Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

NAGPRA Issues in Hawaii, 2021

Coverage of NAGPRA-related topics in Hawaii first came to this website in 2003 when the national NAGPRA review committee decided to devote its national meeting to the Kawaihae (Forbes Cave) controversy. Forbes cave was the most intensively covered topic from 2003 to 2007. But other topics also came to public attention, including Bishop Museum, the Emerson collection repatriated and reburied at Kanupa Cave, the discovery of ancient bones during a major construction project at Ward Center (O'ahu), construction of a house built above burials at the shorefront at Naue, Ha'ena, Kaua'i; etc.

The Forbes cave controversy up until the NAGPRA Review Committee hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 9-11, 2003 was originally described and documented at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbes.html

The conflict among Bishop Museum, Hui Malama, and several competing groups of claimants became so complex and contentious that the controversy was the primary focus of the semiannual national meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota May 9-11, 2003. A webpage was created to cover that meeting and followup events related to it. But the Forbes Cave controversy became increasingly complex and contentious, leading to public awareness of other related issues. By the end of 2004, the webpage focusing on the NAGPRA Review Committee meeting and its aftermath had become exceedingly large, at more than 250 pages with an index of 22 topics at the top. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraforbesafterreview.html

That large webpage became so difficult to use that it was stopped on December 29, 2004; and a new webpage was created to collect news reports for NAGPRA issues in Hawai'i during year 2005. An index for 2005 appears at the beginning, and readers may then scroll down to find the detailed coverage of each topic. For coverage of NAGPRA issues in Hawai'i in 2005 (about 250 pages), see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2005.html

For year 2006 another new webpage was created, following the same general format. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2006.html

NOW BEGINS YEAR 2021

================

LIST OF TOPICS FOR 2021: Full coverage of each topic follows the list; the list is in roughly chronological order of the first occurrence of a topic, created as events unfold during 2021.

(1) OHA monthly newspaper articles by Eddie Ayau about repatriation of bones and artifacts: Repatriation of Iwi Kupuna and Moepu (1990-1991). Ayau was former executive director of Hui Mälama I Nä Küpuna O Hawai‘i Nei, a group that has repatriated and reinterred thousands of ancestral Native Hawaiian remains and funerary objects. He was on Senator Inouye's staff and helped write the NAGPRA law passed by Congress in 1990: 104 STAT. 3048 PUBLIC LAW 101-601--NOV. 16, 1990
(1a) January 1 2021: Repatriation of Iwi Kupuna and Moepu (1990-1991)
(1b) February 1, 2021: Eddie Ayau describes 12 repatriations in 1992 including 4 from other nations
(1c) March 1, 2021: Repatriation of Iwi Kūpuna and Moepū in 1993-1994
(1d) June 1, 2021: 2 articles: Why OHA should take away preservation of burial sites from State Historic Preservation Division; and description of 1998 repatriations from museum in Providence Rhode Island (highly controversial lawsuit and financial settlement) and Bishop Museum
(1e) August 1, 2021: Skulls, bones, and artifacts buried with bones that were repatriated from foreign museums in 1999 and 2001, along with actual and attempted repatriations from Honolulu's Bishop Museum including especially the huge controversy over the Kawaihae (Forbes) Cave.

(2) Belfast Telegraph newspaper reports that the National Museum of Northern Ireland has been asked to return 67 artifacts, some of which are body parts and some are objects containing body parts (like bowls containing human teeth) including 13 items from Polynesia of which 2 are Hawaiian skulls. Hawaiian local government representative, Holeka Inaba, feels that the skulls do not have an “educational purpose” in Northern Ireland. He added: “There’s a respect in honouring our culture that needs to be acknowledged, that hasn’t been acknowledged. Whether or not the skulls have significance in Northern Ireland doesn’t matter because our culture believes things like that need to be respected by being returned.”

================

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES FOR 2021

-------

(1a) January 1, 2021: Repatriation of Iwi Kupuna and Moepu (1990-1991)
https://iskh447eqhe3kks2q2rvzg06-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/KaWaiOla-January2021.pdf
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], January 2021, Vol. 38, No. 1, page 6

And So it Began...Repatriation of Iwi Ku ̄puna and Moepu ̄ (1990 - 1991)

This year, I will continue to document the education efforts that were made regarding the care of iwi küpuna and moepü by focusing on repatriation (meaning to return to country of origin – in this context, Hawai‘i) from institutions or individuals located within the United States and from foreign countries.

Repatriation efforts began in 1990. The first repatriation case ever conducted occurred in July 1990 and involved 81 skulls held by the Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.

The legal authority to repatriate these ancestral remains was the National Museum of the American Indian Act, enacted by Senator Daniel Inouye in 1989. That law allowed two Native Hawaiian organizations, Hui Mälama I Nä Küpuna O Hawai‘i Nei and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to claim human remains and funerary objects from the Smithsonian. This effort took place prior to the establishment of the Smithsonian Repatriation Office and was conducted in two phases at the behest of the Kaua‘i families involved.

This initial repatriation effort was supported by Hawaiians who worked in Washington, D.C., for Sen. Inouye, and by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. They housed, fed and provided ground transportation to the repatriation team from Hui Mälama led by Edward and Pualani Kanahele and which included Ulunui Garmon, Parley Kanaka‘ole, Pele Hänoa, Charles Maxwell, Künani and Ipö Nihipali, Coochie Cayan, Ka‘ohu Seto, Alapai Hanapi and myself.

In addition, the July 1990 trip included the repatriation of a mummified infant from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology in Philadelphia that was stolen from a burial cave in Hanapëpë, Kaua‘i. That case was especially heartbreaking.

The second repatriation from the Smithsonian occurred a year later and involved 134 skulls from the islands of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i, O‘ahu and an island of unknown origin, and was conducted by the Kaua‘i families led by LaFrance Kapaka-Arboleda, Boots Panui, James Panui, Wilma Healani Holi, Atwood Makanani, Ilei Beniamina and Moses Keale, with the support of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This effort featured a protest at the museum by a Hawaiian from Kaua‘i, which was eventually resolved.

In May 1991, the University of Alaska Museum returned a single skull to Paumalü, O‘ahu, for reburial and, in June that same year, 32 remains were repatriated from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, and 27 remains were returned from the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH) in Chicago. The AMNH case was highly contentious because of the museum’s objections to the new repatriation law. In contrast, in the FMNH case, field museum staff were supportive and cooperative.

In August 1991, a single skull was repatriated from the Brigham Young Museum of Peoples and Cultures in Provo, Utah, and 54 remains and funerary objects were returned from the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum to Waimänalo.

Edward Halealoha Ayau is the former executive director of Hui Mälama I Nä Küpuna O Hawai‘i Nei, a group that has repatriated and reinterred thousands of ancestral Native Hawaiian remains and funerary objects.

-----

(1b) February 1, 2021: Eddie Ayau describes 12 repatriations in 1992 including 4 from other nations
https://kawaiola.news/i-mana-i-ka-oiwi/the-first-international-cases/
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], February 1, 2021, Vol 38, No 2, page 9

The First International Cases

After the first two years of repatriation efforts, the number of cases increases in 1992 to 12. This total includes the first three international cases including the University of Zurich Department of Anthropology (1 iwi), the South Australian Museum (2 – iwi) and the Royal Ontario Museum Canada (1 – iwi).

The first international repatriation case takes place in March 1992 and involves the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

While a sailing ship was docked on the East Coast, a Native Hawaiian sailor got sick and was treated at a local hospital where he died. The ship captain sold his body to Johns Hopkins Medical School to be used as a teaching cadaver. Years later, a professor left Johns Hopkins to start the Department of Anthropology at the University of Zurich and took the remains with him.

I was able to figure out the proper identification number which led to the locating of these remains. After a request for repatriation, the Mayor of Zurich authorized release as the remains were viewed as the property of the city, and this kane was hand-carried home. The challenge became where to inter him since he had never been buried. An ʻohana from Waiʻanae offers to hānai him and he was buried on their ʻāina.

The second case involves two skulls housed at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide that had been removed from Nuʻalolo Kai by Prof. Stanley Porteous of the University of Hawaiʻi. Both were returned to their place of origin and reburied.

The third involves the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada, and results in the return and reburial in Waiʻanae.

Within the U.S., iwi kūpuna are returned from the Milwaukee Public Museum (1 iwi), the San Diego Museum of Man (2 iwi), the Sacramento Science Center (1 iwi), Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum (112 iwi), Phoebe Hearst Museum University California-Berkeley (2 iwi), University of Oregon Museum of Anthropology (2 – iwi) and U.S. Air Force (1 – iwi).

Notable among these cases is the Molokaʻi repatriation, the first of many repatriations from the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. My tūtū, Harriet Ne, instructed me to bring home the ancestors of our island first.

The next notable case involved the Hearst Museum at Cal-Berkeley because the museum agreed to repatriate two iwi kūpuna and refused to return two others, prompting our appeal to the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation) Review Committee – their first case.

We prevailed and both iwi were returned home. Finally, the San Diego Museum of Man is notable because last year we learned that the museum had allowed a company to make casts of the two iwi and offer the casts for sale. We were able to halt the sale, and I am currently working with the company to destroy the mold and with the museum to clarify what happened.

-----

(1c) March 1, 2021: Eddie Ayau describes repatriation of Iwi Kūpuna and Moepū in 1993-1994

https://iskh447eqhe3kks2q2rvzg06-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/KaWaiOla-March2021.pdf
Ka Wai Ola | Vol. 38 No. 3 | March 2021
https://kawaiola.news/i-mana-i-ka-oiwi/demanding-respect/
Page 26, Demanding Respect
By Edward Halealoha Ayau

Repatriation of Iwi Kūpuna and Moepū in 1993-1994

In years four and five, there were nine repatriation cases involving six museums under the authority of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). In 1993, two repatriations took place with the Peabody Essex Museum whose staff demonstrated a great respect for the NAGPRA process and the humanity of Native Hawaiians. This museum houses the largest collection of Hawaiian cultural items outside of Hawaiʻi and within US borders.

Iwi from Kahoʻolawe were identified at Bishop Museum. However, a burial bundle was unaccounted for and the museum was unable to explain its whereabouts.

During repatriation we attempted to hand-carry the kūpuna and their moepū on a flight to Maui, whereupon a security officer insists we open the boxes for inspection despite documentation from the museum disclosing the sensitive contents. We refuse. More officers arrive and they insist we open the boxes. We refuse. I realized we had to go heavy in our response. I summoned supreme educator, Maka, and directed him to explain our position. After some time, the edification is successful and the security officers back off. We are allowed to board the flight without having to expose the kūpuna.

Additional iwi and moepū were discovered at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History following the repatriation in 1990. While deemed an oversight on the part of the museum, the implications were immense for those who ʻauamo (carry) this kuleana, as these iwi were originally found with iwi that were already returned and reburied. We insisted museum staff apologize to the ancestors before we repatriated them.

As mentioned in last month’s article, the first appeal of a museum refusal to repatriate involves the Phoebe Hearst Museum at Cal-Berkeley. The museum agreed to repatriate three remains and refused to repatriate two others. Hui Mālama appealed the decision, and the NAGPRA Review Committee mediated the dispute.

We offered testimony, later referenced as “spiritual evidence,” as we asserted that during a ceremony with these five iwi kūpuna, we confirmed in our naʻau that they are all ancestral Hawaiians.

The Committee accepted our testimony and recommended repatriation of the first skull finding that we established Hawaiian cultural affiliation but subjected the second skull to physical examination. The examination results established Hawaiian ethnicity, and the second ancestor was repatriated six months later. While some celebrate the NAGPRA process as “working,” we were devastated that we failed to prevent this desecration, and that spiritual evidence is not allowed to stand on its own.

In 1994, we coordinated a repatriation involving 283 iwi from the Harvard Peabody Museum of Archaeology and the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. This case involved iwi whose island and place of origin were unknown. The Hanapēpē community offered to hānai these kūpuna and requested they be turned over to their care. The iwi were reburied following an overnight vigil to welcome them home, share mele aloha and pule, and conduct their reburial. A few years later, a stone platform was built over the grave site to commemorate their replanting in the bosom of Papahānaumoku.

Edward Halealoha Ayau is the former executive director of Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawaiʻi Nei, a group that has repatriated and reinterred thousands of ancestral Native Hawaiian remains and funerary objects.

------

(1d) June 1, 2021: 2 articles: Why OHA should take away preservation of burial sites from State Historic Preservation Division; and description of 1998 repatriations from museum in Providence Rhode Island (highly controversial lawsuit and financial settlement) and Bishop Museum

https://kawaiola.news/issue/ka-wai-ola-vol-38-no-6-june-2021/
OHA monthly newspaper, June 2021, page 9

Place the Kuleana with OHA

By Kēhaunani Abad and Edward Halealoha Ayau

From years of involvement in problematic iwi kūpuna cases, we’ve seen that a persistent source of what has gone wrong is the very entity charged with ensuring that everything should be right. That entity responsible for implementing our state burial laws and administering the Burial Sites Program is the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD).

For the past 25 years, the SHPD has chronically:
• Failed to support the Burial Councils and the man- agement of Burial Council appointments, resulting currently in no councils being properly constituted to render legally binding decisions.
• Failed to provide effective training to Burial Sites Program staff and Burial Council members regarding the laws they are charged to implement, thus hindering their ability to fulfill their legal and cultural duties.
• Failed to produce consistently rigorous, timely reviews of reports required of those undertaking projects, resulting in projects going forward that should have paused for more careful study and community involvement, burials being left unidentified and impacted during construction, and descendants being stripped of opportunities to engage in the process of identifying and caring for burials.
• Failed to develop the Burial Sites Inventory to identify burials, thus protecting them from future harm and thereby providing the Burial Councils the authority to protect them.
• Failed to respect the role of Burial Council chairs to set Council meeting agendas and prohibit SHPD staff from tampering with the agendas.
• Failed to comply with all legal requirements when iwi kūpuna are inadvertently discovered.• Failed to seek prosecution of documented burial law violations to punish violators and deter would-be violators.
• Failed to advocate successfully to obtain adequate re- sources to support the Burial Sites Program.

How can we ensure that these kuleana are fulfilled?

‘Ohana and communities have tried to work collaboratively with SHPD and, when that proved futile, we have filed lawsuits, protested, garnered media support, and sought legislative remedies. One might think that the SHPD would be partners in pursuing improvements. Instead, the SHPD has treated such initiatives adversarially.

This is not to say that individual SHPD staff have shirked their responsibilities. Quite the opposite. Amidst a problematic SHPD context where poor administrative support and political interference are normalized, many staff members have extended themselves as far as they could to fulfill their kuleana.

The problems are at a higher level, ultimately spawning from State of Hawaiʻi administrations that do not value Hawaiian burials and related living communities, and view both as impediments to development.

So rather than expend more effort on protests and pleas for SHPD improvement, we and a growing number of OHA beneficiaries are supporting a simple solution: Move the Burial Sites Program and its budget to the Of- fice of Hawaiian Affairs, which, though not perfect, is a solid option because OHA has:

• A mission, vision, and strategic plan that naturally make iwi kūpuna and their burial places a high priority.
• A long history of having sought SHPD and developer compliance in cases, giving OHA a deep understanding of the past and current shortcomings of the Burial Sites Program.
• Institutional knowledge of its own lessons learned in participating in iwi kūpuna cases that have placed OHA at odds with or in harmony with its beneficiaries.
• The status as a state entity that, following revisions to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 6E, can legally authorize OHA to administer the Burial Sites Program.
• Vigilant beneficiaries who will help OHA to succeed and hold it accountable should it falter.

While OHA lacks the constitutional authority to enforce laws, SHPD has often failed to use that authority, even when pressed to do so by its own staff. Moreover, OHA, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, or any group or individual citizen could file suit as private attorneys general to seek legal remedies to enforce burial law violations.

In 1989, when the burial laws were first being draft- ed, there was serious consideration for placing the Burial Sites Program in OHA. Though it may not have been the best place for the kuleana at the time, today the Buri- al Sites Program would be in far safer hands with OHA than with SHPD. The kuleana to protect our ancestral foundation should not be conferred to those who have proven uncaring and incapable.

After a quarter century of repeated and flagrant SHPD failures, we would be remiss as a lāhui to allow the Burial Sites Program to remain under SHPD’s control. That kuleana is better placed in Hawaiian hands. It belongs with OHA. Ho‘i hou i ka iwi kuamoʻo.

Kēhaunani Abad, PhD, served for over 12 years on the Oʻahu Island Burial Council and has provided expert testimony on numerous cases involving iwi kūpuna and other cultural sites. Edward Halealoha Ayau is the former executive director of Hui Mālama i Nā Kūpuna o Hawaiʻi Nei, a group that has repatriated and reinterred thousands of Native Hawaiian ancestral remains.

Editor's Note
Caring for our iwi kūpuna is an important kuleana for Native Hawaiians. In recognition of this, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has cautiously supported past proposals to house certain historic preservation functions within the agency. However, noted concerns include the need to use a substantial amount of Native Hawaiian trust funds to carry out a state responsibility that requires considerable staff time, expertise, and resources not currently available to the agency; the need to appropriately tailor the scope of OHA’s jurisdiction, given that burial and historic preservation laws also cover non-Hawaiian burials and historic sites; and the need to give OHA clear site inspection and enforcement authorities, as well as the ability to independently administer and uphold protections for iwi kūpuna and associated artifacts and sites.

---------

https://kawaiola.news/issue/ka-wai-ola-vol-38-no-6-june-2021/
OHA monthly newspaper, June 2021, page 17

An Unpleasant Experience in Providence, I.I.

By Edward Halealoha Ayau

In 1998, there were seven repatriation cases involving a federal agency and two museums with multiple returns of iwi kūpuna and moepū pursuant to the authority of the Native American Graves Pro-tection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

In February, 20 iwi kūpuna and moepū were repatriated from the Haleakalā National Park by the the kiaʻi of Hui ‘Alanui o Makena including Dana Nāone Hall, Uncle Charley Kauluwehi Maxwell, and Uncle Les Kuloloio, and respectfully reburied.

Then in August, we became involved in a case involving a ki‘i lā‘au (wood image) – it was a “spear rest” used to transport a chief’s spears on a canoe.

The intriguing case began when a news article was anonymously faxed to me announcing the pending sale of this ki‘i at Sotheby’s, an auction house in New York. The Roger Williams Park Museum in Providence, R.I. was the seller.

I immediately consulted Linda Delaney of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). OHA joined us in submitting a cease and desist letter because the sale would violate NAGPRA.

We were able to halt the sale and submit a NAGPRA claim for the ki‘i as a sacred object based upon the expert testimony of Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele. However, the museum denied our claim.

We appealed the decision to the NAGPRA Review Committee.

At a hearing in Myrtle Beach, S.C., we presented information meeting all NAGPRA requirements, including the lack of right-of-possession. The review committee recommended repatriation. In response, the city of Providence sued OHA and Hui Māla- ma in federal district court.

Eventually, a settlement was reached – with OHA being forced to “contribute” $125,000 toward Roger Williams Park Museum exhibits in exchange for the ki‘i. Unfortunately, despite their “win,” the settlement failed to halt a war of words with abrasive Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci, resulting in an intense press conference. The ki‘i was finally returned, but after 20 years has yet to be exhibited at the Bishop Museum.

In November, a staggering 1,026 Oʻahu iwi kūpuna and moepū were repatriated from the Bishop Museum. Significant effort was required to identify suitable locations for re-interment, acquire landowner approvals, and hold workshops to teach our people how to prepare the iwi for reburial. This was Hui Mālama’s largest repatriation to date. That same month, another 95 iwi kūpuna and moepū whose islands of origin were unknown were repatriated from the Bishop Museum. Identifying which island to which to return them is always difficult. We relied on our ceremonial training and pule to guide our decision-making and returned the iwi to Papahānaumoku.

Finally, in December, there were two additional repatriations from the Bishop Museum - one involving 35 iwi kūpuna and moepū from Moku o Keawe, and a separate case that

Edward Halealoha Ayau is the former executive director of Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai‘i Nei, a group that has repatriated and reinterred thousands of ancestral Native Hawaiian remains and funerary objects.

Ken Conklin's note: See webpage containing full text of news reports and commentaries about the "spear rest" repatriation controversy during 1996-1998: Spear-Rest Controversy -- A Ki'i La'au (Wooden Image) Thought To Be A Spear-rest, Offered For Sale By Providence R.I. Museum, Repatriated to Hawai'i After NAGPRA Lawsuit Settlement
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagpraspearrest.html

(1e) August 1, 2021: Skulls, bones, and artifacts buried with bones that were repatriated from foreign museums in 1999 and 2001, along with actual and attempted repatriations from Honolulu's Bishop Museum including especially the huge controversy over the Kawaihae (Forbes) Cave.

https://iskh447eqhe3kks2q2rvzg06-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/KaWaiOla-August2021.pdf
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper] August 1, 2021, p.24

A Controversial Repatriation Case Results in Prison Time

By Edward Halealoha Ayau

In 2000, there were three repatriation cases and four more in 2001. The first case, in October 2000, was an international case involving 49 iwi po‘o [skulls] housed at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not apply outside of America, however, in 1990, the University of Edinburgh adopted a policy of returning human remains to “appropriate representatives of cultures in which such remains had particular significance” so this policy served as the requisite authority.

In 1999, two members of Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawai‘i Nei visited the University of Edinburgh and consulted with Dr. Martin Lowe, and then had OHA contract Dr. Cressida Fforde to conduct provenance research, which resulted in the documentation of 49 Hawaiian skulls. I coordinated the international aspects of the case with U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye and the U.S. State Department. The iwi [bones] originated from O‘ahu and Hawai‘i island and were ceremonially reburied.

Additionally, three iwi kūpuna [ancestral bones] originating from Oʻahu and Kauaʻi were repatriated from the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington, D.C., and were ceremonially reburied.

Seven mākau (human bone fishhooks) and one hi‘a (human bone net needle) were repatriated from the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA. It was a challenge to accurately identify modified bone as being human, but this was achieved by a combination of science (Dr. Yoshi Sinoto, Bishop Museum) and cultural practice (Kamuela Kumukahi). Their joint expertise resulted in the positive identifcation of these objects, which are now curated at the Bishop Museum.

In February 2001, there was another repatriation from the University of Edinburgh, this time of an ālalo (lower jaw bone). This iwi originated from Kohala and was ceremonially reburied there.

A repatriation in March involved 18 iwi kūpuna and 83 moepū [artifacts buried alongside bones] stolen from caves in Kawaihae by David Forbes and others, and sold to Bishop Museum in violation of existing law. The case was controversial and five years following reburial, the U.S District Court ordered Hui Mālama to return all items to the museum.

In a December 2005 court hearing, I refused the order of Judge David Ezra. I was held in contempt and placed in federal custody for three weeks. In the end, the Court ordered the removal of 83 moepū, leaving the 18 iwi kūpuna. Bishop Museum has yet to determine the disposition of the 83 moepū.

In May, an ipu ‘āina [food bowl] which included human teeth embedded into a wooden bowl was repatriated from the Peabody Essex Museum and is on loan to the Bishop Museum. Finally, in July, 13 iwi kūpuna were repatriated from the U.S. Navy and Bishop Museum to Pu‘uloa, O‘ahu, where they were reburied.

==============

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hawaiian-representative-appeals-fornational-museums-ni-to-repatriate-human-skulls-40516262.html
Belfast Telegraph Wednesday June 9, 2021

Hawaiian representative appeals for National Museums NI to repatriate human skulls

by Rory Winters

An appeal has been made for the return of two human skulls from Hawaii, brought to Belfast in 1911, which are currently held by National Museums NI.

National Museums NI has 67 human remains or artefacts, which are in some way made-up of human remains, in its ‘World Cultures’ collection connected to the Ulster Museum.

This includes skulls, jawbones, teeth, bones and mummified remains of people from other countries – but also, for instance, water carriers tied together with human hair and a wooden bowl with a human bone and tooth inserted into it.

Of the 67 human remains/human remains-based artefacts, 28 are from Egypt such as the Lady Takabuti mummy – as well as the mummy coffins of Tosmuther and Khonsirinaa.

However there are also 13 from Polynesia, six from Australian Aboriginal cultures and two from indigenous people from North America.

Speaking to The Detail, Holeka Inaba, a member of Hawaii’s District 8 County Council, questioned: “What point does National Museums NI, having those Hawaiian skulls or body parts from other cultures around the world, serve? “Hawaiian culture and people have endured colonisation by western people, and we deserve for those skulls to be returned home – to enrich the culture that we have left – whether or not we know exactly how they ended up where they are now.”

National Museums NI also possesses a jawbone and set of teeth from the Aboriginal Kamilaroi tribe in Victoria, Australia. National Museums NI could not say when or how these were acquired.

A spokesperson for National Museums NI said that most of these 67 human remains/human remains-based artefacts were acquired in the 19th and early 20th centuries, “through the Belfast Natural History and Philosophical Society” which predated the foundation of the Ulster Museum. National Museums NI also said it’s “not unusual for museums to have human remains in their collections”.

Meanwhile, the Wellcome Collection – a museum and library in London – recently agreed to repatriate Hawaiian human remains believing there’s a good chance they were “removed from Hawaii under conditions that would be considered highly unethical today”. The Wellcome Collection said: “Human remains are clearly of great significance for Native Hawaiian people and the care of ancestral human remains stands at the centre of their culture, both historically and today.”

In contrast, National Museums NI said: “When the public visit the Ulster Museum or when researchers visit the stores with prior approval, they encounter human remains having made a choice to do so and the remains are presented sensitively, in context, and for the purposes of furthering knowledge and understanding.”

Hawaiian local government representative, Holeka Inaba, feels that the skulls do not have an “educational purpose” in Northern Ireland. He added: “There’s a respect in honouring our culture that needs to be acknowledged, that hasn’t been acknowledged. “Whether or not the skulls have significance in Northern Ireland doesn’t matter because our culture believes things like that need to be respected by being returned.”

National Museums NI did previously repatriate a Maori head to New Zealand in June 1991 “following a request from the New Zealand High Commission in London, which was acting on behalf of the National Art Gallery and Museum of Wellington, New Zealand”.

A National Museums NI spokesperson maintained the organisation follows the relevant legislation, ethical standards and “best practice guidelines” in relation to its possession of human remains, and does not hold any human remains under 100 years old.

National Museums NI also referenced that current attitudes “towards the treatment of human remains” are “markedly different” from when the human remains were acquired. The spokesperson added: “Whilst the motivation behind the acquisition of ethnological material generally can appear strange today, it reflected a curiosity about the wider world and a desire to present diverse cultures in Belfast. “Of course the European bias and power imbalances that characterised this collecting leave a complex and sensitive legacy to address today.”

The Detail previously reported on how National Museums NI says it holds 4,500 objects, 800 of them from Africa, in its World Cultures collection which is connected to the Ulster Museum – but said it had no plans to repatriate any to their countries of origin.

While National Museums NI has been involved in discussions around the restitution of African objects since the summer of 2020, a spokesperson had said there is “no guarantee” it will repatriate these items. However, National Museums NI did say it was “willing and open” to enter into dialogue about the subject “in a general sense and in terms of specific objects”, and that it continues to engage in discourse on these issues. In addition, the agency has now said that it anticipates restitution will come as a result of its engagement with the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

===============================
===============================

LINKS

This present webpage covers only the year 2021.

For coverage of events in 2005 (about 250 pages), see:

https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2005.html

For year 2006 (about 150 pages), see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/nagprahawaii2006.html

===========

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

GO BACK TO: NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) as applied to Hawai'i -- Mokapu, Honokahua, Bishop Museum Ka'ai; Providence Museum Spear Rest; Forbes Cave Artifacts; the Hui Malama organization

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE