Colville Tribes seek to halt Forest Service auction
By K.C. Mehaffey
World staff writer
Posted October 18, 2008
TWISP — The Colville Tribes are suing to stop an auction of U.S. Forest Service property in Twisp until it’s determined whether the tribes should be offered the property first.
The property — which includes six acres and 17 buildings — was a traditional fishing and gathering spot for member tribes of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, according to documents the Tribes filed in U.S. District Court in Spokane.
The Colville Tribes filed a request Thursday for a temporary injunction.
Online bidding for the property began on Sept. 30, and the Twisp Public Development Authority is the only bidder so far, its chairman said Friday. The current high bid is $1 million, according to the U.S. General Services Administration Web site where the auction is still open.
The Colvilles learned that the property would be sold in July, a few weeks before bidding was to start, according to court documents.
“The Twisp area is part of our homeland, the historic territory of our member bands,” Colville Tribal Chairwoman Jeanne Jerred said in a prepared statement. “It is only fair and just, if the federal government decides to relinquish the property, that the Colville Tribes has the opportunity to acquire it. And this is what the law requires.”
Tribal leaders met with Forest Service officials in August, convincing the agency to delay the bidding for about a month. But the Forest Service refused to put off the sale until after the Bureau of Indian Affairs reviews the Tribes’ request to acquire the property, according to the Tribes’ press release.
Jerred said the Tribes had no choice but to file a court action. “If the auction sale goes through now, a transfer of the property would be very difficult, if not impossible, to undo,” her statement said.
The Forest Service received notification of the court action, but cannot comment on it or prior negotiations with the tribes, said Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest spokeswoman Robin DeMario.
The property could be used to reclaim the Tribes’ heritage and promote natural resource interests, a declaration by Michael Finley, Colville Tribal councilman and former employee for the tribes’ history and archeology department, stated.
Ray Johnston, chairman of the Twisp Public Development Authority — which was formed in order to buy the property for a variety of uses — said Friday that his group has a good relationship with the Colville Tribes, and he anticipates that will continue.
“We’re just, like everybody else, eager to see this resolved,” he said, adding, “At the moment, the auction continues, and we are bidders. We hope that the Colvilles, should we acquire the land, are fully engaged with us, and should something else happen, we hope to be fully engaged with the tribes.”
Court documents filed with the request for a temporary injunction to stop the sale state that the Tribes did receive a letter from the Forest Service in February of 2007 to initiate consultation, but it sought input on an environmental analysis of the property, not consultation about the land’s history and preservation, as required.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act allows tribes to obtain surplus or excess property from federal agencies, according to the lawsuit. And the National Historic and Preservation Act required the Forest Service to consult with the tribes before putting the property up for auction.
Camille Pleasants, manager of the Colville Tribes History and Archaeology Department, stated in a court declaration that the property contains a recorded archeological sight, and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Tribal members “also have strong spiritual and other cultural connections to the area,” she wrote.
K.C. Mehaffey: 997-2512
mehaffey@wenworld.com
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Developer, Native American tribe reach agreement
Developer, Native American tribe reach agreement
By KRISTINA SMITH HORN • Watchdog/enterprise reporter • October 17, 2008
DANBURY TOWNSHIP — A township developer has reached an agreement with a Native American tribe that will allow him to build a marina at his housing subdivision.
Scott Prephan, developer of Harbor Bay Estates on Bayshore Road, agreed to give the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma an easement to part of his property that the tribe believes might contain ancient Native American remains, said Sherri Clemons, tribe spokeswoman.
Prephan, the tribe, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and other agencies worked out the deal after more than three years of negotiating. The property came into question after ancient Native American remains and artifacts were found in the development neighboring it, Cove on the Bay housing subdivision.
“We wanted to protect the area that adjoins the Spatz property,” Clemons said. “(The agreement) is about as good as anything. I’m glad they got their marina in, and I hope they fulfill their part of the memorandum of agreement.”
If Native American remains are ever found on that parcel of land, the Wyandottes can take possession of them and rebury them, she said. But Larry Freedman, marketing director for the Marblehead Yacht and Beach Club at the marina, said an archeologist has conducted three surveys of the development area and has not found human bones.
He applied to the Army Corps and state agencies for a permit to build the marina, but the National Historic Preservation Act, a federal law that protects cultural resources, required the corps to deal with the possibility of remains and artifacts on the property and make sure anything found would be protected before allowing the project, an Army Corps spokesman told the News Herald last year.
Freedman said Harbor Bay also had to replace some wetlands before receiving approval to continue with the project. This came after Prephan removed nearly 3 acres of wetlands in 2003 without permission, a Corps spokesman told the News Herald in 2005.
Harbor Bay will remove the dike blocking the property and flood its marina -- a major step toward setting up the planned luxury floating docks -- this afternoon, Freedman said. With the marina comes a plan to build condominiums and a push for memberships to the yacht club, he said.
“Almost everything hinged on the marina,” he said. “Now that we’ve got that, we can get moving.”
E-mail Kristina Smith Horn at mkhorn@gannett.com.
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081017/UPDATES01/81017016
By KRISTINA SMITH HORN • Watchdog/enterprise reporter • October 17, 2008
DANBURY TOWNSHIP — A township developer has reached an agreement with a Native American tribe that will allow him to build a marina at his housing subdivision.
Scott Prephan, developer of Harbor Bay Estates on Bayshore Road, agreed to give the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma an easement to part of his property that the tribe believes might contain ancient Native American remains, said Sherri Clemons, tribe spokeswoman.
Prephan, the tribe, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and other agencies worked out the deal after more than three years of negotiating. The property came into question after ancient Native American remains and artifacts were found in the development neighboring it, Cove on the Bay housing subdivision.
“We wanted to protect the area that adjoins the Spatz property,” Clemons said. “(The agreement) is about as good as anything. I’m glad they got their marina in, and I hope they fulfill their part of the memorandum of agreement.”
If Native American remains are ever found on that parcel of land, the Wyandottes can take possession of them and rebury them, she said. But Larry Freedman, marketing director for the Marblehead Yacht and Beach Club at the marina, said an archeologist has conducted three surveys of the development area and has not found human bones.
He applied to the Army Corps and state agencies for a permit to build the marina, but the National Historic Preservation Act, a federal law that protects cultural resources, required the corps to deal with the possibility of remains and artifacts on the property and make sure anything found would be protected before allowing the project, an Army Corps spokesman told the News Herald last year.
Freedman said Harbor Bay also had to replace some wetlands before receiving approval to continue with the project. This came after Prephan removed nearly 3 acres of wetlands in 2003 without permission, a Corps spokesman told the News Herald in 2005.
Harbor Bay will remove the dike blocking the property and flood its marina -- a major step toward setting up the planned luxury floating docks -- this afternoon, Freedman said. With the marina comes a plan to build condominiums and a push for memberships to the yacht club, he said.
“Almost everything hinged on the marina,” he said. “Now that we’ve got that, we can get moving.”
E-mail Kristina Smith Horn at mkhorn@gannett.com.
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081017/UPDATES01/81017016
Friday, October 17, 2008
Developers have to avoid burial grounds
Developers have to avoid burial grounds (10/15/2008)
By Sarah Elmquist
Winona may be treading lightly when it comes to bluff development, this time not to protect the visual beauty of the hillsides, but to preserve something that usually can’t be seen at all.
Native American burial grounds, fitted into bluffsides and along ridgelines, are being considered as part of the city’s draft bluff protection ordinance. Although they’ve been farmed or built over in the past, some changes to the way that Winona allows areas near bluffs to be developed could help ensure that future building projects leave the area’s native ancestors at peace.
The Planning Commission met with local representatives of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance to discuss a request that the city address native burial grounds within its pending bluff ordinance.
John Borman, secretary of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance (WDUA), said that Minnesota and federal laws prohibit the disturbance of grave sites, and that they hold the landowner accountable for such disturbance. He said that having a system in place to identify potential burial grounds would protect not only the graves, but also the property owner from litigation.
And Borman said that the point of the WDUA was just that -- to avoid confrontation while facilitating reconciliation. The group was formed to help foster positive relationships between current Winona residents and the Dakota people who inhabited the land years ago.
One option to identify and protect native burial sites was to conduct a Phase 1 archeological survey on lands near bluffs slated for development, which was done for the Applewood Pointe development in East Burns Valley. Such a study will also be required for developments within land planned to be annexed from Wilson Township, a provision called for in a recent comprehensive environmental development study.
But exactly what areas would require such a study, or what would trigger the study hasn’t been decided. City Planner Mark Moeller said that perhaps any land which a “bluff line” ran through would need a study done during the platting process. It’s unclear how many developments that might actually affect given the proposed development setbacks from blufftops, but the issue will be explored further as the city studies the draft ordinance.
Exactly where Native American burial sites might be was discussed briefly during the meeting to give a basis for where the city ought to look at protection. Borman said that native people chose burial sites for some of the same reasons that people build homes along the bluff lines -- for the view. He said that burial mounds have also been found along the sides of bluffs and at the bottoms of bluffs, as well as terrace-like areas along the way.
A Phase 1 archeological study would help determine the likelihood of native remains at a location. It includes a process from studying aerial photos to actual shovel tests and can determine whether further study is needed to ensure burial sites aren’t present.
Borman said that he and the Native American leaders he’d spoken with would rather that, if a Phase 1 study showed any sign of possible remains, the state archeologist were called to make a final determination. Moeller suggested that a Phase 2 study could suffice, but no decision was made on what the final process might include.
Commissioners seemed to agree that some sort of system should be in place to help avoid grave disturbance and agreed to discuss the issue as the proposed ordinance unfolds.
Todd Paddock, local bluff protection advocate who attended the meeting, said it’s time for the city to walk the walk when it comes to respecting and protecting Native American burial mounds. “[Burial sites] are everywhere, and that’s a problem,” he said. “I understand the practicalities; we have to think of cost. But think of the cost of disrespecting the people who came before us.”
The cost of archeological studies would be the responsibility of developers, at least for Phase 1. But Borman said that the good news was in the law books -- that the state of Minnesota would step in if further study was needed beyond Phase 1. He said that the state had provisions within the statute which would pay for further study, and even possible land acquisition for preservation if remains are found.
http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=27310&home_page=1&archives=
By Sarah Elmquist
Winona may be treading lightly when it comes to bluff development, this time not to protect the visual beauty of the hillsides, but to preserve something that usually can’t be seen at all.
Native American burial grounds, fitted into bluffsides and along ridgelines, are being considered as part of the city’s draft bluff protection ordinance. Although they’ve been farmed or built over in the past, some changes to the way that Winona allows areas near bluffs to be developed could help ensure that future building projects leave the area’s native ancestors at peace.
The Planning Commission met with local representatives of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance to discuss a request that the city address native burial grounds within its pending bluff ordinance.
John Borman, secretary of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance (WDUA), said that Minnesota and federal laws prohibit the disturbance of grave sites, and that they hold the landowner accountable for such disturbance. He said that having a system in place to identify potential burial grounds would protect not only the graves, but also the property owner from litigation.
And Borman said that the point of the WDUA was just that -- to avoid confrontation while facilitating reconciliation. The group was formed to help foster positive relationships between current Winona residents and the Dakota people who inhabited the land years ago.
One option to identify and protect native burial sites was to conduct a Phase 1 archeological survey on lands near bluffs slated for development, which was done for the Applewood Pointe development in East Burns Valley. Such a study will also be required for developments within land planned to be annexed from Wilson Township, a provision called for in a recent comprehensive environmental development study.
But exactly what areas would require such a study, or what would trigger the study hasn’t been decided. City Planner Mark Moeller said that perhaps any land which a “bluff line” ran through would need a study done during the platting process. It’s unclear how many developments that might actually affect given the proposed development setbacks from blufftops, but the issue will be explored further as the city studies the draft ordinance.
Exactly where Native American burial sites might be was discussed briefly during the meeting to give a basis for where the city ought to look at protection. Borman said that native people chose burial sites for some of the same reasons that people build homes along the bluff lines -- for the view. He said that burial mounds have also been found along the sides of bluffs and at the bottoms of bluffs, as well as terrace-like areas along the way.
A Phase 1 archeological study would help determine the likelihood of native remains at a location. It includes a process from studying aerial photos to actual shovel tests and can determine whether further study is needed to ensure burial sites aren’t present.
Borman said that he and the Native American leaders he’d spoken with would rather that, if a Phase 1 study showed any sign of possible remains, the state archeologist were called to make a final determination. Moeller suggested that a Phase 2 study could suffice, but no decision was made on what the final process might include.
Commissioners seemed to agree that some sort of system should be in place to help avoid grave disturbance and agreed to discuss the issue as the proposed ordinance unfolds.
Todd Paddock, local bluff protection advocate who attended the meeting, said it’s time for the city to walk the walk when it comes to respecting and protecting Native American burial mounds. “[Burial sites] are everywhere, and that’s a problem,” he said. “I understand the practicalities; we have to think of cost. But think of the cost of disrespecting the people who came before us.”
The cost of archeological studies would be the responsibility of developers, at least for Phase 1. But Borman said that the good news was in the law books -- that the state of Minnesota would step in if further study was needed beyond Phase 1. He said that the state had provisions within the statute which would pay for further study, and even possible land acquisition for preservation if remains are found.
http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=27310&home_page=1&archives=
New Telescope Project Stirs Controversy
New Telescope Project Stirs Controversy
Written by Tina Chau - tchau@kgmb9.com
October 16, 2008 10:24 PM
The project's corpoation has been holding public meetings across the state. The last one took place Thursday in Honolulu. An environmental study is going to consider the feelings of those for and against the project.
"We continue to be saddened by the descrecration of the sacred temple Mauna Kea," said Kat Brady, executive director of the "Life of the Land" organization.
They were small in number but big in their words, convinced the world's most advanced telescope should not be built on Mauna Kea.
"The ultimate purpose of astronomy is to ask who are we, where do we come from and is there life beyond earth," testified Henry Curtis, "but in doing that here, you will be destroying life on the mountain."
The Thirty Meter Telescope or TMT for short, would have 492 individual mirrors acting as one. It would see farther into space and capture images ten times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope. And it may provide answers to the origin of the universe and the evolution of galaxies.
"I think i's potential for addressing cosmological problems that are still really outstanding is tremendous," said Anneila Sargent, a professor of astronomy at CalTech, who was asked by the project to give a lecture about the science behind the telescope.
The problem with the choice of location is, Mauna Kea is considered sacred land that's already been hurt by other telescopes on the mountain.
Two and a half years ago, native Hawaiians climbed Mauna Kea to protest the building of any more.
"By proposing a project up there you do become a part of that legacy," said Miwa Tamanaha of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance group, "and you do take that on and so you should be cognizant of the feeling people have about that."
Sandra Dawson, TMT's environmental impact statement manger said,"we are looking for ways to show respect for the mountain at the same time we are doing this and our hope would be we would leave the mountain as a whole better off for us having come."
The company that would build the telescope says if it gets the okay, it would invest significantly in Big Island schools. One banana farmer at the public meetin Thursday, is excited at the potential economic boost for Hawaii.
"Agriculture doesn't pay that good," he said, "Everyone knows that. We want better for their children."
In addition to Hawaii, Chile is another location being considered for the telescope. People can still comment on the project until October 23. An draft environmental impact statement should be published in February.
http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/10551/40/
Written by Tina Chau - tchau@kgmb9.com
October 16, 2008 10:24 PM
The project's corpoation has been holding public meetings across the state. The last one took place Thursday in Honolulu. An environmental study is going to consider the feelings of those for and against the project.
"We continue to be saddened by the descrecration of the sacred temple Mauna Kea," said Kat Brady, executive director of the "Life of the Land" organization.
They were small in number but big in their words, convinced the world's most advanced telescope should not be built on Mauna Kea.
"The ultimate purpose of astronomy is to ask who are we, where do we come from and is there life beyond earth," testified Henry Curtis, "but in doing that here, you will be destroying life on the mountain."
The Thirty Meter Telescope or TMT for short, would have 492 individual mirrors acting as one. It would see farther into space and capture images ten times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope. And it may provide answers to the origin of the universe and the evolution of galaxies.
"I think i's potential for addressing cosmological problems that are still really outstanding is tremendous," said Anneila Sargent, a professor of astronomy at CalTech, who was asked by the project to give a lecture about the science behind the telescope.
The problem with the choice of location is, Mauna Kea is considered sacred land that's already been hurt by other telescopes on the mountain.
Two and a half years ago, native Hawaiians climbed Mauna Kea to protest the building of any more.
"By proposing a project up there you do become a part of that legacy," said Miwa Tamanaha of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance group, "and you do take that on and so you should be cognizant of the feeling people have about that."
Sandra Dawson, TMT's environmental impact statement manger said,"we are looking for ways to show respect for the mountain at the same time we are doing this and our hope would be we would leave the mountain as a whole better off for us having come."
The company that would build the telescope says if it gets the okay, it would invest significantly in Big Island schools. One banana farmer at the public meetin Thursday, is excited at the potential economic boost for Hawaii.
"Agriculture doesn't pay that good," he said, "Everyone knows that. We want better for their children."
In addition to Hawaii, Chile is another location being considered for the telescope. People can still comment on the project until October 23. An draft environmental impact statement should be published in February.
http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/10551/40/
Planning manager answers burial mound questions
Planning manager answers burial mound questions
By Nancy Huddleston, Editor
The state archeologist, State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and representatives of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) have informed the city that they have no concerns about American Indian burial mounds within the Dan Patch Trail residential development.
Those comments were put together for the Savage City Council to review in an effort to answer questions raised by the Woods & Wetlands Alliance about the burial mounds during a Sept. 22 meeting.
Planning Manager Bryan Tucker and City Administrator Barry Stock were absent from the meeting when Beth Proctor, a member of Woods & Wetlands, asked for specific information about who the city had talked to about the potential burial sites.
Tucker put together an e-mail explaining his contacts with state and local organizations that would naturally have concerns about archeological findings on the 108-acre site east of Lynn Avenue and north of McColl Drive. The Savage City Council made mention of the e-mail at the beginning of the Oct. 6 meeting.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) did not list any substantial environmental concerns as a result of the Dan Patch Trail project; however, when the Savage City Council issued a negative declaration on the environmental study, it required additional studies.
In regard to the SMSC, Tucker’s e-mail detailed he contacted Stan Ellison and “he indicated that the survey had been reviewed and that there were not additional comments at this time.”
As well, the SHPO staff “indicated that the survey was adequate, following typical methodologies and that they had no further concerns. I was advised, however, to contact the state archeologist regarding the burial mound issue,” Tucker wrote in the e-mail.
State Archeologist Scott Anfinson told Tucker “he had met with the neighbors at the site months earlier to review potential for burial mounds. He stated he had indicated to the neighbors that there was no evidence to support such claim. He did not see any reason for the city to pursue this issue any further.”
Tucker also contacted Ellison one more time after the concerns were raised again by Woods & Wetlands on Sept. 22 to request written verification/acknowledgement of on-going discussions on the burial mound question.
“He (Ellison) stated that he had been receiving calls from the Woods and Wetlands folks and that his staff was continuing to review the issue. He further stated that while the tribe was not aware of specific burial mound sites on the property, they would likely request that on-site monitoring be undertaken during construction as a precaution,” Tucker wrote in an e-mail.
“All that said, it is inaccurate to say that the SMSC has not been given the opportunity to comment on the environmental review for this project,” Tucker’s e-mail concluded. “Contact has been made both by letter and phone on several occasions after the initial EAW review letter was sent out, seeking its input/comment on the study that was completed.”
City Administrator Barry Stock said the city is confident now that the archeological study and EAW studies have been completed that concerns about burial mounds have been answered.
Nancy Huddleston can be reached at editor@savagepacer.com.
http://www.savagepacer.com/news/city-news/planning-manager-answers-burial-mound-questions-9091
By Nancy Huddleston, Editor
The state archeologist, State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and representatives of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) have informed the city that they have no concerns about American Indian burial mounds within the Dan Patch Trail residential development.
Those comments were put together for the Savage City Council to review in an effort to answer questions raised by the Woods & Wetlands Alliance about the burial mounds during a Sept. 22 meeting.
Planning Manager Bryan Tucker and City Administrator Barry Stock were absent from the meeting when Beth Proctor, a member of Woods & Wetlands, asked for specific information about who the city had talked to about the potential burial sites.
Tucker put together an e-mail explaining his contacts with state and local organizations that would naturally have concerns about archeological findings on the 108-acre site east of Lynn Avenue and north of McColl Drive. The Savage City Council made mention of the e-mail at the beginning of the Oct. 6 meeting.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) did not list any substantial environmental concerns as a result of the Dan Patch Trail project; however, when the Savage City Council issued a negative declaration on the environmental study, it required additional studies.
In regard to the SMSC, Tucker’s e-mail detailed he contacted Stan Ellison and “he indicated that the survey had been reviewed and that there were not additional comments at this time.”
As well, the SHPO staff “indicated that the survey was adequate, following typical methodologies and that they had no further concerns. I was advised, however, to contact the state archeologist regarding the burial mound issue,” Tucker wrote in the e-mail.
State Archeologist Scott Anfinson told Tucker “he had met with the neighbors at the site months earlier to review potential for burial mounds. He stated he had indicated to the neighbors that there was no evidence to support such claim. He did not see any reason for the city to pursue this issue any further.”
Tucker also contacted Ellison one more time after the concerns were raised again by Woods & Wetlands on Sept. 22 to request written verification/acknowledgement of on-going discussions on the burial mound question.
“He (Ellison) stated that he had been receiving calls from the Woods and Wetlands folks and that his staff was continuing to review the issue. He further stated that while the tribe was not aware of specific burial mound sites on the property, they would likely request that on-site monitoring be undertaken during construction as a precaution,” Tucker wrote in an e-mail.
“All that said, it is inaccurate to say that the SMSC has not been given the opportunity to comment on the environmental review for this project,” Tucker’s e-mail concluded. “Contact has been made both by letter and phone on several occasions after the initial EAW review letter was sent out, seeking its input/comment on the study that was completed.”
City Administrator Barry Stock said the city is confident now that the archeological study and EAW studies have been completed that concerns about burial mounds have been answered.
Nancy Huddleston can be reached at editor@savagepacer.com.
http://www.savagepacer.com/news/city-news/planning-manager-answers-burial-mound-questions-9091
Umatilla tribe to reclaim Maxey artifacts
Umatilla tribe to reclaim Maxey artifacts
By Becquer Medak-Seguin
Whitman will turn over a number of artifacts to their tribes of origin after a thirteen year process in an effort to further positive relations with local Native Americans.
An undisclosed number of Native American artifacts and human remains currently housed in the Northwest Museum (formerly the Maxey Museum) will be repatriated to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, museum director and associate professor of history Brian Dott said.
“There are more artifacts than remains, but we do, indeed, have human remains as well,” Dott said.
According to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, the Umatilla Indians have a right to items of cultural value such as human remains, sacred objects, funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony that are housed in the Northwest Museum.
Dialogue between the Umatilla tribes and the college about the return of two sets of objects, one of funerary items and another of human remains, began around 1995 and may culminate with their repatriation within the next 30 days, Dott said.
“Most of the materials were donated to the college,” Dott said. “Some in the 1920s and the latest ones in the early 1960s, but most of them [were donated] in the 1940s and 50s.”
Many of the remains and artifacts were found by chance, Dott said.
“For example, there was an expansion of Greenpark Elementary school and they found human remains. They were donated [to the college] and ended up in the museum’s collection.”
Dott said that “since NAGPRA, the college has been amenable to coming to amicable relations and agreements with local tribes; it’s just taken a long time to get the process [of repatriation] going,” citing bureaucracy as its primary hindrance.
Though he has not confirmed exactly how the remains and artifacts will be returned, Dott expects that the Umatilla tribe “will want to have some sort of ceremony on campus and then they will also have a reburial ceremony on their tribal lands near Pendleton.”
Dott said that he does not know whether the ceremony will be open to Whitman students, but will make a campus-wide announcement once a date has been set for the ceremony and repatriation of the artifacts and remains.
Whitman American Indian Association and Local Nations Partnership President Chelsea Marks could not be reached for comment and Student Curator Kirsten Wiant declined to comment on the matter.
http://whitmanpioneer.com:80/news/2008/10/16/umatilla-tribe-to-reclaim-maxey-artifacts/
By Becquer Medak-Seguin
Whitman will turn over a number of artifacts to their tribes of origin after a thirteen year process in an effort to further positive relations with local Native Americans.
An undisclosed number of Native American artifacts and human remains currently housed in the Northwest Museum (formerly the Maxey Museum) will be repatriated to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, museum director and associate professor of history Brian Dott said.
“There are more artifacts than remains, but we do, indeed, have human remains as well,” Dott said.
According to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, the Umatilla Indians have a right to items of cultural value such as human remains, sacred objects, funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony that are housed in the Northwest Museum.
Dialogue between the Umatilla tribes and the college about the return of two sets of objects, one of funerary items and another of human remains, began around 1995 and may culminate with their repatriation within the next 30 days, Dott said.
“Most of the materials were donated to the college,” Dott said. “Some in the 1920s and the latest ones in the early 1960s, but most of them [were donated] in the 1940s and 50s.”
Many of the remains and artifacts were found by chance, Dott said.
“For example, there was an expansion of Greenpark Elementary school and they found human remains. They were donated [to the college] and ended up in the museum’s collection.”
Dott said that “since NAGPRA, the college has been amenable to coming to amicable relations and agreements with local tribes; it’s just taken a long time to get the process [of repatriation] going,” citing bureaucracy as its primary hindrance.
Though he has not confirmed exactly how the remains and artifacts will be returned, Dott expects that the Umatilla tribe “will want to have some sort of ceremony on campus and then they will also have a reburial ceremony on their tribal lands near Pendleton.”
Dott said that he does not know whether the ceremony will be open to Whitman students, but will make a campus-wide announcement once a date has been set for the ceremony and repatriation of the artifacts and remains.
Whitman American Indian Association and Local Nations Partnership President Chelsea Marks could not be reached for comment and Student Curator Kirsten Wiant declined to comment on the matter.
http://whitmanpioneer.com:80/news/2008/10/16/umatilla-tribe-to-reclaim-maxey-artifacts/
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Remains likely to return to Onondaga
Remains likely to return to Onondaga
National committee sides with Native Americans over disputed collections.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
By Mike McAndrew
Staff writer
As New York built Route 17, a worker driving a bulldozer uncovered an ancient burial site near the Southern Tier village of Nichols 41 years ago.
The mound, about 105 miles south of Syracuse, contained the remains of 180 Native Americans believed to have died between 1000 and 1500 AD.
After the remains were shifted between a few owners, they wound up in boxes in the collection of the New York State Museum in Albany.
The Onondaga Nation has been pressuring New York for two years to turn over the bones so it can rebury people they call their ancestors.
But the state museum has refused, claiming that the skeletons were too old to be culturally affiliated with the Onondaga.
Last Sunday in San Diego, a national advisory committee appointed by the U.S. interior secretary ruled that the museum should surrender the remains to the Onondaga.
In a 6-0 vote, the committee also recommended that to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the state museum should change the way it decides the fate of Native American remains and burial objects in its collection.
Although the ruling was nonbinding, a state museum official said Tuesday that the state will most likely turn over the remains to the Onondaga.
But Lisa Anderson, the museum's NAGPRA compliance officer, said that decision was not yet final. She said museum experts still believe the evidence is lacking to connect the remains from the graves, called the Engelbert site, to the Onondaga.
"There's evidence suggesting there were different people (in that region) early on. And that there were many people," she said. "Who became who isn't something that is clear to every archaeologist."
That doesn't sit well with 79-year-old Onondaga Nation Chief Irving Powless, who battled the state museum for years in the 1980s and helped win the return of historic wampum belts.
"It's about time this museum starts abiding by the law," Powless said. "I don't know why they wanted to keep the remains."
The Onondaga and other Haudenosaunee nations claim their ancestors have lived in this region since the beginning of time, said Powless.
This emotionally charged battle is being played out across America as Native Americans try to pry centuries-old bones and sacred burial objects out of museum collections.
NAGPRA, the federal law that became effective in 1990, required museums and federal agencies to make public an inventory of any native remains and burial objects they possessed and, if they could be connected to an existing tribe, to repatriate them.
About 600 museums and federal agencies still have the remains of 118,000 Native Americans and more than 800,000 objects the institutions declared culturally unidentifiable with an existing tribe, according to the national NAGPRA program.
The State University at Binghamton continues to possess the burial artifacts - pottery and other objects - that were excavated from the Engelbert site.
The New York State Museum also possesses another 880 sets of culturally unidentifiable native remains, according to museum officials.
"This is a very important case nationally because a lot of museums employ similar tactics. Museums still have a huge resistance to NAGPRA," said attorney Joseph Heath, the Onondaga Nation's counsel.
Heath and an associate, attorney Shannon Keller O'Loughlin, presented the Onondaga's views to the NAGPRA review committee last weekend in San Diego.
O'Loughlin said museums should realize they are getting a black eye by keeping native remains.
The state museum is run by the New York State Education Department.
Human remains are not displayed at the museum, Anderson said. Access to the museum's collection of native remains is strictly controlled. Research and testing on the bones is permitted only to help the museum determine linkage with a specific culture.
But to the Onondaga and their lawyers, the state museum and others are demonstrating racial insensitivity.
The bones battle is also intertwined with native efforts to challenge longstanding archaeological theories about the origins of the Haudenosaunee nations and to strengthen native claims to the land.
Pipes with Haudenosaunee symbols carved on them were excavated from a site near Cayuga Lake that dates to the 10th century, said archaeologist Jack Rossen, chairman of the Ithaca College anthropology department.
But other archaeologists held for decades that the Iroquois - a name the French gave to the Onondaga and five other Indian nations of New York - migrated to New York after 1300.
In the 1990s, as the NAGPRA law became effective, the New York State Museum created a guideline to help it inventory its collection.
Under the NYSM guideline, skeletal remains in its collection that predated 1300 could not be culturally affiliated with the Onondaga or any of the five other Haudenosaunee nations because those nations did not exist then.
"We certainly will be developing another set of policies," said Anderson, who said the museum had not exclusively used the guideline to decide the fate of its collections.
The remains from the Engelbert site in Nichols will remain at the New York State Museum for at least several months, Anderson said. She said the state museum is required to make an announcement in the Federal Register if it plans to surrender the remains to the Onondaga. The museum will have to wait 30 days after the announcement is published to see if any other native nation contests that plan, she said.
Article: www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-15/122414756923040.xml&coll=1
National committee sides with Native Americans over disputed collections.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
By Mike McAndrew
Staff writer
As New York built Route 17, a worker driving a bulldozer uncovered an ancient burial site near the Southern Tier village of Nichols 41 years ago.
The mound, about 105 miles south of Syracuse, contained the remains of 180 Native Americans believed to have died between 1000 and 1500 AD.
After the remains were shifted between a few owners, they wound up in boxes in the collection of the New York State Museum in Albany.
The Onondaga Nation has been pressuring New York for two years to turn over the bones so it can rebury people they call their ancestors.
But the state museum has refused, claiming that the skeletons were too old to be culturally affiliated with the Onondaga.
Last Sunday in San Diego, a national advisory committee appointed by the U.S. interior secretary ruled that the museum should surrender the remains to the Onondaga.
In a 6-0 vote, the committee also recommended that to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the state museum should change the way it decides the fate of Native American remains and burial objects in its collection.
Although the ruling was nonbinding, a state museum official said Tuesday that the state will most likely turn over the remains to the Onondaga.
But Lisa Anderson, the museum's NAGPRA compliance officer, said that decision was not yet final. She said museum experts still believe the evidence is lacking to connect the remains from the graves, called the Engelbert site, to the Onondaga.
"There's evidence suggesting there were different people (in that region) early on. And that there were many people," she said. "Who became who isn't something that is clear to every archaeologist."
That doesn't sit well with 79-year-old Onondaga Nation Chief Irving Powless, who battled the state museum for years in the 1980s and helped win the return of historic wampum belts.
"It's about time this museum starts abiding by the law," Powless said. "I don't know why they wanted to keep the remains."
The Onondaga and other Haudenosaunee nations claim their ancestors have lived in this region since the beginning of time, said Powless.
This emotionally charged battle is being played out across America as Native Americans try to pry centuries-old bones and sacred burial objects out of museum collections.
NAGPRA, the federal law that became effective in 1990, required museums and federal agencies to make public an inventory of any native remains and burial objects they possessed and, if they could be connected to an existing tribe, to repatriate them.
About 600 museums and federal agencies still have the remains of 118,000 Native Americans and more than 800,000 objects the institutions declared culturally unidentifiable with an existing tribe, according to the national NAGPRA program.
The State University at Binghamton continues to possess the burial artifacts - pottery and other objects - that were excavated from the Engelbert site.
The New York State Museum also possesses another 880 sets of culturally unidentifiable native remains, according to museum officials.
"This is a very important case nationally because a lot of museums employ similar tactics. Museums still have a huge resistance to NAGPRA," said attorney Joseph Heath, the Onondaga Nation's counsel.
Heath and an associate, attorney Shannon Keller O'Loughlin, presented the Onondaga's views to the NAGPRA review committee last weekend in San Diego.
O'Loughlin said museums should realize they are getting a black eye by keeping native remains.
The state museum is run by the New York State Education Department.
Human remains are not displayed at the museum, Anderson said. Access to the museum's collection of native remains is strictly controlled. Research and testing on the bones is permitted only to help the museum determine linkage with a specific culture.
But to the Onondaga and their lawyers, the state museum and others are demonstrating racial insensitivity.
The bones battle is also intertwined with native efforts to challenge longstanding archaeological theories about the origins of the Haudenosaunee nations and to strengthen native claims to the land.
Pipes with Haudenosaunee symbols carved on them were excavated from a site near Cayuga Lake that dates to the 10th century, said archaeologist Jack Rossen, chairman of the Ithaca College anthropology department.
But other archaeologists held for decades that the Iroquois - a name the French gave to the Onondaga and five other Indian nations of New York - migrated to New York after 1300.
In the 1990s, as the NAGPRA law became effective, the New York State Museum created a guideline to help it inventory its collection.
Under the NYSM guideline, skeletal remains in its collection that predated 1300 could not be culturally affiliated with the Onondaga or any of the five other Haudenosaunee nations because those nations did not exist then.
"We certainly will be developing another set of policies," said Anderson, who said the museum had not exclusively used the guideline to decide the fate of its collections.
The remains from the Engelbert site in Nichols will remain at the New York State Museum for at least several months, Anderson said. She said the state museum is required to make an announcement in the Federal Register if it plans to surrender the remains to the Onondaga. The museum will have to wait 30 days after the announcement is published to see if any other native nation contests that plan, she said.
Article: www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-15/122414756923040.xml&coll=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
