NAGPRA Issues in Hawaii, 2018.

(c) Copyright 2018, Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved

Coverage of NAGPRA-related topics in Hawaii first came to this website in 2003 when the national NAGPRA review committee decided to devote its national meeting to the Forbes Cave controversy. Forbes cave was the most intensively covered topic from 2003 to 2007. But other topics also came to public attention, including Bishop Museum, the Emerson collection repatriated and reburied at Kanupa Cave, the discovery of ancient bones during a major construction project at Ward Center (O'ahu), construction of a house built above burials at the shorefront at Naue, Ha'ena, Kaua'i; etc.

The Forbes cave controversy up until the NAGPRA Review Committee hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 9-11, 2003 was originally described and documented at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbes.html

The conflict among Bishop Museum, Hui Malama, and several competing groups of claimants became so complex and contentious that the controversy was the primary focus of the semiannual national meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota May 9-11, 2003. A webpage was created to cover that meeting and followup events related to it. But the Forbes Cave controversy became increasingly complex and contentious, leading to public awareness of other related issues. By the end of 2004, the webpage focusing on the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting and its aftermath had become exceedingly large, at more than 250 pages with an index of 22 topics at the top. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbesafterreview.html

That large webpage became so difficult to use that it was stopped on December 29, 2004; and a new webpage was created to collect news reports for NAGPRA issues in Hawai'i during year 2005. An index for 2005 appears at the beginning, and readers may then scroll down to find the detailed coverage of each topic. For coverage of NAGPRA issues in Hawai'i in 2005 (about 250 pages), see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2005.html

For year 2006 another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2006.html

For year 2007, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/nagprahawaii2007.html

For year 2008, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/nagprahawaii2008.html

For year 2009, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/nagprahawaii2009.html

For year 2010, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/nagprahawaii2010.html

For year 2011, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2011.html

For year 2012, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2012.html

For year 2013, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2013.html

For year 2014, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2014.html

For year 2015, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2015.html

For year 2016, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/nagprahawaii2016.html

For year 2017, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/nagprahawaii2017.html

NOW BEGINS 2018

================

LIST OF TOPICS FOR 2018: Full coverage of each topic follows the list; the list is in roughly chronological order, created as events unfold during 2017.

(1) Jan 8: Article in "The Art Newspaper" online, entitled "Should museums display human remains from other cultures?" reports that Vienna's Weltmuseum is being criticized for displaying a trophy head and the discussion in Germany and Austria follows similar debates in France and the UK over the past 15 years, sparked by a rise in the number of demands for the return of human remains to their communities of origin, usually non-European and often former colonies. Article describes the 2017 repatriation to OHA and Hui Malama of Hawaiian bones from the Dresden State Art Collections; see NAGPRA Hawaii 2017 webpage item #(5).

(2) Feb 7: U.S. Bureau of Land Management is negotiating with 3 Indian tribes seeking repatriation of 500-year-old skeletons of adult and child found buried together in an animal burrow in Idaho; anthropologists lament loss of valuable research opportunity.

(3) May 16: Berlin Museum Returns 9 Artifacts to Indigenous People of Alaska

(4) May 17: By a voice vote, the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Wednesday approved S.1400, the Safeguarding Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act. The bill, also known as the STOP Act, seeks to curb the theft, illegal possession, sale, transfer and export of tribal cultural items. See also item #11 below.

(5) May 25: A 200-year-old carving of the war god Ku has returned home to Hawaii after spending untold years abroad and in the hands of private collectors. Marc Benioff and his wife, Lynne, purchased the rare piece at a November auction at Christie's in Paris, paying more than $7 million for the figure, which is less than 2 feet tall. The San Francisco couple then donated the piece to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, which announced the acquisition this week.

(6) July 11: Yale Peabody Museum repatriated Maori ancestral remains to New Zealand

(7) July 11: At UC Berkeley's Phoebe Hearst Museum, which holds one of the largest collections of human remains in the country, fewer than 300 bodies have been returned out of more than 9,000.

(8) September 27: Science Magazine lengthy article reports on conflicts between scientists wanting to study genetic material vs. tribes wanting to keep control over information about themselves and wanting to get the healthcare benefits from such research.

(9) October 3:
(a) A construction project at Kawaiaha'o Church in Honolulu starting about 10 years ago unearthed perhaps 600 burials, and lawsuits invoking NAGPRA forced the project to stop. It remains stopped, while heavy rains and erosion have unearthed additional burials. One issue is that these were Christian burials done by church members during the 1800s, not the ancient pagan burials which NAGPRA was intended to protect. To find other news reports about this project during previous years, use the search window on the front page of this website and put in the pair of search words nagpra kawaiahao.
(b) November 16: After a decade of controversy, Kawaiahao Church has decided to stop plans to build a multi-purpose center on its property ... the church's trustees recommend that the congregation "develop a Burial Treatment Plan" and "at this time, not proceed with the plan for the current Multi-Purpose Center."

(10) Medford Massachusetts: attempted auction of sacred native items
(a) Nov 13: Medford Massachusetts Public Library announces auction by Skinner Auctioneers and Appraisers of sacred Native items; Mayor orders halt to auction;
(b) Dec 3: News release of protest by Association on American Indian Affairs alleging Medford Library and Skinner Auctioneers violated NAGPRA law.

(11) Tribal and federal officials celebrated the return Wednesday of dozens of cultural items to Acoma Pueblo's nearly 1,000-year-old village in New Mexico after the tribe spent years pressing for the repatriations of ceremonial items from galleries, auction houses and private collections worldwide. A ceremonial shield stolen from Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico is the subject of a legal and diplomatic battle after it was put up for sale by a private auction house in France.

(12) Ancient DNA in museum-held bones around the world might help aboriginal Australians prove they are entitled to have bones and artifacts returned. But Keolu Fox, a geneticist at the University of California, San Diego, and a Native Hawaiian, warns that it might not work outside of Australia. Polynesian communities, for example, aren't as genetically distinct from each other as aboriginal Australian groups are, so ancient DNA wouldn't be able to match Polynesian ancestors to a specific community or even island.

(13) The National Institutes of Health is collecting DNA from 1 million people including Native Americans bypassing tribal consultation, with some Indigenous leaders calling it "biocolonialism." A Native Hawaiian researcher suggests that indigenous groups or tribes should have their own "IndiGenomics" research institute.

================

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES FOR 2017

(1) Article in "The Art Newspaper" online, January 8, 2018 entitled "Should museums display human remains from other cultures?" reports that Vienna's Weltmuseum is being criticized for displaying a trophy head and the discussion in Germany and Austria follows similar debates in France and the UK over the past 15 years, sparked by a rise in the number of demands for the return of human remains to their communities of origin, usually non-European and often former colonies. Article describes the 2017 repatriation to OHA and Hui Malama of Hawaiian bones from the Dresden State Art Collections; see NAGPRA Hawaii 2017 webpage item #(5).

http://theartnewspaper.com/news/should-museums-display-human-remains-from-other-cultures

The Art Newspaper, 8th January 2018
[What is this publication? See description at
http://theartnewspaper.com/information/about ]

Should museums display human remains from other cultures?
Vienna's Weltmuseum criticised for displaying a trophy head

CATHERINE HICKLEY

The newly opened Weltmuseum in Vienna has come under fire for displaying a severed head from Brazil -- a war trophy that had belonged to the Munduruku people.

Many scholars criticised the presentation, saying that the museum gave neither information about the person to whom the head once belonged, nor on how it had come to Europe. The museum argues it is following International Council of Museums (Icom) guidelines, but has agreed to improve the information it provides on the object.

"These trophy heads are objects designed for public presentation," says Claudia Augustat, a curator at the Weltmuseum. "From the point of view of the Munduruku, there is no objection to presenting them in an exhibition. I am well aware that the descendants of the group from which the head was acquired could see this differently. But the origins of the trophy head are not known."

The uproar comes as the issue of scalps, shrunken heads, mummies, flutes made of human bones and other human remains in modern collections gains prominence in the German-speaking world, where universities and museums have large stores of such items, much of it shipped home by 19th-century explorers, race researchers and anthropologists. The issue is often treated in the context of a wider debate on how the colonial past is reflected in museums.

The discussion in Germany and Austria follows similar debates in France and the UK over the past 15 years, sparked by a rise in the number of demands for the return of human remains to their communities of origin, usually non-European and often former colonies.

In its 2004 ethics code, Icom included a call for museums to show respect and sensitivity in presenting human remains and in handling restitution requests. But what exactly does that mean? As the case of the disembodied head at the Weltmuseum reveals, it is open to interpretation.

Claudia von Selle, a Berlin lawyer who specialises in art and cultural property, helped to draw up guidelines for German museums on the presentation and restitution of human remains in 2013. "We got to the limits of what the law can achieve in this area quite quickly," she says. "We had to consult with various experts in ethics." In the past 18 months, she says the number of queries from museums on the subject has risen considerably.

The Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (SKD, Dresden State Art Collections) returned human remains for the first time in October. The bones, taken from graves more than 100 years ago against the wishes of the community in Hawaii from which they originated, were returned to a group caring for the ancestors of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in a ceremony in Dresden.

Dresden has 6,000 human skulls and remains in its collection, says Nanette Snoep, the director of the city's Ethnology Museum. It has had enquiries from groups in Australia, Namibia and New Zealand and hopes to return more items in the coming years. "We believe that they have no place in a museum," Snoep says. But the question of returning human remains can be a complex one if the origins are unclear, Von Selle says. "The claimants are not usually the families, and you have to be very careful about whom you give objects back to."

In October, the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK, Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation), the body that oversees Berlin's museums, began a research project to investigate the origins of around 1,000 skulls it inherited from the Charité hospital in Berlin. The skulls are known to have originated from German colonies in east Africa, a region that now encompasses Rwanda, Tanzania, Burundi and Mozambique.

The two-year project, funded by the Gerda Henkel Foundation, is intended as a "model for future research into the provenance of human remains in the custody of the Museum of Pre-History and Early History", according to a statement from the foundation. "Restitution decisions will depend on the results of the research," it added .

Consensus seems to have been reached on at least one aspect of this issue: the trade in human remains is unacceptable. The Dorotheum auction house in Vienna withdrew 15 objects involving human remains from its Tribal Art auction in October. "We regret having upset people and hurting their feelings. That was not our intention at all," the auction house said in a statement.

Appeared in The Art Newspaper, 297 January 2018

===============

(2) U.S. Bureau of Land Management is negotiating with 3 Indian tribes seeking repatriation of 500-year-old skeletons of adult and child found buried together in an animal burrow in Idaho; anthropologists lament loss of valuable research opportunity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/tribes-seek-native-american-bones-found-unique-idaho-52896042
abcnews.com, February 7, 2018

500-year-old skeletons sought by 3 Native American tribes

By KEITH RIDLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOISE, Idaho -- Feb 7, 2018

Somewhere in Boise, the 500-year-old skeletons of two Native Americans found last year when a badger apparently unearthed them from their resting place in Idaho's high desert sagebrush steppe are being stored as three tribes seek to claim them as their own and anthropologists who study Native Americans lament what they say is a lost research opportunity.

U.S. officials won't say where the bones of the young adult and a child are being kept as they assess claims for them made to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in eastern Idaho, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes in southern Idaho and northern Nevada and the Nez Perce Tribe in northern Idaho.

The federal agency considers its negotiations with the tribes about the bones sensitive government-to-government communications, and only confirmed the discussions after The Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

The skeletons were found in such good condition last April that Idaho authorities initially treated the southwestern Snake River Plain site as a possible crime scene. Authorities said they were either dealing with a double homicide that had happened in recent decades, bones from pioneers who died in the 19th century while traveling along the nearby Oregon Trail or the remains of Native Americans from that era or earlier.

But carbon dating tests from a lab in Florida found the young adult and the child or teen lived sometime during the 1400s to 1600s. Elmore County investigators were so surprised that they sent bone samples to be checked at another lab in Arizona, which returned similar results.

The Bureau of Land Management is using a process in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to return the skeletons. A decision is possible this spring, said agency spokesman Michael Williamson.

"We're giving it the time it needs and looking forward to having a decision made where all parties are satisfied," he said.

For the tribes, it's a matter of recovering two of their own who were among the nomadic Native Americans who experts say spent winters near Snake River Canyon and summers at higher elevation prairies -- eating native plants and hunting mostly deer and rabbits but occasionally elk and bison.

"We've always pointed out that we've been here for thousands of years," Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Chairman Ted Howard said after the age of the bones was disclosed. "For our tribe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, those are the remains of our people, our ancestors."

Kayeloni Scott, communications director for the Nez Perce Tribe, said her tribe has historically been present in the area where the skeletons were found.

"That's why we're speaking on behalf of the bones," she said in a voicemail. "Also, the primary reason was just to make sure someone was taking care of them, and they weren't just being left alone."

The land management bureau confirmed that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is the third with a claim for the bones. Tribe spokeswoman Randy'L Teton did not return a telephone message seeking comment.

The tribes don't let researchers conduct tests on remains of ancestors and anthropologists say the unique nature of the find means that experts are losing an opportunity to learn more about how Native Americans lived in a place where the first documented visit by outsiders was in 1805.

The skeletons were discovered by an Idaho Department of Fish and Game worker checking ground squirrel hunters' licenses about 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the small city of Mountain Home. A badger digging into the ground squirrels' burrows apparently exposed some of them.

Law enforcement authorities who treated the find as a crime scene reported finding no prehistoric items with the bones -- such as stone tools or beads.

But anthropologists say evidence of how the two had lived might have been found by trained experts if the area had also been treated from the onset as a possible anthropological site. There are fewer than a dozen known Native American burial sites on the Snake River Plain, and this site was unique because none of the other sites have had the remains of more than one person.

"If there had been any indication at the outset that this was a prehistoric internment, a much more systematic process would have been conducted," said Mark Plew, an anthropology professor at Boise State University. "These inadvertent discoveries often go into a black hole."

Law enforcement officials after finding out the approximate age of the bones had no more testing conducted because it is costly and can involve destruction of bone material. But Plew said a more thorough examination of the bones with isotope analysis and by anthropologists could reveal the gender of the two, what they ate, whether they had survived periods of famine and possibly their cause or causes of death. "The opportunities are rare," he said. "As these go away, the opportunity to do that kind of research is lost."

For the tribes, trying to recover the remains "is a very emotional process," said Pei-Lin Yu, a Boise State anthropology assistant professor who previously worked as a federal government official on projects to return Native American bones to tribes. The age of the bones doesn't matter to them, she said. "Time doesn't actually figure into their feelings of association and responsibility as stewards of their ancestors," Yu said.

============

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/arts/design/berlin-museum-artifacts-chugach-alaska.html
New York Times, May 16, 2018

Berlin Museum Returns Artifacts to Indigenous People of Alaska

* Photo caption
From left, a wooden mask, painted; a wooden idol; and the fragment of a wooden mask, which were returned to a representative of the Alaskan Chugach people in Berlin on Wednesday. Credit Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

By Christopher F. Schuetze

BERLIN -- The foundation overseeing state museums in Berlin returned nine artifacts to indigenous communities in Alaska on Wednesday after it determined that they had been taken from a burial site in the 1880s.

"The objects were taken from graves without permission of the native people, and thus unlawfully," said Hermann Parzinger, the president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, which oversees Berlin's publicly funded museums. "Therefore, they don't belong in our museums," he added.

The items, which included several masks, a wooden idol and a baby basket, had been in the collection of Berlin's Ethnographic Museum, though they were never exhibited publicly. Between 1882 and 1884, they were taken by Johan Adrian Jacobsen, a Norwegian adventurer and amateur ethnographer acting on behalf of the museum.

In front of members of the media, Mr. Parzinger handed a fragment of a large wooden mask to John F.C. Johnson, a representative of the Alaskan Chugach people. Both men, wearing white cotton gloves, held the mask between them for photographers.

The return of the items comes at a time when European museums are being called on to put more effort into provenance research and to return objects acquired in ways that were unethical and would now be unlawful.

* Photo caption
A baby basket was also among the items looted in the 1880s that were returned. Credit Ethnologisches Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

During a visit to Burkina Faso last year, the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, vowed to make the return of African art a "top priority." "African heritage can't just be in European private collections and museums," he said at the time.

In Germany, where most provenance research has focused on art looted during the Nazi years of the 1930s and '40s, the subject of provenance research into objects taken during earlier times has been the matter of some controversy. Although Germany's empire was much smaller than France's or Britain's, it had several African colonies and acquired many objects for its museums from these territories, as well as from other parts of the world.

Bénédicte Savoy, an art historian and outspoken critic of current curatorial practices in Germany, last year quit the advisory board of the Humboldt Forum, a huge new museum under construction in Berlin, in part to protest the lack of research into the provenance of it collection. Professor Savoy, who both heads the modern art history department at Berlin's Technical University and holds a professorship at the Collège de France in Paris, has since been hired to advise President Macron on the repatriation of African art.

When it opens next year, the collection of Berlin's Ethnographic Museum will be incorporated into the Humboldt Forum, along with the Asian art collections of other Berlin museums.

Monika Grütters, Germany's culture minister, announced on Tuesday that the new director of the Humboldt Forum will be Hartmut Dorgerloh, who currently leads the organization in charge of historic palaces and gardens in Berlin and the surrounding area. Although the Humboldt Forum will have to grapple with questions of restitution and postcolonial sensitivities, these are not major features of Mr. Dorgerloh's current position, which he has held since 2002.

Mr. Johnson, the representative of the Chugach people, said at a news conference Wednesday that he had first traveled to Berlin in 2015 in search of the artifacts, which he said he had known about for a long time.

"Our people are traders," Mr. Johnson said, but "they would never trade burial objects." Once the objects get back to Alaska, they will be returned to the Chugach community, he added, and would be displayed in community centers or local museums.

=============

(4) May 17: By a voice vote, the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Wednesday approved S.1400, the Safeguarding Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act. The bill, also known as the STOP Act, seeks to curb the theft, illegal possession, sale, transfer and export of tribal cultural items.

https://www.indianz.com/News/2018/05/17/tribal-items-still-going-up-for-sale-as.asp
Indianz.com, May 17, 2018

Tribal items still going up for sale as lawmakers advance STOP Act

A bipartisan bill aimed at stopping the trafficking of tribal items is taking a step forward on Capitol Hill amid ongoing concern over the sale of cultural property.

By a voice vote, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Wednesday approved S.1400, the Safeguarding Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act. The bill, also known as the STOP Act, seeks to curb the theft, illegal possession, sale, transfer and export of tribal cultural items. "My hope is that -- by passing this legislation -- we will close loopholes in current law that unfortunately result in the trafficking and sale of items of cultural patrimony in international markets," Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), the vice chairman of the committee, said at a business meeting during which the bill was considered.

But international sales aren't the only concern, as tribes in Minnesota recently discovered when they tried to stop the sale of a sacred pipe earlier this month. An auction house in Massachusetts described the item as being carved by White Dog, also known as Shoon-ka-ska. He was among the 38 Dakota men who were sentenced to death and hanged by the United States in 1862 following the Dakota War.

The Prairie Island Indian Community and the Lower Sioux Indian Community were unable to halt the auction and the pipe was sold for $39,975, well above the estimate for the item. But it turns out an anonymous buyer intends to return it to Minnesota. "We are humbled by and grateful for this honorable act," President Shelley Buck of Prairie Island said in a statement after being informed of the development. "Pidamayaye [thank you] to the donor for your respect and generosity."

*Photo caption
The sacred Dakota pipe, labeled as "Fine Plains Catlinite Stem and Bowl." Photo: Skinner Auctioneers

Other tribes also have benefited from benefactors when their items have gone up for sale, particularly in France, where such auctions have become notorious in recent years. And some, like the Navajo Nation, have even used their own funds to reclaim their patrimony from overseas markets.

"By passing these cultural protection laws, Congress will take another step in making history in its endeavor to make the Navajo Nation and all tribes across the country whole after experiencing the erosion of their cultural identities," said President Russell Begaye. "You will contribute to our hózhó, the beauty way of our life."

But paying for sacred items -- especially those that were removed illegally from tribal homelands -- is out of the question for other tribes. Many lack the funds and consider it another affront to be forced to spend money on what was originally theirs.

Yet legal options are all but closed to tribes in other countries, especially in France, where laws and court decisions have favored auction houses. And diplomacy doesn't always work either, as the Pueblo of Acoma has discovered.

* Photo caption
A ceremonial shield stolen from Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico is the subject of a legal and diplomatic battle after it was put up for sale by a private auction house in France. Image from EVE Auction House

During the Obama administration, the tribe worked with the Department of State to stop the sale of a sacred shield in Paris. In a rare action, the auction house pulled the item, which had been stolen from the reservation in New Mexico sometime in the early 1970s.

Two years later, the tribe still doesn't have the shield. Still, Governor Kurt Riley, who has been one of the strongest advocates of the STOP Act, remains hopeful that it will come home.

"The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' positive vote today on the STOP Act marks an important milestone in the national effort to protect sensitive tribal cultural patrimony from being stolen and shipped out of the United States for sale," Riley said on Wednesday. "As the legislation proceeds through the process, Acoma remains open to discussing any amendments, such as establishing an export certification process, but we are grateful that the legislation, as it now stands, addresses the heart of the matter," Riley added.

The next step is for the STOP Act, which boasts eight Democratic and six Republican supporters, to be considered on the Senate floor. The companion version in the House is H.R.3211, which has not yet received a hearing.

In addition to advancing S.1400 at the business meeting, the committee approved S.2804, the Cultivating Resources, Opportunity, Prosperity and Sustainability (CROPS) for Indian Country Act. The measure brings self-governance to the Department of Agriculture so tribes can exercise greater control over key programs. It also updates existing programs to improve agricultural opportunities in Indian Country.

"Our committee has heard from tribal leaders and stakeholders, including tribal colleges and universities, about the importance of enhancing tribal self-governance for USDA programs," Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), the chairman of the panel, said in a press release on Wednesday. . "This legislation establishes a self-determination demonstration project for nutrition and forestry programs, and it reflects a number of important priorities for Indian Country in the upcoming farm bill. Strengthening the partnership between USDA and Indian tribes will expand agribusiness opportunities for Indian Country's producers and leverage resources to better support rural tribal economies."

"This bipartisan legislation reflects Indian Country's priorities, and is a step in the right direction toward more robust engagement with tribes and Native stakeholders in the Farm Bill reauthorization process. I'm pleased to see it pass through committee so quickly," Udall added. Supporters hope to include the provisions of the CROPS Act into the national Farm Bill. The Senate version is still being developed while the House debates H.R.2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, which has proven controversial in the chamber.

=============

(5) May 25: A 200-year-old carving of the war god Ku has returned home to Hawaii after spending untold years abroad and in the hands of private collectors. Marc Benioff and his wife, Lynne, purchased the rare piece at a November auction at Christie's in Paris, paying more than $7 million for the figure, which is less than 2 feet tall. The San Francisco couple then donated the piece to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, which announced the acquisition this week.
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The Paris auction on November 21, 2017 was reported in the NAGPRA-Hawaii webpage compiling news reports from 2017, at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/nagprahawaii2017.html

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Benioff-pays-7M-to-return-rare-Hawaiian-war-god-12938915.php
San Francisco Chronicle, Updated: May 25, 2018

Marc Benioff pays $7M to return rare Hawaiian war god relic to the islands

By Jill Tucker

A 200-year-old carving of the war god Ku has returned home to Hawaii after spending untold years abroad and in the hands of private collectors.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and his wife, Lynne, purchased the rare piece at a November auction at Christie's in Paris, paying more than $7 million for the figure, which is less than 2 feet tall.

The San Francisco couple then donated the piece to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, which announced the acquisition this week.

"We felt strongly that this kii (Hawaiian for image) belonged in Hawaii for the education and benefit of its people," Marc Benioff said.

The carving, made sometime between 1780 and 1819, had been in the collection of Claude Vérité, a Paris art dealer, who apparently acquired it in 1940. It's unclear where the carving was before that.

Similar pieces are found only in museums, said Susan Kloman, head of African and Oceanic Art at Christie's, in a description of the piece prior to the auction. She described the carving as "an incredible discovery."

"When I first saw this figure I was astonished -- really speechless," she said. "We couldn't imagine that such a work could still exist in a private collection."

Benioff said he learned of the piece only a day before the auction, when Danny Akaka Jr., Hawaiian cultural practitioner and Bishop Museum board member, called to ask for the billionaire's help.

The carving was probably part of a temple on the Big Island, where King Kamehameha I prayed to Ku to unify the Hawaiian islands, Benioff said. Missionaries presumably boxed it up along with other sacred Hawaiian relics and sent it to Europe.

It felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return something like this to its home, Benioff added. "It was either going to go back into someone's living room for another 200 years," he said, "or it was going to go back to Hawaii and be on display for the Hawaiian people."

Benioff, who owns an estate in Hawaii, said he had to beat out a "significant bidder," to get the item. "It's a spiritual item," he said. "It's not really something that should be held to help the power of one person."

The carving was returned to the islands about a month ago -- the land-eater idol arriving about a week before the eruption of the Kilauea volcano -- the timing of which was not lost on Benioff.

The Salesforce founder has long had a connection to Hawaii. While an executive at Oracle, he decided to take a sabbatical and rented a beach hut on the Big Island of Hawaii. He swam with dolphins and "embraced the spirit of Aloha," according to Saleforce's online information. The billionaire signs his emails, "Aloha, Marc," and likes wearing Hawaiian shirts. His company incorporates the aloha spirit -- a belief in treating others with love and respect that translates into a corporate mission that includes spending 1 percent of its profit on philanthropic endeavors. Corporate conference rooms have names like Maka Launa or Hala Kahiki, and the top floors of buildings, including the one on San Francisco's new Salesforce Tower, are called the Ohana, or family, floor.

In addition to the donation of art, Benioff has committed to funding 100 percent of Red Cross emergency relief efforts related to the eruption of the Kilauea volcano. But the billionaire businessman does not typically buy art. This was a departure from his philanthropic endeavors. But it was "a big deal," he said. "This is a very, very big deal."

The kii is 20 inches tall and stands in a warrior pose. It is in the Kona style, made by carvers in that area of the largest of the Hawaiian islands during the reign of Kamehameha I, according to the Bishop Museum.

"Over the years, many of Hawaii's cultural treasures have resided outside of Hawaii. Some have returned home, others not yet," Akaka said in a statement this week. "Today we can celebrate the arrival of this kii to Hawaii and to the Bishop Museum where it will serve as a symbol of great cultural pride as well as a reflection of Hawaii's spiritual past."

The museum plans to make the carving a centerpiece in an exhibition opening in February.

Jill Tucker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer, K-12 Education Reporter. Email: jtucker@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jilltucker

==================

(6) July 11: Yale Peabody Museum repatriated Maori ancestral remains to New Zealand

https://news.yale.edu/2018/07/11/maori-ancestors-repatriated-new-zealand-peabody-museum

YaleNews, July 11, 2018

Māori ancestors repatriated to New Zealand by the Peabody Museum

By Kendall Tearejuly

On the morning of June 21, the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History voluntarily transferred the remains of seven Māori and one Moriori tūpuna, or ancestors, to representatives from the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, known as Te Papa.

The Māori and Moriori ancestors had been in the Peabody's care since they were donated to the museum in the 19th century. In 2003, the New Zealand government mandated Te Papa to "develop a formal programme for the repatriation of kōiwi and koimi tangata (Māori and Moriori skeletal remains) from international institutions to iwi (tribes)," codifying an effort to reclaim ancestral remains that began several decades ago. Overseen by the Peabody's repatriation coordinator, Erin Gredell, Thursday's repatriation makes Yale the third American university to return Māori and Moriori ancestors to Te Papa since the mandate.

"For over 100 years, the Peabody Museum has been honored to care for the Maori and Moriori ancestors, and we hope their return brings healing and joy to their descendants," said David Skelly, director of the Peabody and the Frank R. Oastler Professor of Ecology. "As Mr. Herewini so elegantly stated during today's ceremony, we are all part of the reconciliation process, and on behalf of the Peabody Museum and Yale University I would like to thank our distinguished guests for inviting our participation."

The delegation from Te Papa included Te Herekiekie Herewini, head of repatriation for Te Papa; Te Arikirangi Mamaku, repatriation program coordinator and courier for Te Papa; and two Māori elders, Te Hemanawa Temara (Hema) and Tamahou Temara (Tamahou). The delegation and representatives from the Peabody began the day with a private ceremony where Māori elders and Te Papa representatives were able to "pay respects to the tūpuna and to prepare them for their journey home."

Following the private ceremony, there was a second, public ceremony for the signing of the official handover papers. Heralded by the sound of the pūtātara (conch shell trumpet) and karanga (call of acknowledgement to the ancestors), the representatives of both museums processed into David Friend Hall with the Peabody staff carrying the tūpuna in their travelling cases. Te Papa believes that including the returning museum's staff in the process of repatriation is essential, as they believe it is important to acknowledge the stewardship these individuals have shown the ancestors. The Peabody staff placed the cases on a table draped with black cloth, and Te Papa then laid a contemporary Māori kākahu (cloak) over the cases.

Kapi'olani Laronal, assistant director of the Native American Cultural Center at Yale and herself Native Hawaiian, joined the delegation from New Zealand at both ceremonies. Native Hawaiians and the Māori are two branches descending from a common ancestral family, the Polynesians. The delegation invited Laronal, whom they greeted and embraced as family, to stand with them, acknowledging that these are Laronal's ancestors, too.

"It is a reminder for us all that it is critical to include everyone in the process of honoring our past and connection to it," said Laronal about the Māori and Moriori ancestor repatriation. "Ceremonies such as these helps to establish a connection and relationship between people and the land in ways that acknowledges the past, heals the present and protects our future. Ceremony sets a foundation for our relationships, be it spiritual, physical or material. This is critical for living a good life and in the right way."

Skelly welcomed the Māori elders and Te Papa representatives in his opening remarks at the public ceremony and invited Chief Many Hearts Lynn Malerba of the Mohegan Tribe to share her own welcome to the delegation. In January, the Peabody transferred hundreds of Mohegan artifacts to the tribe's Tantaquidgeon Museum in Uncasville, Connecticut. Hema and Tamahou, the Māori elders, offered traditional Māori songs and blessings for the ceremony.

The participants exchanged gifts at the end of the ceremony. Malerba gave the Māori elders a wreath of sweetgrass and tobacco as well as a special piece of wampum. Laronal and several Yale students, who are themselves of different Native heritages, presented both leis and small tokens from Yale's NACC to the delegation. In turn, the delegation presented Malerba and Laronal with jewelry made from pounamu (greenstone) and Skelly with a book of traditional Māori art. After the public ceremony was complete and a brief recess taken, Te Papa representatives spoke about the importance of the repatriation to Māori communities.

Te Herekiekie gave a presentation on the history of the trade of Māori remains, including both skeletal remains and tattooed, preserved heads, which were taken from New Zealand beginning shortly after the initial colonization of the island by British explorer Captain James Cook. European colonizers valued the remains as both curiosities and anthropological specimens to bring back to Europe, Australia, and North America for museums and private collections alike. Te Herekiekie explained that while the repatriation, or "uplift," of internationally held Māori and Moriori ancestors is mandated by the government, it is also supported the Māori and Moriori tribes, who deeply desire the return of their ancestors.

"When the ancestors go home, we have a sacred repository that's dedicated for their temporary care at the museum," said Te Herekiekie. "But the ultimate goal of our museum is actually to return the ancestors to where they come from around the country." Thus far, Te Papa has been able to return about 50 ancestors to their places of provenance.

"Basically, our ancestors..." said Te Herekiekie, "their life-force comes from the land that they grew up in, so we want them to return back to their homeland and to the life-force that they were nurtured under."

Due to the cross-cutting legacy of colonialism, sometimes repatriation goes both ways for Te Papa, which upon its original founding in 1865 was known as the Colonial Museum and not until 1992 did it become the bicultural hub for both Māori and colonial New Zealand histories that it is today. On their journey to Yale, the delegation stopped over in Washington State at San Juan Island to repatriate a Native North American ancestor, who had been in the care of Te Papa, with provenance to that land.

Te Papa treats the repatriation of ancestors of other Native peoples with the same care and respect that they expect their own to receive. "We dedicated a lot of time to making sure we returned that ancestor in a way that's appropriate, and also with full agreement of the associated tribes of that area," said Te Herekiekie.

Learn more about the Peabody Museum of Natural History, its history and mission, and visiting hours online: http://peabody.yale.edu/

================

(7) July 11: At UC Berkeley's Phoebe Hearst Museum, which holds one of the largest collections of human remains in the country, fewer than 300 bodies have been returned out of more than 9,000.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11680078/native-american-tribes-clash-with-uc-over-bones-of-their-ancestors
KQED News, July 11, 2018, CALMATTERS

Native American Tribes Clash With UC Over Bones of Their Ancestors

by Felicia Mello

As tribal archaeologist for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Myra Masiel uses her UC Berkeley anthropology training daily. Her mission: track down skeletons of Native Californians extracted from gravesites over the last two centuries and shipped off to museums around the world, and return them to the tribe's ancestral land near Temecula so they can be reburied with dignity.

But lately that quest has put Masiel at odds with her alma mater.

The remains of thousands of Native Americans, along with possessions such as beads and fishhooks buried with them, now sit in drawers and boxes at University of California museums. Federal and state laws require their return to tribes able to prove a connection to them. Some tribes accuse university officials of delaying so professors can continue to study the bones, and are pushing state legislation to force UC to speed its efforts.

"As an anthropologist, you don't own what you're taking care of. They're in your care," said Masiel. "But I think the research community does feel that they own them."

Over decades, archaeologists and common looters excavated Native American cemeteries -- some even motivated by the racist eugenics movement, which compared skull shapes to attempt to prove white superiority.

In 1990, U.S. law began requiring federally funded museums to list remains in their collections, along with any "associated funerary objects" or other sacred items, and share the list with tribes, who could then make repatriation claims.

California law extended that approach to state-funded museums. But UC campus responses varied widely.

UCLA's Fowler Museum has transferred nearly all of the 2,300 remains in its collection to tribes, according to its archaeology curator, Wendy Teeter. But at UC Berkeley's Phoebe Hearst Museum, which holds one of the largest collections of human remains in the country, fewer than 300 bodies have been returned out of more than 9,000.

"It's a huge black eye on the institution," said Phenocia Bauerle, Berkeley's director of Native American Student Development. She said the slow pace of repatriation has hurt her ability to build trust with Native American students and tribes.

The dispute reflects a longstanding clash of worldviews, with UC academics weighing concerns of descendants against potential research benefits.

Randy Katz, Berkeley's vice chancellor for research, said the university "works diligently to care for (remains) in a respectful and legal manner." He noted that he recently appointed more Native Americans to the campus committee reviewing repatriation requests, once dominated by anthropologists and with only one Native American member.

Pechanga's dispute with the Hearst Museum began on San Nicolas Island, a sandy, scrub-covered outpost about 60 miles offshore of Southern California, owned by the Navy. Archaeologists with the Navy and Cal State Los Angeles were digging there, seeking to unravel the mystery of the Lone Woman, a Native American whose story inspired the novel Island of the Blue Dolphins.

That didn't sit well with the Pechanga tribal council, which said traditional songs and stories prove the tribe's connection to the island. It filed a petition with the Navy, which agreed the tribe had a cultural affiliation with the area. That meant digging had to stop -- and by law, the nearly 500 remains uncovered on the island over the decades could go to the tribe.

In what tribal representatives describe as a six-year saga, other museums -- including UCLA's Fowler -- have said they will return bodies they have from San Nicolas. The Navy has given permission for island reburial to Pechanga and three other Luiseño and Chumash tribes. But UC Berkeley insists it must conduct its own investigation before returning some of the remains.

The dispute reflects a longstanding clash of worldviews, with UC academics weighing concerns of descendants against potential research benefits.

"There's a wealth of data in the human body," said Robert Bettinger, professor emeritus of anthropology at UC Davis. "We can trace a whole series of isotopes that will tell us about your diet, about the water you drank and probably the region you came from."

Bettinger worries that if tribes rebury remains without allowing anthropologists to examine them, society will lose the opportunity to gain detailed knowledge about life in western North America before Europeans' arrival. "Maybe this is patronizing from an archaeologist's point of view, but I think someday, somebody in the Native American community is going to ask, 'Why don't we know this?' " he said. "And the answer will be because some of your forebears decided it was more important not to know that."

But for many tribes, the very idea that their ancestors would become research objects is, in Pechanga chairman Mark Macarro's word, "abhorrent."

"As long as these remains are out there and our people are in pieces in different institutions," he said, "the tribes have this sense that things are really out of balance."

Macarro subscribes to the Luiseño view that the world was created in the Temecula Valley, and is skeptical of academics who he sees as guessing at history, constantly changing their ideas as new evidence discredits the old ones. "Look, if you want to know the past," he said, "talk to us."

California's Assembly has passed legislation by San Diego Assemblyman Todd Gloria, a member of Alaska's Tlingit Haida tribe, to create a uniform UC repatriation process, overseen by the state's Native American Heritage Commission. Tribes would have equal representation on campus committees, and the state auditor would review UC's legal compliance.

"If (research) was done in a cooperative fashion with the descendants, maybe something could happen here," Gloria said. "Sadly, right now the relationship is very adversarial."

Matching centuries-old skeletons with contemporary Native American groups can be challenging. Poor record-keeping abounds. Even when likely descendants are identified, they sometimes lack the money or land to take on repatriation.

UCLA's Teeter said her team reaches out to tribes to help identify the origin of remains. "We're not talking about Neanderthals; we're not talking about Homo erectus. We're talking about people that are sometimes just a generation or two separated from us," Teeter said. "There's more value in making sure our relationships are true and ethical than in trying to hold onto (someone's) ancestors."

Teeter said the collaboration with tribes is one reason for UCLA's high repatriation rate. At UC Berkeley, by contrast, campus officials have designated more than 80 percent of the remains in its North American collection as "culturally unidentifiable" -- a legal limbo that means researchers can study the bones without seeking permission from any tribe. Katz says that's because they come from a broader range of places and time periods.

In a basement room filled with white file boxes, UC Davis osteologist Michael Walters sorts through plastic bags full of bone fragments so small they look like wood chips. He's searching for human bones that were mislabeled as animal, and sometimes he finds them -- a body part from a child, for example, that was so small that an undergraduate in the 1960s decided it must have come from a bird.

Walters is part of a three-person team hired by UC Davis to update its inventory of about 300 sets of Native American remains -- finding additional bones that researchers in the past missed, and returning those that can be repatriated to tribes.

Human bones go to a separate room closed to the public and the press. There, black curtains cover the shelves that house the bodies, the lighting is dim, and there's an area for tribal representatives to make religious offerings, according to staff.

Walters wears gloves, and speaks to the bones while he works. "I do say hello and good morning to them, I apologize for colonialism," he said. "My goal is to get that person home."

But even this process is controversial. The United Auburn Indian Community says its own claim for repatriation of remains and sacred items from UC Davis has dragged on for years, and objects to scientists handling the bones as disrespectful. The scientists contend they must ensure there's sufficient evidence to repatriate the bones -- or they could be sued by anthropologists who want to study them. In 2012, Bettinger and two other UC scientists seeking DNA to study ancient migrations sued but failed to stop the university from transferring two 9,000-year-old skeletons to the Kumeyaay tribes.

UC has not taken a position on Gloria's bill, though Berkeley's Katz said he's "concerned that as written it will increase layers of bureaucracy and hobble our ability to act swiftly on the advice of the new (committee) we've established that is more representative and inclusive of Native American perspectives."

While the tribes await Senate action, Masiel continues her work. Last month, she flew to Europe to consult with a museum about remains that she says have ties to her people. "The tribe, we're very patient," she said. "We don't forget. I will continue to fight for these people until they get returned back to where they came from."

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics. This story and other higher education coverage are supported by the College Futures Foundation.

=================

(8) September 27: Science Magazine lengthy article reports on conflicts between scientists wanting to study genetic material vs. tribes wanting to keep control over information about themselves and wanting to get the healthcare benefits from such research.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/overcome-decades-mistrust-workshop-aims-train-indigenous-researchers-be-their-own
Science Magazine, September 27, 2018

To overcome decades of mistrust, a workshop aims to train Indigenous researchers to be their own genome experts

By Lizzie Wade

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON--When Ripan Malhi started graduate school in anthropology in 1996, his lab at the University of California (UC), Davis, housed what he saw as a valuable scientific resource: a freezer of Native American blood samples. Burgeoning genetic tools offered a chance to study the population history of these groups, especially the still-mysterious timing of their ancestors' arrival on the continent. Malhi began to extract and sequence DNA from the samples, which his adviser had collected over many years. As his research went on, however, Malhi realized there were few other Native American samples to compare with those on hand. So, he decided to collect more.

He kicked off his effort with a lecture at a reservation in Northern California. It was the first time he had spoken with a Native American community, despite years of studying their genetics. Expecting to gather dozens of DNA samples, "I brought a bunch of cheek swabs with me," he recalls. But at the end of his talk on DNA variation and the importance of filling in sampling gaps, the room fell uncomfortably silent. "Then one person stood up and said, 'Why should we trust you?'" Malhi remembers. "That's a formative memory. I had not learned about anthropologists going to communities, taking samples, and just leaving."

He got no samples that day.

Malhi's experience was one small manifestation of the ongoing tensions between Western scientists and Indigenous communities around the world. ("Indigenous" is an internationally inclusive term for the original inhabitants, and their descendants, of regions later colonized by other groups.) Scientists have used Indigenous samples without permission, disregarded their customs around the dead, and resisted returning samples, data, and human remains to those who claim them. Indigenous communities have often responded by severely restricting scientists' sampling of their bodies and their ancestors, even as genomics has boomed, with increasing relevance for health.

But today, more than 2 decades after his wake-up call in California, Malhi, now a molecular anthropologist at the University of Illinois (UI) in Urbana, is part of an effort to change the relationship between these communities. On a recent morning, Malhi listened as about 40 students and faculty introduced themselves at the Summer Internship for Indigenous Peoples in Genomics (SING), a weeklong program funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and held this year at the University of Washington (UW) here. About half of participants spoke in Indigenous languages spanning the globe from Alaska to New Zealand.

SING aims to train Indigenous scientists in genomics so that they can introduce that field's tools to their communities as well as bring a sorely needed Indigenous perspective to research. Since Malhi helped found it at UI in 2011, SING has trained more than 100 graduates and has expanded to New Zealand and Canada. The program has created a strong community of Indigenous scientists and non-Indigenous allies who are raising the profile of these ethical issues and developing ways to improve a historically fraught relationship.

SING grads and professors say the experience has profoundly affected their work. At SING, "you can exist as your authentic self, as both Indigenous and as a scientist, without having to code-switch all the time. It's like coming up for air," says Savannah Martin, a Ph.D. student in biological anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians in Oregon.

SING participants are beginning to make waves in the broader scientific community. This year, SING alumni and faculty published ethical guidelines for genomic studies in Science and in Nature Communications. Echoing discussions at the workshops, those guidelines call for intense community engagement, especially in areas where Indigenous priorities may clash with those of Western science: questions of which research questions to tackle, when--or even whether--to publish, and how to handle samples and data.

"SING is so important," says geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of UC Berkeley, who is not involved in the program. Those who have taken part say it has equipped them with increased awareness of Indigenous concerns and how to prioritize them in research. In response to new attitudes, some communities say they might now consider working with geneticists. SING is also building what may be the best kind of bridge, one that is "the obvious solution" to the problem of mistrust, Nielsen says: creating "a new generation of geneticists within Indigenous groups."

Any community demanding that researchers slow down, change their questions, destroy samples, keep data private, and perhaps not even publish their results is bound to face skepticism from Western scientists. Some Indigenous communities, such as the Navajo Nation, decline to participate in genetic research at all. And many tribes don't permit research on their ancestors' remains. Such opposition can feel like a hostile stumbling block to Western scientists, some of whom have gone to court to gain or maintain access to Indigenous samples. Not being able to study at least some early samples would "result in a world heritage disaster of unprecedented proportions," the American Association of Physical Anthropologists said in 2007 in a debate over an amendment to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

To understand why so many Indigenous people distrust Western scientists, consider how intertwined science has been with colonialism, says SING co-founder Kim TallBear, an anthropologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate in North and South Dakota. "While the U.S. was moving westward, stealing land, and massacring Indians, you had contract grave robbers coming out onto the battlefields and immediately picking up the dead--Native people--and boiling them down to bone, and sending their bones back east," she says. Many of those skeletons were displayed and studied in museums by researchers who used them to argue for the biological inferiority of Indigenous people. Some of those skeletons are still there.

"Science was there, always. It's part of that power structure," TallBear says. Just 20 years ago, researchers sued for and won the right to study the Ancient One, also called Kennewick Man, a 9000-year-old skeleton from Washington, over the objections of Indigenous groups. (The Ancient One Indigenous to five tribes who claimed him in 2017, after DNA testing suggested a genetic link between him and living tribal members.)

Many Indigenous communities see echoes of this painful history reverberating in the 21st century. In 2003, the Havasupai Tribe in Arizona discovered that samples taken for a study on diabetes had been used for research projects they had never consented to, including on population genetics and schizophrenia. They sued Arizona State University in Tempe, which eventually returned the samples and paid $700,000 to the tribe.

Missteps by Western researchers have even hampered work by Indigenous scientists. For example, in the 1990s, Francine Gachupin, a member of the Pueblo of Jemez in New Mexico, was working on a Ph.D. in anthropology at The University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. She wanted to collect genetic samples from speakers of Athabaskan languages, who range from some Alaska Native groups to the Navajo Nation and the Apache in the U.S. Southwest, to see how they might be related. "When I was meeting with tribes to tell them about the project, they were very enthusiastic," Gachupin remembers. "Every tribal community that I went to gave approval on the first visit."

But at the same time, researchers working for the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), a major international effort, were collecting samples from around the world to build a public database of global genetic variation. The project publicly emphasized the importance of collecting DNA from genetically isolated Indigenous populations before they "went extinct."

That rationale "was offensive to Indigenous populations worldwide," Gachupin says. "Resources for infrastructure and for the wellbeing of the community were not forthcoming, and yet now here were these millions and millions of dollars being invested to 'save' their DNA." The message from the scientific establishment was, she says, "We don't care about the person. We just want your DNA." Some activists dubbed the HGDP "the Vampire Project," believing the only beneficiaries would be Western scientists and people who could afford costly medical treatments.

In the United States, Native American support for genetic research "changed overnight," Gachupin says. She put her research on hold because tribes became so worried about data protection. She eventually finished her work, but the tribes "were not going to give permission for anything more."

Meanwhile, the HGDP database, which includes more than 1000 samples from 51 populations worldwide, went on to become a key genetic reference panel.

What happens after data are collected can also lead to conflict. Many granting agencies and journals require scientists to make data public, so others can check their work. But that makes scientists the custodians of data, and it's scientists who decide what research questions to ask and how to present the results. Many Indigenous people don't want to cede such control to researchers they don't know and don't trust, let alone to the entire scientific community.

Gachupin, now an epidemiologist at The University of Arizona in Tucson and a SING faculty member, represents tribes when scientists want to work with them, to make sure the tribes' wishes are respected.

Another such pioneer is Nanibaa' Garrison, a member of the Navajo Nation. She was in college when her tribe passed its moratorium on genetic research. (According to an article in Nature last year, the tribe may lift the ban.) But Garrison went on to earn a Ph.D. in the field. "I wanted to find a way to do it better. To do things right," she says. She's now a bioethicist at UW and the Seattle Children's Research Institute, developing ethical approaches to research with Indigenous communities. When Malhi got in touch about SING, she signed on right away. "I wanted to see more people like me," in genetics, she says. "And I wanted to change the story."

At SING this year, each day's activities began and ended with Indigenous stories, songs, and prayers. In between, participants spent 6 days extracting and analyzing their own mitochondrial DNA, getting a crash course in bioinformatics, critiquing informed consent forms, and talking about the questions DNA can and can't answer. Students spanned the educational spectrum, from undergraduates to public health professionals.

"We're not trying to shelter [anyone] from Western mainstream thought," Malhi says. The bioinformatics workshop even uses the HGDP reference panel--once so controversial--because it allows students to learn about both its uses and its fraught history. But this year's program ended with an exercise that reminded participants of the complex social backdrop of such research: a drama about a fictional project to look for genetic links to suicide in an Indigenous community.

As students and faculty adopted roles such as researcher or at-risk youth, conflicts quickly arose: At-risk teens refused to offer blood samples for research that might stigmatize them. Public health workers pressed for holistic programs. Pharma reps gave proforma lectures. Before long, the university researchers who proposed the study quietly disappeared. Overwhelmed, they decided to go back to their labs and work on something easier, they admitted at the end of the exercise. Laughs of recognition rang through the classroom, as participants noted just how complicated ethical research with Indigenous communities can be.

In real life, everyone at SING aims to be the researcher who won't disappear. Lessons gleaned from the workshop may help. One key, TallBear says: "If you're going to work with Indigenous communities collaboratively on genetics, you have to be willing to make lifelong relations."

Malhi, for example, has spent years building relationships with the First Nations of British Columbia in Canada, particularly the Metlakatla and Lax Kw'alaams. He has shifted away from focusing solely on his original questions about ancient migrations to questions that matter to the communities themselves, such as their relationships with their ancestors. His study of ancient DNA published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2017, for example, showed at least 10,000 years of genetic continuity in the region, supporting Indigenous oral traditions.

Malhi's graduate student Alyssa Bader, an Alaska Native with ancestors from British Columbia, is now studying the oral microbiome of these communities' ancestors by sequencing DNA preserved in their dental plaque. That's less destructive than sampling bones or teeth, and can reveal what these ancient North Americans ate, a subject their contemporary descendants are interested in because their traditional diets have been altered by Western foods.

SING has helped forge new research relationships. Through the program Deborah Bolnick, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, has established a collaborative research project with Indigenous partners in the southern United States. It took 4 years of conversation before they collected a single sample, but now they have nearly 150. One project is to see whether maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) corresponds with the communities' matrilineal clans. If so, mtDNA analyses might be able to restore clan identities to community members who had that knowledge stripped from them by colonization.

Malhi and Bolnick both say the communities they work with will always have absolute control over their samples and data, and even whether and how they publish their results. That's because many Indigenous people, still facing racism, worry that certain types of studies--such as the one on genetic risk for suicide in the SING role play--may further stigmatize them. As a non-Indigenous researcher, "You have to be willing to know that history and put in the labor to get beyond that," Bolnick says. "To do this work you have to be willing to not see yourself as the authority, but rather as somebody who is going to listen to other authorities."

The Indigenous researchers SING aims to foster understand that history better than almost anyone. They are likely to remain a small minority, at least in the near future: In the United States, less than 1% of doctorates are awarded to American Indian and Alaska Native students, according to NSF, a statistic that has held steady since 2006. But SING offers them the chance to collectively think through whether and how they want to use genetic tools to study their own people. "If you're working with your own community, you're less likely to back out when you hit a wall," says Anežka Hoskin, a graduate student in genetics at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, and a member of the Māori tribes Ngāti Porou and Ngāti Kahu. "And you're going to hit walls."

Martin says doing research with Indigenous people has prompted difficult reflections. She's studying the biological effects of racism and historical trauma on tribes in the Pacific Northwest--work she hopes will include searching for epigenetic changes linked to that history. But she was wary of what might happen if a university or a granting agency demanded access to her samples. Going to SING for the first time in 2015 helped her figure out how to present data protection as a priority in grant proposals. "SING made me feel a lot more comfortable with pushing back against Western institutions," she says.

The tribes she works with have full control over their samples and data--and will decide whether the results are published. If not, "That's it, I don't get my Ph.D.," Martin says. "I've made my peace with that ... Indigenous sovereignty is more important to me than three letters after my name."

SING faculty member Keolu Fox, a postdoc in genetics at UC San Diego and a Native Hawaiian, sees a future in which genomics supports Indigenous self-governance rather than undermines it. "Our genomes are extremely valuable," he says. For example, he's starting to study a genetic variant first identified among Polynesian populations, including Native Hawaiians, that may protect against heart disease and diabetes, especially in people with high body mass indexes. It should be Polynesian communities who profit from that research, he says.

SING faculty member Rene Begay, a geneticist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora and a member of the Navajo Nation, is excited about her role in building this bridge. "I want to be at the table, to advocate for my people, to advocate for research," especially studies that may improve health care, she says. "I want us to ... have the advancements and the technologies that the world outside the Navajo Nation has. But I want to do it in a way that's on our terms."

===============

(9) October 3: A construction project at Kawaiaha'o Church in Honolulu starting about 10 years ago unearthed perhaps 600 burials, and lawsuits invoking NAGPRA forced the project to stop. It remains stopped, while heavy rains and erosion have unearthed additional burials. One issue is that these were Christian burials done by church members during the 1800s, not the ancient pagan burials which NAGPRA was intended to protect. To find other news reports about this project during previous years, use the search window on the front page of this website and put in the pair of search words nagpra kawaiahao.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2018/10/04/erosion-unearthed-more-remains-kawaiahao-church-construction-site/
Hawaii News Now [3 TV stations], October 3, 2018

Erosion unearths more remains at Kawaiahao Church construction site.
Descendants growing tired of waiting for 600 iwi kupuna to be reburied.

By Mahealani Richardson

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - Kawaiahao Church's plans for a new multi-purpose center and more than 600 iwi kupuna that were unearthed during construction have been in a legal and bureaucratic limbo for about decade.

Last month, 15 more burials at the church's construction site were discovered that were exposed during erosion. "It's just horrific beyond words," said Kamuela Kala'i, a cultural descendant who is fighting for immediate reburial at the site. "They don't deserve to build anything here. They have done the worst thing they can possibly do to anybody's kupuna and they dug them up and they disturb them and desecrate it," she said. The Oahu Island Burial Council voted for emergency action after worries about erosion threats from recent storms. "That weather posed a great threat and greater erosion and exposure of burials so we are just lucky they all didn't come tumbling out," said Hinaleimoana Wong, chair of Oahu Island Burial Council.

It's believed that since more than 600 iwi kupuna were buried at the site, some of them were laid to rest during a mass burial during an epidemic during the 1800′s. The church has said most of the iwi kupuna were Christian burials in coffins.

Years ago, Kala'i visited some of the iwi kupuna stored in the church's basement. "I saw 20-something baskets in a caged room with a chain around the caged door with about 25 baskets with supposedly 69 kupuna," she said.

In a statement from Kawaiahao Church lead pastor, Kahu Kenneth Makuakane and Brickwood Galuteria, Chair of the Board of Trustees, the church said it's "respectful of the on-going process, which requires full compliance and a great deal of patience."

That process involves an archeological inventory, consultations with both the State Historic Preservation Division and the Oahu Island Burial Council and meetings with lineal and cultural desendants.

"Kawaiahao Church, with participation and input by the recognized descendants, will develop a Burial Treatment Plan which will honor the iwi kupuna," said the statement. "It has been a very painstaking discussion. To know that the over 600 plus whole and partial burials have been stored underneath the church for this entire time," said Wong.

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

(9)(b) November 16: After a decade of controversy, Kawaiahao Church has decided to stop plans to build a multi-purpose center on its property ... the church's trustees recommend that the congregation "develop a Burial Treatment Plan" and "at this time, not proceed with the plan for the current Multi-Purpose Center."

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2018/11/17/kawaiahao-church-stops-years-long-controversial-building-project/
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations) November 16, 2018

A decade after it started, Kawaiahao Church halts controversial construction project

** Embedded video has no independent URL

By Mahealani Richardson

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) After a decade of controversy, Kawaiahao Church has decided to stop plans to build a multi-purpose center on its property.

The turmoil over the massive pit next to Kawaiahao Church has had a painful history -- with 600 iwi unearthed and 44 bone fragments exposed during recent erosion.

The project to build a multi-purpose center has been mired in protests, lawsuits and government bureaucracy. But on Wednesday, the church's new kahu -- Kenneth Makuakane -- read a letter to the state's Oahu Island Burial Council. It says the church's trustees recommend that the congregation "develop a Burial Treatment Plan" and "at this time, not proceed with the plan for the current Multi-Purpose Center."

Cultural descendant Kamuela Kalai was at that meeting and has fought the project for years. "It was really surreal for me because it was like I couldn't believe what I was hearing," said Kalai.

Board of Trustees chairman Brickwood Galuteria told Hawaii News Now they met with the congregation two weeks ago to get the plan approved. "It's not about a building. We've got iwi that we need to take care of," he said. He added, "The process will be something everyone will be proud of."

"This is actually a landmark decision that after perhaps almost 10 years of issues surrounding people feeling left out of the process, people hurt, anguish, pain over the removal of burials," said Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu, Oahu Island Burial Council chair.

Some congregation members say they are happy to finally be moving forward. Heiress Abigail Kawananakoa, who sued the church in 2009 "to stop the desecration," said in a statement: "It is with a sense of great resolve, that I welcome the recent news, long awaited, that the Board of Trustees of Kawaiahao Church has finally accepted accountability to make the remains of our ancestors a priority."

In its letter, the church also said it has "matured in its understanding of the complexities involved and it will continue to move forward with the guidance of Ke Akua." "I think this is a chance for everyone to start to start healing because we do need to heal," said Kalai.

Church leadership won't say what will happen to the construction site that once held the old Likeke Hall and a date for reburial and exact location is still unknown since there's many legal requirements and consultation with lineal and cultural descendants.

** Note by website editor Ken Conklin: This has been a major topic of controversy in Hawaii for nearly a decade. But no other newspaper or TV station published any story about this topic during a period of several days, which suggests that what's reported in this story is incorrect, incomplete, or unreliable.

================

10 Medford Massachusetts: attempted auction of sacred native items
(a) Nov 13: Medford Massachusetts Public Library announces auction by Skinner Auctioneers and Appraisers of sacred Native items; Mayor orders halt to auction;
(b) Dec 3: News release of protest by Association on American Indian Affairs alleging Medford Library and Skinner Auctioneers vioatred NAGPRA law.

10 (a) Nov 19: Medford Massachusetts Mayor halts sale of sacred Native items at auction

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/medford-massachusetts-mayor-halts-sale-of-sacred-native-items-at-auction-tD1r5gLPKkOHi-6ZVMuveA/
Indian Country Today November 19, 2018

Medford Massachusetts Mayor halts sale of sacred Native items at auction

by Vincent Schilling

Medford Public Library posted a public notice on Nov 13th alerting the public they would be auctioning 'surplus goods'

Medford city Mayor Stephanie M. Burke has stepped forward to remove a list of sacred Native American cultural items from a scheduled Medford Public Library auction after social media outrage and protests by Native Americans opposing the sale.

The auction was scheduled to take place on December 1st and was to be hosted by Skinner Auctioneers and Appraisers, an independent auction company based in Boston. Items on the roster included 'shaman masks' appraised at approximately $30,000, 'shaman bird rattles' appraised at $6-8,000, a shaman spirit-figure at $4-6,000 and a totem pole worth $8-12,000.

According to the Boston Herald, the Medford Public Library had posted a public notice on November 13th alerting the public they would be auctioning 'surplus goods' on December 1st.

Jean-Luc Pierite, president of the board of directors of the North American Indian Center of Boston, told the Boston Herald, "This auction is unconscionable in a country with laws and obligations such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act." Pierite also said that to sell such sacred items for a short-term profit without proper consultation with tribes regarding the proper consultation, was "part of the troubling disregard for government-to-government relationships."

Miranda Willson, a correspondent for the Medford Wicked Local, received word from the Medford Public Library's Board of Trustees. Board member Ann Frenning Kossuth told Willson, "I personally think we need to admit that we made a mistake ... I hope to encourage the board to take action and harness this as a learning opportunity."

Willson was also able to obtain a statement from the Mayor's office who said they would not allow the items to be sold. The Mayor's office told the publication,"The City of Medford has and will continue to honor and respect the cultural richness and traditions of all Native American groups."

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

10 (b) Dec 3: News release of protest by Association on American Indian Affairs alleging Medford Library and Skinner Auctioneers vioatred NAGPRA law. https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/the-press-pool/medford-public-library-likely-in-violation-of-nagpra-ABOlxJiPRkSROgppQRak8Q/
Indian Country Today, December 3, 2018

Medford Public Library likely in violation of NAGPRA

Association on American Indian Affairs
Press Pool News release

Medford Public Library likely in violation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The Association on American Indian Affairs affirmed that the Medford Public Library in Medford, Massachusetts is likely in violation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the Library could be subject to civil penalties under NAGPRA. v On November 13, 2018, the Medford Public Library announced the sale of seven nineteenth-century Pacific Northwest Coast items at Skinner Auctioneers and Appraisers' December 1st sale American Indian & Ethnographic Art – Auction 3185B. After numerous protests regarding the legality of the sale, Medford's Mayor Stephanie M. Burke withdrew the items from the auction lot. NAGPRA provides criminal penalties for trafficking of Native American cultural items. However, the Library could still be subject to federal civil penalties because NAGPRA requires any institution that has received federal funds since November 16, 1990 to provide inventories and summaries of its collections of Native American cultural items. Upon searching the public databases located on the National NAGPRA Program website at , the Medford Public Library is not showing as having submitted any inventory or summary. Any person can file a civil complaint against an institution that has violated NAGPRA.

Additionally, Skinner Auctioneers and Appraisers' December 1st sale continued to include other Native American cultural items, including sacred and cultural patrimony, that could be in violation of NAGPRA, or other federal, state and Tribal laws. These types of items often show up as "antiquities" or "artifacts," are items usually over 100 years old, and do not have an artist's signature denoting that the item is a commercial piece of art. Unless Tribal governmental representatives have verified that such an item is not the patrimony of the Tribe, then it is questionable whether an item has proper provenance information and may be a looted or stolen object. Therefore, it is imperative that any collector, auction house or other institution holding Native American cultural heritage items purposefully consult affiliated Tribal government representatives to perform their due diligence in determining proper provenance of each cultural heritage item.

Please contact the Association on American Indian Affairs for assistance in contacting proper affiliated Tribes to your institutions' Native American cultural heritage items.

=================

(11) Tribal and federal officials celebrated the return Wednesday of dozens of cultural items to Acoma Pueblo's nearly 1,000-year-old village in New Mexico after the tribe spent years pressing for the repatriations of ceremonial items from galleries, auction houses and private collections worldwide. A ceremonial shield stolen from Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico is the subject of a legal and diplomatic battle after it was put up for sale by a private auction house in France. 2 news reports

https://www.apnews.com/0143d90376284eadbbf4ef41b3576109
AP News, December 19, 2018

New Mexico tribe celebrates return of pueblo cultural items

By MARY HUDETZ

** Photo caption: FILE - In this May 24, 2016 file photo, Pueblo of Acoma Gov. Kurt Riley, center, accompanied by Pueblo of Acoma Traditional Leader Conroy Chino, left, speaks as a group of American Indian Nations and American Indian advocates hold a news conference at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in Washington. Tribal officials are marking the return of dozens of cultural items to Acoma Pueblo, where leaders have spent years pressing for the repatriation of ceremonial items. In a statement Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2018, Gov. Riley called the items' return a "great joy and relief." (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- Tribal and federal officials celebrated the return Wednesday of dozens of cultural items to Acoma Pueblo's nearly 1,000-year-old village in New Mexico after the tribe spent years pressing for the repatriations of ceremonial items from galleries, auction houses and private collections worldwide.

Acoma Pueblo tribal Gov. Kurt Riley called the return of the items a "great joy and relief," while noting in a statement that the pueblo has yet to recover a shield that features the face of a Kachina, or ancestral spirit, from a Paris auction house.

That shield remains at the EVE auction house more than two years after an international uproar prompted an attempt by U.S. to intervene. They issued a warrant for its return, and appealed to French officials to help halt bidding on the item that Riley says was illegally removed from the tribe's village west of Albuquerque.

Situated atop a sandstone mesa, the traditional village is called Sky City, and its multi-story adobe complexes and homes overlook an expanse of desert where rock monoliths, rolling hills and mountains rise in different directions. Nearly 5,000 people Acoma Pueblo people call the area home, according to the tribe, and many continue to ask about the status of the shield in Paris and when it might return to the Pueblo.

But for now, Riley and others are taking some satisfaction in the fact that another similar shield that had been listed for sale at a gallery in Montana is among more than two dozen items that federal authorities helped repatriate this week to the pueblo, he said.

U.S. Attorney John Anderson said the Montana gallery is located in Bozeman. He said the business' owner voluntarily gave it to a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs agent after being approached about it. He did not name the gallery.
"It's home and it's in a safe place," Riley said in an interview. "That's what's most important."

For several years, Acoma Pueblo and its quest for the shield in Paris have been at the center of a wave of efforts to place more overall focus on the repatriations of cultural and sacred pieces to tribes -- with federal legislation, hearings and reports focused on the issue emerging in the last two years.

A Government Accountability Office report this year found that the vast majority of items to land in what federal officials identified as primary markets for Native American cultural items came from the U.S. Southwest. Aaron Sims, an attorney for Acoma Pueblo, said the finding confirmed Acoma Pueblo leaders' long-held theory that tribes in the region have been disproportionately affected by the trafficking of ceremonial objects.

Other items recently returned to Acoma Pueblo include what the governor described as five more large pieces, in addition to the shield returned from Montana, and an array of more than two dozen smaller items.

Leaders of the Acoma Pueblo and other Southwest tribes often have been hesitant to discuss or publicly show their communities' sacred items as a way to protect their cultural identity, traditions and beliefs.

Riley did not describe the additional items being returned to the pueblo, and they were not expected to be shown during a ceremony attended by federal officials Wednesday. In 2016, he and other Acoma Pueblo leaders made an exception in their decision to describe the shield in Paris during emotional public appeals for its return. According to the pueblo, the colorful shield stitched together with leather straps is an irreplaceable ceremonial object that holds a place in the cycle of the pueblo's ceremonies.

The tribe and federal officials have said the shield was likely stolen from a home on the mesa in the 1970s. "There is no way a person could remove or sell the shield in compliance of tribal law," said Sims.

French dealers at EVE have maintained that they acquired the shield legally under French and U.S. laws but removed it from a planned 2016 auction.

For numerous collectors of Native American artifacts, there has been dispute over whether the shield was taken in violation of a 1990 federal law that carries penalties for trafficking human remains, burial objects or items of exceptional cultural or historical importance for a tribe. The bill became law amid concerns from tribes about looting and aggressive archaeological expeditions on tribal lands.

More recent legislation, commonly referred to as the STOP Act, has been proposed to seek stiffer penalties for stealing and exporting tribal ceremonial items to foreign markets. Proposed in 2016 by U.S Sen. Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, the legislation also would set an amnesty period for people to voluntarily return cultural items collected in violation of existing laws.

It has not been approved by the Senate.

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

https://www.indianz.com/News/2018/12/19/pueblo-of-acoma-reclaims-sacred-items-wi.asp
Indianz.com, Wednesday December 19, 2018

Pueblo of Acoma reclaims sacred items with help of federal authorities

The Pueblo of Acoma celebrated the return of sacred objects and other items of cultural patrimony that were stolen from the tribe. The tribe secured the return of the items with the help of federal authorities. A special agent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs was instrumental in recovering a sacred shield that was being sold by an art gallery. "The Pueblo of Acoma has been a vocal and strong advocate for the protection of sacred items and items of cultural patrimony illegally taken from tribal homelands," Governor Kurt Riley said on Wednesday following a ceremony at the Sky City Cultural Center and Haak'u Museum on the tribe's reservation in New Mexico.

** Photo caption: A ceremonial shield stolen from Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico is the subject of a legal and diplomatic battle after it was put up for sale by a private auction house in France. Image from EVE Auction House

The tribe used the ceremony to call attention to the failure of the government in France to return another shield that was stolen from the reservation. The U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico has filed a warrant to have the item returned after it too was put up for sale. "Sadly, we all too often find sacred, religious, and culturally significant items being sold at art markets, flea markets and in galleries," U.S. Attorney John C. Anderson said in a press release. "In keeping with federal law, we will continue to do everything in our power to locate such objects and deliver them to their rightful homes."

According to the complaint filed in the France case, the shield that was returned to the tribe was recovered in 2015 from an art gallery in Bozeman, Montana. BIA Special Agent Frank Chavez made sure it got back to Acoma. "The proactive work demonstrated by Special Agent Chavez in working closely with all involved makes us proud," said Tara Sweeney, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.

Federal laws like the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act address the domestic trade of tribal property. But there are few protections when cultural patrimony goes overseas. "This is monumental in the national and international effort to return sacred objects back to their rightful homes," Governor Riley said. "Acoma will continue to collaborate with our federal partners to end the trafficking and illegal sales of protected tribal cultural items."

===================

(12) Ancient DNA in museum-held bones around the world might help aboriginal Australians prove they are entitled to have bones and artifacts returned. But Keolu Fox, a geneticist at the University of California, San Diego, and a Native Hawaiian, warns that it might not work outside of Australia. Polynesian communities, for example, aren't as genetically distinct from each other as aboriginal Australian groups are, so ancient DNA wouldn't be able to match Polynesian ancestors to a specific community or even island.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/ancient-dna-can-help-bring-aboriginal-australian-ancestors-home
Science Magazine, December 19, 2018

Ancient DNA can help bring aboriginal Australian ancestors home

By Lizzie Wade

The bones of thousands upon thousands of indigenous people sit in museums across the world. Their descendants want them back, but they must often fight for years to convince scientists the remains belong to their ancestors. And in some cases, information about where the ancestors are from has been lost. Now, a new study from Australia shows ancient DNA can reliably link aboriginal ancestors to their living descendants, opening up the possibility of using genetics to proactively return ancient remains to their communities.

Ancient DNA has already played a role in a handful of repatriation cases in the United States. There, the tribes fought for decades to repatriate specific ancestors and only consented to DNA tests when other lines of evidence were denied. "DNA was a last resort," says Ripan Malhi, a molecular anthropologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana.

The new study offers a more proactive approach. Geneticists Joanne Wright and David Lambert, both of Griffith University in Nathan, Australia, were working with aboriginal Australian communities on other projects when they got an intriguing request. Tapij Wales, a traditional owner (the term for descendants of people who lived in Australia before Europeans arrived) of the Thanynakwith people in Napranum on Australia's Cape York Peninsula, asked whether ancient DNA might help bring home aboriginal Australian ancestors from museum collections around the world.

Full ancient genomes from Australia had never been successfully sequenced before, because of the continent's harsh climate. Plus, colonialism affected the genomes of living aboriginal Australians; many have substantial European ancestry even though they are fully culturally indigenous. Colonial violence, including forced migrations, may have disrupted the genetic links between ancestors and living communities, making them difficult to match up using DNA alone.

Still, Lambert and Wright were game to try. They analyzed samples from 27 aboriginal Australian ancestors up to 1540 years old. All of them had either been previously repatriated or excavated directly from indigenous lands, so the team knew which living communities they belonged to. The researchers managed to sequence mitochondrial genomes, which contain DNA passed down from a person's mother, from all 27 of them, and nuclear genomes, which contain DNA from both parents, from 10. The next step was to see whether these sequences could match the ancestors with their living descendants.

The team tested the ancient genomes against saliva samples donated to the project by 100 living aboriginal Australians. All 10 of the ancient nuclear genomes showed close genetic relationships with the communities living on the same lands today, proving that they could be a reliable tool for repatriation in Australia, the team reports today in Science Advances. (Wales and 10 other indigenous community members are co-authors of the paper.) But with mitochrondrial DNA, the researchers only got the right answer 60% of the time. That's not good enough, Lambert says, and it shows that mitochondrial DNA should not be used to guide repatriation. Returning an ancestor to the wrong community "would be extremely hurtful and very damaging," he says.

Now that he knows the method works, Lambert dreams of putting together a genetic database of living aboriginal Australians and screening the DNA of bones held in museums against it. That could lead to repatriation even in cases where information about the ancestor's identity has been lost.

Indigenous communities around the world would likely be interested in such a project, says Nanibaa' Garrison, a bioethicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and a member of the Navajo Nation. But Keolu Fox, a geneticist at the University of California, San Diego, and a Native Hawaiian, warns that it might not work outside of Australia. Polynesian communities, for example, aren't as genetically distinct from each other as aboriginal Australian groups are, so ancient DNA wouldn't be able to match Polynesian ancestors to a specific community or even island. In the worst case scenario, the lack of a DNA match could even be used to deny repatriation claims.

Lambert agrees that future researchers need to collaborate closely with indigenous communities so that they can judge the risks and benefits. But if communities decide to participate, using ancient DNA to bring ancestors home could begin to ease "a huge volume of hurt," he says. "It is possible. We can do this."

===============

(13) The National Institutes of Health is collecting DNA from 1 million people including Native Americans bypassing tribal consultation, with some Indigenous leaders calling it "biocolonialism." A Native Hawaiian researcher suggests that indigenous groups or tribes should have their own "IndiGenomics" research institute.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xp33a/the-nih-is-bypassing-tribal-sovereignty-to-harvest-genetic-data-from-native-americans
Motherboard, December 21, 2018

The NIH Is Bypassing Tribal Sovereignty to Harvest Genetic Data From Native Americans
NIH's plan to collect DNA from Native Americans without properly consulting them is "biocolonialism," Indigenous leaders say, arguing that tribes must be in control of their data.

By Terri Hansen and Jacqueline Keeler

The National Institutes of Health is collecting DNA from 1 million people including Native Americans bypassing tribal consultation, with some Indigenous leaders calling it "biocolonialism."

"All of Us," an NIH research program launched in April, plans to use the health data and DNA of Americans to build a precision medicine database for individualized disease treatment and prevention. Already, 100,000 people have signed up.

The program has rolled out to American Indians, Alaska Natives (AI/AN), and Native Hawaiians in cities with large Native populations, such as Seattle, Phoenix, and Minneapolis, a move condemned by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which represents the majority of 573 tribes in the country.

"All of Us Research Program recruitment launch is a reminder that NIH and this program must consult and partner with tribes on how to best protect AI/AN data and tribal sovereignty in research," NCAI tweeted immediately after the program's launch.

The US has unique legal and political relationships with sovereign tribal nations as set forth in the Constitution and various treaties and federal statutes that require federal agencies to consult with a tribe on a nation-to-nation basis on any matter that affects them.

While NIH did assemble an All of Us Tribal Collaboration Working Group, there have been no tribal consultations that satisfy treaty or other requirements nine months into the program. The information being collected is sensitive and can have long-lasting ramifications on the individual lives of participants.

Participation in the research could lead to individual full electronic health records and genetic information being shared with pharmaceutical companies, and may also remove an individual's protection under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), according to a consent form for the program.

Alarmingly, All of Us' privacy release paperwork notes, "Once your information is shared with All of Us, it may no longer be protected by patient privacy rules (like HIPAA)." HIPAA, a federal law, requires health care providers and health plans to keep personal health information private but does not apply to private genetic companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry. It also allows sharing and selling of patient data if it has been "anonymized" (identifying details removed).

Read More: 23andMe Sold Access to Your DNA Library to Big Pharma, But You Can Opt Out
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwkaz3/23andme-sold-access-to-your-dna-library-to-big-pharma-but-you-can-opt-out

However, All of Us shares a more significant amount of medical data with researchers and third parties than 23andMe and Ancestry because it includes electronic health records (EHR) ... a patient's complete medical history, including treatment for alcoholism, STDs, etc. All of Us states these "researchers may be from anywhere in the world. They may work for commercial companies, like drug companies."

And if any DNA-related health issues are uncovered via testing, they must be reported when filing for disability. Those who do not disclose the findings could be found guilty of fraud.

Tribes must be in control of their data to preserve privacy, for intellectual property reasons, and because of spiritual and cultural concerns, geneticist Joe Yracheta, of indigenous P'urhepécha and Raramurí heritage in what is today Mexico, told Motherboard over the phone.

"Say they find something in your family or tribe, a genetic resistance to some disease they can CRISPR into a rich child. Your family gets nothing"

If tribes or Indigenous researchers are not in control of AmerIndigenous biological tissues and data, it gives license to non-Native researchers to seek whatever genetic resources they can find, including desecrating the bodies of deceased Indigenous ancestors for their genetic material, Yracheta said.

The privacy risk concerns Yracheta, too. Medical articles assert that genetic and clinical information are the same in terms of privacy concerns, which Yracheta argues is not true for Native American communities. "Their genetic data is different from other types of data; it's unique and easily identifiable in many ways, Yracheta said.

All of Us advises that in a data breach, there is a small likelihood that someone could access the information they have about participants, and that their information could be misused.

There have also been questions about why the NIH still hasn't acted on the working group's recommendations, namely to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of tribal governments before initiating data collection, honor the tribal sovereignty of tribal citizens on and off the reservation, protect their rights and privacy, and share any benefits from their participation with the Native community.

Abigail Echo-Hawk, a citizen of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Urban Indian Health Institute, a tribal epidemiology center in Seattle and a member of the tribal working group, said All of Us owes a duty to her tribal nation ... regardless of where she lives.

"Just because urban Indians reside off reservation or village lands does not mean they don't fall under the protection and leadership of their tribal nations," she told Motherboard in an email. "Efforts must be made to ensure that the recruitment of urban Indians by All of Us is not bypassing tribal approval and consultation processes. In addition, meaningful engagement needs to occur that includes urban Indian organizations and leadership."

Echo-Hawk says tribal nations must be properly consulted so they can assess potential risks and ensure benefits to their citizens.

NCAI followed up with a tweet in November, saying, "AIAN Tribes are still waiting for @NIH to consult with them on the All of Us research study. A report from a workgroup is not a consultation." "Nobody wants to do real consultation because it's expensive and it takes a long time," Yracheta said.

Read More: Don't Give Your DNA to Giant Genetic Databases
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyma7m/dont-sequence-your-dna-golden-state-killer

The NIH is aware that Native Americans are wary of handing over their DNA. Historically, Natives have made very few DNA donations to geneticists' database, largely due to a history of distrust. In 1989, for example, researchers from Arizona State University convinced the Havasupai, a tribe living deep in the Grand Canyon, that they could alleviate type 2 diabetes plaguing their community if tribal members would donate blood samples ... they would search for a link between their genes and diabetes risk.

Not only did the researchers not find anything that could benefit the tribe's health, they studied their genetic data ... without members' consent ... for schizophrenia, inbreeding, and migration, and published their findings in 2004. The scientists' conclusions challenged the thousands-year-old Havasupai origin beliefs also shared by the Yuma and Mojave.

The tribe sued and reached an out-of-court settlement, which meant no legal precedent was set on what can and cannot be done with a tribe's genetic data.

Brett Shelton, of the Oglala Lakota Nation and a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, says NIH's program is an example of "biocolonialism."

"The issue of biocolonialism has come knocking at our doors, and like all other unwanted advances of colonization within our lives and territories, genetic prospecting is a reality," Shelton told Motherboard in an email. "Much of life's genetic diversity exists among our peoples and in our territories. Researchers know this is where they will find the genetic diversity ... human, animal and plant ... needed for their research projects." He added, "If Indigenous people or nations choose to participate in studies involving genetics, that is their choice, but they should research the issue further before deciding."

Since the early days of genetic testing, tribes have started to take more diverse positions on genetics research. Some tribes have agreed to it while others have not yet determined their policies.

The Navajo Nation, for instance, imposed a moratorium in 2002 on genetics research due to a history of scientists conducting research without consent or adequate privacy controls. However, they are reconsidering in light of the moratorium being a barrier when it comes to cancer and the effects of uranium.

An All of Us spokesperson told Motherboard in an email their leadership is committed to taking the time to engage tribal nations. "We see this government-to-government consultation not only as a requirement for a federal program, but also as both a scientific necessity and a moral and social justice imperative."

She said the All of Us program is in the process of planning consultation for spring or summer 2019, but in a telephone interview on December 13 she confirmed to Motherboard there had been no consultations with the tribes or the NCAI.

As it stands, All of Us is open to everyone, Native Americans included, the spokesperson said.

Yracheta points out that researchers can also obtain DNA from tribal members in the military, federal prisons, and even from suspects upon arrest in some states without tribal oversight. "Tribes need to be aware of that," he said.

"Say they find something in your family or tribe, a genetic resistance to some disease they can CRISPR into a rich child," Yracheta said. "Your family gets nothing."

Dr. Keolu Fox, a Native Hawaiian geneticist, points to the Sami of Finland, who have a protective genetic variation against heart disease. "Any financial proceeds from medical treatments or benefits to humanity must be shared with the Sami people," he told Motherboard over the phone.

There are also ethical concerns, with so few regulations guiding this fairly new industry. In the 1980s, for example, blood taken from the Nuu-chah-nulth in British Columbia for rheumatoid arthritis research was stolen and used for research on human migration, HIV/AIDS, and drug abuse. The Nuu Chah Nulth had to fight the University of Utah to get back ownership of their blood.

That doesn't mean American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians should not participate in genetic research. If Native peoples are to benefit from potential medical discoveries, they need to participate in precision medicine research, Echo-Hawk says.

Ninety-six percent of genome studies are based on people of European descent, said Fox, also a TED Fellow, in a TED talk. The rest of the world is virtually unrepresented ... and this is dangerous for Indigenous peoples. One reason is that their reaction to drugs is different based on their genetic makeup.

Fox is working to democratize genome sequencing with the goal of eliminating health disparities, specifically by advocating that Indigenous populations get involved in research. One idea is to have their own "IndiGenomics" research institute.

"We should be educating indigenous communities and performing the science," Fox said. "If Native people are involved in every step, it will reduce some of that distrust in research and specifically in genetic research where institutions have used genetic information to challenge (our) origin stories and tell us how our communities are interbreeding."

Fox said he isn't shutting out those on the outside. But, he cautions, "The research community needs to immerse itself in Indigenous culture."

** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: See also the following related webpages on the topics of indigenous intellectual property rights and proposed regulating of bioprospecting.

Ken Conklin: Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights -- The General Theory, and Why It Does Not Apply in Hawaii
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenousintellproprts.html

Ken Conklin: Hawaii Bioprospecting -- Hearings by the Temporary Advisory Committee on Bioprospecting (late 2007), and testimony by Ken Conklin

https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/bioprospecting2007.html

Pan, Peter G. Bioprospecting: issues and policy considerations. Honolulu, HI: Legislative Reference Bureau, January 2006. This report was undertaken in response to House Concurrent Resolution No. 146, H.D. 1, 2005. The Bureau has been requested to "conduct a study on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from research, indigenous knowledge, intellectual property, or application of biological resources that are public natural resources held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people." This study examines the nature of bioprospecting and certain problematic issues surrounding the use of biological resources. These include certain assumptions that may not necessarily be correct or relevant. The study further discusses the issue of the public land trust and benefit sharing with indigenous knowledge holders. We also examine several models of bioprospecting guidelines for the Legislature's consideration.
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/BioprospectingCommitsionReport.pdf

===============================
===============================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

LINKS

The Forbes cave controversy up until the NAGPRA Review Committee hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 9-11, 2003 was originally described and documented at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbes.html

The conflict among Bishop Museum, Hui Malama, and several competing groups of claimants became so complex and contentious that the controversy was the primary focus of the semiannual national meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota May 9-11, 2003. A webpage was created to cover that meeting and followup events related to it. But the Forbes Cave controversy became increasingly complex and contentious, leading to public awareness of other related issues. By the end of 2004, the webpage focusing on the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting and its aftermath had become exceedingly large, at more than 250 pages with an index of 22 topics at the top. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbesafterreview.html

This present webpage covers only the year 2016.

For coverage of events in 2005 (about 250 pages), see:

https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2005.html

For year 2006 (about 150 pages), see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2006.html

For year 2007, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/nagprahawaii2007.html

For year 2008, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/nagprahawaii2008.html

For year 2009, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/nagprahawaii2009.html

For year 2010, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/nagprahawaii2010.html

For year 2011, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2011.html

For year 2012, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2012.html

For year 2013, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2013.html

For year 2014, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2014.html

For year 2015, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/nagprahawaii2015.html

For year 2016, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/nagprahawaii2016.html

For year 2017, another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/nagprahawaii2017.html

GO BACK TO: NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) as applied to Hawai'i -- Mokapu, Honokahua, Bishop Museum Ka'ai; Providence Museum Spear Rest; Forbes Cave Artifacts; the Hui Malama organization

OR

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE