NAGPRA & UCB

Michigan works on coming clean

2012-01-16T21:23:00.001-08:00

Alrighty, the Univ. of Michigan is working on coming clean, what about UCB?

Check out:

http://www.energypublisher.com/a/UPOVCFIWLE46/66624-University-of-Michigan-to-comply-with-law-on-Native-American-remains

or

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-sets-formal-policy-for-returning-remains-to-native-americans/

Smithsonian in the news

2011-09-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

GAO Finds that Smithsonian Institution May Still Take Several More Decades to Repatriate Native American Remains and Objects

WASHINGTON, June 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Smithsonian Institution's process to repatriate thousands of Native American human remains and funerary objects in its collections is lengthy and resource intensive and it may take several more decades to return items to tribes under its current system, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

This GAO report is the second of a two-part, three-year effort to examine how publicly funded institutions are complying with the two federal laws that direct repatriation to Native Americans. Last year the GAO examined the repatriation work of eight key Federal agencies and the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

According to the GAO report, Smithsonian Institution: Much Work Still Needed to Identify and Repatriate Indian Human Remains and Objects, examiners suggested that Congress should consider ways to expedite the repatriation process and that the Board of Regents considers four administrative changes.

In 1989, Congress passed a law that created a repatriation process for the Smithsonian Institution; two of the institution's 19 galleries and museums hold important collections of Native American human remains and sacred objects. The law also created the National Museum of the American Indian. Though not certain of the exact number, the Smithsonian states it has about 20,000 catalog records of Native American human remains plus many more catalog records of cultural objects held at the National Museum of Natural History and the American Indian museum. Only a quarter of these have been repatriated to the rightful Native Indian owners, according to the GAO report released in May.

In addition to not regularly reporting to Congress, federal auditors said the repatriation process is lengthy and resource intensive. Both museums use a two-step repatriation process that starts with a printout from an electronic catalogue system that lists human remains and cultural objects that is sent to the tribe. The Indian tribe is then required to file a claim to either museum indicating their interest. Only then does the museum begin a lengthy process of using the "best available information" to build a case report that may or may not recommend repatriation. This process requires an Indian tribe to review thousands of electronic records, which, many times do not contain all relevant information.

rest at

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gao-finds-that-smithsonian-institution-may-still-take-several-more-decades-to-repatriate-native-american-remains-and-objects-123738549.html

Kenniwick Man

2011-09-12T19:01:00.000-07:00

Any surprise??? And really, what has come out of the Hearst's collection the last 5 years? Earthshaking research?

##########################

“Has there been any new information gained from human remains known as Kennewick Man or the Ancient One?”

Prior to any court rulings, a thorough examination of the skeletal remains was conducted by independent scientists contracted by the government in 1998-2000. The complete results of their studies are available online. This report includes the physical examination of the remains, radiocarbon dating, and initial attempts to extract DNA from the remains, which failed.

In 2002, Judge Jelderks ruled that the remains did not fit the definition of “Native American” under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This decision was primarily based on the fact that the human remains, based on their antiquity, could not be clearly connected with any present day Native American tribe. This decision was appealed by the government and later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2004. The scientists who took part as plaintiffs in the case have since studied the remains on three separate occasions between 2004 and 2006. Other than popular articles, the recent research conducted by the plaintiff scientists has not been published in scientific journals.

rest at

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/07/09/what-has-kennewick-man-taught-us-so-far/

More on the UCSD situation

2011-08-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

Ever since the remains of three ancient humans were unearthed in 1976 on property owned by the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), the Kumeyaay people have been engaged in a complex battle to have the remains repatriated to them. This would be against the wishes of many University of California (UC) scientists, who want to keep them for further study, a stance that is now opposed by UCSD administrators. But after decades of wrangling, recent actions by UCSD and the scientists who oppose repatriation have brought the remains once again into the spotlight.

The site of UCSD, on the bluffs of La Jolla in north San Diego County overlooking the Pacific Ocean, is some of the world’s prime real estate, but for the 12 bands of the Kumeyaay Nation, it has been part of their ancestral territory for at least 10,000 years, and likely longer. In 1976, three unusual burials (two adults and a child) were exposed by erosion at the university chancellor’s house (also known as University House)—unusual for how well-preserved they were, and how old they are. Archeologists estimate the remains at between 9,000 and 9,600 years old, making them possibly the oldest uncovered human remains in the continental United States. To archeologists like Eske Willerslev at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, they are the “crown jewels of the peopling of the Americas.” For the Kumeyaay, the “find” was yet another in a long line of desecrations at the site. The house has since been declared unlivable due to a variety of code violations, and recent plans to renovate the house have been hampered, in part because a draft environmental impact report revealed more burials on the site, causing it to be declared a “sanctified cemetery” by the state in 2008.

rest at

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/08/burial-site-battle-pits-kumeyaay-against-scientists/

Glen Cove settlement reached

2011-07-18T21:26:00.000-07:00

Vallejo compromises on park at Indian burial site

Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 16, 2011
Print E-mail Share Comments (30) Font | Size:
278

Brant Ward / The Chronicle

Spiritual leader Fred Short emerges from his teepee at Glen Cove Park, where protesters had camped, on Thursday. The city agreed Friday to share development rights with two tribes.

Vallejo officials agreed this week to dramatically scale back plans for a park on an American Indian burial ground, in response to protesters who have been camped on the site for three months.

The Vallejo parks board and City Council agreed to share development rights of Glen Cove park with two Northern California tribes whose ancestors likely lived there. The deal means the tribes must agree to development of the site, including restrooms, trails and other amenities protesters have been fighting.

The agreement caps a 12-year battle over Glen Cove, a 15-acre plot along Carquinez Strait. The park district planned for picnic tables, a parking lot, bathrooms, benches, an extension of the Bay Trail and the replacement of nonnative plants with natives.

The district planned to break ground on the $1.3 million project in April, but before the bulldozers rolled in, American Indians and their supporters erected teepees, tents and a campfire, claiming the ground was sacred.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BA2A1KB72R.DTL#ixzz1SWR8FDGp

More on Glen Cove

2011-06-15T05:57:00.000-07:00

Heard Around the West

A Just West
Paving over an ancient burial ground
Document Actions

Marc Dadigan | Jun 09, 2011 01:00 PM

15-acres of undeveloped landscape sits as an oasis among the undulating, cookie cutter housing developments that crowd the edges of the Carquinez Strait, a natural tidal channel in Vallejo, California.

At this spot, known as Glen Cove Waterfront Park, a swath of yellow grass, dappled with the woody stems of wild fennel, leads to the water’s edge where Eucalyptus trees tower above marshy banks. The occasional clatter of trundling trains across the strait is the only sound that breaks the peace.

For many local residents, it’s a calming place away from the sprawled-out landscape that expands from the Bay Area.

rest at

http://www.hcn.org/greenjustice/blog/paving-over-an-ancient-burial-ground

UC vs. the Kumeyaay

2011-05-21T06:38:00.000-07:00

Science letter co-author Tim White, a prominent paleoanthropologist at UC Berkeley, told Wired.com, “Administrators are doing everything they can to ignore the scientific value of the specimens. They are trying to illegally repatriate them to a lobbyist for a dozen San Diego County tribes.”

UC officials are seeking to provide the skeletons to the Kumeyaay Nation east of San Diego under a complex process guided by the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). But critical scientists say NAGPRA requirements aren’t being followed properly, setting the stage for a potential legal battle over the bones.

“This is Kennewick Man II,” White said, referring to the long federal court battle in 2004 when scientists won the right to study bones found in Washington.

In a May 11 letter, Mark Yudof, president of the 10-campus UC system, authorized UCSD chancellor Marye Anne Fox to dispose of the bones — after clarifications are made to a report done under NAGPRA requirements, and other tribes that may be interested in the bones are consulted.

Steve Benegas, the repatriation spokesman for the Kumeyaay nation’s 12 tribes, said they are entitled to the bones and to decide about future analysis. Some Native Americans believe scientific research amounts to desecration of remains, and Benegas said he personally is against studies.

full article at:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/ucsd-skeleton-fight/

UC Santa Cruz's turn???

2011-05-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

weeping a People’s Past Under the Rug
The UC continues government crimes against Native Americans
By City on a Hill Press
City on a Hill Press
Published May 12, 2011 at 3:52 am

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

Native Americans have a long history of oppression in this country. Their land was taken, their people murdered and their sacred sites corrupted, all for the sake of building the United States. A new form of this old oppression is still happening, and the University of California is playing a role.

In this issue’s feature story, “Forgotten but not Gone,” it is confirmed that the University of California, and UC Santa Cruz in particular, is in possession of Native American artifacts and burial remains. The question of where and what those remains are is left unanswered.

Keeping Native American remains is problematic for a number of reasons. It means that graves were disrupted to obtain these remains, which is disrespectful to any culture. And to make matters worse, many Native American tribes believe that disruption of burial sites can cause spiritual trouble.

rest at

http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2011/05/12/sweeping-a-peoples-past-under-the-rug/

Glen Cove Protest

2011-04-16T08:09:00.001-07:00

This battle has been going on for awhile, but its ramped up in recent weeks. For details, check out--

http://protectglencove.org/

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/15/native-american-activists-occupy-contested-vallejo-park-site/

One university comes clean

2011-02-06T05:55:00.000-08:00

At least Weselyan University comes clean and tries to comply, see:

http://wesleyanargus.com/2011/02/01/university-takes-steps-to-begin-complying-with-nagpra/

When will the Hearst and UC Berkeley?

Respect for the dead?!

2010-11-27T06:49:00.000-08:00

Let's see the AAM and others are against the display of Native American remains. Okay, so the Hearst doesn't put any on public display, but they gladly display them via DELPHI...

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108373

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108374

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/object/108375

Hmm, over-reacting on our part? A double standard on the Hearst's part? Or a case of what where they thinking? Either way, it will be interesting to see how long these stay up!

More Univ. of Michigan news

2010-11-25T06:14:00.000-08:00

U-M adopts ‘consultation first’ approach on transfer of Native human remains
By Staff reports

Story Published: Nov 24, 2010

Story Updated: Nov 23, 2010

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The University of Michigan will take a “consultation first” approach to all interactions with American Indian tribes as the university further develops its policies and procedures for the transfer of Native American human remains.

Vice President for Research Stephen Forrest established the approach as part of his announcement that he has accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains.

The 12-member committee submitted nine recommendations that suggested a process for how the university might handle requests for the transfer of human remains and associated funerary objects now being held by the U-M Museum of Anthropology. The report was submitted Sept. 16.

Forrest accepted those recommendations, with some modifications, after weighing feedback he received during a month-long period of public comment during October.

rest at

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/greatlakes/U-M-adopts-consultation-first-approach-on-the-transfer-of-Native-American-human-remains-110193329.html

Cal NAGPRA

2010-10-12T03:04:00.000-07:00

20 years after the inauguration of the National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California’s own NAGPRA law (or Cal NAGPRA) has been effectively quashed by a lack of state funding.

Cal NAGPRA was enacted in 2001 in an attempt to force California institutions with large Native American collections to return objects to their culturally affiliated descendants. The bill (AB 978) aimed to “streamline and add an accountability step to the repatriation process” to both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Unlike other states, California does not have a process of recognition for federally unrecognized tribes. Consequently, the state has over a hundred such tribes, the highest number in the country.

The legislation was conceived after several university museums, particularly UC Berkley’s Hearst Museum, were accused by Native American tribal leaders of sidestepping National NAGPRA regulations and ignoring local tribal demands for the return of hundreds of thousands of sacred objects and ancestral remains.

“The bill came about because tribes were not consulted by the universities to establish cultural affiliations with property and remains,” said Lalo Franco of the Yokut/Wukchumni Nations and the cultural heritage director of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.

rest at

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/The+end+of+Cal+Nagpra%3F/21690

SCIENCE MAGAZINE on the NAGPRA laws

2010-10-07T19:45:00.000-07:00

We hope the tribes log in and give their two cents worth...

#####################################################

From AAAS. You can see the articles with a free online registration.

Here is the link: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/returning-tribal-remains.html

Has NAGPRA (the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act) been good or bad for archaeology? We at Science have done a special news package on the law's impact, timed for its 20th anniversary. And because the law sparks passionate views on research and Native rights, we are hosting an online discussion on ScienceNOW, our online daily news site. Our reporters and editors will be monitoring comments and posting their views over the next day or so. Given your interests, we would like to particularly invite you to join the discussion. If you go to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/returning-tribal-remains.html it's easy to participate. We look forward to hearing your comments.

Tribes sue over the Ruby Pipeline

2010-09-18T05:19:00.000-07:00

For more than two years the Northern Paiute including Nevada's Fort McDermot and Summit Lake Paiute tribes and the California's Fort Bidwell tribe have lobbied to divert the pipeline around their traditional lands in northwest Nevada. Dean Barlese, a cultural and spiritual guide at the Summit Lake Reservation, says, "We're not against the pipeline. It's just the route has taken it through some of the most pristine areas still left in Nevada." He says the BLM and other federal agencies conducted inadequate consultations with the tribes.

Aaron Townsend, vice chair of the Fort Bidwell tribal council, says a pipeline man camp has gone up just south of an area where the pipeline will bisect "house rings, burials, prayer sites – you name it, we've got everything – obsidian quarries, petroglyphs." He describes looting of cultural sites as people hear about archaeological resources along the pipeline corridor. The Fort Bidwell tribe recently filed a petition for review over the BLM's approved right-of-way for the pipeline.

Read the entire article at:

http://www.hcn.org/hcn/blogs/goat/more-surprises-flow-from-ruby-pipeline

What's up with the Hearst?

2010-08-13T18:14:00.000-07:00

While the Smithsonian repatriates cultural patrimony and sacred objects to the
Yurok, what is the story with the Hearst?

#########

The Smithsonian Institution has returned a trove of precious artifacts to the Yurok Indians in California in what is one of the largest repatriations of Native American ceremonial artifacts in U.S. history.

The Yurok, who have lived for centuries along California's Klamath River, received 217 sacred items that had been stored on museum shelves for nearly 100 years. The necklaces, headdresses, arrows, hides and other regalia from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian are believed to be hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.

"It's awesome. It's a big thing with our people," said Thomas O'Rourke, chairman of the Yurok, a tribe that lived next to the Klamath River in far Northern California for 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. "These are our prayer items. They are not only symbols, but their spirit stays with them. They are alive. Bringing them home is like bringing home prisoners of war."

To celebrate the return of the items, the Yurok will hold a Kwom-Shlen-ik, or "Object Coming Back," ceremony today in the town of Klamath.

The returned artifacts were sold to the museum in the 1920s by Grace Nicholson, a renowned collector of Indian art, who owned a curio shop in Pasadena in the early 20th century. Ceremonial Indian regalia was in vogue among wealthy Americans at the time.

The sacred cache is part of an ongoing effort around the country to return Native American burial artifacts, ceremonial items and remains taken by white settlers from Indian villages and indigenous sites.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F08%2F13%2FMN0O1ET3EI.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0wXSeX1yY

Oops, forget something? (Part 2)

2010-07-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

You really have to give it to the Hearst and their clunky on-line museum catalog.
Once again, while they seem to be in a hurry and get a less than perfect search engine out there, they seem to have forgotten their NAGPRA obligations.

Take for example, catalog numbers of human remains from the Cardinal Site (SJo-154):

12-11273 through 12-11307

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/modules/browser/details.php?onum=12-11299

Once again, search the National NAGPRA database at the NPS. Take a guess what is missing from the culturally unidentified database...

Like we said before 43 CFR 10.11 can only work when the museums come clean on
what they are holding.

(PS--why do some people at the university also insist the Hearst has not taken in human remains since the 1970s when these were accessioned in the mid-1980s?)

Oops, forget something? (Part 1)

2010-06-07T05:38:00.000-07:00

The clunky new search engine at the museum's website can be quite handy at times.

For example, look up 2-13845. Here is the link to what you will find:

http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/modules/browser/details.php?onum=2-13845

Interesting to note, this has still yet to be registered with the National NAGPRA
database. I guess they assume scalps were freely taken...

40 CFR 10.11 can only work if the museums are honest in the first place!

UM news (again)

2010-06-06T20:42:00.000-07:00

Returning Them To Their Tribe - Michigan Museums Returning Native American Remains Charles Manley

The University of Michigan's Museum of Anthropology has a collection of around 1,400 ancient Native American remains. But they'll lose those remains under a new federal law - and the ability to conduct research with them.

The room that stores the remains of about 1,400 Native Americans is on the ground floor of a non-descript building on campus, but it looks more like a basement. Rows of industrial shelving hold 24-inch long white cardboard boxes - lengthy enough to accommodate the longest human bone - a femur. Each box has a label of a human skeleton on its side, indicated by highlighter which bones the box contains.

Carla Sinopoli is the curator of the Museum of Anthropology. She says early archaeologists had basic questions - 'how old is it?' 'how did they get their food?'. But now they ask all kinds of questions.

"How societies are formed, how beliefs are structured, how communities communicate and move," says Sinopoli, "Political questions, social questions, idealogical questions, economic questions...and the more we know the sophisticated our questions become too."

Even DNA research of human remains is relatively new. Sinopoli says there's no telling what could be learned in twenty or thirty years. But that room and all the white boxes could soon be empty.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, was created twenty years ago. The first version required all federally funded museums to take inventories of skeletal remains and try to figure out what Native American groups they belonged to. Many remains were returned to their tribes of origin, but researchers still had something to work with. The remains that couldn't be linked to tribes were left in museums.

But the law that went into effect last month requires that those remains be returned to tribes too. Sinopoli says the loss will be a permanent one.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/8/0/1658808/Arts..and..Culture/Returning.Them.To.Their.Tribe.-.Michigan.Museums.Returning.Native.American.Remains.

The Rights of the Dead

2010-05-31T06:20:00.000-07:00

On May 29th, she will defend her PhD thesis Duties to Past Persons: Moral Standing and Posthumous Interests of Old Human Remains at the Uppsala University in Sweden. Masterton's thesis covers the moral status of past people and our duties towards the dead.

“At least in Sweden, the living are protected by laws on genetic integrity. We have no legal obligations to King Tut or other historical persons, but there is perhaps still integrity worth protecting,” says Malin Masterton at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CRB).

In her thesis, Malin Masterton discusses ethical guidelines for the handling of human remains and makes suggestions for revisions. The basis for these revisions is that the dead also have an identity in the form of a narrative. “I propose that the dead should be given moral status based on our respect for human life,” says Malin Masterton.

Whose integrity and interest is it when the person is dead? Malin Masterton argues that parts of a person’s identity remain after death. One way of looking at identity is as a narrative – the story of one’s life – that both stands alone and is interwoven with other people’s stories. Seen like this, the dead too have a name and a reputation worth protecting. So no more calling Helen of Troy a whore, Nero a nitwit or Belzoni a looting circus artist?

If the dead, to some degree like the living, have integrity and reputation, they also have moral status and we can wrong them. According to Malin Masterton, we have three duties to the dead:

We have a duty of truthfulness in our description of a person’s reputation.
We have a duty to respect the personal integrity of the dead in research contexts.
We have a duty to admit wrongs we have committed against the dead, like illegal archaeological digs.

rest at

http://heritage-key.com/blogs/ann/do-no-harm-dead-urges-new-thesis-ethics-human-remains

Sherry Hutt responds on 43 CFR 10.11

2010-05-27T21:41:00.000-07:00

Archaeologists and anthropologists are concerned that a new rule implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, covering human remains and cultural objects that can't be culturally affiliated with a particular tribe. They have written the Department of Interior asking that the rule be changed. Sherry Hutt, program manager for the National NAGPRA Program with the National Park Service, responded to some of the scientific concerns in an e-mail to ScienceInsider, suggesting that the remains covered by the rule aren't likely to have much scientific value:

Note that this rule applies only to human remains already determined to be Native American, but for whom the body of knowledge is insufficient to determine, even to the level of a reasonable basis, the cultural affiliation of the individuals.

rest at

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/official-responds-to-scientists-.html

Michigan readies to enact 43 CFR 10.11

2010-05-25T22:11:00.000-07:00

Well, UM appears to be getting ready to do the right thing--what about the Hearst Museum? If UM is hiring 2 people for 1600 remains, why isn't the Hearst/UCB hiring 10 or more people? Or will they hide behind the excuse of furloughs and budget cuts? or are they too worried about an athletic center and a stadium retrofit?

####################################################

The University of Michigan is hiring two new staff members to help return Native American remains and objects from its museum collection to tribes that can show a geographical link to them under a federal law that took effect earlier this month.

Stephen Forrest, U-M’s vice president for research, said he anticipates Native American tribes will file claims for the return of the bones of virtually all of the 1,600 individuals in the collection of the U-M Museum of Anthropology. That collection is not open to the public.

“The university right now is doing everything right,” said Veronica Pasfield, a U-M graduate student who is the external co-chair of the Native Caucus, a group of indigenous graduate students, and the repatriation officer of the Bay Mills Indian Community. "I think that they are working with transparency, they're working very hard to attain full disclosure, and I believe they are sincerely focused on creating empowered tribal collaboration."

rest at

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-begins-process-to-return-native-american-remains/

Scientists appeal to Salazar

2010-05-24T06:47:00.000-07:00

Leading lights of anthropology have submitted a plea to the Department of the Interior to change a rule concerning how museums and universities are to dispose of "culturally unaffiliated remains"—ancient bones and objects that cannot be linked to a particular tribe or group. Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) passed in 1990, remains culturally affiliated with certain tribes must be returned to those tribes, who may then rebury them. But the new rule goes further in requiring unaffiliated remains to be given to organizations whose tribal lands are nearby if they request it, or even to be given to other groups.

In a 17 May letter of protest to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, researchers say that the rule as written will cause "an incalculable loss to science" by permanently making such remains unavailable, and that the rule is "contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law." The letter is signed by a who's who of 41 prominent archeaologists and anthropologists, all members of the National Academy of Sciences.

rest at

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/researchers-fear-incalculable-lo.html

(We hope the tribes are also making their appeal for Secretary Salazar to ignore the scientists!)

A museum curator who likes the new NAGPRA rules

2010-05-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

Opening America's skeleton closets

By Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh

Posted: 05/09/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

More than 116,000 skeletons of Native American ancestry sit idle on museum shelves today. Their fate — long unknown — has finally been settled.

On Friday, a new regulation will establish a process to return Native American human remains that have not been affiliated with a federally recognized tribe. This legal rule fulfills the promise of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which already has laid the groundwork for the return of 32,000 Native American skeletons. The new rule affects hundreds of museums and tribes across the United States.

The panic has already set in. As the journal Nature recently reported, "researchers fear that this could empty museum collections." An Indian Country Today article suggests that scientists may sue to challenge the rule.

Resistance to repatriation is based on the false assumption that human bones are merely scientific "specimens." But the tangible vestiges of a human life have a distinctive power. From Buddhist cremations to Christian burials, cultures around the globe acknowledge the body's spiritual vitality, even in death. For centuries, Western common law has affirmed that human skeletons are not "property" that can be taken without consent.

Yet, these views have not been fairly extended to Native Americans over the last 500 years. American Indian graves have been systematically pillaged since the first colonial encounters. In addition to scientific expeditions, many Native American skeletons come from massacre sites and outright plunder.

rest at

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15034481

Kashia Pomo lose fishing grounds

2010-05-04T21:51:00.000-07:00

On an ocean bluff above a resting seal and relentless waves, Kashia Pomo leaders Friday voiced opposition to new state rules that prohibit harvesting fish and other sea life at Stewarts Point.

More Photos:

Kashia Pomo Blessing

The rules, which take effect today, establish a series of state preserves intended to help restore California's marine ecosystems.

But to the Indians with ties to Stewarts Point, the fishing ban there harms their culture, their ceremonies and the transmission of traditions to future generations.

“Today I'm going to tell you they are interfering with our religion,” Violet Parrish Chappell, a Kashia Pomo elder, told Indians and supporters who came together just up the road from the Stewarts Point Store. “And I don't think they would do that to the Catholic Church.”

About 130 people stood Friday in bright sun and constant wind on a ranch owned by the Richardson family, which settled the area 130 years ago and controls about 15,000 acres.

Arch Richardson, an elder among the family's 85 descendants, invited leaders from the Stewarts Point Rancheria to bless the bluff and to mark the last day when fishing was permitted there. About a half-dozen tribal members harvested abalone in the nearby surf earlier in the day.

rest at

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100430/ARTICLES/100439928&tc=email_newsletter?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar

Ruby pipeline threatens Fort Bidwell sacred sites

2010-04-28T21:14:00.000-07:00

Despite pleas to avoid ancient Indian gathering areas and pristine wildlife areas, Washoe County commissioners tonight approved a permit for a pipeline to carry natural gas from Wyoming to Oregon across the northern part of the county.

Aaron Townsend, of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council in California, said the lands in northern Washoe between Vya and the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge are aboriginal territory.

“This where our people have come since the beginning of time,” he said, adding hundreds of art rock features, tribal sites and plants used in rituals would be ruined.
“This will destroy this pristine area,” said Charles Reed, also of Fort Bidwell.

He said the land supports mule deer, bobcats, golden eagles and three subspecies of pygmy rabbits.

Reed proposed the pipeline be re-routed to Highway 140 from Denio to Lakeview or along a railroad line north of Gerlach where there is sparse vegetation.

rest at

http://www.rgj.com/article/20100427/NEWS/100427075/-1/CARSON/Commission-OKs-permit-for-pipeline-across-northern-part-of-Washoe-County

2010-04-14T06:49:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – Scientists are considering a lawsuit against a new rule that would help repatriate thousands of Native American remains to tribes across the nation.

The rule, published March 15 and open for comment for 60 days, is a clarification from the Interior Department to the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. It states that after appropriate tribal consultation, transfer of culturally unidentifiable remains is to be made to a tribe from whose tribal or aboriginal lands the remains were excavated or removed. Civil penalties are proposed for museums and learning institutions that do not follow the law.

The development has been largely celebrated by Native American communities, although tribal advocates say it has shortcomings, like not including sacred culturally unidentifiable funerary objects in its scope. Some tribes are using the open comment period to make that concern known, noting that common law and some state laws require repatriation of such objects.

Some scientists, however, are outraged by the new rule, believing that important human knowledge could be lost if the remains go back to tribes.

rest at

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/90350684.html

Once again, we urge tribal members to let the Federal government know how they feel about the law!

Challenges to 43 CFR 10.11?

2010-04-07T04:32:00.000-07:00

Some museums — including the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois, and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts — are discussing whether they will challenge the rule. The issue could have the same import as the long legal fight to study the 9,000-year-old Kennewick man skeleton against Native American wishes (see Nature 436, 10; 2005). In 2004, scientists won that court battle, affirming the principle that bones would be returned only to culturally related tribes.

Anthropologists and archaeologists are also gearing up to debate the rule. Discussions have already been scheduled for the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropology, which starts on 14 April in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the Society for American Archaeology meeting, which begins on the same day in St Louis, Missouri.

read it all at http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464662a.html

UM news

2010-04-06T01:46:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – A new rule involving the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has one of the nation’s largest research institutions preparing to return a collection of more than 1,300 Native American human remains.

The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor announced March 26 that officials there have begun outlining a process for the transfer of Native American human remains to tribes.

The activity comes as a result of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s March 15 publication of a final rule clarifying how museums and institutions should handle Native American human remains that are under their control, but for which no culturally affiliated Indian tribe has been identified.

rest at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/89775852.html

More news on Univ. of Michigan

2010-03-20T06:59:00.000-07:00

New rule to prompt University of Michigan to re-examine holdings of Native American human remains

Posted: 4:05 p.m. March 15, 2010

17 Comments. Comment Now

The University of Michigan will have to re-examine its holdings of Native American human remains under a change to federal guidelines announced today.

The U-M Museum of Anthropology has about 1,400 human remains in a storage facility that are 800 to 3,000 years old.

The 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, known as NAGPRA, requires museums, federal agencies and institutions to inventory holdings of human remains and identify their cultural affiliations with tribes. Native groups can then claim the return of remains deemed to be culturally affiliated with them.

Frank Bartley III, an Odawa Indian and a U-M student, beats the drum and sings with other Native Americans in front of Fleming Hall in Ann Arbor before a U-M regents meeting in this 2008 file photo. The gathering was part of a request to the regents to return Native-American remains.

Ann Arbor News file photo

What to do with the vast number of human remains where cultural identity hasn't been determined hadn't been fully addressed in the law and has been a sticking point between the University of Michigan and some Native American groups. U-M has designated the 1,380 human remains it stores "culturally unidentifiable."

Under the rule change, U-M museum officials would need to alert modern-day federal tribes of any "culturally unidentifiable" human remains it has that were discovered near areas the tribes historically occupied. Those tribes could ask for the remains to be returned based on the geographic link. A national review committee would settle disputes between tribes. The change will take effect in May.

rest at

http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-rule-prompts-university-of-michigan-to-re-examine-holdings-of-native-american-human-remains/

2010-03-16T05:03:00.000-07:00

You can download/read 43 CFR Part 10 at

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=74193128557+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Like we said yesterday, by all means send your comments in!

2010-03-14T20:10:00.000-07:00

CUI RULE TO PUBLISH MARCH 15

The reserved section of the NAGPRA regulations, 10.11, the disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains, is set to publish on Monday, March 15, as a final rule. The rule will be effective on May 14, 2010. During the 60 days, the public may submit additional comments on the rule to Regulations.gov. The comments will thereafter be considered as to whether amendment to the rule is appropriate.

The National NAGPRA Program will offer a webinar prior to the comment deadline, which will include a training on the rule. The webinar date will be announced shortly anticipating a 200 capacity access line.

from http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/

NO MATTER WHAT THESE RULES SAY, TRIBAL CHAIRS, THPOs, and CULTURAL HERITAGE OFFICERS SHOULD SEND A LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT AND COMMENT ON THE NEW RULES!!! The archaeologists sure will!

Glen Cove debate

2010-03-13T04:20:00.000-08:00

Plans by Vallejo to turn a scraggly stretch of waterfront on the Carquinez Strait into a park with paved parking, trails and restrooms are infuriating local Ohlone Indians who say the 15-acre site is sacred and should be left alone.

The property is Glen Cove Park, a spot that was the site of a 3,500-year-old Ohlone village and shell mound where thousands of people were buried.

The settlement is one of the oldest Ohlone sites in the Bay Area and among the few that has eluded development. But for decades, Vallejo has wanted to convert the wildland to a park with a portion of the Bay Trail, picnic tables and a pastoral array of native plants.

"What we want to do is return it to what it was 100 years ago," said Steve Pressley, maintenance and development manager for the Greater Vallejo Recreation District. "As an agency, we have a responsibility to the public as a whole, and we need to consider all the components, not just the needs of Native Americans."

OMB meeting on new NAGPRA regulations

2010-03-06T05:40:00.001-08:00

For objections to the new rules on the culturally unidentifiable human remains,
check out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/1024_meeting_110409/

(Go to the bottom of the page for the objections)

Any surprise on who is objecting?

NAGPRA grant funding cut

2010-02-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

NAGPRA suffers surprising proposed budget cut
By Rob Capriccioso

Story Published: Feb 7, 2010

Story Updated: Feb 5, 2010

WASHINGTON – One area of the Obama administration’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget sticks out like a sore thumb. While most Indian-focused programs are remaining steady or are set to make increases, the National Park Service has proposed to dramatically reduce the amount available for NAGPRA grants.

[...]

Despite the tribal appreciation of the program, the Park Service only requested $1,750,000 for it in 2011. That’s a decrease of $581,000 or 25 percent of the level Congress appropriated for the program in 2010.

The dramatically curtailed request comes at a time soon after the Park Service reported the actual number of grant applications has more than doubled since fiscal year 2008.

The national review committee that oversees NAGPRA-related issues has long been concerned the grants program should not be shortchanged – and it has seen a need to increase, not reduce, its funding. The committee recommended in its 2008 report to Congress that the grant amount be increased to $4.1 million.

So, it is all the more puzzling to tribal officials why the Park Service is trying to cut the program via its reduced budget proposal.

rest at

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/83643187.html

Help the Kumeyaay

2010-01-29T21:43:00.000-08:00

Tell UCSD to return the remains!!!

11:28 am By la Macha ·

25 Jan 2010

The practice many universities and museums have of destroying and pilfering native peoples burial grounds in the name of “knowledge” is a long, disgusting and obscene practice. It is one that stems from the belief that Native bodies are extinct and “of the world.” That is, Native peoples are a rare species that never polluted, used every part of the buffalo, and cried at all the garbage the rest of us left all over their land. Not quite human. A morally superior species, yes–the Nobel Savage. But still a savage.

And when you combine the nobel savage mythology with the idea that “Indians are all dead,” you get a whole bunch of anthropologists, archeologists, and every other “ist” out there thinking that they’d better study these odd beings before they all disappear. By any means necessary.

rest at http://vivirlatino.com/2010/01/25/tell-ucsd-to-return-the-remains.php

More on the Ukiah incident

2009-12-29T12:51:00.000-08:00

From the San Francisco Call, August 23, 1906
(click to see full-sized image)

A Time Honored Tradition

2009-12-27T13:53:00.000-08:00

From The San Francisco Chronicle August 24, 1906

From the Daily Californian, August 23rd, 1906

(click to see a larger version of the images)

This event, Kroeber later refers to as the "Ukiah incident." And as far as Wheeler saying it was settled, it wasn't--it did not get resolved until December, and not until the Department of Anthropology paid to have the human remains re-buried.

Glen Cove

2009-12-26T05:51:00.000-08:00

The Glen Cove Shellmound was paved over long ago and topped by homes
and condos overlooking the 15-acre Glen Cove Waterfront Park. Many
ancestral bones were removed from a burial site in the park in the 1900s
and were last donated to UC Berkeley in 1952, said Judson King, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology interim director.

[...]

King said the Hearst Museum has not received a claim for the
repatriation of remains taken from the Glen Cove burial grounds,
which come from the Ohlone/Costanoans. They are one of more than 50
unrecognized tribes in California, many of which have been displaced
from highly urbanized or disputed regions.

The Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act “says they
only can be returned to recognized tribes. If there is no such affiliation,
then we can’t do it unless they are able to gain an exception from the national
NAGPRA which takes a really large case,” King said.

read the entire article at:
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/southwest/79641372.html

The Hearst Museum in the news

2009-12-17T13:44:00.000-08:00

The 108-year-old museum,
with its 3.8 million-piece collection, is like a candy store for
Salvador, a UC Berkeley graduate who took over the long-vacant
directorship last month. But if Salvador is ready to indulge her sweet
tooth, she may need to take a dose of castor oil as well.

University
and museum leaders continue to debate with Native American groups over
thousands of human remains held by the Hearst. Advocacy groups say the
university has not yet returned remains to the tribes.

The museum
also is testing other remains to determine whether they are those of
Japanese citizens killed during World War II. If so, critics assert, it
is likely the remains are being held illegally.

In New Mexico,
where Salvador worked for 26 years, nearly every Native American tribe
was federally recognized, so federal laws dealing with the repatriation
of human remains were more clear-cut, she said. In California, most
tribes are not federally recognized, so the laws do not guarantee the
return of their remains.

Rest at
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_13996224?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

December protest

2009-12-06T06:11:00.000-08:00

Drumbeat sounds outside UC museum for return of human remains

By Doug Oakley
Berkeley Voice

Every time her heart beats, 61-year-old Jun Yasuda thumps her drum in front of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley.

Yasuda, a Buddhist nun from Albany, N.Y., started a four-day hunger strike Tuesday as she prays for the return of some 11,000 human remains from all over the world that are housed at the museum.

Joining her this week are people like Wounded Knee, a Miwok Indian from Vallejo and Mike Raccoon eyes, a Cherokee who lives in Richmond.

They all want the museum to give its remains back to the earth.

rest at http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13902776

Keeping abreast of the UM situation

2009-10-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

The Native American graduate students have created a blog site to
keep interested parties informed on the situation at the University of Michigan.
Check it out--

umgraveinjustice.wordpress.com

Nice, informative site! And once again, NANC wishes them success in their quest!!

Univ. of Michigan and the Culturally Unidentifiable

2009-10-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

Here is what the University of Michigan says--

U-M committee will advise about the transfer of culturally unidentifiable human remains

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—University of Michigan Vice President for Research Stephen Forrest has announced formation of a new advisory committee on culturally unidentifiable human remains (CUHR).

The group will advise Forrest on issues related to requests U-M receives from Native American tribes for the transfer of CUHR and funerary objects from the Museum of Anthropology. He made the announcement at the Board of Regents meeting in Flint today.

"I appreciate the willingness of these distinguished individuals, who represent a variety of academic backgrounds, to bring their broad experience and scholarly perspectives to this sensitive and complex issue," Forrest said.

The group is called the Advisory Committee on Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains under NAGPRA. NAGPRA—the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—provides a mandatory process for returning culturally affiliated human remains and associated funerary objects to individuals and groups that have standing under the law and have requested such return.

rest at http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=7364

#################################

The response from the tribes in Michigan can be found at:

http://www.macpra.org/assets/Consensus_Statement.pdf

#################################

And newspaper coverage:

DETROIT - Facing criticism for still holding the remains of about 1,400 Native Americans in its archaeological collection, the University of Michigan will be reviewing its policies on how to properly deal with Indian bones and artifacts.

A committee charged with looking at the legal, ethical and scientific concerns involved will meet for the first time next week and "will hear all sides of the story," said Stephen Forrest, vice president for research at the Ann Arbor school.

"We want to have a very balanced approach," he said Friday. "We are actively seeking to understand all the aspects of the problem."

At issue is the conflicting interests of researchers and museums in studying and teaching about earlier human cultures and that of native peoples to have their religions and ancestral remains respected.

Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act passed by Congress in 1990, federally supported institutions must catalog the remains and burial items they hold and return them, when requested, to groups that have a "cultural affiliation" to them.

The issue in the Michigan case is remains which the school says have no clear affiliation to present-day tribes. Forrest said the law compels the school to retain such remains until the government issues clearer guidelines or it gets specific clearance from U.S. Interior Department.

Forrest said the goal of the committee -- 10 professors and one graduate student -- is to properly balance Indian rights and research goals while awaiting new federal guidelines.

rest at
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-university-indian,0,4039354.story

##

We wish MACPRA well in its battle for justice!

Anthony Garcia speaks

2009-09-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

From the recent NAGPRA meeting in Seattle
(see http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/REVIEW/meetings/Vol2_052309_Seattle_WA.pdf )

When questioned by Dr. Sonya Atalay on the
large number of culturally unidentifiable remains--

ANTHONY GARCIA: I promise the next time I come
before the meeting I hope to have even new
information as to how we go into this direction
because I know this is the most sensitive area we
have. We have a very large number and it’s – we
have learned – we are learning that we may have
hastily made those determinations and we’re trying
to correct that.

And later when questioned by Dan Monroe on the changes to the culturally
unidentifiable inventories--

ANTHONY GARCIA: Actually two-fold, yes. Tribes
are especially the ones who are coming forth asking
that to be changed. They’re making special
requests. Some don’t understand it enough and want
to sit down and they explain it out and we determine
this is what they’re trying to do, and we work with
them quite often that way. We are ourselves going
after areas, very large areas that we believed were
identified as culturally unidentifiable and realized
that, oh no, this is quite wrong and it was in haste
in the inventories and we’re right now working – we
have archaeologists and other scientists working
right now on this to change one very large area
which we hope to report in some future months that
this has been completely turned around. It won’t be
all – it won’t be all changed to culturally
affiliated. There still will be some that will be
unidentifiable but it won’t be anything like it was
reported originally.

Hmm...interesting after his earlier testimony to the NAGPRA Review board, that most tribes weren't concerned about having their human remains repatriated. We also wonder how large the effort is on re-doing all those hastily done inventories. Is it a team of 5, 10 or 20 people? What are their
credentials and how is the Hearst approaching these hastily done inventories? (And really cynical minds want to know why UCB did any of their inventories in haste given all the extensions they were granted in the 1990s?)

And really cycnical minds want to know how it will all play with the UCOP Committee, particularly with Prof. Bob Bettinger and Prof. Phil Wilkie.

Collection Ethics at the Hearst, Part II

2009-08-21T20:03:00.000-07:00

"I hope that the bones in Berkeley will be returned to Japan so that they can rest in peace, joining with their fellow victims at Chidorigafuchi," Taira said. "I do not understand why they have to have been humiliated like that as subject of research for such a long time. It certainly lacks respect to the dead."

rest at http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64313

Collection Ethics at the Hearst, Part I

2009-08-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

#######

August 16, 2009

Japanese war dead skulls at UC museum

Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer

The skulls and bones of Japanese war dead from World War II's Battle of Saipan are being kept at UC Berkeley in apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims, The Chronicle has learned.

The remains of several Japanese soldiers or civilians removed from the island of Saipan in 1945 by a Navy doctor are housed on storage shelves maintained by the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology on the UC Berkeley campus, museum officials have confirmed.

The admission has sparked the fury of international law experts and anthropologists, who say the university has a legal and ethical duty to return the remains to Japan.

Three sets of skeletal remains with skulls, and various bones of three additional Japanese war dead without skulls, are stored in wooden containers in vaults beneath the Hearst Gymnasium swimming pool.

Read more at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/16/MNPK195PD6.DTL#ixzz0Oh2c7hP5

########
August 19, 2009

State lawmakers tell UC: Return war dead bones

Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer

State lawmakers have called upon the University of California to immediately return to Japan the skulls and bones of Japanese war victims from World War II's Battle of Saipan that are being stored in an anthropology museum on the UC Berkeley campus.

They also asked UC officials to issue a formal apology to the Japanese government for not only keeping the Saipan remains in the museum's vast collection of skulls and bones, but also for using the remains in scientific research.

Read more:
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/18/MN2J19A0I4.DTL#ixzz0Oh27rLG1 ">

########

Also check out--
href="http://pahma.berkeley.edu/delphi/modules/browser/details.php?onum=12-11061 ">

Bob Bettinger on Repatriation to the Kumeyaay

2009-08-04T20:09:00.000-07:00

This letter was found at: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/UnivHouse/

##############

Subject: Kumeyaay case Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:45 PM
From: Robert Bettinger (by way of Ellen Auriti )
Reply-To: "Robert Bettinger $by way of Ellen Auriti $"
To: Conversation: Kumeyaay case

To: Systemwide Repatriation Committee
From: Robert Bettinger, Professor of Anthropology, UCD
Re: Comment on REPORT ON KUMEYAAY CULTURAL AFFILIATION, Prepared by Diana Drake Wilson, PhD, Submitted by the UCLA NAGPRA Coordinating Committee, October 2001.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the detailed report by Diana Wilson. To come to the point quickly, I disagree with her conclusion that the preponderance of evidence supports affiliation of the human skeletal remains and associated funerary objects from SDi-525 and SDi-603 with the Kumeyaay. Further, I disagree with the consensus of the scholars consulted in connection with the report to the effect that, “...neither continuity nor discontinuity could be conclusively established between earlier, Archaic groups with Late Prehistoric period, ethnohistorical, and present-day Kumeyaay” (p.2). The several lines of evidence available clearly indicate discontinuity between the Kumeyaay and the remains from SDi-525 and SDi-603. As Lightfoot and Hitchcock note in their comment on the report, the case for affiliation with Kumeyaay rests largely on oral tradition, the weight of which strongly suggests a Kumeyaay movement from a point of origin along the lower Colorado River westward to the California coast in times too recent to account for the remains from SDi-525 (7,500 - 5,500 BP) and SDi-603 (7340-3950 B.P.). This is wholly consistent with the linguistic evidence.

The geographical distribution of the various languages that constitute what is called Core Yuman, comprising Pai, River Yuman, and Delta Yuman (Kumeyaay belonging to the last; Table 1; Kendall 1983), fixes a common homeland on the lower Colorado River. This distribution and the close relationship between the constituent languages suggest a rapid expansion out of the Colorado River delta quite recently, certainly within the last 1000 years. That expansion is involved, rather than merely the freezing-in-place of formerly mobile groups, is attested by radial distribution of the Pai languages both northeast (Yavapai, Havasupai, Walapai) and southwest (Paipai) from the delta. Thus, in contrast to other Hokan languages which comprise either several relatively ancient divisions in a fairly small area (e.g. Pomo) or only a few divisions in a fairly small area (e.g., Chumash), Yuman displays a number of closely related, but widely spread, languages, suggesting a history of very recent movement possibly set in motion by the appearance of corn agriculture (Hale and Harris 1979). Alternatively, Shaul and Hill (1998) have argued that Yuman-speaking groups participated in the multi-ethnic cultural phenomenon known as the Hohokam, whose dissolution about A.D. 1400 may have played some part in the Yuman diaspora. This latter idea, at least the association of Yuman with agricultural developments in Arizona, is strongly supported by genetic evidence.

Malhi (2001) has demonstrated that among the Cocopa (who speak the Delta Yuman language most closely related to Kumeyaay) and Cochimi (who speak the language most closely related to Yuman; Table 1) individuals belonging to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup B share a very distinctive mutation at nucleotide pair 16261 with individuals of the Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico. That B is the most common mtDNA haplogroup in the Southwest, and that this mutation is rare in individuals of haplogroup B elsewhere, suggests it appeared in the Southwest at a time when groups ancestral to Yuman were juxtaposed with other groups connected with either the development or spread of corn agriculture in the Southwest. This genetic relationship is consistent with the idea that groups ancestral to Yuman participated in the Hohokam fluorescence along the Gila and Salt Rivers in Arizona moved west to the Colorado River following the Hohokam collapse, groups ancestral to Jemez moving at the same time east. The development of a distinctive and successful cultural complex on the lower Colorado subsequently resulted in the Yuman expansion out of the delta sometime in the last five hundred years. Whatever the details of the matter, the weight of evidence clearly places Yuman well east of the California coast at the time the materials in question from SDi-525 and SDi-603 were deposited.

It is well to point out here that the time separation within Yuman is clearly less than the time separation in Takic (southern California Uto-Aztecan). That is, Takic speakers have been in place longer over the whole of southern California than have Yuman speakers. It is well to point out, further, that the differences between these ethnically distinct Yuman and Takic groups would be very difficult to establish by comparing the technology commonly encountered archaeologically, even in very recent sites. For instance, DruckerÕs (1937) culture element distribution for Ipai (formerly Northern Diegueno) and neighboring Luiseno shows the two share more than 80% of their most important technology (Traits 336-515) indeed, they are essentially indistinguishable in this respect. It is precisely this sort of technology that provides the archaeological basis for defining variations within the Archaic of southern California, which is why adaptations and adaptive technology are often poor indicators of the sort of cultural connections upon which determinations of cultural affiliation hinge in NAGPRA. Burial practices are often much more informative in this respect. Here again, however, both the Ipai and Luiseno (along with every other southern California group), share the trait of cremating the dead (Drucker 1937:36). That none of the remains in question from SDi-525 and SDi-603 are cremations, then, very strongly suggests a fundamental cultural discontinuity between them and all the ethnographic groups in the region.

Separation 2-4000 years1-2000 years <1000 years500 years?
CochimiCochimi
KiliwaKiliwa
Yuman-Cochimi
Paipai
YumanPaiYavapai
Havasupai
Walapai
Core YumanMohave
River BranchQuechan
Maricopa Delta BranchDiegueno*
Cocopa *includes Ipai, Tipai, Kumeyaay

Table 1. Yuman and Related Languages

References Cited Drucker, P. 1937 Culture Element Distributions: V, Southern California. University of California Anthropological Records 1(1):1-52.

Hale, K. L. and D. Harris 1979 Historical Linguistics and Archaeology. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 170-177. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kendall, M. B. 1983 Yuman Languages. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 4-12. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithonian Insitution Press, Washington, D.C.

Malhi, R. S. 2001 Investigating Prehistoric Population Movements in North American Using Ancient and Modern mtDNA. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Shaul, D. L. and J. H. Hill 1998 Tepimans, Yumans, and other Hohokams. American Antiquity 63:375-396.

===================================== Ellen I've attached my comments on the UCLA affiliation report. If you have questions before you distribute to the committee at large, let me know. Bob

Robert L. Bettinger, Professor and Chair Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, Phone:530-752-0551(wk), 753-0248 (hm), FAX 530-752-8885 ================================

Phil Wilkie on Kumeyaay repatriation

2009-07-19T19:16:00.000-07:00

Hopefully, somebody out there can answer: When did DNA become capable of identifying cultural relationships? The last time we checked, genes, language and culture were independent of each other. While individuals can change their language and culture, the last we checked, other than blue jeans, individuals can't change their genes...

This letter was found at: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/UnivHouse/

##################################################

To: UC NAGPRA Committee

From: Philip J. Wilke, Professor, UCR

Comments on UCLA Report on Kumeyaay Cultural Affiliation by Diana Wilson

I believe that no strong case can be made for affiliation of these ancient human remains (to 7,500 years old; 375 generations) from SDI-525 and -603 with the present Kumeyaay. There is instead strong evidence to suggest that the Kumeyaay occupied the coastal zone of southern California comparatively recently.

The fact that the Historic Kumeyaay and all other ethnic groups in the area of southern California and the Colorado Delta cremated their dead suggests a very ancient practice that is not reflected in the remains in question.

As D.L. True showed in his dissertation, there are long-known differences in Late Prehistoric (ca. 500 years) weapon point design in the region in question. Points frequently are notched or boldly serrated in the Kumeyaay area, perhaps reflecting some still-unknown connection with the area of the Hohokam of the Gila River. Points generally are unnotched in the neighboring Takic area to the north, and all sources agree that groups speaking Takic languages have been in place for a very long time.

The core area for Yuman languages is located far to the east, around the head of the Gulf of California and up the tributary drainages of the Colorado and Gila rivers. Available evidence can be interpreted that the drying of Lake Cahuilla from the Salton Basin about A.D. 1450 caused considerable population displacement and that not all of it could be accommodated by the recorded dense settlement in Historic times on the lower Colorado and Gila rivers. Don Juan de Oñate reported in 1605 that some 16,000 Indians lived on the lower Colorado alone, a tremendous figure, and one wonders from where they all came. Certainly their bitter warfare pattern wherein neighbors were enemies and nonneighbors were allies suggests overcrowding and turmoil in times of food shortage due to agricultural crop failure, which was itself due to vagaries of the annual flood. Prior to A.D. 1450 Lake Cahuilla was within the distributary system of the Colorado, and was therefore a freshwater lake with abundant fish, shellfish, bird, and, locally, marsh vegetation resources flanking the Peninsular Ranges of southern California. The lake was over 100 miles long and 34 miles wide, and its abundant shoreline archaeological sites attest to a very substantial Indian population. That the drying of Lake Cahuilla could have caused an influx and crowding of population onto the lower Colorado and Gila and a coincident westward migration of Kumeyaay groups toward the California coast seems almost certain. When considered alongside the generally coincident abandonment of the large Hohokam towns of central and southern Arizona, the entire area of the Colorado, Gila, Salt, and Salton basins has to have experienced profound human population displacements. The Kumeyaay seem certain not to have escaped participation in this drama.

One has to ask whether conventional archaeological approaches could ever effectively identify ancestor groups or shared identities across even comparatively short time spans. And the time under consideration here is very, very, long indeed, 375 generations. This almost certainly is longer ago than the spread of Indoeuropean. What can archaeology tell us about relationships and shared identities across such immense time spans? If one is to proceed with repatriation in the manner considered here, it would seem prudent to be quite certain about claiming shared identity. Given basically the study of skeletal remains, could a clear differentiation, or a shared identity, be made between the remains of Serbs and Croat muslims, Turks and Armenians, German Jews and Nazis, Hutus and Tutsis, or most other groups that within our own time have overwhelmed one another with genocidal hatred? The historic Colorado River Yuman tribes were all very close linguistic kin, yet the Mohave and Quechan, neighbors of the Halchidhoma to the north and south, annihilated the latter tribe in a single day killing 255. Yet they shared the same group identity as linguistic kin living as neighbors along the same river following identical cultural practices and intermarrying. Could the remains of these tribes be separated by physical anthropology? I think not. Yet it seems clear that the groups in question chose genocide rather than group identity that fateful day in 1826. Add 365 generations to the equation and then how do you sort out issues like this one?

DNA studies are, or soon will be, capable of identifying cultural relationships with remarkable probability. The present case clearly suggests a need for a DNA database of contemporary Native American group identities against which the DNA of ancient human remains can be compared. It would seem that this would be the strongest tool Native Americans could have to support claims of shared identity across long time spans, and that they would demand its establishment. Until that is available, there is no firm basis upon which to assign a modern identity to these ancient human remains. Yet, some of the recorded cases of genocide mentioned above suggest that even with DNA evidence, shared group identity will remain an elusive, and illusive, phenomenon.

Meeting Minutes from May 2002

2009-07-12T21:10:00.001-07:00

It looks like at least one person has utilized the California Public Information Act. Posted on the web at http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/UnivHouse/ are the minutes from the May 2002 meeting. for the original, check for the file called "Summary of 5-15-02 Advisory Group Meeting.doc" .

To help spread the news, we are posting them here too. Interesting information on repatriation matters for the Kumeyaay, Wiyot, and how the UCOP committee views/viewed California AB 978.

###########

MEETING SUMMARY

University of California Systemwide Advisory Group on
Cultural Affiliation and Repatriation of Human Remains and Cultural Items

May 15, 2002 – Oakland, CA
12:00 – 5:00 pm

Attendees:
Advisory Group members: Robert Bettinger, Chair/Professor of Anthropology (UC Davis); Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, Professor, Anthropology (UC Santa Cruz); Leon Letwin, Professor of Law, Emeritus (UC Los Angeles); Martha Macri, Professor of Native American Studies and Anthropology, UC Davis (At-large member); Phillip Walker, Professor, Anthropology (UC Santa Barbara); Philip Wilke, Professor, Anthropology (UC Riverside); Ernestine Ygnacio-DeSoto (At-large member)
Other campus attendees: Richard Hitchcock, NAGPRA Coordinator (UC Berkeley); Diana Drake Wilson, Assistant Research Ethnographer (UCLA)
UCOP staff: Allison Rosenberg, Director, Research Policy and Development; Ellen Auriti, Assistant Director, Academic Legislative Issues; Rebecca Landes, Principal Analyst, Office of Research; Maria Shanle, University Counsel
Absent Advisory Group member: Kent Lightfoot, Professor, Anthropology (UC Berkeley)

I. Welcome of new committee members; introductions
Attachment 1: Revised Roster of Advisory Group members
Handout: Overview: UC Systemwide Advisory Group

Three new Advisory Group members were welcomed to the group – Martha Macri, Ernestine Ygnacio-DeSoto and Philip Wilke. Martha and Ernestine are “at large” members (not charged with representing any particular campus) appointed in February pursuant to the revised UC policy calling for the addition of two Native American individuals to serve on the Advisory Group. Phil was appointed to the group almost a year ago to represent the Riverside campus.

Martha was introduced as a Cherokee descendent and Professor of Native American Studies and Anthropology at UC Davis, specializing in Native American languages and linguistic relationships. She has twice served as the Chair of the Native American Studies department of UC Davis, and has also served as the Director of the Native American Language Center.

Ernestine was introduced as a Chumash descendent (and daughter of the last native speaker of the Barbareño Chumash language) who has worked extensively with researchers to preserve ethnographic and archaeological information about her tribe. She has worked with the California Native American Heritage Commission, museums, and academic institutions on repatriation issues, and has served on the UCSB Chancellor=s Advisory Committee on Repatriation of Human Remains and Cultural Items.

Phil was introduced as a Professor of Anthropology at UC Riverside, with expertise in prehistoric technology. He has a major research and teaching focus in lithic technology and has developed specialized courses emphasizing practical stone working leading to work in flake and blade technologies, quarrying, production of millstones, and debitage analysis. His research has included blade technology in various parts of North America, the Near East, and Asia, as well as archaeology of the Great Basin.

General introductions were made, and attention was called to the revised copy of the Advisory Group roster included in the meeting packets. In addition, a handout was distributed providing an overview of the membership and responsibilities of the Advisory Group. Allison Rosenberg highlighted the importance of the group’s role in advising the UC Office the President on matters relating to repatriation policy and campus compliance with applicable repatriation laws. She also stated that in order to encourage open and candid discussion, as a general rule, the group=s deliberations should be considered to be internal to the Advisory Group; as a matter of professional courtesy, individual comments generally should not be circulated without permission.

II. Review/recommendation re: whether to approve UCLA=s revised NAGPRA inventory identifying remains and associated funerary objects (AFOs) from CA-SDI-525 and CA-SDI-603 as being Aculturally affiliated@ with the Kumeyaay
Attachment 2: Draft revised UCLA Kumeyaay inventory;
Attachment 3: October, 2001 UCLA report on Kumeyaay Cultural Affiliation;
Attachment 4: Compendium of written comments from Advisory Group members;
Attachment 5: UCLA response to comments
Handout: Cultural Affiliation [Excerpt of NAGPRA definition]
Handout: 5/14/02 Memo from Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
Handout: 4/2/02 letter from Douglas Owsley to Phillip Walker

The Advisory Group advised UCOP on UCLA’s revised NAGPRA inventory identifying remains (and associated funerary objects) from CA-SDI-525 and CA-SDI-603 as being culturally affiliated with the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee. The extreme age of the remains in question (5,500 – 7,500 years old) was a significant factor that was discussed, since many members felt the age of the remains had a bearing on whether it is possible to identify cultural affiliation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” as required by federal NAGPRA law.

Ellen Auriti distributed a handout containing excerpts from the federal NAGPRA regulations setting out the definition of cultural affiliation and setting out the standard of proof required for establishing cultural affiliation. She reminded the group that the question to be answered in reviewing the UCLA inventory was: “Does the preponderance of the evidence lead to the conclusion that the remains and associated funerary objects listed on UCLA’s inventory are culturally affiliated with the Kumeyaay? That is, has the standard set out in the federal NAGPRA law been met?”

Diana Drake Wilson began the discussion by noting that UCLA concluded that the remains and AFO’s in question are culturally affiliated with the Kumeyaay. She noted that her October 2001 Report on Kumeyaay Cultural Affiliation contains more detailed explanations regarding the evidence that led UCLA to that conclusion. She also noted that after receiving preliminary comments from several Advisory Group members, she went back and reviewed the linguistic and oral tradition evidence in greater depth, and found that it reinforced her conclusion that there is cultural continuity between the Kumeyaay and the remains in question. According to Diana, UCLA’s determination of cultural affiliation was based on published sources and on discussion with Kumeyaay consultants and with scholars. Although the consensus among scholars was that neither continuity nor discontinuity could be conclusively established between earlier archaic groups and present-day Kumeyaay, UCLA concluded that the preponderance of the evidence (considering geographical, archaeological, biological, linguistic, ethnographic, and oral tradition) leads to a conclusion that supports the Kumeyaay claim of shared group identity with the remains in question.

There was considerable group discussion about whether the preponderance of the evidence leads to a conclusion of cultural affiliation.

One member noted that under NAGPRA, “cultural continuity” is not the standard for establishing cultural affiliation; rather, the law requires a showing of “shared group identity.” For example, many people in the U.S. could be said to have cultural continuity with 16th Century Englishmen (or with ancient Greeks, from whom we derive many of our core cultural ideas about democracy), but we don’t have a “shared group identity” that would lead to a conclusion of cultural affiliation. Thus, it was pointed out, even though some of the research cited in UCLA’s report may lead to a conclusion that there are aspects of cultural continuity between the La Jollan people and the Kumeyaay, that is not enough to lead to a conclusion of “cultural affiliation.” Another member expanded upon this, noting that just because an area is continuously occupied does not mean that the people who are there now are necessarily culturally affiliated with the people who were there earlier.

Another member pointed out that NAGPRA appears to work better when relatively shallow time depths are involved, but that it is much harder to meet the legal requirements of establishing “cultural affiliation” when very long time periods are involved.

Another member pointed out that in considering whether there is a “preponderance of the evidence,” group members should recognize that the NAGPRA standard does not require that the evidence be overwhelming. Rather, the NAGPRA standard requires that the evidence lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that remains are culturally affiliated with the particular group in question. If the evidence is equally balanced, then the decision should be against cultural affiliation and repatriation. University Counsel Maria Shanle confirmed this interpretation.

Additional points raised by Advisory Group members included:

- Physical/archaeological evidence: It was pointed out that evidence of significant difference in cranial morphology between the earlier La Jollan people and the Kumeyaay, and evidence that there was a marked (rather than a gradual) shift indicates a major discontinuity. [Diana responded that because there is a gap of 2,000 years in the record, there does indeed seem to be a marked shift, but it is possible that the shift was more gradual and we simply don’t have the evidence to show that.].

- Burial practices: It was pointed out that evidence of discontinuity in burial practices (cremation versus burial) suggests a lack of shared group identity. Several members noted that burial practices are an especially important indicator of cultural identity.

- Oral history: It was pointed out that it is difficult to interpret the significance of oral histories, particularly descriptions of events that are impossible to date or identify as unique. For example, it was pointed out that many groups have oral traditions that refer to origins from the sea, but since there are many seas, it is difficult to conclude that different stories referring to the sea are necessarily linked. It was also pointed out that in some cases, oral histories are more fixed or verifiable (e.g., cases where a particular oral history is memorized and can be recited verbatim by group members with little or no variation), which may make it easier to find links between two groups, but that that is not the case here. While several members noted that they found the oral tradition evidence to be important, they did not find it convincing enough to outweigh other evidence suggesting a lack of cultural affiliation.

- Linguistic evidence: It was pointed out that the linguistic evidence suggests that there was considerable population movement, which does not support the theory that people remained in the same place. This does not support a finding of cultural affiliation.

- Lack of evidence of earlier group’s cultural identity: It was suggested that there is not enough evidence regarding the earlier group’s cultural identity to establish a connection between that group and the Kumeyaay. That is, we do not know what the earlier group looked like, what its cultural practices were. Evidence of distinctive cultural practices is needed (not just mill stones, for example, which were used by many cultures) in order to establish shared group identity.

- One member noted that while the claim from the Kumeyaay certainly appears to be heartfelt, and while there is a lot of good research that went into the UCLA report, the preponderance of the evidence standard, in their view, had not been met. Several other members voiced support for this view.

- One member recommended approving UCLA’s finding of cultural affiliation with the Kumeyaay, even though the evidence is not strong, given that it is extremely difficult to establish shared group identity at such a large time depth, and given that the Kumeyaay may have as strong a claim as any group is likely to be able to establish.

Conclusion: The majority of the Advisory Group advised that the NAGPRA standard for cultural affiliation was not met in this case (i.e., that the preponderance of the evidence does NOT lead to the conclusion that the remains and associated funerary objects listed on UCLA’s inventory are culturally affiliated with the Kumeyaay).

Follow-up: After the meeting, Ellen Auriti brought the Advisory Group’s advice back to OP. The OP decision was that based on the group’s advice, UCLA should modify its draft revised inventories to indicate that SDI-525 and CA-SDI-603 are culturally unidentifiable. Once the inventories are so modified, UCLA should submit them to federal and tribal officials in accordance with NAGPRA.

III. Review/recommendation re: whether to approve UCLA’s revised NAGPRA inventories identifying remains from CA-HUM-? as being Aculturally affiliated@ with the Wiyot
Attachment 6: Draft revised UCLA Wiyot inventory

Diana Wilson provided background information about this inventory, noting that UCLA’s experts acknowledged that making the determination of cultural affiliation in this case was difficult. She noted that the determination of cultural affiliation was based on an assumption that the mandible in question is Native American and that it is recent.

Several Advisory Group members raised questions about whether such assumptions were supportable. In particular, concerns were raised about the age of the remains. It was pointed out that without evidence that the remains are recent, a finding of cultural affiliation is not warranted.

Conclusion: The Advisory Group’s advice was that the NAGPRA standard for cultural affiliation was not met in this case (i.e., that the preponderance of the evidence does NOT lead to the conclusion that the remains listed on UCLA’s inventory are culturally affiliated with the Wiyot).

Follow-up: After the meeting, Ellen Auriti brought the Advisory Group’s advice back to OP. The OP decision was that based on the group’s advice, UCLA should modify its draft revised inventory to indicate that CA-HUM-? is culturally unidentifiable. Once the inventory is so modified, UCLA should submit it to federal and tribal officials in accordance with NAGPRA.

IV. Review/recommendation re: whether to approve UCLA’s revised NAGPRA
inventories identifying remains from CA-RIV-126, CA-RIV-364, and CA-RIV-366 as being Aculturally affiliated@ with the Luiseño (Pechanga).
Attachment 7: Draft revised UCLA Luiseño, Pechanga inventory

Diana Wilson provided background information about this inventory, noting that the Pechanga representatives with whom UCLA consulted felt very strongly that the items in question (which were heavily burnt) were part of a memorial rite. After some discussion among Advisory Group members, it was suggested that each site number in this inventory be considered separately, since there were differing circumstances for each. With respect to CA-RIV-126 (Accession number 232) and CA-RIV-364 (Accession number 473): Though there was some discussion about whether there was sufficient evidence that the pot sherds and quartz crystals were ceremonial, several members noted that the oral evidence was strong (and relatively recent). In both cases, the group recommended approving UCLA’s determination of cultural affiliation with the Luiseño. Several members suggested that UCLA should go back to determine whether there are additional Luiseño groups that should be included in the cultural affiliation (i.e., that the best practice would be to list all the possible Luiseño groups that could be culturally affiliated).

With respect to CA-RIV-366 (Accession number 473), the group’s discussion focused on the concern that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the items from this site are funerary objects. In fact, it was pointed out that there was some question as to whether human remains were associated with this site at all (the missing bone referenced on the inventory may have been deer bone). Therefore, the Advisory Group endorsed the suggestion made by one member that the items referenced in the inventory from CA-RIV-366 be treated as non-NAGPRA items (which could be given to a requesting tribe via a non-NAGPRA deaccession). A question arose as to whether systemwide (Office of the President) approval is needed for museum deaccessions of items not covered by NAGPRA. Both Ellen Auriti and University Counsel Maria Shanle responded that they knew of no such requirement, but stated that they would research this point and advise the group of their conclusion.

Conclusion:
A. CA-RIV-126; CA-RIV-364: The Advisory Group’s advice was that the NAGPRA standard for cultural affiliation was met in the case of Accession number 232 (CA-RIV-126) and for part of Accession number 473 (CA-RIV-364) (i.e., the group found that the preponderance of the evidence supports UCLA’s conclusion that the remains and cultural objects listed on UCLA’s inventory are culturally affiliated with the Luiseño). Though approving the affiliation with Luiseño, several members advised that UCLA should consider listing additional Luiseño groups as part of the cultural affiliation.
B. CA-RIV-366: The Advisory Group’s advice was that the items referenced in the UCLA inventory from CA-RIV-366 be treated as non-NAGPRA items (i.e., not be listed on the inventory), which the campus could choose to give to a requesting tribe via a non-NAGPRA deaccession.

Follow-up: After the meeting, Ellen Auriti brought the Advisory Group’s advice back to OP. The OP decision was a) to approve UCLA’s revised inventory identifying CA-RIV-126 and CA-RIV-364 as culturally affiliated with the Luiseño; and b) to ask UCLA to modify its draft revised inventories to remove the reference to items from CA-RIV-366 (which should be treated as non-NAGPRA items). UCLA should submit its revised inventory to federal and tribal officials in accordance with NAGPRA.
With respect to the question that arose regarding deaccessions: After having researched systemwide policies, Maria and Ellen concluded that there is no generally applicable requirement that campuses obtain OP approval for non-NAGPRA deaccessions from campus museums. OP approval is needed for repatriation and deaccession of Native American remains and cultural items made pursuant to the “University of California Policy and Procedures on Curation and Repatriation of Human Remains and Cultural Items.” There may be policies that apply to other specific cases, but there is no generally applicable requirement that campuses obtain OP approval for every deaccession.

V. Review of UCB request to deaccession ten Native American beads
Attachment 8: UCB Letter requesting deaccession approval

The group discussed an issue raised by a recent request from UC Berkeley for approval to deaccession ten Native American beads from the Hearst museum's collection for destructive analysis in a research study being conducted with the consent of appropriate Native American Most Likely Descendants. It was noted that the beads were not found by UCB to fit into a category of objects covered by NAGPRA, and were not listed on UCB's NAGPRA inventory.

Ellen Auriti asked for the group’s input on 1) whether deaccession was appropriate in the case cited in the UCB letter; and 2) whether this type of deaccession falls into a category that does not warrant systemwide consistency/review. After some discussion, the group responded affirmatively to the second question. It was pointed out that since the beads were not found by the campus to fit into a NAGPRA category, and since they were not listed on a NAGPRA inventory or the subject of a NAGPRA request, there was nothing to indicate that anything other than the museum’s normal procedures should apply (i.e., there is no need for systemwide consistency or review).

With respect to the question of whether deaccession was appropriate in this case: Although no member expressed concerns about UCB’s use of the beads for the proposed research project, several members pointed out that a formal deaccession probably was not necessary, since the beads in question were just a few out of a larger collection. That is, since the collection remains with the museum, a “deaccession” was not necessary. It was pointed out that this was simply a matter of internal campus museum procedures; Richard Hitchcock agreed, and said that he would bring that advice back to his campus to guide future similar situations.

Conclusion: The Advisory Group recommended that in cases where a campus determines that a Native American item does not fit into a category covered by NAGPRA (i.e., it is not human remains, a funerary object, an object of cultural patrimony, or a sacred object) and where there has been no repatriation request under federal or state law, there is no need for systemwide Advisory Group review prior to deaccession. Ellen Auriti confirmed that OP will not require systemwide review in such cases (but noted that campuses should advise OP of cases in which there is likely to be a dispute regarding whether an item is covered by NAGPRA). The group also advised that in this particular UCB case, formal deaccession probably was not necessary in order for the research in question to occur.

Follow-up: None needed.

VI. Discussion re: Advisory Group/OP Review and approval process re: claims, repatriations, deaccessions
Attachment 9: Draft claim form

Review of draft form: Ellen Auriti noted the need to streamline the process for reviewing and approving campus decisions regarding cultural affiliations and repatriations of items covered by NAGPRA. She solicited input regarding a draft form designed to collect the information that Advisory Group members need in order to provide meaningful advice and recommendations. Advisory Group members offered some suggestions for improving the form, but agreed that it contained the basic categories of information needed to review a claim. It was suggested that a separate simplified “notice of claim” form may be useful in addition to the “request for Advisory Group review” form.

Trigger for Advisory Group review: There was some discussion regarding the point at which a claim is ready for systemwide review. It was pointed out that in many cases, a campus may have numerous interactions with a tribe with respect to a claim before the claim is ripe for review (i.e., even though a campus may not respond affirmatively to an initial repatriation request, that decision may not be final, since more information may be requested, additional consultations conducted, etc.). It was noted that it would be unduly cumbersome to solicit Advisory Group input at every state of the transaction.

It was suggested that Advisory Group review should be sought at the point when the campus determines that NAGPRA repatriation requirements have been met and recommends repatriation. At that point, the campus should fill out the form requesting Advisory Group review and send it to OP

Exception to need for Advisory Group review: With respect to streamlining the review process, it was suggested that there is one category of repatriation which generally does not warrant Advisory Group review: Group members agreed that there is generally no need for the Advisory Group to review a campus recommendation to repatriate if:
1) the repatriation involves only human remains and funerary objects that were listed on the campus inventory;
2) the campus inventory identified the remains and associated funerary objects as being culturally affiliated with the tribe requesting repatriation; and
3) the campus inventory was already reviewed/approved by the Advisory Group.

The reason additional Advisory Group review is not needed in such cases is that the Advisory Group already approved the cultural affiliation in question. Once human remains and associated funerary objects have been identified as culturally affiliated with a particular tribe, repatriation is legally required upon request unless a NAGPRA exception applies. NAGPRA exceptions include cases in which there is a competing claim or in which the remains are indispensable to the completion of a specific scientific study of major national importance.

Notifying campuses of repatriations: It was also suggested that OP keep track of repatriations made by UC campuses, and circulate a list of repatriations to the Advisory Group annually, to keep members informed of systemwide repatriation activity. Ellen Auriti agreed that OP would do this.

Conclusion: When a campus determines that NAGPRA repatriation requirements have been met and recommends repatriation, the campus should complete the form requesting Advisory Group review and send it to OP, for distribution to the Advisory Group. However, Advisory Group review will generally not be required in cases where the campus repatriation recommendation pertains to remains and AFO’s that were listed as culturally affiliated with the requesting tribe on a campus inventory that was previously approved by the Advisory Group.

Campuses recommending repatriation of remains and associated funerary objects that meet the above criteria (i.e., that were already identified as culturally affiliated with the requesting tribe on an inventory approved by the Advisory Group) should advise OP whether any NAGPRA exceptions (e.g., competing claims) apply or whether there are other specific issues of potential controversy. If not, there will be no need for additional Advisory Group review.

Follow-up: Rebecca Landes will revise the repatriation claim form in accordance with the discussion and circulate the revised form(s) to the Advisory Group. In the mean time, campuses should use the draft form to notify OP of written repatriation claims they receive from tribes and of any campus repatriation recommendations.

VII. AB 978 follow-up
Attachment 10: Assembly Bill 978
Handout: AB 978: Summary of Main Requirements

Ellen Auriti distributed a document outlining the main requirements of Assembly Bill 978, the bill that enacted the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, effective January 1, 2002. She reminded the group that all campuses with collections must be ready to submit a copy of their federal NAGPRA inventories and summaries to the yet-to-be-formed state Repatriation Oversight Commission within 30 days after the date on which the Commission is formed.

She also noted that the campuses must be ready to prepare supplements for those portions of their Federal NAGPRA inventories and summaries relating to remains and cultural items that originated from California but that were not found to be affiliated with any federally recognized tribes. She noted that with respect to those portions of their collections, campuses will have to consult with non-federally- recognized tribes and identify any Astate cultural affiliation@ that can be found with those tribes. She noted that the inventory and summary supplements will not be due until 1 year after the state Commission releases a list of California tribes, but that some campuses may want to get started on any necessary preliminary steps.

She also noted that inventory and summary supplements prepared under the state law should be treated the same way as federal NAGPRA inventories under UC policy – that is, upon completion, they should be submitted to the Advisory Group and OP for review and approval. Any “state cultural affiliations” should be reviewed by the Advisory Group. Ellen requested that campuses notify OP if they receive any claims under the state law.

Ellen also asked the Advisory Group for assistance in identifying potential UC nominees to the State Repatriation Oversight Commission and encouraged Advisory Group members to consider whether they would be willing to serve on the Commission. She noted that since the law gives the Commission a key role in making decisions that will affect museums and agencies with collections of remains and cultural items, service on the Commission will be an important way of serving the University and the state. She noted that UC’s nominee should be an individual who is familiar with UC’s collections, is able to articulately represent the concerns of UC on repatriation issues (particularly with respect to potential impact on research, teaching and public service), is familiar with federal NAGPRA compliance, and is willing and able to work effectively as part of a group in which scientific interests may be the minority view and in which considerable political and cultural sensitivity is required.

There was some group discussion about potential interaction between the state law and Federal NAGPRA, and about how the new state repatriation process would work.

Follow-up: No immediate follow-up is required, but campuses should be prepared to take steps to prepare the inventory and summary supplements required by AB 978. Advisory Group members should contact Ellen Auriti with suggestions for potential UC nominees to the state Commission.

VIII. New state legislative proposals restricting excavation on Native American historic, cultural or sacred sites
Attachment 11: Senate Bill 1816
Attachment 12: Analysis of Senate Bill 1816
Attachment 13: Senate Bill 1828
Attachment 14: Analysis of Senate Bill 1828

Ellen Auriti informed the Advisory Group members about two pending state bills – Senate Bill 1816 and Senate Bill 1828 -- that may have an adverse impact on archaeological research. She noted that though both bills appear to be designed to promote a goal we support – preventing defacement and vandalism of Native American sacred and cultural sites -- they are written so broadly that they could prevent legitimate archaeological research.

Ellen gave a brief overview of the bills. AB 1816 makes it a crime to excavate upon any Native American historic, cultural or sacred site on private or public land, with an exception for activities carried out under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for “agreements” entered into pursuant to provisions of existing law relating to the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 1828 amends CEQA to, among other things, prohibit an agency from issuing a permit for any project if a tribe declares that the project would have an adverse impact on a site that the tribe declares to be sacred.

The group had a brief discussion about the potential impact of the bills on research. Ellen noted that UC’s State Governmental Relations Office is working with the authors’ offices in the hope of getting a research exemption inserted into the bills.

Follow-up: Ellen Auriti will continue to work with the UC’s Office of State Governmental Relations office and with other impacted Divisions to attempt to resolve concerns about adverse effects of the bills.

IX. Other business

The group had a brief discussion about forthcoming draft regulations that the Department of Interior plans to release regarding disposition on culturally unidentifiable remains. This issue was expected to come up at the May 31 – June 2 NAGPRA Review Committee meeting in Tulsa, OK. Dick Hitchcock noted that he planned to attend the Tulsa meeting.

It was noted that there is some question regarding whether the Department of Interior has authority under NAGPRA to issue regulations that would be binding on museums regarding disposition of culturally unidentifiable remains.

The group also picked tentative dates for future Advisory Group meetings. Members were asked to set aside the following dates for meetings from 10 AM – 3 PM, with the understanding that one or more meetings might be cancelled if there is no business that needs to be addressed:

SEPTEMBER 23 (Monday)
JANUARY 22, 2003 (Wednesday)
MAY 19, 2003 (Monday)

Follow-up: Members should mark their calendars with the above meeting dates, and should advise Ellen Auriti of any agenda items.

Professor Tim White on the Luby Report

2009-07-01T19:08:00.000-07:00

Click on the two pages above to see Professor Tim White's view of the "Luby Report." The odd part was, it wasn't made public until after July 7, 2007--so how can he complain about his whistle-blower rights being violated? Is he paranoid about something? And one also has to ask, if the testimony in front of the State legislature in February 2008 wasn't covered by whistle-blower legislation?

Our thanks to Sandra Harris for turning this over to the state of California.

Prof. Carol Goldberg on the UCOP Repatriation Committee

2009-06-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

Professor Carole Goldberg, a professor of Federal Indian Law and a UCOP Repatriation Committee member, wrote the following in 2006--

December 11, 2006

Dear Colleague:

I am writing to you in my capacity as UCLA Campus Repatriation Officer and member of the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group, seeking to enlist your support in an effort to redirect UC policy regarding repatriation to Native American tribes. I have contacted you because I believe the policy as it is currently designed and implemented fails to recognize the interests of faculty throughout the system who engage in work with contemporary tribal communities, whether those faculty are in Native American Studies or other departments. UC policy and practices, as I will explain below, tend to result in the denial of tribal repatriation claims under circumstances where tribes are likely to conclude they have rights under NAGPRA and state law, thereby promoting a negative view of the University within tribal communities.

As you may know, UC policy centralizes decisions regarding repatriation in the Office of the President, and establishes the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group to make recommendations to the President regarding campus-based inventories that find cultural affiliation or otherwise propose repatriation. Under NAGPRA, repatriation is required upon a finding of cultural affiliation of human remains and specified objects, but "culturally unidentifiable" remains and objects may also be repatriated through a process established under federal regulations. Although those regulations have yet to be promulgated, several universities and other institutions, including Cal State Fresno, have repatriated human remains through an informal process set up by the National Park Service.

Under UC policy, only campuses with collections subject to NAGPRA are eligible to send representatives to the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group. These representatives are asked to consult with campus stakeholders with respect to matters of policy and implementation. In addition, there are to be two Native American representatives on this committee, selected by the Office of the President.

In practice this system has not been functioning well. First, there are campuses without collections, whose faculty may have significant research interests and knowledge relevant to the repatriation process, especially researchers in Native American Studies. Second, it has been my experience that although UCLA maintains a broadly representative campus-based NAGPRA committee, none of the other campus representatives consults with other concerned faculty and staff regarding systemwide matters. In practice, all the other campuses, except for UCLA, have sent archaeologists with particular orientations toward repatriation, especially an exclusive emphasis on certain kinds of evidence in determinations of cultural affiliation. The result has been that these archaeologists' perspectives heavily dominate consideration of campus-based recommendations regarding cultural affiliation. Third, Native American representation on the NAGPRA Advisory Group has not been robustly pursued by UCOP. Six months ago, one of the two seats was vacated. Since that time, UCLA has nominated two individuals, and I am under the impression that other campuses have nominated individuals as well. Yet the Office of the President has not appointed a replacement.

The adverse consequences of this arrangement have manifested themselves in several different cases, especially those involving older remains. Sometimes the problem has been failure to credit oral history evidence provided by tribal communities. In another instance, group members refused to recommend repatriation of "culturally unidentifiable" remains through the available informal process on policy grounds, without ever consulting their campuses regarding the desirability of such policy. In still another situation, the Office of the President has simply failed to schedule meetings to discuss a UCLA cultural affiliation recommendation, leaving the requesting tribe in a position of considerable distress.

I am concerned that this course of action by UCOP is harming the University's reputation with tribal communities in California and across the nation, and that those of us who rely on the trust and cooperation of such communities to conduct our research will feel the consequences. I ask you to let me know whether you share this concern, and would be willing to collaborate in raising it with Lawrence Coleman, Vice Provost for Research in the Office of the President. If you prefer to speak by phone, you can reach me at (310) 825-4429.

Sincerely,

Carole Goldberg

Professor of Law

Director, Joint Degree Program in Law and American Indian Studies

The original of this letter can be found at

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/UnivHouse/

(look for Repatriation letter.doc)

2009-06-11T19:04:00.000-07:00

In the current tribal newsletter, Jud King has bragged about all the claims the Berkeley Repatriation committee has recently handled. But some questions arise:
How many claims has the Berkeley Repatriation Committee dealt with? What is the outcome of those claims?

Well, if you are curious like we are, we suggest you send the following letter to Mr. King:

Interim Director Jud King
Hearst Museum of Anthropology
103 Kroeber Hall
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720

Dear Interim Director Jud King,

Hello, my name is [*] and I am a NAGPRA representative for the [*] tribe. Per California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250-6276.48), I am writing to request copies of the complete minutes from the meetings of the UC Berkeley Repatriation Committee meetings for the 2008 calendar year. We hope the minutes contain who attended the meeting, who the committee members were, how they voted on tribal claims, and the inventories, claims, etc. discussed in the meeting. If the minutes do not contain this information, I would like to know which documents do and I will then make a formal request for those.

I am willing to pay reasonable copying costs and postage. Your written answer to this request is expected in the next 10 days. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[*]

And by all means, let us know what you hear from Mr. King!

Does the UCOP Repatriation Committee comply with the California Public Records Act?

2009-02-20T06:54:00.000-08:00

In last year's State Senate hearing, it became clear that the UCOP Repatriation Committee did not keep minutes of their meetings. As we come up on the one year anniversary of the hearings, it is time to find out if they are complying! Use the form letter below to find out:

Ms. Rebecca Landes
UCOP Repatriation Committee
Office of Research
1111 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 94607-5200

Dear Ms. Landes,

Hello, my name is [*] and I am a NAGPRA representative for the [*] tribe. As a Federally recognized tribe, NAGPRA and repatriation are important to us. Per California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250-6276.48), I am writing to request copies of the complete minutes from the meetings of the UC Office of the President Repatriation Committee for the 2008 calendar year. I hope the minutes contain who attended the meeting, how it was held (phone, email, in person, etc.), who the committee members were, what they discussed, and how they voted on tribal claims. If the minutes do not contain this information, I would like to know which documents do and I will then make a formal request for those.

We are willing to pay reasonable copying costs and postage. Your written answer to this request is expected in the next 10 days. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[*]

Just substitute your name and tribal affiliation where the [*] are. If you are not a tribal member, just change the sentence and let Ms. Landes know you want the information as a California resident. The UCOP Committee may have forgotten about things, but we haven't.

Prof. Tim White on NAGPRA and the events of 1995

2008-12-14T11:06:00.000-08:00

Some more e-mail turned over by Ms. Sandra Harris for the State Senate hearings on February 26, 2008. Click on the images above to read Professor Tim White's views on NAGPRA and the events of 1995 (For another version of those events read the Luby report at http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com ).

"Appropriate" Native Americans

2008-10-19T18:42:00.000-07:00

In the Spring 2008 issue of Catalyst (V. 3, No. 2), Robert Birgeneau says:

Says Birgeneau about King’s role, “At my request, Jud stepped into this difficult situation as interim director of the Hearst Museum. He has been extraordinarily effective in this role and now has us on a track which promises to resolve many of these problems; this includes especially seeking out appropriate Native American input.

NANC is intrigued on how Mr. King--a chemical engineer and University administrator--determined which Native American tribes had appropriate input and which ones did not? Was it based on the amount of human remains from their traditional tribal territory, or some other criteria? Or was it ones who agreed with Mr. Garcia's statement? Or did the input come from just Native Americans employed by the University? Why hasn't Mr. King invited input from all tribes which have human remains housed in the musem? Are he and the Chancellor worried they may hear something they don't like?

Anthony Garcia on Repatriation

2008-10-19T18:26:00.000-07:00

In the minutes of the 37th Meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee meeting, it is noted in the Public Comment section that:

Mr. Garcia stated that he regularly has Native Americans tell him that human remains in the museum were from their tribe but they did not want them to come back to the tribe.

(see http://www.nps.gov/history/Nagpra/INDEX.HTM )

NANC would like to ask Mr. Garcia, which Native American tribes he has heard this from? Further, we would also like to ask if Mr. Garcia has totally forgotten his meetings/consultations with the Great Basin Coalition, the Tachi Yokuts, and Susanville Rancheria? Admittedly, these occurred before he became NAGPRA Coordinator, but one has to ask was he sleeping at the time of those earlier consultations?

Letter to UC President Yudof

2008-10-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

This a copy of the recent letter sent by the Great Basin Intertribal NAGPRA Coalition (GBITNC) to UC President Mark Yudof. (Left click on the image to see it full-size.)

Press Release from the Tribal NAGPRA Alliance

2008-10-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

Contact:
Reno Franklin, Kashia Pomo Tribal Council Member, 707-591-0580, ext.105; James Hayward, Redding Rancheria, 530-410-2875; Radley Davis, Pit River Nation, 530-917-6064; Mark LeBeau, Pit River Nation, 916-801-4422

Tribal Reps. Call on US Senate Indian Affairs Committee to Conduct Hearings on National Park Service and UC Berkeley (UCB) Transgressions of Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

Indian Country, Calif.—A recent financial review conducted by the Nat. Assoc. of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the Makah Nation on the National Park Service’s (NPS) use of NAGPRA funds, reveals that the agency has used more than $3 million in Tribal Government grants for purposes not covered by the law. NAGPRA authorizes the federal government to provide funds to Tribes to help them recover their ancestors and cultural property and to museums to assist them in repatriation.

The financial report, released on 8/14/08, indicates that the decision-makers of the NPS have used NAGPRA funds to support their administrative costs and other interests, including funneling money into the legal system to pay attorney fees to support scientists against Tribes in the Kennewick Man repatriation lawsuit. The report lists public data showing that from 1999 to 2007, Congress appropriated $21.9 million but the NPS only awarded $18.8 million to Tribes and museums. NPS took $221,000 from the program in 2002, $250,000 in 03, $255,000 in 04 and $342,111 in 05, $473,112 in 06 and $463,718 in 07. An additional $680,000 was taken in 05 to pay attorney's fees to the scientists who sued the federal government to study the remains of the Kennewick Man.

The number of repatriation grants awarded each year to Tribes has declined since 1999 as more funding is being inappropriately taken from the program by the NPS, while the need of Tribes to repatriate remains high.

In a related matter, Tribal reps. strongly recommend Robert Birgeneau, University of California Berkeley (UCB) Chancellor, recommit to the dispute resolution strategies entered into between Tribes and the University since their meeting in April 2008. Tribal peoples have been concerned for decades about the UCB’s lack of effort to return their ancestral remains to their families for reburial. UCB warehouses over 10,000 Native skeletal remains in boxes in its Hearst Museum basement. UCB continues to refuse to consult with Tribes on their return as required by NAGPRA, especially those the University lists as “culturally unidentifiable”. Tribal peoples know their ancestral relatives, even if UCB does not. UCB must recommit to consulting with Tribes on the repatriation of these Native human remains.

UCB decision-makers informed Tribal reps. that their recommendation to remove a highly undesirable osteologist of the college from handling Native remains and participating in decisions related to repatriation would be honored. However, Tribal advocates have recently learned that this unwanted osteologist is back conducting business as usual. In this situation, UCB is highly disrespecting and dishonoring these deceased as well their living descendents.

Tribal reps hand-delivered a letter to Chancellor Birgeneau outlining many of their concerns and asked him to respond in writing and provide appropriate remedies. The Chancellor agreed to provide the response and the remedies within a couple of months. It has been six months and the Tribal reps are still waiting for him to fulfill these commitments. Among other details, the Tribal letter sites a report written by UCB staff and other evidence indicating that UCB scientists were not conducting their work in compliance with NAGPRA. A passage from the UCB report states:

“...virtually all human remains yet to be inventoried were determined
to be culturally unidentifiable, with no evidence supplied as to why this
was the case. Even more serious, however, and contrary to statutory
language, the inventory was not associated with evidence that consultation
with Indian Tribes had taken place, nor were associated funerary
objects listed. In addition, this inventory did not accurately reflect the
museum’s documents, and the descriptions of the
geographic and cultural affiliation of the human remains
listed were insufficient.”

In light of the ongoing National Park Service and UC Berkeley transgressions of NAGPRA, the Tribal NAGPRA Alliance is calling on the US Senate Indian Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on the transgressions and work to ensure these federally-funded entities comply with the law.

The "Luby" Report

2008-09-26T12:41:00.000-07:00

A digital copy of the July 18, 2000 report by Dr. Ed Luby to Vice Chancellor Cerny
"Administrative Update on Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)" is now available on-line at

http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com/

This report describes how UC Berkeley got into forbearance, what they
did to get out of it, and the possible consequences thereof. This report was made public during the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008.

Prof. Nelson Graburn's concerns

2008-09-18T13:29:00.000-07:00

Below is an e-mail submitted to the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008 by Ms. Sandra Harris. (As always, why is she submitting Kent Lightfoot's email to the State Senate?)

Left click on the message to read it full size

The PR Dept. & Freedom of Speech in the UC system

2008-08-20T19:35:00.000-07:00

Below is an e-mail message that was submitted to the California State Legislature by Vice-Chancellor Beth Burnside's office. This was for the hearing on February 26th, 2008 on the disbanding of the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley.
After reading this message, one has to wonder when it became standard operating procedure for the faculty and staff in the UC system to loose their rights to have a dissenting opinion? Does working for UC mean that one gives up their right to criticize the actions of the UC system? One also has to wonder why the PR people are so concerned if there is a dissenting voice from within the UC system? (Left click on the message to read it full size.)

What Happened with the American Anthropological Association?

2008-08-20T19:28:00.000-07:00

This is just another e-mail submitted by Sandra Harris, Vice-Director of the Hearst Museum as evidence to the State Senate Hearings on February 26th, 2008. Once again, we have to ask, why is she reading the Director's email and submitting it as evidence? We also have to ask, was their an investigation from the American Anthroplogical Association? (Click on the image above to see it full size.)

Consultation After the Fact?

2008-08-09T10:56:00.000-07:00

UC has steadfastly argued that they compiled and filed the inventories in accordance with Federal law. Yet, one of the documents submitted to the State Legislature for the February 26th, 2008 hearing draws this stance into question. One has to wonder why they are asking for money to do consultation in January 2001, after the inventories were filed with the Federal government.

Which tribes did come in for consultation? Which tribes had consultation after the inventories were filed?

(Click on each image to see it full size)

The WAC--archaeology as usual?

2008-07-01T20:02:00.000-07:00

To the left is a scan of a document submitted to the State of California hearings by Sandra Harris, Vice-Director of the Hearst Museum of Anthropology. (Click on it to see a full, readable image.)

While the WAC (World Archaeology Congress) says it has special interest in protecting "the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples", one wonders if they sent similar messages to other stakeholders? If so, who?

Also, one has to ask why the Vice-Director is reading the Director's email and submitting it as evidence?

Statement by Otis Parrish

2008-06-01T11:55:00.000-07:00

I am here to tell you what happened with the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum in May and June of 2007. It is hard for me to speak about this because what occurred was a breach of friendship and a violation of trust and honor. My tribe, the Kashia Pomo, and my relations have all given much to the Phoebe Hearst Museum and UC Berkeley. We have opened our tribe to working with Berkeley students and have hosted and been a part of the Fort Ross project. We have given freely of our knowledge, of our tribal ways, and have trusted in ties of friendship and respect. The University simply threw this away. Native Americans and a unit which fairly administered NAGPRA were lied to and treated with contempt and disrespect. This is not how you treat Native people, and it should not be how you treat any people.

The “outside review,” which was conducted on the NAGPRA unit on May 16th, 2007, was orchestrated in secrecy by the upper administration at the university and deliberately excluded Native Americans and tribal representatives. The review was a ruse, performed for these purposes alone: to rid the Museum of the autonomous NAGPRA unit, to turn control of NAGPRA over to research scientists and to take over NAGPRA funds. As a result, the Native American interests in the repatriation of their ancestors will not be fairly or adequately addressed. It is hard to stand up against the powerful when you have little power yourself. But we believe it is our duty. The Director of the Museum Kent Lightfoot, Deputy Director Sandra Harris, Vice Chancellor Beth Burnside, and Associate Vice Chancellor Robert Price all worked in secret to eliminate the NAPGRA unit, and with it, truly impartial NAGPRA services. They didn’t consult with the very people at the University who had the most knowledge and experience with both tribes and NAGPRA. And when we asked for Native American tribes to be represented on the review committee, the answer from the Vice Chancellor was an ABSOLUTE NO! Why? I can only assume that they believed tribes would reject their decision.

California Tribes…and all tribes were described by administrators such as Price as “outsiders”…with no relevant knowledge or experience in museums. Remember NAGPRA is a human rights issue – not a “museum efficiency issue” – and it was designed to give us a chance to repatriate our ancestors and rebury them as they deserve. No other Americans have had their ancestors’ graves pillaged and their bones taken away to museum shelves, to be researched on at the whim of scientists. The remains at the Museum belong to NATIVE AMERICANS, and yet the administrators say we have NO right to be included in policy decisions affecting our ancestors. This is ARROGANCE and this is RACISM…and it should not be permitted.

Testimony by Larri Fredericks

2008-04-28T12:08:00.000-07:00

{Testimony to the California State Senate Committee on Governmetal Organization given by
Dr. Larri Fredericks on 2/26/2008. The full hearing is available from the Committee and can
be requested in writing from Suite 584, 1020 N Street, Sacramento, CA}

It is also my feeling that the “outside review” was orchestrated in secrecy, deliberately
excluded all Native Americans and tribal representatives for the sole purpose of getting rid
of the existing NAGPRA unit and reorganizing NAGPRA into the museum. The reorganization will subordinate NAGPRA services to the museum administration and further solidify the power of the Repatriation Committee’s involvement in the daily operation of NAGPRA and how it
conducts business. NAGPRA will now be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

NAGPRA is an important issue at the Phoebe Hearst because they hold the largest collection
of Native American skeletal remains in the nation (only the Smithsonian has a larger
collection and they don’t come under the NAGPRA law). The operations of NAGPRA, in order to
serve the best interests of ALL, should be transparent, be in a neutral place and Native
American tribes should be represented. These are after all Native American remains…what
other group in America does not have a right to speak for their dead?

As tribal representatives on this panel will confirm, there has been a history of strained
relations between tribes and the museum in the past over NAGPRA. When I became Interim
NAGPRA Coordinator, I was determined to change this, and Otis Parrish and Mark Hall were
fully supportive. The way we wanted to change it was not by showing favoritism toward
tribes, but by listening to them, taking their requests seriously and treating them fairly,
and giving them the recognition that was required as the basic stakeholders in the process.

We did not want to “give away the store”; but we recognized that Native American ancestral
remains belonged to Native Americans. Our goal was to assist tribes understand the subtle
details of archival review, documentation, archaeological data, and so on, so they could
access and provide all of the legitimate evidence to present their claims to repatriation
committees that required extensive and detailed evidence based claims. We gave them the
tools: knowledge and access to the collections, the documents, and the libraries, including
the Bancroft.

We succeeded in gaining the confidence of many tribes, so much so that they rallied to our
support after the reorganization was announced. They sent countless letters of support and
protest to the Chancellor, passed tribal and National resolutions, joined coalitions, and
did a myriad of other things. How did we achieve this trust? By acknowledging the importance
of the repatriation of their ancestors, by treating them fairly and for bringing forth their
concerns and desires to the museum. Operating with at least semi-autonomy allowed us to
bring fourth their concerns and to ensure that collections in consultation were not accessed
for research, to remove exhibits from sites in consultation that were considered sacred
sites and to ensure that policy included their interests. At times this angered people in
the Museum, and, according to the Bettinger/Walker “review,” some of these people complained
that our relationships were “dysfunctional.” I should note, however, that Bettinger and
Walker did not interview most of the museum staff with whom we regularly worked and with
whom we had very positive relations. But more important, sometimes integrity requires making
people angry, sometimes we could not fairly and impartially administer NAGPRA, a federal
law, without stepping on Museum toes. I also feel that most of the staff at the museum was
supportive of the NAGPRA Unit and our actions.

On the other hand, we acted above and beyond our NAGPRA duties to help the Museum establish positive relations with tribal communities and with Native American organizations on campus. We assisted with outreach and educational programs, organized California Indian Day events, hosted the Summer Rez program for Indian undergraduates, mentored Anthropology graduate students and accepted two Native American interns, obtained funding from the City of
Berkeley for the Native California Cultural Gallery, and begged Museum administrators to
actually change the contents of that gallery (it had stayed the same for 6 years) and to
hold a major Native American exhibition (there hadn’t been one for many years, and none was
planned for many more).

No management official ever informed me or anyone on my staff that we were not performing
effectively. In fact, we were often praised by Museum Director Kent Lightfoot. No one ever
asked us how we might better integrate our activities into museum functions without
sacrificing the integrity of NAGPRA services. Hence, we were completely blindsided by the
sudden review and by the announcement of the reorganization only a few weeks later. No one
consulted us, and when we asked that the tribes be represented on the review committee, we
were answered with an “Absolute no.” I agree entirely with Otis Parrish: the review was a
set up, intended to give legitimacy to a decision that had already been made. Tribes were
excluded because they would have seen that decision for what it was: a coup by museum
scientists who wanted to keep the remains for purposes of research and by museum
administrators who wanted control of the NAGPRA budget.

Testimony by Mark Hall

2008-04-28T11:51:00.000-07:00

{Testimony to the California State Senate Committee on Governmetal Organization given by Dr. Mark Hall on 2/26/2008. The full hearing is available from the Committee and can be requested in writing from Suite 584, 1020 N Street, Sacramento, CA}

Dear Senators, Ladies, and Gentlemen,

Good Morning. My name is Mark Hall, and I was formerly the archaeologist with the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley. I was in this position from February 1, 2006 until June 30th, 2007.

As to my background, I finished my PhD in Anthropology (Archaeology emphasis) from UC Berkeley in Dec. 1992. Most of my career has been spent living, working and doing research in museums in Ireland, Japan and the United Kingdom. I am a registered Professional Archaeologist, and a Fellow in the Royal Society of Asian Affairs, and a Fellow in the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

While all this overseas experience my seem irrelavent,it needs to be stressed that I did quickly learn one thing. Local communities have an interest in their heritage. It didn't matter whether I was in Ireland or Mongolia, the local people all identified with the local archaeological remains
and museum materials. To do archaeology and research in these places required the involvement and permission from the community.

I see the same principles applying here in North America--to do research and study on prehistoric North American materials one needs the involvement and sanction of the Native American tribes.

I am here today not as a disgruntled, former employee, but as an archaeologist and museum professional who is outraged and disgusted with what has transpired with UC Berkley and its NAGPRA obligations.

First, I am outraged at the way the University covertly and with bias eliminated the NAGPRA unit. While our jobs made us the intermediaries between museum staff, researchers and Native Americans, the University sought only two UC faculty to evaluate and review us. While they were scheduled to question the NAGPRA staff for 20 minutes each, in my case, it was only a 10 minute interview--one member needed to work on getting a plane back to Santa Barbara, and the other wanted to complain about doing the review. In terms of the rest of their fact finding mission, they only bothered to question other museum employees that we interacted with only irregularly. There was no input from the Native American communities we served, and as Prof. Burnside's emails indicate, there was not to be any input from these communities. Further, while we were told this was for budget support from both Beth Burnside and Kent Lightfoot, the reviewers told us they were reviewing us on how we fit into museum operations and evaluate our job performance.

Moving on to other points. While UCB touts it is in compliance with the federal NAGPRA law, one can question its sincerity. In a 2000 report by Dr. Edward Luby, a former NAGPRA coordinator, he estimated that 48% of the inventories were done without full review of the documents available at UCB. While technically legal, is it really ethical and moral? One also has to wonder what impact does this have on the Hearst listing 80% of its collection as culturally unidentifiable? My personal feeling is that it will have a major impact--from what I have found in the paperwork, parts of CA-Lassen-7, CA-San Joaquin-42, CA-Tul-145, Humboldt and Hidden caves in Nevada should have been eligible for repatriation. Along similar lines, one also has to question the Hearst's title to some items in its collections. For example does UC Berkeley really hold title to the finds from sites NV-Washoe-177 through 180 that
were accessioned to the museum before 1970?

The process that the UC system has put into place for Native American tribes to file a claim is also a source of disgust. Whether through intention or accident, claims for items and human remains in the Hearst must be written and submitted as a formal report. This means it must be referenced, footnoted and with a bibliography. This is in contrast to most Federal agencies which accept a short letter and oral testimony. While NAGPRA recognizes oral traditions, linguistics, and history as relevant lines of evidence, the UCB repatriation committee in the months between February 2006 and June 2007 was noticeably lacking in members specializing in these fields. And unless changes have been made since June 2007, the UCOP Repatriation committee is also lacking specialists in linguistics, oral traditions/folklore, and history. Native American representation on both the Berkeley repatriation committee and the UCOP repatriation committee is also minimal. For the Berkely repatriation committee there was only 1. For the UCOP committee, there is 2.

And yes when a claim is filed it must go through two committees. It goes through the local campus committee first, and if it gets approved for repatriation there, it goes to the UCOP repatriation committee. The UCOP committee can accept or reject it. In essence you have a double jeopardy system.

Finally, the UCB mantra in this whole affair has been: "we want to be more like other museums." One has to ask though, do these other museums which the Hearst wants to emulate have a sizable Native American community living in their midst? in most cases it is no!
Also, one can ask when did UCB ever settle for being mediocre? The UCB I was trained by, taught us to be the best period. What is wrong with setting a new standard and a new path?

Thank you for your time and the oportunity to voice these concerns.

Coverage of the hearing

2008-02-28T16:47:00.000-08:00

Berkeley accused of racism over failure to return tribal bones
By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 27, 2008

SACRAMENTO -- -- State Senate leaders chastised UC Berkeley
administrators Tuesday for trampling on the civil rights of Native
Americans by not returning the remains of thousands of their
ancestors held in storage at a campus museum.

Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the incoming Senate leader,
accused the university of discriminating against Native Americans by
keeping the bones and artifacts at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of
Anthropology despite federal and state laws that established
procedures for returning them years ago.

"If there were remains of my ancestors, European Americans, in the
Hearst museum at one of the most respected universities in the
country, there would be an absolute outcry from people, and I
guarantee you something would be done about it quickly," Steinberg
told university officials at a hearing of the Senate Governmental
Organization Committee. "But because they're Native American remains,
somehow it is different."

For more than 40 years, the bones of about 12,000 Native Americans
have been kept in drawers and cabinets under the swimming pool of the
Hearst Gymnasium, next door to the museum. Most of the bones were dug
up by university archaeologists in the first half of the 20th
century.

Under the 1990 federal Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act and a similar 2001 state law written by Steinberg,
the museum is required to identify the origins of bones and artifacts
in its collection and return them to the tribes they came from. So
far the museum has repatriated the bones of about 260 individuals.

UC Berkeley triggered new controversy over the bones in June when it
eliminated the staff unit within the museum that was responsible for
working with tribes and facilitating the return of the remains.

rest at

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-bones27feb27,1,6882753.story

#########

Senators accuse UC - Berkeley of discrimination, secrecy over ancestral remains Email this page Print this page
Posted: February 28, 2008
by: Shadi Rahimi

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a powerful show of support, state senators are rebuking the University of California - Berkeley for refusing to return thousands of Native human remains held in storage, calling the actions of university officials discriminatory.

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization, said in a Feb. 27 letter addressed to UC - Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau that he had been inclined to give university officials ''the benefit of the doubt,'' but he was ''appalled'' after testimonies at a hearing at the state Capitol Feb. 26.

University officials ''systematically'' excluded Natives from ''having any involvement'' in a decision to eliminate a unit at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology - which houses the second-largest Native collection in the nation - that had helped tribes reclaim ancestral items under the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act.

''UC - Berkeley officials have acted secretly and without transparency to circumvent the mandates and the spirit of federal and state NAGPRA laws,'' Florez wrote in the letter, provided to Indian Country Today by a protest coalition representing 400,000 tribal members.

Florez is urging Birgeneau to meet with tribal leaders within 30 days. During the hearing, he had questioned why university officials have repeatedly refused to work directly with tribes and to meet with tribal leaders (even after they marched to his office this past fall).

rest at

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416712

Calif. Senate Committee Hearing!

2008-02-22T09:53:00.000-08:00

CA Senate Committee on Governmental Organization to Examine UC Berkeley’s Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act Compliance Program: Tribal Voices to be Heard

When: February 26, 2008

Where: Room 3191 of State Capitol

Time: 9:30 a.m.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb. 19, 2008 – Native Americans and social justice allies are urged to
attend a Senate hearing to present their opinions on UC Berkeley’s (UCB) decision to
reorganize the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) compliance
program. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization has mandated that UCB officials
participate in the hearing after many months of attempts by tribal leaders to negotiate with
UC Berkeley’s administration. The committee will hear of long-standing problems that tribes
have faced while trying to repatriate their ancestors from UCB, and tribal leaders will have
the chance to offer their solutions to these problems to the Senate committee.

UCB’s Phoebe Hearst Museum warehouses the remains of over 12,000 Native individuals. The
University scientists hold a professional stake in keeping these ancestors at the University
for their own research purposes. However, such activity violates Native American spiritual
and cultural practice and likely puts UCB into non-compliance with federal NAGPRA policy.
Museum and University officials argue that they adequately consulted with tribes on
returning the remains to their living tribal descendants. However, many tribes disagree and
are demanding that further effort be made by the UC system to fix the problem.

“Although the program has completed a number of NAGPRA-required tasks, there is still a
great deal to be accomplished,” said Reno Franklin, Member of the NAGPRA Coalition and
Kashia Pomo Tribe. “The decision to cut the program was based on a biased report written by
two archeologists who represent research interests that often conflict with tribal claims on
the museum’s collection of ancestral remains.”

“The UCB is a public institution that is obliged to adhere to the highest standards of non-
discrimination,” said Lalo Franco, Representative of the Coalition and Santa Rosa Rancheria
Tachi Yokut Tribe. “When a decision has an extremely negative impact on a specific
community; when that community is deliberately excluded from the decision process; and when
that same process heavily favors opposing stakeholders, internal management perogatives must
give way to concerns of public justice.”

Tribes and individuals can add their voices by contacting Senators Dean Florez (Chairman),
Jeff Denham (Vice Chairman), Jim Battin, Abel Maldonado, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Edward
Vincent, Patricia Wiggins, Mark Wyland, and Leland Yee at the Senate Committee on
Governmental Organization, Legislative Office Building, 1020 N Street, Room 584, Sacramento,
CA 95814, 916-651-1530, FAX 916-445-5258. Urge them to support the needs of tribes to
rebury their ancestors over the desires of UCB to use them as specimens.

For additional information on the UCB NAGPRA issue, visit http://nagpra-ucb.blogspot.com.

Longest Walk 2

2008-02-10T12:28:00.000-08:00

Dear Tribes and Friends:

For those of you who have been sympathetically following the repatriation protest at UC Berkeley, I’d like to urge you to support the Longest Walk (http://www.longestwalk.org), which is described in the following introductory passage from the organization’s website:

On Feb. 11th, Longest Walk participants will embark on a
5 month journey from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. arriving
on July 11th. The Longest Walk south route is being led by
AIM co-founder Dennis J. Banks. It is an extraordinary grassroots
effort on a national level to bring attention to the environmental
disharmony of Mother Earth, sacred site issues, and to
commemorate the 30th anniversary of the original longest walk.

The journey will take fortitude, determination, courage, and much help from supporters along the way. Given the people involved and the significance of the issues, I’m sure the march will succeed. For complete details, please see the website.

The Longest Walk embraces many issues far beyond the sudden and secretive elimination of UC Berkeley’s Hearst Museum NAGPRA unit, but organizers sympathize with our protest against turning complete control of the remains over 12,000 Native ancestors to radically anti-repatriation scientists like Osteologist Tim White. For this and other reasons marchers have chosen to stop at Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus at 12 noon on this Monday, February 11 for a press conference. Please attend if you possibly can. At that time, speakers will be asking you to support and be present at a California State Senate hearing on February 26 investigating the reorganization and the possibility of setting up a mediation board between tribes and the UC system. Please attend this too – it’s very important to show strength, numbers, and solidarity.

Regarding the NAGPRA unit: in a letter to National NAGPRA on proposed rules for culturally unidentifiable ancestral remains, Susanville Rancheria has perhaps spoken most eloquently about Mr. White’s argument that he deserves complete control of repatriation at the Hearst Museum:

Dr. Tim White … claims that “he and his colleagues in such fields as medicine, physical anthropology, evolutionary biology, forensics and archaeology rely heavily on the use of skeletal remains.” He states further that “no students in these fields could be properly trained without direct access to relevant physical scientific evidence.” How many ancestors must you have to study? It seems to us that you have amassed more human remains than you will ever need to train your up-and-coming scientists. How useful can human remains be, if you identify them as culturally unidentifiable? The ancestors have been dug up and exposed, stopping the journey to the other side; Native Americans have the right to be buried. This is a human rights issue! Their journey has been disturbed. It is time for them to come home, and return to Mother Earth.

Even if Mr. White thinks human remains are so scientifically important, why he is so covetous of Native American remains. Wouldn’t it be fairer to share the burden? Shouldn’t he use his same arguments to request governmental permission to dig up the graves of Caucasians, say at Forest Lawn or even Arlington? President Kennedy is buried at Arlington; he was a brilliant man and surely his remains would yield interesting “scientific” results. Should we desecrate his grave in the name of Mr. White’s precious “science”? Most people would be rightfully shocked. Why are they so complacent about Native American human remains?

I urge you again to support the Longest Walk.
Corbin Collins

A quick note

2008-02-07T11:11:00.000-08:00

Dear tribes and friends:

While the Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) believes the LA Times article is by and large fair, there a few factual errors.

The article seems to insinuate that ancestral remains cannot be repatriated to non-recognized tribes. According to NANC member, archaeologist and Stanford faculty member Jon D. Daehnke, Ph.D, this is incorrect. “There is absolutely nothing in NAGPRA that precludes the repatriation of human remains or cultural objects to non-recognized tribes and in fact repatriation to non-recognized tribes has occurred across the nation (and has been applauded by the National NAGPRA Review Committee). The distinction is that repatriation in these cases is at the discretion of the museum or federal agency. In this sense, a museum's relationship with non-recognized tribal entities is very illustrative of their overall feelings toward ownership of bones and the concerns of Native Americans. Museums that choose not to repatriate to non-recognized tribes, or even to consult with them, typically reflect a patronizing and colonial view of their authority and control over these human remains. Therefore, Professor Tim White's assessment that these objects are not being repatriated because they are affiliated with non-recognized tribes is both ethically and legally incorrect, and is indicative of his true attitudes.”

The reporter states that "Larri Fredericks and her husband, Corbin Collins, organized a coalition of tribes opposed to the museum reorganization." This is extremely misleading and must have come from a campus source; the Coalition was organized by tribes themselves and many other Native Americans, including Fredericks. (Collins did not even know tribal members prior to the dispute). The Chancellor perpetuates this myth because it is in the reorganization’s interest to blame our protest on a “small group of critics.” All of the resolutions (including the National Congress of American Indians’), the letters, the protests, and nationwide expression of support put the lie to the Chancellor’s disinformation.

The University now claims that NAGPRA unit was disbanded because it was "dysfunctional"; but prior to the reorganization, the University and the tribes had nothing but praise for the Unit's performance. Indeed, administrators rationalized the “integration” of the unit into the museum as a means of better drawing on the staff’s highly regarded expertise. The only "dysfunction" was that the Unit's efficient, fair and impartial administration of NAGPRA threatened the professional goals of scientists such as Tim White who want to keep the collection of Native American human remains intact for research. The administrators who ordered the reorganization are allies of these scientists, in opposition to tribal concerns. To this day, neither the Chancellor nor higher UC officials such as Rory Hume will even deign to meet with leaders of sovereign tribal governments.

LA Times feature

2008-01-13T10:20:00.000-08:00

UC Berkeley's bones of contention

Native Americans say Hearst Museum violates a law on returning ancient remains. Officials say finding rightful recipients isn't easy.

By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 13, 2008
BERKELEY -- There is a legend at UC Berkeley that human bones are stored in the landmark Campanile tower. But university officials say that's not true.

The human bones are actually stored beneath the Hearst Gymnasium swimming pool.

The remains of about 12,000 Native Americans lie in drawers and cabinets in the gym's basement. Most of them were dug up by university archaeologists and have been stored under the pool since at least the early 1960s.

Now the bones are at the center of a dispute between Native Americans, who want to rebury their ancestors, and university officials, who have been slow to hand over the remains. Some tribal leaders contend that the university is violating a federal law that governs the repatriation of artifacts and remains.

"We don't appreciate them keeping our ancestors locked up in a drawer," said Ted Howard, cultural resources director of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. "This is a human rights issue to the tribes. All we're asking for is to be treated fairly."

Similar disputes have played out elsewhere, but Berkeley, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, is widely regarded as a bastion of liberalism. Since 1992, the city of Berkeley has celebrated Indigenous People's Day instead of Columbus Day. But at UC Berkeley, the debate over the bones has turned ugly.

The bones, along with 400,000 Native American artifacts, are held by UC's Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, which has a small exhibit space on campus but one of the largest collections of human remains in the U.S. outside a cemetery.

Under the 1990 federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the museum is required to identify the tribal origins of its bones and artifacts and return them to federally recognized tribes that request them. So far, the museum has repatriated the bones of about 260 individuals.

rest at

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-bones13jan13,1,4163529.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

or

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080113/NEWS02/345753433

Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation support

2008-01-05T10:37:00.000-08:00

Dear tribes and friends:

Above you will find a letter from the Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee to Provost Wyatt R. Hume, acting president of the ten-campus University of California. The Committee represents all eleven federally recognized tribes in Wisconsin, and was written in support of the Native American NAGPRA Coalition’s (NANC) protest against UC Berkeley’s decision to eliminate the Phoebe Hearst Museum’s autonomous NAGPRA unit, the complete exclusion of American Indians from the reorganization decision process, the subsequent devastation of fair and impartial NAGPRA services, and other critical forms of exclusion that have dramatically impeded tribes’ ability to lawfully repatriate their ancestors’ remains. NANC would like to thank the Wisconsin tribes for their support. Their letter is a powerful addition to a growing body of letters and resolutions condemning the University’s NAGPRA policies, including a resolution by the National Congress of American Indians, the largest tribal organization in the country (http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resolutions/doc/DEN-07-033.pdf ).

Note that on October 31^st, NANC sent a detailed letter to Provost Hume outlining our Coalition’s objections to UC Berkeley’s exclusionary NAGPRA policies (http://nagpra-ucb.blogspot.com/2007/11/letter-to-provost-hume.html). Dr. Hume chose to ignore that letter and the request of tribal leaders for a meeting. Apparently, he accepts UC Berkeley administrators’ account of the recent NAGPRA dispute, an account which rationalizes blatant discrimination, trivializes the impact of Museum policies on repatriation services, obfuscates crucial distinctions and justifies the complete subordination of NAGPRA rights to the priorities of hostile research scientists (http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com). We truly hope that the Wisconsin Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee’s letter, along with other resolutions, will prompt Provost Hume to reconsider his indifference and to acknowledge the existence and legitimate concerns of sovereign tribal nations. Once again, we ask that he meet with the Native American NAGPRA Coalition.

NCAI condemns UCB's NAGPRA re-organization

2007-11-30T08:59:00.000-08:00

EDITORIAL CONTACT: Ted Howard, 208-759-3100, ext. 243, thoward4shopai@yahoo.com; Mark LeBeau, 916-801-4422, Mark.LeBeau@CRIHB.NET

NATIVE AMERICAN NAGPRA COALITION CONTACTS: Reno Franklin 707-591-0580 Ext 105;
Lalo Franco, 559-925-2831; Radley Davis 530-917-6064;
James Hayward, 530-410-2875; Morning Star Gali 510-827-6719; Bennae Calac, 760-617-2872; Silvia Burley, California, 209-931-4567;
Douglas Mullen, 530-284-7990; Amy Lonetree, 510-593-7729

NCAI, the Nation’s Largest Indian Organization, Condemns UC Berkeley
on Ancestral Remains, Supports Tribal Coalition’s Position

National Congress of American Indians Resolution Rejects UCB’s Elimination
of Repatriation Unit, Subordination of Native Religion to University Research

DENVER, Colorado, Nov. 28, 2007 – The Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) today
strongly endorsed the National Congress of American Indians’ (NCAI) resolution
protesting UC Berkeley’s decision to eliminate its tribally approved NAGPRA unit,
diminish tribal participation and influence in repatriation processes and declare a huge portion of the Phoebe Hearst Museum’s collection of ancestral remains and funerary
objects “to be culturally unaffiliated and thus not subject to tribal repatriation and NAGPRA requirements.” The resolution, which passed without dissent at the NCAI Annual Convention in Denver, also states that the “needs of scientists
and scientific values” at the Museum “must be subordinate to the religious freedom
and human rights of American Indians...” The Museum’s recent reorganization has elevated research goals over Native American entitlements under the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

The text of the resolution is pasted below and the signed resolution is attached to this email.

Founded in 1944 in response to termination and assimilation policies forced upon
the tribal governments by the United States, NCAI now has over 250 member tribes
across the country. NCAI the largest and most venerable Native American organization
in America, and is best positioned to monitor federal laws, policies and decisions that affect tribal government interests. In this capacity, the organization “strongly
recommends that appropriate authorities immediately undertake a formal investigation
of the Phoebe Hearst Museum…”

In August, the Native American NAGPRA Coalition asked UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau to stop the Museum reorganization and meet with NANC to discuss the
past and future of NAGPRA at the Hearst Museum. NANC’s letter protested the
complete and deliberate exclusion of tribal representatives from the reorganization
decision process, the new organizational structure that subordinates Native American religious rights to the goals of science, and the failure of the University to
adequately consult with tribes on the cultural affiliation of ancestral remains and
sacred objects per the requirements of NAGPRA. The Chancellor ignored the Coalition’s request, dismissed the protest as the agitation of a “few disgruntled employees,” and referred all tribal NAGPRA inquiries to subordinates. In spite of a major and successful NANC-sponsored demonstration on the Berkeley campus in October, UC system chief
Rory Hume subsequently ignored similar requests from the Coalition.

“Thus far, the attitude of University officials toward sovereign Indian tribes has been dismissive, discriminatory and paternalistic,” said Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute, NANC representative and member of the 30-tribe Great Basin NAGPRA Coalition. “Their primary concern has been to placate powerful scientists who are extremely hostile to NAGPRA and
who want to keep our ancestors for the purposes of research. If UC administrators continue this policy and ignore an organization of the stature of the National Congress of American Indians, they may destroy any prospect of cooperative and positive relationships
with tribes in the future. Native American ancestral remains belong to Native Americans,
and we will not stop until our ancestors are repatriated
and returned to our mother earth.”

Indians regard repatriation as a human rights issue. The right to control ancestral
remains is a basic human entitlement that has been extended to almost every
ethnic group in the United States except Native Americans. Throughout American history, scientists routinely pillaged Native American burials and shipped massive amounts of ancestral remains to museums for scientific study. “It is time to correct
this fundamental injustice,” said Howard.

For additional information on the UCB NAGPRA issue,
visit http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com and http://nagpra-ucb.blogspot.com.

###

N A T I O N A L C O N G R E S S O F A M E R I C A N I N D I A N S

The National Congress of American Indians

Resolution #DEN-07-033

TITLE: Support for NAGPRA at the University of California - Berkeley

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the
United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts
and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent
sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and
agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the publictoward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values,and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do herebyestablish and submit the following resolution; and

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established in 1944
and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska
Native tribal governments; and

WHEREAS, the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley has,
without properly consulting with appropriate American Indian tribes, decided to
discontinue the tribally approved NAGPRA unit dedicated to discharging Universityresponsibilities to tribes under federal NAGPRA laws and regulations
and has movedto place the NAGPRA program within other activities of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, thereby diminishing tribal participation and influence in the existing NAGPRA unit; and

WHEREAS, the needs of scientists and the scientific values of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology’s collection of skeletal material and other sacred objects must
be subordinate to the religious freedom and human rights of American Indians
whose ancestors and sacred cultural properties are housed in said collections; and

WHEREAS, The Great Basin Intertribal NAGPRA Coalition (30 tribes) and other tribes have vigorously opposed this action by the University of California atBerkeley; and

WHEREAS, as much as fifty percent (minimum of 5,675 biologicalindividuals (50%) and 69,028 Associated Funerary Objects) of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology’s collections
have been incorrectly declared to be culturally unaffiliated and thus not subject
to tribal repatriation and NAGPRA requirements; and

WHEREAS, the decision by the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley
places sacred American Indian skeletal remains and artifacts into the hands of
University employees who are inadequately trained in the care and
preservation of such sacred items according to tribal customs and traditions; and

WHEREAS, the NCAI quotes Section C of NAGPRA; Museum means any institution, including institutions of higher learning – colleges, universities etc. or state or local government agencies that possess or has control over Native American collections (human remains or cultural items) and receives funds through grant, loan, contract or other arrangement by which Federal money or assistance is given to a museum for any purpose, are bound by the stipulations of NAGPRA; and

WHEREAS, Section 5 of NAGPRA says, “In general” each Federal agency and each museum which has possession or control over holdings or collections of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects shall compile an inventory of such items and, to the extent possible based on information possessed by such museum or federal agency, identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of such item. Requirements (1) the inventories and identification required under subsection (a) shall be (A) completed in consultation with tribal governments and Native Hawaiian organization officials and traditional religious leaders.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI does hereby stronglyrecommend that appropriate authorities immediately undertake a formal investigation of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology of the University of California at Berkeley, to determine what provisions of NAGPRA and related federal requirements have been overlooked by the actions and inactions of the Phoebe Hearst Museum and the University of California, Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.

CERTIFICATION

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2007 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Hyatt Regency Denver at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado on November 11-16, 2007, with a quorum present.

NANC requests meeting with Provost Hume

2007-11-12T12:34:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release

EDITORIAL CONTACTS: Mark LeBeau, 916-801-4422, Mark.LeBeau@CRIHB.NET

COALITION CONTACTS: Reno Franklin 707-591-0580 Ext 105; Lalo Franco, 559-925-2831; Radley Davis 530-917-6064; James Hayward, 530-410-2875; Morning Star Gali 510-827-6719; Ted Howard, 208-759-3100; Bennae Calac, 760-617-2872; Silvia Burley, California, 209-931-4567; Douglas Mullen, 530-284-6135

Native Coalition Challenges UC System Chief Hume to Meet, Repudiate UC Berkeley’s Disrespect, Paternalism, Shutout of Tribes on Ancestral Remains

Coalition Letter Details Four Forms of UCB Exclusion that have Devastated Tribes’
Ability to Retrieve Remains from the Nation’s Second Largest Collection

BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 1, 2007 – The Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) delivered a detailed letter to Provost Wyatt Rory Hume, interim president of the ten-campus University of California, challenging him to meet with NANC to discuss UC Berkeley’s deliberate exclusion of Native Americans from crucial processes affecting ancestral remains. This exclusion has devastated tribes’ ability to pursue legitimate repatriation claims at the Hearst Museum under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The letter asks Hume to respond by November 16, 2007.

The Coalition turned to Hume after Berkeley’s Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau ignored a similar request by sovereign tribal governments and social justice allies, refused to reevaluate recent University NAGPRA decisions, and referred all NAGPRA-related inquiries to subordinates who lack the power to make the fundamental changes in repatriation policies. The Coalition letter states, “This arrogance and contempt for tribal governments has not only poisoned the relationship between UC Berkeley and many Native Americans, but threatens to undermine tribal relations with the entire UC system, which has systemwide NAGPRA obligations...”

The letter focuses on four kinds of exclusion that illustrate UCB administrators’ “profound disrespect” for tribes and all Native Americans:

1) Failure to meet statutory consultation requirements on the affiliation of Native American inventories;

2) Exclusion and research bias on repatriation committees;

3) Refusal to consult Native Americans on the elimination of UCB’s tribally approved NAGPRA unit; and

4) The Chancellor’s refusal to meet with sovereign tribal leaders.

The Coalition letter stresses that while the Hearst Museum may temporarily control ancestral remains and sacred objects, control does not constitute ownership. Native American remains and sacred objects belong to Native Americans. Therefore, tribes have the right to participate in the formulation and administration of policies that crucially affect the treatment of their ancestors’ remains. Contrary to the oft-stated University position, NAGPRA administration at UC Berkeley is not merely an issue of “internal management”; tribes have a proprietary standing with respect to the Museum’s Native American collection.

The letter ends with the following cautionary note to Hume: “It is clear that administrators at UC Berkeley, within the larger UC system and Board of Regents, and within educational departments of the state government have developed long-standing relationships and loyalties. Hence, when an issue arises with respect to one administrative division, supervisors at other levels tend to ignore complaints from external parties and rely exclusively and uncritically on ‘reassurances’ from administrators within the division itself. We truly hope you will resist this impulse… If you simply accept the University’s position and refuse to meet, you will engage in the very kind of exclusion that has characterized this process from the beginning. We respectfully ask that you acknowledge the status of sovereign tribal governments and not simply rely on officials within your own.”

Courtesy copies of NANC’s letter will be sent to over 100 federally recognized tribes, the UC Regents, journalists and government officials throughout the state. NANC urges all people concerned with Native American rights to express their support by writing or calling Provost Hume at the University of California Office of the President, 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, 510-987-9020.

###

Letter to Provost Hume

2007-11-07T10:40:00.000-08:00

October 30, 2007

Provost Wyatt R. Hume
University of California Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Dear Provost Hume:
The American government has a history of betraying solemn covenants with Native American tribes, and this has caused great tragedy and ongoing bitterness and suspicion. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), and the Native American NAGPRA Coalition is asking you to intervene. We are an association of federally recognized tribes, tribal people and social justice allies who have come together to protest UCB’s violations of both the spirit and letter of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Thus far, UCB administrators have been unwilling to hear our concerns or even acknowledge our existence. We regard this treatment as an act of profound disrespect and hope that you will not repeat it.

Sovereignty and Consultation

The United States has a unique legal relationship with American Indian tribal governments defined in history, the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependant sovereign nations. Tribes are first nations, and public officials are obliged to acknowledge this sovereignty, especially with respect to laws of vital importance such as NAGPRA. Such laws regulate government to government relations – not simply relations of a single government to its own citizens. When an American governmental institution makes a decision that seriously affects a binding legal relationship with a tribe, that institution has a moral and often legal obligation to consult respectfully with tribal representatives. If the institution abrogates, alters, or reinterprets the law without consultation – or if it fails to make a good faith effort to comply – deeply rooted antagonisms reassert themselves and destroy the basis of trust and respect upon which all future relations depend. Consultation is the key to overcoming historical distrust; when tribes are respected as sovereigns and included in decisions that affect their central concerns, government-to-government relations can be mutually beneficial.

Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau, Associate Chancellor John Cummins, Vice Chancellor Beth Burnside and other administrators at Berkeley have failed this fundamental test of respect. They have completely and deliberately excluded tribes from crucial decisions affecting Native American ancestral remains and sacred objects; they have refused to reevaluate these decisions in light of tribal guidance; and they have ignored our tribal Coalition’s request to meet and discuss the future of NAGPRA at Berkeley. This arrogance and contempt for tribal governments has not only poisoned the relationship between UC Berkeley and many Native Americans, but threatens to undermine tribal relations with the entire UC system, which has systemwide NAGPRA obligations to tribes. The situation is urgent, and we respectfully ask you to do what the Chancellor refused to do – recognize that NAGPRA regulates government-to-government relationships and meet with tribal leaders to repair the relationship before the damage is irreparable.

Exclusion

Administrators at UC Berkeley present themselves as champions of diversity and inclusion. For example, in a passage on the University website, the Chancellor states:

Inclusion here is not an aspiration; it is an imperative…. We must explore and demonstrate how we can live together and prosper... We must ensure that all of our communities, here and across the globe, benefit from the products of our work. This is what it means to be a public university. This is who we are.

The University’s actions have not matched the Chancellor’s words. Indeed, the University’s NAGPRA policies have been intentionally designed to exclude sovereign tribes and to severely limit and control the input of all Native Americans. This discrimination and paternalism has had a profoundly negative impact on Native Americans’ right to control their ancestral remains, which is a basic human right extended to virtually every other group in our society. Although our grievances are too far reaching and complex to be thoroughly discussed in a letter, they fall roughly under four headings:

1. Non-compliance and failure to consult on NAGPRA inventories. UCB’s Phoebe Hearst Museum houses the second largest collection of Native American remains in the Nation – approximately 12,000 biological individuals – and the largest collection covered by NAGPRA. The law requires the Museum to acknowledge legitimate tribal claims on ancestral remains and sacred objects and return them to the tribes. The University contends that it has complied with NAGPRA. This is untrue, and any certification of compliance was obtained by submitting false information to the certification board.

NAGPRA directed museums to submit an inventory of its Native American collections by 1995, although UCB didn’t finish until 2000. Before submitting the inventory, museums were required to determine which remains and artifacts could be traced to specific tribes. When this was possible, the items were classified as “culturally affiliated” and repatriated. Museums were allowed to keep the rest of the remains indefinitely, which were designated “culturally unidentifiable.” UC Berkeley classified less than 20 percent of its remains and artifacts as culturally affiliated and more than 80 percent as culturally unidentifiable. Some of the remains in the latter category were found in areas not associated with federally recognized tribes, but most were discovered in federally recognized tribal territories.

Although the University has repatriated the culturally affiliated remains, it is out of compliance with respect at least 60 percent of the original collection. This is because NAGRPA also required that museums make a good faith effort to consult with tribes before submitting their inventories and to consider tribal evidence for cultural affiliation. Acceptable evidence could be historical, geographic, linguistic, based on oral tradition, etc., as well as archaeological. The law mandated that the standard for deciding whether remains were affiliated was the “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that all evidence should have been considered before classifying remains as culturally affiliated or unidentifiable. However, UCB did not make a genuine effort to consult with tribes, and hence, did not give tribes a chance to present evidence. To the extent that consultation occurred at all – and usually it didn’t – it was entirely inadequate and did not meet NAGPRA legal requirements. For this reason, Coalition tribes are filing Letters of Non-Compliance with National NAGPRA, and we are urging other federally recognized tribes to do the same. The Coalition and other tribes will also be filing a lawsuit to force the University to reopen the inventory consultation process.

2. Exclusion and research bias on repatriation committees. When a tribe submits a claim on items in the culturally unidentifiable portion of the Hearst collection, the claim has to be adjudicated by two repatriation committees, one on campus and one at the UCOP level. For years the UCB Repatriation Committee has been chaired by an osteologist notorious for his documentable hostility toward NAGPRA, and at the moment, the committee includes three other scientists and no Native Americans. In the past the committee has only included one Native American. The UCOP committee is composed of five research scientists, one attorney, and two Native Americans, one from a federally recognized tribe and one from an unrecognized tribe. UCOP has also recently asked another physical research scientist to represent UC San Diego on the committee.

Scientists often have a professional stake in keeping collections intact for the purposes of research, even when the research violates Native American spiritual beliefs and practices. Hence, they tend to be biased against tribal claims, and the lack of balance in committee membership inevitably leads to biased decisions. Specifically, scientists on repatriation committees tend to ignore the evidentiary standard mandated by NAGPRA, which is “preponderance” rather than archaeological certainty. Hence, even when archeological evidence is inconclusive, the repatriation committees routinely dismiss tribal claims based on the other kinds of evidence deemed acceptable by NAGPRA. The Coalition believes that the repatriation committee system is in need of radical reform: for every scientist on the committee there should be a Native American, and we demand that tribes select the Native American representatives. This latter issue is pressing: the Phoebe Hearst will soon replace the single Native American who was on the UCB committee and who quit in disgust when the NAGPRA unit was eliminated. Administrators should not be allowed to hand-pick a Native American employee who depends on the Museum for his or her job. Tribes should make this selection.

3. Exclusion and the elimination of the NAGPRA unit. Until recently a semi-autonomous unit, which included three Native Americans, administered NAGPRA at the Hearst. The relative autonomy was important because staff members did not have to fear for their jobs if they acted impartially. The independence made it possible for staff to resist undue pressures from Museum administrators and research scientists. Such pressure was constant and can be documented. For example, Edward Luby, the first NAGPRA coordinator, reported in 2000 that Professor Tim White, the osteologist who curates the Hearst’s North American collection and chairs the UCB repatriation committee, “repeatedly harassed and insulted” him and “alleged on several occasions that [Luby] had committed fraud, colluded with federal agencies, and was incompetent.” This kind of pressure was so persistent that former Museum Director Douglas Sharon recommended in 2006 that the administrative control of the NAGPRA unit not only be removed from the Museum but also from the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research. Yet, in spite of the pressure, the NAGPRA unit’s autonomy enabled staff to withstand researchers and provide fair and comprehensive NAGPRA services. This earned them the respect and appreciation of tribes.

In July of 2007 the University decided to eliminate the NAGPRA unit and “integrate” its functions into the larger Museum. The decision was based on the recommendations of a “committee” composed of two non-native research scientists, both of whom sit on the UCOP Repatriation committee and both of whom have had strained relations with tribes over NAGPRA issues. A group of non-native administrators – mainly scientists – commissioned the review committee, selected its members, and accepted its results without soliciting any input from Native American tribes. The administrators even refused to speak directly with the Native Americans on the NAGPRA unit, and their only input was through brief interviews with the two archaeologists. Prior to the review, the unit Coordinator strenuously protested the complete exclusion of tribal representatives, but her objections were summarily dismissed. In an email inadvertently sent to the wrong person, Vice Chancellor Burnside stated the administration’s position unequivocally: the University should “not go near the idea [that tribes] should be on the review committee. That's an absolute no. Maybe better to stonewall altogether.” The administrators did stonewall, and the subsequent reorganization was exactly what could be predicted from an exclusionary process: the autonomous nature of the NAGPRA unit was eliminated and NAGPRA operations were subordinated to research goals of scientists and the institutional goals of the Museum. As of now, not a single Native American has any significant authority over NAGPRA at the Hearst.

After Vice Chancellor Burnside announced the reorganization, the Interim NAGPRA Coordinator wrote a detailed appeal to Chancellor Birgeneau explaining the importance of the NAGPRA unit, objecting to the exclusion of tribes in the review process, and asking that he meet with the NAGPRA staff to discuss it. In a brief written response, he simply ignored every substantive point in the Coordinator’s letter, said nothing about the deliberate exclusion of tribes, and ignored her request for a meeting. When he dismissed her appeal, he stated: “In complicated matters such as this, it is to be expected that people will have very different views of what is the right course of action.” It apparently did not strike him as the least bit ironic that the only views he considered were those of two white archaeologists and his white subordinates. To this day, Associate Chancellor Cummins completely dismisses the notion that “the organizational efforts are somehow racially motivated and do not serve the interests and needs of the native tribes.” Not a single tribal representative was consulted in the reorganization process, and neither Cummins nor the Chancellor has ever explained why.

We believe tribes were not consulted precisely because the review and subsequent “organizational efforts” were intended to serve the aims of research and the Museum’s institutional goal of keeping the collection intact. The reorganization does not serve the interests of tribes because it destroys the autonomy of NAGPRA services and places NAGPRA operations entirely under the control of white bureaucrats and scientists. Tribal representatives would have understood this and would not have endorsed the archaeologists’ recommendations. Yet the Chancellor, Cummins and Burnside have been completely dismissive of tribal concerns throughout this ordeal. They will not acknowledge the possibility that a genuine conflict of interest can exist between the goals of science and Native American spiritual beliefs. Hence, they ignore the idea that the autonomy of NAGPRA services preserve the integrity, and have never publically addressed this point, even to explain their position. The Berkeley administration’s attitude and behavior falls squarely under the definition of ethnocentrism found in Bulletin 38 of the National Historic Preservation Act: “Ethnocentrism means viewing the world and the people in it only from the point of view of one’s own culture and being unable to sympathize with the feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of someone who is a member of a different culture. It is particularly important to understand, and seek to avoid ethnocentrism in the evaluation of traditional cultural properties.”

4. The chancellor’s refusal to meet with sovereign tribal leaders. UCB administrators not only failed to avoid ethnocentrism in their exclusion of Native Americans, they exacerbated the insult by their subsequent treatment of tribal leaders. On August 6, the Native American NAGPRA Coalition delivered a letter to Chancellor Birgeneau asking that he stop the reorganization, reopen the review process to include tribal representatives, and meet with the Coalition to discuss NAGPRA administration at Berkeley. We have included that letter in a support packet, and you can judge for yourself whether or not it was reasonable and respectful. We asked that he respond by August 17. He ignored us. However, on the evening of the 17th, Andrea Hoch from the Governor’s office called our representative and offered to set up a meeting with the Chancellor. We agreed, and over the course of the next month, we exchanged lists, information and requests with Associate Chancellor Cummins. After dragging the process out as long as he could, Cummins contacted our representative, told him that there would be no meeting, that the reorganization would proceed as planned, and that interactions between tribal representatives and the University regarding NAGPRA would be restricted to discussions with Judson King, the new Museum Director. The Chancellor later reiterated this in a letter to federally recognized tribes: “All communications concerning Hearst Museum activities including NAGPRA matters should be directed to Professor King.” Dr. King, of course, has no power to change the fundamental structure of the reorganization. Ironically, in the very same letter, the Chancellor insists that Professor King would be initiating “conversations” with tribes about the “processing of NAGPRA-related claims and repatriations.” In our view, the Chancellor’s action represents the worst form of paternalism that says, “We know what’s best for Native American people; we’ll decide how their ancestors are treated. The Museum Director will consult with them, but only after we’ve made all of the important decisions, which they are not competent to make themselves.”

Restoring the Relationship

By ignoring tribal governments, Chancellor Birgeneau has disregarded the concept of tribal sovereignty and has insulted Native American people. As representatives of sovereign governments, our tribal leaders have a stature that is, at the very least, comparable to the Chancellor of a University. They expect to meet with someone with the power to make fundamental decisions that can repair a damaged relationship. Chancellor Birgeneau has shown contempt for tribal status, and the Coalition will not settle for someone with less authority. Hence, we are asking you to meet with our Coalition; you have the power to make the relationship whole again, and we urge you to do so.

We hope you do not share Chancellor Birgeneau’s view that the administration of NAPGRA is an “internal management issue.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The University of California is a public institution that is obliged to adhere to the highest standards of non-discrimination. When decisions have an extremely negative impact on a specific community; when that community is deliberately excluded from the decision process; and when that same process heavily favors opposing interests, internal management perogatives must give way to concerns of public justice. Moreover, the University must acknowledge that while its museum may temporarily control ancestral remains and sacred objects, control does not constitute ownership. Native American remains and sacred objects belong to Native Americans. Therefore, tribes have the right to participate in the formulation and administration of policies that crucially affect the treatment of their ancestors’ remains.

After dealing with these issues for several months, one frustrating experience keeps repeating itself. It is clear that administrators at UC Berkeley, within the larger UC system and Board of Regents, and within educational departments of the state government have developed long-standing relationships and loyalties. Hence, when an issue arises with respect to one administrative division, supervisors at other levels tend to ignore complaints from external parties and rely exclusively and uncritically on “reassurances” from administrators within the division itself. We truly hope you will resist this impulse. Although we certainly expect you to call administrators at UC Berkeley for their side of the story, that story is riddled with deliberate falsehoods that attack the character of our members and diminish the import of tribal concerns. We will not take up the details here, but we will certainly respond when we meet in person. However, if you simply accept the University’s position and refuse to meet, you will engage in the very kind of exclusion that has characterized this process from the beginning. We respectfully ask that you acknowledge the status of sovereign tribal governments and not simply rely on officials within your own.

We would appreciate a response to this letter by November 16, 2007. Please contact our Coalition representative Mark LeBeau at 916-801-4422 or marklebeau@crihb.net. We will also distribute courtesy copies of this letter to journalists and to 107 federally recognized tribes. Thank you.

Respectfully,

The Native American NAGRPA Coalition: Reno Franklin, the Kashia Pomo Tribe; Lalo Franco, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Bennae Calac, Pauma Band of Mission Indians; Ted Howard, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley and the Great Basin NAGPRA Coalition; Radley Davis, Advocates for the Protection of Sacred Sites; Douglas Mullen, Greenville Rancheria; Silvia Burley, California Valley Miwok Tribe; James Hayward, Redding Rancheria; Mark LeBeau, Advocates for the Protection of Sacred Sites; Otis Parrish, Kashia Pomo Elder; Dr. Larri Fredericks, Alaska Athabascan; Dr. Mark Hall, archeologist; Dr. Amy Lonetree, Assistant Professor of American Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Jessica LePak, UCB graduate student and Oneida/Mohican; Morningstar Gali, Mills College, Pit River Nation.

CC: 107 Federally Recognized Native American Tribes

Rally results--update

2007-10-09T11:02:00.000-07:00

EDITORIAL CONTACTS: Mark LeBeau, 916-801-4422, Mark.LeBeau@CRIHB.NET; Corbin Collins, 510-652-1567, corbincollins@comcast.net.

COALITION CONTACTS: Reno Franklin 707-591-0580 Ext 105; Lalo Franco, 559-925-2831; Radley Davis 530-917-6064; James Hayward, 530-410-2875; Morning Star Gali 510-827-6719; Ted Howard, 208-759-3100; Bennae Calac, 760-617-2872; Silvia Burley, California, 209-931-4567; Douglas Mullen, 530-284-6135.

Triumphant Rally Spurs Tribes and Allies to Escalate Protest Against
UC Berkeley’s Attack on Repatriation of Ancestral Remains

Chancellor Ignores Sovereign Tribes Once Again; Native Americans to Proceed with Lawsuit and Demand Respect from Regents, UC System President

BERKELEY, Calif., Oct. 8, 2007 – After a dramatic demonstration that attracted hundreds of Native Americans, tribal leaders and social justice allies from around the country, the Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) today announced it would escalate its protest against the University of California at Berkeley and the entire UC system. The three-hour rally and Chancellor Birgeneau’s continued refusal to meet with the Coalition have energized Native American opposition to the elimination of the tribally approved UCB NAGPRA unit, the biased UC repatriation committee process, the failure of the University to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the complete disrespect on the University’s part toward Federally recognized tribes.

“Friday’s rally was a remarkable show of unity and support for just Native American claims on our ancestors’ remains and sacred objects,” said Mark LeBeau, a citizen of the Pit River Nation and NANC spokesman. “We intend to build on the momentum and take our protest to the courts, Congress, the state legislature, the Regents and the new acting UC system president, Rori Hume. Berkeley’s Chancellor Birgeneau has snubbed tribal nations multiple times, and now refers us to his assistants. We will not negotiate with underlings. We will not tolerate disrespect, and we expect California public officials to repudiate it as well.”

Friday’s demonstration was prompted by Chancellor Birgeneau’s original refusal to meet with NANC concerning the elimination of the Hearst Museum’s autonomous NAGPRA unit. This unit was a highly trained, cohesive team that fairly and impartially administered federal NAGPRA and a soon-to-be-implemented state law (AB 978) affecting the second largest collection of Native American ancestral remains and sacred objects in the Nation. NANC strenuously rejected the University’s decision-making process, which deliberately and completely excluded Native Americans, and denounced the anti-NAGPRA bias in the resulting organizational structure. Over the last several months, however, NANC has also recognized that the problems are far broader and more systemic, and include the lack of fair Native American representation on repatriation committees, the failure of UC to meet NAGPRA-mandated tribal consultation requirements, and the system’s unwillingness to acknowledge that Native American ancestral remains belong to Native Americans. The Coalition will adopt a comprehensive and aggressive strategy to deal with all of these problems.

The demonstration started at noon on Friday in UC Berkeley’s famous Sproul Plaza, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. It began with prayers and traditional healing ceremonies; included passionate speeches and poems from tribal leaders and other Native Americans; and was interspersed with ceremonial drumming and singing. After an hour, a throng of hundreds marched peacefully to California Hall to again request a meeting with the Chancellor. The Chancellor was “unavailable.” Assistant Chancellor Beata FitzPatrick emerged briefly from the building to say, without apparent irony, “Our Chancellor has very great respect for native peoples.” She accepted the Coalition’s petition, and the group then moved on to the faculty glade, a former site of a Native American village. After a brief ceremony, the march continued and ended with a demonstration in front of the Phoebe Hearst Museum, where the remains of over 13,000 Native Americans are stored in basement drawers and boxes.

NANC members urged other tribes to join the Coalition and all Americans to insist that public officials redress the longstanding injustice that allows Museums and scientists to keep huge collections of Native American remains and conduct research that violates tribal religious beliefs.

Tribes and individuals can add their voices by contacting congressional and state representatives; by writing or calling Provost Rori Hume at the University of California Office of the President, 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94607, 510-987-9020; or by writing or calling the Governor and other University Regents at the addresses listed at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/contact.html.

For additional information on the UCB NAGPRA issue, visit http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com and http://nagpra-ucb.blogspot.com.

###

Protest OCTOBER 5!

2007-09-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Contact: Reno Franklin 707-591-0580 Ext 105; Lalo Franco 559-925-2831; Radley Davis 530-917-6064; James Hayward 530-410-2875; Morning Star Gali 510-827-6719; Corbin Collins 510-652-1567; Mark LeBeau 916-801-4422

Native Americans & Social Justice Allies to Rally at UC Berkeley to Protect Native Ancestral Remains & Sacred Objects

Where: Sproul Plaza at UCB

When: October 5, 2007 at High Noon

Berkeley, CA—All Native American people and social justice allies are urged to attend and bring signs to a vocal and peaceful demonstration designed to protect Native ancestral remains and sacred objects currently housed at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). UCB is attempting to terminate the critically important Tribal consultation and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) program at the university. This tribally-supported NAGPRA program was developed in accordance with federal and state laws and is a semi-autonomous unit within the Hearst Museum. NAGPRA is a federal law that mandates federally funded museums to conduct an inventory of and identify Native human remains and cultural items in their collections. In addition the museum is charged to consult with culturally affiliated Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians regarding repatriation. The NAGPRA program at UCB is responsible for insuring the museum complies with the Act and repatriate items when appropriate.

The Native NAGPRA Coalition has been calling for a meeting with UCB Chancellor Birgeneau for months to resolve the problem. Staff of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Office have also been attempting to assist in scheduling the meeting. Yet, the highest ranking UCB official refuses to meet.

“Although the long-standing program has completed a number of NAGPRA-required tasks, there is still a great deal to be accomplished,” said Reno Franklin, Member of the NAGPRA Coalition and Kashia Pomo Tribe. “The decision to cut the program was based on a biased report written by two archeologists who represent research interests that often conflict with tribal claims on the museum’s collection of ancestral remains,” he added.

“Prior to the decision to cut the tribally-supported NAGPRA program at UCB proper and timely notice was not afforded to the tribes,” said Radley Davis, Member of the Coalition and Pit River Nation. “This act of tribal exclusion is intolerable and demonstrates the overall museum’s and Vice Chancellor’s significant lack of commitment to and respect for the living tribal people of the Americas and their deceased,” he added.

“The progressive NAGPRA program supported by the tribes is being replaced with a substandard service more to the liking of the archaeologists whom wrote the report,” said James Hayward, Member of the Coalition and Redding Rancheria. “If the substandard service is allowed to be implemented, UCB and tribes will lose the only qualified program for fair and objective consultation and documented research on repatriation issues,” he added.

“The UCB is a public institution that is obliged to adhere to the highest standards of non-discrimination,” said Lalo Franco, Representative of the Coalition and Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. “When a decision has an extremely negative impact on a specific community; when that community is deliberately excluded from the decision process; and when that same process heavily favors opposing stakeholders, internal management prerogatives must give way to concerns of public justice,” he added.

“The reorganization must be stopped and the review process must be reopened to include Natives,” said Morning Star Gali, Member of the Coalition and Pit River Nation. She continued, “UCB must: 1) acknowledge that while the Hearst Museum may temporarily control ancestral remains and sacred objects, control does not constitute ownership; 2) recognize the importance of the traditional and spiritual significance of ancestral remains and sacred objects to tribes; 3) strike a just balance between the interests of Natives and scientists; 4) acknowledge that the goals of NAGPRA and the goals of the Museum are distinct and should not be confused; and 5) understand that NAGPRA is not just one more Museum “activity” that can be blurred with other priorities in ways that trivialize its profound importance to Natives.”

NAGPRA became Law on 11/16/90. It applies to any institution or State or Local government agency that receives Federal funds and has possession of Native American cultural items, including human remains.

XXXX

Redding tribes question the Hearst

2007-09-11T11:09:00.000-07:00

Redding tribes question museum
Artifact repatriation in doubt with UC Berkeley changes

By Kimberly Ross (Contact)
Thursday, September 6, 2007

Changes at a University of California at Berkeley museum, which holds the nation's second-largest collection of American Indian remains and artifacts, have raised questions among local tribes interested in regaining those items.

Corbin Collins, a Berkeley-based writer opposing those changes, spoke before several Redding-area tribal and human-rights representatives Wednesday at the Wintu Tribe of Northern California office in Redding.

Collins described a reorganization effort at UC Berkeley's Phoebe Hearst Museum as "the fox guarding the henhouse."

Department alterations relied on the opinions of archeologists and scientists, and excluded input from American Indians, including three in the museum's unit, he said. He fears the new setup will hamper tribes' future repatriation efforts.

"Scientists don't want to give back their (museum's) remains. They want to keep them and do research on them," he said.

Campus spokeswoman Marie Felde said by phone that tribes can expect the opposite from the restructured department.

rest at
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/06/tribes-question-museum/

Open Forum essay in San Francisco Chronicle

2007-09-05T17:44:00.000-07:00

Who owns the past?
Corbin Collins

If asked to enumerate their human rights, I doubt that most Americans would mention the right to control their dead. This is not because there is no such right; rather, the entitlement is so basic and universally extended that it is hardly recognized as a "right" by most people.

But suppose America were occupied by a foreign invader whose scientists pillaged our cemeteries and shipped our ancestors' remains home for research. I have little doubt that most Americans would regard this as a fundamental violation of human rights and dignity.
The United States, of course, allowed this to happen to its indigenous people. Although our government acknowledged almost every other group's spiritual and legal claim to their dead, for much of American history it did not extend this basic human entitlement to Native Americans. Huge quantities of their ancestral remains and sacred objects were shipped to research institutions such as UC Berkeley's Hearst Museum, which houses the second largest such collection in the nation. In 1990, Congress tried to redress the injustice by passing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which requires museums to repatriate human remains and sacred objects to tribes.

rest at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/05/ED8ARUT6D.DTL&hw=NAGPRA&sn=001&sc=1000

NANC gets a new member!

2007-08-31T16:52:00.001-07:00

Greenville Rancheria, a Federally Recognized Tribe, has joined the Native American NAGPRA Coalition. We would like to thank Douglas Mullen, NAGPRA/Cultural Coordinator; Nathan McNeal, Tribal Council Secretary; Michael DeSpain, Environmental/NAGPRA Project Director; Gabriel Gorbet, Tribal Administrator; and the entire tribe for standing up against the exclusion of Native Americans from processes that affect their ancestral remains and for demanding that Museums comply with both the letter and spirit of NAGPRA.

Support from Greenville Rancheria

2007-08-24T09:57:00.000-07:00

August 9, 2007

Mr. Corbin Collins,

My name is Douglas Mullen and I'm the NAGPRA/Cultural Coordinator for Greenville Rancheria (GR). GR is a Federally Recognized Tribe of with Members whom reside through out the United States. GR is the lead Tribe organizing the Sierra Nevada NAGPRA Coalition (SNNC), (Penutian Language) consisting of 52 Tribes and Indian organizations.

Thus far GR has been successful in Repatriating Human remains to Lalo Franco, Cultural Recourse Specialist, Tachi-Yukot Tribe Santa Rosa.

Greenville Rancheria has also drafted and sent a letter to Chancellor Birgeneau expressing our concerns with the disbandment of the NAGPRA Unit UC Berkeley.

With the closure process that has taken place. We (The Native American People) were not given the opportunity to voice our concerns and the effect that the closure would have.

I’m writing this letter to express Greenville Rancheria's support for the work that the Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) has undertaken. Also the Greenville Rancheria would like to know how to become a member of the NANC.

Banding together as a single Coalition will give the Native American People a stronger voice that will be heard. As Indian People we have worked to hard and come too far to take steps backwards with issues like this concerning Native Americans in Indian Country.

Respectfully,

Nathan McNeal, Tribal Council Secretary/Treasure
Douglas Mullen, NAGPRA/Cultural Coordinator
Michael DeSpain, Environmental/NAGPRA Project Director
Gabriel Gorbet, Tribal Administrator

Tribal Resolution from the Stewart Point Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians

2007-08-12T14:28:00.000-07:00

Resolution in Opposition to the University of california at Berkeley
Decision on the Native American graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) Program at the University

WHEREAS The Stewart Point Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians is reconized
as a sovereign government by the United States of America, and

WHEREAS The tribal Business Committee of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians is duly
authorized body, empowered to conduct government affairs on behalf of the people and
to promote and foster the economic development and the well being of the general
membership, and

WHEREAS The Tribal Business Committee as the representative governing body of the tribe,
is responsible for the health and well being of the tribal membership, and

WHEREAS: The Kashia Band of Pomo Indians is a Native American tribe with a vested and legal
interest in NAGPRA programs and activites within the boundaries of the State of California;
and

WHEREAS: The Vice Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley has, without
properly allowing for comment or review in the decision making process by Native Americans,
decided to discontinue the NAGPRA unit dedicated to discharging University responsibilities
to tribes under federal and state NAGPRA laws, and to blend the NAGPRA program into
activites of the Phoebe Hearst Museum which thereby diminishes its stature
and program effectiveness; and,

WHEREAS: The decision places Native American remains and artifacts into the hands of
employees who are archaeologically and culturally untrained in the care and preservation of
such items;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point
Rancheria through its Tribal Business Committee does resolve that it opposes said decision
and formally submits that said decision be stayed and implementation reversed until such
time as an appropriate review of the decision, by a committee including substantial representation from California's Native American Tribes can be conducted and concluded
with proper recommendation to the University.

Certification

This is to certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a duly called meeting
of the Stewarts Point Rancheria Business Committee at which a quorum was present
on this 3rd day of August, 2007 by a vote of 7 for, 0 against, and 0 abstaining.

Ralph Sepulveda, Tribal Chairman
Dino Franklin, Secretary

Letter from the International Indian Treaty Council

2007-07-31T09:23:00.000-07:00

RE: Elimination of the UC Berkeley Phoebe Hearst Museum’s NAGPRA Unit

Dear Lieutenant Governor Garamendi,

Please receive our greetings. We respectfully request that, as an Ex Officio member of the University of California Regents and one of the few rational holders of public office, you give serious consideration to this letter requesting your assistance. We also request that you have it distributed to other members of the Board of Regents.

The International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with Consultative Status before the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Formed at a gathering called by the American Indian Movement at Standing Rock, South Dakota in 1974, the IITC was the first Indigenous NGO accorded Consultative Status, in 1977. Our mission, as determined by our founders, is to work internationally for the Sovereignty and Self Determination of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights, Treaties, Traditional Cultures and Sacred Lands. It is in this role that we write to you, joining many California Indian Tribes, recognized and not recognized, as well as organizations and individuals protesting the disbanding of the NAGPRA Unit of UC’s Phoebe Hearst Museum.

As you may be aware, NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection Act, Public Law 101-601 of November 16, 1990, establishes that federally recognized Native American tribes have the right to reclaim items known as Objects of Cultural Patrimony, Associated Funerary Objects, Unassociated Funerary Objects, Human Remains, and Sacred Objects. NAGPRA mandates that all federally recognized Native American tribes be given an inventory of items that they may be repatriated and restored.

It is important to recall that the foundation of California’s prosperity, the Gold Rush, is a history of the broken bodies of hundreds of thousands of massacred and enslaved Indians and the destruction of their traditional cultures and ways of life. Even as slavery was being repealed it was legal in California to buy and sell Indians. Historical accounts reveal that young boys sold for $60 and young women for as much as $200, that 4,000 Indian children were bought and sold. The “new” State of California paid out over one million dollars in both 1851 and 1852 to those encouraged to hunt Indians. It is not mere rhetoric to recall that in 1863 rewards were paid, – ranging from $5 for every severed head in Shasta, to 25 cents for a scalp in Honey Lake. I am enclosing a copy of “Gold Greed and Genocide (see www.1849.org),” an historical account, prepared for California’s “celebration” of the Gold Rush, of the true history of Indians in California Their only “legacy” is enslaved and massacred grandparents, the loss of land, languages song, and ancient ceremony. Poisonous mercury from that time still pollutes all major waterways of Northern California down to San Francisco Bay. For Northern California Indians whose means of subsistence continues to be fish, that legacy continues to kill and debilitate Indians.

With the relatively recent advent of a handful of Casino tribes, the now Governor of California called for Indians to “pay their fair share. Given this history, we would ask, “their fair share of what”? It is the State of California that owes a historical debt to those relatively few who survived and who only now are beginning to reclaim their languages, their spiritual and cultural traditions, their environment and their lands - with little or no help from the Great State of California. But as California casino tribes are now paying anyway what have Indians gotten in return?

The Phoebe Hearst Museum web site proudly announces that they have possession of over three million “objects of material culture.” Among those “objects” are a great many, hundreds if not thousands of human remains that are categorized as “unaffiliated” and “unidentified.” It is clear that the University is violating both the spirit and intent of NAGPRA. It is doing away with a small two person team that only recently began its work in earnest with Tribes to identify and restore these remains for a decent and humane burial in keeping with tribal spiritual ceremony and culture.

This is more than a humanitarian issue. It is an issue of freedom of religion and our internationally recognized human right to practice our traditional religions. In his 1998 visit to the United States, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance found that:

“The Native Americans are without any doubt the community facing the most problematical situation, one inherited from a past of denial of their religious identity, in particular through a policy of assimilation, which most Native Americans insist on calling genocide (physical liquidation, religious conversion, attempts to destroy their traditional way of life, laying waste of land, etc.).”¹

In his report, the first United Nations examination of United States attitudes and responses to the human rights of the American Indian, the Special Rapporteur also found that NAGPRA was indeed an issue of importance to the religious human rights of Native Americans:

“As far as legislation is concerned, while noting advances in recent years in the instruments emerging from the legislature and the executive which are designed to protect Native Americans' religion in general (American Indian Religious Freedom Act) and in particular (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Memorandum on Native American Access to Eagle Feathers), the Special Rapporteur identified weaknesses and gaps which diminish the effectiveness and hinder the application of these legal safeguards. Concerning the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Supreme Court has declared that this law was only a policy statement. As for the Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites, unfortunately, it does not contain an "action clause", leaving the tribes without the needed legal "teeth". Higher standards or the protection of sacred sites are needed and effective tribal consultation should be ensured. These recommendations are all the more necessary in light of the October 1997 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations and the January 1997 bill (see paragraph 59 (a) and (b) above). Concerning the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, it is apparent that its coverage was too limited; it is of the utmost importance that concrete solutions be found to solve the repatriation conflict between the scientific community and tribal governments. It is also essential to secure genuine de jure and de facto protection of Native American prisoners' religious rites.”² (Emphasis supplied)

Little has changed since the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States and his litany of violated spiritual and religious human rights. Given the historical record and this report on the sad state of human rights in this country particularly with regard to Native Americans and their right to practice their religion, we would hope that the Board of Regents would examine and reverse the University’s decision to terminate the NAGPRA Unit. Notwithstanding United States international human rights obligations we believe UC should at least comply with the law. And NAGPRA is the law.

We note that at a recent meeting of the Regents, much was said about enrollments of African Americans and Hispanics. Nothing was said about Native American enrollment. As far as we can tell there are no Native Americans on the Board of Regents Although Indians are invisible in California, we exist. We would ask that the Board of Regents heed our call for human rights and for the dignity and proper burial of our grandparents.

For all our relations,

Alberto Saldamando, General Counsel,

International Indian Treaty Council

cc: Andrea Carmen, IITC Executive Director

NAGPRA Coalition

¹ U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1, Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/18, 9 December 1998 Addendum, Visit to the United States of America, paragraph 53.

² Id, at paragraph 80.

Letter from the Advocates for the Protection of Sacred Sites

2007-07-30T14:23:00.000-07:00

National NAGPRA Review Committee
C/o Designated Federal Officer
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Mary Bomar, Director
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

RE: Alleged violations of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by the University of California Berkeley

Dear Federal Officer and Director Bomar,

Beth Burnside, University California Berkeley (UCB) Vice Chancellor, has reportedly decided to terminate the critically important Tribal consultation and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) program at the university. The Vice Chancellor is supported by Kent Lightfoot, archaeologist and Director of UCB’s Phoebe Hearst Museum, Tim White, paleontologist and Chair of UCB’s repatriation committee, and others. The tribally-supported NAGPRA program at UCB was developed in accordance with federal and state NAGPRA laws and is a semi-autonomous unit within the Phoebe Hearst Museum. It is responsible for conducting an inventory of and identifying Native American human remains and cultural items in their collections, and charged to consult with culturally affiliated Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations regarding repatriation. Although the program has completed a number of NAGPRA-required tasks, there is still a great deal to be accomplished. The decision to cut the program was based on a biased report written by two archeologists who represent research interests that often conflict with tribal claims on the museum’s collection of ancestral remains.

Prior to the decision to cut the tribally-supported NAGPRA program at the university proper and timely notice was not afforded to the tribes. This act of tribal exclusion is intolerable and demonstrates the overall museum’s and Vice Chancellor’s significant lack of commitment to and respect for the living tribal people of the Americas and their deceased. The progressive NAGPRA program supported by the tribes is being replaced with a substandard service more to the liking of the archaeologists whom wrote the report.

If the substandard service is allowed to be implemented, UCB and tribes will lose the only qualified program for fair and objective consultation and documented research on repatriation issues. The new substandard service will be supervised by museum staff members who are not qualified to make decisions regarding Native issues. The staff’s primary responsibilities include promoting the museum, preserving the collections, and serving the needs of research scientists, not protecting Native human remains and cultural items.

We bring to the attention of the Secretary of the Interior that UCB’s museum has failed to comply with NAGPRA rules and regulations, specifically Section 9-43 CFR 10.12(b)(vii). The museum failed to consult with lineal descendants, Indian tribe officials, and traditional religious leaders as required. We urge the Secretary to conduct a thorough investigation of NAGPRA violations by UCB and to motivate Chancellor Birgeneau to meet with the tribes to discuss the issue and to maintain the existing NAGRPA program at the university until consultation with tribes can occur.

Also, given the short timeline for the sun setting of the tribally-supported NAGPRA program, we are requesting the involvement of the NAGPRA Review Committee which was established under the law "to monitor and review the implementation of the inventory and identification process and repatriation activities." Committee members are appointed by the Secretary from nominations by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, traditional Native American religious leaders, national museum organizations, and scientific organizations. The Committee works to ensure that information on compliance with the law be maintained and makes annual reports to Congress and hears disputes on factual matters to resolve repatriation issues. Clearly the tribes and UCB’s Museum have a major repatriation issue that needs to be resolved.

According to UCB published reports, the university’s museum houses thousands of human remains and artifacts. The Sponsored Projects Office of UCB reports that each year the university receives substantial grant support for research and public service projects from federal and state agencies and other sources.

We look forward to receiving a written response from you and participation in the implementation of a resolution suitable to tribes and other parties under NAGPRA.

Sincerely,
Radley Davis, James Hayward, Mark LeBeau

cc: Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Joe Garcia (NCAI President), Jacqueline Johnson (NCAI Executive Director)

Natives fear Hearst Museum may keep Alaska artifacts

2007-07-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

Natives fear Hearst Museum may keep Alaska artifacts

AT BERKELEY: University dissolves unit that restored remains and art to tribes.
The Associated Press

Published: July 30, 2007 Last Modified: July 30, 2007 at 09:41 AM

JUNEAU -- Groups in Alaska are criticizing a California university's decision to eliminate the unit that restores Native artifacts to their original owners.
Native leaders worry the move at the University of California, Berkeley will delay or prevent the return of artifacts to tribes and clans under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The university's Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology boasts the second-largest collection of Native American remains and items in the country, including hundreds of Northwest Coast art and Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian objects.

My impression is that this is one of the few museums where the staff is what we call the 'old guard,' " said Bob Sam, an elder and expert in human remains and burial site restoration, in Sitka. "They have very strong feelings that these items shouldn't be turned over to the Native people, but that they should be kept in a safe environment.

read it all at http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9174976p-9091615c.html

Press release #1: NAGPRA Coalition

2007-07-25T08:59:00.000-07:00

EDITORIAL CONTACT:
Corbin Collins
510-652-1567 corbincollins@comcast.net

TRIBES JOIN FORCES AGAINST UC BERKELEY’S DECISION AFFECTING NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRAL REMAINS

Five-tribe NAGPRA Coalition Rejects Discrimination in DecisionProcess, UCB’s Complete Deference to Research Scientists

BERKELEY, Calif., July 25, 2007 – Representatives from five Native American tribes – sovereign governments under Federal law – today announced the formation of the Native American NAGPRA Coalition (NANC) to protest the University of California at Berkeley’s elimination of the Phoebe Hearst Museum’s autonomous NAGPRA unit. This unit is the highly trained, cohesive team that fairly and impartially administered the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and a soon-to-be-implemented state law (AB 978) affecting the second largest collection of Native American ancestral remains and sacred objects in the Nation. NANC strenuously rejects the University’s decision-making process, which deliberately and completely excluded Native Americans. The Coalition requests that Chancellor Robert Birgeneau immediately stop the Museum reorganization, reopen the review process, and meet with the Coalition to determine how to proceed. The Coalition also encourages other tribes to join the protest.

The University accepted the recommendations of a review “committee” that consisted of two non-native research archeologists who have vested professional interests in keeping museum collections intact. The committee did not include tribal representatives, and the University did not solicit the direct input of the autonomous NAGPRA unit, which includes three Native Americans. Under the Museum reorganization, University research scientists who have frustrated NAGPRA compliance in the past will gain complete control over NAGPRA operations. Contrary to University claims, genuine NAGPRA services will be significantly cut. Several tribal governments have already adopted formal resolutions denouncing the University’s decision and demanding that it be reversed.

The five tribal representatives on the Coalition are:

Reno Franklin, of the Kashia Pomo Tribe;
Lalo Franco, of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;
Bennae Calac, of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians;
Ted Howard, of Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley and the Great Basin NAGPRA Coalition; and Reg Elgin, of the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians.

NANC includes the following adjunct members:
Mark LeBeau, of Advocates for the Protection of Sacred Sites;
Otis Parish, Kashia Pomo Elder;
Dr. Larri Fredericks, former Interim NAGPRA Coordinator and Alaska Athabascan;
Dr. Mark Hall, archeologist;
andJessica LePak, UC graduate student and Oneida/Mohican.

NANC emphasizes that the meeting it requests be substantial rather than merely informational. “We are not requesting an ‘explanation’ of what the University regards as an established fact,” said Coalition and tribal member Larri Fredericks. “We expect to play an equitable role in determining the facts. The University must show tribes the respect due sovereign governments, reopen the review process and start over.”

“The University demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Native American voice,” said Coalition and tribal member Mark LeBeau. “Not a single Native American was represented on the review committee or among the administrators who commissioned the review and accepted its recommendations. Inevitably, the recommendations reflected the discrimination in the review process. Not one Native American will have significant authority in NAGPRA operations at the Phoebe Hearst. I hope tribal councils and anyone who believes in fair representation for all people will join our protest.”

Supporters can add their voices by calling NANC volunteers at 510-652-1567 and by contacting Chancellor Birgeneau at 510-642-7464, chancellor@berkeley.edu and robertjb@berkeley.edu; Governor Schwarzenegger at governor@governor.ca.gov; UC President Dynes at Robert.Dynes@ucop.edu; and the Board of Regents at 510-987-9220 and regentsoffice@ucop.edu.

For additional information, visit http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com/. This press release is posted at http://nagpra-ucb.blogspot.com/, along with tribal resolutions and tools of protest.

Tlingit and Haida Tribal Resolution

2007-07-24T23:13:00.000-07:00

Executive Council of the Central Council
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Resolution
EC/ 07-40

Title: NAGPRA Restoration of Funding for University of California Request

WHEREAS, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (Central Council) is a federally recognized tribe of more than 26,000 tribal citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Native American Graves Protection Act (hereafter referred to as NAGPRA) PUBLIC LAW 101-601- NOV. 16, 1990 gives the various federally recognized Native American tribes the right to reclaim items known as Objects of Cultural Patrimony, Associated Funerary Objects, Unassociated Funerary Objects, Human Remains, and Sacred Objects; and

WHEREAS, This law mandated that all federally recognized Native American tribes be given an inventory of items in these categories to said tribal organizations; and

WHEREAS, this has opened a door of communication between numerous museum and Native American Tribes in consultation, repatriations, and ongoing dialogue; and

WHEREAS, the University of California Berkeley ((UCB) Phoebe Hearst Museum has successfully repatriated an Object of Cultural Patrimony back to the Tlingit people; and

WHEREAS, the collection of this museum at over 800 objects only Tlingit items, not counting other Native American Tribes that objects in this museum, leaves many more questions and claims to be submitted on these remaining items should they be deemed as such by the tribe(s); and

WHEREAS, the University of California Berkeley has recently decided to end the NAGPRA program at the museum at the behest of archaeologist and ignoring the importance of the anthropologists and the work already accomplished; and

WHEREAS, the University of California Berkeley is known to be in the forefront of the fight for human rights and causes and the NAGPRA law is one such area for human rights and dignity;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska objects to the disbanding of any NAGPRA committee or work at the Phoebe Hearst Museum; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska will submit as it's next NAGPRA Consultation Visit, a visit to the Phoebe Hearst Museum to review its collection; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska asks that the powers that be at the University of California Berkeley, take whatever steps necessary to restore funding for NAGPRA staff and reviews that museum and keep it an ongoing program for the benefit of all people.

ADOPTED this day of 2007, by the Executive Council of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska by a vote of 6_ yeas, __nays, ___abstentions and ___absence(s).

CERTIFY President William E. Martin
ATTEST Tribal Secretary Dana Leask Ruaro

Susanville Indian Rancheria Resolution

2007-07-24T22:57:00.000-07:00

Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Office of the Chancellor
200 California Hall #1500
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1500

RE: NAGPRA Unit

Dear Chancellor Birgeneau:

Susanville Indian Rancheria (SIR) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in Northeastern California. The tribe is comprised of four distinct Tribes: Maidu, Paiute, Pit River, and Washoe. The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology (PAHMA) houses thousands of human remains that are related to us. SIR has created a NAGPRA Coalition that consists of Tribes from Northeastern California and the Great Basin Members from the Northeastern California NAGPRA Tribal Coalition (NECATNC) have visited the PAHMA on several occasions, as we are diligently working to repatriate the ancestors. Those Tribes that have officially signed on with the NECATNC are:

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
Redding Rancheria
Maidu Cultural Development Group
Lovelock Paiute Tribe
Pit River Nation
Winnemucca Indian Colony
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Fort Bidwell Indian Community
Alturas Rancheria
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe
Greenville Rancheria
Susanville Indian Rancheria

On behalf of all members of the NECATNC we vigorously urge you to reverse the decision made to disband the NAGPA unit. It is our understanding that this decision was made based on a report written by two archaeologists who represent research interests that conflict with Tribal claims on the Museum's collection of ancestral remains. The review was conducted with only a few days notice, without Tribal notification and consultation! Despite insistence from Larri Fredericks, Ph.D., Interim NAGPRA Coordinator, that Native Americans be represented, her concerns were bypassed!

We feel that we have built a strong relationship with the PAHMA and the NAGPRA unit. The NAGPRA team consists of highly qualified people and they understand the cultural sensitivity that exists between Native Americans. NAGPRA issues require people who have specialized training on Native American Culture and NAGPRA. The PAHMA has the responsibility to care for our ancestors, artifacts, and cultural items, and they have worked very hard to build that trust with us. It would be a tragedy and an insult to disband the NAGPRA unit. We urge you to reconsider, to avoid a disastrous mistake that will be an injustice to Native Americans and will damage the University relations with Tribal Governments. If you have questions or comments you may contact Melany L. Johnson, Cultural Resource Specialist, at 530-251-5633 or cultural@sir-nsn.gov.

Sincerely,
Mr. Stacy Dixon
SIR Tribal Chair

Cc: NECATNC Members
SIR Tribal Government Liaison Committee
Melany L. Johnson, SIR
Larri Fredericks, PAHMA

Great Basin Inter-Tribal NAGPRA Coalition resolution

2007-07-17T10:59:00.000-07:00

July 10, 2007

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau
200 California Hall
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720

Re: Proposed Changes in the Current NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) Consultation Staff and Process at the University of California, Berkeley

Dear Chancellor Birgeneau:

On behalf of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe and the Great Basin Intertribal NAGPRA Coalition, we wish to protest UC-Berkeley’s dismantling of the current NAGPRA consultation process and staff at the Phoebe Hearst Museum. We formally oppose any such effort to dismantle the staff and process with whom we have previously been working toward the repatriation of our ancestral remains and burial items which are sacred to our people. This decision is based on past experiences with the University’s NAGPRA Program which until the recent past was negative and disheartening.

In 1990 NAGPRA was passed to remedy the long history of horrific treatment of Native American human remains and cultural items which unfortunately continues to this day. The Great Basin Inter-Tribal NAGPRA Coalition is a culturally based organization representing over 30 Tribes that works for the return of our ancestors that were disrespectfully and immorally removed from their eternal resting place within our aboriginal homelands.

The Great Basin Inter-Tribal NAGPRA has met and worked with several facilities throughout the United States which include not only the Pheobe Hearst but also Harvard’s Peabody Museum, the Museum of Man, the Southwest Museum, University of Nevada Las Vegas and the Nevada State Museum just to name a few. Unfortunately until recently our experience with the Phoebe Hearst has been less than favorable and in my opinion the most difficult of all of our facility relationships.

In 2004 the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe received a NAGPRA Grant on behalf of the Great Basin NAGPRA Coalition. One of the grant objectives was to review the Great Basin NAGPRA Collections of the Phoebe Hearst and work toward the repatriation of the remains of our ancestors and cultural items which unfortunately resulted in a disappointing and unsuccessful visit. The staff at that time was unaccommodating and the Tribal representatives unfortunately were unable to view the collections and were informed that the Tribe needed to do their own research of the collection which is held throughout several facilities and libraries throughout the campus. The Phoebe Hearst is the only institution that has ever denied our Tribes access to their collection and unfortunately is the only institution that would not share their site information or provide staff familiar with the
collection and/or the university research system to work in concert with the Tribal representatives to address our NAGPRA related questions, inquiries, and requests.

Based on the culturally insensitive treatment of our Tribes by the Phoebe Hearst staff during the April 2005 meeting, our Tribal representatives (including Tribal elders) were left with opinions that 1) the institution did not want to share the collection, 2) NAGPRA is not a priority 3) the institution obviously operates in a secretive manner focused only of sciences and violates the university’s mandate to fulfill the stipulations of NAGPRA.

In 2006, the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe received another NAGPRA Grant on behalf of the Great Basin Inter-Tribal NAGPRA Coalition to address a variety of repatriation issues which includes another attempt to address NAGPRA issues within Phoebe Hearst. In October 2006 we once again traveled to the Phoebe Hearst and were welcomed with a much different and accommodating staff. Three research representatives from our Coalition traveled and spent one week filtering through information in an attempt to determine the contents of the collection which included item identification, site records, and other pertinent site information. For the first time we were assisted by individuals who were not only culturally sensitive but familiar with the collections and the university system. The staff shared the process required by the UC System and for the first time wanted to hear our concerns and frustrations with our previous consultation efforts. They wanted to know how they could improve the process which would not only benefit the Tribes but also the University in their efforts to meet the mandates required under NAGPRA.

During the week of May 26, 2007 we traveled to the Phoebe Hearst and were finally able to view the collection. As the process was not perfect it was much improved and the Tribal spiritual leaders and Tribal staff were finally able to view the remains and some of the cultural items, after a two year process. Throughout this process we discovered that the vast majority of the remains taken from our homelands were determined to be “culturally unidentifiable” or “culturally unaffiliated” without any evidence or explanation to support the determination. Through our review of the documentation it is evident that Tribal Consultation had not taken place while the inventory was being established or after the inventory was completed. It is apparent that the inventory is incomplete and that due to time frames for completing the inventory many of the remains were categorized under the blanket terms of “unaffiliated” or “unidentifiable” despite site records, geographic descriptions, associated objects and other museum information which support affiliation. We discussed this issue with the NAGPRA staff and were informed that they are aware of our observations and as they continue to work thorough the collection and the University process they will work to make the necessary corrections as mandated by NAGPRA.

During this same visit we were informed that their NAGPRA program was being reviewed however we were not informed that the university intended to eliminate the program after the progress we were finally making.

I normally do not get involved with personnel issues however I have read the report by Ms. Larri Fredericks and your response which based on our past experiences is not only disheartening but it has created serious distrust in the Tribes that I represent in the University and their implementation of NAGPRA. The ethnocentric review and action taken with the program without any input from Native American staff or representatives who have worked with the program and are directly impacted demonstrates that the University is only concerned with the research and science and not the human rights of Native peoples. Based not only on this recent action but also those actions of the past, the Great Basin Tribes are seriously considering calling for an official investigation of the University’s collections and management procedures to insure that the stipulations of federal law are being complied with.

The current staff has worked hard to finally gain the respect and trust of Tribes and although the process is not perfect, they have worked hard to comply with the stipulations of NAGPRA and gain our respect and trust. We believed that the University hired scholarly Native staff to bridge the gap between the Tribes and the University because of their scholarly knowledge as well as their familiarity with Tribal traditions and beliefs. We now believe that your current dismantling and public hiring of a new director for the Museum reflects an effort by professional archaeologists at Berkeley and elsewhere to prevent the repatriation of human remains and artifacts back to the Tribes to undermine the stipulations of NAGPRA. As a matter of record, we object to our ancestral remains being classified as “unaffiliated” or “unidentifiable” since we do not believe there are any “unaffiliated” or “unidentifiable” remains in the Great Basin. We believe that the current staff that you are now dismantling is sensitive to the Tribes in these matters, because of their familiarity with American Indians and their cultural heritage.

Because of the working relationship the Tribes have established with the NAGPRA implementation staff of the Phoebe Hearst Museum, we strongly recommend that the current NAGPRA program and staff administering the Phoebe Hearst Museum collections be not only restored but strengthened and that all culturally sensitive materials and ancestral skeletal remains from the Great Basin be promptly repatriated without further bureaucratic/pseudo-scientific claims. Your actions are a definite step backward from the humanitarian success we as Tribes have been able to achieve in the passage of NAGPRA. UC Berkley prides itself on being a protector of human rights, but based on our past experiences both negative and positive, this step to eliminate culturally sensitive staff that have a working knowledge of the collection demonstrates that the University believes that the human remains are the property of the University for scientific purposes and that the human rights of our ancestors are once again put behind the interests of science.

We expect a prompt response concerning this matter as it is of the gravest concern to us, our ancestors and our future generations. If you have any questions regarding this issue please feel free to contact me at the address below or by phone at (775) 423-6075 ext. 246.

Sincerely,
Rochanne L. Downs, Vice Chairwoman
Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe

cc: Great Basin Inter-Tribal NAGPRA Coalition
National Park Service NAGPRA Program
NAGPRA Review Committee

If you want to help (#1)

2007-07-14T14:29:00.001-07:00

Prewritten Letters of Support

If you have not yet emailed the Governor, State Attorney General or Chancellor regarding the decision to disband the autonomous Berkeley NAGPRA unit – OR EVEN IF YOU HAVE – please use the form letters below to express your views. You can send them verbatim or simply use them as models for your own letters. Please ask anyone who might be sympathetic to do the same.

The letters come with text and email addresses. All you have to do is paste the text into separate emails, paste the email addresses into the “To” and “CC” lines of the email (paste the whole group at once), and put your name after “Sincerely” at the bottom. One letter is to the Governor and Attorney General and one is to the Chancellor. The CCs are to various other government and University officials.

Please do this. It is very important.

Letter 1 (Governor, State Attorney General):

“To”: governor@governor.ca.gov; piu@doj.ca.gov

CCs: Lt.Governor@ltgov.ca.gov; constituentaffairs@ss.ca.gov; Senator.Perata@senate.ca.gov; senator@dorgan.senate.gov; piu@doj.ca.gov; regentsoffice@ucop.edu; Robert.Dynes@ucop.edu; john.oakley@ucop.edu; maria.bertero-barcelo@ucop.edu; michael.brown@ucop.edu; aschair@berkeley.edu; acad_sen@berkeley.edu; agreenrush@berkeley.edu; lhsong@berkeley.edu; dsprouse@berkeley.edu

Text:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown:

This letter concerns an urgent matter of critical importance to Native Americans.

Please help us reverse UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s decision to disband the highly trained, cohesive team that impartially administers federal and state NAGPRA laws affecting the second largest collection of Native American remains and artifacts in the nation. Native Americans care deeply about the treatment of this collection, and many will not rest until their tribe’s remains are returned and reburied. The Chancellor has completely stonewalled our protests so that “facts on the ground” can take over before Native Americans can react.

The Chancellor’s decision-making process was secretive, sudden, and completely and deliberately excluded all tribal representatives and UCB’s expert NAGPRA unit, which includes three Native Americans. The decision was recommended by a two-man “review committee” consisting of research scientists who have vested professional interests in keeping Native American collections intact and a history of negative relations with tribes. Under the Museum reorganization, scientists with research interests will completely control all NAGPRA operations. All fair and impartial tribal consultation will cease and genuine NAPGRA services will be seriously cut.

Please help us stop the NAGPRA coup! Please ask that the Chancellor:

1. Immediately stop the NAGPRA reorganization

2. Reopen the NAGPRA review process

3. Include the Native American NAGPRA Council and the UCB NAGPRA team in all deliberations affecting the future of NAGPRA at Berkeley.

Thus far, the Chancellor and all University officials have refused to meet with Native Americans and refused to acknowledge and justify the discriminatory decision-making process. We have never relinquished our right to speak for ourselves and did not authorize the University to represent our interests. Please insist that the Chancellor stop stonewalling and give an equal voice to Native Americans, the true stakeholders in this issue.

For more information, please call 510-652-1567 or 510-457-8569.

Sincerely,

NAGPRA Autonomy = NAGPRA Integrity!

Letter 2 (Chancellor):

“To”: robertjb@berkeley.edu; chancellor@berkeley.edu
“CC”: burnside@berkeley.edu; jcummins@berkeley.edu; rprice@berkeley.edu; PAHMA-Director@berkeley.edu; kgl53@sbcglobal.net

Text:

Dear Chancellor Birgeneau:

This letter concerns an urgent matter of critical importance to Native Americans.

Please reverse your decision to disband the highly trained, cohesive team that impartially administers federal and state NAGPRA laws affecting the second largest collection of Native American remains and artifacts in the nation. Native Americans care deeply about the treatment of this collection, and many will not rest until their tribe’s remains are returned and reburied. Thus far, you have completely stonewalled our protests so that “facts on the ground” can take over before Native Americans can react.

The University’s decision-making process was secretive, sudden, and completely and deliberately excluded all tribal representatives and UCB’s expert NAGPRA unit, which includes three Native Americans. The decision was recommended by a two-man “review committee” consisting of research scientists who have vested professional interests in keeping Native American collections intact and a history of negative relations with tribes. Under the Museum reorganization, scientists with research interests will completely control all NAGPRA operations. All fair and impartial tribal consultation will cease and genuine NAPGRA services will be seriously cut.

Please stop the NAGPRA coup! We respectfully ask that you:

1. Immediately stop the NAGPRA reorganization

2. Reopen the NAGPRA review process

3. Include the Native American NAGPRA Council and the UCB NAGPRA team in all deliberations affecting the future of NAGPRA at Berkeley.

Thus far, you and all University officials have refused to meet with Native Americans and refused to acknowledge and justify the discriminatory decision-making process. We have never relinquished our right to speak for ourselves and did not authorize the University to represent our interests. Please stop stonewalling and give an equal voice to Native Americans, the true stakeholders in this issue. I will be sending a similar letter to the Governor, Attorney General Brown and other officials.

Sincerely,

NAGPRA Autonomy = NAGPRA Integrity!

Talking points to spread to others

2007-07-14T11:09:00.000-07:00

Here are some brief “talking points” you can use to explain the issues to other people:

1. We want to alert you to the university’s decision to disband the autonomous NAGPRA unit, and with it, the only highly trained, cohesive team that impartially administers federal and state laws affecting the second largest collection of Native American ancestral remains and artifacts in the nation.

a. NAGPRA stands for Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

2. All tribal representatives were intentionally and entirely excluded from the decision-making process.

3. The two-man “review committee” consisted of research scientists who have vested professional interests in keeping the Native American collections intact and who have had many disagreements with the tribes in the past.

4. The Vice Chancellor did not solicit any independent input from UCB’s expert NAGPRA unit, which includes three Native Americans.

5. Under the reorganization, Museum research scientists who have deliberately frustrated NAGPRA compliance in the past will have complete control over NAGPRA operations.

6. Genuine NAGPRA services to tribes will be drastically cut.

7. The goals of NAGPRA and the goals of the museum are not always the same, and should not be confused. The Museum reorganization will completely subordinate NAGPRA goals to Museum goals, and the museum is controlled by scientists who want to keep the Native American collection entirely intact. This is not compatible with NAGPRA, especially at this museum.

8. NAGPRA Autonomy is essential to NAGPRA Integrity!

9. Our Demands:

a. Immediately stop the NAGPRA reorganization

b. Reopen the NAGPRA review process

c. Include the Native American NAGPRA Council and the UCB NAGPRA team in all deliberations affecting the future of NAGPRA at Berkeley

If you have any questions, especially about the University’s deceptive spin on this issue, please call 510-652-1567 or 510-457-8569.

Pit River tribal resolution

2007-07-13T10:38:00.000-07:00

JESSICA JIM PIT RIVER TRIBE
TRIBAL CHAIRPERSON 37118 Main Street
Burney, CA 96013
Maria Orozco-cue
VICE-CHAIRPERSON Telephone
(530) 335 5421
JOLEE GEORGE (530) 335 3140 FAX
TRIBAL SECRETARY
______________________________________________________________________
ELEVEN AUTONOMOUS BANDS

Resolution No: 07-06-36

DATE: June 28, 2007

SUBJECT: University of California at Berkeley Decision on Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, (NAGPRA)

WHEREAS: The Pit River Tribe is a Federally recognized Tribe composed of Eleven Autonomous Bands located in northeastern California since time immemorial; and

WHEREAS: The Pit River Tribe is governed by the Pit River Tribal Council, the body duly elected under the Constitution of the Pit River Tribe, adopted August 16, 1987 and approved by the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs on December 3, 1987; and

WHEREAS: The Pit River Tribal Council is empowered by Articles VII of the Constitution to enact all ordinances and resolutions which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into effect the Council’s powers and responsibilities, contract with Federal, state and tribal governments, private enterprises, individuals and organizations; and

WHEREAS: The Pit River Tribe is a Native American tribe with a vested and legal interest in NAGPRA programs and activities within the boundaries of the State of California; and

WHEREAS: The Vice Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley has, without properly allowing for comment or review in the decision making process by Native Americans, decided to discontinue the NAGPRA unit dedicated to discharging University responsibilities to tribes under federal and state NAGPRA laws, and to blend the NAGPRA program into activities of the Phoebe Hearst Museum which thereby diminishes its stature and program effectiveness; and,

WHEREAS: The decision places Native American remains and artifacts into the hands of employees who are archeologically and culturally untrained in the care and preservation of such items;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That said decision be stayed and implementation reversed until such a time as an appropriate review of the decision, by a committee including substantial representation from California’s Native American Tribes can be conducted and concluded with proper recommendation to the University.

CERTIFICATON

I, the undersigned Tribal Chairperson or other Constitutionally authorized and designated signatory of the Pit River Tribal Council, do hereby certify that the Pit River Tribal Council is composed of eleven (11) autonomous Bands, of which 8 were present, constituting a quorum at an officially called, noticed, convened and held meeting this 28th day of June, 2007, and that this resolution was adopted by a vote of 8 for, 0 against, and 0 abstaining, and that said resolution has not been rescinded in any way.

June Avelar, Recording Secretary

ATTESTED:

Jolee George, Tribal Secretary

Council Member Signatures:

Raymond Alvarez
Lillian Lego
Sheila Montgomery
Patricia Preston
Wesley Rhoades
Vernon Ward
Rose Wilson
Melvin Wolfin

July 6 2007 letter from Larri Fredericks

2007-07-13T09:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends:

Many of you may have received an email from Phoebe Hearst Museum Director Kent Lightfoot defending the University’s reorganization plan which disbands the NAGPRA staff as a semi-autonomous unit and “integrates” NAGPRA functions into the larger activities of the museum. Since his argument seems reasonable on first reading, I feel compelled to answer. I have pasted the unedited version of Lightfoot’s letter at the end of this email.

The Review Process

Many NAGPRA supporters have written to Lightfoot asking whether he thought the review was fair and whether the implementation should be delayed until Native American voices were heard. Lightfoot essentially ignores these questions, and focuses on what he considers the “substance” of the decision. He only alludes to the process once:

Although some have questioned how this reorganization was made and communicated, this is an internal reorganization that is designed to improve our ability to work with individual tribes on specific repatriation claims.

I too want to focus on the substance of reorganization, but I do not believe we can dismiss the issue of process so quickly. The fairness of a decision-making process is extremely important in a situation like this, where there are multiple stakeholders with interests that often conflict. If one group is unjustly excluded, the outcome is likely to be detrimental to that group and will not be perceived as legitimate. In my view, that is what happened here, and the University’s decision can only redeem its legitimacy if the issue is reopened and settled by means of a just process.

One wonders why Lightfoot feels no obligation to answer questions about fairness and has no qualms about implementing the decision. From what he says, he apparently thinks that the people asking the questions lack standing and that their opinions are irrelevant. In his view, “this is an internal reorganization,” and therefore, none of the tribes’ or the public’s business.

I believe he is wrong about this. When an internal process is unfair and discriminatory in a way that negatively affects an external constituency, that constituency has every right – as does the public at large – to object to the process. The University of California is a public institution sustained by tax-paying citizens. UC Berkeley has an even stronger obligation to tribes in virtue of the state (AB978) and federal NAGPRA statutes. These laws require that the University satisfy legitimate tribal claims on its collection of Native American ancestral remains and artifacts. Accountability under the law requires transparency, and the tribes cannot determine if the University is acting in good faith if they have no access to the processes that govern NAGPRA administration. Also, American Indians believe that their ancestors’ remains belong to them and that they have every right to be included in a process that affects what is rightfully theirs.

Therefore, Lightfoot has an obligation to defend the review process. He should stop stonewalling and give Native Americans and all NAGPRA supporters an explanation of why he thinks it was fair. The process was secretive, sudden, scheduled at a time when much of the University community was gone, and the purpose of the review was not revealed to the NAGPRA staff. More importantly, all Native Americans were intentionally excluded in spite of my protests, which Lightfoot simply ignored. Lightfoot and Vice Chancellor Burnside also refused to speak directly to the NAGPRA unit, which includes three Native Americans. In fact, everyone who played a role in the reorganization decision was white. Lightfoot, Burnside, Price, Chancellor Birgeneau, Bettinger and Walker (the two archeologists on the review team) are all white. Lightfoot has an obligation to explain why there wasn’t an Indian in the group. Is this really just a problem with “how the reorganization was communicated”?

If Lightfoot refuses to answer these questions, the obligation falls to the Chancellor, who has final authority at the University and who has endorsed the review process. Unfortunately, the strategy of both men has been to stonewall and let the “facts on the ground” take over and institutionalize the decision before people can react. This is why I ask you to join me now in a strenuous protest and in a demonstration we will be holding at the University in the near future. Emails with details will be coming soon.

Someone might reasonably ask, “Even if the review process was exclusionary and paternalistic, why should we expect the content of the decision to be negative for Native Americans?” The reason extends beyond the deciders’ race. The problem is not simply that everyone was white; the problem is also that this particular group of academics and administrators was dominated by research scientists. Lightfoot, Walker, and Bettinger are research archeologists; Beth Burnside is a cell biologist; and the Chancellor is a physicist. The only non-scientist in the group is Robert Price. More specifically, the three scientists who specialize in archeology have vested professional interests in keeping museum collections of Native American ancestral remains and artifacts intact. Since tribes lay claim to parts of these collections, these archeologists also have vested professional interests in shaping NAGPRA programs that favor their interests, contrary to the interests of Native Americans.

This is not just an abstract problem; an unrestrained research bias has had extremely negative impact on the Phoebe Hearst’s NAGPRA program for years. Consider, for example, a passage from a 2000 report by Edward Luby, the first Director of the NAGPRA unit.

In November 1995, Professor Tim White attempted to submit an inventory [in which] virtually all human remains yet to be inventoried were determined to be “culturally unidentifiable” [not associated with any tribe], with no evidence supplied as to why this was the case. Even more serious, however, and contrary to statutory language, the inventory was not associated with evidence that consultation with Indian Tribes had taken place, nor were associated funerary objects listed. In addition, this inventory did not accurately reflect the museum’s documents, and the descriptions of the geographic and cultural affiliations of human remains listed were insufficient.

Luby also reports that White had “repeatedly harassed and insulted” him and had “alleged on several occasions that [Luby] had committed fraud, colluded with federal agencies, and was incompetent.” Professor White’s aggressive attitude toward NAGPRA has not changed. As Chair of the UC Berkeley Repatriation Committee, he was interviewed at length about the fate of the NAGPRA unit, and under the reorganization plan, this Repatriation Committee will exercise authority over the new Repatriation Coordinator and other NAGPRA operations. I should also note that Robert Bettinger, one of research archeologists who made the reorganization recommendations, has a history of hostile relations with tribes over repatriation issues.

Given the ethnic make-up of the group that participated in the reorganization decision, their extreme bias toward research, and their record of negativity toward NAGPRA claims, it is hard for me to understand how Professor Lightfoot and Chancellor Birgeneau can honestly present the review process as fair. Yet when I raised my objections to the Chancellor, he completely dismissed me by saying, “In complicated matters such as this, it is to be expected that people will have very different views of what is the right course of action.” Although this is certainly true, one wonders why only the views of white archeologists count. The Chancellor’s attitude is ironic, to say the least, given that he represents himself to the world as a proud and steadfast champion of inclusion and diversity.

The Substance of the Decision

Lightfoot presents the reorganization in this way:

The primary change that is taking place is the inclusion of the NAGPRA staff within the museum organizational structure. Since the late 1990s, the NAGPRA unit has served as a relatively autonomous group … However, several reviews since 2001 have strongly recommended that the unit be integrated into the Museum to maximize the use of its staff expertise.

As far as I know there has only been one bona fide outside review since 2001, other than the most recent review by Walker and Bettinger. But even if I am wrong, it is crucial to understand that the review committees have operated on a basic assumption, which is implicit in Lightfoot’s comment. The idea is that the effectiveness of the NAGPRA staff is maximized to the extent that it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the Museum. Indeed, the Museum hires review committees with the expressed purpose of enhancing its overall performance (and with the unexpressed purpose of justifying decisions that have already been made). The operating assumption is that NAGPRA goals are just a subset of Museum goals, and that NAGPRA operations should be subordinate to Museum operations. But this assumption is false. The goals of NAGPRA and the goals of the museum are not always the same, and should not be confused. The goal of NAGPRA operations is to administer state and federal laws in good faith and as effectively as possible. NAGPRA goals can – and often do – conflict with the aims of the Museum, especially this Museum which has a history of negative relations with tribes. If the University subordinates NAGPRA operations to Museum goals, it significantly reduces the chances that the consultation process will be administered impartially and effectively, with any equal concern for all stakeholders.

The fact is that the autonomy of the NAGPRA unit is essential to the integrity of NAGPRA administration. The NAGPRA staff needs to work in an environment where they are not under constant pressure from research scientists who want to preserve the collection at the expense of Native Americans. This is why Douglas Sharon, the previous Museum Director, recommended in a 2006 letter to Vice Chancellor Burnside that the administrative control of the NAGPRA unit not only be removed from the Museum but also from the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research (her office). He suggested placing NAGPRA operations under the control of the Chancellor. In my letter to the Chancellor, I suggested the same thing, but in light of the Chancellor’s total indifference to Native Americans on this issue, I now believe the unit should be moved to the Center for Race and Gen der in the Office of the Provost.

Lightfoot claims that the reorganization does not diminish the Museum’s commitment to Native Americans and that he is actually adding positions dedicated to their service. He is increasing the number of staff members devoted to what he calls “repatriation activities” from four to seven. He also insists he is not “disbanding” the NAPGRA unit; he is just dispersing them into Museum operations so they can help other Museum employees get more involved in “repatriation.” These assertions are extremely misleading.

What the NAGPRA unit does is consult with tribes about possible repatriations, and this requires a highly skilled, knowledgeable and culturally sensitive team. Tribal representatives come to the museum to see all of the documentation related to as many as fifteen archeological sites, view items within the collections, and determine what is rightfully theirs. In order to give them fair access to the evidence, we have to prepare extensively for their visit and do archival research for the appropriate documentation. When they come, we show them the documentation, explain the often arcane reasons why certain items are classified as culturally unidentifiable, help them evaluate evidence to the contrary, and advise them on how to prepare their challenges and their claims. After they leave, we assist them remotely, often for months.

It is simply not true that seven staff members will be devoted to this kind of consultation. Under the envisioned reorganization, one – or at most, two – will engage in tribal consultation, and only on a “case by case” basis. Lightfoot’s term “repatriation activities” is a deceptive euphemism that actually refers to any Native-American related activity such as educational outreach, etc. For example, I have been reassigned to the position of Tribal Coordinator, which makes no use of my NAGPRA experience even though I know more about NAGPRA operations than anyone on campus. Yet Lightfoot counts my position as one of the seven devoted to “repatriation activities.” Also, the Museum has a history of co-opting positions that are supposedly related to genuine NAGPRA operations. For example, the NAGPRA budget has paid the entire salary of a NAGPRA/North Amer ican collection manager, but the unit has only had access to about 20 percent of her time. She spends the bulk of her time working on non-NAGPRA related assignments. Once NAGPRA operations are “folded into” the overall activities of the Museum, this sort of thing will happen far more often.

But the most important issue has nothing to do with the actual duties of the new staff members. Even if all of the new staff under the reorganization were devoted to NAGPRA, they would still be completely controlled by research scientists with a vested interest in preserving the collection. Therefore, the staff would not have the freedom to offer fair, impartial and comprehensive consultation services to tribes. Native Americans will not be provided with the kind of support services they need. This is the issue that Lightfoot’s letter completely ignores, and yet, this is the critical issue. Most tribal representatives aren’t experts at NAGPRA and need the help of trained, skilled and fair-minded consultants who respect their status as stakeholders. This service will disappear under the new NAGPRA reorganization.

Lightfoot touts several “secondary” benefits of the reorganization such as non-NAGPRA-related Native American services, workshops, loans, etc. All of these things sound great, and the NAGPRA unit would be happy to participate. In fact, we have suggested many such activities in the past, and offered to organize and supervise them. Our suggestions have been ignored. Yet the important point is this: all of these benefits can be easily offered without disbanding the autonomous NAGPRA unit and without sacrificing the integrity of NAGPRA operations. Indeed, an autonomous NAGPRA unit would facilitate the new services. (See my Letter to the Chancellor, pp 4-5.) Lightfoot insinuates that Museum must choose between offering the new benefits and keeping the NAGPRA unit intact . There is absolutely no basis for this claim. Lightfoot is presenting Native Americans with a false choice.

If you have any questions about the issues in Lightfoot’s letter, please call me at 510-652-1567or 510-457-8569. Otherwise, please email, write or call the Chancellor, the Governor, and anyone else you can think of to protest the reorganization. And join our upcoming demonstration at UC Berkeley. We will be setting a date and time soon. Please support the Native American Tribal NAGPRA Committee’s demand that the Chancellor meet with tribes and initiate a new review process that represents the views of all stakeholders.

Best,

Larri Fredericks, PhD
Interim NAGPRA Coordinator (March 2006 – June 2007)
Senior Museum Scientist/NAGPRA (May 1999 – February 2006)

NAGPRA Autonomy = NAGPRA Integrity!

June 12th 2007 letter from Larri Fredericks

2007-07-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

June 12, 2007

Dear Concerned Faculty, Students, Staff and Community Members:

As the Phoebe Hearst Museum’s Interim Coordinator for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), I need to alert you to a recent decision by Vice Chancellor Beth Burnside that will have a disastrous impact on UC Berkeley’s relationships with Native Americans.

The Vice Chancellor has decided to disband the NAGPRA unit dedicated to discharging University responsibilities to tribes under federal and state NAGPRA laws. I urge you to help us reverse this decision, which was based on a report written by two archeologists who represent research interests that often conflict with tribal claims on the Museum’s collection of ancestral remains. The review was conducted with a few days notice—before the tribes could be notified and respond—and Native Americans were completely and deliberately excluded from the process, despite my vigorous insistence that they be represented. As a result, NAGPRA services after June 30 will be cut or eliminated at a critical time when good faith and justice require that the level of service be maintained or increased. Native Americans will lose the University’s only cohesive and qualified group they can count on for fair and objective consultation and document research on repatriation issues.

Vice Chancellor Burnside claims that NAGPRA services will continue at the “same level” after the NAGPRA unit is “folded into” overall Museum operations. This is cynical spin. One highly trained PhD will be laid off, and other staff members will be demoted and/or absorbed into the disparate activities of the Museum. Three of these are Native Americans, two with PhD’s and one with a Masters in Anthropology; all have specialized knowledge of NAGPRA and Native American culture. They will now be directly supervised by Museum staff members who know nothing about NAGPRA or Native Americans and whose primary responsibilities include promoting the Museum as a whole, preserving the collections, and serving the needs of research scientists. The NAGPRA unit’s former functions—NAGPRA compliance, inventories, consultation, archival review, tribal visits and claims, document research, etc—will be handled on a “case by case” basis largely by a single, yet-to-be-hired director with a background in osteology/archeology who will answer to Museum administrators and University researchers. Museum activities will take priority, and NAGPRA funds will inevitably be co-opted to “enhance” underfunded Museum programs.

The Phoebe Hearst Museum houses the nation’s largest collection of Native American ancestral remains outside of the Smithsonian. Native Americans care deeply about the treatment of this collection, and many will not rest until their tribe’s remains are returned and reburied. The NAGPRA staff has worked hard to establish good relations with Native Americans, while administering NAGPRA rules fairly and impartially, without favoring the tribes over the Museum, the University, or any other relevant constituency. Our goal is to build relationships and ensure that Native Americans have a seat at the table—that their voices be heard and that their just claims be acknowledged and satisfied. The NAGPRA unit has succeeded in establishing relations of trust and collaboration between the Museum and Native Americans, hosting over two hundred tribal visits in the past year, working with Native American Studies and the American Indian Graduate Program, facilitating the Museum’s California Indian Day and the Native American Heritage Month—and much more. The decision to disband our unit will alienate tribes, break collaborative ties and destroy our hard work.

I have sent a detailed letter to Chancellor Birgeneau asking him to reconsider the Vice Chancellor’s decision. I urge you to contact him as well. Help us convince the Chancellor that the decision is both a mistake and an injustice that will seriously damage University relations with Native American communities. Please email, fax or mail your concerns as soon as possible to

Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Office of the Chancellor
200 California Hall # 1500
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1500
Phone (510) 642-7464
Fax (510) 643-5499
chancellor@berkeley.edu

Please forward this message to friends and colleagues who might be sympathetic, ask them to contact Birgeneau and then forward it on themselves. You might also want to contact the Governor and other representatives.

If you have any questions or need more information please contact me at 510-642-6096, 510-652-1567 or larri.fredericks@comcast.net. Thanks for your support.

Best,
Larri Fredericks, Ph.D.

Interim NAGPRA Coordinator
Chair, American Indian Graduate Program Advisory Committee