The archive box is broad, deep and flat
it vibrates with something terrible
A secret, a horror we are trying to forget
We cannot look with both eyes
What does it hold . . . . .
The conflict with indigenous people in North America produced an imperial ideology that required a significant degree of abstraction because of the nature of those relations.
In North America Europeans set out to claim land they didn’t know that was occupied by people they couldn’t control. To make alliances, establish boundaries, and acquire land they made legal agreements, including treaties that recognized indigenous ownership of land and therefore of political autonomy. After the formation of the United States that recognition, well established in North American legal and political practice, became a signifier of U.S. moral and political superiority. (Konkle, M. Indigenous Ownership and the Emergence of U.S. Liberal Imperialism, American Indian Quarterly page 297)
Much of what they want to commercialise is sacred to us. We see intellectual property as part of our culture. It cannot be separated into categories as Western Lawyers would want.
North American Indian Congress, Ray Appoaka quoted at a seminar on intellectual property rights at the U. N Human Rights Convention in Vienna June 1993. Extract from Posey & Dutfield 1996.
These statements serve to illustrate the difficulty in placing a western definition of ownership upon ethnic artefacts. The western notion of individual rights to ownership is in contradiction to the communal view of property held by indigenous peoples.
The Eagle feather war-bonnet has been perhaps one of the most powerful and evanescent symbols of the North American Indian since as early as 1505. While multiple feather headdresses were worn in many geographic areas, the fullest development was on the plains during the 19th Century. (First Peoples, First Contacts J.C.H King, 1999 British Museums Press, page 30)
The U.S Department of the Interior passed a law in 1990 referred to here and in federal documentation as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
(Appendix 1)
Although the artefact in question is not covered by all elements or sub-clauses of the statute it is covered under section 2: Definitions: as holding a" cultural affiliation" which means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. (Public Law 101-601 101st Congress)
The validity of this artefacts cultural affiliation is necessarily crucial in any discussion that seeks to explore more than one cultural position and in this case it is of particular importance given the discovery of the artefact in a theatre collection that is removed both culturally and geographically from the artefacts presumed origins.
Reference to ceremonial and/or ancestral artefacts not necessarily connected with human remains is made later in the same document and these references seem entirely pertinent in the case of the headdress.
(C) "sacred objects" which shall mean specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present day adherents, and
(D) "cultural patrimony" which shall mean 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 (Ibid)
The headdress contains eagle feathers which are protected items in the US and in the United Kingdom. In the United States as a result of years of habitat loss from urbanization, exposure to chemicals used in agriculture and animal husbandry, and poaching, populations of bald eagles, the national symbol, and golden eagles have been reduced in numbers. In an effort to protect these birds, the United States Congress passed the Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1940, and later amended the Act in 1962 to include protection for golden eagles. This Act prohibits take, transport, sale, barter, trade, import and export, and possession of eagles, making it illegal for anyone to collect eagles and eagle parts without a permit. Native American tribal elders may apply for permission to obtain eagle feathers and the code of Federal Regulations, part 22, has been amended to provide for the issuance of a permit to import/export eagle feathers for religious and cultural purposes only. (US Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Law enforcement, federal regulations) Native American people cannot collect their own feathers and in fact in an ironic twist the enforcement of the act (s) has disadvantaged native people who honour and seek to celebrate the birds and their feathers. Even the possessors of eagle feathers that have been in families for generations have been subject to prosecution and / or censure. however because of the significance of eagles to Native Americans who for hundreds of years have used eagle feathers for religious and cultural purposes, including healing, marriage, and naming ceremonies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the National Eagle Repository in the early 1970's to provide Native Americans with the feathers of golden and bald eagles needed for religious purposes. (Denver Museum of Natural History Archives: Shannon Garcia)
In the United Kingdom it is illegal to buy or sell body parts and feathers of birds of prey. Although it is less likely that an individual in possession of feathers would be prosecuted, the law changed in 2001 to allow those found guilty of stealing the birds themselves to be prosecuted. (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Although some of the laws under discussion do not have a legal bearing in the United Kingdom, their inclusion here serves to illuminate the debate that such an artefact would evoke in its nation of origin. An understanding of the historical and contemporary context is important in creating a picture of the significance attached to the artefact by its maker(s) and owners.
In the first instance it is necessary to establish origin as far as is possible and to this end images of the artefact were sent to a Cherokee tribal elder in the United States and his assessment was that the headdress was a genuine and was similar to other headdress made by the Lakota (Sioux) and related tribes. The full transcript of his assessment, together with an introduction appears here. (Appendix 2 & 3) The construction of the headdress is in the style of the plains tribes and specifically in old Lakota (Sioux) style. The beadwork uses patterning very similar if not identical to Lakota style. Similar beadwork is found on Chief Yellow Calf's bonnet, a well documented artefact. Yellow Calf was a Chief of the Arapaho, a plains tribe with direct affiliation to the Lakota. An image of the bonnet image appears here. (Appendix 4) Anthropological research undertaken by John J Honigmann in 1956 concerning the Sarcee tribe in Alberta, Canada drew comparisons between the northern plains tribes of Lakota root origin and the Sarcee and this information becomes crucial as the study of this headdress continues. Honigmann's work suggests that the Sarcee (Sarci) illustrate a rather thorough assimilation of plains culture that occurred over about one hundred and fifty
years. (Honigmann, John J. Notes on Sarsi kin behaviour, Anthropologica, 2 (1956) p.17)
Headdress with such a large number of eagle feathers have a specific wearer in mind when they are created and this is perhaps another indication of its origins. Only two types of people wore this style of headdress; they either were leaders (Chiefs) or tribal elders.
Each feather in a bonnet represents a specific war honour, or "coup." Before a bonnet was constructed, there was a ceremony in which each feather was held, while the deed it stood for was recited. The feather was then handed to the bonnet-maker to be sewn into place.
(King, 268)
Based upon current research the assumption is made here that the artefact is genuine and is made in the Plains/Lakota style. It is a headdress usually worn by a Chief or tribal elder.
The headdress came to be in the theatre collection by its inclusion in the effects of John Martin Harvey whose widow passed the headdress along with other memorabilia to Eric Jones Evans. (EJE/001481 Correspondence - from Lady Nina Martin Harvey to Eric Jones Evans, being a true account of the events surrounding the sale of Sir John's props and wardrobe after his death) (Appendix 5). (EJE/001592 Correspondence - from Lady Nina Martin Harvey to Eric Jones Evans, concerning several of Sir John Martin Harvey's props and promptbooks, and the giving of them to Eric Jones Evans, EJE/001601 Correspondence - from Lady Nina Martin Harvey to Eric Jones Evans, concerning the Sarcee Indian Chief's headress given to Sir John Martin Harvey, which she sent to Eric)
Sir John and Lady Martin Harvey first visited Canada in 1914 and by their last trip in 1929 had visited six times in all. Each trip had formed part of a theatrical tour usually of the production of The Only Way, an adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities in which the pair achieved their greatest success; Sir John playing the part of Sidney Carton some 4000 times.
(Times 1929 Appendix 6)
During a tour of Canada in 1924John Martin Harvey was presented with the headdress making him an honorary Chief of the Sarcee tribe. (EJE/000027 Press Cutting 1924 - Calgary Herald account of John Martin Harvey, known as Ta-Decasze (Red Feather) being made a chieftan of the Sarcee Indians. Also included is text of presentation address as read by Chief Joe Big Plume)
An even more complex strand to the framework inside which the performativity of such an artefact has to be considered is that the image or "utterance" made by such an artefact serves to mark the absence of a basic reality of post-modern native life. A circumstance that has arguably been a factor in poor educational and social progression and opportunity offered to the native people of North America and Canada. The headdress then is a powerful object/artefact but it could be argued an agent of misinformation that prevents non-native people from engaging with natives of North America and Canada with the necessary mutual understanding of the current political climate faced by Native American peoples.
Perhaps the words of Sirkku Aaltonen in Time – Sharing on Stage: "Often when we believe we have caught a glimpse of the Other, we have only seen our reflection in the mirror"(2000:112) were never more pertinent than when considering a European understanding or "glimpse" of the native American. The headdress and perhaps other artefacts cannot fail to reflect back our own, European view based as it may be on a popular culture of the 20th century that is rife with images of be-feathered savages astride painted ponies. Not only was there a basic cultural misrepresentation behind the use and acceptance of such images but more problematic for the researcher/translator was the/is the political imperative that shaped the construct of “savagism and civilization” in U.S and I would argue, European culture. This is because the political context was the necessity of denying the principle of indigenous ownership. Maureen Konkle goes further, suggesting a political effect: the positing of an imperial ideology, the primary claim of which was that imperialism didn’t exist as a historical process but was rather the unfolding of God’s will. (Konkle, 297:2005) sometimes referred to as Manifest Destiny. Current populist thinking regarding Native American peoples has folded that ideology back in on itself. Although the headdress represents or simulates an absence, certainly in the contemporary experience of native people, it is persistent in its power to engage the imagination and sentiments. Images of native people, Indians, wearing eagle feather headdress from the 19th Century are commonly used by white Americans and Native Americans themselves as a currency of shared experience and cultural recognition. The difficulty in using this kind of artefact in contemporary performance are many and complex and even the best intentioned work is likely to be problematic. The location and management of a third space in which a shared cultural dialogue can develop is still no guarantee that an artefact like the headdress could be stripped of its power and consequently the message that is decoded from its presence even if that were the intention.
Bibliography
Konkle, M. Indigenous Ownership and the Emergence of U.S. Liberal Imperialism, American Indian quarterly/summer 2008/vol. 32, no. 3
Transcript of U. N Human Rights Convention in Vienna June 1993. Extract from Posey & Dutfield 1996.
J.C.H King, First Peoples, First Contacts, 1999 British Museums Press
Sirkku Aaltonen Time – Sharing on Stage, Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2000
Honigmann, John J., Notes on Sarsi kin behaviour, Anthropologica 2, Wilfred Laurier University Press 1956
(1956)http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/MANDATES/25USC3001etseq.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment