Changes to human remains law raises questions for tribes

By Clare Jensen

For Puyallup Tribal News
cjensen@tacomaweekly.com
Published on: August 07, 2008

A new bill is on the table for the legislative session that would change how found human remains are handled statewide.

In June, nine Washington tribes, state representatives and bill author Rep. John McCoy met to discuss the parameters of the bill.

Among the tribes represented at the meeting, there was a general consensus of disapproval because of unclear language of the bill.

The proposed changes for the law are only in the first draft, and soon Puyallup Tribal Council will direct tribal staff on how to move forward in lobbying for changes in the written document.

Puyallup Tribal Attorney Cynthia Lyman said the council would direct tribal attorneys, lobbyists and cultural representatives on how to move forward addressing the changes most pertinent to the Puyallup Tribe.

“This will get hammered out in the legislative session,” she said. “These proposed  principals will get substantially altered. We’ll try to make it into something that is acceptable for this Tribe.”

John McCoy submitted a summary of changes to the existing law regarding handling human remains.

One proposed change that more or less died at the discussion was using 1492 as the default threshold for “pre-contact.”

Assuming that remains dated before pre-contact implies that all specimens could be subject to destructive testing in order to determine the date of the remains.

The bill also proposes a default action to rebury the remains at the site of discovery, and provide incentives to the landowner, unless otherwise indicated by the affected tribe. It would also alter the definition of what is considered an “affected tribe.”

It proposes that federally recognized tribes submit a map reflecting the tribe’s geographic area of cultural affiliation, rather than recognizing tribes with “usual and  accustomed” areas in the vicinity of where the remains are found, which is what the current law states.

“The changes have potential that could be very difficult to comply with. We have to plan for every scenario,” Cynthia Lyman said. “We need the state to be clear regarding how these proposed changes will be applied.”

There is also a concern among tribal representatives about when and how the affected tribes would be notified and how soon they can respond.

“From the beginning, this is a tribal issue. If non-tribal people collect the remains and artifacts, the tribe should be present, at the minimum, in order to list every single item removed whether private property or not. Tribes have a right to know about their ancestors even on private land,” wrote Cynthia Lyman in a document with questions she brought to the table at the June discussion.

Cynthia Lyman,  Puyallup Tribal Historian Judy Wright and Puyallup Tribal Lobbyist Ehren Flagare,  along with representatives from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Tulalip, Samish, Quileute, Ho, Quinalt, Cowlitz, Yakama and Chehalis tribes, had many questions about how the remains would be treated, and the tribe’s involvement in assessing the remains.

“How will they be analyzed? Stored? Tested? How will the tribes be notified?” Cynthia Lyman said. “We’ve been given this piece of paper that has created a great deal of questions. We need some definitive talk from (Rep. John) McCoy, and the (state) department of historic preservation and how this proposed law will be applied.”

John McCoy was unable to be reached for comment on the proposed changes as of press time.

Another meeting between tribal and state representatives will be held Sept. 15 to continue the discussion on the proposed language changes.

Story Tools

This Week's
Front Page