Bishop Museum faces
allegations of deception

One of 13 claimants to Hawaiian
artifacts says Hui Malama was
in on the plot as well

The battle among some native Hawaiians groups over sacred artifacts reburied in a Big Island burial cave is growing more heated and more public.

In the latest turn of the dispute, Laakea Suganuma, one of 13 claimants for the artifacts, has accused the Bishop Museum of being in "collusion" with another claimant, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei, when it made a "one-year loan" of the Kawaihae cave items in February 2000, according to documents.

"It is clearly evident that the museum never intended to get them back from Hui Malama and was not going to pursue Hui Malama legally." Laakea Suganuma One of 13 claimants to native Hawaiian artifacts reburied in a Big Island burial cave

Suganuma's accusation is contained in documents and written testimony he sent Nov. 27 to the federal review committee in Washington, D.C., that oversees the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the federal law intended to help native Hawaiians and Native Americans recover human remains and certain sacred artifacts from museums.

Suganuma wrote the NAGPRA review committee that "there was collusion" between Guy Kaulukukui, the former head of collections, and "Hui Malama and that Kaulukukui, with malice and aforethought, purposely deceived (the other 12) claimants."

Kaulukukui could not be reached for comment. The Bishop Museum, which is under a different administration since the loan was made, declined comment.

In the same documents, Suganuma also accused the review committee, which was intended by Congress to act as a neutral body in deciding such disputes, of being biased in favor of Hui Malama.

The one-year loan was made on a quiet Saturday when several museum staff members crated the 83 artifacts from Kawaihae or Forbes cave and handed them over to Hui Malama, an organization founded in 1989 to repatriate human remains and native Hawaiian artifacts from museums. Copies of the inventory list accompanying the crate indicate it was a "one-year loan."

A year later, the museum asked for the return of the artifacts. Hui Malama, which had reburied them in the Big Island cave, refused.

Several months later, the museum declared the repatriation completed under NAGPRA, despite the objections of several claimants, including Suganuma. Suganuma teaches lua, a form of martial arts, and represents The Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts.

Suganuma and several claimants want the items recovered from the cave so their fate can be decided.

Last week, Suganuma wrote the review committee: "It is clearly evident that the museum never intended to get them back from Hui Malama and was not going to pursue Hui Malama legally."

He added: "The museum's claim that repatriation was completed was a deceitful, cheap trick, designed to relieve itself of the obligation of the promised recovery and insuring Hui Malama's continual sole possession and control of the objects."

In a written statement, Edward Halealoha Ayau, a spokesman for Hui Malama, responded yesterday that Suganuma's testimony amounted to "unsubstantiated accusations, falsehoods, and offensive remarks and lacks citation of legal authority, requisite analysis of legal and factual issues and credible form of evidence."

Ayau said: "Hui Malama does not have 'sole possession' or any possession for that matter of the objects, as the iwi kupuna (ancestral bones) and moepu (burial objects) are back where they belong."

In May 2003, the review committee heard testimony on the case and determined that it was a "flawed" repatriation under NAGPRA and that the museum needed to retrieve the artifacts.

Last month, the review committee, whose members have changed since 2003, found there were "procedural errors" in making the 2003 recommendation. The review committee then announced it would come to Hawaii in March to rehear testimony and possibly reconsider its ruling.

But Suganuma feels the 2003 recommendation should stand and is concerned the current review committee is biased in favor of Hui Malama, according to his documents. Suganuma notes that Rosita Worl, who wrote the lone dissenting opinion in 2003, is now head of the committee. He wrote that Worl, "a long-standing friend and supporter of Hui Malama has already stated on the record that repatriation had taken place."

Suganuma wrote that "Hui Malama's unhappiness with the (review committee's 2003) decision (to recall the items) has prompted it, with the cooperation of certain members of the committee, to fabricate a reason for" a rehearing. He wrote the new hearing "has been orchestrated by the chair and other members of the committee to circumvent the law to the benefit of one claimant, thereby denying the rights of the majority."

Ayau wrote that Suganuma has provided no proof.

Ayau has repeatedly said that repatriation is complete and that therefore neither the review committee or the museum have any jurisdiction. Ayau has said the 13 claimants are now owners and that if there is a dispute they cannot settle they must go to court.