Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 10, Number 4, 1 ʻApelila 1993 — Hawaiian remains to return under federal law [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Hawaiian remains to return under federal law

by Deborah L. Ward Two sets of human remains, believed to be of Hawaiian ori- a gin, and now in the collection of a Califomia museum, soon may eome home. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Review Committee on Feb. 26 met for the first time in Hawai'i to conduct a landmark hearing on repatriation of the iwi kūpuna. The retum of the iwi is the subject of a dispute between the University of California, Berkeley Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology and Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai'i Nei. Hui Mālama is a nonprofit Native Hawaiian organization incorporated in 1989 to provide guidance and expertise in decisions dealing with Native Hawaiian cultural issues, particularly burial issues.

After the hearing, committee members informally indicated their support for the prompt return of the remains to Hawai'i. One set (Waimanālo remains) should be released to Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai'i Nei, they said, and the other ("Polynesian" from the Hawaiian Islands) to Bernice P. Bishop Museum. This informal finding follows a lengthy period in whieh the committee was petitioned by Hui Mālama to review the case. The committee's formal findings and recotnmendations are anticipated in about a month. One committee member expressed admiration for the "remarkable tenacity and emotional commitment" of Hui Mālama. The review committee was created by Congress in 1990 "to monitor and review the implementation of the inventory and identification process and repatriation activities" under NAGPRA. The act requires federally-funded agencies (such as museums or universities), to document certain

Native American and Native Hawaiian human remains and . cultural items within their eolleetions, and to notify all Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations that may be affiliated with these holdings; and to provide an opportunity for the repatriation of appropriate human remains or cultural items. Hui Mālama and Office of Hawaiian Affairs are specifically named in the act as Native Hawaiian organizations whieh may apply for

repatriation. The review committee's role includes facilitating the resolution of any disputes among Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants and federal agencies or museums regarding return of items, including convening the parties to the dispute. During the hearing, the sevenmember committee heard arguments and evidence. At issue are two sets of remains — fragments of a skull and a jawbone collect-

ed somewhere in Hawai'i around 1928; and two jawbones and three foot bones collected from Waimanālo, O'ahu in 1887. The museum has blamed old and incomplete accession records for the laek of clear documentation as to the bones' origin or cultural affiliation. Over the past year Hui Mālama has been actively seeking return of the remains, whieh it believes to be Hawaiian. Its members include po'o Kūnani Nihipali,

Ipo Nihipali, Edward and Puanani Kanahele, Edward Halealoha Ayau, Ulu Garmon, Lei Niheu, and numerous others. Hui Mālama been supported by Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, and Representatives Mink and Abercrombie as well as Ka Lāhui Hawai'i, Native American tribes and other individuals. The Hearst Museum, represented by Tim White, professor

of anthropology at UC Berkeley and attorney Mike Smith, claimed that its physical examination of the remains did not find typical Hawaiian skeletal characteristics. It has resisted their

return, because it cannot absolutely determine whether the iwi are native Hawaiian without resorting to destructive analysis. (Hui Mālama is adamantly opposed to such testing because of the Hawaiian cultural belief that mana (spiritual power) would be destroyed.) The Hearst Museum questioned the accuracy of the "Polynesian" label attached to one set by an acting curator who was not an anthropoloeist. Hui

Mālama, however, considers this sufficient evidence to warrant the iwi's return to Hawai'i, and points out that studies conducted in Hawai'i as recently as 1991 identify Hawaiian remains only as "Polynesian." That record plus their Hawai'i origin are a reasonable proof the remains are culturally affiliated with native Hawaiians, says Hui Mālama. The museum also argued, in the case of the Waimanālo remains, that a sizeable population of mixed races was living in the area in the 1880s and that

they could just as easily have been of another racial group. Hui Mālama counters that Waimanālo is one of the earliest known settlement sites in Hawai'i, whose beaches have

been previously identified as a pre-contact Hawaiian burial site. Since the iwi were collected in 1887 as scattered remains and were at that time weathered, it is probable the remains in question were of ancient Hawiians buried in the dunes. It is highly unlikely, the Hui argued, that the remains would have been from the only post-contact Japanese cemetery in Waimanālo, since at the time

ot collection such individuals would have been dead for less than 20 years and Japanese reverenee for the dead is very strong. Smith stressed the museum intends to obey the NAGPRA law but wishes to be extremely careful where uncertainty may arise, to avoid deaccessioning collections not required by law. One way to look at the dispute is as an unavoidable clash of "science vs. spirituality." Because conclusive evidence of native Hawaiian ethnicity is laeking with the two sets of remains, either due to incomplete recordkeeping at the time of collection or to native Hawaiian objection to destructive bone analysis, the question becomes, what standard of proof from available evidence should be used?

In arguments presented before the NAGPRA review committee, Hui Mālama stated it believes NAGPRA establishes a "reasonable belief " and a "preponderanee standard of proof ' to identify cultural affiliation. By eontrast, the Hearst Museum argues that, short of absolute proof of native Hawaiian cultural affiliation, it cannot agree to release remains that might be of another ethnicity. Although Hui Mālama made arguments based on the premise of "preponderance of the evidence," and known cultural practice and patterns, its fundamental position is based on Hawaiian spirituality. As far as Hui

Mālama is concerned, according to member Edward Halealoha Ayau, the iwi are people, not resources. It is wrong, he said, to Continued page 21

Many beaches of Hawai'i were known burial sites of ancient Hawaiians. Federal law now provides a way for ancient iwi to eome home.

Iwi to return

Continued from 8

"educate" against the wishes of the living. "What about education of cultural sensitivity?" he asked. Hui Mālama intends to reinter the returned human remains, whieh they say will satisfy the spiritual wrong committed when the 'iwi were taken from their resting plaee without their eon-

sent or that of a hving descendant. "Reburial is not just putting the bones back in the ground and allowing mana to flow back into the ground. Reburial tells us we are carrying on expectations of the ancestors and that we also expect our children to do so. " Testimony in strong support of Hui Mālama was presented at the hearing by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Speaking for administrator Richard Paglinawan, OHA land specialist

Lynn Lee noted, "We believe that the intent of the law is to assure that native peoples have the same right to spiritual consideration and protection of their ancestors as any other group. The museum's insistence on holding these remains for further 'proof' gives the impression of tacit approval to the practice of grave desecration. More importantly, such acts

must be recognized as a basically racist position." She said that the Hearst Museum's own acting director, Dr. Patrick Kirch (a former Bishop Museum archeologist) in his book "Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory," noted that Polynesian occupation in Waimanālo began as early as the 400 A.D. and that Waimanālo

was one of the first occupation sites for Polynesian migration. Traditional Hawaiian practice was to bury remains in shoreline sand dunes, she said, a practice consistent throughout Hawai'i. "These bones were found in a plaee of traditional Hawaiian burial and were buried in a manner consistent with Hawaiian cultural practice. These two facts alone would indicate that these remains

are Hawaiian. Whether or not the scientific community ean prove that they are Hawaiian is not the most important issue. To this community these remains are 'ohana and should be brought home." The Hawai'i meeting was the fourth held by the committee since its creation and its first repatriation dispute resolution hearing. In its previous meetings the committee developed soon-to-be published draft regulations under the act, and other informational materials about the statute

and the committee's functions. Committee chair Tessie Naranjo said procedures for mediation are still being developed. The committee's Hawai'i agenda on its second day included discussion of the statute's implementation in Hawai'i with representatives of Native Hawaiian organizations, federal agencies, museums and the public, and its 1992 report to Congress. Members of the review eommittee are:

— Committee chair Tessie Naranjo, a Santa Clara Pueblo native from Espanola, New Mexico, who has been active in cultural preservation activities at Santa Clara Pueblo and serves as the collections manager for Pojoaque Pueblo; — Rachel Craig, an Inupiaq native from Kotzebue, Alaska, who has been active in efforts throughout Alaska to save native cultural traditions; — Dr. Jonathan Haas, vice-presi-

dent for collections and research at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; — Dan L. Monroe, president of the Peabody and Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, who played a leading role for the American Association of Museums in development of legislation that led to the statute; — Dr. Martin E. Sullivan, director of the Heard Museum, Phoenix, Arizona, who has been active at the national and regional levels in repatriation issues;

— William Tallbull, a Northern Cheyenne native, the Northern Cheyenne tribal historian from Lame Deer, Montana; — Dr. Phillip L. Walker, a physieal anthropologist in the Department of Anthropology at Santa Barbara, who also serves as chair of the task force on repatriation of the Scciety for American Archeology.