Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 1, 1 January 1992 — of na ʻiwi ʻo Hawaiʻi nei [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

of na ʻiwi ʻo Hawaiʻi nei

Trustees,companion measures — House Bill 370 introduced by Majority Leader Peter Apo and Senate Bill 415 sponsored by Culture, Arts and Historic Preservation Committee Chair Eloise Tungpalan — were introduced to provide $100,000 a year for two years to assist with the implementation of repatriation as administered by OHA. By the vote of the entire Legislature, what would become Act 320 was passed. Thus assured of funding, the planning for the final phase of repatriation from the Smithsonian intensified.

Social Darwinism In May, 1991, Sen. Tungpalan visited the Museum of Natural History and, upon being shown the inventory, noted that the identification of "South Kohala" as associated with Kaua'i was inaccurate. OHA, the Hui Malama, and the 'Ohana were notified of the correction by the senator and later, by letter, from the Smithsonian. Thus, in addition to the 115 individuals from Kaua'i, another eight individuals were identified simply as from the Hawaiian Islands, 10 sets of remains were from Kohala on the island of Hawai'i, and one individual was originally from O'ahu.

Also clear from this revised inventory was that virtually all of the remains were individual skulls whieh had been transferred to the Smithsonian from the Army Medical Museum. The collection of the Hawaiian bones, then, was consistent with the discredited "scientific inquiry" of the 19th century whieh hoped to prove the intellectual superiority of the white race through the comparative measurement of human skulls.

Derived from the then-popular extension of the theory of evolution (called Social Darwinism) skulls of native peoples were collected — often in an immoral fashion — measured, and their cranial size used to infer mental capacity. From this so-called evidence, the native peoples were deemed inferior. Social Darwinism also argued that the tragic die off among native peoples exposed to new Western diseases was part of a natural selection pattern of evolution whieh resulted in the "survival of the fittest." This psuedo-science was often explicitly called on to justify Western imperialism and the destruction of native nations. American diplomatic correspondence at the highest levels of government also revealed this same bias and attitude toward the Hawaiian people and their nation. Not surprisingly, Sanford Ballard Dole (a leader during the overthrow of the Kingdom) had helped the Wilkes expedition collect Hawaiian skulls when he was a young man. The second trip^ Faced with the new information regarding the origins of the bones, the Preservation Task Force — working with the Hui Malama and the 'Ohana Maha'ulepu — made key planning revisions regarding the trip to the Smithsonian. In summary, the decisions were: 1. To return with all the remaining bones at the Museum of Natural History; 2. To reinter the remains identified only as being from being from "Hawaii" with those from Kohala;

3. To invite and include someone from Kohala to assist with the repatriation and reinterment of those bones; and 4. To gratefully accept the 'Ohana's commitment of preparing the reburial materials for all of the remains, regardless of their island of origin. These decisions were shared, and concurred with by all. In a letter dated July 9, 1991, a formal request for the completion of the Hawai' i repatriation was sent to the Museum of Natural History. The letter was signed by Namahana Mai'oho for the Preservation Oouneil, LaFrance Kapaka-Arboleda of the 'Ohana Maha'ulepu, and Edward Kanahele of the Hui Malama. Consistent with the agreed-upon plan for the repatriation, a number of actions also occurred at about this time. First, contact was made to key groups associated with Kohala and, based on their recommendation, Eli Nahulu of the island of Hawai'i was added to the list of those travelling to Washington, D.C.

Second, a budget prepared by the Kaua ī 'Ohana Maha'ulepu was submitted to the Task Force for review and approved in "an amount not to exceed $15,000" for the expenses of air travel, ground transportation, and subsistence. Presented apart from the proposed 'Ohana budget was the additional request for members of the Task Force to accompany the group to

Washington, D.C. and to assist with the actual repatriation. The Task Force also approved that request.

A challenge The week before the planned departure to the Smithsonian, word was received that a formal challenge to the release of the remains had been made in Washington. In a letter dated July 31, 1991, Tim Dalton Dunn wrote to the Smithsonian: "... Please consider this letter a demand on behalf of Edward K. Kaiwi and Eric Kanakaole for the return of the ancestral bones of Kaua'i to them for proper disposition ... " Smithsonian officials contacted the groups already recognized and sought direction from Hawai'i and their own attorneys and anthropologists. While the federal law does describe a review committee to resolve disputes — the committee had not yet been formed. The Hawai'i Congressional offices and OHA special counsel Paul Alexander were notified, and proceeded to work with museum officials. At the same time, efforts to reach Kaiwi and Kanakaole were initiated by the Task Force, 'Ohana, and the Hui. Both men and their attorney were on the Mainland and could not be reached.

A meeting for the weekend prior to departure had already been scheduled, on Kaua'i. The entire group decided not to wait for a formal resolution, but to follow the schedule and leave for Washington that week. The Smithsonian was informed of this decision. As planned, the Task Force contingent left three days before the departure of the 'Ohana group. Originally intended to allow for other appointments with Congressional staff involved with historic preservation legislation, the earlier arrival in Washington now also focused on coordinating with the Smithsonian and arranging final details for the repatriation. Hours before the 'Ohana deIegation arrived, the Smithsonian announced through its general counsel that the Museum would proceed with the planned repatriation, and would defend its action in court if necessary. Going home Saturday morning, the reunited Hawai'i delegation and family entered the Smithsonian. Met by Dr. David Hunt, the group was taken to private rooms containing all of the remains whieh were segregated by island of origin. A detailed inventory to guide and verify the process was presented. Museum staff then left the room, and the rites of return began. After almost 150 years, the bones were going home. The future of the repatriation fund The eomplehon of the Smithsonian repatriation only concludes a first phase of activities planned by the Preservation Council for this year. The identification of other facilities with Native Hawaiian remains is continuing, as is the request for inventories and the verification of the origin of remains. Other limited repatriation efforts have occurred without involvement from the Preservation Council and repatriation fund support. In June, 1991, members of the Hui Malama returned and reinterred remains from the New York Museum of Natural History and the Chicago Field Museum. continued page 14

curatorship of the Bernlce Pauahi Bishop Museum.

Bones from page 13

A child taken from a Hanapepe cave was eonclusively identified by lineal descendants and was returned from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in conjunction with the second Smithsonian repatriation. While the Preservation Council stands ready to assist any other organization or family of descendants interested in seeking formal return from curational institutions outside Hawai'i, the major focus for the Council, is to conclude repatriation in Hawai'i. Of immediate eoneem is the deaccession and reinterment of the more than 2,500 individual Native Hawaiian remains still at the Bishop Museum.

Mokapu remains Representing special difficulties, are the 1,000 sets of remains at the Bishop Museum whieh are associated with Mokapu on the island of O'eihu. These bones were disturbed during construction at the U.S. Navy's Kane'ohe Marine Corps Air Station from 1935-55. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs now has a "Phase 1: Interim Burial Treatment Plan" agreement with the Navy to address any present discovery of remains. However, under the "Federal Antiquities Law" any cultural materials or resources — and, unfortunately, ancestral remains are still categorized as cultural resources — encountered on public lands under federal jurisdiction are owned by the nahonal government. Thus, the Mokapu bones are curated at the Bishop Museum but their repatriation may require additional Congressional oversight to successfully conclude. In particular, the Preservation Council has written to U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye for guidanee and help in clarifying the repatriation of remains disturbed on public land. In addition, proper treatment of these remains and their return to Mokapu may require additional federal action and funding assistance for appropriate reinterment at Kane'ohe. From the cost estimates of the Bishop Museum for the inventory of these remains, the preparation of tapa and lauhala for reinterment, and the eonstruction of an above-ground reburial platform (to avoid the disturbance of any additional burials), it will likely require up to $300,000 to eomplete the Mokapu repatriation. Monies within the nahonal defense appropriations ean be used for historic preservation mitigation purposes, and the Preservation Council is seekinq such fundinq and support.

Mauna 'Ala Also complex and unique within the sensitive area of repatriation and cultural patrimony are the two ka'ai (sennit caskets) held at the Bishop Museum. These remains were moved from the Royal Mausoleum at Mauna 'Ala in 1918, by a territorial gubernatorial order. In traditional Hawaiian religion, these ali'i bones have been ritually deified after death, woven within the ka'ai, and placed in the hale poki (bone house) at a pu'uhonua — in all likelihood, from the Hale 'O Keawe at the Pu'uhonua Honaunau. This year, the Preservation Council sought, and the Legislature funded, up to $400,000 in matched special and general funds for the design and construction of a special repository at Mauna 'Ala for their return. Recently, DLNR indicated a willingness to transfer their general funds portion of the appropriation to OHA for matching and dispersal. To assure mutual accountability and appropriate community and cultural authority involvement, discussions are now being held concerning the creation of an advisory committee. Funding to support this advisory group's travel

and work would appropriately eome from the repatriation fund. As known 'aumakua, the spiritual and sacred dimension of the ka'ai is beyond what has been expressly known in any other repatriation. Even the law distinguishes and acknowledges this difference as cultural patrimony. Decisions affecting and recognizing the sacred character of the traditional culture will be the most sensitive and difficult to reach. The "American Indian Religious Freedom Act" (42 U.S.C. 1996) establishes that:

"It shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects and the freedom of worship through ceremonials and traditiona! rites." The American Indian Religious Freedom Act is fundamentally a prohibition against past, active discrimination toward traditional native religions

by the federal government. It is not an affirmative statement of what traditional practices in relationship to what other existing laws are protected and considered superior. Efforts to clarify and detail the range of religious rights have been in the courts and Congressional committees for the past several years.

The inclusion of Native Hawaiians is assured - but with what specifjc rights and privileges is uncertain. The Preservation Council will also be actively involved in the discussions and eventual hearings associated with this federal measure. Act 320 appropriates money to assist with "the costs associated with repatriation and the implementation of cultural patrimony." Thus, future initiatives in clarifying and asserting patrimony are anticipated. As with repatriation, difficult — onee thought insurmountable — complexities and competitions are being addressed and resolved. At heart, the challenge is to provide a home for Native Hawaiians in their homeland of Hawai'i. (Written by OHA's Lanel and Natural Resources division officer Linda Deianey.)

The Members of the Native Hawaiian Historic Preservation Council are:

LYDIA NAMAHANA MAI'OHO is the curator of the Mauna 'Ala Royal Mausoleum who also served on the former OHA Culture Committee and now sits as a gubernatorial appointment to the O'ahu Burial Council REV. LEON KAPUAIIELANI STERLING, a resident of Kailua-Kona on the island of Hawai'i, was an advisor to the Sta<e Department of Transportation on the Keopu burials affected by the Kuakini Highway realignment. He also served on the H-3 Burial Treatment Advisory Committee. LaFRANCE KAPAKA-ARBOLEDA works as the director of the Waipa taro project on Kaua'i and is the chairperson of that island's burial eouneil. GLADYS 'AINOA BRANDT currently serves as a member of the State Foundation on Culture and Arts and was the past chairperson of the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents. A noted educator, she was also the first Native Hawaiian to be named the principal of the Kamehameha Schools. JUNE CLEGHORN is a Native Hawaiian anthropologist educated at the University of Hawai'i, Manoa, now working as the assistant archaeologist for O'ahu in the Department of Land and Natural Resources. She also served on the H-3 Burial Advisory Committee. DR. BENJAMIN FINNEY is the chairperson of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Hawai'i, Manoa campus. He was a consultant to the Polynesian Voyaging Society and has recently completed a book on native navigation. KINA'U BOYD KAMALI'I is the administrator of the State Health Planning and Development Agency, and also serves as an

advisor to the Health Department's Native Hawaiian Health Council. A former legislator, she was also the chair of the federal Native Hawaiians Study Commission. KAMAKI A. KANAHELE, III is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elected at-large. In addition, he serves as the president of the Statewide Council of Hawaiian Homesteads Association. SOLOMON KAOPUIKI is a recognized eultural authority from the island of Lana'i who serves as the kupuna advisor to the Lana'i Archaeological and Cultural Committee. He is also a member of the State Council of Hawaiian Elders. MOSES K. KEALE, SR. is an OHA trustee representing the islands of Kaua'i and Ni'ihau. Chair of the OHA Education and Culture Committee, he is also active with the federal Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program. CHARLES PIU KEAU works for the Maui County Parks Department, and is often called on to review the impact of proposed public projects on historic properties. He also serves as the chairperson of the Maui Historic Society's Archaeology Committee. SUSAN MILLER is Director of the Hawai'i Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Long involved with environmental issues, she is known for her advocacy in the protection of uniauelu Hawaiian habitats.

RUDY MITCHELL is the anthropologist and cultural authority at the Waimea Falls Park. His restoration of the heiau and initiation of authentic Makahiki ceremonies associated with the Park are well-recognized. TOM YAGI is the retired director of the Maui ILWU, and a former member of the State Board of Land and Natural Resources. He currently serves on the board of directors of the Research Foundation of the University of Hawai'i.