Transcripts For CSPAN3 Smithsonian Return Of Native American Remains 20150110

The creation of nmai. The last panel was a walk down memory lane because i intended attended 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 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 , National Museum of the American Indian. A citizen of the eastern band of cherokee indians and the chair of the repatriation of native americans board of trustees. Jonathan coddington a senior , scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. And bonnie newsom, a citizen of the 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. Please reviewsw those at your convenience 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 move it to dallas, texas. When that failed, the foundation initiated discussions with then secretary robert adams to transfer the collections to this institution. And as you heard also during that previous panel, that effort with senator inouyes efforts resulted in the act of 1989. It did two things. It 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 museum voluntarily repatriated remains of named native american individuals to descendents. It was really only with the passage of the nmai act that repatriation of certain native american materials became a legal as well as moral imperative. 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 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 not subject. 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. The problem was nagpra was broader in scope. It 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 and 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. The next and more difficult question is why are two easy two museums the have paralleled the different procedures for handling repatriation . We have to look at the nature of the smithsonian and the nmai act. Although the smithsonian is a single legal entity that 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 collected 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 the biggest difference is the role of the smithsonians repatriation committee. It overseas repatriation and disputes only at the museum of Natural History. 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 the museum must return them. From the beginning, this museum, the museum of the American Indian, adopted a standard of reasonable based standard which is more lenient than a hundreds preponderance of the evidence, and that might result in repatriations that this museum might 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 communities 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 does not generally honor claims of international or state recognized tribes. As you heard this morning, it is this museum will repatriate those internationally and state tribes. There are some other differences as well. You will probably hear about them 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 takeover. 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 return. 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 acquired 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 always know to whom they should be returned. 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. And several indian nations have offered their good offices to assist us in that and provide a final resting place for these remains. Since 1991, the nmai has returned 549 human remains nearly 30,000 feet area objects. Funiary objects. Another 1045 sacred objects, 19 objects of cultural patrimony 340 items that were sacred and objects of cultural patrimony. And 31 items that we determined were unethically acquired. We still 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 few years ago, 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 neglect, but also interpreted as a sign that things are going pretty well. I think that was the case. The repatriation 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 has petitioned for repatriation. 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 ricks speech this morning. Ive often had some of those thoughts, perhaps not quite so elegantly. Eloquently 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 the lee 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 pawnee 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 dramatically. Gaylord reports an email from jonathan hoss, former curator of north american ethnography at the field museum. Mr. Hoss said, during our discussions with the pawnie, we cpawnee, we agreed to rewrap the bundles. Over the next several weeks, i rewrapped all of the sacred bundles including the meteorite bundle that contained the star bundle. It was one of the most difficult things i have had to do at a as a curator. At the time, it was agreed that the bundles would never again be unwrapped unless they were repatriated to the ponawnee 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 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 if they cannot be displayed or researched . My response is that the 21st century is bringing us new kinds of cure ration 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 part of the 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 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. I will pass it on to brenda. May i ask you a couple of questions . Sure. I think 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 . Sure. 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 ezines do 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 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 perhaps 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 from 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 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, we are made up of 18 of 23 native members. The repeat Creation Committee has six members that are native currently on the board. The repeat trees and staff we have four researchers and three professional staff. One of our Biggest Challenges is that we are all still frustrated by the fact we do have human remains in our collection. 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, the board of trustees have been trying to develop the policies and procedures that inform the work we do today. Some of the major policy decisions you have heard about today, the decision by the board of trustees to institute the reasonable standard for repatriation. We also decided early on that instead of waiting for tribes to come to us to claim the items we inventoried and distributed to the tribes when the act was passed, that we would take a proactive we take proactive steps to do the Research Required to do the repatriation of human remains. Between 1991 and 2000, the sole focus of our committee and the museum was on the repatriation of human remains. Kevin talked about the fact we do sessions deassessioned remains not returned yet. We are still working on finding the appropriate parties. One of the challenges we are running into is that just like today, native peoples are not just representative of one tribe. There may be multiple tribal affiliations. We would have to work with tribes to determine who the appropriate party is to make there was returns. To make those returns. In 2000, one of the things we did which has slowed down the repatriation of human remains was we decided as a board to be responsive to tribes coming to us saying we have other priorities right now. It is important we have the return of human remains but given the resources, given where we are and the age of some of our elders, we need you, the museum, the board of trustees, to accept our claims and put them to accept our claims for objects of cultural patrimony to accept our claims for sacred objects that we need today in order to help us continue to be who we are as a people. The board made that decision. There was a time where with our limited staff we were not doing any work on repatriating human remains. The sole focus was on actual claims by tribes for sacred objects,. That is important work too. In a Perfect World he would not have to make the decision between those larger categories, between our ancestors and our objects. But that is a reality of where we are. That is one of the things we continue to struggle 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 collections, but we do. And we continue to work hard in order to remedy that fact. One of the things suzanne touched on earlier was the fact that when they laid out the legislation, they purposely did not define what a sacred object was. I think that is one of the important actions the board of trustees continues to make. We continue to refuse to define what a sacred object is. That creates a lot of confusion and angst sometimes with our researchers because as a researcher, they like to have the parameters laid out. We cant do that. As we continue Going Forward and as tribes continue to make claims for sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony we are going to continue Going Forward with shades of gray when it comes to working with our researchers. The way this Partnership Works is as a claim comes in, let me back up. We have four researchers. We have two working on repatriation claims of human remains. O focused solely on tribal claims of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony as well as unaffiliated scenery objects puny airy funeary objects. It is how the claims are initiated that is different. Researchers do their work and then they write a report. Those reports are sent through the museum for curatorial review. At that point, they come to us. To come to the board. The committee, it is our responsibility to sit down and work with the researchers to analyze the report and look at the evidence they have found in working with books or tribes and making sure everything is given equal weight. As the board of trustees, we retain the decisionmaking authority. We dont always accept the Research Findings and recommendations made by staff. We send them back to the drawing board. We say it may be lacking information or we need further tribal consultation on this particular claim. It is ok. It works. This partnership with the staff of the museum is a working partnership. It is not perfect. It is something i think when the legislation was created, i think it was a framework we have been able to successfully implement. One of the other initiatives we have been working on and have done trouble consultation on is the category of remains considered culturally unaffiliated. Right now we have a body. Im sorry. [laughter] right now, we have human remains that are culturally unaffiliated. All we know as the board of trustees is we have to take action on those. Action was taken in the early years. In 1991, there was a reburial done. Now we are in the process we have been tribal consultation, and we need to establish procedures and protocols for the proper burial of travel remains tribal remains. If i can follow up with a question about culturally unaffiliated remains. The nagpa regulations dont apply to this with sony and. We often look to those to guide our cells we have not fully flushed out policy. There are those who have criticized the 20 plus years to get the regulations. There are those who have criticized them saying 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 tribes, and potentially figure out a cultural affiliation to return them to a specific tribe rather than to a general area or group of tribes. I just wonder what your thoughts are on that and whether you think that criticism is valid or unfounded. It depends on we have been very careful at the museum. In our collection, we have two different categories of unknown. We have those that are literally, culturally unknown. We have no records. We have no information in regard to where they come from, how they were obtained. We dont have anything short of possible scientific testing. That is not an area we will ever im concerned. I hope we never resort to. In regard in regard to that narrow category tthey have been with us for 25 years. Over the course of 25 years, no new information has come to light. We do have a category of culturally they are called culturally unassociated no, im sorry yeah, culturally unassociated unknowns. That means we do not know from which specific tried they come from, but we do have some Information Available that tells us that they may have come out of a specific region of the United States. Were not talking about repairing those cremated remains at this point. We will continue to do the research, and consult with tribes. If we know that they are remains a came out of the southwest oour researchers, and professional staff, they do, and they have, and will continue to consult with tribes they historically come out of that region. Then, we will work with those tribes to help them identify among themselves who should take responsibility for those remains. In terms of are we doing a disservice by not continuing to hold them no. I think the greater disservice is when we do not 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 does not mean we need to keep them in our collections forever. They need to be properly returned to the earth. So, for better or for worse, the repatriation project by law is a claims driven process. It generally involves someone to come forward the claimant. They have to establish that the materials they are looking for fits the category, that it is eligible for repatriation then, the tribe needs to establish cultural appropriation. In each step of that process, there is some evidence that needs to be pulled forward. In order to satisfy its judiciary selection. To make sure that it is giving back objects that need to be given back in the act. In that respect, if you are giving advice to a tribe that wanted to submit a claim, and they had a sacred object that they wanted return, but they felt that they did not need to establish that it was sacred, how would you advise that tribe . What we would do is we would work with the tribe to first of all, help the tribe. It is our responsibility to help guide the tribe in putting together a claim. What we asked them to do is to provide us with as much information as possible. We are willing to, and routinely, keep information is private. We need as much information that the tribe is willing to share. I know we heard from suzanne earlier it should always be sacred, because we say it is, but we do have a responsibility over the items in our collection. It is iit will come down to a decision by the board to analyze the information that the tribe is willing to share. I struggle with this talking about this we have claims for sacred objects, and it is a case by case basis. There are no criteria. I cannot say, do x, y, z, and you will get a favorable response. There really is no parameter beyond the undefined definition of sacred object in our policy. What we have added to the actual definition so that they would not be any confusion is that under our policy, we say that sacred objects are objects used by sacred native american leaders for the practice of religious traditions. You often hear the other side say, if it is not an ongoing religion, then it is not if you do not need it for the practice of the current religion, then is it still sacred object, or is it an object of cultural patrimony . We want to make sure that tribes have the ability to request their items that belong to them, that they need to bring back a religious practice, if thats what they choose to do. This whole area of sacred objects is something that we struggle with. We struggle with as a committee every time we get a claim. Thank you. Jonathan. My name is jonathan coddington. I would like to start i have done my job for five years my background professionally is about as far from capitulation that you could get im actually a biologist. When i took this job five years ago,i knew it would be a diverse job. Since 1846, over 55,000 publications have been published. There is no place on earth that is like this institution. Then i found out that i was also going to become essentially the day to day liaison for the repatriation process. I have to say i would like to thank all current and former members of the Repatriation Review Committee. As well as kevin, and other people. Obviously, i do not actually know what im talking about right . There was nothing that was as disturbing as repatriation. In a job that day, you can imagine the kinds of things to come over your desk. Nothing was as serious as repatriation. 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. When i first started interacting with repatriation, i thought, that is. You have the Scientific Museum that wants to understand the natural world. Of course, we understand the humans as being part of the natural world, and are place in it. Between those two, lies repatriation. That was another thing within the department of anthropology, there were these two points of views. They repatriation act that governs ups says that we will use the best scientific, and historical views in our claims. Everything they do in their repatriation reports, about 40, are admirable, scholarly contributions. For example, take all the stuff that has been written about sitting bull many books. It was our office that found out that after his death, an army doctor removed blocks of his hair. In doing these reports, our staff find out things about our history, and document things that happened in the history of native americans. We are proud of that. Probably because one half of our brain is science, we want to get it right. We do not want to make a mistake. We do not want to incorrectly affiliate objects with the wrong tribe. We do not want to admit to defeat. We do not think there is such a thing as unaffiliated remains. To speak to some of the numbers we have about 19,000 sets of native american remains. Just being a part of the current generation of people in the museum it has been around since 1846. I think we should remember that we are the latest in a rolling set of people who will have to deal at these things. Of those 19,000, we have repatriated 6000 about one third. We hope to repatriate all them. About 218,000 funerary objects. 55 figure objects offered for repatriation. That is far more than we have the largest native american, hawaiian, alaskan collection in the country, by far. It is aappropriate that we wouldve done more repatriations on a quantitative basis. We are proud to have engaged in this process to the extent that we have. We meet with about 30 tries per year. We have over 1000 interactions with them weve interacted with all federally recognized tribes. Those are just some facts about the appropriation process sorry, repatriation process. We are pretty dedicated to the whole idea of repatriation. I would also say that there is a change in the scientific generation. It is true that much of what suzanne said about the relationship between scientists and native americans it is indisputable. This is 2014. The scientific communitys opinion has shifted dramatically. A lot of the arguments about this are over, it is just a question of getting through the process. We have done wwe had 17 claims prior to 1989 the first time we were covered by law. We have done 113 repatriation so far done, sealed, delivered. We have a ongoing right now current claims. Our office, although one of the biggest in the country devoted to repatriation, their job is to handle the claims on the desk at the moment. Taking your eyeball off of those eight claims, and doing proactive repatriation would be disrespectful to the people who have asked for consideration of the claims. About 113 8 are in process. We, the museum, or the Repatriation Office, could say, yes, these have to go back. But, tribes have many other priorities. About two dozen claims are waiting on responses from the communities to which they were repatriated. That is prepaid trish and in the past. I would like to turn to repatriation in the future. Certainly, when i took over this job and i saw how this review committee interacted with other scientists in the museum i thought, we should channel joan rivers, lets talk. Thats what i spent five years trying to do trying to increase the amount of repatriation wants to consult with tribes. The Repatriation Review Committee reviews all of the repatriation documents and draft. As much as possible, you are getting a point of view from your review committee, before anything is at least signed, sealed, and delivered. That is why there have only been two cases in which there were serious disagreements. Looking to the future, i want to mention that the museum also has a program called the covering voices to which folklife is also a partner. It is focused on the restitution of endangered languages and endangered knowledge. That is the way we think about Going Forward. If you think about that challenge there are roughly 6000 linkages on earth. Each one of those is an independent instance of what it means to be human. That program is also based on objects. We see it as tribes, or other indigenous communities come in, seeing their own Cultural Heritage, and using that to recover their own knowledge and language. My favorite anecdote for that is an elder who came in. We had an object that was labeled probably as a ceremonial object. She saw that, and went off on this string of description of what that object had met in her own language, using vocabulary, entitled traditions that no one knew about. I think that is one of the values of the museum collection. And yet, is it so interesting that repatriation is also about that museum collection. Looking to the future, there are a couple of other ways that some of these controversies could be settled. One is 3 d digital printing. That is where you can take an object, scanning using light, and produce an essentially identical object in plastic, but a duplicate. Our biggest success with that was a clan in alaska had asked for a replica of a killer whale had. They wanted a copy in order to teach their use about this. Of course, we repatriated the hat. There are other half in our collection. We are talking to the communities it does not have to be plastic we could make a duplicate out of theater, and they could use it for any way that they see fit. There are some futuristic compromises that make these issues easier to compromise around. I guess the last things to say is about International Repatriations that have come up. We do do International Repatriations, we just do not call them repatriations. We have a Repatriation Office, and honor International Repatriations by saying, come to us, lets talk, we will see if we can work it out. We have done to International Repatriations one to australia, and one to new zealand. So, thank you. Thank you, jonathan. You mentioned that the headboard and two appeals heard by the review committee. In one of those, the review Committee Recommended the return to the smithsonian, and a desire not to return the materials. After several reviews, without getting into the specifics of that case, i would like you to comment on how much way and respect the smithsonian, in particular Natural History, gives to the recommendations of the review committee. A lot. I spent five years trying to make the review committee as happy as possible. They settle some of those cases both are you mentioned were before our time. I know that all of them had a lot of factual difficulties with them. That is why we have a Repatriation Review Committee to help us do that. I think to the extent that any of us have to be involved in the appeals is probably evidence that the lets talk model failed along the line. It may be the case that there are irreconcilable differences. Our standard is preponderance of evidence and scientific procedures. That almost never happens. In my experience, there is usually a way through this. I would also say another service that we provide is in 45 cases, what has happened in is the objects are repatriated, tribes can do whatever they want, but in some cases they decided they would like the museum to act as a repository for them. That is something that we provide. The other thing we also have a Grant Program that brings roughly 30 tribes and to consult with in a proactive way. Over the years, we have given away 100 of thousands of dollars to create is. This was a question submitted by someone in the room, or in advance of the symposium, whether, with the consent of the tribe, if you would consider doing dna analysis prior to repatriation to better understand diseases that have maybe plagued tribes. I know that brenda said that a. M. I would not necessarily consider the appropriate. But, if the tribe would consent to that, and asked for that, would ami consider that, or Natural History . If the tribe made that request, it is something that the board of trustees would have to consider, and weigh in on. Im not in any position as an individual member to have a real opinion on that. We would definitely take the request seriously under advisement. We would. There is a science side to our brains. Genomics and dna is a powerful tool of pushing back ignorance in several ways. I do not think we would ever do it without consulting the tribes. I think it is an open question if you want to get right. I am transitioning into it job as director of the global genome project. There are issues of unaffiliated human remains that could be settled this way. As you know, there is a large and growing field of forensic use of dna to answer tough questions. Who knows. Were not ready for it yet, i do not think. Technically, it is a possibility. Thank you. Bonnie. Good morning, everyone. It is good to be here today. As lauren mentioned, im a member citizen of a small tribe. Im a member of the fisher clan. I was nominated to serve on this committee by my tribal chiefs, and counsel. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge them publicly. Im deeply appreciative of their confidence in my ability to carry out this work. Im also deeply honored to be had have been selected to serve. I would like to start with the story. I share this because it puts my approach to repatriation in perspective. When i was a young student at the university of maine, i took part in my first repatriation of that. Thanks to the good work of some dedicated individuals, our tribe was able to arrange repatriation. One day, i was approached by one of our elders, and invited to help prepare for the reburial ceremony. I agreed to help. My role was to take notes door to door, to community members, to let them know where the reburial ceremony would take place. I would admit, at the time, i was hoping for task that was a little less mundane. What have come to realize is that it was a very wise thing for the elder to have me do. 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. When the process works, people see that the wrongs of the past can be reconciled. That is a very powerful thing. I believe as indian people, our hope, and our strength are intertwined. In a nutshell, i do this work because it helps to heal our community. With that, id like to turn to the work of the Repatriation Review Committee, of which i am chair. I been on the committee since 2011. I was appointed as chair last year. What a plan to do today is provide you with some Background Information on a committee, our membership, our responsibilities. Then, i will touch on some of the rewards and challenges to serving on the committee. By way of background the smithsonian Repatriation Review Committee was established under congress. It was initially charged for reviewing inventory, and return of human remains and funerary objects. The 1998 acted not address this this was an amended. At that time, the committees responsibility expanded to include other responsibilities. Our advisory to the smithsonian is very similar to those in the other review committee. As outlined in the act, we have four primary functions. We work to ensure fair and objective consideration in assessment. We also, upon request, review any findings related to the origin, or return of human remains to the object. We facilitate the resolution of any dispute that may arise between Indian Tribes with respect to return of human remains or objects. We also have a catch all function to perform any other functions as the secretary of the smithsonian may assign. Originally, the committee consisted of five members which the smithsonian selected from nominations around the country. In putting together this committee, the 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. And, 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. 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 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. 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. 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] hear some of our featured programs on the cspan networks. On cspan2 tonight at 10 00 the pitfalls of group decisionmaking, and what to do to avoid them. And sunday afternoon in one part of book tvs college series, we talk with recently published professors at Johns Hopkins university on the influence of hiphop on politics and the was governments efforts to cure malaria in world war ii. On American History tv on cspan3, tonight at 8 00 eastern on western lessons in history. Abraham lincolns life is used to understand the views of white americans on waste race and slavery both before and during the civil war, and sunday afternoon at 4 30, a discussion on margaret sanger, her legacy come on the impact race, social class, and politics had on the birthcontrol movement. Find our complete Television Schedule on cspan. Org, and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Call us, or email us, or send us a tweet. Join the cspan conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Each week, American History tvs reel america brings you archival films. 45 years ago on november 13, 1969, as president spiro agnew addressed a public and Party Conference in des moines, iowa. He argued that the Big Three Networks of the time, abc, nbc, cbs, were biased against the administration policies, in particular in regards to a recent vietnam speech about the president. All three broadcast mixes remarks live. The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every president ial address, the more important wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. Leadership in the senate changed hands in next, we look january 6. At the historical role of the Senate Majority leader and its four former leaders, robert byrd, harold baker, and we hear from Donald Richie and mitch mcconnell. A republican from kentucky. Donald richie, thank you for being with us. The Senate Majority leader is not a position in the constitution. How did the job evolve