State University engaged in consultation with 26 federally recognized Indian tribes regarding the proposed disposition. Several Indian tribes deferred consultation, requested additional information or expressed support for the disposition request. On September 16, 2015, the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma submitted a request asking that the human remains from site 41HY163 be culturally affiliated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma. In October 2015, Texas State University requested additional information from the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma in order to assess cultural affiliation, and this information was provided to the Review Committee.

After review of the information, Texas State University believes that the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People has the strongest claim for disposition of the human remains from archeological sites 41HY161 and 41HY163, and is asking the Review Committee to approve their request for disposition to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People, a nonfederally recognized group. If this request cannot be approved, Texas State University asks for guidance in how to proceed with the repatriation process.

Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan People Dr. Mario Garza stated that the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians is one of only four state-recognized tribes in Texas. “Coahuiltecan” refers to a large number of minor groups on both sides of the Rio Grande with a common language called the Coahuiltecan language family. The Coahuiltecan people have retained their language, ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 16 culture, dances and ceremonies, which include the use of the peyote. The peyote only grows in the Coahuiltecan homelands, and has always been an integral part of Coahuiltecan ceremony and culture. While many Texas Indians were forced to leave Texas, the Coahuiltecan people were colonized by the Spaniards and remained on their traditional homelands in the Spring Lake area in Hayes County, TX. As noted in oral history and local rock art, including the White Shaman Panel, the San Marco Springs have been considered a sacred site going back to creation. The White Shaman Panel is dated at over 4,000 years old and depicts the creation story of the Coahuiltecan people. Mr. Garza provided a detailed description of the sacred nature of the San Marco Spring, the creation story and its depiction on the White Shaman panel design. Mr. Garza stated that the City of San Marcos has provided 2 acres from their 264-acre national preserve for a protected burial site on city parkland, with the offer of additional land if necessary. This land is adjacent to Texas State University. The Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians plans to reinter the human remains as close as possible to where they were removed.

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Ms. Tamara Francis-Fourkiller, Chairman, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, thanked the Review Committee for the opportunity to speak. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller agreed that the human remains should be reburied as close as possible from where they were removed. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller provided an expanded summary of the history and oral tradition of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, from that contained in the materials. The Caddo people have lived in Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri for thousands of years, maintaining their traditions, ceremonies and language. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller stated that oral tradition, written accounts, and pottery motifs describe the gathering and use of the peyote for thousands of years. The Caddo people had connections to the area, which they frequently traveled through to gather peyote. The Caddo consisted of as many as 50 subdivisions, and were known for use of tattoos and ear spools as a way to demonstrate alliances. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller stated that the Caddo people have a history in the area supported by oral traditions, cultural items, travel patterns, and written history.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Ms. Farm asked if the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma had any objection to the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians taking possession of and reburying the human remains. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller stated that the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma would object because the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians is a nonfederally recognized Indian group. The Caddo Nation of Oklahoma is a federally recognized Indian tribe with a traditional history dating back thousands of years. In response to a question from Mr. Lyons, Mr. Ahlman described the consultation process; although he is uncertain of the initial consultation in 1995, Mr. Ahlman stated that the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma was included in recent consultation efforts. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller stated that recent staff changes including her position as Chairman, as well as historical boundary clarifications, led to their participation later in this process. The Review Committee members asked questions to clarify the information presented.

Mr. Lyons asked if the parties would be willing to do a joint request. Ms. Francis-Fourkiller described the differences in tradition, ceremonial practice, and past repatriations between the two groups that led to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma submitting a competing claim. Mr. Garza stated that not all of the information presented by Ms. Francis-Fourkiller was correct and was disrespectful toward the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Mr. Minthorn emphasized the importance of all groups working together for the reburial of ancestral remains.

Ms. Holly Houghton, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and NAGPRA Coordinator, Mescalero Apache Tribe, stated that her tribe has aboriginal claims to this area as well and is opposed to the return of the human remains to a nonfederally recognized group. Ms. Houghton stated that she felt more consultation was needed before a decision could be reached, and expressed concern regarding the status of State recognized tribes in Texas. Ms. Houghton stated that her tribe supports the efforts of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma in moving forward with this request. Mr. Ahlman stated that the Mescalero Apache Tribe was included in the consultation efforts.

The Review Committee discussed the aboriginal land status of the area and the status of the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians as a nonfederally recognized Indian group. Mr. Garza stated that their status as nonfederally recognized is due to their unique history of being colonized by the Spaniards, but does not negate their history, culture and tradition in the area for thousands of years. Ms. Farm asked if the parties would be willing to participate in further consultation efforts to resolve the request. Mr. Garza, Ms. Francis-Fourkiller and Ms. Houghton agreed that they would.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 17 Review Committee Motion Mr. Titla made a motion that the Review Committee recommend further consultation between Texas State University and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, and the Miakan-Garza Band of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Mr. O’Rourke seconded the motion. Ms. Farm asked for an amendment to add a six-month consultation deadline. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Ms. Mattix clarified that depending on the results of consultation, the request may need to come back before the Review Committee.

Action Item: CUI Disposition Request – University of Denver Museum of Anthropology

Presentation Ms. Anne Amati, NAGPRA Coordinator, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, summarized the CUI disposition request of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology for the disposition of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains of 96 individuals and 12 associated funerary objects to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah. Ms. Amati was joined by Southern Ute Indian Tribe representatives, Mr. Alden Naranjo and Ms. Cassandra Naranjo. The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology is a teaching museum dedicated to educating students about the ethical practices of conservation, interpretation, and administration of anthropological collections. The goal of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology’s NAGPRA program is the repatriation of all NAGPRA cultural items in the collection through meaningful consultation with Indian tribes. The request is for the disposition of 96 individuals and 12 associated funerary objects, with no provenience information, listed on the NAGPRA culturally unidentifiable inventory. The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has determined that the individuals are Native American based on its collecting practices, as well as the findings of a physical anthropologist employed by the museum prior to 1995.

In February 2015, the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology invited tribes with a legacy of occupation in Colorado to consult. Through consultation, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah requested transfer of control and to take the lead in reburial if no other tribes came forward. The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology received letters from 18 Indian tribes documenting support for the proposed disposition and decided to move forward under 43 CFR 10.16. In June 2015, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana requested further consultation, which was conducted. In a September 2015 letter, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana requested that the proposed disposition be postponed so DNA analysis could be carried out. As a general rule, the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology does not allow testing or research on the human remains in its possession or control. Because the request was part of consultation, the museum sought the input of the 48 consulting tribes, and received 24 responses in opposition, 4 responses with no opposition, and 3 responses from tribes not willing to take a position. Based on this feedback, the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology decided not to pursue genetic testing and to proceed with the disposition request to the Review Committee. All consulting tribes, including the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana were notified in late October. Ms. Amati stated that the consultation work was made possible through a NAGPRA consultation grant.

Mr. Arden Naranjo provided additional information on the request. In order to expedite the process when institutions have questions of where human remains come from, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, tries to work with all consulting tribes to make sure the process can move forward. They are opposed to DNA testing or any physical analysis of human remains that are found. Mr. Naranjo stated that they have a very good relationship with the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology and others in the state of Colorado. Mr. Naranjo hopes that with time, the lengthy process of return of ancestral remains can be shortened. Ms. Cassandra Naranjo stated that these human remains have been in collections for between 20 and 70 years, and it is a priority to try to complete the process of returning them to the ground, as it is with all ancestral remains. Ms. Naranjo reiterated the opposition of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, to DNA testing, as it takes away a piece of the person.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn, Ms. Amati stated that the process of identifying a reburial location has been started. Mr. Minthorn encouraged those who are able to attend a reburial ceremony. In response to a question by Mr. O’Rourke, Mr. Naranjo stated that their reburials are open to members from consulting tribes but not the ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 18 public. Mr. O’Rourke asked for clarification of the reasons for the genetic testing. Ms. Amati stated that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, indicated they believe some of the ancestors may be Northern Cheyenne ancestors. However, following the feedback from the consulting tribes, the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology decided not to pursue genetic testing and notified the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, of the decision. In response to a question by Ms. Farm, Ms. Amati stated that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, did respond to the news and were not happy. Ms. Farm confirmed that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, knew that the request was scheduled to be presented to the Review Committee and were not present at the meeting. Mr. Lyons commended the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology for their good faith effort.

Review Committee Motion Mr. O’Rourke made a motion that the Review Committee recommend to the Secretary that the proposed disposition of the 96 human remains and 12 associated funerary objects to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah proceed under the agreement. Ms. Farm seconded the motion. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.

Presentation: Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup

Presentation Ms. Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison at History Colorado and member of the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup, presented on behalf of the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup. Ms. Goff was joined by Southern Ute Indian Tribe representatives, Mr. Alden Naranjo and Ms. Cassandra Naranjo, and Ms. Betsy Chapoose, Cultural Rights and Protection Director, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah. The Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup was formed (through tribal initiation) to identify state, tribal and Federal agency lands within Colorado suitable for reburial of Native American human remains and funerary objects in the possession of Colorado museums and/or that originated in the state of Colorado that have been repatriated or dispositioned to tribes under NAGPRA. The signatories to this agreement include the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs; the Department of Natural Resources; History Colorado; the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region; the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Intermountain Region; the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. The entities making requests for assistance include the University of Colorado, the University of Denver, History Colorado, and Denver Museum of Nature and Science. To date, the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup has met 5 times and considered 19 requests. Of those, 10 requests have been resolved, 1 is in process, and 8 were unable to be resolved. An additional two requests have been received. Reasons for nonresolution include possible conflicts with agency governing authorities primarily related to unknown origin/origin outside of the state of Colorado. Ms. Goff stated that the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup hopes that they will be able to work to resolve some of these conflicts.

Mr. Alden Naranjo stated that the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup was established because of the problem of finding reinternment locations for ancestors. The agreement was developed through the perseverance and dedication of all involved parties. Mr. Naranjo stated that the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup wants to try to expedite this process, as well as continue to build a process that can serve as a model for efforts across the United States.

Ms. Betsy Chapoose stated that the homelands of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah, are in Colorado, and they were forcibly removed to Utah. Through the process developed by the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup and working with the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah, and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, has allowed her tribe to reinter their ancestral remains, originally from Colorado, as close as possible to where they were found. Ms. Chapoose stated she is on the Utah State Human Remains Review Committee, and this is an excellent model.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 19 Ms. Cassandra Naranjo reiterated the words of Mr. Naranjo and Ms. Chapoose; finding reburial lands amidst stringent policies is difficult. Ms. Naranjo stated that the current process is effective, and can hopefully be improved upon.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Mr. Minthorn commended the work of the Colorado Lands for Repatriation and Reburial Workgroup, and acknowledged the difficulty in finding burial lands for ancestors. Mr. Minthorn stated that tribal preference in the Northwest is for reburial as close as possible to the original location, and the tribes work closely together toward that goal, including reburial on other tribe’s lands and, in one case, reburial in a non-Indian cemetery close to the original site. Ms. Goff stated she has worked in situations where one Indian tribe allows reburial of ancestral remains from another Indian tribe on their land. Mr. Lyons stated he was familiar with similar situations in Arizona. Mr. Naranjo asked if the Review Committee could make a recommendation in favor of a uniform reburial policy for Federal agencies to the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Minthorn stated that the Review Committee could make such a recommendation in their report to Congress, understanding that the Secretary of the Interior has oversight only over agencies within the Department of the Interior. Mr. Minthorn thanked the presenters for their update.

Presentation: National Park Service, Park NAGPRA

Presentation Ms. Mary Carroll, Program Manager, Park NAGPRA Program, provided an update on NAGPRA implementation. Park NAGPRA is part of the Tribal Relations and American Cultures Office, a division of the National Park Service Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science Directorate. Park NAGPRA provides technical advice, guidance and training to all National Park units, centers and regions across the country. To date, the NPS has published 163 Notices of Inventory Completion representing 4,930 individuals and 90,108 associated funerary objects (AFO). Of these, 4,368 individuals and 42,671 associated funerary objects have been repatriated; 43 individuals and 493 AFOs will be repatriated in FY 2016; 206 individuals and 523 AFOs are contained in recently published, corrected or pending notices; 10 individuals and 67 AFOs are under competing or withdrawn claims; and no claim has been received for the remaining 303 individuals and 46,365 AFOs. The NPS is committed to repatriating all Native American human remains and AFOs in its control, and to care for the ancestors appropriately and respectfully until that time.

Ms. Carroll stated that the 2010 General Accountability Office’s (GAO) report referenced NPS Notices of Inventory Completion that had been submitted but not yet published. Ms. Carroll stated that those notices were subsequently withdrawn for verification, consultation and possible revision. Eight of the ten parks identified in the report have since published their notices. Two parks have outstanding notices yet to be published. One is in process and the other is delayed due to ongoing litigation. Ms. Carroll stated that Park NAGPRA has implemented several initiatives over the past ten years. These include an internship program and a training program targeted for park superintendents, resource managers, archeologists, curators and other NPS staff with NAGPRA duties. Recent budget concerns will increase the use of distance learning and training at the local and regional level. The NPS’s online Cultural Resources Career Academy, still in development, will provide internal online resources, networking for cultural resource professionals, and a NAGPRA Help Center. Ms. Carroll noted NPS NAGPRA activities, such as the Intermountain Region’s multi-park project, the high-tech project that allowed Natchez Trace to rebury human remains in their original burial pits, and the Alaska Region’s positive experience working with Alaska Native villages, the National Science Foundation, and Alaska State agencies on an inadvertent discovery at Kobuk Valley National Park. Ms. Carroll stated that barriers to NAGPRA implementation within the NPS include budget limitations and loss of expertise as NAGPRA coordinators retire or move on to other positions.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Mr. O’Rourke asked for an update on the inadvertent discovery at Kobuk Valley National Park. Ms. Carroll stated that she did not have an immediate answer but could provide the information. Mr. Minthorn asked about the NPS’s reburial policy. Ms. Carroll stated that the NPS reburial policy is to allow reburial on NPS lands of human remains and objects that were originally removed from NPS lands; waivers to the policy are possible under limited circumstances and policy changes would need to come from higher levels within the NPS. Ms. Mattix stated that waivers need to go through several levels, including the appropriate regional director, and be approved by the directorate. Policy change is possible during service-wide policy review, a process that occurs every few years and most recently in 2006. The Review Committee thanked Ms. Carroll for her update. ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 20

Mr. Minthorn asked representatives of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for information regarding TVA’s reburial policies. Mr. Maher stated that the TVA is working to identify locations for reburial of human remains and objects under its control, with a goal of future security and ongoing protection. Ms. Ezzell stated that the TVA tries to rebury close as possible to the original site.

Presentation: Forest Service

Presentation Mr. Wozniak, National NAGPRA Coordinator and NAGPRA Coordinator for the Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, provided an update on NAGPRA implementation. In response to the publication of 43 CFR 10.7, Mr. Wozniak stated that the Forest Service will be minimally impacted by publication of the rule due to early consideration by establishing and implementing efficient approaches to the implementation of Section 3 of the statute. The Forest Service summarized its NAGPRA implementation and required repatriation reporting on two spreadsheets, which were provided to the Review Committee prior to the meeting and made available on the National NAGPRA Program website. In FY 2015, the Forest Service repatriated 113 Native American human remains, for a total to date of 2,368 individuals, 21,781 associated funerary objects, 7,269 unassociated funerary objects, 362 sacred objects, and 624 objects of cultural patrimony. Mr. Wozniak provided a clarification for the discrepancy contained in the reports. Mr. Wozniak stated that until 2008 the Forest Service did reburials on its land under its discretionary authority. In 2008, statutory provisions at 25 USC 3051 (122 Stat. 1286; PL 110-234) set forth the reburial policy of the Forest Service.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee thanked Mr. Wozniak for his presentation.

Presentation: Columbia Plateau Inter-Tribal Repatriation Group

Presentation Ms. Jacqueline Cook, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, stated that the Columbia Plateau Inter-Tribal Repatriation Group (CPITRG) consists of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids, a nonfederally recognized Indian group. A copy of the presentation was provided to the Review Committee members prior to the meeting and made available on the National NAGPRA Program website. The CPITRG has repatriated a total of 1,515 individuals, 54,664 funerary objects and 1 sacred object from 54 institutions under NAGPRA.

The CPITRG provided an update on the Ancient One, also known as Kennewick Man. The CPITRG has requested repatriation of the Ancient One for over 20 years. The resulting court cases placed the claimant tribes in the status of interested parties. In accordance with spiritual and cultural practices, the tribes conducted annual ceremonies when permitted, with and for the Ancient One. Studies performed by the plaintiff scientists were inconclusive regarding whether the Ancient One was Native American. The most recent study of DNA results, presented in June 2015, confirmed that the Ancient One is more closely related to the claimant Columbia Plateau tribes than any other current or past populations studied to date, globally. The goal of the claimant tribes to jointly repatriate and rebury the Ancient One has not changed, and the tribes are working in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as with Senator Patty Murray on the Bring the Ancient One Home Act of 2015.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee thanked Ms. Cook for her presentation. Mr. O’Rourke stated that he was not surprised with the finding. Mr. Titla asked if there was anything that the Review Committee could do to help the claimant tribes. Ms. Mattix stated that, following a very long litigation history, the issue is currently under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers to consider and perhaps make a new decision.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 21 Presentation: Indiana University

Presentation Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, provided an update on NAGPRA implementation. Since the last update in November 2014, Indiana University has continued consultation efforts with face-to-face meetings with tribes in Washington State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California and New Mexico. Ms. Thomas has met face-to-face with representatives of over 50 tribes, with many more communications through phone and email. In 2015, Indiana University repatriated 13 collections comprising 44 individuals and 184 associated funerary objects; an additional 4 repatriations are scheduled for the spring of 2016.

Three grants positively affected Indiana University in 2015. The first allowed a collaborative effort with the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government for the repatriation of a collection to Barrow, AK (described in a separate presentation). A consultation grant was awarded which will be used to bring tribal members from ten different tribes to Bloomington for a three-day event to discuss the future of CUI collections from the state of Indiana. In 2014, researchers from Indiana University were awarded a one-year National Science Foundation grant to research NAGPRA education throughout the United States and plan interventions to improve repatriation literacy. A second implementation phase was funded in 2015 for an additional three years, which will allow work with tribal college educators and collaboration on educational materials to improve cultural awareness and NAGPRA practice.

The Indiana University NAGPRA program has the full support of the university’s provost and administration. Indiana University is committed to working with tribes, and encourages tribes to come to Bloomington to utilize campus resources and tour facilities related to NAGPRA collections.

Presentation: Indiana University/Native Village of Barrow

Presentation Ms. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, presented a repatriation project on behalf of Indiana University and the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, with their permission, encouragement and support. In 1916, Indiana native Mollie Greist and her husband, Dr. Henry Greist, traveled to Barrow to work as missionaries, where they stayed for 17 years. Upon their return to Indiana, they brought a large collection of parkas, fishhooks and other objects, which were later given to the Indiana Historical Society and then later yet to Indiana University. Consultation on the collection began in the spring of 2014 and a Notice of Inventory Completion was submitted in the fall of 2014. The parties applied for, and were awarded, a joint repatriation grant. In June of 2015, representatives of Indiana University traveled with the ancestors to Barrow, AK, for the repatriation, which was held in conjunction with the June whaling festival. Collaboration will continue with Flossie Mongoyak, NAGPRA coordinator, Native Village of Barrow, on other collections from Barrow at Indiana University.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee commended Indiana University’s NAGPRA implementation work, and specifically Ms. Thomas’s consultation efforts. Mr. Minthorn asked if climate change was affecting the people in Barrow, AK. Ms. Thomas stated that while they were there, the people of Barrow commented on the changes in ice melt and migration patterns of local animals due to warmer weather, as well as the recent appearance of invasive plants. Mr. Minthorn asked Indiana University to continue to provide updates to the Review Committee.

Public Comment – November 19, 2015

Ms. Erin Gredell, Ms. Linda Langley and Mr. Bertney Langley Ms. Erin Gredell, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, stated she met the Langleys when she initiated a consultation with regard to a burial from Pine Island, AL, with numerous tribes. Ms. Gredell stated the draft notice was just approved for the Pine Island, AL burial.

Mr. Bertney Langley, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, provided a brief history of the ancestors in Koasati language.

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 22 Ms. Linda Langley, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, summarized Mr. Langley’s statement. The Koasati people appreciate the opportunity to speak. The old people have said that in the end times all those who were lost will return and will come home. The people feel this process is the beginning of that. The Koasati people were not aware of the culturally unidentifiable Koasati until contacted by Ms. Gredell. This caused a great sense of horror back home. The chairman and council immediately said something must be done. Mr. Langley described the history of the Koasati people. The Koasati people were once one large group in Tennessee and Alabama, that later split and began a series of journeys away from their ancestral homelands. There are three groups of Koasati people; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town in Oklahoma, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, and the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana left first and has the least amount of paper documentation; however, they did retain their traditional culture and language. Because the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was not forcibly removed, they have no treaties, roll lists or numbers, and therefore no land base listed on the National NAGPRA Program databases. Working with Ms. Gredell has shown that NAGPRA can be a tremendously powerful process. Through this process, the Koasati have reached out to other Koasati groups, as well as numerous scholars and agencies. The process has also impacted tribal members, and Mr. Langley described the experience of one member who journeyed to the site at Pine Island in Alabama. Mr. Langley stated that this experience will make the Koasati people stronger and bring them together in a way that honors the ancestors and brings them to rest.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Mr. Minthorn stated that this is a unique situation, and encouraged the Koasati people to reach out to other tribes, institutions and the National NAGPRA Program for assistance. Mr. Minthorn stated that the experience would strengthen the Koasati people. Mr. Minthorn thanked the presenters for the information, and stated that the Review Committee would be interested in updates.

Ms. Robin Dushane Ms. Robin Dushane, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, stated that over the past ten years, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma received two separate documentation and consultation grants through the National NAGPRA Program, which greatly increased their capacity to consult on NAGPRA issues. The second repatriation has resulted in the reburial of 25 ancestors in West Virginia previously under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District. Through further consultation, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma has established a goal of pursuing repatriation of the district’s entire Fort Ancient collection. Ms. Dushane stated that they consult with the TVA, and the TVA’s consultation methods are very strong and should serve as a model.

Ms. Jaime Lavallee – Working Group on International Repatriation Ms. Jaime Lavallee, member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation from Treaty 6 territory in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ms. Lavallee works in Treaty 4 territory for the File Hills Qu-Appelle Tribal Council, as the Director of Indigenous Governance, Law and Policy. In addition Ms. Lavallee is working as an SJD candidate with the University of Arizona doing a dissertation on NAGPRA. Ms. Lavallee stated she is a member of the Working Group on International Repatriation with the AAIA, which just held its first conference at the Artesian Hotel, in Sulphur, OK. The Working Group on International Repatriation is a volunteer based group of people that are interested in international repatriation. Ms. Lavallee listed several of the participants.

Ms. Lavallee summarized several recommendations developed during the conference.  Coordinate another set of amnesty days abroad and in the U.S.  Establish intertribal enforcement units on cultural resources to be proactive against looting.  Study illicit trade in Native ancestors or cultural items.  Share success stories and progress reports of ongoing international repatriation efforts, including resources like databases and templates.  Address funding limitations.  Address National NAGPRA Program limited grant applicability (currently limited to 50 states); the Supreme Court states applicability of domestic laws includes the territories and insular areas of the U.S. unless specifically exempted by Congress.  Encourage Congress to pass export legislation, making it illegal for cultural items to be removed from the country.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion Ms. Edgar described the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology’s practice of accepting materials from individuals that ______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 23 should be returned to other countries, and then facilitating those returns. Ms. Edgar asked if the Working Group on International Repatriation had information from other institutions with similar practices. Ms. Lavallee stated that information was not shared at the recent conference or past teleconferences, but it is exactly the type of success story and sharing of knowledge and resources they would like to encourage.

Ms. Jaime Lavallee – Individual Comment Ms. Lavallee referenced the National NAGPRA Program report on civil enforcement and offered the following suggestions and questions:  Does the National NAGPRA Program have a priority or process for choosing the order of the outstanding allegations?  What is the National NAGPRA Program’s plan of action to resolve the remaining allegations?  What is the reporting by state of allegations received to date, in order to determine which states have the largest number of allegations?  For finalized cases, can institutions be asked to report on what incentivized them to complete their implementation, how long the process took, and the costs for complying versus noncompliance?  Develop a method to find noncompliant museums and institutions.  Release summaries of projects and results from successful grants (databases and templates) to help guide future NAGPRA implementation.  Develop an apprentice/mentor program to help those new to NAGPRA implementation and preserve the loss of information as NAGPRA staff across all entities starts to retire.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee thanked Ms. Lavallee for her comments.

Ms. Jan Bernstein Ms. Jan Bernstein, Bernstein & Associates, stated she is an independent museum consultant who has worked with repatriation since the early 1980s, including the development of and implementation of NAGPRA. In addition, Ms. Bernstein teaches courses for the National Preservation Institute, as described earlier by Ms. O’Brien. Ms. Bernstein described the trainings and stated that the trainings have been helpful in increasing the number of successful NAGPRA grant applications. Ms. Bernstein urged the Review Committee to consider including NAGPRA training in their report to Congress. Ms. Bernstein described several successful projects where she has worked with clients to successfully apply for and receive NAGPRA grants, resulting in successful consultation and repatriation efforts. Ms. Bernstein stated that she is working with several clients who are new to NAGPRA and are at the beginning of their implementation efforts. Some institutions are newly aware of their NAGPRA responsibilities, demonstrating the importance of spreading NAGPRA information. Ms. Bernstein acknowledged the importance of separation of the civil penalty process from the National NAGPRA Program Manager, and stated that the National NAGPRA Program remains a very helpful resource in NAGPRA compliance. Ms. Bernstein stated that when she last reported, she updated the Review Committee on her work with the Pueblo of Acoma and their difficulty in finding a reburial location for ancestral human remains. Since that time, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo offered land and helped facilitate the reburial.

Review Committee Questions and Discussion The Review Committee acknowledged Ms. Bernstein’s efforts and thanked her for her presentation.

Action Item: Discussion of the Review Committee 2015 Report to Congress

Mr. O’Rourke stated that he updated the draft report with discussions and suggested edits, including an amplification of barriers to implementation and discussion of possible remedies. Mr. Lyons asked about including a recommendation for amendment of the definition of Native American to include “or was.” Ms. O’Brien provided a brief background on the issue. The statute says Native American means, “of or relating to a tribe, people or culture that is indigenous to the United States.” The use of the verb “is” in this case provides some temporal definition about “indigenous to the United States.” Past Review Committee reports to Congress have included a recommendation for amendment of the definition to include “is or was indigenous to the United States.” After discussion, the Review Committee agreed to continue to recommend that Congress hold hearings to consider amendments to the Act, without specific reference to the definition of Native American, and to discuss this issue in

______NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 18-19, 2015, page 24 more depth within the subcommittee ofthe whole and at a future meeting. The Review Committee members agrei;d to review and comment upon the draft report, in preparation for approve I ofthe report at the December 14, 20 I 5 meeting.

Discussion: Upcoming Meeting Dates and Locations

Ms. O'Brien stated that theNational NAG PRA Program prepan:d an updated map ofpast meeting locations, which was provided to the Review·Comrnillee nn d made avai l11ble 9n the:National NAGPRA Program website. Ms. O'Brien asked the Revie:w Committee lo consider possible dates and locations for a June or July 2016 meeting. The Review Committee has open invitations/consideration of meetings in Juneau, AK; Salt Lake City, UT; Missoula, MT; the state of Arizona; Denver, CO; and Western New Mexico University. Ms. O;Bricn h11S received invitations on the Review Commiuee's beb.alffrom the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in Reno, NV; the Blue Lake R.ancheria in northern California; Indiana University for Bloomington, IN; and Choctaw, MS. Following discussion, Ms. O'Brien agreed to look into the following possible locations/invitations for the summer 20 J6 meeting: Montana, Mississippi and Indiana.

Closing Comments

Mr. Minthom thanked the Nationol NAGPRA Program staff and those present for their work Ms. O'Brien thanked the Review Committee members, National NAGPRA program staff and counsel, and those in the NAGPRA community for all of their hard work.

Traditional Closing

Mr. Ian Thompson, The Choctaw Nation, offered the traditional closing.

Meeting Adfoumment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m., Thursday, November l9, 201.5, by Mr. Minthom.

Certified -

February 16, 20 16 ??idMs. Melanie~~ O'Brien Date Manager, National NAGPRA Program Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee

Approved on behalf ofthe Review Committee -

Februarv 16. 2016 Mr. ArillDJld · iii I m Date ChnV,"Nativ American Graves Pro1ec1 io1 and Repatriation Review Committee

------NAGPRA REVIEW COMMITTEE------MEETING- MINUTHS------November I 8-19, 2015, pag~ 25