Native burials law to undergo revisions
By Vicki Viotti
Advertiser Staff Writer
Work is set to begin in Washington, D.C., on changing the native burials law to make it tougher to qualify as a "Native Hawaiian organization" that can claim burial objects and other cultural artifacts.
The legal rewrite by staffers of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, which is due to get under way after Congress adjourns Friday for the election recess, is aimed at preventing any future conflicts like the one spawned by the Bishop Museum.
The museum board of directors in July adopted a policy, called an "interim guidance." The policy includes, among other positions, an assertion that the museum meets the current definition under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
The museum put out the call for comments on this policy and in the last few weeks, officials have been looking over the responses. The issue of native burials in general, and who should have title to cultural artifacts in particular, has been stormy in the last several years. Not surprisingly, the reaction to the Bishop Museum policy included a hail of protest by some Native Hawaiian groups.
The museum's board is to meet Thursday to review the comments and consider what changes to make to the policy. Members of the board reached yesterday declined to discuss their positions on the issue.
Two of the members, Haunani Apoliona and Winona Rubin, have been recused from discussing or voting on the guidance because both are employed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an agency that often files NAGPRA claims.
But what the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs does may make the issue moot, said Patricia Zell, chief counsel for the committee and a key member of U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye's staff. Inouye, D-Hawai'i, is vice chairman of the committee, one of the architects of NAGPRA and one of those opposed to the idea of the museum as a "Native Hawaiian organization."
The committee staff hopes to do some of the groundwork on changes to the law first and to schedule a hearing for November before the lame-duck congressional session reconvenes, Zell said.
"There would likely be a hearing, probably following discussions with interested parties in the Native Hawaiian community, in an effort to better address, and possibly to amend, the definition of 'Native Hawaiian organization,' to draw that definition more narrowly," Zell said.
When NAGPRA was passed in 1990, the definition was kept broad to allow more Native Hawaiian groups to make claims on artifacts and burial remains, Zell said. Two organizations were listed in the law as examples — OHA and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei.
"They were cited as examples so as to make the definition more precise," she added. "In all likelihood, that objective was not achieved."
The Bishop Museum's assertion of itself as a "Native Hawaiian organization" brought representatives of Hawaiian groups to Washington Sept. 18 at a meeting of a NAGPRA review committee. Over several hours, emotional testimony was aired — and Hawaiian curses were exchanged — concerning both the museum policy and the reburial of objects at Kawaihae Cave in 2000.
But the committee made no decisions that day, opting instead to hold hearings in Hawai'i, said Rosita Worl, review committee chairwoman. The committee first will take more testimony from Hawai'i at a teleconference to be scheduled as early as November, Worl said, and then will travel to Hawai'i for a face-to-face hearing early next year.
She acknowledged that the Bishop Museum policy may be changed by that time. However, the committee still will want to hear testimony on the Kawaihae repatriation, she said.
Reach Vicki Viotti at vviotti@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8053.
