remains for which the strength of relationship does not meet the statutory standard of cultural affiliation.

Finally we should note that it is often the case that the scientific and public interests go essentially unrepresented in NAGPRA's repatriation process. Unfortunately, it frequently appears to be the case that the goals of expedience and cost avoidance take the priority over thorough consultation with the tribes and over reasoned assessments of the available scientific, historical, and traditional evidence. NAGPRA inventories published in the Federal register are not in any way reviewed with respect to the adequacy of the evidence collected or the reasonableness of the affiliations decided. While NAGPRA provides tribes with an administrative ability to contest determinations of affiliation, the only recourse of the scientific community is to the legal system.

SAA would be the first to agree that lawful application of the definition of cultural affiliation is a challenging task, because of the need to assess fairly the different forms of evidence and to reasonably interpret the definition's concepts of “shared group identity," "identifiable earlier group,” and "reasonably traceable." We also believe that it is a vitally important job that must be carefully addressed by the agencies and museums charged with making the determinations. Because we believe that the problem lies not so much in the definition, but in plainly unreasonable applications of it, we have asked the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance on this topic (we included a copy of our letter to the Secretary with our original testimony) and would welcome any assistance the Committee can provide in promoting compliance with the law in making determinations of cultural affiliation.

Sincerely,

Keith W. Kintigh

President

3

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am W. Donald Duckworth, Ph.D., President and CEO of the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawai`i, presenting testimony on behalf of my institution and on behalf of the American Association of Museums, for which I serve on the Board of Directors.

In 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, "NAGPRA," became law (P.L. 101-601). NAGPRA is remedial legislation enacted by Congress to ensure that Native American remains, funerary and other objects retained by the federal government and by the museum community are returned in accordance with the law to appropriate tribes and Native American organizations for reburial or other proper care.

The Bishop Museum is committed to fulfilling both the letter and spirit of NAGPRA. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Bishop Museum's experiences over the last nine years as it has worked to fulfill both the letter and spirit of NAGPRA, and then to comment on the national situation for museums with respect to NAGPRA.

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum was founded in 1889 by Charles Reed Bishop, a businessman from Glens Falls, New York, as a memorial to his wife, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last of the Kamehameha line of ruling chiefs. Since its inception 110 years ago, the Museum has been dedicated to the preservation, perpetuation and interpretation of the natural and cultural history of Hawai`i and the Pacific. The Museum's role in the Hawaiian community has always been a very special one. The Museum preserves and cares for 1,470,000 collection items that represent the rich and wonderful legacy of Native Hawaiian culture and that tell the story of those who care for the land and each other, respect the spiritual forces of nature, and create things of great beauty and skill. Caring for these collections is a great responsibility guided by professional standards, legal requirements and cultural sensitivity. We carry out this responsibility with Native Hawaiians for their benefit and the benefit of all the people of Hawai'i, past, present and future.

In 1990 Bishop Museum presented testimony to this distinguished committee in favor of the passage of NAGPRA. At that time we estimated that Bishop Museum retained 2,590 Hawaiian remains and funerary objects. We also pointed out that repatriation and consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations were not new to us. We had repatriated Native Hawaiian human remains prior to the passage of NAGPRA and were in the process of repatriating human remains at the time NAGPRA was enacted. We noted that the Bishop Museum was dedicated to serving the Native Hawaiian community and actively sought ways to improve its relationship with this community. We saw NAGPRA as one such way to ensure greater and more meaningful involvement of the Native Hawaiian community in the Museum's future.

Since the passage of NAGPRA in 1990, Bishop Museum has repatriated 4,252 Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects. This number, the result of NAGPRA mandated inventories, and nearly double what we were able to estimate in 1990, represents all the Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects that were retained by Bishop Museum in its collections. These inventories were carried out in consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations and verified by Native Hawaiian claimants as part of the repatriation process. We are pleased to report that we have completed the repatriation under the law of all Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects.

In 1990, we estimated the cost of repatriation to be $388,500. The actual costs are expected to reach $1,000,000, most of which will have been for personnel costs, including consultation. About 64 per cent of the cost was provided by Museum operating funds. The remainder was funded by a contract from the U.S. Navy, a contract from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (discontinued after nine months' work following consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations), and a grant from the National Park Service (NPS).

A substantial part of the costs were due to an inventory conducted under a U.S. Navy contract, which required background historical research, summaries of existing research conducted on the human remains, and a detailed inventory of a large number of human remains by a physical anthropologist. The contract was begun a few months after the enactment of NAGPRA and completed a few months after the National Park Service published the preliminary proposed guidelines. Consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations was minimal.

Shortly after the completion of the inventory and report, the Museum and the Navy were sued by Hui Malama I Na Kupuna o Hawai`i Nei (Hui Malama), a Native Hawaiian organization named in NAGPRA. Hui Malama contended that new research was conducted on the remains as part of the inventory and that the resulting report contained material that was offensive to both the ancestors that were represented by the remains and their present day descendents. Bishop Museum was subsequently released with prejudice from the suit. Ultimately the court decided in favor of the Navy. As a result of this inventory and report, the Museum lost funding for an inventory of Hawaiian remains from the island of O`ahu, the second largest collection in the Museum. The costs of the lawsuit were substantial to the Museum and Hui Malama, both in terms of funds and emotional health. The lesson learned was that consultation was at the core of NAGPRA and that there never could be enough of it.

Before and after the U.S. Navy contracted inventory, the process for every inventory, including consultation and repatriation, was carried out without incident and to the satisfaction of all involved. The number of consultations increased in time to include more members of Hawaiian organizations, elders and families. The relationship of the Bishop Museum to these organizations did in fact improve as we had hoped. In some cases, claimants grew to understand and appreciate the role of the Museum as a caretaker and loaned back the repatriated objects for safekeeping, or withdrew their claims. The sense of responsibility for all Hawaiian collections items in the Museum

grew among these consultant groups. As a result of these consultations, the Museum created a special, secure area with restricted access that serves as both a storage and ceremonial area for what Native Hawaiians consider are sacred objects, including objects of cultural patrimony.

In 1998, Bishop Museum was awarded a National Park Service (NPS) grant after two previous proposals were rejected. The grant was for the Museum to work with a Native Hawaiian organization to prepare inventories of unassociated funerary objects. The Museum asked Hui Malama to participate in the project and Hui Malama agreed. We chose to work with Hui Malama because of their widely recognized expertise in the implementation of NAGPRA, their understanding of the proper treatment and disposition of Native Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects, and the need for the Museum to seek resolution to long term problems in our relationship with Hui Malama and other Hawaiian organizations. Two uniquely qualified individuals were hired by the Museum to prepare inventories of unassociated funerary objects, and carry out consultations and repatriation. The Bishop Museum is grateful to NPS for giving us this opportunity, for we have all come to better understand what it takes to properly care for cultural heritage, what the spiritual basis for repatriation is, and how to treat the remains and sacred objects with respect.

We would like to emphasize that consultations between Native Hawaiian organizations and the Museum have brought about a deep sense of mutual respect, trust, and willingness to resolve issues related to NAGPRA and those that are outside of NAGPRA. This relationship took a long time and much hard work on the part of all involved to establish. It is very important that the agreements reached by Native peoples and museums be honored and supported in the spirit of NAGPRA and that the letter of the law be fulfilled with this spirit.

I would also like to comment on NAGPRA from the national perspective. American Association of Museums (AAM) represents the broad range of museums, from aquaria, art and history museums to natural history museums and zoos, with more than 16,000 members, of which about 11,000 are museum paid staff or volunteers and about 3,000 are museums. A 1994 AAM repatriation survey of 500 of its member institutions included all of its natural history museums and a selected sample of its art and history museums. The survey response rate was 43.6%. Of those responding, 76% of the natural history museums, 43% of the history museums and 23% of the art museums had Native American objects. Those respondents--a little more than 200--alone had almost 3.5 million objects which fell into NAGPRA categories, and that did not include 15 responding natural history museums, including 3 large institutions, which could not, at that time, give an accurate estimate of their NAGPRA-related holdings.

In contrast, in October 1990, at the time of the passage of NAGPRA, the Congressional Budget Office had estimated NAGPRA implementation costs to museums of only $40 million and to tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations of $5-10 million over 5 years, assuming that museums and federal agencies held between 100,000 and 200,000 Native American remains and that the cost to inventory and review each remain