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