Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 21, Number 10, 1 ʻOkakopa 2004 — Federal committees to hold hearings in Hawaiʻi on burial repatriation controversy [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Federal committees to hold hearings in Hawaiʻi on burial repatriation controversy

By Sterling Kini Wong After a string of controversial events this summer heated up the debate over protection of ancient Hawaiian remains and burial objects, two repatriation disputes involving the Bishop Museum

have prompted two federal committees to plan hearings in Hawai'i. The Review Committee for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, of whieh U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye is the vice chairman, are both

planning hearings on the Bishop Museum's new "guidance" policy, in whieh it claims that it qualifies as a Native Hawaiian organization under federal burial law. If the policy is approved, the museum would have an equal elaim with other groups to burial objects in repatriation disputes. Hawaiian groups have opposed the museum's elaim, whieh they believe threatens to undermine the purpose of the NAGPRA law, created to redress past injustices committed to Native Americans. In a September hearing in Washington D.C., the review committee decided that because the museum hasn't finalized its new policy, any ruling on the issue would be premature. The committee agreed to hold hearings on the issue in Hawai'i, possibly as early as this spring. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is

also expected to meet in Hawai'i on the issue in the next few months. The Bishop Museum announced its new policy on June 30, and accepted public comments until Sept. 1. The museum's board is expected to consider those

comments when it finalizes the policy in its October meeting. Inouye, who helped to write the 1990 NAGPRA law, has stated that he does not believe the Bishop Museum ean be considered a Native Hawaiian organization with the

ability to elaim burial items. Also in September, the review committee decided to re-evaluate its ruling in the controversial Forbes cave case, in whieh the Bishop Museum loaned 83 items for repatriation to Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai'i Nei, a group dedicated to protecting ancient remains and burial objects. The committee had previously ruled that the museum had to recall the items because the loan process was flawed. Hui Mālama has refused to reopen the cave, claiming that the transfer of the items was part of a permanent repatriation. The items were originally removed from the Kawaihae cave in 1905 by David Forbes and later sold to Bishop Museum. Hui Mālama was also involved in another controversial case in August, when the federal government See HEARINGS on page 27

Bishop Museum - founded by Charles Reed Bishop with heirlooms donated by his wife, Bemice Pauahi, and other ali'i - is at the heart of today's controversies over Hawaiian ancestral sites and artifacts.

HEARINGS from page 5

launched an investigation after several repatriated burial objects turned up for sale on Hawai'i island. Hui Mālama, one of the four groups that the items were repatriated to, said that thieves broke into the cave and stole the items despite numerous protective measures installed by the hui. A collector alerted federal authorities when a Kona antique shop tried to sell him the items, whieh were repatriated to the Native Hawaiian groups by the museums between 1997-2003 and were reburied in Kanupa cave in November 2003. In a separate case in September, a California man was criminally charged for selling the skull of a Hawaiian woman from the 1 8th century to undercover federal agents. The man had originally tried to auction off the skull on eBay as that of a 200-year-old warrior. The man now faces a maximum fine of $250,000 and up to five years in federal prison. The sale of the skull is illegal under the federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act. ■