The sacredness of bones

[timkona]

Re: The sacredness of bones

I would be curiuos to know what the family did when, and if, the bones of a relative were discovered by a fisherman, and made into fishhooks, or by a sorcerer and used in a ritual.

Did the family do anything? How did the family find out? Would be real ironic if the fisherman caught plenty fish and chose to give some to the family, such that they might eat a plentiful meal.

Perhaps nothing should ever be relegated to antiquity?

[craigwatanabe]

Re: The sacredness of bones

I'd like to know how one Hawaiian family can lay claim to a particular set of unearthened bones from a given construction site. If the bones were laid in secrecy then only the surviving family members would know where they were right?

So let's say they claim their ancestorial bones were buried at the construction site now known as Walmart. If they knew it then and if they knew it all along as a family secret, then why make their protest after the site has been desecrated for decades by strip joints, polluting auto repair shops, and massage parlours that infested that area.

The point I'm making is that these bones could be anyone's. How does one particular Hawaiian family claim it as theirs when they really didn't know where their ancestor's bones were buried? Remember if they did know where they were buried, they wouldn't have waited until after the excavation began but would have launched a campaign similar to what they have done with WalMart to recover and repatriate their bones if not protested Linda's massage parlour or Apple Motor sports and others that operated over their ancestor's graves.

In the Kakaako area there are thousands of graves some old some not so ancient. In the 70's and early 80's when a construction site found a set of bones, there wasn't much talk about it and they were simply removed and placed somewhere else. Back in the 60's they were simply buldozed over and not a mention of ownership arose.

I don't want to sound ignorant but it seems the sacredness of bones became more of an issue in the latter part of the 20th century and in more recent times during this millenium.

As for bones themselves, whether they hold mana or not they are the remains of someone and that in themselves should garner respect regardless of race or ethnicity and that includes their last mortal resting place on Earth. It's their grave! Their last place of human dignity left and really it was up to their stewards to ensure their safety from the day they were buried to the day they were threatened of being unearthened.

In the case of the Keaaumoku WalMart site however, those surviving stewards of the Iwi failed to protect their own when the descration began with the construction of the industrial tract that preceded WalMart. And they failed even after those derilict buildings were demolished and that site sat unprotected for many many more years. If they knew their ancestors bones were buried there they should have made an effort back then when nothing was planned on that site to make their claim.

If they truly lost the actual location of their ancestors' bones and thru the construction of WalMart those bones were found, these stewards should be held accountable by their own spirital governance for allowing their ancestors bones to be forgotten and lost, a true tragedy for a surviving family to allow that to happen. The fact that those bones were rediscovered tells me that these stewards should be grateful for their recovery.

I believe that because WalMart represents an intrusion of the White man into Hawaii in the eyes of the Kanaka Maoli, anything regarding their acts will be considered devious including the discovery of ancient Iwi that was lost by their stewards and no mahalo is in order...to me that's more outrageous than the accidential discovery of those bones in the first place by the white man.

So who really messed up? The whiteman who discovered the bones? Or the Hawaiian stewards that lost them?

[Miulang]

Re: The sacredness of bones

I'd like to know how one Hawaiian family can lay claim to a particular set of unearthened bones from a given construction site. If the bones were laid in secrecy then only the surviving family members would know where they were right?...

So who really messed up? The whiteman who discovered the bones? Or the Hawaiian stewards that lost them?

Well, if you want to get scientific about it, you could probably use DNA testing (or have I been watching too many forensic medicine programs where cases have been solved using the different forms of DNA testing?) If that's what it takes, then maybe the kanaka maoli families laying claim to the 'iwi will just have to go to the expense of having those tests done. From what I understand, kanaka maoli families kinda know the area in which their kupuna inhabited, which is how they are claiming possession.

I personally don't have an opinion either way on this because my bones will become fishfood when I makie die dead, but if that's the way another group of people honor their ancestors, then who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Miulang

[Palolo Joe]

Re: The sacredness of bones

If that's what it takes, then maybe the kanaka maoli families laying claim to the 'iwi will just have to go to the expense of having those tests done.

And when those families discover they can't afford to pay for the tests, oh well... then the government and the big, bad developers get to do what they wanted to do in the first place.

[Miulang]

Re: The sacredness of bones

And when those families discover they can't afford to pay for the tests, oh well... then the government and the big, bad developers get to do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Maybe OHA or one of the sovereignty groups can step up to the plate and kokua with the kala, yeah? I mean, it IS to support their own people and their rights, after all.

P.S. I hope the kanaka maoli NEVER think that just because they don't have the money that they should give up fighting for their rights. They have many friends out there who are more than willing to kokua, if the kanaka maoli want our help, that is. The one thing I admire most about the kanaka maoli is their willingness to be patient and to never give up on their fight to preserve their culture.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: The sacredness of bones

Maybe the developer of that construction site should foot the bill for DNA testing and have it included as an EPA mandate.

Actually I like the idea of DNA testing for Hawaiians that way it can finally legitimize any lineage issues and connect all Hawaiians thru bloodline instead of heritage or hanai'd sponsorship.

[Miulang]

Re: The sacredness of bones

Maybe the developer of that construction site should foot the bill for DNA testing and have it included as an EPA mandate.

Actually I like the idea of DNA testing for Hawaiians that way it can finally legitimize any lineage issues and connect all Hawaiians thru bloodline instead of heritage or hanai'd sponsorship.

If it's the 'iwi and not ownership of the land that's in dispute, I don't know why a developer wouldn't want to help establish the lineage of bones he might find on his construction site. Craig, you're right: maybe the State (don't get the Feds involved in this if you can help it) Planning Commission and the County Planning Commissions can get the Legislature to pass a law requiring proper disposition of any bones uncovered by using DNA or other scientific means to establish lineage, and the cost of any testing, etc. should be borne by the developer. I would think that's the least the developers can do if they want to build on that land. What's another $10k or so to a multimillion dollar project anyway? Chump change.

Miulang

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: The sacredness of bones

On a practical level, human bone was used for fish hooks because it was the biggest bone that Hawaiians had access to. After all, there weren't all that many large mammals in Hawai'i. You had the dog (kinda small), the Polynesian pig (also kinda small, not like the huge European hybrids), and then you had... humans. If you want to make a big, sturdy fish hook, you want a single big, sturdy piece of material to carve. The only thing bigger would be whale bone, and that was extremely rare.

These days, modern fish hook carvers will usually use cow bones, which are even bigger than human bones. But back then, human bones were the biggest pieces of bone they could get.

Fornander wrote:

This extreme solicitude of concealing the bones of defunct high chiefs was very prevalent in the Hawaiian group. . . . The greatest trophy to the victor, the greatest disgrace to the vanquished, was the possession of the bones of an enemy. They were either simply exhibited as trophies, or they were manufactured into fish hooks, or into arrow-points wherewith to shoot mice. Hence various expedients were resorted to to effectively prevent the bones of a high chief ever becoming the prey of any enemies that he may have left alive when he died. One of the most trusted friends of the deceased chief was generally charged with the duty of secreting the bones . . . and the custom prevailed till after the time of Kamehameha l. This custom applied, however, more particularly to prominent warrior chiefs. . . . Generally the custom in chief families was to strip the flesh off the corpse of a deceased chief, burn it, and collect the skull, collar- bones, arm and leg bones in a bundle, wrap them up in a tapa cloth, and deposit them in the family vault...

(Account of the Polynesian Race, II:105-6, quoted online here.)

So yes Paul, on the one hand Hawaiians respected the bones of people who they revered... but by the same token they felt no reservation in dis-respecting the bones of those they did not.

There is a wooden calabash on display at Bishop Museum that is studded with human molars. The story goes that the molars were from the vanquished enemies of the ali'i who had commissioned the carving of the bowl... which was used as a spittoon. Not only had the ali'i killed his enemies, but even after their deaths he was, in a figurative sense, spitting in their mouths every day. Now that's some serious disrespect!

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: The sacredness of bones

I'd like to know how one Hawaiian family can lay claim to a particular set of unearthened bones from a given construction site. If the bones were laid in secrecy then only the surviving family members would know where they were right?....

So who really messed up? The whiteman who discovered the bones? Or the Hawaiian stewards that lost them?

I have to say that I have a very difficult time comparing the "whiteman vs kanaka maoli" in this discussion, because the root of this division is generational and not ethnic. The lay of the land in lower Honolulu was quite different, much more marsh-y, 100+ years ago. When those bones were buried, the conscientious buriers didn't have *any* clue that mankind possessed the technology to excavate to the degree that we now can and intended to build buildings like we now do. To fault descendants for not taking care of hidden graves that they were unaware of, or taking the fight to specific genealogical bloodlines (aside from families who know that their kin hail from such&such ahupua'a, which documentation is possible back to the Great Mahele/1840) disservices the discussion further.

Finally, it is BECAUSE of those too-frequent "simple bulldozing" episodes occurred throughout the 20th century that lead to enough lawsuits and whatnot to protect burial sites (both indigenous and "latter-day cemeteries") e.g. NAGPRA. But don't confuse that into considering burial sites/iwi reverence to be a modern compulsion. It has always been.

If it wasn't, Bigham wouldn't have told Forbes to keep quiet about his "find" in 1910. But they knew better than to treat it his "finds" as simple curiousity, as if it was unbeknownst to them the treatment of Hawaiian burial sites.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: The sacredness of bones

...and on the subject of DNA testing:

http://209.200.101.189/publications/...le.cfm?id=2711

http://www.americas.org/item_20607

http://www.ipcb.org/issues/human_gen...s/geno_pr.html

http://www.newint.org/issue385/waves.htm

‘In April this year the National Geographic Society and the IBM Corporation announced the launch of their five-year, $40 million “Genographic Project”, which aims to collect, store and analyze 100,000 blood samples from Indigenous peoples around the world. The project will create a research database and new media for distribution that will undoubtedly generate new sources of revenue... [Those running the project] say they want to chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species and answer age-old questions surrounding the genetic diversity of humanity. They plan to pose questions such as: “Could Europeans have migrated to the Americas thousands of years ago?” and “Who are the Aboriginal inhabitants of Indonesia?” The very basis of being Indigenous is that you are of the land. Our rights are based on our original inhabitation of the territories we occupy. So a claim that challenges the aboriginality of certain Indigenous people could pose a serious threat. Even though the results of this type of research are speculative, we have no doubt that these findings would be used as a political weapon against us.’

And a social weapon too. ‘Our oral histories tie us to the territories that we’ve occupied since the very beginnings of time,’ says Harry, describing the heritage that will also be challenged by the Genographic Project. Before the DNA of Indigenous peoples is sampled, they will be asked to sign a consent form saying: ‘It is possible that some of the findings that result from this study may contradict an oral, written or other tradition held by you or by members of your group.’ Harry is incredulous: ‘This is pitting one knowledge system against another. You can’t use one knowledge system to trump another!’

[Menehune Man]

Re: The sacredness of bones

If it wasn't, Bigham wouldn't have told Forbes to keep quiet about his "find" in 1910. But they knew better than to treat it his "finds" as simple curiousity, as if it was unbeknownst to them the treatment of Hawaiian burial sites.

This statement is very true. They did know then and the circumstances of the truth, of the beliefs, of the Kanaka Maoli remains the same.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: The sacredness of bones

To fault descendants for not taking care of hidden graves that they were unaware of, or taking the fight to specific genealogical bloodlines (aside from families who know that their kin hail from such&such ahupua'a, which documentation is possible back to the Great Mahele/1840) disservices the discussion further.

Anyone can be faulted for not taking care of their deceased. It doesn't matter if you're black, white or whatever. You lose something entrusted to keep, you guilty of that error. Every culture has their own laws or covenants to deal with that kind of mistake.

But the question remains, how could any one particular Hawaiian family lay claim to a set of bones if they cannot even remember where their bones were buried?

And I do believe one knowledge system can trump another. Look at the recent knowledge base regarding the true history of the overthrow and how it's correcting the white man's version of how and why Hawaii was overtaken by the U.S.

Even our own knowledge base of understanding mankind's origin and future is constantly being trumped from within as new evidence and theories come out regarding our very existance. Knowledge is an ever expanding realm, but how we interpret and use it will define a culture. Is that to say one culture is defining it in a contradiction to another's? I say yes because it is for that reason is why religions dictate how a culture will interact with another and the resulting wars and global conflict that incur.

Regarding oral histories, one thing about the Hawaiian language is that the mere difference in the utterance of the spoken word can change the meaning of what is being said and with that an entire history can be changed because of a misplaced okina. It is common in human nature that when stories are told and retold thru the generations...meaning and substance change or become disconnected, and when a historian tries to reconnect the past thru interpretation, another part of the initial message becomes lost.

It is no different than the oldest written documents known to mankind including the revered Holy Bible and these are Written documents that have been rewritten over and over. Oral histories don't have the luxury of re-examining what was said other than to ask the chanter to repeat it. You say it over and over again thru generations...there is bound to be a misinterpretation that will point the original message into a different meaning which can lead to misinformation at a generational level resulting in lineage becoming lost or misunderstood. Hawaiians are no different than any other culture when it comes to making mistakes.

I also believe that if DNA testing were to be established to determine lineage, many Hawaiian's would feel threatened because hidden within their heritage there may not be a bloodline connection to their ethnicity and wouldn't that be a shocker. It would also determine which Kanaka Maoli would be the true heir to the throne of the Hawaiian Kingdom. With over a hundred different Hawaiian organizations claiming the throne for themselves, only one will come out as the winner. But it would be a real shocker if it was found out that several organizations were related and equally share the rights but were unwilling to share the prize of the kingdom.

All that is left is the bones of their ancestors...something that can be used to identify lineage to the modern day Kanaka Maoli. Without DNA testing anyone can lay claim to those bones. But with DNA testing those who claim the bones to be their ancestors will have some answering up to when it comes up negative.

Science over culture? In this case DNA testing of bones and the living will fine-tune the lineage issues and either support certain claims to ancestry or weed out those who claim to be but aren't. I believe the latter is the more apparent as the fear of the unknown is enough to resist this challenge of authenticity.

[timkona]

Re: The sacredness of bones

You can’t use one knowledge system to trump another!’

I'm not sure whose quote that is, but it might be the most ignorant sentence I've read in quite some time.

The root of intelligence is the ability to say to oneself "Some of my beliefs are false. I'm not sure which ones, and I believe each wholeheartedly. But I'm constantly searching for the right answers, even if they disprove a belief of mine."

Open-mindedness, in short.

Look at all the ideas that have been trumped by a new knowledge system. Flat Earth. Ptolemaic Model. 6000 yr old planet.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: The sacredness of bones

I am also one to believe that knowledge is universal and not restricted to any one person or culture. And when one culture says that another culture cannot understand the prophetic meaning or understanding of their own it is telling all others that their culture cannot be learned. And if it cannot be learned then even their own offspring cannot be taught the meaning or understanding of their own ancestor's culture.

If the future of their culture is dependant on oral histories and yet they claim that outsiders cannot understand their heritage then they are concluding that their oral histories can only be accurately interpreted by virtue of a spiritual connection between their spoken word and the only link to their culture...their bloodline.

And it all comes back to DNA testing of rediscovered bones and a database of all people claimed to be Hawaiian to determine authenticity of their true lineage. Then what of Hanai'd Hawaiians? Where is their connection to their oral history if not bloodline? It can only be spiritual. If so then anyone can be spiritually invoked to receive the understanding of their culture meaning even outsiders can be viewed as culturally connected thru nationality.

So who determines who is Hawaiian and who is Hawaiian thru hanai'd sponsorship? No one has that authority with that kind of directive other than the governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom that can authorize that and we all know there is a dispute as to the heir of that kingdom.

Until the Kingdom of Hawaii is back in place the only way to determine authentic Hawaiian lineage is only thru ancient bone and living DNA testing.

The sacredness of ancestrial bones is even moreso as it is needed to identify the true Kanaka Maoli bloodlines. It's sacred secrets can be a godsend to all Hawaiians or a Pandora's box for those who claim to be but aren't.