The museum's new stance is drawing fire from some in the Hawaiian community who say the policy defeats the intent of federal law enabling the return to native people of cultural treasures held by museums.

The "interim and proposed final guidance" document, which has been approved by the museum board but will be refined after public comment, has been posted online at the museum Web site (the link is found at the bottom of the home page, www.bishopmuseum.org). Comments are being accepted through Sept. 1.

The move, Brown said, will "assure that the museum can be a partner in this discussion" with other groups and will strengthen its protection of Native Hawaiian artifacts for the community.

"The question is, 'Why are we doing this?' The answer is the Bishop Museum has been fundamentally reactive in the way we address our responsibility under NAGPRA," he said, referring to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The reaction from the Hawaiian community was mixed. The most heated response comes from Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei, an organization that oversees perpetual care of Native Hawaiian remains and the museum's chief critic in its handling of several controversial cases involving cultural artifacts.

Edward Halealoha Ayau, an attorney and a Hui member, said in a written statement that "the potential for abuse by the Bishop Museum to prevent repatriation is real."

"If allowed to stand, this would give Bishop Museum the ability to block any and all repatriations from Bishop Museum simply by disagreeing with other claimants because NAGPRA requires that if there are competing claims for cultural items, a museum may hold on to the items in dispute until there is resolution," Ayau added.

Under the law, a "Native Hawaiian organization" is defined as "any organization which serves and represents the interests of Native Hawaiians, has as primary and stated purpose the provision of services to Native Hawaiians and has expertise in Hawaiian affairs."

The guidance document, signed by Brown, traces the historical connection between the museum and the Hawaiian monarchs, some of whose treasures were left in the museum's care.

The document delves into some intricate legal definitions, but the sum is that the museum officials see little in their collection, other than bones, that the law would force them to relinquish. In many cases, Brown said, another claimant would have to prove that the Bishop acquired items illegally to overcome the museum's "right of possession."

However, he added, the museum wants to encourage public access to artifacts, while retaining ownership through arrangements similar to the relocation of the sandstone slabs known as Kalaina Wawae to Moloka'i.

Winona Rubin chairs the board of the Hawaiian services agency Alu Like Inc. and recently joined the museum board. Although she declined to comment in detail on the new policy because she was involved in few discussions, Rubin did say that the museum has a "track record" of working with Hawaiian agencies.

"Bishop Museum has been considered a member of Hawaiian Service Institutions and Agencies since (that association's) beginning, for 25 years," she said.

Isabella Abbott, a University of Hawai'i botanist who co-chairs the museum's collections committee, said that, viewed from the scientific perspective, cultural artifacts are less prey to damage in the museum's controlled environment. Several insect and fungal species that were introduced after many of the treasures were buried in caves now have turned those sites into a corrosive home for the items, she said.

"These things are not safe," she said. "They would have been much safer left in the Bishop Museum."