AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 2010 >> [2010] IndigLawB 12

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Williams, Karenna --- "Hadu:wis - Repatriation Efforts of the Hauenosaunee in the United States and Canada" [2010] IndigLawB 12; (2010) 7(17) Indigenous Law Bulletin 17


Hadu:wis – Repatriation Efforts of the Hauenosaunee in the United States and Canada

Karenna Williams

The Haudenosaunee[1] story of creation recounts that, as he was engaged in the task of shaping many of the living beings of Turtle Island,[2] our Creator, the right-handed twin,[3] came across a creature living near the rim of the world. This was Hadu:wi. He was a being that neither the Creator nor his brother (the left-handed twin) had made. The Creator won a contest of strength and wits with Hadu:wi who, recognising that he was in the presence of a supreme being, asked how he could help in creating and maintaining the great work. Our Creator explained that he had made humans, who were small, weak, and often sick, and that Hadu:wi could help cure people when they called upon him. They would call upon Hadu:wi by making wooden masks of his face, and by imitating his ways in their invocations.

About Hadu:wi

Hadu:wi represents the forces of the natural world that are beyond human control – a powerful ally to have. Today, Hadu:wis continue to be used by and cared for in Haudenosaunee communities by a secret society whose doings are largely private and internal, and whose membership is not made known to the broader community. Creating, wearing, and caring for the masks is not to be taken lightly. Carved into a living tree, the masks are only removed upon completion and are seen as living entities, capable of both great healing and great harm. Those who keep a Hadu:wi respectfully rub it with sunflower oil, feed it sacred corn mush, and attach to it several small bags of tobacco. While many care for them for decades, Hadu:wi cannot be ‘owned.’ Instead, members of the secret society are seen as caregivers. A Hadu:wi is handed down within the society, often from generation to generation; some are hundreds of years old.

Over the last fifty years, there have been two nearly opposite developments in the trade and collection of Hadu:wis. First, private individuals began carving masks for sale, sometimes claiming that they were not ‘real’ because they had not been taken from live trees, had not had sacred tobacco burned for them, or had not been used in ceremonies. Second, the Grand Council, the traditional government of the Haudenosaunee, explicitly prohibited the sale of Hadu:wis, and requested the return of those held in museums and private collections. In its policy statement of 1995, the Council explained that

By their very nature masks are empowered the moment they are made. The image of the mask is sacred and is only to be used for its intended purpose. Masks do not have to be put through any ceremony or have tobacco attached to them in order to become useful or powerful. Masks should not be made unless they are to be used by members of the medicine society according to established tradition. There are no masks that can be made for commercial purposes. Individuals who make masks for sale or sell masks to non-Indians violate the intended use of the masks and such individuals must cease these activities as they do great harm to the Haudenosaunee. The commercialisation of medicine masks is an exploitation of Haudenosaunee culture … We ask all people to cooperate in the restoration of masks and other sacred objects to the proper caretakers among the Haudenosaunee. Only through these actions will the traditional culture remain strong and peace be restored to our communities.[4]

Notwithstanding the express terms of this request, there is still a market in masks, both old and new. While Hadu:wis are now being returned, repatriation is not a straightforward process. This article compares practices of museums in the United States and Canada and highlights some of the practical concerns that can arise.

Repatriation Practices

During the summer of 2009, I worked on these issues for the Sour Spring Longhouse and the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burials and Burial Regulation (‘Standing Committee’). Sour Springs, or Upper Cayuga Longhouse, is one of two Cayuga Longhouses at the Six Nations Grand River Territory and has, over the years, sought the return of many Hadu:wis. The Standing Committee, originally created by the Grand Council to address the desecration of cemeteries, deals with repatriation issues on behalf of the Haudenosaunee. There are 15 Haudenosaunee communities, on both sides of the border between Canada and the United States, spread from near Montreal in the east to Wisconsin and Oklahoma in the west. The Standing Committee, with representatives from many of the communities, helps create a unified and co-ordinated approach to dealing with museums.

United States Museums

With the ratification of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (‘NAGPRA’), federally funded institutions in the United States are obliged to provide federally recognised Indian tribes with a list of their holdings.[5] Should the community request the return of specific categories of items, the institution must comply. NAGPRA divides ‘cultural items’ into four distinct categories: associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.[6] In essence, the masks span both the ‘sacred objects’ and ‘objects of cultural patrimony’ categories. To be considered a sacred object it must be a ‘specific ceremonial object which [is] needed by traditional Native American religions by their present day adherents.’[7] Hadu:wis are exactly that. They continue to be used in some of our most sacred ceremonies. The definition of an object of ‘cultural patrimony’ is:

an object having ongoing, historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organisation and such object shall have been considered inalienable by such Native American group at the time the object was separated from such group.[8]

Again, this definition is satisfied by the way the masks are maintained and kept. As previously mentioned, one does not ‘own’ a Hadu:wi. Instead, it is ‘kept’, ‘held’, or ‘cared for’. The secret society in essence controls the care and distribution of masks, which are looked after by individuals.

The historical conditions under which many masks were created has created an interesting dialogue between the Haudenosaunee and some museums. In 1935, ravaged by the Great Depression, the United States created the ‘Works Progress Administration’ as a means to stimulate the economy. While much of the funding was used to build infrastructure, the Director of the Rochester Science Museum, Arthur Caswell Parker (Gawasowane) employed Tonawanda Seneca people to produce traditional crafts for the Museum. They made beautiful women’s dresses, classically artistic warriors’ cups and wood carvings, ceramics, silverwork – and Hadu:wis. Parker then traded some of these ‘crafts’ to other museums.

Today, several dozen of these masks remain a part of museum collections, and raise the issue of whether they meet NAGPRA criteria, as they were created for craft, rather than ceremonial, purposes. One museum has suggested that they were artistic efforts, and that to return them would impugn the artistic freedom of those who created the masks. The Haudenosaunee response has been to point to museum records: after having dreams about the Hadu:wis, the carvers then burned sacred tobacco for them. If the masks had not been sacred objects to start with, they certainly became so after this.

There have been several repatriations of masks under NAGPRA, many of them describing the masks as falling into both categories of ‘sacred objects’ and ‘objects of cultural patrimony’. Among the institutions repatriating masks have been the Museum of the American Indian, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, the New York State Museum and the Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Canadian Museums

Unlike the United States, Canada has no overarching federal legislation dictating museum procedures. Each museum has created its own standards and practices. Some of these bear a resemblance to NAGPRA; others call for ad hoc approaches to repatriation. As a result, it often falls on to communities to inquire into the museum’s collection and repatriation process. Some museums are receptive to repatriation and will provide materials and access as requested. Others are much more protective, and make the return process bureaucratic to the point of impossibility. As a result of Haudenosaunee requests, most museums in Canada do not display the Hadu:wis in their collections but instead keep them in separate areas in their back rooms, covered with plain white cotton sheets. Arrangements are made for Haudenosaunee faithkeepers to care for them in accordance with their cultural obligations.

In the absence of firm guidelines to repatriation in Canada, the best that different community groups can do is compile a convincing request for the return of objects, and hope for a co-operative response from the institution. The request compiled for the Standing Committee and Sour Springs Longhouse included a summary of the use and necessity of the masks within the community (or as much as possible given the affiliation with the secret society), and as detailed a provenance as possible for each mask. The provenance sets out the history of the object, namely, who created and maintained it before it entered the museum.

Many of the masks in the Canadian museums were removed from their communities by dishonest means, by collectors or anthropologists looking to make some quick cash. Some collectors were familiar enough with Haudenosaunee culture to manipulate the mask’s keeper into giving it away, believing the collector had ‘dreamed’ the changing of owners. These masks have a spirit of their own and, while they are most often cared for by a single person, it is not uncommon for them to be passed on. Taking advantage of this cultural trait, some collectors recorded their intrigues, often in personal records or letters to interested collectors and friends, and then sold the masks at a higher price, as they were more ‘authentic’ having actually been used in ceremony. If the masks were removed from the community through such a blatantly dishonest act, the museum may be more inclined to see it returned.

However, the repatriation process in Canada is currently in the process of development. Without a regulatory scheme, practices vary between institutions and the success of an application may be largely based on the attitudes and policies of the staff of the particular museum. Some museums are open to the possibilities of repatriation; others are extremely protective and seek to keep their collections intact. Some museums may be hesitant to return the masks, as they make up a significant and impressive portion of their exhibitions. Beyond this, there is a concern that repatriating Hadu:wis may open the floodgates, encouraging further requests to be made for other cultural artifacts.

Repatriation Concerns

The repatriation process can take many years. On a practical level, there are significant financial impediments slowing down the process. While museums in the United States have NAGPRA budgets to pay for the cost of inventories, processing and negotiations, the Haudenosaunee do not and, in any event, are reluctant to seek funding from governments with whom they still have no clear relationship (both Canada and the United States are in some denial about the effects of treaties with the Haudenosaunee). It is only through the work of dedicated, patient volunteers that the masks can be returned to their proper communities.

Making sure that masks are returned to the right ‘home’ is a particular challenge. One preliminary concern is the number of masks in museums relative to available caretakers. The Canadian Museum of Civilization alone has over 100 masks, each of which must be cared for by a member of the secret society. Added to that, many museums have not recorded the origin of the masks with sufficient detail. Sometimes the records state only the nation from which the mask originated; this tells only part of the story, as most nations have several communities and more than one Longhouse. In other instances, even that much information is lacking, with museum records showing only that the mask is of ‘Iroquois’ origin. In such cases, Haudenosaunee traditionalists who have become expert in identifying the characteristics of distinct communities and individual carvers are called upon to help the faces find their way home. Being able to identify the snapping turtle motif on a mask’s forehead, typical of some Seneca masks, or the distinctive chin of a Grand River Cayuga mask, or even the pattern or wrinkles in an Onondaga mask’s forehead, requires sensitivity, skill and erudition.

While the long delay is frustrating, it also allows communities time to prepare for the return of the masks and to address any outstanding internal issues. Once the masks have been returned, ensuring that they stay within the community is an ongoing concern. While most museums will no longer purchase Hadu:wis, there remains a lucrative market of private collectors. Old masks can sell for over $50,000 and, should they trade hands and enter a personal collection, they become even more difficult to track down and bring home.

Decisions must also be made about the safety of the masks. In some cases, there are real concerns that masks were sent away from the communities for a reason; they may return home angry and spiteful. As a precaution, special ceremonies are conducted to welcome them home, and to ensure that they are at peace. It is also important to ensure that masks are been properly cleaned and tested. In many instances, communities must take steps against the ongoing consequences of now-outdated preservation techniques used during the first half of the 20th century. Hadu:wis are made of natural elements – wood and horse hair – and, in an attempts to protect them from insects and mites, many museums would spray them with arsenic-based pesticides. At that time, this was common practice, particularly in natural history museums housing collections of stuffed animals. This is a problem for contemporary Haudenosaunee communities because, after their return, the masks are once again used in ceremony, giving rise to serious health concerns related to arsenic contact with skin. Peter Reuben, a Seneca scientist, has developed non-invasive testing and cleaning techniques and these have been incorporated into today’s arrangements for the return of the masks.

Conclusion

While the repatriation process is lengthy and difficult, it continues to be an ongoing conversation between Canadian and American museums and the Standing Committee. In Canada, without guidance through legislation, the Standing Committee continues to rely on American precedents, careful research, and traditional knowledge in the journey to bring Hadu:wis home.

Karenna Williams is a Turtle Clan Mohawk from the Six Nations reserve in Ontario, Canada. After graduating from McGill University with a degree in Art History and Political Science, she began studying law at the University of Toronto. After completing her first year of law school, over the summer of 2009, Karenna took part in a project for the June Callwood Fellowship in Aboriginal Law. As part of the project, she worked for the Sour Springs Longhouse and Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial and Burial Regulations on the repatriation of sacred medicine masks, or Hadu:wis, from several museums in the United States and Canada.


[1] In this paper, Haudenosaunee (‘People making an extended house’) is properly used, in preference to Iroquois, a name of unclear but probably enemy origin. The original Haudenosaunee confederacy was composed of the nations known in English as Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca, in northeastern North America.

[2] While many Indigenous nations of North America refer to the continent as Turtle Island, it is also possible to understand the story of creation as using the term for all the land on earth.

[3] Unlike some cosmologies that ascribe creation to a single force, Haudenosaunee thinking requires balance, and that balance is found in the creation story by acknowledging two creative forces. The one who made humans is often called Shonkwaiati:son, ‘he completed our bodies’. But the purpose of the first paragraph is to place Hadu:wi in context, not to explain the Haudenosaunee view of creation.

[4] Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, ‘Policy Statement on Medicine Masks’ (1995) 1 Akwesane Notes 1 <http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/maskpoli.html> .

[5] Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. [Nov. 16, 1990].

[6] Ibid. s. 2(3).

[7] Ibid. s. 2(3)(c).

[8] Ibid. s. 2(3)(d).


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/2010/12.html