Letter from the International Indian Treaty Council

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 Even as slavery was being repealed it was legal in California to buy and sell Indians.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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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