Museum rethinks
artifact proposal
Bishop Museum can declare itself a
native group, but might not do it, after all
|
The Bishop Museum's proposal to declare itself a native Hawaiian organization is legal under federal laws governing the repatriation of artifacts and sacred objects, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.
But despite the department's opinion, rendered in a recent letter to U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, sources involved with the issue say the majority of museum board members are reconsidering the proposal and will likely vote against it. The proposal has attracted an emotional storm of criticism from some in the native Hawaiian community who object to the museum's claim on items they consider sacred.
The museum board is expected to hold a special meeting, perhaps as early as this week, to decide whether to proceed with the proposal.
Inouye helped write the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act as a human-rights policy to help native Americans and Hawaiians repatriate the bones of ancestors and other sacred objects from museums.
The Hawaii Democrat, who is opposed to the museum's proposal, asked the Interior Department to weigh in on several legal questions. And the department does not appear to agree with Inouye's opposition.
Sources also said that Inouye, who controls the flow of millions in federal dollars to the museum, has let the board know of his displeasure, which may influence their votes.
Inouye is vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which recently announced that it would travel to Hawaii to hold hearings on the museum's precedent-setting proposal.
Jennifer Goto Sabas, Inouye's chief of staff in Honolulu and a member of the museum board, said no date has been set for the Senate committee hearing, but that Inouye might hold it before the end of the year.
Sabas said Inouye "wants to hear from all parties and use the hearing as a discussion opportunity to clarify or amend the NAGPRA act and its definitions."
Sabas said Inouye "has never believed a museum is a native Hawaiian organization. The primary purpose of a native Hawaiian organization is to advocate and serve native Hawaiians."
She said that the museum's mission goes beyond native Hawaiians and "serves the broader community."
Sabas said that if the museum designated itself a native Hawaiian organization, "it would truly create a conflict of interest. How can the museum be both claimant and repository?"
Museum Director Bill Brown declined to comment.
IN JULY, the museum, which has repatriated more than 2,500 items, from bones and carved idols to Queen Liliuokalani's satin slippers, to native Hawaiian organizations under NAGPRA, touched off an emotionally charged debate when its board of directors proposed the museum be designated a native Hawaiian organization under NAGPRA.
The museum has said it wants to be on an equal footing with about 130 recognized native Hawaiian organizations and act as a potential claimant for sacred and funerary objects in its collection. The board said that it may try to prevent some objects from leaving the museum, but that it would not retain human remains.
The Museum claims that it is a native Hawaiian organization by virtue of how it was founded. In 1889, Charles Reed Bishop founded the museum as a memorial to his wife, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last of the Kamehameha line of ruling chiefs. The museum's core collection included items owned by Pauahi, Princess Ruth Keelikolani, Queen Emma and Queen Liliuokalani. The museum was charged with being a steward of the collections for future generations.
Based on its founding mission, the museum has said it is a native Hawaiian organization under NAGPRA because it "serves and represents the interests of native Hawaiians" and "has expertise in native Hawaiian Affairs." In 2003, the museum also amended its bylaws to cover another criteria of NAGPRA, that such an organization has as a "stated purpose the provision of services to native Hawaiians."
Critics have argued that the designation would defeat the intent of NAGPRA to right wrongs of the past in which native American and Hawaiian remains and artifacts were taken by museums for public display. They also say it would create a conflict of interest because the museum cannot act both as claimant and arbiter of who gets the item. NAGPRA calls for irresolvable disputes among competing claimants to be resolved by the national review committee or the courts.
Critics have also argued that the museum is an institution, not a group of native Hawaiian people. The museum countered that previously recognized native Hawaiian organizations include government agencies such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in addition to families and various cultural groups.
EARLIER THIS MONTH, the museum and its opponents testified in Washington, D.C., for several hours during a heated hearing before the NAGPRA Review Committee. The committee found that any ruling on its part would be "premature," since the museum has been taking comments since July on its proposed policy so its board can make a final decision at its October meeting.
In the Interior's August legal opinion letter to Inouye, Craig Manson, assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, said issues raised by the museum's proposal may be "best addressed by a court of competent jurisdiction," or the NAGPRA Review Committee.
Manson continued: "The department does not consider 'museum' and 'native Hawaiian organization' to be mutually exclusive categories."
"While the idea that the museum would consider itself a native Hawaiian organization is new, it is not without parallel," he wrote.
Manson said tribal museums that have displayed items "culturally affiliated" with another tribe have repatriated them. For example, in 1995, the Navajo Nation repatriated a mask to the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin.
Under NAGPRA, "cultural affiliation" means that a group can prove a historical link to an earlier group on the basis of "geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral tradition, historical or other relevant information."
In its guidance proposal, the Bishop Museum says it has a cultural affiliation with Native Hawaiian ancestors because the museum was founded by Charles Reed Bishop on behalf of alii in 1889.
Bishop's wife, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Princess Ruth Keelikolani and Queen Emma gave items from their own collections for a museum that would "be a place for continuing stewardship of Hawaiian cultural heritage."
Manson said in his letter that the Bishop Museum could request the repatriation of items from another museum if it can prove cultural affiliation. If other native Hawaiian organizations laid claim to the same items, the museum, just like the other organizations, would only get the item if it could prove the closest affiliation.
Under NAGPRA, there is a hierarchy of affiliation to determine which competing claimant has the closest tie and therefore the right to an item.
A claimant showing the closest "lineal descendant" has precedent over anyone claiming the broadly defined "cultural affiliation." Lineal descent is based on a proven family tie either to a specific descendant or in some cases to a geographical area during a particular time.
www.bishopmuseum.org/NAGPRAGuidlines.html
www.bishopmuseum.org
