Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 1, 1 January 1997 — Is this kiʻi sacred? Artist, historian poses question [ARTICLE]

Is this kiʻi sacred? Artist, historian poses question

Submitted by Herb Kawainui Kane As a result of a elaim filed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hui Mālama i Nā Kūpuna o Hawai'i Nei, a Hawaiian wooden image now in the eolleehon of the Roger Williams Park Museum of Natural History, Providence, Rhode Island, may be returned to Hawai'i. The image, whieh supports a rack or three "U" shapes, is said to have onee been lashed to a chief's war eanoe to hold spears. Although the superbly carved figure is classically Hawaiian in style, it is important to bear in mind that nothing is known of who carved it, who used it, how it was used, or how it left Hawai'i. There is no evidence for the suggestion that it may have been a funerary object. The elaim was made under provisions of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), whieh requires institutions receiving federal funding to return to Native American tribal or representative groups ancestral human remains, "sacred objects" needed for religious practice today, and "cultural patrimony" (objects so central to a culture that no individuals would have the right to sell it or give to away). Is the ki'i a "sacred object'? The image is claimed to be a ki'i 'aumakua (ki'i=human image; 'aumakua=ancestral spirit). As such, it was claimed that this is a sacred object. 'Aumākua were spirits of family ancestors, venerated after death for their outstanding qualities or virtues. They could be called upon by name. Ki'i 'aumākua were regarded as physical resting places for family ancestral spirits at those times when the presence of these invisible spirits was invoked by ritual. An ancestral spirit could also take possession of a natural object, such as a stone. These objects were usually kept in family shrines in the men's eating house. The spirit of a dead ancestor could also manifest itself in a living organism — a

bird, fish, or insect of a certain species. The ancestral spirit was sacred, to be sure; but whether the image was regarded as intrinsically sacred — during those times when the spirit was not believed to be present — is uncertain. If it was sacred within the context of the ancient chiefly religious institution upon whieh the mana/kapu system was based, officially terminated by the regent Ka'ahumanu and Kamehameha II in 1819 (soon afterward, all images were ordered to be destroyed), it's questionable whether the object is actually needed for religious practice today, as that institution does not formally exist. Vestiges of its

content are deeply venerated by many, but the form, observance of whieh required lengthy, word-perfect rituals, is largely forgotten. 'Aumākua images were not carved in positions of performing some menial labor. Images supporting food bowls or scrap bowls are thought to have been effigies of a chief's enemies, insultingly and sometimes humorously carved in servile, utilitarian or otherwise demeaning postures. Here we may include images supporting racks for fishing poles or spears. The servile position of this image suggests See Kane questions. . . Page 12

Kane raises questions about identity, treatment of ki 1

from page 3 that its identification as a ki'i 'aumakua is questionable. A side observation: the black face suggests that it might have represented or caricatured a specific person whose face had been heavily tattooed. Although the state religion was abandoned, veneration of ancestors continued as a very private matter within families, and persists among many Hawaiians today in spirit if not in the precise ritual observance. If this image is indeed a ki'i 'aumakua, it was an object held in secluded privacy to a certain family. It may be argued that it was originally private property, and cannot be defined as "cultural patrimony" is defined — so central to the entire culture (in the same sense that the Declaration of Independence is central to the U.S. culture) that no individual ean sell it or give it away. It cannot be said that it was used for cultural purpose or that it was made for trade. We do know that many Hawaiian objects were exchanged in straightforward trading. Hawaiians and other Polynesians, upon perceiving the interest of Europeans in their material culture, were quick to manufacture objects as r

trade items. Skillfully executed carvings were in high demand. The image surface suggests it was carved with metal tools. Because of the condition of its surface, knowledgeable collectors suspect that it may have been carved as a trade item. At the time of Byron's visit we may assume that Hawaiians were not reluctant to sell their images because the official religion had been abandoned. Might the demand for the return of this carving dishonor a gift or trade commitment made by one of our Hawaiian ancestors many years ago? Also, some important images were given to the visitors, possibly to save them from the destruction ordered by Ka'ahumanu. Is it a spear rack? Having some experience with both outrigger and double canoes, I cannot imagine a safe location in a eanoe where it may have been lashed to carry spears. The frequent moments of intense crew activity necessary in any sailing vessel, the fragility of the pieee and the heavy weight of kauila wood spears argue that the rack would need to be located completely out of the way where no accidental pressure on the spears would break it, causing the loss of the spears overboard.

Throughout Polynesia, weapons carried in a eanoe were not usually displayed until the moment of battle, at whieh time three spears would not be enough — not for a war eanoe with forty or more men engaged in forcing a contested landing. To carry valuable spears exposed in this manner seems far less seamanlike than bundling them together, perhaps a dozen or more in a protective wrap of matting, conceaIed within the interior of the hull or inside the gunwales where they would be out of harm's way, yet immediately accessible. How will it be curated? If the image is returned to Hawai'i how will it be cared for under proper standards of curatorial security, yet be on view, accessible to the Hawaiian public? Many images would not exist today had they not been removed from Hawai'i before the Monarchy ordered all images burned, and had they not been highly valued and kept in reasonable safety thereafter, whether in private or public collections. Museums in Hawai'i are short on display space. Is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs prepared to assist a Hawai'i museum in enlarging its space for permanent display? I believe that these are reasonable

and timely questions — timely because the result of this matter may set an important precedent. A major benefit in having cultural objects returned to Hawai'i would be the opportunity for Hawaiians to experience them as objects, not in photographs. This could be answered by having accurate replicas made by the most outstanding Hawaiian talents in the traditional Hawaiian arts. This exercise, under OHA auspices and support, would further inspire and develop our finest talents as well as bring them additional patronage. Such objects would not require the same standards of security as the originals. They could be put in traveling exhibits reaching all Hawaiians. Some objects might be used in the performing arts. Herb Kawainui Kane (pronounced KAH-ney) is an artist-historian and author with special interest in Hawai'i and the South Pacific. Born in 1928, he was raised in Waipio Valley and Hilo, Hawai'i, and Wisconsin. He holds a master's degreefrom the Art lnstitute of Chicago and the University of Chicago. He resides in rural South Kona on the island of Hawai'i.