Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 21, Number 11, 1 November 2004 — Bishop Museum drops artifacts claim [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Bishop Museum drops artifacts claim

By Sterling Kini Wong Following opposition from Sen. Daniel Inouye and some in the Hawaiian community, the Bishop Museum board decided in October to drop its controversial assertion that it ean elaim Native Hawaiian artifacts under federal law. The stance reversal eame through the museum directors' approval of its "Final Guidance" policy, whieh clarifies the steps the museum will take to implement the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The 1990 law sets forth the repatriation process for native remains and cultural objects, many of whieh were stolen over the years from burial sites by archaeologists and subsequently transferred to museums. While the final guidance policy addresses many issues, the one that drew the most interest was whether the museum ean be recognized under federal law as a Native Hawaiian organization, whieh ean elaim Native Hawaiian artifacts. The controversy first arose in June, when the museum stated in its proposed final guidance that it met NAGPRA's definition of a Native Hawaiian organization. Some in the community opposed the assertion, arguing that the intent of the law

was not to provide a museum the right to elaim artifacts that the museum itself might possess. Inouye, who helped draft the federal law, also opposed the museum's proposal and requested the Department of the Interior to render a decision on the issue. In a letter to Inouye in early October, the department ruled that the museum's elaim was legal under federal laws. Meanwhile, the Bishop Museum considered 27 written statements on its proposed final guidance, all of whieh were received from the community between June and September. While 10 of those statements supported the museum's recognition as a Native Hawaiian organization, 15 - including a petition signed by 361 individuals - were opposed. After considering the comments, the board decided that it will not recognize itself as a Native Hawaiian organization because of "concerns over potential conflicts."

Eddie Halealoha Ayau, spokesman for Hui Mālama i nā Kūpuna o Hawai'i Nei, a group dedicated to protecting Native Hawaiian remains and cultural items, told loeal press that "the interim guidance policy was a gross waste of everyone's time." "The museum should have discussed the matter with the community first and then developed its policy," he said. "Instead, it promulgated the policy first and then acknowledged there was a conflict of interest." Other decisions made in the museum's final policy: • The museum will review eaeh Native Hawaiian organization's cultural affiliation elaim to NAGPRA items on a case-by-case basis. • The museum does not currently possess or control any Native Hawaiian burial remains or

funerary objects for whieh lineal descendants have been ascertained • The museum is holding some Native Hawaiian remains temporarily for other Native Hawaiian organizations and is working with these groups to repatriate or care for those items. • The museum will work with Native Hawaiian organizations who request through NAGPRA the repatriation of possible funerary objects that the museum possesses. • The museum has the right of possession of unassociated funerary objects in its collections (and sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony if any are in the eolleetions) if the museum is the owner under Hawai'i State law. However, the museum believes that it holds no objects of cultural patrimony or sacred objects as defined by NAGPRA. ■

Ni'i Hnn

[?]

Bishop Museum ignited controversy recently when it proposed designation as a Native Hawaiian organization.