Hawaii Artifact dispute question? NEW UPDATE Page 5 - General Tiki

C christiki295 Member LA-2547 mls east Hawaii &5500 Easter Is Joined: Apr 09, 2003 Posts: 3837	C christiki295 Posted posted on Sat, Apr 17, 2004 6:11 PM [i]On 2004-04-17 16:03, Geeky Tiki wrote: Wouldn't a fiduciary responsibility argue for displaying the artifacts and adding value to the trust rather than shoving them back into some cave? Regarding the bones, the fiduciary interest, in my opinion, would favor relinquishing them to be buried because of the high value the Hawaiian culture places on bones - the emphasis placed on the return of Fr. Damien's bones (or atleast those of his hand) for example. As for the remaining portion, I think that as the Bishop Museum has a collection which exceeds one million, the collection is sufficiently diverse that any decrease in value would be minimized. The trust's holdings are further diversified by its sizeable land ownership - it remains the states largest private landowner. However, I do not know the value of the remaining 83 pieces if they were to be sold to an instituiton like the British Museum or the Getty, although that does raise another interesting issue and if the $462,500 Sotherby's auction is any indication, the value could be substantial. There has also been dissnet by those the trust is to serve as to decisions by the trustees. In 1997, there was a rally of approx 300 Kamehameha School alumni and supporters challenging the trust's role in oversight of the schools and requesting the school's first president of Hawaiian ancestry to be restored. We probably should also consider the applicable law. The 1990 federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony - to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Native Hawaiian organizations. Consequently, the trust potentially could be legally obligated to return the items eventually, although Hui Malama appears to have failed to disclose their intent to return and rebury the pieces to the Big Island cave when they checked them out. Maybe the Bishop Trust should broker an agreement to reobtain a portion of the 83 artifacts and allow the rest to remained buried (with high ceremony) in return for public praise - a good PR move. [ Edited by: christiki295 on 2004-04-17 18:29 ]

[i]On 2004-04-17 16:03, Geeky Tiki wrote:
Wouldn't a fiduciary responsibility argue for displaying the artifacts and adding value to the trust rather than shoving them back into some cave?

Regarding the bones, the fiduciary interest, in my opinion, would favor relinquishing them to be buried because of the high value the Hawaiian culture places on bones - the emphasis placed on the return of Fr. Damien's bones (or atleast those of his hand) for example.

As for the remaining portion, I think that as the Bishop Museum has a collection which exceeds one million, the collection is sufficiently diverse that any decrease in value would be minimized.

The trust's holdings are further diversified by its sizeable land ownership - it remains the states largest private landowner. However, I do not know the value of the remaining 83 pieces if they were to be sold to an instituiton like the British Museum or the Getty, although that does raise another interesting issue and if the $462,500 Sotherby's auction is any indication, the value could be substantial.

There has also been dissnet by those the trust is to serve as to decisions by the trustees. In 1997, there was a rally of approx 300 Kamehameha School alumni and supporters challenging the trust's role in oversight of the schools and requesting the school's first president of Hawaiian ancestry to be restored.

We probably should also consider the applicable law. The 1990 federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony - to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Native Hawaiian organizations. Consequently, the trust potentially could be legally obligated to return the items eventually, although Hui Malama appears to have failed to disclose their intent to return and rebury the pieces to the Big Island cave when they checked them out.

Maybe the Bishop Trust should broker an agreement to reobtain a portion of the 83 artifacts and allow the rest to remained buried (with high ceremony) in return for public praise - a good PR move.

[ Edited by: christiki295 on 2004-04-17 18:29 ]

Post #86800 by christiki295 on Sat, Apr 17, 2004 6:11 PM