Kaohi: NAGPRA notice Please attend these meetings and send in a position or opposition

Replies

Kaohi January 11, 2011 at 1:18am

Please call people to attend these meetings. Our 'iwi' is important to our connections to our ancetral lands. Although I differ from the 'new kid on the block' it is because of this problem, our genealogy should not be shared on demand from any governing entity. And keep in mind the construction workers in their working hole that locates iwi are not properly trained in the law with proper protocols, therefore the 'enforcements' should be upon the shoulders of the company and their insurance. It is injust to remove 'iwi' without consulting the families of the First People.
- Kaohi > Kaohi January 20, 2011 at 10:51pm
  
  Did anyone attend these meetings, would like to hear from you.
Kaohi January 9, 2011 at 8:47am
National NAGPRA Database

Home » Research » Archaeology/Historic Preservation » Archaeological Informatics » National NAGPRA Database
Other Archaeological Informatics areas:

Artifact Photogrammetry

CAST and Archaeoinformatics.org

Internet Virtual Metrology Lab (InVirMet)

Native American Consultation Database

National Archaeo. Database (NADB)

NADAG

PaleoInformatics

Standardized Osteological Database
Short Link:
In the context of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), museums and Federal agencies are required to identify cultural items in their collections that are subject to NAGPRA, and prepare inventories and summaries of the items. These inventories are then published in the Federal Register as:

Notice of Inventory Completion

Notice of Intent to Repatriate

Notice of Intended Disposition

To assist these institutions, NPS Archaeological Assistance Program and CAST created in 1993 the NADB-NAGPRA, a searchable online database for these notices. In 1996, NADB-NAGPRA was moved to a web interface. CAST maintained and hosted NADB-NAGPRA until 2006.

The NPS National NAGPRA Program now hosts these databases at: http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/ONLINEDB/INDEX.HTM.

Description of the NAGPRA notices

A Notice of Inventory Completion is published when a museum or Federal agency has made a determination of cultural affiliation for Native American human remains and associated funerary objects in its possession or control. By law these were due November 1995.

A Notice of Intent to Repatriate is published when a museum or Federal agency, in consultation with tribes, receives, reviews, and accepts a claim by a tribe for sacred objects, unassociated funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony.

A Notice of Intended Disposition is published in newspapers by the Federal agency official responsible for cultural items excavated or removed from Federal lands. The responsible Federal agency official must send copies of published Notices of Intended Disposition to National NAGPRA.

Description of NAGPRA

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a Federal law passed in 1990. NAGPRA provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony -- to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. In addition, NAGPRA authorizes Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with the documentation and repatriation of Native American cultural items, and establishes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee to monitor the NAGPRA process and facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise concerning repatriation under NAGPRA.

Description of the repatriation process under NAGPRA

The principle steps of the NAGPRA repatriation process include -- * Federal agencies and museums must identify cultural items in their collections that are subject to NAGPRA, and prepare inventories and summaries of the items. * Federal agencies and museums must consult with lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations regarding the identification and cultural affiliation of the cultural items listed in their NAGPRA inventories and summaries. * Federal agencies and museums must send notices to lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations describing cultural items and lineal descendancy or cultural affiliation, and stating that the cultural items may be repatriated. The law requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish these notices in the Federal Register. For more information, go to Law and Regulations.
- Amelia Gora > Kaohi January 9, 2011 at 12:05pm
  
  4:31 Added to queue
  
  AIM - UNITY SONG - FREE LEONARD PELTIER
  
  The American Indian Movement (AIM), is an Native American activist organization in the United States. AIM came onto the international scene with ...
  
  by Insurgent2010 | 4 months ago | 4,184 views
  
  8:02 Added to queue
  Blackfire: AIM - AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT SONG
  
  AIM - AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT SONG - this version done by Blackfire ( en.wikipedia.org ) on their 2007 double CD set [SILENCE] IS A WEAPON ...
  
  by wda013 | 8 months ago | 3,556 views
  
  4:09 Added to queue
  American Indian Movement Anthem
  
  The music was too haunting and moving to resist. This video is a tribute to all indigenous peoples. The music, per Evelyn Banks of the ...
  
  by mleviste88 | 1 year ago | 7,145 views
  
  5:04 Added to queue
  AIM song
  
  youth native drumming
  
  by aligtr8 | 2 years ago | 49,604 views
  
  5:34 Added to queue
  Ghost Dance - Native American - Power Drums - Spirit Pride
  
  Fast paced, heart pounding beat. Ghost Dance by Apurimac III Nature Spirit Pride and beautiful art photos by JD Challenger, Frank Howell, and ...
  
  by katydidscorner | 2 years ago | 592,143 views
  
  ***************
  
  Note: NAGPRA's intent to categorize all native people under their claimed jurisdiction does not apply to our Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, citizens then and today...... the conquer and divide mentality continues in place by criminal deviants, which must be countered every step of the way......
  
  In respect for the American Indians who have been plundered, Hawaiians can continue to respect them and recognize the wrongs against them, against the Hawaiian people, and all American citizens who are unaware and remain undereducated about those in positions who are and have been taking advantage of many here and in the World over time..................education of the masses must continue........
  
  aloha.
  - Kaohi > Amelia Gora January 9, 2011 at 1:42pm
    
    I do listen to the AIM Anthem all the time, it's when I am missing Gail Prejean and all his love he had for all his people. He was instrumental in bring Hawaiians and AIM together and was always way out there at the very edge of the movment. Heavily critized for his stance and deeds by our own, I know that his heart was broken into million pieces each time he had to encounter opposing stance to the Native American problems.
    
    I wish I had seet grass to burn, I don't even smoke so no tobacco
    
    Decolonizing is a process that are idealistically connected by publishing companies. However, one needs to get past those structured trees and step beyond the printed text and communicate with the real First People and their descendents.
    
    For now one is focused on de-occupation.
    
    P. S I walked in 1978 just fifteen miles across the Kahoolawe. It was our religious ceremony

Kaohi January 7, 2011 at 9:31pm

Most recently, my father was contacted to talk story about things of long ago, I know who they are. These so called distance non relatives want my dad's mano for the very reasons of 'culture interpretation' and to claim ownership of any 'iwi' in the area.

This is an entrapment of people in general wanting access to ownership of iwi found in certain areas. I am not taking any responsibility for these situations. Only because I feel the Council of Konohiki's are responsible that is why they were formed by Kam III. These Konohiki families do 'exist' and are being covered over by people that have no business tampering with 'iwi' belonging to family members of that moku. We did have said bone keepers for each Ahupuaa or Moku and I am guessing were closely related to the said Konohiki families.

These protocols should be asserted first and then the family genealogy which of course are the covenant for the overall Konohiki families.

I'm nobody and not making an assertion of any kind. Those of you that are involve with data mining you know what you are doing and should take responsibility for doing the right thing. One should not egotistically super impose your ego over the protocols that are in place since Kam III. You are right, I should not be asserting a point if I am not willing to be a participant.

Over the years I have come to know people that have no business tampering with Hawaii's First People iwi. I have watched people debunk Hawaii First People for ridiculous reasons. Touching iwi for personal gain such as career, or want of that iwi spirit was so appalling. And yes, we do have sincere people out there taking the responsibility to stop the atrocities such as Wal-Mart because of 'First People' not having the opportunity to covenant the Konohiki Protocol. These people I applaud, however, it should not be a struggle for one person(s). The science is available and although records were poorly kept in today's world we have instruments and analysis that can research before any construction work begins.

All of this is just talk for we have people with experiences, but have not had the opportunity to come together without governing interference and outrageous demands from people that have no business tampering with family iwi.

One last point, there is lots of money in this process that makes people rich. And too, I have known people that have the qualifications but are kept out of the core group, just out of greed.

Amelia Gora > Kaohi January 7, 2011 at 9:54pm

hi Kaohi,

It is truly appalling............about the behavior of some of the people............especially those affiliated with the Hui Malama....

I claimed ancestors in behalf of my cousins, then found out that I too am a descendant of the same tutus.

Court cases were made, and I supported them.........cousins Keaanaaina's (my direct cousins being the Luka's, and the Makahi's) and although our families claims were seemingly ignored..........and after all the fights amongst many, some of those not directly related to us ended up not showing up for the wrapping of our tutu.........

I went and helped even though we were left out and it was a 24 + hour activity which involved wearing special linens, intense focus, cultural ways, being part of the reinterring, watching, observing, ceremony, then a family meal, bidding everyone bye, and meeting at Kukaniloko for an important event which made it a 24+ hour event without sleep.......

It was similar with the Waikiki burials, lesser hours though...

It was well worth it........because our contacts with our tutu extended to others with the same blood lines.........which was truly awesome...........

then, when you have the non-bloods, there are many issues......because one cannot pay to have their genealogies just so...........because you either are or are not part of the family(ies)...........

aloha.

4:27 Added to queue

Hawaiian Style Band - "Heiau" Video

Buy the Song: itunes.apple.com From the Hawaiian Style Bandʻs 1994 album "Rhythm of the Ocean" is 'Heiau' Mountain Apple Company

Kaohi > Amelia Gora January 8, 2011 at 9:51am

Forgive me a thousand times over,

I am a bit cranky over the 'iwi' kine issues. I cannot contain myself from be so dam wretched about the issue of Iwi' my blood boil and if I rise, I take on another spirit that I have know idea where it comes from.

Thank you with all my deep spirit for sharing that you were there and giving your time (hookupu) to our ancestors and bringing dignity to their bones that have been treated like trash as they are removed from their resting place. And yes, I do have evidence as to how we treat our Na Kupuna bones on site because we don't have the protocol in place. We do but when under extreme pressure of playing by the white mans' fricken rules the pressure is on to quickly act. I regret ever, ever, being a particpant even though my Kupuna said so. I know it broke 'da' heart to have to take in the responsibility of 'removal' we have to stand on keeping in place with the Republican road to hell federal funding schema in our faces.

I do not like participating in this too kapulu everybody with their cheap 2 cents in the authority position and really don't know what the hell they doing.

But, I know your presence was 'pono' and that our iwi is resting in place those that stayed back and did not want to walk the lena to go home. I'm the one that heard the call for Kalakaua Ave., so that means some never go home yet. My piko in Waikiki so I know why they came over here to ask for help. So thank you again for following through with proper 'protocol' that brings dignity to our people on their ancestral lands.

Kaohi > Kaohi January 9, 2011 at 8:40am

A blessing or a curse? I say it's a curse--my personal opinion

NAGPRA
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

This research paper was prepared for Anthropology Senior Seminar at Kutztown University.

The opinions stated herein are soley those of this author and are not intended to represent the opinions of any professor at the University.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
A Blessing or a Curse?

Introduction

Terms such as “cliff dwellings of the Southwest,” “ancient ruins,” and “Chaco Canyon” conjure up images of a long-ago complex culture known to us as the Anasazi and their descendents, the Hopi, Zuni and Acoma as well as 17 others living on their tribal lands in New Mexico. Now, thanks to a fairly recent ruling on the part of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) committee whose meetings culminated in 1999, we can add Navajo to the list of authentic Anasazi descendents (Smith 1999).

While it is the belief of most anthropologists and archaeologists that the Navajo did not arrive in the Southwest until well after the Anasazi disbursed, leaving their cliff dwellings at such places as Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, Mesa Verde in Colorado and Canyon de Chelly in Arizona, it is contended by members of the Navajo tribe that they did, indeed, live alongside the Anasazi (Sanghani 2000). Some contend that their relationship with the former went beyond trade and borrowing of culture: they intermarried and therefore the Navajo can claim the Anasazi as direct ancestors. This claim is in dispute between the Navajo, the various Pueblo descendents as well as anthropologists, who believe that the Navajo had no contact, in fact were not even this far south until shortly before the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 (Smith 1996).

Further complicating matters are the Navajo legends and myths regarding their origins, not just in the Southwest, but in this, the Fourth World. Many Navajo, while believing that their ancestors did cross a land bridge and that they are related to the Khanty (pronounced "han-tee") of Siberia, also retain much of their mythology stating that they emerged from the underworlds through series of mishaps which caused them to appear in the Four Corners area they referred to as Dinetah (Smith & Warren 1997).

Although the Navajo do share certain mythical beliefs as well as material objects with the Hopi descendents of the Anasazi, much of this culture was borrowed over time. It is interesting to note that even the word Anasazi is a Navajo word which means, literally, “the ancestors of our enemies,” referring to the Hopi, with whom the Navajo share several long-term legal disputes and a mutual dislike and distrust (Smith 1997).

Regardless of the current age of “political correctness,” one has to question the decision of the NAGPRA committee in giving the Navajo ancestral rights to Chaco Canyon. But before we can even begin to explore this conundrum, we need to have an understanding of NAGPRA, its origins, other implications of this Act and its ironies, along with more historical content of Navajo and Hopi interactions. [top]

NAGPRA Background
More than one hundred years before NAGPRA became law, Indians were killed in the name of “Manifest Destiny,” the self-described God-given right of Anglo-Americans to push further and further west, to claim all the land from sea to shining sea. Places like the Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee became relevant parts of the American obsession, justifiable killings of Indians out of greed and fear. Terms such as “The Long Walk” (Navajo) and “Trail of Tears” (Cherokee, among many others) came into the common language. Grave goods, cultural artifacts, along with human remains, were to be exhibited in museums and anthropology departments at universities. Enterprising businessmen and collectors traded goods at such places as World's Fairs (Fine-Dare 2002).

The Native American became to some an emblem. From anthropologists wanting to learn more about their cultures to sports teams using caricatures as team logos (Fine-Dare 2002), the Indian began to feel as if he, himself, were a museum piece. As DeLoria so eloquently puts it, “…Indians have been cursed above all other people in history. Indians have anthropologists” (DeLoria 1988). Much exploitation of the Indians occurred and the American Indian Movement sought, sometimes violently, to reclaim their heritage. Through their actions over a long period of time, NAGPRA was enacted in 1990.

The reasons are many why one would want to own an Indian artifact. Museums draw paying guests, anthropologists can study cultures and cultural affiliations, a collector might enjoy decorating his home, businessmen like the money that such trading brings. In 1975, the Museum of Modern Art let it be known to the world that “primitive” art such as that produced by ancient as well as living Indians was valuable (Mihesuah 2000).

Each of us has a natural curiosity about ourselves as well as others: their cultures, their arts, their religious beliefs; but none so much as our obsession with our own museum-worthy Indians. We want to know from where they came, how many waves of immigration occurred over what period of time, with whom they traded, how they lived their lives. We Americans are fascinated by the Native Americans, those who inhabited “our” land long before we arrived. But does that make our collecting and viewing of artifacts in museums our “right”? Does it justify the desecration of the ancestors’ by physical anthropologists?

The Indians themselves are not fascinated with our heritage; conversely they are not fascinated with the scientific study of their own, as they have their own stories and myths of their arrival in what is now America. Unfortunately, many anthropologists do not lend any credence to the aboriginal myths and stories, choosing their own scenarios instead (DeLoria 1988, Locke 1992). If anthropologists were to listen intently to the stories and myths, some may come to understand why the Navajo peoples, for the most part, believe that they did inhabit Chaco Canyon alongside the Anasazi; the Navajo, according to their legend, were brought to the fourth world by Changing Man and Changing Woman in an area just bordering the Canyon. The Navajo refer to this original habitation as Dinetah (Locke 1992). Anthropologists have dated the Navajo appearance in the New Mexico/Arizona area as occurring long after the Anasazi abandoned the canyon.

NAGPRA’s intent was to return cultural goods and human remains to the affiliated tribes once their rights to claims were established. According to NAGPRA, a regional affiliation of any tribe currently residing in an area where an artifact originated could claim legal right without regard to cultural ownership (Dongoske 2002). This seemingly innocent clause explains part of the current Navajo-Anasazi/Hopi problem. [top]

Navajo Background
The Navajo represent the second wave of Asian immigration into the Americas, arriving here sometime between the 1400s and the early 1600s, long after the Anasazi left their mesa-top cliff dwellings and became the Hopi, Zuni, and Acoma Pueblos of modern times. Originally settling in northern Canada, a small group broke from the main and traveled into what is now known as the Four Corners area: Northwest New Mexico, Northeast Arizona, Southeast Utah and Southwest Colorado. They were a hunter-gatherer group who did not have any agricultural experience. Inhabiting long abandoned areas such as Aztec and Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, they avoided the structures we refer to as ruins. This can be attributed to their long-standing fear of death. The Navajo believe that the spirit remains to cause troubles such as illness and death to those who look upon a deceased body (Locke 1992).

During times of upheaval in the lives of the various Pueblo tribes, the Navajo encountered and sometimes harbored, even fought on behalf of the people who would later become their enemies (hence the “Anasazi” attribute). During these times, the Navajo learned agriculture, to paint pottery, and weaving from the Hopi. They learned silver-smithing and became proficient traders of their wares upon the arrival of the Spanish and later the Anglos (Iverson 1990).

They also “borrowed” the cultural/religious beliefs of Hopi people, adopting what they needed or wanted to suit their own lifestyles (Noble 2000). This angered the Hopi especially when the National Park Service, under the auspices of NAGPRA determined that the Navajo have a cultural affiliation (with the Anasazi and Hopi) with regard to remains from Chaco Canyon. “It is important we remember that cultural borrowing is not cultural affiliation,” stated Tessie Nuranjo, a NAGPRA Review Committee member who is also a member of the Santa Clara of New Mexico, another Pueblo descendent group of the Anasazi (Smith 1999).

Resentment on the part of the Pueblo people also stems from the Navajo story of acquisition. According to Navajo legend, “the Great Gambler won all the Four Corners peoples (the Anasazi) as slaves in Chaco Canyon before a Navajo hero beat the gambler and freed them.” The “holy ones” then banished the Anasazi because “they became too proud” (Smith 1997). [top]

A Hopi Perspective
The Hopi, having direct ancestral ties to the Anasazi, are angered over the National Park Service’s ruling that gives the Navajo cultural as well as descendant rights to not only Chaco Canyon, but Mesa Verde as well. “‘This gets down to Navajos usurping Hopi and Puebloan traditions as their own, from pottery and weaving to social and religious views,’ says Hopi Kuwanwisiwma, whose reservation is surrounded by the Navajo Nation. ‘They are not Puebloan, they are Athabascan, a completely different language, and through their migration they encountered ancient Puebloan sites. Just simply encountering a site does not prove cultural affiliation’” (Smith 1997).

The Navajo and Hopi have had a long-standing dispute over land which had been divided up by the federal government. Navajo people live on land that is supposed to be a part of the Hopi reservation but for political reasons, no government efforts have been enacted to remove the Navajo (Winson 2002). In addition, an Anasazi site which sits at the northern end of the Navajo Reservation near Kayenta was named Navajo National Monument by the National Park Service. This site is clearly Anasazi and, the Hopi contend, should be called Hopi National Monument (Smith 1997). This argument speaks to the cultural differences in approach not just between the various Indian tribes, but with Anglos as well. [top]

Rulings and Ironies
The Hopi and Navajo groups have come to odds over human remains, burial artifacts, medicinal pouches and land-use rights. NAGPRA feels that it has settled at least some of the first three in question by granting the Navajo ancestral rights to Anasazi sites while having no jurisdiction in the land-use argument. In some respects, their ruling has produced more problems than it has solved. Before NAGPRA, the Navajo had to await the arrival of Hopi or Zuni had they found anything related to the Anasazi on their reservation. Now the Navajo could make that decision themselves, which is a point of contention to the Puebloans (Sanghani 2000).

And yet, on the other hand, the committee may have taken the first step toward cultural healing. NAGPRA forces communication between tribes should they find artifacts belonging to another on their lands. Although the committee ruled that the Navajo have ancestral rights to the Anasazi, the Navajo reported finds on their land to the Hopi in 1993. The Hopi requested black and white photographs and worked closely with the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department. A total of 31 individuals were reburied with traditional Hopi ceremonialism (Dongoske 2002).

While doing research for this paper, I came across a listing by the National Park Service entitled “NAGPRA Notices of Intent to Repatriate” and discovered that the Navajo Nation has been served with an action to repatriate a ceremonial mask housed in their Tribal Museum at Window Rock, AZ which belongs to the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin (National Park Service 1995). What is also interesting to note is that the Park Service has served notice on its own holdings, especially at Hubble Trading Post (AZ), El Morro (NM), and Bandelier (NM). [top]

Conclusion
While NAGPRA makes an attempt to right four hundred years of wrongs perpetrated upon the Native Americans by the Spaniards, Anglos as well as private looters, the law cannot touch the private collectors or the people who dig on private lands, the very people who are more apt to exploit such finds. Furthermore, the law hurts those of us who want to learn about the various groups who occupied this land before we did.

Although I see a need for control over human remains and cultural artifacts, it worries me that these objects will not be around for my children and grandchildren to study. Further, I fear that scientific study and the field of New World Archaeology may eventually cease to exist, except where it pertains to American history.

In an attempt to control grave robbing, NAGPRA has also put constraints on the study of human remains that are found accidentally, such as the famed Kennewick Man of Washington state (Fine-Dare 2002). In an ongoing attempt to date the populating of the western hemisphere, studies need to be done on his remains, as well as others which may come to us in the future.

It is a very real concern that some day in the near future our museums will be devoid of anything other than the occasional drawing (some tribes do not even permit sketching) or a sign proclaiming, “here once was exhibited the medicine pouch used by … of the … tribe…” Of course, cultural awareness comes with the price of cultural sensitiveness.

As it so obviously stands now, based on the Navajo Museum having to return an Oneida artifact, the only places we will be able to see anything pertaining to a particular tribe is in their own tribal museum. No longer will I be able to go to the U of P in Philadelphia. I better start saving my money; it’s expensive to have to travel all the way to Wisconsin to visit a museum! [top]

Kaohi January 7, 2011 at 9:06pm

Posted on: Monday, April 4, 2005

Tougher laws sought on iwi

By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Capitol Bureau

Troubled that a Hawai'i law protecting historic burial sites may be inadequate, state lawmakers are working on new criminal penalties for disturbing or destroying human remains or artifacts.

The targets are not people who inadvertently come across remains while clearing land or doing construction, but people who knowingly damage burial sites or who discover remains and then fail to stop work and report their findings.

State lawmakers hope that stronger penalties might deter what has become a sensitive cultural issue. "This law may keep people more aware of preservation and act as a deterrent," said state Sen. Clayton Hee, D-23rd (Kane'ohe, Kahuku).

The discovery of 61 sets of iwi, or bones, during construction of a new Wal-Mart on Ke'eaumoku Street has caused more than two years of acrimony between the contractors and the state and Hawaiian families with ancestral ties to the remains.

The state has postponed the reburial while the attorney general's office investigates possible damage caused during archaeological work. A Hawaiian cultural group has also filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the state, the city and contractors over the dispute.

Edward Halealoha Ayau

Edward Halealoha Ayau, the po'o of Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei, the cultural group that brought the suit, said new penalties could help make people more aware.

"We want to make it clear when a person has crossed over from inadvertent to intentional disturbance," Ayau said.

While lawmakers agree that many of the disturbances are accidental, they say that giving the law more bite would put people on notice that careless behavior will not be tolerated. "I've seen some atrocious things happen," said state Sen. J. Kalani English, D-6th (E. Maui, Moloka'i, Lana'i).

People would risk a $25,000 fine and a year in jail and could also have to pay $10,000 in separate civil and administrative penalties. The fines would be for each offense and for each day of violation, so the punishment could quickly multiply.

The state House has passed a bill that would change the law and it is now being considered by the state Senate.

In reaction to potential claims in the Wal-Mart case, senators on Friday added new civil penalties against gluing together or using a marking pen to label remains or conducting tests that damage remains without state approval.

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources already has the power to pursue $10,000 civil fines for each offense. But state prosecutors have to go to a different section of law that covers grave desecration to get criminal penalties: a $2,000 fine and one year in jail. The department believes that process is subjective and lacks deterrence value.

Peter Young, the director of the department, said the proposed changes would place both the criminal and civil penalties in the historic preservation law. "That closer link makes it easier for us to deal with prosecution," he said.

The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in testimony to the Senate, predicted that adding criminal penalties would deter people who may factor in civil fines as part of the overall costs of a project.

The public defender's office opposes the new penalties, in part because of the chance that a construction worker who disturbs or removes an artifact may be held responsible instead of the contractor or developer that controls the property.

Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8070.

of 2

Forum