[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01314]



[[Page 5205]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-11688; 2200-1100-665]


Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review 
Committee Findings Related to the Return of Cultural Items in the 
Possession of the Alaska State Museum, Juneau, AK

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review 
Committee: Findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's 
administrative responsibilities pursuant to the Native American Graves 
Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3006 (g)). The 
recommendations, findings and actions of the Review Committee 
associated with this dispute are advisory only and not binding on any 
person. These advisory findings and recommendations do not necessarily 
represent the views of the National Park Service or Secretary of the 
Interior. The National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior 
have not taken a position on these matters.

SUMMARY: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review 
Committee (Review Committee) was established by Section 8 of the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; 25 U.S.C. 
3006), and is an advisory body governed by the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C. 1-16). At a November 17-19, 2010 public 
meeting in Washington, DC, and acting pursuant to its statutory 
responsibility to convene the parties to a dispute relating to the 
return of cultural items, and to facilitate the resolution of such a 
dispute, the Review Committee heard a dispute between the Wrangell 
Cooperative Association, joined by Sealaska Corporation, and the Alaska 
State Museum. The issue before the Review Committee was whether, in 
response to a request for the repatriation of a cultural item in the 
possession of the Alaska State Museum, the Alaska State Museum 
presented evidence proving that the Museum has a ``right of 
possession'' to the cultural item, as this term is defined in the 
NAGPRA regulations. The Review Committee found that the Alaska State 
Museum had not presented evidence proving that the Museum has a ``right 
of possession'' to the cultural item. The Review Committee meeting 
transcript containing the dispute proceedings and Review Committee 
deliberation and finding is available from the National NAGPRA Program 
upon request ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since 1969, a Tlingit Teeyh[iacute]ttaan 
Clan Y[eacute]il aan Kaawu Naa s'aaxw, or Leader of all Raven Clan Hat 
(Clan Hat), has been in the ``possession'' of the Alaska State Museum, 
as this term is defined in the NAGPRA regulations (43 CFR 
10.2(a)(3)(i)). Pursuant to NAGPRA, in 2008, Sealaska Corporation 
requested the repatriation of the Clan Hat. (On August 13, 2010, the 
Wrangell Cooperative Association, an Alaska Native village, became a 
party to the repatriation request.) The request identified the Clan Hat 
as a ``sacred object'' and an object of ``cultural patrimony,'' as 
these terms are defined in NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(C) and (D)). 
While acknowledging that the Clan Hat is a sacred object and an object 
of cultural patrimony, the Alaska State Museum asserted the ``right of 
possession'' to the Clan Hat, as defined in the NAGPRA regulations (43 
CFR 10.10(a)(2)).
    Disputing the Alaska State Museum's claim of right of possession to 
the Clan Hat, Sealaska Corporation and the Wrangell Cooperative 
Association joined in asking the Review Committee to facilitate the 
resolution of the dispute between themselves and the Alaska State 
Museum. The Designated Federal Official for the Review Committee agreed 
to the request.
    At its November 17-19, 2010 meeting, the Review Committee 
considered the dispute. The issue before the Review Committee was 
whether, in response to the request for the repatriation of the Clan 
Hat, the Alaska State Museum presented evidence proving, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Museum has a ``right of 
possession'' to the Clan Hat. As defined in the NAGPRA regulations, `` 
`right of possession' means possession obtained with the voluntary 
consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation.'' 
Right of possession to the Clan Hat, therefore, would be deemed to have 
been given to the Alaska State Museum if, at the time the Museum 
acquired possession of the Clan Hat from the Tlingit Teeyh[iacute]ttaan 
Clan, the transferor consented to transfer possession, the transferor's 
consent was voluntary, and the transferor had the authority to alienate 
the Clan Hat to the Museum.
    Findings of Fact: Five Review Committee members participated in the 
fact finding. Two of the Review Committee members were self-recused. By 
a vote of five to zero, the Review Committee found that the Alaska 
State Museum had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Museum has the right of possession to the Clan Hat. In addition, the 
Review Committee made specific findings related to the transferor's 
consent to transfer possession of the Clan Hat, the voluntariness of 
the transferor's consent, and the authority of the transferor to 
alienate the Clan Hat to the Alaska State Museum. By a vote of five to 
zero, the Review Committee found that the Alaska State Museum had 
proved, more likely than not, that the conveyor of the Clan Hat to the 
Alaska State Museum had consented to transfer possession of the Clan 
Hat to the Museum. By a vote of three to one (there was one 
abstention), the Review Committee found that the Alaska State Museum 
had not proved, more likely than not, that the consent of the conveyor 
to transfer possession of the Clan Hat to the Alaska State Museum was 
voluntary. By a vote of four to zero (there was one abstention), the 
Review Committee found that the Alaska State Museum had not proved, 
more likely than not, that the Indian tribe culturally affiliated with 
the Clan Hat explicitly authorized the conveyor of the Clan Hat to 
separate the Clan Hat from the tribe. Finally, by a vote of four to 
zero (there was one abstention), the Review Committee found that the 
Alaska State Museum had not proved, more likely than not, that the 
Indian tribe culturally affiliated with the Clan Hat intended to give 
the conveyor of the Clan Hat the authority to separate the Clan Hat 
from the tribe.

    Dated: November 7, 2012.
Mervin Wright, Jr.,
Acting Chair, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review 
Committee.
[FR Doc. 2013-01314 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-50-P