The first wrong in the century-old saga of the Forbes Cave artifacts was committed by David Forbes himself, when his expedition removed 83 Hawaiian objects from a Big Island burial cave in 1905.

The federal law protecting native burials was intended to correct such wrongs and give native groups the right to control the placement and treatment of their cultural treasures and burial objects.

But what happened in this case — one group taking advantage over others seeking to claim these items — was not the law's intent. That group, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei, was given temporary custody of the objects in a 2000 loan and subsequently reburied them without a clear accord among the other claimants.

A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals evidently understood the law's purpose, which is why the judges upheld an order that will restore at least a measure of fairness to what is always a difficult process.

In their response to oral arguments presented last week, the judges rightly interpreted the hui's action as short-circuiting the federal claims process, even when it's cast as an effort to right the original sin of the Forbes expedition.

The appellate court has lifted a legal barrier so that U.S. District Judge David Ezra can order the objects returned to the Bishop Museum while negotiation resumes over their final disposition.

Should the burial cave at Kawaihae be the final resting place for all of the objects? Some of them? These are the questions that Native Hawaiian organizations must decide, once the objects are kept in a place accessible to all of them.

The federal law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, is applied to Hawaiian claims with some difficulty, because there is no single authority that can speak for Hawaiians.

On the Mainland, claims typically involve individual tribes or even family groups where questions of right of possession are somewhat easier to resolve.

Until such a Hawaiian authority is established — something that federal recognition of Native Hawaiians could enable — the return of cultural objects to their indigenous owners will be fraught with conflict.

Who is the rightful owner? What is the proper disposition of the objects?

Otherwise, finally, government authorities and law enforcement must be vigilant in protecting the burial caves until the objects can be retrieved in a respectful, orderly manner.

There's been enough upheaval over this issue. It's time for calm and aloha to prevail.