Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 5, 1 May 1992 — Kukui O Kane revisited; sacred Haiawa heiau complex vs. H-3 [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Kukui O Kane revisited; sacred Haiawa heiau complex vs. H-3

By Moanikeala Akaka Trustee, Island of Hawai'i

You will recall several years ago the controversy about Kukui O Kane Heiau at the Kane'ohe end of H-3. Many in the 1 Hawaiian community 1 including kupuna and this trustee as well as Earl "Buddy" Neller, OHA's former archeol- - ogist, swore to the end

that Kukui O Kane Heiau was definitely in the path of H-3. For almost two years OHA held off the highway development while Bishop Museum archeologists, the state Department of Transportation and the state Department of Land and Natural Resources insisted Kukui O Kane was elsewhere. During these proceedings it appeared to me as though these three entitites were in cahoots while archeologists' Jane Allen and Paul Cleghorn insisted that the site was a "large dryland agricultural complex" and not Kukui O Kane heiau. I was the only trustee on the board then who believed it was indeed Kukui O Kane and who voted for its protection from H-3 construction. Scott Williams, another Bishop Museum archaeologist, had agreed with Allen and Cleghorn in a report he gave in 1990 before the annual Society of Hawaiian Archeology eonference; however, at the fourth annual archaeological conference held in 1991 after most of the Kane'ohe site had been destroyed by H-3, Williams presented another paper stating that he had changed his mind. In view of added research, and taking into consideration the 1930 report of archeologist McCallister who had been shown Kukui O Kane by a Hawaiian named Roland Watson (whose 'ohana owned land around Kukui O Kane) Williams began to have second thoughts. From looking at aerial photos of the area and going over McCallister's personal notes, as "Buddy Nelleril had done, Williams concluded that the site was not just dryland agricultural terraces, but indeed it had been Kukii O Kane that had been ccvered up by H-3!

I was recently dismayed to leam that indeed it was Kukui O Kane that had been destroyed and that it was admitted, "Oops, sorry we made a mistakel" I do appreciate Williams' honesty. Buddy Neller was pressured out of OHA by the administrator because he (Neller) told a Kane'ohe newspaper the site was Kukui O Kane. OHA's Administrator Richard Paglinawan who, in my opinion, considers himself an amateur archeologist, visited the site and was of the opinion it was not a heiau, but did not go to the area, or ever discuss it with Neller, OHA's archaeologist. It is disheartening to realize how our sacred historical sites are of secondary importance in Hawai'i today, especially when the sites stand in the way of H-3. It shows how little respect they have for our culture and what is Hawaiian. It stands to reason that the DOT should do the surveys for historical sites before they route the highway. Unfortunately, insensitive bureaucrats route the highway then attempt to destroy our

Hawaiian historical sites and culture, or anything else, in its way. H-3's only purpose is to go from one military base to another (Pearl Harbor to Kane'ohe Marine Corps Air Station) at a time when there is a U.S. military winddown nationally and internationally due to the end of the cold war. Thus far, over $850 million has gone into this highway, the most costly in the world. In Washington, D.C., it is referred to as "Senator Inouye's Highway". Honolulu Advertiser editorials April 1 and April 9 refer to H-3 as "the dinosaur highway," and that it "has been long opposed to H-3 as a wasteful defiance of eommon sense planning."

In view of what happened to Kukui O Kane Heiau on the Kane'ohe side of H-3 during the last week of March, 1992, Barry Nakamura, a very humble and unassuming historian and an exacting anthropologist employed at the Bishop Museum, held a press conference to make known what he felt was a cover up by Bishop Museum and the state Department of Transportation of a major heiau complex of a luakini (male) heiau and a Heiau-Papa (wahine) heiau, whieh is referred to as a Hale O Papa. (I have been told by Jim Rice of Kukuihaele, right above Waipio Valley) whose father in-law Kamakahiki said that it is proper to refer to this as Heiau-Papa because the Hale O Papa is the house (hale) where girls and women would go to when they would have their monthly ma'i. Although the Luakini (site 85) is to be preserved, the Heiau Papa (site 75) a hundred yards away is in the path of H-3! Nakamura, whom I consider a "Hawaiian hero," went public on the sacredness of site 75 because he felt 10 or 20 years from now he did not want on it his conscience that he withheld the knowledge of the significance of the HeiauPapa that is planned for destruction. As it is, Jane Allen, archeologist, and principal investigator of the museum's contract with the DOT would caution her staff not to mention the "H word" (heiau) because the DOT didn't like that word, especially in view of Kukui O Kane. Jane Allen recently sent Nakamura a memo stating that she had just been joking in reference to not

saying the "H word." From one to whom Bishop Museum has entrusted an aspect of our cultural integrity, this is no joking matterl. The Luakini and Heiau-Papa in Halawa, according to Nakamura, may be the only sacred complex of its kind on O'ahu where the highest ranking chiefs worshipped. These two heiau were both necessary structures in the sacred luakini rituals discussed in writings of the 1 9th century Hawaiian historians such as David Malo, Samuel Kamakau and I'i. Nakamura felt this complex could be one of the most important archaeological finds in all Hawaiian archeology and he felt compelled to go public. Elizabeth Tatar, head of Bishop Museum's Department of Anthropology, says that Nakamura's position is "premature," and in a March 24 Honolulu Advertiser article, says that because that part of the valley is very narrow, with steep sides, there isn't enough room to preserve both sites and build a highway.

Less than two weeks after Barry went public about Site 75, Donald Duckworth at a meeting told Barry that if he didn't like it there he could quit; Nakamura did not reply. Two days later Duckworth called Nakamura into his office and fired him. The Bishop Museum's firing of Nakamura has further incensed an already distrustful community disturbed about this issue. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Apiil 9, stated that Nakamura was applauded by most people who called a special Star-Bulletin hotline on April 8. Of the 257 people who called the newspaper that day, 204 supported Nakamura. After a rally of support for Nakamura at the Bishop Museum, two days after he was fired, a group of women, some of them kupuna, went to Halawa to worship and stay to protect this Heiau Papa from destruction. Although they were at first threatened by arrest, they were allowed to stay. A week later on Apiil 12, hundreds of people of all ages many Hawaiians and other nationalitiites eame into the valley for religious ceremonies and to pay their respects to these heiau of mueh mana. The Friday before, state Sen. Eloise continued on page 23

Trustee Akaka /rom page 22

Tungpalan held a legislative hearing before her Senate Culture, Arts & Preservation committee about Bishop Museum contracts. According to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin April 11 article, testimony from a half dozen museum employees, eoupled with Nakamura's account of his recent dismissal, led Tungpalan and Sen. Lehua Sallings to question "the validity of the museum's forthcoming archeological report to the state. Tungpalan also stated, "in my mind. it was apparent that Barry Nakamura had no alternative but to eome forward." OHA' Chairman Clayton Hee testified that he is asking OHA's Historical Preservation Council to assess the site and make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. No one thus far has been able to refute Nakamura's position. There is eoneem about the public's right to know, especially about our important Hawaiian historical sites and the contractor (developers) being the only one privy to what should be publie information. There is an ethical question

here about professional, scholarly behavior and exchange whieh is a part of academic freedom. There is also a moral issue of the Hauiaiian people's right to know anel abiltiy to preserue what is ours. Kehau Abad, a UH graduate student in archeology, argued against only accepting archeologieal expertise to determine if a site is important. "Archeology ean only determine a site's research potential," she testified at Tungpalan's legislative hearing. She urged lawmakers to amend the "state's preservation laws to include cultural assessments to determine a site's value." £ Ala! Na Moku, O Ke Kai Liloloa E Moe Loa Nei, Maka'e 0 Ka Po Aloha 'Aina

(Wake up! Our Islands are ebbing away While you sleep, we are on the edge of darkness. Care for the land) Malama Pono. Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono. Trustee Akaka Editor's note: The following clarifications to Trustee Akaka's eolumn are offered: 1. The administrator and other inuolved staff from both OHA's land division and OHA's culture diuision made seueral site visits, jointlg, to assess the site in question. The administator also uisited the site with Earl "Buddy" Neller; 2. Culture specialist Neller freely submitted his resignation from OHA effective April 30, 1990; ' 3. Administrator Richard Paglinawan has an academic background in anthropologg and archeology and serued for 15 years as a member of the state *Historic Places Reuiew Board; during this period the HPRB placed ouer 800 sites onto the state and naiional reg-

isters of historic places; 4. The papers authored by by archeologist Scott Williams are being reuiewed by fellow archeologists and we look forward to additional comments from them regarding William's most recent allegations that all of the windward sites east of Luluku are to be deemed an ouerreaching complex called Kukuiokane. Ka Wai Ola 0 OHA will seek additional information for our readers regarding both the windward and Halawa valley sites.