Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 20, Number 8, 1 ʻAukake 2003 — State Historic Preservation Division created undue pressure to 'evict' iwi kūpuna from Wal-Mart site [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

State Historic Preservation Division created undue pressure to 'evict' iwi kūpuna from Wal-Mart site

Editor's note: This months' commimity perspective article is offered by Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq., a member of Hui Māilama I Nā Kāipuna O Hawai'i Nei and Project Manager for Ola Nā Iwi. He is theformer director ofthe State Btirial Sites Program and afather. He resides in Kamiloloa, Moloka'i. By Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq. Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai'i Nei (Hui Mālama) took corrective action at the Wal-Mart site in June 2003 to rebury iwi kūpuna (ancestral bones) that were exposed to inappropriate conditions including sun exposure, litter, a leaking sewer line, and portable toilets. Our actions and those of Ka'anohi are borne from the kuleana (responsibility) of the living to care for and protect the ancestors. We advocate for the proper care of iwi kūpuna and moepū (funerary possessions). Our main eoneem is that the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) created undue pressure to relocate the iwi kūpuna by exempting Wal-Mart from archaeologically surveying the ma kai portion of the property. SHPD stated that urbanization obviated any need to survey this particular area. However, projects in downtown Honolulu have demonstrated that urbanization had not destroyed Hawaiian burials located at Honuakaha, Marin Tower, Harbor Court, and Queen Street. SHPD needs to explain its decision in view of its duties under HRS Chapter 6E, whieh requires the identification and management of archaeological resources and burial sites. By exempting Wal-Mart from surveying the ma kai portion, SHPD set the stage for the current controversy. The cemetery discovered during construction should have been identified during the inventory process. The iwi kūpuna are the

party with the most primary interest in this matter, however, they were identified last in the planning process. This created two adverse conditions. First, it undermined the ability of WalMart officials to properly plan the project. Second, it created undue pressure to evict the iwi kūpuna. Hui Mālama filed a lawsuit against SHPD and Wal-Mart in an attempt to assure that the SHPD follows the law in rendering its decision on treatment. If the inventory survey were conducted, this case would be before the O'ahu Island Burial Council (OIBC) to determine treatment since the law requires that unmarked Hawaiian burials identified during archaeological inventory be classified as "previously identified" and places jurisdiction with the burial eouneil to determine proper treatment. Whether the OIBC or SHPD renders a decision on burial treatment, both have to apply the same

preservation criteria provided in HAR §13-300-36. Indications are that SHPD Administrator Holly McEldowney intends to relocate the iwi interred at the small pox cemetery. The regulations provide that when a previously identified or inadvertently discovered Native Hawaiian burial site meets any one of the following criteria, that it "shall be given greater consideration for preservation in plaee by the eouneil and the department respectively." The criteria include: 1) when located in areas with a concentration of skeletal remains; 2) historic period burial sites associated with important events; 3) when located within a context of historic properties; 4) where known lineal descendants request preservation; or 5) where the landowner agrees to preservation. In this case, the Hawaiian cemetery at issue meets all of the preservation criteria in that: 1) it is located in an area with a concentration of skeletal remains due to the 25 individuals that have been identified; 2) the burial sites are from the historic period and associated with the small pox epidemic, an important event in Hawai'i history; 3) the burials are located within a cemetery whieh is over fifty years old and deemed historic property according to § 6E-2, HRS; 4) a lineal descent elaim has been filed and the claimant has clearly indicated a desire for preservation; and 5) if the project ean be redesigned, Wal Mart officials are considering preservation. For the sake of the kūpuna, Ms. McEldowney must explain why given the legal duty to give greater consideration to preserve in plaee, that SHPD still intends to evict. This case could result in a win-win situation with Wal-Mart aeeommodating preservation in plaee. It will take commitment to do so. Wal-Mart officials seem committed to doing the right thing. The question is: is SHPD willing to commit to do what is pono as well? ■

^ Kūkākukā

I' (D •< Z Q < ® I C Q k Q. Q" 3 5" I (Q — O ° ° Q O 3

Halealoha Ayau (left) and fellow Hui Mōlama member speak wifh BLNR Chairman Pefer Young (middle) af fhe Wal-Marf sife abouf iwi kūpuna exposed during consfrucfion. Even as consfrucfion advances, fhe group goes fo courf on Aug. 1 1 seeking a preliminary injuncfion fo preserve burials in plaee and half fhe removal of fhe iwi from fheir resfing places.