Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 1, 1 January 1992 — OHA reports on repatriatior [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

OHA reports on repatriatior

Thc Law In thc summer of 1989, the Congress of the United States passed the "National Museum of the American Indian Act" (P.L. 101185). This measure completed the consolidation of the largest private collection of Native Amenean eultural materials held by the Hayes Museum in New York with the Smithsonian Institution eollections in Washington, D.C. This measure also envisioned a major new Museum of the American Indian honoring indigenous Americans.

As the bill was considered, however, increasing native eoneem regarding the appropriateness and prolonged curation of ancestral remains began to dominate the hearings. Museum officials and native leaders expressed harsh disagreement over whether the osteologieal research potential of the bones justified the curation of tribal ancestors. After more than a year, Congress amended the bill to include repatriation — or formal return — of bones whieh eouki be identified by name or tribal origin. Also included among the final amendments to the bill was a separate and specific provision for the return of Native Hawaiian remains. Unfortunately. this separation excluded Native Hawaiians from the federal funding provisions included for American Indian groups seeking repatriation. While in the Capitol to testify on unrelated legislation, then-Chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees Thomas Kaulukukui made an appointment to meet with Smithsonian officials. At that time, "Unele Tommy" requested an inventory of Native Hawaiian remains from the museum. In a ietter dated Dec. 1, 1989, Dr. Donald J. Ortner, chair of the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History responded to the request:

"specimen inventory indicates that there are 217 catalog numbers with Hawaiian provenience. A catalog number may be associated with a single item or a lot of skeletal elements, therefore the actual number of specimens or individuals represented is difficult to estimate. The size of the Hawaiian collection in terms of the number of catalog numbers assigned ranks about 14th among states..." Drawing on the detailed information of field notes and catalog data, Dr. Ortner also summarized the information regarding how the majority of Hawai'i bones had eome to the Smithsonian: "...None of the material was collected by Smithsonian Institution staff... the material was received from a variety of private donors and other federal agencies... only two specimens were collected since 1950... "At least 152 or 70 percent were collected over 100 years ago. Of these, 114 are from a single donor [Knudson] who lived on Kaua'i ... At the time of the eolleehon in 1869 and 1871 the material was thought to be old ... and was exposed on wind deflated dune surfaces ... "Several additional items collected over

100 years ago were obtained by the Wilkes expedition to the Pacific in 1838-1841 ... " As described in the Museum Act, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Hui Malama I Na Kupuna 'O Hawai'i Nei (Hui Malama) were rec-

ognized as appropriate entities to request repatriation.

The flrst repatriation In May of 1990, the Hui Malama contacted the Smithsonian and initiated the formal process of deaccession and repatriation. Their request sought the return of all the Hawai'i remains, and indicated that they would arrive in mid-July for the purpose of preparing and accompanying the bones home. Later that same month, the then-named Historic Preservation Task Force of OHA was forma!ly notified by member LaFrance KapakaArboleda that the descendants of the Kaua'i bones curated at the Smithsonian did not wish to have the remains returned until the proper site for reburial was prepared. The superior elaim of lineal and genetic descendants to decide reburial conditions is acknowledged in both the OHA Guidelines and the federal law describing repatriation. The determination of descendancy for unmarked or pre-contact remains ean be difficult. However, there was significant information available regarding the family linkages of the Kaua'i bones. From the Smithsonian notes describing a South Kaua'i sand dune and the known habits of the collector Knudson, the presumed location of the original burial area was Ke'oneloa in the Po'ipu district. A number of related Hawaiian families had been involved in land title disputes in that area, and the courts had uphefd their claims as descendants of the original inhabitants. Individuals from these same families had also been working with developers in the Ke'oneloa area. In successful negotiations with one eompany, a protected preserve on the remaining dune area had been dedicated as a traditional eemetery and reinterment area for remains eneountered on the property. Based on the information presented, the Task Force reported to the Board of Trustees in May 1990 and were authorized to represent OHA in all matters related to the Smithsonian repatriation.

So empowered, members of the Task Force met with representatives of Hui Malama and also helped organize a meeting of the families, the Hui Malama, and knowledgeable kupuna, to discuss the planned repatriation. At that meeting it was agreed that the Kaua'i remains were the family responsibility of the 'Ohana Maha'ulepu members and would not be repatriated in July, 1990. Rather, the Kaua'i bones would return later when the chosen reinterment site was ready. During that same meeting, OHA, the Task Force, and the Hui Malama also agreed to proceed with the immediate return of the ancestral remains not associated with Kaua'i, and to travel together to the Smithsonian and to coordinate the arrangements and share the costs associated with the repatriation. A contingent of 15 representatives travelled to Washington, D.C. — including Hui Malama members with family links to the four islands of the bones, former OHA chairperson Kaulukukui, deputy administrator Stanley Lum, and Task Force members chair Namahana Mai'oho, June Cleghorn and Kaua'i Trustee Moses Keale. On July 17, the bones arrived in Honolulu. The remains associated with O'ahu were immediately taken and reinterred. The next morning, na'iwi were flown to Maui, Lana'i, and Hawai'i

for appropriate reburial. The first phase of the repatriation was eomplete. In subsequent meetings between the Task Force and Hui Malama, concensus was reached regarding the naming of formal liaisons between the two groups; eaeh group's share of financial responsibility for the repatriation; and the shared promise of completing the return of the ancestral bones still at the Smithsonian.

State legislation Although most community attention regarding repatriation was focused on Mainland institutions like the Smithsonian, the Preservation Task Force was also very sensitive to the need to repatriate the more than 2,500 individuals who were curated at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and at other facilities throughout the state of Hawai'i. Also part of this eoneem was the awareness of the attendant costs for repatriation — to the Bishop Museum, other affected loeal institutions, and most important, to the Hawaiian family. When the Task Force submitted their report and legislative package to the 1991 Session of the state Legislature, repatriation was not forgotten.

With the endorsement of the Board of

These ka'ai were moved from the Royal Mausoleum in 1918 and are now under the