First person voice: Native communities and conservationconsultations at the NationalMuseum of the American Indian
Marian A Kaminitz
Head of Conservation
NationalMuseum of the American Indian
Smithsonian Institution, Conservation
Cultural ResourcesCenter
4220 Silver Hill Road
Suitland
MD20746-2863, USA
Fax: 301-238-3201
E-mail:
Robert Kentta
Cultural Resources Director for the Confederate Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon
PO Box 549
Siletz
Oregon 97380, USA
Fax: 541-444-2307
E-mail:
David Moses Bridges
Pleasant Point
Maine, USA
E-mail:
Abstract
Conservation consultations with Nativepeoples produce more valuable resultsfor conservation treatment work thanwhen conservators work withsecondary sources. The conservationstaff at the NationalMuseum of theAmerican Indian have been consultingwith Native peoples through much ofthe museum’s 16 year history. Theimpact for Native communities isreported from the perspective of coauthorsKentta and Bridges.
Keywords
consultation, Native Americans,collaborations, community involvement
Introduction
In the first 16 years that the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)has existed as a museum within the Smithsonian Institution, its mission ofpreservation and perpetuation of ‘living cultures’ and ‘first person voice’ throughconsultation, collaboration, and cooperation with Native communities has beenthe museum’s guiding principle. This ideological foundation of the NMAI is thevision of founding director W Richard West and the NMAI board of directors.Translating the mission into the daily work at the museum is an evolvingoccurrence throughout its many departments and functions.Staff conservators worked at the NMAI Research Branch (RB) in the Bronx,New York, until early 1999 when permanent conservation staff moved to thenew Cultural Resources Center (CRC) facility in Suitland, Maryland, outsideWashington, DC. This geographical move coupled with a programmatic shift inexhibit philosophy for the MallMuseum inaugural exhibits, guided by BruceBernstein, NMAI Assistant Director of Cultural Resources, made it possible forthe conservation staff to integrate consultations with Native Americancommunity members into their regular working procedures.
Conservation consultations before 2000
Since the museum’s inception in 1989, its staff have been supported and guidedby its mission1 to carry out the museum’s planning of everything from design andconstruction of its new buildings to exhibition content to public programs,training, and outreach. As early as 1990, Native consultants were being invitedto assist in the curation of the museum’s exhibits. During these visits, notes weretaken about any conservation-related issues that arose such as how clean itemsshould appear while on exhibition, any gender handling restrictions, whethercertain items should not be repaired for specific reasons of interpretation orcultural context. While there was certainly awareness of conservation, nopermanent conservator was on staff until late 1991 and therefore any questionsasked were relatively general.By late 1998, the conservation staff had been involved in several collaborationswith Native communities assisting in hands-on conservation and restorationefforts. Two examples show the variety of experiences: a loan of ceremonialdance regalia to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Oregon, and structural repairsof a Passamaquody birch bark canoe for safe movement from New York toMaryland. For the respective Native communities, the cultural impact during thetime of the project itself and years into the future evidence a cultural continuumand renaissance assisted by these opportunities. For the NMAI staff, theseexperiences involved changes in the way conservation had historically proceeded,and while not regularly systematic in approach, these early cooperative venturespaved the way for an overall shift in the way NMAI conservators now work.
Loan of dance regalia to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Oregon
In 1996, a ceremonial loan request was received from the Confederated Tribesof Siletz Oregon for eight objects of dance regalia: two dance wands, two hairplumes, a flicker feather head band, a shell and bead collar, a necklace, and a pinenut dance dress. The items to be loaned would be used for the Nay Dosh (FeatherDance) during the dedication of the dance house in June 1996. This was the firstdance house to be built by the Siletz people since the 1870s. As Robert Kentta,
then Siletz Cultural Resources Protection Specialist, stated, ‘it would make a veryspecial event even more blessed if there was any way that we could bring to thededication ceremonial regalia which had been absent from the community for thepast eighty to ninety-six years. Of course,’ he said, ‘we are only talking aboutregalia that is in a physical condition to be danced.’The objects were reviewed and stabilized by Susan Heald, NMAI TextileConservator, before she couriered the loan to Siletz. Once there, Heald met withSiletz and Tolowa (a related tribe) Dance Makers to determine the materials tobe added so that the regalia could be danced. Extra ties of artificial sinew, cottontwill tape, or elk hide thongs were attached to the head band, collar, necklace andapron by the Dance Makers (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Clockwise from left: Cheryl Lane (Siletz), unidentified person, Larry Watson(exhibit developer), Susan Heald, Bud Lane (Siletz), Lenna Bommelyn (Tolowa) andLoran Bommelyn (Tolowa). Susan Heald discussing dance regalia with Siletz and Tolowa DanceMakers (photo: NMAI)
These older regalia items were worn for about seven hours by the mostpracticed and smooth dancers so there would be less likelihood of damage. Theregalia and the dance floor were inspected after every dance so that if partsdropped off, they could be retrieved and reattached. The only damage was to silkribbon ties on the feather head band that had been accidentally caught in the newstronger synthetic sinew ties and become slightly torn. This was noticed andrepaired so that the ribbons were safe from further harm.Ceremonial loan and active use of museum collections was new for the NMAIand Heald noted in her journal, ‘We are definitely doing the right thing byloaning for ceremonial use. It meant so much to them to dance the old regalia,especially meaningful for the dedication of the new Dance House. The youngerpeople like Bud, Cheryl, Robert, Selene, who are in their 30’s and 40’s are spearheading the renewal of the traditional ways – the dance, the language, trying to get the kids interested, give them pride in their heritage…So much has been lostin the last two generations.’ ‘I’m learning,’ she continues, ‘that if you are goingto take collection items back to their communities – you have to be flexible, besensitive, be careful not to offend. Listen carefully to the people and to theobjects, and be guided by them. It’s all about respect and trust, and relinquishingcontrol to a certain point. This will make a successful and respectful visit andeveryone will feel good about it at the finish’ (Heald 1996).
Siletz perspective by Robert Kentta
‘The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is comprised of many distinct tribalgroups from throughout western Oregon and NW California, representing 10completely different languages with many dialects within those languages.Ceremonies giving thanks for, and reminding the people of, the countlessblessings provided them and the creator’s law have always been central to thepeople’s belief system. These annual ceremonies ‘fix’ the world, puttingeverything back into its proper place for the coming year.’Kentta continued, ‘The confederated tribes suffered under the commonproblems of many colonized indigenous peoples – alternately paternalistic and
abusive policies that aimed to strip the people of their culture and identity. Loss oflands, resources and connections to traditional homelands, increased contact withnon-Indians & availability of alcohol and other negative influences, health andsafety problems, federal policy outlawing traditional ceremonies, forced boardingschool attendance, and other factors led to population declines and a graduallydiminished sense of identity for the confederated tribes and its members.‘Through the early 1900’s, the ceremonial dances ‘Feather Dance’ or Nay Doshbecame popular to request as public entertainment or exhibitions in neighboringcommunities, but private tribal ceremonials were still outlawed [Figure 2]. Eventually, the ‘Siletz Tribe’ (Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians) was targetedby the termination policy. In 1954, Congress passed the Western OregonTermination Act, which declared the end of government to government relationsbetween the Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the United States. It was adesignation of Extinction.‘Throughout the 1960’s and 70’s, Siletz families continued to get together forFeather Dances, mainly at surrounding community events, but still the youngergenerations learned the ceremonial significance and symbolism of what they weredoing.‘In 1977, the Siletz Tribe became the second tribe in the United States tosuccessfully petition Congress for their termination act to be repealed. The SiletzRestoration Act was passed in November 1977, and in 1980, a tiny scattered landbase was re-established.‘In 1996, the dedication of the Siletz Dance House, was an important step inreclaiming the community’s cultural identity. It was the first traditional ceremonialstructure built in the SiletzValley since the 1870’s when, during a period oftraditional resurgence, the Siletz Agent had six dance houses burned. In the yearssince termination, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) had beenpassed and the United States had begun to recognize an obligation to treat ways ofexpressing traditional native beliefs as equal to those of other cultures.‘Restoration of the Siletz Tribe to federally recognized status was an event, butrestoration is also a process. When the Siletz dance people were completing theSiletz Dance House and preparing for its dedication, a level of excitement similarto that surrounding the passage of the Siletz Restoration Act was in the air.‘Tribal families brought out new Feather Dance regalia to be danced for the
Figure 2. Mural depicting Female NayDosh Dancer in Siletz TribalAdministration Offices (photo: SusanHeald, NMAI)
first time, and their old family regalia. Museums were approached and talked toabout their responsibility to make sure regalia is (at least periodically) danced inthe ceremonies that it was made for. NMAI, OregonStateUniversity – HornerMuseum, University of Oregon – Museum of Natural History and the LincolnCountyHistoricalMuseum collections were all accessed to help the communityon its way to renewal of ancient traditions.’In the times since the dedication of the Dance House in 1996, ‘There has beendiscussion about how the youngest dancers at the dance house dedication will notgrow up with the sense of interruption that tribal members even a few years olderwill never forget. They will be just as the first generations brought into the Siletz
Reservation in 1856. They will never be able to imagine a time when the dancesweren’t going on as a full ceremony, or a time when the ceremonies didn’t havea home’ (Kentta 2005).
Structural stabilization of a Passamaquoddy birch bark canoe
The conservation collaboration for a Passamaquoddy birch bark canoe (Kaminitzand Poiss 1999) was undertaken so this object could be made structurally stableto safely travel during the move of the collections from the Bronx, New York toSuitland, Maryland. In a 1998 summer course at the WoodenBoatSchool inBrooklin, Maine, Marian Kaminitz, NMAI Head of Conservation, learned theprocess of birch bark canoe building with Master canoe builder, Steve Cayardand his apprentice, Passamaquoddy tribal member, David Moses Bridges. Thefollowing fall, Cayard and Bridges were contracted to survey and guide thestructural stabilization of a Passamaquoddy birch bark canoe in the NMAIcollection (Figure 3). Complete construction drawings were made by Bridges.During the consultation, it was determined by Cayard that the NMAI canoe wasprobably made by the well-known canoe builder, Tomah Joseph. Study of theconstruction techniques carried out during canoe’s structural repairs confirmedthe hand of builder Joseph. This previously unknown information was welcomedby the museum curator as it gave much greater prominence to this collectionobject.
Passamaquoddy perspective by David Moses Bridges
‘The process of birchbark canoe construction begins with an intimateunderstanding of the forest. For the indigenous people of Eastern Maine and theCanadian Maritimes, the Waponahki Nation, this knowledge was innate informer times. They were a product of the environment in which they lived, theforest sustained them and shaped their culture.‘The 20th century saw a rapid decline of patterns of existence that had definedthe native cultures, and with this change from the old ways came the demise oftheir artistic and utilitarian use of natural materials. Birchbark was the most usefuland abundant medium to be gathered from the forest and the canoes of theWaponahki people were the most highly refined of these products. This processof cultural attrition had in effect stripped a nation of its identifying factor. AtSipayik, my great grandfather Sylvester Gabriel was the last of the old timemakers of bark canoes, the gift he may have passed was slowly forgotten in therush of humanity that followed the industrialization of the continent, and withhis passing perhaps the entire of this innate knowledge.‘In the fall of 1998 during my internship with master canoe maker SteveCayard, I had the fortune of working with the Smithsonian Institution restoring Passamaquoddy canoe. This in itself may seem a natural progression unless oneconsiders that Steve and I were the only ones doing birchbark canoe work. Whathad once been common was so suddenly and completely gone. Having the honorto work with the premiere conservation and preservation institute in the worldmade obvious the fact that this knowledge was indeed a rare thing and thebalance of my culture may just be that close to extinction.Throughout the restoration it was brought to bear how vital a part of ourcultural tradition was at stake and the rarity of this knowledge was and should bean integral part of the continuation of my people [Figure 4].
Figure 3. Steve Cayard and David MosesBridges removing broken lashings from stemof NMAI Passamaquoddy Canoe143265.000 (photo: NMAI)
Figure 4. David Moses Bridges warmingbark and resewing lashings on stem ofNMAI Passamaquoddy Canoe143265.000 (photo: NMAI)
‘Beginning in 2000 with the cooperation and enthusiasm of many tribalcommunities in Waponahki country, we began to offer canoe making programsfree of charge and open to all members of the nation; the intent being tocomplete an 18-foot traditionally built birchbark canoe. What began as a simpleproject with a defined goal became much more to the community. From theoutset community interest brought both young and old to the building site, awayfrom home and worries about the 20th century and the inherent hassles ofmodern living. The young and old spoke the old stories and shared insight andknowledge with one another. No TV, no power tools, just each other again andthe materials our grandmothers and grandfathers knew so well, under the
beautiful sky, with each other, we came to know again the old ways.‘From that first program with the Penobscots in 2000 and following projectswith the Passamaquoddies and Malecites the programs that originated with theopenings created by that initial consultation with the Smithsonian have becomea community force that will insure the cultural survival of our nation. Onceagain we gather and work together, speak among friends and share what we have.Our collective efforts preserve the unity and foster a broader yet communitybased understanding that is so rare in this world and through this we are wholeagain.’
Conservation consultations after 2000
In 1997, Dr Bruce Bernstein became the Assistant Director of Cultural Resourcesat the NMAI. His long-held thoughts about collaboration were that the ‘museumgains greater knowledge about its collections and enhances its interpretivepowers, and Indian communities become active participants in the preservationand interpretation of their cultural heritage’ (Bernstein 1992). He emphasizedthat the staff were the stewards of a collection culturally owned by Native people.Bernstein guided and encouraged this approach in the overall content plan for theinaugural exhibits for the NMAIMallMuseum. Predominant changes weremade to the exhibit development process to expand first person voice in thepresentations and in visitor experiences.Starting in 2000, representatives from 24 Native communities throughout theWestern Hemisphere began working with NMAI curators to develop their ownexhibit themes and stories. These partnerships involved numerous back and forthvisits and community consensus for the portrayal of each community’s portion ofthe exhibits. Conservation consultations were incorporated into this overallprocess, enabling NMAI conservators to have Native guidance in the ways thechosen objects were treated for exhibition. Initially, Bernstein discussed withconservators how to prepare themselves for the consultations. Primarily, welearned to allow our consultants to lead the way in the discussions, how to moresensitively listen, how to pose questions to achieve a less biased outcome, andhow to be flexible. This process and what the conservation staff learned is givena thorough discussion by Johnson et al. (2005), and will not be repeated here.One experience with the Lakota consultants will be used as an example.
Lakota consultants do the work
Cecelia Fire Thunder, Matilda Montileux, and Fidelia Cross, Lakota from thePine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, discussed the selected items pertainingto The Lokota section of the Our Universes inaugural exhibit. For the children’sarea, the women told stories about children, their importance in the society; howitems are made for children and by whom, who names a child, who in theextended family structure is important for the upbringing of the child, and so on.
The women spoke of the importance of each phase of a female’s life. They toldnumerous hilarious stories and jokes, keeping us all in good spirits during theconsultation. Story telling was not what we thought a consultation would beabout, and yet it was this intangible aspect of learning that was of primaryimportance to our understanding what we would need to know. The laughteraccompanying our discussions was critical to thinking and embodying goodthoughts into our preparation of these cultural items.As requested by the Lakota representative, in order for three particular items –a pipe bag, a baby carrier, and a parfleche bag (Figure 5) to be displayed in theappropriate manner, a certain level of restoration was needed. We as conservatorsfelt that to incorporate cultural sensitivities the Lakota women needed to do thetreatments. In particular, the consultants wanted to remove water-damaged fringefrom the pipe bag and parfleche bag and replace it with new semi-tanned hidefringe. The parfleche bag was in an exhibit section about gift giving and theconsultants felt the piece should look its best as it would never be given as a giftin its damaged state. For the baby carrier, the consultants wanted to replace lostbeads for cultural and aesthetic reasons that related to the sacredness of new lifeand cherishing the child in a joyous, loving and secure way. Conservators felt thatthis work was most appropriately done by the consultants because they knew boththe manufacturing technologies and the intangible cultural aspects of the items.