honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Saturday, September 3, 2005

Artifacts must be returned, judge decides

By Ken Kobayashi and GORDON Y. K. PANG
Advertiser Staff Writers

PRICELESS OBJECTS AND CONTROVERSY

1905: The David Forbes expedition takes artifacts and human remains from a Big Island burial cave and eventually conveys them to the Bishop Museum.

1990: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the federal law commonly known as NAGPRA, is passed, setting up a process for returning remains, burial objects and other cultural treasures to indigenous groups.

February 2000: The Bishop Museum, while reviewing a NAGPRA claim of the Forbes collection by several groups, lends 83 artifacts to Hui Malama I Na Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei. When the museum later asks for the items back, Hui Malama officials refuse and say repatriation had been completed.

May 2003: A NAGPRA review committee finds that the repatriation was "flawed" and that the items need to be returned.

March 2005: The review committee reaffirms its earlier decision, over the objections of Hui Malama.

August 2005: Two groups, including one headed by Abigail Kawananakoa, sue the museum and Hui Malama, seeking the return of the artifacts to the museum so they can be given to their rightful claimants.

September 2005: Federal Judge David Ezra orders the return of the artifacts to the museum so discussions among the claimants can continue.

spacer
spacer

A group dedicated to protecting and preserving Native Hawaiian burial sites was ordered by a federal judge yesterday to return to Bishop Museum 83 lots of sacred burial objects that the group said it had placed in a sealed Big Island cave.

But a leader of Hui Malama I Na Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei, which has resisted efforts to return the items, said the group planned to appeal the decision by Chief U.S. District Judge David Ezra. The Hui Malama official also said he wasn't sure what the group would do if the appeal fails.

"I would hope that a federal court doesn't put Hawaiians in a position of having to violate their own spiritual beliefs and the practices of their kupuna (ancestors)," Hui Malama spokesman Edward Halealoha Ayau said after the court hearing.

He indicated that the group might not be able to return the sacred items.

"We do not have the stomach to do something like that, to take from kupuna," he said. "Others may. We don't."

No fewer than 13 separate groups have claims on the priceless artifacts, which include carved-wood statuettes of family gods, or 'aumakua; carved bowls; a human-hair wig; ipu, or gourd objects such as drums and water bottles; tools; and pieces of feather capes.

Their removal from a burial cave on the Big Island in 1905 led to their placement with Bishop Museum, their reburial by Hui Malama and now the court fight among three competing claimants.

Reaction to the latest action, a federal court ruling 100 years after the artifacts were first removed, shows the raw emotions simmering for years surrounding the artifacts.

Even as Hui Malama decried the ruling, other Native Hawaiian groups that made claims to the items applauded Ezra's decision.

"It gives us faith that all claimants will have a say in the repatriation (of the items)," Van Horn Diamond of the Van Horn Diamond 'Ohana said.

In his ruling, Ezra said he recognized he was dealing with a highly emotional issue and indicated he might not issue the order if he could be assured the objects are kept in a safe place.

"But I have nothing in front of me that indicates that is the case," the judge said.

He said he wanted to ensure that the objects will be safely stored at the museum pending the outcome of the repatriation process under federal law that would determine the rightfulness of claims by Hui Malama and 12 other Native Hawaiian organizations and what would be done with the items.

The judge pushed back the issuance of his formal written court order until Tuesday to give the parties an opportunity to work out the specific language.

The burial objects are known as the Forbes Collection and were taken from the Kawaihae Caves on the Big Island in 1905.

Hui Malama contends that the items were looted from the cave, then given to the Bishop Museum.

In 2000, the museum lent objects to Hui Malama, which said it returned the items to a Kawaihae cave and sealed the entrance. The group refused to return them, contending that to return them to a museum that accepted stolen items, as Hui Malama sees it, would again desecrate the sanctity of the objects and their ancestors' wishes.

The transfer raised concerns from other Native Hawaiian groups and the refusal to return them led two groups filing a lawsuit seeking the court order.

"This relief (return of the items) is repugnant," Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. lawyer M. Uilani Pau'ole told Ezra at the hearing.

Pau'ole, who represents Hui Malama, argued that the items should remain at the sealed cave while the Native Hawaiian groups resolve their claims under the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

But attorney LindaLee Farmer, who represents the museum, supported the court order. She said the museum's concern is that the items be kept in a secure place and be available to all claimants. "It has been a long and frustrating process, and the museum, too, seeks finality," she told the judge.

Attorney George Van Buren, who represents Na Lei Alii Kawananakoa, one of the two Native Hawaiian groups that sought the court order, said no one claimant should override the process of sorting out the claims. He asked the judge to issue the order to ensure that the process can continue with "dignity, honor, respect and aloha."

Ezra said he recognizes that he can't please everyone. "I have to say this is one of those cases that regardless of how I decide it, there will be significant number of people who are upset and who believe the court has made the wrong decision," he said.

He said he does not agree with Hui Malama that the return would be disturbing an ancient grave site. "This is a reburial, not a burial, and we don't know under what conditions," he said.

The judge said he understands Hui Malama's concerns about the museum, but he said he will not permit the objects to be placed on public display.

Ezra said he realizes some are concerned about whether the artifacts are at a particular location, but he said he isn't concerned about locating the site because under his order, the individuals responsible for burying the artifacts must find them.

The judge said the case involves "Hawaiians versus Hawaiians" with Hawaiian groups claiming the items. "That's the sad part of this matter," he said.

Ezra's decision was praised by Mel Kalahiki, a representative for Papa Kanaka o Pu'ukohola, one of the claimant organizations. "The artifacts went out the backdoor on a loan while all the organizations were waiting to make a decision on them," Kalahiki said.

As for what should happen now, he said: "I think they should have a group made up of individuals from the organizations go up to the valley and open up the cave and watch the artifacts come out and do the inventory right there."

Kalahiki said he did not believe there would be any lingering animosity. "I think everything is going to come out all right" he said. "We're not fighting each other, we're just disagreeing. Everybody has their own idea of what's the right thing to do."

Isabella Abbott, a University of Hawai'i botanist and chairwoman of the museum's collections committee, said the court's decision was only the first step. "We'll put them in a very secure room, and the claimants ... will come look at them, examine them, and decide what they want to do."

La'akea Suganuma, president of Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts, the other Native Hawaiian group that asked for the court order, said it was unfortunate the matter had to be turned over the courts. Asked how long the repatriation process will take, he said it's already taken a while to get to this point.

"I think we're 5 1/2 years behind time," he said.

Ayau, who sat through the court proceedings, was somber when he emerged from the courthouse.

Asked if he might disobey the judge's order and be willing to go to jail for that, he said: "I guess we'll see."

He said the case isn't about the group excluding other claimants. "This is about respecting the decisions of our kupuna," he said.

He said Ezra was correct when he talked about Native Hawaiian groups fighting each other.

"I think he's right," Ayau said. "I think it's sad."

Reach Ken Kobayashi at kkobayashi@honoluluadvertiser.com.