Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 21, Number 8, 1 August 2004 — Museum's new artifact guideline makes false claims [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Museum's new artifact guideline makes false claims

By Dr. Guy H. Kaulukukui Editor's note: Dr. Guy H. Kaulukukui is a former vice president for cultural studies at Bishop Museum. The views expressed in this community discussion eolumn are those ofthe author and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law intended to facilitate the return of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony to Native Hawaiians and Native Americans. The act corrects an imhalanee that has favored museums, such as Bishop Museum, over Native Hawaiians for more than a century. Bishop Museum made recent changes to its NAGPRA guideline, including controversial provisions that stretch the limits of key definitions and make false assertions regarding the contents of the museum's collection of Hawaiian cultural objects. The museum now

asserts that it is a Native Hawaiian organization as defined by NAGPRA, and as such able to plaee claims on objects that are covered by the act. This is a weak assertion, because in a fair and impartial review, it will be difficult for the museum to prove that as a primary

purpose it serves and represents the interests of Native Hawaiians in a manner distinguishable from its service to any other ethnic group. The act defines a Native Hawaiian organization as a group that ean demonstrate that it: a) serves and represents the interests of Native ' Hawaiians; b) has expertise

in Native Hawaiian affairs; and e) has as a primary and stated purpose the provision of services to Native Hawaiians. NAGPRA defines the cultural affiliation of a Native Hawaiian organization as applying to groups that ean establish a connection to the items they are claiming by the following criteria: a) geographical; b) kinship; e) biological; d) archaeological; e) linguistic; f) folklore; g) oral tradition; h) historical evi-

dence; or i) other evidence or expert testimony. Bishop Museum asserts that it has a cultural affiliation to Hawaiian cultural items in its collection. Again, this is a weak assertion because the museum would have a difficult time demon-

strating its cultural affiliation by any of the above criteria, except in the singular case of the objects in its founding collection. This eolleetion is comprised of the personal belongs of Princess Pauahi, including bequests from mem1 bers of the Kamehameha family that preceded her

in death. Also, the act describes sacred objects as having religious signifieanee or function in the continued observance or renewal of a religious practice by present-day Native Hawaiians. The museum asserts that it does not have sacred objects as defined by NAGPRA in its collection. This is a false assertion because the Lono image in the museum's collection is a sacred object due to the renewal of the

celebration of Makahiki and the worship of Lono. Other images of Hawaiian gods are also sacred objects if they are needed for worship. The museum cannot determine whether an item is or will be a sacred object. Native Hawaiians make this determination as we continue to renew the practice of our traditional religion and the celebration of our numerous gods. Bishop Museum must forever respond to our claims, and if it cannot demonstrate its right of possession over these images, the museum must repatriate them to the claiming organization. The act defines right of possession as relating to an object obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual that had the authority to give the object away. Bishop Museum asserts that it has the right of possession of all unassociated funerary objects in its collection. This is another false assertion, because in order to make this elaim the museum must demonstrate that the original acquisition of the unassociated funerary object was made from an individual that had the See MUSEUM on page 18

KūKĀKl'iKĀ

Dr. Kaulukukui

MUSEUM from page 4 authority to give them the item. In at least two cases, the museum would not bc ablc to prove its rigbt of possession to huiial goods in its eolleetion. Bishop Museum has two ki'i laken from a burial cave on Maui in 1963 and thc niho of a lei niho palaoa removed from a sand burial on Moloka'i in 1937. In both cases, museum records indicate that the pcrson who rcmovcd thc itcms lxom the burial setting and gave it to the museum did not bave the authority to do so. Bishop Museum's new guideline makcs false asscrtions, frustratcs the intent of NAGPRA and insults Native Hawaiians and the law. Tt implies that the museum is better suitcd to care for cultural objccts than Native IIawaiians. The museum's paternalistic attitude makes it impossible for Native Hawaiians to acccpt any part of its new guidclinc. Bishop Museum 's new NAGPRA guideline ean be reviewed at w w w . b i s h o p m u s e u m . o r g . Commenls on Ihe guideline ean be e-mailed lo mbaron@bishopmuseum.org or mailed to Malia Baron, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Slreet, Honolulu, Hawai'i 96817 before the puhlie eommenl period ends on September 1, 2004. ■