Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 5, 1 May 1989 — How Do We Treat The Bones? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

How Do We Treat The Bones?

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu

Hawaiians have been buried at the Honokahua sand dunes for more than a thousand years. The earliest burials date from approximately 800 A.D. Because the dunes have been continually buffeted by wind, rain and the comings and qoinas of man. human

bones — Hawaiian human bones — have been eroding from the sands over the years. How many burials were we expecting to be there? Some guessed there were 50. Some guessed there were 200. The only certainty was that there were indeed burials there. In looking back, armed with the information gathered from these Honokahua burials and from Mokapu and other places, there might have been enough information to have guessed that this area of sand dunes concealed a major Hawaiian burial ground. After Kapalua Land Co. got conditional approval for a Shoreline Management Area (SMA) permit to begin construction of the proposed RitzCarlton resort hotel, the Trustees of OHA, not legally able to stop the construction, were left with options either to require the respectful and dignified treatment of the bones or to act as if the bones did not exist. Neither OHA nor any other agency could have stopped the digging because the developer had all the permits necessary to get eonstruction under way. The T rustees, in the Honokahua Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), chose to protect the bones. Not only is it a rare phenomenon to encounter the magnitude of burials that were discovered at Honokahua, but there wasn't enough Hawaiian cultural protocol available to provide sufficient guidelines to solve the problem. We knew, though, that we had a problem of major proportions. After nearly a thousand burials had been disinterred and measurements on more than 400 had been completed, the group that I will refer as the " 'opio" bombarded the world and OHA about the situation. They accused OHA of allowing the desecration of the bones by the archaeologists who dug up and measured the bones. Unfortunately, in their demands, they did not mention the fact that there was no legal means for OHA or anyone else to stop the digging and that certain measurements complied with the law. Eventually, the digging was voluntarily terminated by the developer due to the public pressure of OHA, the 'opio and others. Na 'opio, as Sam Kaai tells it, are boisterous, undisciplined and awkward. That is their nature and that is how they acted. On the other hand, Sam characterizes OHA's trustees as the makua, the ones who have to make the hard decisions. They have to look at the merits of the situation, measure the cultural aspects of the problem, even to consult the kupuna. This was the course taken in signing the Honokahua MOA. But what is the correct treatment of the bones? Should they be reinterred, or placed in a repository as the law requires? And should they be studied, or not, as the law also requires? If such studies took plaee, would any information eome to light that would help even one Hawaiian cure a disease or to live longer? From a cultural standpoint, we must recall that bones have been treated, at different times, in many different aspects. At times the bones of the dead were guarded, respected, treasured, venerated, loved and even deified by relatives. Other bones have been coveted and despoiled by

enemies. Though the bones of one's defeated enemies were used in different implements such as kahili staffs, spittoons and bowls as an insult, in later times, some uses took on the nature of being a tribute. Another aspect in the treatment of bones was the deceased's social standing — the higher the standing, the greater the mana. The greater the mana, the more desirable the bones were and the greater care taken to keep the bones out of the wrong hands. In ancient days, the dissected bodies of sacrifieial victims were left on the heiau where, after the flesh had rotted, the bones were left to bleach in the sun. Their skulls were removed and placed on poles. It is said that at the heiau, "the tongue of the Gods eame down and was seen to lap up the sacrifice." We also know that bodies were left on battlefields where they fell. They were there at Ka'anapali, Maha'ulepu, below Nu'uanu Pali and other places. At all of those places, the bones of the vanquished warriors continued to be scattered on the ground where they fell. Leaving bones uncovered and exposed to the sunlight was believed by Hawaiians to be disrespectful. One wonders why the surviving family of the dead did not cSre for the bones of their family members? Some say they did. But others may not have had relatives in the immediate vicinity to handle the task. Of course, one kahuna could have pronounced a tapu on a battlefield and the bones were immediately out of reach. As for desecrating bones, how do we characterize the actions of Ka'ahumanu, who ordered the destruction of the temples on Hawai'i island? The most sacred of the ali'i bones at Hale o Keawe were moved, initially to Ka'awaloa, then to O'ahu at Pohukaina, the mausoleum on the 'Iolani Palaee grounds where some still remain. The others were eventually moved to Mauna 'Ala in Nu'uanu. At Honokahua, we know that those who eonducted later burials disturbed earlier burials as they dug into the dunes for new gravesites. From a cultural standpoint, we also know that Hawaiians used human bone for fishhooks. Because of the mana that was associated with high ranking ali'i, their bones were especially vaiuable as fishhook materials. That is probably one of the major reasons why Kamehameha I, and many others, took great pains to have their bones deposited in secret caves. They were not very eager to have their spirits commanded to bring fish to the owner of the bone fishhook as long as it was possessed, maybe for etemity. Because bones were a symbol of immortality, the ultimate insult, however, was the burning or destruction of an enemy's bones. Mary Pukui wrote that "if the bones were destroyed, the spirit would never be able to join its aumakua." On the other hand, the bones of a loved one may have been taken to bed and slept with every night until such time as the love had eome to an end. Other bones may have been kept by relatives in calabashes that hung from the rafters. The handling of the dead and of the bones and body parts of the dead was tapu, and those who were so assigned and those relatives . who remained in the house with the corpse were eonsidered defiled. After burial or other disposal, all of those who were defiled had to be purified and the defilement removed. To delve further into Hawaiian practices, it is said that those who were trained in the martial art lua (the art of bone breaking) also had the knowledge necessary to put the broken bones back together. And certain kahuna, espēcially those who could diagnose injuries and diseases, had an advanced knowledge of anatomy and physiology. How did these trained specialists acquire the

knowledge and skills necessary to perform their callings? It is believed that there was no other way than "to lap up the sacrifice" on real people — dead ones. And what about our modern Hawaiian medical doctors who have had their fraining in anatomy and physiology? How could they have acquired such knowledge if they had not been trained on real human cadavers? So, in the context of Honokahua, what does all of this mean? At its meeting on April 1, the Board of Trustees adopted a position to rebury the exhumed bones from Honokahua at Honokahua. The Trustees, with reservations declared by this Trustee who was the lone dissenter in an earlier vote in committee, also adopted a position that no further study of the bones should take plaee. Whether or not the vote of the majority of the trustees was based on actual knowledge of and sensitivity to the culture (whieh is complex and confusing) or by intimidation by the 'opio is a good question. This Trustee, on a personal basis, continues to agree with the views of such as Rev. Leon Sterling who likened the information gleaned from bones as a ho'okupu from those of the past to us in the present and Professor Rubellife Kawena Johnson who believes that through study of their bones the people of the past are able to reveal themselves in order to help us. Professor Johnson says that this is an opportunity to gain knowledge about ourselves, and we should take advantage of the opportunity. Other scientific and probably culturally correct Hawaiians, such as Moana Lee, June Cleghorn and Toni Han, have taken a position adverse to that of the 'opio mentioned earlier. So have many others. This trustee further believes that the 'opio who took their kaumaha to the burial grounds of Honokahua probably desecrated those bones to a mueh greater extent than those haole archaeologists and anthropologists who worked on the bones with respect and dignity. Although the position that the trustees took regarding the Honokahua burials are supposed to be specific only to Honokahua, I believe that the decision will set a precedent for other burials to be encountered in the future. Hawaiian cultural practice relative to large burials has just been redesigned. However, it is possible that the 400-plus individual burials already studied will provide a statistically valid population from whieh conclusions involving their health, nutrition, social and cultural practices, and plaee of origin ean be drawn. OHA's original intent, however, will be maintained: the bones will be treated with respect and dignity. Note: Some of the facts cited here have their source in Nana I Ke Kumu and Malo's Hawaiian Antiquities.