Transcripts For CSPAN3 Smithsonian Return Of Native American Remains 20150117

With the law. This is just under 90 minutes. Get started again, if you could please take your seats. Good morning, again. I am associate general counsel in the office of general counsel for the smithsonian. I just celebrated my 29 anniversary with the smithsonian, so i like to say sometimes that i was there at the creation of nmai. The last panel was a walk down memory lane because i intended that 1987 hearing where secretary adams was asked by senator inouye was asked about the remains and was able to participate in many of the discussions that led to the creation of the museum. But more about that in a minute. Let me also say that the issues of repatriation of which ive dealt with many of them over my almost 30 years have provided me with some of the most interesting and rewarding work of my career. I think for those of you who are here and are able to hear about this process that has gone on for 25 plus years, i am sure that you share that view that these issues are so interesting. With that, i am honored to be here to moderate this panel. Today we are joined by four panelists. Kevin gover, the director of the museum of the American Indian. Brenda, a citizen of the eastern band of cherokee indians and the chair of the repatriation of nmais board of trustees. Jonathan, a Senior Scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. And bonnie, a citizen of the pon obscot nation and chair of the smithsonians Repatriation Review Committee. I am not going to going to detail about their careers. Their bios are in your packets. So we can take our time to talk about these issues and survey the road we have taken over the past 25 years with regard to repatriation. The challenges and opportunities that remain as well and what might be in store for the future. We will follow the same format as the last panel with presentations and then i will ask a few questions of each panelist. And then if there is time at the end we will take questions on the audience. And you have index cards in your packets if you would like to write your question out. And then there will be microphones in the back. So, i arrived at the smithsonian as a young lawyer in 1985, just about the time the museum of the American Indian foundation in new york was looking for a home after the unsuccessful offer from ross perot to moved to dallas, texas. When that failed, the foundation and initiated discussions with ben secretary robert adams to transfer the collections to this to the smithsonian. And as you heard also during that previous panel, that effort with senator inoyuyes efforts resulted in the act of 1989. The nmai did two things essentially established the museum, its mission and governing structure but also provided for the repatriation of human skeletal remains and funereal objects in the collection which at that time had been housed in the museum of Natural History. Prior to that time, the Natural History as he voluntarily repatriated remains of named native american individuals to descendents. It was the passage of the nmai act that repatriation of certain native american materials became illegal as well as immoral. It has been my privilege to bear witness to this history, so eloquently laid out by the previous panel. And i look forward to the reflections of our panel shortly. So, any review of repatriation at the smithsonian really has to begin by answering two questions. And these have been touched upon previously. So lets start with the easy one, which is why the smithsonian is now subject to it. Pat talked about that. The nmai act was the first piece of repatriation legislation and applied only to the smithsonian. When congress decided to extend the repatriation requirement to other federally funded institutions, it made sense to carve the smithsonian out because we were already covered by the nmai act. Nagpra was broader in scope. In not only included repatriation of sacred objects but there were other distinctions as well. In 1996, congress amended the nmai act to bring it into closer conformity with nagpra. And you have the act in the amendment in your materials. While the laws are not identical, they overlap in many respects and one of the most significant differences is that the smithsonian does not fall under the Repatriation Review Committee. We have our own external review committee, and today you will hear from bonnie newsom, the current chair of that committee. For purposes of our discussion we are going to focus on the nmai act. Next and more difficult question is why are two easy the reseal of the American Indian and the museum of Natural History have different procedures for handling repatriation . We have to look at the nature of the smithsonian and the nmai act. Although the smithsonian operates under the governing umbrella of the board of regents, each of its Research Institutions has its own mission and in many instances its own procedures. Natural history is a Scientific Research institution that has long collect dead and studied human skeletal remains for people and cultures around the world and their Research Continues today. The nmai is a museum about the history and culture of native peoples. Its mission is not necessarily related to scientific inquiry. And not surprisingly, these differences also account for variations in the way these institutions conduct repatriation. So, let me dig into a few of those differences before i ask our panelists to share their thoughts. As i mentioned, perhaps smithsonian the biggest difference is the role of the smithsonian as i mentioned, perhaps the biggest difference is the role of the smithsonians Repatriation Committee. Why is that . The primary reason is based on the language in the law that provides that the board of trustees shall have Sole Authority over all collection activities. From the outset, nmai has interpreted this to mean that its own board, rather than the review committee must exercise its exclusive authority over repatriation decisions because to cede authority to the Repatriation Review Committee would be inconsistent with its Sole Authority as set out in the law. Over the years, there are those who have questioned this interpretation, but in my opinion, it has provided each museum with the autonomy and flexibility it has needed to conduct repatriations in the context of each museums unique mission. So, let me highlight a couple of other differences between nmai and Natural History and their philosophy and approach. Because i think it helps to understand why two museums within the same larger institution might reach different decisions. The first is the burden of proof. You heard kevin refer to that when he was sharing ricks remarks. The nmai act provides that if the tribe can establish cultural affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not, then you museum must return them. From the beginning, this museum, the resume of the American Indian, adopted a standard of reasonable based standard which is more lenient than a hundreds of the evidence, and that might result in repatriations that this museum right agree to that Natural History might not. The second is the appeals process. The process for handling appeals of disputed claims is also different. At Natural History, appeals are handled initially by the review committee, which makes recommendations to the secretary of the smithsonian who ultimately makes the final decision. At nmai, the trustees render decisions based on recommendations from the Repatriation Committee. And if an appeal should arise, it would be handled by a special committee comprised of Board Members and senior smithsonian management. Fortunately, appeals are exceedingly rare. In the history and the 25 year history, there have been two appeals of decisions by the museum of Natural History and none of nmais decisions. The last difference i want to mention has to do with International Claims and claims of nonfederally recognized tribes. Because the law by its terms only applies to federally recognized American Indian tribes and native hawaiian. There is no legal requirement to repatriate to indigenous committees outside of the u. S. Or to not federally recognized tribes within the United States such as state tribes. Given the press of pending repatriation claims from federally recognized tribes and resources that are understandably not unlimited the museum of Natural History part toward sizes prioritizes claims from federal recognized tribes and is not on her of honor claims of international or state recognize tiribes. As you heard this morning, it is museum will repatriate those internationally and state tribes. There are some other differences as well. You were probably hear about from our panelists and i do not want to take up any more of their time. With that, i would want to turn it over to kevin, our first panelist. Thank you. I just want to do a couple of things, and then let the rest of the panel take over. At the nmai, i wanted to provide some of our repatriation statistics. Obviously, it is has long been a priority of the nmai, given that the first law would be in our authorizing legislation. Our board of trustees and our repatriation staff have been very aggressive throughout the history of the nmai, seeing these things are returned. One key element of our policy that has so far gone unmentioned is that the nmai does not wish to have any human remains in our collection, regardless of how they were required, regardless of any of the circumstances. And so the board very promptly all human remains in the collection. That does not mean they were disposed of. It simply means they are not a part of the nmai collection, although a good many of them are still held by us, mostly because we do not know who they should be returned to. So, one of the Major Projects that the nmai is to determine the origins of as many of these as possible. See that they are returned or failing that, ultimately we will find another disposition. Since 1991 the nmai has returned 549 human remains nearly 30,000 funerary objects another 1045 sacred objects, 19 objects of cultural patrimony 304 items that were both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, and 31 items that we determined were unethically acquired. We stilll have a number of pending repatriation claims, 16, but that covers multiple objects and virtually every case. So we will continue to diligently work through those. A couple of things i wanted to mention about the history of repatriation both at the smithsonian and at nmai. A two years ago, there is awa a there was a review of the Repatriation Program at the smithsonian. And as is occasionally the case, the report seemed to be a solution in search of a problem, because after reviewing the work that the smithsonian has done, they found very little to criticize. Nevertheless, they did have solutions to these nonexistent problems. There were a couple, though, that we did think were quite meritorious. One of which is that we would begin providing congress and at an annual report. On the repatriation activities of the smithsonian. Interestingly enough, we were 20 years into the program before there was any real inquiry into hows it going . Which could be interpreted as a sign of the clock, but a sign of neglect, but also interpreted as a sign that things are going pretty well. I think that was the case. The record of the smithsonian is very strong. And while there will always be objections and there have been to certain decisions, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of repatriation claims are settled amicably between the smithsonian and the tribe or native Hawaiian Group that is petitioned. And it really has become quite a collaborative process between the institution and the Indian Tribes from where these materials originate. I just wanted to mention one other thing. I was inspired by rickss speech this morning. Ive often had some of those thoughts, perhaps not quite so elegantly. Expressed. One of the great things about being a Museum Director is you get to travel around the country going to museums and you get to call that work. Ive had the occasion in this past year to be at the Nelson Atkins museum in kansas city and at the field museum in chicago. These two institutions came together in a very appropriate way. Nelson atkins has mounted an exhibition along with a museum in paris to create an exhibition of plains indian art. In the catalog that was produced by the Nelson Atkins, there is an interesting story told by the curator. Where he had inquired of the field museum about the availability of a pawnie star chart that had been part of a a paneewnee star chart that had been part of a sacred bundle that had found its way into the collection of the field museum. The response of the curator at the field to the curator from the Nelson Atkins was interesting. And i wanted to read it to you because it really makes the point that rick was making which is that the way museums work with this material in part because of the repatriation requirement itself has changed quite erratically. And so, he reports an email from jonathan hoss, former curator of north american ethnography at the field museum. Mr. Hoss said, during our discussions with the pawnee, we agreed to rewarp one of the bum rewrap the bundles. Over the next several weeks, i rewrapped all of the sacred bundles including the meteorite bundle that contained the star chart. It was one of the most difficult things i ever had to do as a curator. At the time, it was agreed that the bundles would never again be unwrapped unless they were repatriated to the pawnee and they took responsibility for them forever after. The bundles are extreme the powerful and dangerous to those who handle them. In addition to all the cultural and sacred issues, the star chart and associated bundle could not be unwrapped without causing physical damage to the bundle. In rewrapping them, concern was given to their cultural care and not to their conversation. There is basically nothing that could justify unwrapping them for an exhibit or anything else. Dr. Hoss when on to say, and this is the most striking part of what he said a number of people, including some of the field museum, have asked why do we keep the bundles of they cannot be displayed or researched . My response is that the 21st century is bringing us new kinds of duration curation, and taking care of objects for native peoples is one of those new roles. That i believe really is the influence of the National Museum of the American Indian and of the repatriation law, that the care of these items is no longer about their preservation as a National Heritage but rather that they should be cared for in collaboration and according to the instructions of indigenous communities in the United States and elsewhere. And what nagpra, what the nmai act has done, far from leading to the purging of these incredible collections that do exist in many places in the United States, rather than leading to the purging of collections, it has led us to a new collaborative care for these collections where native communities really have, as rick suggested, the authority to require that these things be handled in the manner that they described. So, it has been in some respects, a very quiet but an extraordinarily important revolution in how museums understand their responsibilities for native american collections, and that is to the credit for the people who worked for and the people who voted for the National Museum of the American Indian act. With that, i will pass it on to brenda. May i ask you a couple of questions . Sure. I think that obviously traditional care is one of the unanticipated but beneficial outcomes of this legislation and the increased collaboration. Can you think of some other indirect benefits that the things that are not necessarily prescribed by the law but have come about as a result of the law . The collaboration between museums and native communities is not limited to conservation care, but rather pertains to the whole other representation and research of museums about native americans past and present. The change in that relationship between the indians and a museum goes beyond the collections and all the way to the research, the publication, certainly the exhibitions that museums do about indians. So i recently read an article that said that repatriation has resulted in a wider distribution of information regarding collections, a richer understanding of cultural diversity, a closer relationship among all affected parties, and a reduction in trafficking of trafficking of cultural material. Do you agree . I do. I know probably the least about that last assertion concerning the trafficking of the material. But my anecdotal experiences are that collectors are extremely careful in the transfer of these materials, at least in the United States. Less so, obviously, in europe. You know, one of the important elements it is not just about the transfer of authority to tribes to control how these materials are worked with. But the, perhaps in an anticipated benefit is that the and unanticipated benefit is that the museums are learning more about their collections because of this new relationship. And so, when we host a tribal delegation at the nmai to look at the collections for repatriation purposes, the real benefit is to us because, aside from repatriation, we learn a great deal about the other objects in the collection fro mtm the communities themselves. From the communities themselves. We learn a great deal about the other objects in the collection fro mtm the communities themselves. They end up teaching us about what is in the collection. And that is to the good, obviously, of the museum. And i guess my last question is to look into the future and ask you what you think will be left to be done 25 years from now on repatriation, or do you think it will all be resolved by then . I think we heard something earlier today about how it is never over. I think certainly the pace will slow in terms of the items that are being returned, the number of requests that are being received. Lets acknowledge that there are some holdout institutions out there that probably are not making the effort they should to return the items that are subject to repatriation, but on the whole, i think the major controversy around repatriation and this relationship between the tribes and museums will be again what rick was describing earlier when he quoted elaine, saying that i predict we will not be able to recreate what all the fuss was about. I think that is right. 25 years from now, when a whole new generation of to readers and Museum Professionals that are working with this material, they might well laugh a little at the agony that the museums went through in making these decisions and that we found so difficult, i think that those decisions will be stunningly easy in future generations. Great. Thank you very much. Brenda . Would you like to . I currently serve as the repatriation chair for the board of trustees here at the National Museum of the American Indian. On behalf of the board and the committee, i want to say thank you for joining us today to learn a little bit more about the work that we do here, the work that we feel as a committee and as the trustees is the most important work that we do. We serve as an advisory capacity to this institution, but beyond that, it is our sole Statutory Authority to govern repatriation. And in order to do that and how we do that, we establish the policies and procedures that the museum staff follow in order to help us identify the objects in our collections that are eligible for repatriation. We also work with tribes to help them financially come in and review some of the objects that have been identified as being culturally associated to them. We are a True Partnership here at the museum. The board of trustees and the repatriation staff. The board of trustees, were currently made up of 18 of 28 are native members. We have six members who are all native currently on the board. Our patientaryation staff, we have four researchers and three professional staff. One of our Biggest Challenges is that we are all very were still very frustrated by the fact that we do have human remains in our collection yet. We do not want our human remains of our ancestors to be in the possession of any museum including our own. To that end, over the last 25 years, we have the board of trustees have actually been trying to develop policies and procedures that have formed the work we do today. Some of the major policy decisions youve heard about a couple of them youve already heard about today and that is the decision by the board of trustees to institute the reasonable man standard for repatriation. We decided early on that instead of waiting for tribes to come to us to claim the items we inventoried and distributed to the tribes back when the act was passed that we would take a proactive we would take proactive steps to do the Research Required to do the repatriation of human remains. And thats for the first up until 2000. So between 1991 and 2000, the sole focus of our committee and the museum was on the repatriation of those human remains. Kevin talked a little about the fact that we had human remains but they werent returned yet. We are still working on identifying who the appropriate parties are because one of the challenges we were running into is that just like today native peoples arent just representative of one tribe. There may be multiple tribal affiliations. Then wed have to work with tribes to determine who the appropriate party is to make those returns. Weve also in the year 2000 one of the things that we did which has slowed down the repatriation of human remains was that we decided as a board to be responsive to tribes who were coming to us and saying, we have other priorities right now. Its important that we have the return of human remains, but given the resources, given where we are, given the age of some of our elders, we need you, the museum, you, the board of trustees, to accept our claim and to put them in accept our claims for objects that of cultural patrimony, to accept our claims for sacred objects that we need today in order to help us, in order to help us continue to be who we are as a people. The board made that decision. So there was a period of time where with our limited staff we were not doing any work on repatriating human remains and the sole focus was on actual claims by tribes for sacred objects, and unassociated funeral remains. Thats important work, too. But in a Perfect World we wouldnt have to make the decision between those two larger categories, between our ancestors and our objects. But thats the reality of where we are and that is one of the things that we continue to strug gle with. 25 years after the passage of the act, no one who was involved at the beginning thought we would still have human remains in our collection. But we do. And we continue to work hard to remedy that fact. One of the things suzanne touched on earlier and that was the fact that when they laid out the legislation, that they purposely did not define what a sacred object was. I think that is one of the important actions that the board of trustees continues to make. That is we continue to refuse to define what a sacred object is. Now, that creates a lot of confusion and a lot of ancient angstt, if you will sometimes with our researchers. Because as a researcher they like to have the parameters laid out. We cant do that. So if we as we continue Going Forward and as tribes continue to make claims for sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony, were going to continue Going Forward with shades of gray when it comes to working with our researchers. In terms of the way this Partnership Works is that as a claim comes in or let me back up. We have four researchers and of those we have two that are working on repatriation claims of human remains. The other two focus solely on tribal claims of sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony as well as unaffiliated funerary objects. So we have parallel tracts in which the research is the same. Its just how those claims are initiated that are different. The researchers do their work and then they write a report. And then those reports are sent up through the museum for a curatorial review. At that point they come to us, they come to the board. And the committee it is our responsibility to sit down and work individually with those researchers to parce and analyze the report and look at the evidence that they have found in working with either their, you know, in books or with tribes and looking at tribal evidence and making sure that everything is given equal weight. And through this process, we, as a board of trustees, we retain that Decision Making authority because we dont necessarily always accept the Research Findings and the recommendations that may be made by our staff. We send them back to the drawing board. We say, you know, you may be lacking information. Or we need further tribal consultation on these you please, on this particular claim. And its okay. It works. This partnership that we have with the staff of the museum is a working partnership. Its not perfect. But its something that it is something that i think the when the legislation was created i think that it is a framework that we have been able to successfully implement. One of the other initiatives we have been working o know and one of the other initiatives we have been working on and that weve done tribal consultation on is the category of remains that are considered culturally unaffiliated. Right now we have a body. We have im sorry right now we have human remains that are culturally unaffiliated and all we know as a board of trustees is that we have to take action on those. Action was taken in the early years in 1991. There was a reburial done. What we want to do now is we are in the process of weve done some tribal consultation and we need to establish procedures and protocols for the proper burial of tribal remains. If i can just follow up with a question about the culturally unaffiliated remains, i know some the regulations dont apply to the smithsonian but we often look to those to guide us in areas where we, ourselves havent fully fleshed out the policy. There are those who criticize that it took 20 plus years to get those regulations and and there are those who criticize them saying that in the, to the extent the regulations compel repatriation at some point of all human remains, that that could be contrary to the interests of native people to the extent that in the haste to return the remains there may be a lost opportunity to spend the time, consult with the tribe and potentially figure out a cultural affiliation to return them to a specific tribe rather than to a general area or to a group of tribes. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that and whether you think that criticism is valid or unfounded. Well, it depends on we have been very careful here at the museum, and in our collection we have two different categories of unknown. We have those that are culturally that are literally culturally unknown. We have no records. We have no information in regard to where they come from, how they were obtained. There is we dont have anything short of, you know, possible scientific testing and that is not an area that we will ever as far as i hope that we never resort to. We do not in regard to that particular narrow category there isnt theyve been with us for 25 years and over that course of 25 years, no new information has come to light. Now, we do have a category of culturally theyre called culturally unassociated im sorry. Yeah. Culturally unassociated unknowns. This means that we dont know their specific we dont know from which specific tribe they come from but we do have some Information Available that tells us that they may have come out of a specific mound or they may have come from a specific region in the United States. And were not talking about reburying those remains at this point, because we do have information Still Available and we are going to continue to do the research and to consult with tribes. You know, if we know that they are remains that came out of you know, the southwest, then our researchers and our professional staff, they do, and they have in the past and they will continue to consult with tribes who have historically come out of that region. And then we will work with those tribes to help them identify among themselves who should take responsibility for those remains. So in terms of, are we doing a disservice by not continuing to hold them . No. I think the greater disservice when we dont have any information is to think that we have some right to them. They are just because of human error in terms of not keeping adequate records that doesnt mean we need to keep them in our collections forever. They need to be properly returned to the earth. So i guess for better or worse the repatriation process by law is a claims driven process. And so it generally requires somebody to come forward and a claimant and then they have to establish that the material that theyre looking forfeits the category thats eligible for repatriation and then the person or tribe has to establish cultural affiliation. And so and each step of that process theres some evidence that needs to be provided in order for the board in the case of nmai to satisfy its fiduciary obligations to make sure it is giving back objects it should be giving back under the act. So i guess in that respect if you were giving advice to a tribe that wanted to submit a claim and they had a sacred object for example that they wanted returned but they didnt feel that they should have to establish that it was sacred that they felt they should just be able to say it is, how would you advise that tribe to submit their claims . What we would do is we would work with the tribe to we have to, first of all, help the tribe and, well, it is our responsibility to help guide the tribe in putting together a claim. And what we ask them to do is to provide us with as much information as possible and that we are we are willing to and routinely keep information that is private things that they we need as much information as the tribe is willing to share so that we can establish providence for that particular item and the use. And i know its we heard from suzanne earlier that it should always be its sacred because we say it is. But we have a fiduciary responsibility over the items in our collection and it is a it will come down to a decision by the board to, you know, analyze the information that the tribe is willing to share. I really struggle with this, to talk about it, because we have claims for sacred objects and it is a casebycase basis. There are no criteria. I cant say if you do x, y, and z then you will be given a favorable decision on your repatriation request. There really are no parameters beyond the undefined definition of sacred object in our policy. And what we have added to the actual definition so that there wouldnt be any confusion is that under our policy, we say objects needed by native american religious leaders for practice of native American Religion and that includes objects needed for the repule of religious practice because renewal of religious practice. Oftentimes you hear other side say, well, if its not an ongoing religion, then its not if you dont need it for the practice of a current religion that is currently being practiced, then is it still a sacred object or is it an object of cultural patrimony . And we wanted to make sure that, you know, tribes have the ability to request their items that they belong that belong to them that they need to bring back a religious practice if thats what they choose to do. And this whole area of sacred area of sacred objects is something that we struggle with. We struggle with it as a committee every time we get a claim. Thank you very much. Jonathan . Okay. My name is jonathan coddington. For the past five years, ive been the associate director for science at the museum of Natural History. Im here in lieu of kirk johnson who is the director and otherwise would be sitting in this seat. He is in bhutan and couldnt make it today. But id like to start with ive done that job for five years. And my background professionally is about as far from repatriation as you could get. Im actually a tropical biologist and when i took this job five years ago i knew it was going to be a diverse job, but the for example the National Museum of Natural History has over 95 of all objects the smithsonian owns. At any one time there are about 400 scientists there. Since 1846 they published 55,000 publications that have been cited over a million times. For generations its a place that has prided itself on its contributions. There is no place on earth like it. But then i found out that i was also going to become essentially the daytoday liaison to the repatriation process. Id have to say id like to thank all of the current and former members of the Repatriation Review Committee. Bonnie and other people in the audience as well as kevin and other people because obviously its not obvious. I dont actually know what im talking about. [laughter] right . And there was nothing that was as disturbing as repatriation. I mean, in a job that big, you can imagine the kind of things that come over your desk. Nothing was to me as serious as repatriation. So just to start off with that the other thing that struck me was the mission of the National Museum of Natural History is to understand the Natural World and our place in it. And when i first started interacting with repatriation i thought to myself, well there it is. Youve got this Scientific Museum that wants to understand the Natural World. Of course we review humans as being part of the Natural World. But our place in it. And between those two points of view lies the subject of repatriation midway. And i mean another joke is that the difference between history and science runs right to the middle of every Anthropology Department in the country. That was another thing. That within the department of anthropology there would be sort of two points of view. The repatientary ax act that governs us says that we will use the best available scientific and historical evidence to settle repatriation claims. That is certainly the mission of our Repatriation Office. And they do a lot. Every one of their repatriation reports of which there have been 140, are themselves admirable, scholarly contributions that make original contributions to the history of native americans. For example, take all of the stuff thats been written about sitting bull, for example. Many books, many thousands of words. It was our office that found out, this is just a factoid, but after his death an army doctor removed a lock of sitting bulls hair. So in doing these repatriation reports, our staff finds things out about history and documents things that happened in the history of native americans and native alaskans and hawaiians that nobody knew before. So were proud of that. Probably because onehalf of our brain is science we really want to get it right. We dont want to make any mistakes. We dont want to hastily affiliate objects incorrectly with the wrong tribe. We dont want to admit defeat. We, for example, dont think that theres such a thing as an unaffiliated set of human remains. Sometime in the future well figure it out. That is sort of the scientist in us speaking. But to speak to some of the numbers also which kevin also referred to from the point of view, the American Indian museum, we do have about 19,000 sets of native american remains. And just, you know, being part of the current generation of people in that museum its been around since 1846, so i think we should all remember that we are just the latest in a rolling set of people who are going to have to deal with these things. Of those 19,000 weve repatriated 6,000 sets of human remains. So about onethird. We hope to repatriate all of them. About 218,000 funerary objects 55 sacred objects offered for repatriation, and thats far more than we have the largest native american, hawaiian, alaskan collections in the country by far. So its appropriate that we would have done more repatriations on a quantitative basis than anybody else. But, still, we are proud to have engaged with this process to the extent that we have. We actually meet with about 30 tribes a year. We have over a thousand interactions with them, with all the federally appropriated tribes. Thats just some of the facts about the appropriation process. Our sorry our repatriation process did actually start before the law. We were already repatriating things, particularly named individuals, prior to this. So were pretty dedicated to the whole idea of repatriation. I would also say there is a change in the scientific generation. Its true much of what suzanne said or patricia said about the relations between scientists and native americans in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s is indisputeable, but this is 2014. The opinion in the Scientific Community has shifted dramatically. The arguments about a lot of this are over. Its just a question of kind of getting through the process. Lets see. So weve done we had 17 claims prior to 1989, which was the first time we were covered by law. Weve done 113 repatriations so far done, sealed, and delivered. We have eight ongoing at the moment. Current claims. Our office, although one of the largest in the country devoted to repatriation, their job is to handle the claims that are on the desk at the moment. Taking your eyeball off those eight claims and doing say proactive repatriation of the other 13,000 sets of human remains would be disrespectful to the people who have asked for consideration of claims. So about 113 of those out of about 140 are done. Eight are in process. Its interesting that the difference between that often has to do with the ability of tribes to respond to a repatriation decision, so we the museum or the Repatriation Office can say, youre right. These have to go back. But tribes have many other priorities. And so about two dozen claims are waiting on responses from the community to which they were repatriated. So thats repatriation in the past. Id like to turn a little bit to repatriation in the future. Certainly when i took over this job and i watched how the Repatriation Review Committee interacted with the other scientists in the museum it was sort of like i thought, you know, we should channel joan rivers. Like, lets talk. And thats when i spent five years actually personally trying to increase the amount of repatriation wants to consult with tribes but just with the committee, for example, i institute a procedural peer review so the Committee Reviews all of the repatriation documents in draft. As much as possible, you are getting a point of view before anything is acted on, signed sealed, delivered. Thats why there have only been two cases that have been sort of serious disagreements between the two. But looking at the future, i want to mention that the museum also has a program called recovering voices to which nmai is also a partner and its devoted to the preservation and the restitution of endangered languages and endangered knowledge. Thats the way we think of Going Forward. And when you think about that challenge, theres roughly 6,000 languages on earth to say nothing of the knowledge associated with that language. Each one of those is an independent instance of what it means to be human. So that program is also based on objects. We see it as tribes or other indigenous communities coming in, seeing their own Cultural Heritage in the museum, and then using that to actually recover their own knowledge and language. My favorite anecdote for that was an elder who came in and we had an object that was probably labeled as ceremonial object. And she saw that and then went off into this string of description about what that object meant in her native language, using vocabulary nobody had ever heard about telling stories about traditions that nobody knew about. I think that is one of the values of the Museum Collection, yet, isnt it so interesting repatriation is also about that Museum Collection . So looking into the future there are a couple other ways that some of these controversies could be settled. One is 3d digital printing. So thats where you can take an object, scan it using light, and then produce an essentially identical object. Its in plastic, but its a duplicate. Our biggest success with that was with the tinglit clan leaders in alaska they asked for a replica of a killer whale hat and they wanted a copy in order to be able to teach their young people about this. That hat in particular was in good enough shape that of course we patriated the hat and they were able to dance the class again. A big plus for them. We had other objects that you couldnt dance. They were too fragile. Were talking to those communities to see whether it doesnt have to be plastic. The original wood was probably cedar. We could make a duplicate hat out of cedar and they could use it even to, in whatever way they wanted to. So there are a couple of sort of futuristic compromises i think that may make some of these issues more easier to compromise about, easier to settle with. I guess, you know, the last thing to say perhaps about International Repatriation since thats come up, the National Museum of Natural History does do International Repatriation. We just dont call them repatriation. Because we have a Repatriation Office thats governed by National Federal law. We sort of honor International Repatriation in the breach by saying, come to us. Talk to us. What would you like . Lets see if we can work it out. And weve done two International Repatriations so far. One to australia and another one, i think still under way in new zealand or maybe thats one done. So thank you. Thank you, jonathan. Weve mentioned that there have only been two appeals heard by the review committee. But in one of those the review Committee Recommended the return but the smithsonian decided not to return the materials. After several reviews and levels of appeal. Without getting into the specifics of that case, i guess i would like you to comment on how much weight the smithsonian and in particular Natural History gives to the recommendations of the review committee. Well a lot. I spent five years trying to make the committee as happy as possible. They do settle most of those cases, both of those you mention were before my time and i know each of them had a lot of factual difficulty with them. Thats why we have a Repatriation Committee to help us do that. To the extent any of us have to be involved in an appeal is probably evidence that the lets talk model failed somewhere along the line. It may be the case that there really irreconcileable differences. Our standard is best available. That almost never happens. My experience is there is usually a way through this. I might also say that another service that we provide is with respect to the ability of a community to take a fragile object and care for it appropriately that in four or five cases what happens in a case like that is the objects are repatriated and belong to the tribe. The tribe can do whatever they want. In a couple cases theyve decided they would like the museum to ask to operate as a repository for them. Thats something we provide in perpetuity were in the forever business. The other thing id like to say is we also have a Grant Program that brings roughly 30 tribes in to consult in a sort of proactive way, which is over the years has given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and build these bridges. This question was submitted by someone maybe here in the room or in advance of the symposium. Asking whether with the consent of a tribe the smithsonian would ever consider doing any kind of dna sampling and analysis prior to repatriation in order to better understand diseases for example that plagued native populations. Now, i know brenda commented that nmai would not necessarily consider that appropriate but we didnt ask the question to her but you may want to comment at some point as to if a tribe tribe actually consented and or asked for it is that something nmai would consider or Natural History . If you both want to tackle that one. If a tribe made that request its something that the board of trustees would have to consider and weigh and give a decision on. Im not in any position as an individual member to have a real opinion on that. I mean, we would definitely take the request seriously under advisement. We would. There is a science side to our brains so genomics and dna is a powerful tool in all kinds of pushing back ignorance in various ways. But i dont think we would ever do it without consulting with the tribes as to whether it was i think an open question if you want to get it right. I am transitioning into a job something called the director of the Global Genome Initiative so i know something about it. There are issues of unaffiliated human remains to be settled this way. As you all know there is a large and growing field thats forensic use of dna to answer tough questions. So who knows . We are not ready for it yet, i dont think, but technically it is a possibility. Thank you very much. Bonnie . Good morning, everyone. [speaking in foreign language] it is really good to be here today. As mentioned, i am a member of or a citizen of the pinopscot nation and we are indigenous to maine. I am a member of the fisher clan and i was nominated to sit on this committee by my tribal chief and council. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge them publicly. Im deeply appreciative of their confidence in my abilities to carry out this work. Im also deeply honored to have been selected to serve. Id like to start with the story and i share and it helps put my approach to repatriation into perspective. When i was a young student attending the university of maine i took part in my first repatriation event. This is in the early years and through the good work of some dedicated individuals our tribe was able to arrange for repatriation of several ancestors from regional institutions. One day, i was approached by one of our elders and invited to help prepare for the reburial ceremony. I welcome the opportunity and agreed to help. In my role in this it was to take notice door to door to Community Members and let them know when and where the reburial ceremony would take place. I will admit at the time i was hoping for a task that was a little less mundane. After a couple decades reflecting on that experience what ive come to realize is that it was a very wise thing for that elder to have me do because by going door to door and talking to people, most of whom were not active in repatriation, i was exposed to the power of repatriation in inspiring hope in our communities because when the repatriation process works people see that the wrongs of the past can be reconciled. Thats a very powerful thing. I believe as indian people our hope and strength are intertwined and we need both to survive. In a nutshell i do this work because it helps to heal our communities. With that, id like to turn to the work of the Repatriation Review Committee of which im chair. Ive been on the committee since 2011 and was appointed as chair last year. What i plan to do today is provide you with some Background Information on our committee our charge, our membership, our responsibilities, and then ill touch on some of the rewards and challenges to serving on this committee. So by way of background, the smithsonians Repatriation Review Committee was established by congress in 1990 under the nmai act. It was initially charged with monitoring and reviewing the inventory, identification, and return of human remains and funerary objects. Originally in the 1989 nmai act did not address sacred objects and objects as cultural patrimony but this changed in 1996 when the act was amended. At that time the committees responsibility expanded to include those additional categories of material culture. The committee is advisory to the smithsonian and our responsibilities are very similar to those of the review committee. As outlined in the act, you have it there, we have four primary functions. The first is respect to the inventory and identification process. We work to ensure Fair Assessment and consideration of all relevant evidence. We also upon request of an affected party or otherwise review any findings relating to the origin or return of human remains and cultural objects. We facilitate the resolution of any dispute that may arise between Indian Tribes with respect to return of human remains or objects. Then we have a catchall function which is to kind of perform any other related functions as the secretary of the smithsonian may assign. Originally the committee consisted of five members which the smithsonian selected from nominations from around the country. In putting together this original committee the smithsonian sent out over 1500 letters to native american tribes and organizations and 62 were committed. The first group served for 15 years and made considerable contributions in the development of policies and procedures at the smithsonian. One notable action taken early on by this committee was to earmark funds for travel grants to support tribes with repatriation activities. This provides support for tribal members to travel to the smithsonian to help facilitation the repatriation process. The committee has continued to administer Financial Support for these activities and over the years its been an important component in not only carrying out our repatriation mandate but it also serves to foster positive relationships between the museum and tribal communities. To date, 157 tribes have received travel grants to support repatriation efforts at the smithsonian. This amounts to roughly 480,000 in total funds awarded to tribes over the last 25 years. Today the committee consists of seven members. Four members are drawn from nominations by Indian Tribes and native american organizations. Currently, those members include myself, walt lara, Darlene Miller of the seneca nation, dr. Ian thompson of the choctaw nation and three members are selected from nominations made by museums and scientific organizations. These current members are dr. Shelby of the autry center in los angeles, dr. Jane vixtra at Arizona State and jane will be terming off in december and we will be looking to fill her position. And dr. Timothy pertula manager of archeological Environmental Consultants out of austin, texas. Two of our members must be traditional indian religious leaders. This category of membership was added in 1996 when the amendment to the act occurred. So in carrying out our responsibilities, we work very closely with the Repatriation Office at the Natural History museum. Currently the staff includes seven individuals. There is a Program Manager responsible for program nominations. Program manager responsible for program operations. We have four case officers who work directly on repatriation claims through tribal consultation, researching cases and documenting cultural affiliation evidence. There are two support staff. We have a Museum Specialist assigned to the laboratory and coordinator for our committee. I will say that this group is a group of top notch individuals who care deeply about repatriation in their work with the community. The Committee Meets at least two times a year and once a year the Committee Member conducts what is called monitoring visits. We take these opportunities to review the work of the staff meet with the director of Natural History and we also meet with the chair of Anthropology Departments. We discuss issues or concerns that may come up through the year and conduct General Committee business at that time. As a committee we sometimes use our advisory role to effect change at the smithsonian. One recent example occurred within the realm of Repatriation Office staffing. Because repatriation work was originally perceived as finite or having an end point, which we all hope it will, some of the case officer positions at the museum were term positions or temporary. Jonathan was very helpful in this. Our committee viewed that situation as problematic because theyd start working on a case and be faced with an Employment Period coming to an end. We viewed this as very disruptive not only to the repatriation process but also the relationships developed between the smithsonian staff and tribal Community Members. As a committee we were able to advocate for that change and now the staffing in the Repatriation Office has more stability. Though it may seem like a small change we believe it will improve the overall efficiency of the repatriation process. Throughout the year we also review and comment on all case reports generated through repatriation claims. Its during this process that we examine evidence used to determine cultural affiliation. We also review the methods and criteria used to determine that cultural affiliation. We examine the qualifications of and methods and criteria used by any outside experts who were consulted on the case. Currently, our committee is in the process of establishing a more structured work plan. Were in the very early stages of establishing some goals and priorities for what we would like to see happen at the smithsonian with respect to repatriation over the next few years. Part of this work is identifying what we as a committee can do to help the Repatriation Office accomplish their mission. As far as challenges go, its been my experience that the challenges we face as a committee are far out numbered by the positive aspects of our work. However, challenges do exist and, of course, some of those challenges center on things like uncertainties in federal funding, maintaining adequate staffing levels, and the enormity of the work load at the museum. But what i view as a real challenge is our advisory status. Here ill venture more into my own personal views and not necessarily the committees. I think its important to point out that our committee does not have Decision Making authority when it comes to repatriation decisions. And those decisions rest solely with the institution. It can be very frustrating as a Committee Member to work within a system in which you have limited power over the process , but you do have influence. In my opinion this is reflective of a larger problem relative to repatriation in this country. While the laws acknowledge the rights of indian people and provide a process for tribes to assume care and responsibility of their Cultural Heritage at the end of the day its the institutional leadership that holds the power and Decision Making authority over the collections. It would seem to me a more equitable process would incorporate a more balanced approach to Decision Making. While challenges exist it is important to recognize there are many positive aspects to serving on this committee. For me, the rewards are associated well, they fall into two primary arenas. I truly value the opportunity to be part of a process that reconnects people with their relatives and to their homelands. To date, 6,007 individuals have been culturally affiliated through the work of the Repatriation Office. It has been made available for repatriation. While a lot of work remains to be done, it is a significant accomplishment and one that should not go unrecognized. Second, much of what ive seen during my time on the committee is a sincere effort by the staff to work toward developing good relationships with tribes, efforts such as creating a ceremonial space for tribal people and observing tribal protocol around the handling of the culture, and good practices in tribal engagement. I think the staff works very hard to serve tribal people well and it is very rewarding to see what can be achieved at an institution if they acknowledge their role in improving relationships between tribes and museums. I will admit disagreements have and will continue to occur but by and large the tribal voice is more prominent within the museum than it was 25 years ago. Im confident that trend will continue as we move forward through the next couple decades. Our committee is dedicated to the repatriation process. As a young woman delivering those flyers two decades ago, i never imagined i would be serving tribal and Museum Communities in this way. Its not always easy work. There are some days where i welcome the opportunity to go door to door and talk with people about repatriation. Needless to say, im extremely grateful for the opportunity to help facilitate the repatriation process at the museum. Again, i think its because its a really important part of the healing process for our tribal communities. In closing, i just want to take this opportunity to put in a plug and encourage tribes to reach out to the staff at the Repatriation Office to learn more about the collections and the repatriation process particularly if you have never interacted with the office before. Tribal claims are an important part of the process and the staffing and our committee encourages tribal members to visit the museum and consult with them about the collections. And for more information, the website is anthropology. Si. Edu. I encourage you to reach out to them. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak here today. I look forward to seeing what can be accomplished in the next 25 years. [applause] thank you so much. Weve got about three minutes left. I just want to follow up actually asking you about the same question i asked jonathan to get your perspective on the question of how much weight and respect you feel that the smithsonian gives to the review committee. I realize this relates to your comment about whether the review committee should be more than advisory. But, generally, what is your observation . Well, its been my experience that theyre generally very good. I think that we work well with the committee but i do think there is some work to be done. I think we need to have more of a dialogue about our role as a committee. What i fear is that Committee Members may not feel that their work is meaningful, and if that happens, then, you know, well have challenges keeping good people, so i believe that we need to work on that a bit, i think. Great. Thank you. Im sorry that were not going to have time to take questions in the audience and im sure all of you are ready for lunch. I guess i want to say in closing i want to thank each of the panelists immensely for their very thoughtful comments. Weve come a very long way from those early days that suzanne described this morning and especially since the enactment of the nmai act in 1989. We owe a great deal of gratitude to everyone whos been involved the legislators, legislative staff, museum staff, Board Members, advisory members, the staff who have been helpful to us over the years as well, and of course perhaps first and foremost to the tribes who have entered this process with us and we really have achieved so many successes in these past 25 years. I just want to say thanks to everybody here and beyond and i hope youll join me in a big round of applause for our panelists. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the cspan network. On cspan 2 at 10 00, on afterwords, wall street journal editor Bret Stephens argues our enemies and can editors are taking advantage of the situation abroad created by the u. S. As it focuses on domestic concerns. Sunday night at 10 00 representative from new york steve israel about a topsecret government surveillance program. On American History tv on cspan 3 at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, George Mason University Professor John turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west. Sunday afternoon at 4 00 on reel america, nine from little rock. The film about the forced desegregation about little rock allwhite segregated school. Call us about what you are thinking. Send us a tweet. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. Tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. It includes the gop response by newly elected senator joni ernst. On cspan two, watch the speech and congressional reaction from statuary hall. The state of the Union History bookshelf features popular American History writers on eras every weekend at this time. Next is a son of Martin Luther king jr. He recounts his upbringing and life after his fathers assassination. He stresses the importance of honoring