 Good evening and welcome. My name is Richard Leventhal. I'm the Executive Director of the Penn Cultural Heritage Center. I'm very pleased to welcome you to the Penn Museum tonight for a very exciting activity and performance. As we get started, I'd like to thank, first, to begin to thank our sponsors for tonight's activities. First, I'd like to thank the Sac and Fox Nation. I'd also like to thank Penn Museum, Penn Cultural Heritage Center, Penn's Native American and Indigenous Studies Initiative, the Albert M. Greenfield Intercultural Center here at Penn, the Department of Anthropology at Penn, and the Native American voices, the people here and now exhibit here at the Penn Museum. To begin the program, I'd like to invite Pastor John Norwood to come to the podium. He is a Nanticoke Lenny Lenape tribal nation of Bridgeton, New Jersey. And he is a councilman and tribal judge. And he will present a convocation and welcome. Perhaps I'll stand on the side here. It is an honor to be able to welcome you to the land of the Lenape-Lenapehoking. I am grateful to the curators of the museum, the leaders of this event, our dignitaries from across Indian country, many of whom are national level leaders and artists. I'm honored to have representatives of the Sac and Fox Nation, and especially members of the family of an American hero. I want to once again say that on behalf of the Nanticoke Lenape tribal nation, we're blessed to have you in our homeland, and that indeed, we are still here. I've been asked to give a blessing, which I will do at this time. And those of you who can stand, I invite you to do so. Oyawe, kwanishi, wanishi, wanishi nuhati, nihilari e amakiraminne, wanishi, wanishi, wanishi nuhati, gawe, nishi, wanishi, wanishi nuhati, kisipendai petamarafina, wanishi, wanishi, wanishi nuhati, for gathering us in this place. I ask your blessing upon all who are here, those who have traveled both near and far. For the nations that are represented, we are grateful to you for keeping us and sustaining us. I pray your blessing over what we do this evening. This I ask in the name of Jesus, not in a hitch. John, thank you very much. And to begin tonight, we'll also now have a short film clip entitled Jim Thorpe, The World's Greatest Athlete. This is a short piece of the film. It was a film made by documentary producer and director Tom Widlinger and Joseph Brujak. In 1999, a joint resolution of Congress recognized the athlete of the 20th century. He was a man today many have ever heard of, an Indian from Oklahoma named Jim Thorpe. It was the time to headskip in it and get away from being heavies and learn to eat with a nice, focused food. It was not a real comfortable existence for many of those homesick children. And quite frankly, I found out that Jim Thorpe was one of many Indian children. When they got the opportunity, they were heading out of Dodge. These guys were practicing high jump. Nobody could get over that bar. I said, we went over the top of the bar. Had a couple inches of spare. Warners saw that. I personally think that the Oering Indians, the Canton Bulldogs were teams that probably introduced people to pro football. Coming to Big League like he did, I thought he was a hell of a ball player. He's bad. He's the only Olympic athlete they ever participate in 17 events. He won the decathlon. And also, he won the pentathlon. You know, people were mystified. He lost his twin. He lost his mother. He lost his father, his first son. I know dad would say, all those medals must go up again and return to life. It's only a place to return to life. You can't return to life. And I think if it was really any herd, that's where it came from. The people that he trusted turned them up. Saved their own careers. It's legend. Legend in any kind. Listening to my dad, he says, if there's anybody that can outrun you, it's Jim Thorpe. Whenever I get down and tired sometimes, I used to always think about it in my mind about Jim Thorpe doing what he did. And it would motivate me to just keep running and just keep going. I'll set up for the play reading. And I'd like to give a little context between what you just saw and today. Because in 1953, Jim Thorpe dies. Jim Thorpe's human remains are then taken to the town of Mockchunk and East Mockchunk in north central Pennsylvania for the creation of a memorial to the athlete. And the towns have then renamed Jim Thorpe Pennsylvania. In 1990, we have the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act as a federal law. In 2010, Jim Thorpe's son, Jack Thorpe, initiated a lawsuit for the return of his father's remains under NAGPRA. In 2011, after Jack had died, Jim Thorpe's other sons, William and Richard, are joined by the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma to continue the lawsuit. In 2013, the federal court ruled in favor of the Thorpe brothers and the tribe, and that the borough was in fact a museum and the remains should be returned. In 2014, the Third Circuit US Appeals Court reversed that decision. And in 2015, the appeals court declined to rehear the appeal from the Thorpe family and the tribe. And that's where we are today. So I'd like to now turn to the actors as we hear the play reading. My Father's Bones and the play is by Suzanne Shown Harjo, and Suzanne is in the back of the room. We'll be participating in the panel discussion a little bit later, and by Mary Catherine Nagel, who's in the front. In addition, the actors are Zach Morris, Joe Cross, William Zelinsky, Dave Johnson, Colleen Cochran, and Ray Labity will be reading the stage directions. My Father's Bones by Suzanne Shown Harjo and Mary Catherine Nagel. Sac and Fox Nation, Jack stands in the northeast corner of the cemetery. He is surrounded by tombstones, each one displaying the name of a sibling, aunt, uncle, grandparent, or other relative. These are the trees that surrounded him. Can you hear them? These are the birds that sing to him. In the sky, that big hand, the dirt, the red earth. This is the dirt my dad played in. You know, when he was a kid, his home. We were born in this dirt. And when we die, we go back to this dirt, or at least. Grandma and grandpa, they're here now. Over there, that's my auntie. My dad's brother, my uncle, some of my cousins. My dad's twin died when he was nine. He's here. We're all here. They took him, buried him someplace else, far away from here, someplace he'd never, ever been before. You see, my dad, you may know him, or maybe you think you know him. Sure, he was famous. And yeah, he won some gold medals in the Olympics. But that didn't change who he was. To my dad, he was always second box. That's one thing you should know about us Indians. We're no different than you white people. We want to bury our loved ones with our loved ones. Our mothers, our fathers. I spent years trying to bring dad back. I begged, I pleaded, and when that didn't work, I did what all you white folks do all the time. I filed a lawsuit. October 23, 2014, borough of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. Mayor Michael Sofranko sits at his desk on the phone. Thanks, Scott. See you Sunday. He hangs up as his secretary enters. My father's name was Watohak, or as you would say in English, the bright path that lightning makes as it goes across the sky. To me, he was dad. But to the world, he was the most incredible athlete of the 20th century. Most remember him for the gold medals that he won in the 1912 Olympics. He won both the Ducathlon and the Pentathlon. A feat, no one's ever known. His scores in the combined 15 events were off the charts. He set records that took decades to break. But I remember dad for football. As an Indian kid, he was sent to school at Carlisle. And it was there at Carlisle that Eisenhower saw him play. The president said, later, here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed. But my memory goes back to Jim Thorne. He never practiced in his life. And he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw. That's not entirely true. Dad practiced. Sometimes on Saturdays, when we weren't in school, he would take us out back and throw the football around. I was the youngest. And just let me say that Bill and Richard, they can always outplay me, always through to me first, before he through to me. October 23, 2014, Bill Thorpe and Steve Ward's Tulsa Law Office. Steve Ward holds a copy of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision. You know what to do. They exit as Michael Sufranco and Secretary enter the mayor's office in the borough of Jim Thorpe. I'm a citizen. I don't know how you slice it, but we lost in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The three judges that decided the boroughs appeal overturned the district court judge, concluding that he got it wrong. According to the Third Circuit, it doesn't apply to my dad's remains. Nagpre, you know what that is? Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. That's a little thing Congress put together back in 1990 for our civil rights, for Native American human rights. When Congress found out about a serious problem, for some reason, Native folks, non-Native folks in America think they should be able to buy and sell our Native ancestors. Our remains, our bones, our skulls. Some scientists were digging up our skulls to study them. Some were collecting our bones for trophies. Others were using them as tourist attractions. But we're human. And just like all you other folks, we have the inalienable right to be buried in the same soil as our relatives, or to have our ashes sent. Nagpre recognized that we had that right. Nagpre requires non-Native entities to purchase the remains of our Native people to return them so we can bury them, so we can put our relatives to rest in the way they want. Have you ever had your deposition taken? Michael Sofranco enters and moves to the table with chairs. Steve Ward sits across from him. October 23, 2012, Lehighton, Pennsylvania. The court reporter enters and sits typing every word that's spoken. I wanted to interrupt, but of course I didn't. I wanted to ask, why won't you let my dad come home? There was a contract. July 16, 2012, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Bill enters and takes his place. William Schwab enters and sits on the other side of the table. The court reporter remains typing every word that's spoken. Bill takes his seat at the table. You already said it. I'm the attorney for the borough, Jim Thorpe, shocked to several cities. As this, I'm just trying to understand when your brother and your father's remains were shocked to several cities. Objection. How is it that you claim that your father's remains were shocked to several cities? Conversation with your father. Were you aware that the two boroughs of the foundation would be binding on the heirs, administrators, and for as long as the boroughs of East Mock Chunk and Mock Chunk are originally known or desiccated as, my understanding, once an Indian is buried in sanctified land, for this first ceremony was never completed. But your half-sister-grace completed one. So the sacrifice burial by your half-sister-grace in Pennsylvania. Look at what's on that side. The sacrifice burial. If someone would show you that it was a sacrifice burial, would there have been any difference? No, we don't need you to show us what is and is not Sackin' Fox. I know what's Sackin' Fox. And you aren't Sackin' Fox. A Sackin' Fox burial ceremony lasts four days. The fourth day is important. That's when the elders hold the naming ceremony. Maybe you've never experienced anything like this. But these are our traditions. We have two spirits. We have our big spirit and we have our little spirit. And when you pass, an elder gives your little spirit a name that says to your little spirit, it's OK. Before my father's passing, no one had ever interrupted a Sackin' Fox burial. So when Patsy walked in there, we didn't know what to do. We just sat there in shock. I remember I had my brother, Bill, next to me, my relative, Henrietta. She was on my ride. And suddenly, I don't know where this white guy burst in. Henrietta gasped. Bill grabbed my hand. We knew something was wrong. The white guy, he came in the wrong door. The door he came through, that's the door for death. Only the dead. January 2011. Just a few dispositions. And they will file for summary judgment. I was hoping you'd take over. You know, be named plaintiff instead of me. You're ready for this. You don't need to. We have a lawyer, a good lawyer. I have cancer. What's your doctor said? It's a matter of months. I won't be here. Someone has to bring dad home. It wasn't easy, you know, deciding to file the lawsuit. I really had to think about it. Is this what dad would really want? But then he always said, all he ever wanted was to be buried in second funds next to his twin brother, his parents. So when I met with my attorney, I said, file it. Steve Ward enters. File the lawsuit. I'm sure. I don't care if it takes the rest of my life. I don't care about money. If it were your dad. Before I filed a suit, I tried. When I was principal chief, I made several trips. And each time, the answer was the same. Mayor enters and sits in his office. Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, 1986. I'd like to collect my father, please, Principal Chief Thorpe of the Second Fox Nation. I'm here to collect my father. He's going back to Oklahoma. Time for him to come home. My dad never signed anything. This isn't what he wanted. Need to finish his burial. This isn't his home. Wat Dohuk? His name is Wat Dohuk. May 19, 1954, East Machunk, Pennsylvania. Mayor sits in a chair in his office. Patsy enters. Mayor hands Patsy the contract to read. 1953, Second Fox Nation. Jim Thorpe's funeral. Jack, now 16 years old, and Bill, now 25, stand together. Jesus, I can't my mom who may name. Jesus, I can't my mom who may name. Jesus, I can't my mom who may name. Jesus, I can't my mom who may name. Well, you didn't tell your neck to shit my mom who may name. Highway patrolman has entered, and the music has stopped. Patsy enters. What are you doing? You can't take him. Patsy exits, followed by Bill and Jack. Highway patrolman follows Patsy, coffin in tow. Return to present day, the cemetery where everything began, Second Fox Nation. Bill enters. He carries some prayer tobacco. He stands in front of Jack's grave. Jack enters and stands in the cemetery with Bill. End of play. Thank you very much. I'd also like to recognize the director, Matt Pfeiffer. Matt, could you please stand up? And then also like to recognize the playwrights. Mary Catherine Nagel, in the back, Suzanne Shownharjo. Thank you very much all. We'll take about a five minute break as we reset the stage. And then we'll have our panel discussion about NAGPRO and about some of the issues that were raised in this play. So please just take five minutes if you need to go to the bathroom or just to sit as we reset things. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, everybody talks loudly. I just like to set things up. Marvelous job, thank you so much. Can we give them another round of applause? Sorry, thank you very much. About an important law that dealing with the past wrong, about grave robbing, but also about the movement of human remains from where they were interred in the ground into museums for study and for the collection. At the very beginning in 1990 and even before that it was a controversial law. Many museums, many archaeologists, anthropologists were very concerned about this. It was perceived that this was a law in fact that was going to steal things from museums, not about writing a wrong. I think today in fact, however, museums and researchers have begun to embrace this law. Because in fact I think we've begun to embrace not only the law but also the concept of return, the value of return. Because I think we've found that it is of great value. One of the interesting things that I have found is that it does not necessarily impose solutions to these past problems. But it mandates in fact a conversation. It mandates an interaction between museums and Native American communities. And here at Penn Museum such conversations have led to many exchanges of knowledge between both Native American communities and museums and researchers. And so I'd like this conversation about Nagpur to move forward so that we can have a greater understanding about both the law, about interactions with Native American communities, about important research and our understanding about the past, to all move forward together rather to in fact be fighting with each other. This is how we can learn about both the past and think about the present and think about the future. So what I'd like to do is to turn to our panelists and ask each of them to talk for about five minutes, five, six minutes. After that, I'd like perhaps we can have an internal conversation and then I'll open up the floor for questions. In addition, since we are doing a live stream of this today, if there are questions out there, away from Penn, and it's sent in via Twitter, I will make sure that we can pass these along and perhaps we can answer some of those also. I'm sorry. It's hashtag Jim Thorpe. So if you can send those questions in, we will try to answer those also and discuss some of those issues. So let me turn first. Let me introduce our panelists. On the far right is Suzanne Shonharjo that you've already met. Next to her is Lucy Fowler-Williams who is a curator here at the Penn Museum. There's also Sandra Kay Massey who is the Historic Preservation Officer for the Sac and Fox Nation. Then there is Principal Chief George Thurman who is the Principal Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation. And last right here is John Echo Hawk who is the Director of the Native American's Rights Fund. Let me ask George Thurman who is the Principal Chief of the Sac and Fox Nation to begin. George. Thank you. Watching this play this evening it brought back a lot of memories. I remember when Jack came forth sat down with the business committee of the Sac and Fox Nation asking the tribe, the nation to join in to this lawsuit. And we knew why because of an after-law would streak them in this case. And we didn't have to discuss it for very long at all. The five members of the business committee agreed. We said we would join in and work with them and help funding attorneys. This isn't the first case but it is one of the most important because of the people that's involved in this case. Why so? It has gone nationwide. It has really drawn the attention I've received a lot of messages encouragement from a lot of different tribal leaders across the United States and saying that they were with us supporting us spiritually and with prayers. So I was involved with another case with Sandra when we were before the State of Missouri arbitration there and we won this case. So this when we got the word that the circuit had denied our request for a re-hearing it wouldn't really accept. It's still not really sunk in yet because we were so confident that Tim Thorpe was going to be once and for all there was plans made the family had talked to us but behind all this we listened to the family we let them take the lead and the thoughts that we ever say we were doing it. It was the family that asked us to be a part of it so that's what we were doing. Again it comes to that this state not understanding what NAPRA is about or what that's educating the people in this we're making a push back in Oklahoma to get this to become a law to where everyone future leader future judges future citizens learn about Native Americans how the governments operate their history so that's what needs to be done here and I think if these judges had a different training background there could have been a big difference here so that's one thing that needs to be done it needs to be brought forth educating with Native American what to see in the movies from the past Thorpe family being that name in the history of the Sacrafox Nation he brought honor to our nation because when he won those medals he wasn't even a U.S. citizen he named citizenship because Native American so he brought that honor to our nation by representing us first and then United States second although it's unique we have dual citizenship but back to NAPRA it's very very important I'm going to direct the senator to Black Hawk you go around the old Great Lakes region and you see that name everywhere just like what they were talking in the play so and so this business after Jim Thorpe but Black Hawk was again the body was taken not sure whatever became of the body but we're not even to this day we're not even sure if he was laid to rest properly so that's it's only not just with Sacrafox but with tribes throughout the United States and with the passage of this law a lot of things have been changing in our favor so it just needs to be brought forth more I was testified before Congress and represented to from Pennsylvania was there for who I was representing Sacrafox Nation I mentioned home I was a tribe of Jim Thorpe he interrupted me and if you testified before Congress they got a green light there they started and then when it gets to red that was my time to testify about what we wanted what we needed in Sacrafox and he started talking about Jim Thorpe whenever I mentioned Jim Thorpe he said yeah Jim Thorpe he was from Pennsylvania wasn't he you know I didn't look at him and I thought you're cutting into my time you're not even accurate so I just said we'll discuss it after I get through with my testimony so see that's what I'm saying it's educating everyone what NAMFER is about and families that's where it goes first families like the Thorpe family and I visited with Bill and Richard along with some of the tribal leaders and there's a big disappointment to them I talked to them over the phone and we're just still kind of in shock right now so that's you know that I'm trying to give a quick overview of what NAMFER means to the Sacrafox Nation so and afterwards I'd be glad to visit with anyone for a generous question thank you very much I could turn now to Sandra K. Massey the Historic Preservation Officer for the Sacrafox Nation it means to me that the museums have been forced to deal with the tribes on a one-to-one basis because just like George said they need to be educated and people who don't know us fear us they were thinking we were going to steal everything and it's not art to be stolen it's ours you know it's stolen from us including our people and that's what NAMFER does it's forcing them to look at us as people and it can bring about change I mean this very university fought with us with our first repatriation in Pennsylvania we even use that as part of this case they fought with us and it's nobody here I got to say that because one of the things I did want to bring out is here we are sitting at this university they've given us a voice and that's what we want to think what we're saying, what this means to us and it's the university that first fought with us so it can change once they know us they can change, they start to understand where we're coming from and they have to look at us as people they start to understand that we are people just like George mentioned we had a lawsuit with the state of Missouri that was really bad I used to say they were the best and the worst the best was the federal agencies who followed the law the worst were the state agencies who didn't but the state agencies learned and now they're starting to think like us there are things that happen, natural occurrences that we're going to see as a sign that they're starting to see as signs because they understand us now they understand how we're going to look at things and think and they know that because they had to talk to us because of the law and that law forced them to talk to us I mean they did not discuss anything and NACRA like I said is forcing people to look at us as people but even after NACRA was passed in 1992 in the very state where there are 39 tribes somebody went into the cemetery where my own grandparents are buried and dug up the body of a stillborn baby who was also part of my family this happened after NACRA passed because they looked at us as a curiosity this was a tribal cemetery that was set back in the woods and the local boys thought it was okay to go in there and dig up somebody and this case has a name attached to it but we fight just as hard for anybody that's of our tribe this case is showing and this play that is part of this showing what this case is doing is showing the effects it's having on a family and on a people because it's very personal to us these people were far away they are our grandparents they are our aunts and uncles that's how close they are to us even now so right now I'm a little angry and I'm trying to keep it down because I know I only have a few minutes so I don't want him to start you said he would tell us we're cutting it short because once I get started I can make your eyes roll back in your head for how long I can talk without taking a breath but that's what NACRA means to me it's showing it's highlighting that yes even in what may be considered a more modern time we still do adhere to our tribal ways we still do in fact just this dress that I'm wearing is new that I wore for the naming of my new niece we still do these things she had a naming ceremony she got an Indian name that's part of the culture that Jim Thorpe that's part of the culture he wanted a tribal traditional burial and they're saying well did he write this down you know what 60 years later I told my brother just like Jim Thorpe did I didn't write it down I really didn't have to tell my brother he's gonna know because that's the way I live but we don't have to write things and we tend not to because well when we write things down and get stolen and taken out of context things like that we say you have to learn by doing so no we didn't write it down so he followed a traditional tribal way by not writing it down he told his brother so if he weren't famous we wouldn't even be having this conversation he would be at home right now he wasn't taken from he wasn't stolen he was stolen he was taken away from his ceremony so it just never happened to us before and by the decision that the Pennsylvania judges made they're saying that a town has more right to a man's body than his own family he's got two living sons who are saying no this isn't what we want this isn't what he wanted and they would know he told them he told their uncles he told the family and you know it's been so long even before there was an actual lawsuit filed Jack has been trying for years so what does it take for a son to bring his father home thank you very much I'd like to turn to John Echo Hawk director of the Native American Rights Fund is a national Indian legal defense fund we started 45 years ago as a non-profit organization to raise fund hire lawyers and make them available to our Indian people for legal representation in their most important cases because most of our people are poor and we didn't have any lawyers so we started taking those most important cases and one of the issues that came up was this repaid creation issue the basic problem is everybody in this country but us had the right to protect their ancestors in a burial good except for us people had them and we didn't have that right so we started taking that to court there were so many cases going on around the country that congress taking this issue up and passing the same rights as other people in this country to control the remains of our ancestors and their issue because so many of the museums that had the remains of our people had possessed them on the assumption that there weren't any Indians around to care about the remains of their ancestors and their burial good but somehow we were the banished of Americans so it didn't really matter what the courts came to realize and what the Congress repaid creation act pleased that the Native American rights wanted to be involved in the crafting of that this is an important case in that implementation cases since the act was passed interpreting and implementing it because it's gone along fairly smoothly but this case has presented this controversy and the courts have had to wrestle with it and it's been difficult for the courts to appear in this court of appeals up here in this area because there are no tribes in the third circuit so these judges up here aren't really used to dealing with these issues and there's a big one for them and the law really is pretty clear the district court pretty well had it down they looked at the definition of a museum in the act an institution or a state and local government agency it's pretty clear so that's what the district court said applies to but the third circuit just can't be ends up with an absurd result they call it an absurd result so they make this educational process that we talked about a continual process for our people and Congress listened the young judges understand as it came out of the play these days before this U.S. Supreme Court we lose over 90% of our cases we've got some justices that don't really understand these issues and we're all afraid to go there even more didn't used to be like that but it is today with conservative majority in that court we turn now to Suzanne Harjo who's the president of the Morning Star Institute Suzanne thank you Richard and thanks to everyone at the museum for giving us this forum and for participating with us and repatriations and repatriation forums over the many years productive and progressive relationship and I really thanks to the actors and to the director who did such a stellar job for us NAGPRA is it is a difficult law to understand and I'm not surprised that the third circuit judges got it wrong now my Cheyenne brother Ben Nighthorse Campbell who started off in the U.S. House and went on to the senate was one of the original sponsors of NAGPRA he told them and the Mika Supreme you got it wrong he said it ever so nicely but he said you got it wrong you don't know what you're talking about I do I was one of the original sponsors there and I'm here to tell you as myself that I'm one of the original people who thought up this whole strategy of cultural rights chasing since 1967 a gathering after ceremonies at Bear Butte South Dakota and which is a very important place to about 60 different native nations including the Cheyennes and we call it and it's where a very important Cheyenne prophet sweet medicine received visions reordered all of Cheyenne society as a result of it so it was a good place to begin discussions the things that had been troubling peoples dreaming and waking times dead relatives who were being held hostages in holding repositories around the country are returning Vietnam vets at that meeting in 67 were particularly concerned with that and they call them prisoners of war is that our relatives are there in these museums and schools and roadside attractions and all the other places where they're being held they're being held as prisoners of war and we want to get them back and we have to think of this as really a pretty massive rescue mission and in 1967 I will tell you that there were more dead native people in the holding repositories of the United States of America than there were living it's a difficult act because it deals with individual rights with religious rights with cultural rights with rights that predate the United States of America that predate any non-native person setting foot on this red quarter of Mother Earth and it deals also with the group rights with the native peoples rights so the individual rights are people who are a part of the group who are a part of the nation who are a part of the Pueblo whatever the group might be the society, the dogman society the kid fox society whatever clan they might be a part of whoever has the right to a particular sacred object or cultural patrimony or the people who are the next of kin or the lineal descendants so and in some of this it kind of gets all jumbled up and before we could get to the repatriation laws themselves and to the crafting of those we really had to deal with something that would reverse the civilization regulations terrible, terrible regulations that were illegally promulgated and carried out over a 50 year period in the United States by the executive branch of the United States from the 1880s to the 1930s and these civilization regulations just very briefly outlawed everything that was traditional about Native peoples dances hairstyles ceremonies and it provided for the interruption of funeral proceedings and the like so we had to do something to change that and first we had to get the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which is a policy umbrella a piece of legislation where the United States declared that it is the policy of the United States to preserve and protect Native American traditional religions and most federal repatriations were done under the Religious Freedom Act of 78 in 78 and 79 and going forward and we didn't really fully come up with the fully draft and concoct the repatriation laws until 89 and 90 went to just the Smithsonian Repatriation the Smithsonian Institutions and 1990 went to everyone else every other institution in the country that had a federal nexus if you would receive some sort of federal aid or money you had some sort of federal tie as in the borough of Jim Thorpe it receives federal money and so this went to not just museums or educational institutions or federal agencies but all the holding repositories whether they're named or not the historical societies and these ghastly roadside attractions and that's what this is ghastly or not a roadside attraction and it takes me back to what the veterans said in 1967 that we're on the rescue mission dealing with prisoners of war if this were any other race it would not be permissible it would not be allowed against the wishes of the family and against the wishes of the people of that person it would never be allowed but here it is allowed it's Native Americans and it's our ancestors and our ancestors things have been allowed against us that have been heinous that have been outrageous that have been so Nagpur is one of those laws that Congress has adopted that seeks to balance the equities nothing can ever ever ever make up for the horrible things that have been done to us and to our ancestors nothing somewhere you have to start and say here's some small measure of justice in the modern era well that's what this is it's human rights civil rights for Native Americans it's not human rights for scientists it's not human rights for museums or towns or burrows it's not human rights for anyone except Native American peoples both nations and individuals so that's what we're upholding when we uphold this and I have to point out I guess that Congress passed Nagpur without a dissenting voice not one person of all the members of Congress said no I don't like this or I don't understand it they all started out not understanding it except in Nagpur's Campbell everyone else did not understand it they came to an understanding and once they understood they agreed on what they were going to do and they adopted it unanimously in both houses so this is a very strong and solid piece of legislation I hope that you all will have your sharpest questions for us because that's just the kind of question we'd like to answer Suzanne thank you very much and let me turn now to Lucy Fowler Williams Curator here at the Penn Museum I also want to thank Richard Levinfall for his real energy and support in developing it's always expensive to fly people across the country so it's in this setting at the University of Pennsylvania so I have prepared a couple of notes and I'm sorry to read them but I think it's better for me to do that because you'll get a better sense of how we manage Nagpur at the Penn Museum as John and Suzanne and others have already explained Nagpur provides a legal mechanism for federally recognized tribes native Alaskan corporations and native Hawaiian organizations to make claims for human remains and certain categories of objects held by museums that receive federal funding in complying with the law the Penn Museum acknowledges the historical and political context of indigenous of Indian people in the United States and recognizes tribal rights of self-determination in regard to the control of human remains, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony the law encourages museums to confront our colonialist past and to create a new and more inclusive future it acknowledges that Indian peoples have a legitimate interest in the disposition of ancestral Indian remains in museum court in addition to human remains four categories of objects are identified in the law and we know these are from the law as associated funerary objects unassociated funerary objects objects of cultural patrimony and sacred objects and as I hope my comments will show tonight Nagpur also offers really important opportunities like this one for establishing mutually beneficial relationships between museums and tribes since its passage in 1990 the Penn Museum has worked rigorously to implement Nagpur it has established a repatriation office for committee to assist in the compliance process all claims are submitted in writing to the museum director who forwards them to the repatriation office liable claims are brought forward to their committee which makes recommendations to our director and associated funerary objects the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania authorize our director to repatriate human remains that meet the criteria specified by Nagpur the disposition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony are subject to a determination by the trustees of the University so the museum has to date since 1990 mailed approximately somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 letters to federally recognized tribes informing them of our holdings and inviting them to consult with us on our collection as of 2015 47 formal repatriation claims seeking the return of collections have been received here at the museum and 26 repatriations have been completed resulting in the transfer of 232 sets of human remains 750 funerary objects 14 unassociated funerary objects 20 objects of cultural patrimony 22 sacred objects and two objects claimed as both categories ongoing 11 claims are currently inactive pending further information from tribes we've also received recently two competing claims for objects in our collection 132 human remains have been repatriated to 15 different tribes across the country with the majority of them to the Chukach Alaska Corporation and that's in southeastern area Alaska in the area of Prince William Sound and that is the place where Dr. Frederica de la Guna excavated extensively for many seasons in the 1930s in addition a large number of human remains from the Samuel Wharton collection have been repatriated to the Point Malama and Hawaii of the 22 sacred objects the majority of these were returned prior to the passage of NAGPRA and of the 20 objects of cultural patrimony the majority of those are a set of masks from Greenland, Alaska that were also collected by Frederica de la Guna it is important to note and thus we expect to continue to receive claims as tribes gain experience with the law for information the museum has established a website to communicate our repatriation efforts to the public and to the tribes we have examples so you understand the kind of work that is done to our experience the majority of queens are for human remains and tribes are clearly focusing their repatriation efforts in this area so that their people may reach peace of mind in healing the devastating effects of colonization on native cultural identity the museum houses the Samuel Wharton collection as well as human remains from controlled explanation to share one example our most recent repatriation of human remains was to the eastern band of Cherokee James Griffin and Tyler Howe both historic preservation officers of the eastern band traveled to Philadelphia to receive these human remains as preservation officers they have a profoundly serious responsibility to take possession of and to escort the human remains of their ancestors back to tribal territory they will be revered as close as possible often to the place where they were found we received six human remains from us on that occasion and these remains had been obtained from various sites by two medical doctors in the summer of 1838 and also in 1846 at that time the remains were sent to the two doctors Samuel Wharton of Philadelphia for inclusion in his world study in Prena and Dr. Wharton transferred them to the Academy of Natural Sciences here in Philadelphia in 1846 some of the remains that Griffin and Howe received were the remains of children from a cave burial and as Griffin and Howe explained through our discussions that day this form of burial was often practiced in the historic period when epidemics and forced removals of deaths of many Cherokee individuals another of the remains was described in its original 1846 documentation as quote an Indian known as one of the best ball players in his tribe while playing ball he slipped and fell and dislocated his spine and died immediately here Griffin and Howe shared oral histories that they have received today in their community about one of the last ball games in 1845 during which three players were killed and several players were injured they also shared additional information which they asked us to keep confidential we talked at length about the ball game and its continued importance here in the day Griffin and Howe went on to examine the museum's ethnographic collections from their region which had been acquired by pen curators and anthropologists John Widoft and Frank Speck in the 1930s and as we completed our work together they invited us to Cherokee down to the community to participate in their archaeology days this is a seminar which they hold once a year to encourage Cherokee students to get involved in archaeology and after returning home they emailed several photographs of their Cherokee stick ball competitions that we used actually to enhance our new exhibition and to help visitors understand the social aspects of the game help keep their community alive today as they had explained earlier they repeated the Cherokee word gajoge which means to take care of the community and that is the essence of what it means to be a Cherokee person Regarding sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony many tribes across the country are also actively repatriating sacred objects and OCP as they are doing so they are instructing their youth in tribal values and as a means of bringing the world into balance to share one example we have had several claims from Tlingit Plans in southeast Alaska this is due to the fact that our assistant curator was a Tlingit native who purchased Tlingit collections which he studied, exhibited and then wrote about in our museum journal in 1913 and 1932 as a result Penn Museum houses strong Tlingit collections of regalia, tools and objects of everyday life through our NACRA consultation discussions the cultural preservation officer of the central council of Tlingit and Hida Indian tribes of Alaska Mr. Harold Jacobs has invited us to bring clan hats for use in specific potlatch celebrations where they could be witnessed danced and appreciated by clan members according to Tlingit protocol with terrific support from the university on five occasions between 2003 and 2010 American section staff hand carried Tlingit clan hats to participate in these one to two day memorial celebrations the eagle hat, the petrol hat the raven of the roof hat the shark helmet and the wolf hat each traveled with their own seat assignments on airplanes and were welcomed by clan members and later returned this has been a rewarding experience for the museum which we have shared widely with our Philadelphia audiences on these occasions the Tlingit people have welcomed us into their homes and treated us like family to date we have repatriated six Tlingit objects to one community and we are engaged in discussions about making other objects available in our collection in 2011 and 2012 we return to Alaska to interview and film seven of our Tlingit colleagues in their homes and studios for inclusion in our new Native American voices exhibition there are a couple of ongoing challenges I would say with NACR here at the museum and I thought it would give you a little bit of a sense of those while consultation is a just true amazing strength of the law it can also be challenging but it requires us to do our due diligence and to contact all tribes who may have an interest in specific human remains before signing off on a repatriation to one particular group so while some tribes are focused now on repatriation many other tribes have other priorities and this can sometimes slow down the process of repatriation while funding for our small MACR office has been endowed with a gift from volunteers Warren Kaminski and his wife Yuseba grant funds for tribes and museums definitely really small and many tribes call us but they tell us that they can't come yet but that they're working in that we also have to be aware of the very practical problem of chemical pesticides which were in some cases used as preservatives on museum collections made of organic materials such as hides or plant materials with the help of our conservation department we've developed swabbing techniques as standard practice so that if objects once treated with harmful pesticides are returned to tribes then we're able to share that information on the whole MACR has provided tremendous opportunity for collaboration and this area is a real priority for the Penn Museum we are committed to building relationships with tribes where possible we present the vitality and diversity of Native American communities in the 21st century and by involving Native peoples in the development of permanent exhibitions educational programs new acquisitions and student internships the museum currently displays our new Native American Voices Gallery prepared for the assistance of four leading Native American advisors and over 70 Native American specialists several of whom are here with us today many of whom we have met through our repatriation efforts over 50 video clips of leading specialists developed with Popey journalist Patty Talahonga help bring the exhibition to life as do 30 written essays by Native American authors about objects in our collection with the help of the Penn Teachers Institute we've trained 12 Philadelphia school teachers who researched and developed new curriculum units for their schools about contemporary Native American peoples and issues inspired by the exhibit themes of local nations sacred places celebration and commemoration new initiatives, language revitalization and sovereignty student interns have been involved in the exhibit development and recent and upcoming public programs have included in the exhibition the exhibition we know that they also strengthen Native American communities by providing access and recognition often far from home my hope is that the museum can be seen as a place that supports the Native community and that we both emerge with a better sense of the Penn Museum as a more inclusive a more respectful and more sensitive place to Native American issues in closing I want to share two statements that I've heard lately the first one by James Sarmento a Shasta Indian student who gave a talk here last week the Penn Cultural Heritage Center and as James began his talk he started by saying and I quote thank you for this safe place in which to talk about language reclamation and last March Nanna Coke Lene Lanape chief Mark Gould in New Jersey addressed the audience at our exhibition opening celebration and he said I'm so pleased that the children in my community have a place where they can come to and feel like they belong so I would argue that this is evidence of the changing museum one of Niagara's greatest legacies Lucy thank you very much just to remind people who are perhaps watching through their computer hashtag Jim Thorpe on Twitter and you can get your questions here and hopefully we'll try to answer them. Let me begin and Mary Catherine thank you very much for sending me this but let me just read one of the things I think it's worthwhile following the play and also the discussion about the borough of Jim Thorpe is the definition of what a museum is from the statute itself from the law and this comes from Mary Catherine who's in the audience but she's bringing it up to me on my iPad here and this is the definition any institution or state or local government agency parentheses including any institution of higher learning close parentheses that receives federal funds and has possession of or control over Native American cultural items and then it says such term does not include the Smithsonian institution and that's because there's a different law for that but that's completely separate so it's a very broad definition of what a museum is. Let me ask if I could both and I think it's a question that perhaps many people have if I could ask Principal Chief George Thurman or Susandra K. Massey what are your thoughts about what were the next steps and what are you thinking of going ahead towards to the Supreme Court in terms of the Jim Thorpe case? We actually can't comment on that. Let me say our lawyer called me today so yeah. Okay I wasn't trying to put you on the spot I just thought people were very interested in this issue and obviously wanted to know how you want to proceed something that I think a lot of us would be encouraging you to move forward but obviously there are a lot of issues in relation to the Supreme Court that John has indicated and others have indicated. Our business community does still need to meet no official decision. Okay there hasn't been and we really want to sit down with Richard and Bill to his sons and go over this thoroughly with them and see what direction they try to reach out to me with the phone tag and we haven't really talked face to face or over the phone yet but hopefully we'll be doing that before next week. Because I know there's a 90 day window within which one has to file. Let me ask another sort of broad question is there a sense that from 1990 to now with NAGPRA that there's been an opening up of museums an opening up of acknowledgement within the archeological and anthropological community of the value and the importance of NAGPRA. Do you think that there has been a change from what was what I think was a fairly strong perception in 1990 before that against the law to today? I think there's been a change. I'm not sure if you have seen that change. Anybody on the panel can answer. Suzanne, John, Sandra, George. I'll leave it to you. I can say on because I was our NAGPRA representative first and definitely there's been a change. Like I said with the Missouri Decor. But now they are, they listen to us. They, you know, see things that we could be interested in. I mean they work with us. Like I said this university has changed and given us voice here and that's a big change. That's very important. I think that's what is at the one of the core things of the law. We do have other museums that have reached out and say well we think this is the right way to take things off display even though we haven't asked them to do that. You know we have had things taken off display and they listen to us because we've stated it's not something, so yes there's been a definite change. I'd want, it's not I mean that definitely hasn't been a change but it doesn't necessarily deal with museums what I'm going to talk about real quick was about getting a lot of emails from towns communities in our former tribal jurisdictional area up around the Great Lakes and consulting with us first before they move forth with any kind of a project. Whether it be building new homes or disturbing any of the land up there reaching out to us and when they would not get those emails I've learned how to use it on a deal I ported on the center she in turn works with our sister tribes in Iowa and Kansas so yes there definitely has been a change because of that law. Good. I would like to say too that this issue has really gone international as well as you might guess there are museums around the world that also have our ancestors and very old goods and religious objects and our tribes are reaching out around the world and basically kind of educating the world about these issues and some of these nations are having to think about their own neck problem to them so they're learning as well so this is really international it's supported too by the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples that the United Nations passed in 2006 standards one of the principles that's recognized by the declaration as a key right of indigenous peoples is the right we did several things in crafting and the first thing we did was to require a change in the lexicon instead of referring to bones and specimens and skeletons and when you're dealing with you have to refer to our ancestors as human remains now that it's often said that you can't legislate respect that comes as close as legislating respect as any law does because you have to use more respectful language instead of talking about brave goods which is the language of pirates change that to funerary objects and funerary items and associated or not associated and this associated or not associated by the way when the Smithsonian and the Army Medical Museum used to advertise in the Rocky Mountain News and other newspapers citizens to bring them brave goods and indian crania they were inviting brave robbing and they were inviting desecration of resting places of our people and they they would their custom was to divide up things human remains and the funerary objects they would just divide them claim ownership between the two and by the way the study of heads you know the reason you don't hear of it much anymore is that after almost a century in the 1800s of Europeans and Euro-Americans being Indian heads and collecting them and what would they do well they would measure the skulls weigh the brains dip the skull and lie store it or pass it around so people could look at it in one case the MODOC delegation found in the Smithsonian one of their scientists using an ashtray these that was it that was the whole study of heads how big, how weighty and you see in some of the literature suggestions that people were killed for their heads mangas coloradas for example he has a huge head his head is huge and he's eventually shot when he's in custody of the U.S. Army and his one Army officer report is as soon as the shot body fell to the ground I immediately decapitated the head which is transmitted forthwith well and weighed the brains and measured the skull and found though the skull were smaller the brain were larger a lot of information to have in your pocket mangas coloradas as your prisoner to know all of that is really pretty stunning so I think there's something to the suspicion that he was killed for his head so the study of heads goes on and on and toward the end of the 1800s they find that by calculating all of these um measurements that the French are not as smart as Cro-Magnum man well they say Socrates the study of heads is out that it can't be a valid study if that was the conclusion so they just retire that whole study and start transferring the Army Medical Museum transferred 4500 skulls to the Smithsonian so this has a pretty grisly past if you want to actually read something about this go to the National Anthropological Archives and read the Army Officer reports of the of the Diancrania study just that I waited until cover of darkness till the grieving family left the graveside exhumed the body and now imagine well imagine that Army Officer waiting until cover of darkness till the grieving family he watched the family grieve he appreciated that as a human being as grief and he did that and why because he was under orders to go out and harvest Diancrania his boss was the Army Surgeon General and those were the orders he was given as an Army Officer so that was my ancestor your ancestors, taxpayers money at work research for that kind of what turned out to be an idiot study thank you, let me open it up to some questions perhaps on the floor if you could have a question if you could stand up and speak as loudly as you can, please Jim Thorpe is from Oklahoma he was born in Oklahoma in Indian territory and he came through Pennsylvania on tour but he never was in what is now the borough of Jim Thorpe and his wife came and took him away from his traditional ceremonies and she didn't include the rest of the family in the contract that she signed with the borough because he was buried several years after he died because she was looking for a place we say she was shopping around to the highest bidder and so she did have a contract with it was only binding on her and not the Thorpe Sons and not anybody that he had children the children of his other first two wives so he was never part of where he is buried now she was legally his wife but what was ignored was the tribal tradition and what he wanted cultural patrimony it's how we define that was initially in our negotiations we defined it as owned by our society or moa tea a long house in the law as written it's by so that's one and because of that group ownership no one person can alienate it so one person can't sell it off because many of these holding repositories were holding up holding up a paper about bad title and saying paper we're saying so what so that's one thing about ownership but as a general matter in NAGPRA it really isn't about ownership it's about responsibility who has responsibility for this particular sacred object or these human remains rather than on contract businesses gets us back to that roadside interaction and the things saying replace that never been she also makes us sort of a broad comment I think one of the things to be thinking about in terms of museums in the 21st century is the contrast between the way we thought about museums not only as repositories but museums have been able to stand up and say we own a million objects 20,000 objects that makes no difference whatever the number and it's a concept of ownership I think museums in the 21st century I'm thinking about this in terms of international framing museums must turn to a different model it's a model more of relationships between communities where one can borrow objects one can talk to people and learn about objects and display objects, communities representation of people and cultures so we can learn about that those things and I think less and less are we going to need to think about we have to own those objects to be a great museum we have to think about more perhaps the greatest museum in the future would be the museum that has the greatest relationships around the world rather than the most objects today I'm not going to try to say that all my colleagues in the museum world believe that but I think slowly that's becoming an understanding that there is a shift and I think NAGPRA is part of that shift and an awareness that museums don't need to own these objects but rather can create relationships with tribes with nations and to think about how that relationship can develop over a period of time and to think about many of these objects that are owned by the tribes that can then be borrowed back to display and to represent these communities so I think it's a change but I think it's going to be a very slow process I think the concept of ownership is very much built into part of the way we think of the economic structure of the 20th century I hope not the 21st century No, there are many tribes who are not federally recognized lost their recognition or are trying to regain recognition others who are not interested in finding federally recognized policy is that we I don't believe that we have repatriated to however certain we would do that and what we would probably do, March, we haven't actually I haven't yet discussed this in anticipation of such a claim receiving such a claim and what our hope is that we could ask that group join hands or we would ask them to help also willing to so as a group patients to the director of the museum the conversation and then have to make his decision to take that to the trustees of the university generally I would say that the university is very supportive of creation, co-ownership of re-situated the objects we have because of our Tlingit collection it was so well documented and so that collection is really a website so that people can see all the items and read all the letters associated with that collection so our university has been very helpful we did have one example of a claim also that the object as a sacred object actually did a study of masking traditions along the eastern seaboard and on the back of the mask was the maker of we worked very hard to try to understand that we came to the finding that we did not agree what we did though is make a recommendation to the university that we would like to turn the object on loan to the trust this with they received this offer they were not interested in doing a new administration one day the phone rang and said that they had just gone through the file and that they had seen our letter and that of course we were and that's one example people in this museum as anthropologists are already very sensitive to Native American issues and interests and we have a strong interest that's the only example of our city's mindset around that no no no and I think that will be a good conversation that we can have it's getting perhaps a little too specific in detail for everyone in the audience perhaps one last question and then we'll wrap it up please no we haven't up to this point because of our attorneys advice and he says stay back hold back but before we came up here we pretty much threw the reins up here it is something I really need to be publicized the story need to be told not just in the Thorpe case but in other cases that one's more so out in the public because of the name and what he did in the past but if you talk to any other family families of any tribe their loved ones are just as important as he was to his family so yes it needs to be brought out and maybe some judges will be reading some of this stuff or not travel but governmental leaders state legislatures congress everyone needs to be informed of this and when we do it we need to do it in a correct way the true way not misleading anyone because what you say out there they take it to heart they put a lot behind misquoting something so yeah I feel like we need to really move forward and we turn the question back to you now in what manner anyone that's called social media and just taking over well hopefully in fact tonight we've started or we've continued some of that by live streaming this and to have this on the web so people will be able to watch this and listen to this into the future we'll begin helping with that pressure because I agree with you I think that's very important because in many respects NAACR is a law that I don't think but I think the Jim Thorpe case has galvanized a lot of interest in this issue and I think it's an individual case but it's a case that really can open up the issues and the discussion into the national framework of a wrong from the past that needs to be righted a wrong that we have to recognize and to think forward through that in terms of human remains and important objects that need to be returned to the nations to the tribes in the United States I think also I just wanted to mention that I think John's point is very important the international realm I think more and more we're going to move in that direction also because there are a lot of human remains a lot of materials in museums around the world but I think we also have to think about indigenous people in other parts of the world and the ability for them to get back their materials their human remains and we have to think about that and begin to discuss how the same type of activities are taking place here in the United States can take place whether it's in Mexico or perhaps in Argentina or perhaps in other parts of Europe or Africa so I think this is a part of a conversation that in some sense starts large focuses on Jim Thorpe and then again opens up again to a very large conversation at the international realm and I think this will be very important over the next perhaps 5 days 5 years and 50 years I think this is something that all of us can participate in I want to thank all of the panelists for your words and wisdom for your concepts and your ideas thank you very much for coming here and expressing some very important ideas to all of us thank you I again want to thank both Suzanne Shonharjo and Mary Catherine Nagel the playwrights for the play My Father's Bones thank you very much to the audience please join us in the reception just outside the lecture hall upstairs there's an open reception where you'll have an opportunity to talk to the panelists talk to some of the actors talk to the playwrights and other people and continue this conversation thank you very much