[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31374]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Indian Affairs
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the United Houma
Nation, Inc.; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the United
Houma Nation, Inc.
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), notice is hereby given that the
Assistant Secretary proposes to decline to acknowledge that the United
Houma Nation, Inc. c/o Mrs. Laura N. Billiot, Star Route, Box 95-A,
Golden Meadow, Louisiana 70357, exists as an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that
the tribe does not meet three of the seven mandatory criteria set forth
in 25 CFR 83.7. Therefore, the United Houma Nation does not meet the
requirements necessary for a government-to-government relationship with
the United States.
DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i), any individual or organization
wishing to challenge the proposed finding may submit factual or legal
arguments and evidence to rebut the evidence relied upon. This material
must be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication
of this notice. As stated in the new regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(i),
interested and informed parties who submit arguments and evidence to
the Assistant Secretary must also provide copies of their submissions
to the petitioner.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy
of the report of evidence should be addressed to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, Mail Stop
2611-MIB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-
3592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
The petitioner maintains that they are the descendants of the
historical Houma Indian tribe. There is no evidence supporting this
contention. The historical Houma Indian tribe continued to live near
present-day Donaldsonville, Louisiana throughout the years the
petitioner's antecedent community first formed on the lower bayous
(between 1810 and 1830). There are no documented genealogical, social,
or political connections between this tribe of Indians and the
petitioner. There is also no evidence that the petitioner, as a group,
descends from any other historical tribe, or from historical tribes
which combined and functioned as a single autonomous entity.
There is no evidence that the petitioner's ancestors constituted a
social community, Indian or non-Indian, before 1830. Because of this,
the petitioner has also failed to meet criterion 83.7(b), maintenance
of social community, and criterion 83.7(c), exercise of political
influence, prior to 1830. Lacking the evidence for an ancestral
community prior to 1830, there is, of course, no evidence for the
exercise of political influence prior to 1830. The Federal
acknowledgment criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) require the petitioner to
provide evidence that they fulfill criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from the
time of first sustained contact with Europeans to the present.
The migration of the UHN ancestors, the majority of whom were non-
Indian (primarily French, Acadian, German, and African) frontiersmen,
to the founding Bayou Terrebonne settlement (north of present-day
Montegut) started in the 1790's. Among the settlers on Bayou
Terrebonne, some of whom became ancestors of the UHN, were the three
Indian progenitors of the group. They moved there independently of each
other; there is no indication that they were related to each other
socially, politically, or genealogically, before moving to the bayou
settlement. The tribal affiliation of the three Indian progenitors is
not certain. One was quite possibly a Biloxi medal chief; the other two
are identified in the earliest historical records only as ``Indian
women,'' with no specific tribal affiliation mentioned. There is no
evidence that these three individuals descend from the same historical
tribe or from historical tribes which combined and functioned as a
single autonomous entity.
It is important to note that, for the first two generations that
the founding UHN community was forming on Bayou Terrebonne (1790 to
1830), the petitioner's Indian ancestors and their descendants tended
to marry non-Indians. In spite of this early marital pattern, and the
fact that there are more non-Indian than Indian progenitors for the
petitioner, the available evidence indicates that about 84% of the
UHN's current members have Indian ancestry. The Indian ancestry
originates from the three individual Indian progenitors mentioned
above, the result of six generations of group endogamy between 1830 to
1950. It is not the result of descent, as a group, from a historical
tribe.
By 1830, the petitioner's ancestors, the majority of whom were non-
Indian, formed an identifiable separate and distinct community on Bayou
Terrebonne. From 1830 to 1940, the limited evidence submitted by the
petitioner indicates that they tended to marry each other more
frequently than they married outsiders. The strongest evidence for
social community from 1830 to 1880, however, is that more than half of
the petitioner's ancestors lived in an isolated, exclusive settlement.
In the 1840's, the petitioner's ancestors started forming satellite
settlements further south along Bayou Terrebonne, on Bayou Lafourche,
and on other bayous toward the west. No contemporary descriptions of
the petitioner's settlements between 1840 and 1880 were found. But
based on the geographical isolation of the community on Bayou
Terrebonne, we conclude that the petitioner did maintain a distinct
settlement which encompassed 50% or more of its members, from 1830 to
1880. Under the revised regulations for Federal acknowledgment, this is
considered sufficient evidence that the petitioner meets both criteria
83.7 (b) and (c) for that period as a single community.
By 1880, the limited evidence presented by the petitioner suggests
that its members' ancestors had divided into several (six or more),
socially and politically distinct, satellite communities, and no longer
lived in a single community. From 1880 to 1940, the petitioner's
ancestors maintained social integrity in these satellite communities,
based on the evidence that 50% or more of them lived in geographical
isolation. Within these relatively isolated communities, there is some
limited evidence that political influence was exercised through the
extended kinship structure, by elders known as noncs `uncles' and
tantes `aunts'. This system of political influence may have been used
effectively to control the behavior of individual community members,
though the evidence is limited and sketchy.
From 1880 to 1940, there were some individuals who provided
leadership on an ad hoc basis for individual communities, but never for
the petitioner as a whole. One of the issues that brought forth leaders
was in the fight to establish separate Indian schools for the children
of UHN ancestors. Because the petitioner appears to have been composed
of separate communities from 1880 to 1940, each of which may have had
its own leaders, rather than a single community with a comprehensive
authority, the petitioner has not met criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from
1880 to 1940, as a whole.
From 1940 to the present, the petitioner's members have emigrated
from the lower bayou communities in greater numbers, especially to the
suburbs of New Orleans. There has also been a continuous increase in
out-marriage from 1940 to the present. Currently, two-thirds of the UHN
members reside outside of the lower bayou communities. There is no
evidence that indicates a social or political relationship between
those who have emigrated and those who continue to reside in the bayou
communities. There is also no evidence that the emigrants are related
socially or politically among themselves. There is some limited
evidence that emigrants from specific bayou communities may maintain
political and social relations with relatives who remain in their natal
bayou communities. Therefore, the petitioner has not met criteria 83.7
(b) and (c) from 1940 to the present as a whole.
The petitioner has not proven that it descends from a historical
Indian tribe. In fact, there is no evidence for an antecedent
community, Indian or non-Indian, prior to 1830. Since the UHN did not
exist as a community until 1830, they are not a political community
which is derived from a tribe existing at first sustained contact with
Europeans until the present, and have not existed as a distinct
political community derived from such a tribe since first settlement by
Europeans in the area.
There is the possibility, though not well-documented at this time,
that some or all of the component communities on the lower bayous may
meet criteria 83.7 (b) and (c) from 1880 to the present, as separate
communities. But the petitioner has not established any connection to a
historical tribe prior to 1830. Nor did the petitioner submit its
petition as a confederation, but rather as a single entity. For these
combined reasons, there is no need to further evaluate the continued
existence of separate communities from 1880 to the present, at this
time.
There remains the possibility, however, that if the required
connection is made to a historical tribe, the Assistant Secretary may
wish to investigate further the possibility of acknowledging all or
several of the component communities that comprise the UHN. This issue
would only need to be investigated if the connection to a historical
tribe is proven.
Since 1900, the petitioner's community has been identified
consistently by anthropologists, state and Federal government
representatives, residents of south Louisiana who are not members of
the petitioning group, missionaries, journalists, and others, as
``Indian'' or by other terms which indicate at least some Indian
ancestry. There is no evidence that anyone denied that the UHN were an
Indian community since 1900. They therefore meet criterion 83.7(a),
identification by outsiders as an Indian community since 1900.
The petitioning group has provided a copy of its governing
document, which describes its membership criteria. Evidence indicates
that the group is following its membership criteria satisfactorily.
No evidence was found that any of the members of the UHN are
members of any federally recognized tribe.
No evidence was found that the petitioner or its members are the
subject of congressional legislation which has expressly terminated or
forbidden the Federal relationship.
Based on this preliminary factual determination, we conclude that
the UHN does not meet criteria b, c, and e in 25 CFR 83.7. Since the
UHN does not meet all of the seven mandatory criteria, we conclude that
the UHN should not be granted Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR part
83.
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) of the revised regulations, a report
summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the basis
for the proposed decision will be provided to the petitioner and other
interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written
request. Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy of
the report of evidence should be addressed to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment
and Research, Mail Stop 2611-MIB.
After consideration of the written arguments and evidence rebutting
the proposed finding and within 60 days after the expiration of the
180-day response period described above, the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs will publish the final determination of the petitioner's
status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1).
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-31374 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
