Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 22, Number 4, 1 ʻApelila 2005 — NAGPRA committee reaffirms Forbes Cave ruling [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

NAGPRA committee reaffirms Forbes Cave ruling

Process was flawedr body rules after heated Honolulu hearings By Sterling Kini Wong After hearing three days of emotional testimony in Honolulu, a federal committee has unanimously reaffirmed its prior recommendation that the repatriation of the 83 Forbes Cave artifacts was flawed and remains incomplete. The review committee of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) met at the East-West Center at the University of Hawai'i-Mānoa in mid-March to consider several Native Hawaiian cases involving NAGPRA. The 1990 law provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return artifacts and human remains to America's native people. The committee serves as an advisory body to help resolve repatriation issues. The committee's recommendation is the latest chapter in the ongoing dispute surrounding the artifacts, whieh were removed from a Kawaihae cave nearly a century ago by David Forbes and his expedition. The controversy also brings into focus the split in the Hawaiian community over how to classify and care for objects that are buried with iwi, or human remains. Some argue that objects found with iwi are not meant to be kept in museums, but rather with the individuals with whieh they were buried. Others argue that in some cases objects were buried for safety. The Forbes Cave controversy started in February 2000, when the Bishop Museum granted a one-year loan of the artifacts to the repatriation group Hui Mālama i nā Kūpuna o Hawai'i Nei. The group was one of four claimants recognized by the museum at the time. Hui Mālama says that after receiving the artifacts it reburied them in the Kawaihae cave, located on the Kohala Coast of Hawai'i island. The group has since refused the museum's requests to have the artifacts returned. Since the loan, nine other claimants have been recognized, and they also want to be a part of the

repatriation process. In 2003, the NAGPRA review committee found that the repatriation process was flawed and remained incomplete. At the recent Honolulu hearing, Hui Mālama spokesperson Edward Halealoha Ayau said that the loan was intended to facilitate the repatriation of the items and that there was an understanding between the museum and the group that the artifacts wouldn't be retumed. However, Van Hom Diamond, whose family is a claimant in the dispute, said that Hui Mālama's refusal to retum the artifacts has prevented the completion of the repatriation process. He said that the majority of the claimants have not been able to inspect the artifacts or consult on the repatriation because the objects were reburied prior to their recognition. "This slaps the NAGPRA review committee determination regarding the importance of consultation," he said. When the committee decided to uphold its previous decision, committee member Dan Monroe said that the repatriation process was "seriously flawed and excluded the involvement of other claimants." Another member, Vincas Steponaitis, said "the flaws in this case are so egregious, I hope I don't see anything like it again."

While drafting its recommendation, the committee expressly avoided either requiring or prohibiting the removal of the objects from the cave, whieh sits on land controlled by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, whieh is also a claimant in the dispute. At the hearing, DHHL Director Mieah Kāne testified that the agency believes that the repatriation is complete. After making its recommendation, the committee urged the museum and the 13 claimants to work together in good faith to settle the issue. While many of the claimants expressed optimism over the prospects of negotiations, some did not rule out the possibility of a lawsuit. "Everyone involved has the responsibility of exhausting every possible alternative and utilizing it to find a solution," said Diamond. "The oplion of a lawsuit has always been there, but we choose to be more positive." Bishop Museum director William Brown said that he was pleased with the committee's decision and hopes all the groups will enter into talks with a "fresh look." La'akea Suganuma, who represents the claimant the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts, said that while he was surprised by the committee's recommendation, "it was the only honest decision that could've been made," he said. Suganuma said that he is confident the dispute will be resolved before the end of the year. "We just have to sit down and talk," he said. While different groups may disagree over artifacts issues, he said, eaeh respects the fact that the others are also working to "honor our ancestors." Other recommendations made by the committee during the March hearings: • Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park should move forward in the process to repatriate five objects that also originated from the Kawaihae cave. • The Bishop Museum should repatriate three artifacts found on Moloka'i. • The agreement between the Bishop Museum and a group over the Kalaina Wāwae sandstone blocks on Moloka'i should be changed to prohibit the removal of the items without approval from the other group. U

Hui Malama spokesman Edward Halealoha Ayau testified before the NAGPRA review committee in March. Photo: Sterling Kini Wong