1 Intro
1.1 Panels on ethics are sometimes about deciding how to phrase an ethical principle
1.2 I want to do something different
- I want to start with a statement that sets out what I believe to ba a core ethical principle for archaeologists practicing in Hawai`i today.
- Then I want to ask the question, what is the ethical response of an archaeologist when the state negotiates and supports a plan that violates this principle?
- I'd like to do this in the context of the situation at Kawaiaha`o Church.
- As a matter of disclosure, you should know that I have been retained as an expert by a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits that have been filed against Kawaiaha`o Church and the State. But I have not been and will not be be paid to prepare or deliver this talk today. The opinions expressed are mine alone.
- The story I am going to tell you this afternoon is about one of us who actually had to choose what to do in this situation, and who made what I believe to be the wrong choice.
- But my comments are not really about this one instance. They have to do with my sense that we, as a discipline, have over the years inched closer and closer to a place where this kind of choice could be thrust on any one of us.
- I am speaking about this issue here today, because I believe SHA's role should be to provide a space for us to come to consensus on whether or not we, as a discipline, support native Hawaiian stewardship of traditional cultural resources
2 The Ethic
- The ethical principle that I want to assert comes from the revised code of ethics that was presented to the membership at its last annual meeting in Hilo.
- Archaeologists should promote native Hawaiian stewardship of traditional cultural resources
- This principle is perfectly attuned to the preservation ethic to which we all subscribe now—we've all agreed to promote stewardship of cultural resources.
- Promoting native Hawaiian stewardship of cultural resources also speaks to the CRM premise that historic properties be evaluated according to contemporary local standards—traditional cultural resources, and especially burials, are a matter of great concern for the native Hawaiian community today.
3 Kawaiaha`o Church
- Let's be clear that what happened at Kawaiaha`o Church did not promote native Hawaiian stewardship of cultural resources
- 69 coffin burials were removed from their final resting places in the well-known and actively maintained cemetery at Kawaiaha`o Church as inadvertent discoveries under the state's burial law, apparently without the knowledge and consent of the families whose ancestors were removed
3.1 Burials in Hawai`i are removed following one of three bureaucratic paths
- The paths have different levels of public involvement
3.1.1 State Department of Health, Dept. Commerce and Consumer Affairs
- This is the path that I believe should have been followed
- Burials in known, actively maintained cemeteries
- Permit from Director of DOH needed to remove an individual from a cemetery grave.
- It would also be necessary to disestablish a portion of the cemetery. HRS 441-15. This is a judicial proceeding in circuit court, with a notice of hearing published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a daily newspaper of general circulation
3.1.2 DLNR, previously identified burial
- For reasons I don't find convincing, the matter ended up in DLNR
- Once there the burials should have been handled as previously identified
- All of the coffins were in burial plots of known families whose boundaries are known with survey grade accuracy from a map prepared in 1912 by the firm of Baldwin and Alexander.
- It is the case that cemetery records are incomplete and that it is not possible to know where all the individual burials are in the cemetery, nor to be certain that only members of one family are buried there.
- This is, in part, because grave markers were often made of wood, and these have now disintegrated.
- But this interpretation of "previously identified" as consisting of only known individuals with headstones is impossibly narrow.
- The burial law was written to extend the protections afforded burials in cemeteries to unmarked graves outside cemeteries.
- This narrow interpretation runs completely counter to the intent of the burial law.
- It is also profoundly Western and un-Hawaiian in its insistence on the primacy of the individual over the family
- If the state had followed this path, the burial council would decide to preserve in place or relocate with input from descendants
3.1.3 DLNR, inadvertently discovered burial
- Department makes decisions on treatment
- Neither the burial council nor the descendants have to be consulted
4 The State
4.1 Should have been DOH
- The original determination that this wasn't a matter for DOH is wrong
- The state is now calling for DOH involvement
4.2 DLNR originally called for inventory survey
- This was supported by the archaeologist, who had recommended inventory survey based on an earlier survey in a corner of the cemetery that now falls in a different tax parcel, where he showed that he could identify graves without disturbing coffins or bones
4.3 DLNR reversed its determination
- This step ensured that no burials would be previously identified
5 What should the archaeologist do?
5.1 Was it ethically correct to bow to the "wisdom" of SHPD?
- Remove 69 coffin burials as inadvertent discoveries from the cemetery burial plots of known families, as happened
5.2 Or, should the archaeologist have refused to go along with this plan?
- Insist, instead, on a plan that promoted native Hawaiian stewardship of cultural resources
5.3 SHA has two opportunities at this juncture
- First, is to speak out on this issue, so the community knows that we either promote native Hawaiian stewardship of cultural resources or we do not
- Second, is to take some time to reflect on our own practices, so that we can better understand how our discipline came to the place that something like Kawaiaha`o Church could happen.
