PROPATRIATION: Possibilities for Art after NAGPRA

propatriation: Possibilities for Artafter NAGPRA

Emily Mooreuniversity of california at berkeley

abstract

The repatriation of dozens of items of Tlingit clan property

in 2001 restored at.oow that had been stolen from the

Saanya Kwaan village of Cape Fox in 1899; it also launched

a new relationship between Tlingit peoples and the muse-

ums that had returned their cultural patrimony. Following

the repatriations, Cape Fox Corporation, the village corpo-

ration for the Saanya Kwaan, donated cedar logs to four

museums that had returned totem poles or house posts to

Alaska. In return, these four museumsFthe Peabody Mu-

seum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University,

National Museum of the American Indian, Burke Museum

of Natural History and Culture, and Field MuseumF

commissioned Tlingit master carver Nathan Jackson, and

later his son Stephen Jackson, to carve the cedar logs into

new totem poles that would replace the repatriated poles.

This paper proposes ‘‘propatriation’’ as a name for this

growing practice of museum commissions to replace repa-

triated objects in the NAGPRA era. It also analyzes the

impact of Nathan and Stephen Jackson’s totem poles on

the galleries of these U.S. museums, arguing that prop-

atriation helps to ‘‘indigenize’’ the museum and to present

Tlingit art according to Tlingit values. [Keywords: prop-

atriation, NAGPRA, Nathan Jackson, Stephen Jackson,

Harriman Expedition, Tlingit]

In November 2001, Tlingit Saanya Kwaan members

gathered at Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology to dedicate a new totem

pole carved by Tlingit master carver, Nathan Jackson

(Figure 1). The totem pole commemorated the origin

story of the Teikweidi clan, whose ancestor Kaats’ had

betrayed his brown bear wife. But Jackson’s totem

pole commemorated another betrayal in Tlingit

history as well: it replaced a Teikweidi totem pole that

had stood in the Peabody Museum for nearly a cen-

tury, a pole stolen in 1899 from the Saanya Kwaan

village of Gaash, near Cape Fox, Alaska. Just a few

months before the dedication of Jackson’s totem pole,

Cape Fox Corporation had repatriated the older

Teikweidi pole to Saxman, Alaska, where the Saanya

Kwaan ‘‘welcomed the ancestors back to their home-

land with song’’ (Worl 2005:32).1 Acknowledging the

museum’s return of the totem pole, Cape Fox Cor-

poration offered the Peabody Museum a cedar log,

which Nathan Jackson used to carve the museum’s

new pole. The 2001 dedication of Jackson’s pole at

the Peabody Museum thus completed the exchange.

Replacing a stolen totem pole with a pole commis-

sioned by the museum and carved from a cedar log

gifted by Tlingit peoples, Jackson’s pole heralded a

new chapter in the relationship between the Saanya

Kwaan and the Peabody Museum.

As art commissioned to replace repatriated art,

the Peabody Museum pole is a part of a growing

trend for museum commissions in the NAGPRA era.

Following the dedication of the Harvard pole in 2001,

the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American

Indian (NMAI) unveiled another Jackson totem pole

in 2004 carved by Nathan and his son, Stephen Jack-

son, and painted with the help of Nathan’s wife,

Dorica. In 2005, the Burke Museum of Natural

History and Culture at the University of Washington

dedicated two new house posts designed by Nathan

and Stephen, respectively; in 2007, the Field

Museum in Chicago erected a totem pole that Nathan

and Stephen had created collaboratively. Each of

these totem poles had been carved from a cedar log

donated to the museums by the Cape Fox Corpora-

tion, the village corporation for the Saanya Kwaan,

and each of the poles was commissioned to replace a

pole that had been stolen from the Saanya Kwaan in

1899 by the Edward H. Harriman ExpeditionFan

expedition embodying the colonial collecting prac-

tices that NAGPRA, in part, attempted to redress.

As ‘‘the last grand expedition of the nineteenth

century,’’ the Harriman Expedition shared the era’s

pursuit of ‘‘scientific knowledge’’ in the name of public

philanthropy (Goetzmann and Sloan 1982:xi). Railroad

magnate Edward H. Harriman assembled well-known

scientists, artists, and writers for his 1899 vacation

cruise to Alaska and set off to ‘‘gather useful informa-

tion and distribute it for the benefit of others’’

(Harriman quoted in Litwin 2005:11). The expedition

landed at Gaash on July 26, 1899. Believing the village

deserted, members of the expedition removed from the

clan houses dozens of items of Tlingit clan propertyFat.oow, ‘‘owned or purchased thing’’ (Dauenhauer and

museum anthropology

Museum Anthropology, Vol. 33, Iss. 2, pp. 125–136 & 2010 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01091.x

Dauenhauer 1987:25). These at.oow were later donated

to museums across the United States, upholding Harri-

man’s ‘‘philanthropic’’ mission. To the Saanya Kwaan,

however, the loss of their at.oow was devastating.

Around 1892, Gaash had been struck by smallpox; in

1894, Gaash villagers, together with members of the

nearby Taanta Kwaan (Tongass village), relocated to the

site of Saxman near present-day Ketchikan (Worl

2005:37). Although they had left their former village,

the Sanyaa Kwaan never relinquished claim to their

property at Gaash, nor would they have used the term

‘‘deserted’’ to describe their home village.2 It was not

until the passage of the 1990 Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) that the

Saanya Kwaan Tlingit could begin to piece together

what had happened to their at.oow and initiate the long

process of repatriation to Alaska.

This essay considers the examples of four U.S.

museums that returned Harriman’s stolen totem

poles to the Saanya Kwaan in 2001, focusing on the

new totem poles the museums commissioned to re-

place the repatriated poles. I examine the impact of

the commissioned poles on the display of Tlingit

culture in these museums and on the relationships

between the museums and the Saanya Kwaan. Given

the importance of this growing series of commis-

sions, I also venture to give the practice a name:

‘‘propatriation,’’ the sending forth of an object from

its country or lineage of origin in acknowledgement

of an object returned. Although imperfect as a Latin

word, propatriation has the advantage of establishing

a dialogue with repatriationFthe act that is its cata-

lyst. It draws on a definition of the prefix ‘‘pro’’

meaning ‘‘forth,’’ signaling the sending forth from the

homeland or lineage; it also plays on the meaning of

‘‘pro’’ as ‘‘for the sake of ’’ (as in pro bono), ‘‘in return

for’’ (as in quid pro quo), and even ‘‘pro’’ as being

‘‘for’’ something (as in pro-Tlingit).3

Propatriation marks a new set of possibilities in the

era of NAGPRA, both in terms of native relationships

with museums and in terms of contemporary native

art.4 In Patricia Pierce Erikson’s words, propatriation

helps to ‘‘indigenize’’ the museumFto reinvent

museum practices in ways that honor indigenous

worldviews, rather than ignoring them (Cooper

2008:158; Erikson 2005). Enacting Tlingit protocols

of reciprocation and of the proper commissioning

and dedication of totem poles, as well as emphasizing

the right of the Saanya Kwaan to tell their own story,

the Jackson poles create a new space for Tlingit art and

culture in the four U.S. museums that commissioned

them. They also suggest a positive avenue for decoloni-

zing museum collections and for building collaborative

relationships between museums and native peoples in

the NAGPRA era.

Peabody Museum

Nathan Jackson’s totem pole for the Peabody Museum

was the first of the propatriated poles to stem from the

repatriation of Saanya Kwaan at.oow. Irene Dundas, the

repatriation coordinator for the Cape Fox Corporation

and a Saanya Kwaan member herself, had identified the

original Cape Fox pole among the Peabody Museum’s

holdings, the inventory of which had been published

following NAGPRA’s passage. After years of research to

substantiate clan ownership of the pole, Dundas sub-

mitted a repatriation claim for the Teikweidi totem

pole in 1999F100 years after the Harriman Expedi-

tion had removed the pole from Cape Fox.5 The

Peabody Museum readily agreed that the pole was an

‘‘object of cultural patrimony,’’ noting that at the time

of the Harriman Expedition, the pole ‘‘would have

been considered the clan’s communal property and

should not have been ‘alienated, appropriated or con-

veyed by any individual.’’’6 Carted across the country

Figure 1. Nathan Jackson, Kaats’ Xoots Kooteeya, 2001. Cedar and paint.

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University.

(Author photo.)

possibilities for art after nagpra

126

by truck, and loaded onto a barge in Seattle, the

Teikweidi totem pole returned to Saxman on July 16,

2001, in time for the One Hundred Years of Healing

Ceremony on July 23.

In the meantime, Cape Fox Corporation’s gift of

the cedar log had catalyzed the Peabody to commis-

sion a new totem pole. Cape Fox offered the cedar log

to honor Tlingit practices of reciprocation, or ‘‘bal-

ance,’’ one of the defining features of Tlingit social

structure and cultural protocols: since the museum

had given a pole to the Saanya Kwaan, the Saanya

Kwaan would give the museum something in return.7

Acknowledging the gift of the cedar log, Patricia

Capone, assistant curator at the Peabody Museum,

said that, ‘‘the clear choice was to work together with

a Tlingit artist to create a revitalized pole, symbol of

the new relationship’’ between the Peabody Museum

and the Saanya Kwaan Tlingit.8 Nathan Jackson

had already carved several pieces for the Peabody

Museum in the 1970s, so the museum approached

him to carve the new pole for their gallery. Jackson’s

son, Stephen, and wife, Dorica, helped complete the

carving and painting of the pole, and in November

2001 it was dedicated as the Kaats’ Xoots Kooteeya

(Kaats’ Brown Bear Totem Pole) with the participa-

tion and support of Saanya Kwaan members.9

Jackson’s pole, like the 19th century pole that it

replaces, recalls the original story of the Teikweidi

clan, whose ancestor, the hunter Kaats’, married a

brown bear after falling into her den. Although Kaats’

promises his bear wife that he will never again look at

his former human spouse, he is eventually tricked

into doing so, and his cub children tear him to pieces

for betraying their mother. In some versions of the

Teikweidi story, the bear wife finds her husband’s

body and cries the mournful song of a loon (Dauen-

hauer and Dauenhauer 1987:219–243; Swanton

1909:228–229).

While Jackson honors this Teikweidi story in his

choice of subject matter for the Peabody Museum

pole, he purposefully chose not to replicate the 19th

century pole’s appearance. The older pole evokes the

life of Kaats’ with a relatively spare set of figures: a

bear peaks out of its den near the top of a plain,

painted shaft, crowned by the figure of a loon (Figure

2). Jackson’s pole, in contrast, populates the entire

length of the shaft with Kaats’ characters. At the top

of the pole sits the hunter Kaats’, wearing a cedar bark

hat and holding a seal; he is followed by a bear cub;

then Kaats’s brother with his dog, who went search-

ing for the missing hunter; and finally, at the base of

the pole, the brown bear wife with Kaats’ in her arms.

Figure 2. Teikweidi totem pole from Gaash Village, 19th century, formerly

at Peabody Museum. This pole was repatriated to Alaska in 2001. (Copy-

right, President and Fellows of Harvard College, Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology, 00-22-10/55933 (98750060)).


127

Explaining his choice not to replicate the pole from

Cape Fox, Jackson said, ‘‘I felt that the original pole

was the original pole; I would make a rendition of my

own.’’10 Jackson’s emphasis on remaining faithful to

the Teikweidi story, rather than to a particular repre-

sentation of that story, honors Tlingit belief that the

right to an origin story, crest, name, song, or other

object of at.oow claimed by an individual or clan

matters more than the physical representation of

it (cf. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1987:28–29). It

also represents a refusal to provide the Peabody

Museum with a copy of at.oow that had neither been

rightfully ‘‘purchased,’’ in the Tlingit definition of the

word, nor recognized at a potlatch as the museum’s

‘‘owned or purchased thing.’’

Significantly, the Kaats’ Xoots Kooteeya stands in

the same corner of the museum where the older

Teikweidi pole had once stood, literally re-placing the

repatriated pole with the propatriated one. This pal-

impsestic space creates a place for dialogue in the

Peabody Museum, where the new pole can reference

the old pole even in its absence. A wall panel near the

Kaats’ Xoots Kooteeya explains the long biography of

the totem pole, including the Teikweidi origin story,

the removal of the original pole by the Harriman

Expedition in 1899, its repatriation in July 2001, and

the commission of a new pole by Nathan Jackson that

same year. This history is also the subject of a docu-

mentary film, Full Circle, which plays on a small screen

nearby. The film highlights the dancing and speeches of

Saanya Kwaan members at the November 2001 dedi-

cation ceremony for Jackson’s pole, emphasizing the

new relationship established through a successful

repatriationFand subsequent propatriation, though it

does not use this wordFof the Teikweidi totem pole.

The thorough history presented in this corner

makes for a powerful display within the Peabody

Museum. Just as Jackson refused to ‘‘re-make’’ the

Cape Fox pole, the Peabody Museum does not seek to

re-make or cover up the history of the old pole that

led to this exchange. Instead it creates a space where

the histories of colonial collectingFlike Harriman’s

notion that ‘‘science’’ trumped the rights of native

peoplesFstand in contrast to commissioned collec-

tions endorsed by native peoples. The propatriated

pole thus creates a powerful meta-site of commentary

and reflection on museum collection practices since

the enactment of NAGPRA.

NMAI

In September 2004, when the NMAI opened its doors

on the National Mall in Washington, DC, another

propatriated Jackson totem pole was unveiled to the

public (Figure 3). This 20-foot pole replaced a 44-

foot free-standing totem pole that had stood in the

Bronx Zoo from the early 1900s to the 1940s, when it

was given to the Heye Museum of the American In-

dian in New York City. In 1989, the Cape Fox pole

moved to the NMAI’s storage building in Maryland;

in July 2001, the Saanya Kwaan repatriated the pole to

Alaska. Like the original pole at the Peabody Mu-

seum, the totem pole from the NMAI also belonged

to the Teikweidi clan and referenced the ancestral clan

story of Kaats’. Also like the Peabody Museum, the

NMAI accepted a cedar log from the Cape Fox

Figure 3. Nathan Jackson, Dorica Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Kaats’, 2004.

Cedar and paint. The National Museum of the American Indian. (Author

photo.)


128

Corporation and commissioned Nathan Jackson to

carve a replacement totem pole for its collection.

Jackson again enlisted the help of his son, Stephen,

and his wife, Dorica, to carve and paint the pole, and

he designed yet another unique depiction of the

Kaats’ story.

The NMAI totem pole, titled simply Kaats’, de-

picts the brown bear wife holding Kaats’ at the base of

the pole. Two bear cubs clamber up the post above

them and a third cub perches horizontally at the top.

On the back of the pole, a contemporary Northwest

Coast–style painting of a loon recalls the final cry of

the Kaats’ story (Figure 4). Here Jackson’s design

adheres more closely to the 19th century version that

it replaces, with the three bear cubs depicted on both

poles; again, however, Jackson eschewed an exact

replica of the Cape Fox pole because he wanted to

preserve the uniqueness of the Cape Fox at.oow.

As a propatriated totem pole on the mall of the

U.S. capitol, the Jackson pole is poised to make a

powerful statement about repatriation and the federal

laws that underwrite it.11 Certainly its unveiling at the

museum’s grand opening in September 2004 framed

the pole as part of a new chapter in Native American

museology. Bruce Bernstein, then the assistant direc-

tor for research and collections at the NMAI, stated

that ‘‘the carving of the pole helped close the circle

[that the Harriman Expedition had opened] as well as

reminded the NMAI of its ongoing responsibilities to

native peoples and communities. For me, the pole’s

physical presence in the new museum more than any

other object represented the aspirations and future of

the museum.’’12 Because of the pole’s symbolic im-

portance, Bernstein worked to have it erected in a

central, visible place at the NMAIFno small feat

given that the architectural plans for the new building

were already well underway. Eventually, the pole was

placed in a glass corner of the first-floor gift shop,

where it would be visible, as the NMAI architect

Duane Blue Spruce explained, ‘‘from the shop, the

outdoors, the Potomac [entry way], the stairs, etc.’’13

Beautifully showcased within the glass walls de-

signed to house it, the Jackson pole deserves its

permanent site in a central location on the NMAI’s

ground floor. Unfortunately, however, the NMAI

missed the opportunity to fully explain the signifi-

cance of the Kaats’ pole. A small sign in front of the

pole in the gift shop reads:

In 2001, NMAI repatriated a Brown Bear clan

pole and other items to the descendants of the

Cape Fox Village at Saxman Tlingit community,

Alaska. As an act of gratitude and reciprocity,

the community gifted NMAI with a cedar tree

to be carved into a new pole. The gift symbol-

izes the relationship between the museum and

the Saxman community, as well as an act of

mutual healing and reconciliation.

The text references the history of repatria-

tionFand the Cape Fox Corporation’s donation of

a cedar log that resulted in Jackson’s propatriated

pole at the NMAI; notably, however, the text does

not mention the 1899 Harriman Expedition that

put this long exchange into motion. The omission

is somewhat surprising given the NMAI’s self-

designated role as an indigenous museum dedicated

to indigenous histories: it misses a key opportunity to

discuss the colonial collecting practices that necessi-

tated the passage of NAGPRA. The curious context of

the gift shop could also be turned to a more critical

Figure 4. Detail of the back of the NMAI pole, showing the loon featured

in the Kaats’ story. (Author photo.)


129

commentary as a space where the public is invited to

buy native art, where native artists are intentionally

‘‘sharing culture’’ with interested consumersFa set-

ting that contrasts with the unauthorized removal of

native objects by collectors like the Harriman Expe-

dition.14 A more complete commentary on the

Jackson pole would help emphasize the pole’s unique

history; it would also highlight the pole’s symbolic

importance to a museum dedicated to honoring

native peoples on the National Mall.

Burke Museum

The display of two Kaats’ house posts at the Burke

Museum better displays the power of propatriation to

critically reflect on the objects’ history (Figure 5). The

house postsFshorter totem poles that traditionally

stood in the four corners of a clan house to support

the massive beams of the roofFreplaced two older

house posts that the Harriman Expedition had re-

moved from the Teikweidi Grizzly Bear House at

Gaash (Figure 6). For the first time in this series of

Saanya Kwaan commissions, the Burke Museum

asked Nathan to carve one post and Stephen the

other, displaying the two posts across from one an-

other in the same gallery. The resulting dialogue

between Nathan’s classical carving style and Stephen’s

contemporary take on Northwest Coast formline de-

sign adds another historical layer to the biography of

these Kaats’ posts and to the history of repatriation

and propatriation that they enact.

The Gaash posts from the Burke Museum were

unique in terms of their repatriation. Although the

Cape Fox Corporation submitted a repatriation claim

for the original Cape Fox posts based on their status

as ‘‘objects of cultural patrimony,’’ Burke Museum

officials labeled the objects as ‘‘stolen property,’’ by-

passing NAGPRA requirements for proof of clan

ownership and recognizing the wrongful actions of

the Harriman Expedition.15 The Burke then arranged

to return the house postsFalong with fragments of a

damaged Saanya Kwaan totem pole housed at Cornell

UniversityFvia the Harriman Alaska Expedition

Retraced, a voyage organized by a group of scholars to

compare the Alaska Harriman had studied in 1899

with the Alaska of 2001. The symbolism associated

with the Harriman Expedition Retraced was

immense: the great-great-granddaughter of Edward

Harriman joined the Retraced crew, so the Tlingit

conducted a healing ceremony between the Harriman

family and the Saanya Kwaan in Ketchikan on July 23,

2001. The Retraced Expedition returned the totem

poles that Harriman had removed; it also catalyzed

Figure 5. Kaats’ house posts by Nathan Jackson and Stephen Jackson in the Burke Museum of Natural History, University of Washington. On the left is

Nathan Jackson’s cedar post, and on the right is Stephen Jackson’s epoxy resin casting. Both were dedicated in 2005. (Author photo.)


130

the Burke Museum’s commission of Nathan and Ste-

phen for each of them to create a house post. Robin

Wright, curator of North American native art at the

Burke Museum and a member of the Harriman Ex-

pedition Retraced, said that the idea for the father–

son commission came from Dr. Rosita Worl, a fellow

member of the Expedition and a Tlingit woman her-

self. Worl was familiar with Stephen’s talent as an

artist and encouraged Wright to commission the

carvers individually, using cedar logs donated by

Cape Fox Corporation.16

Carrying out these commissions, Nathan and Ste-

phen Jackson both chose to honor the Teikweidi story

of the original Gaash posts but not to provide the Burke

Museum with replicas of the originals. Nathan replaced

the inverted human figure in the Gaash post with an

upright figure of Kaats’ cradled in his bear wife’s em-

brace, following a motif he had established at the

Peabody Museum and NMAI. He also departed from

the original paint scheme of the Cape Fox post, applying

black, red, and blue-green latex paints far more spar-

ingly to his post and highlighting the beautiful stippling

of his adzework on the face of the cedar (Figure 7).

As one glance at Stephen’s post confirms, the

younger Jackson veered even further from the design

of the original Gaash post, turning to new materials,

techniques, and subject matter for his rendition of the

Kaats’ story (Figure 8). Stephen’s post, titled Nearing

Completion, depicts the story’s violent climax, when

the bear children tear their father to pieces for having

betrayed their mother. Stephen explained that he

‘‘wanted to give the cultural disruption back to the

museum’’ (quoted in Jonaitis 2008:61)Fa museum

that had benefited from the Harriman Expedition’s

violent removal of Saanya Kwaan at.oow. To create the

delicate lines of sinews, ligaments, and intestine-like

forms that writhe across the surface of his post,

Figure 6. Teikweidi house post from Gaash, 1899. (University of Washington

Libraries, Special Collections, NA 2136.)

Figure 7. Detail of Nathan Jackson’s Kaats’ post at the Burke Museum.

(Author photo.)

Figure 8. Stephen Jackson, Nearing Completion, 2005. Epoxy resin and

cedar. Burke Museum of Natural History, University of Washington. (Author

photo.)


131

Stephen used a casting method involving epoxy resin

and bolted the entire form to a cedar base taken from

Cape Fox’s gifted log. Despite its contemporary

design, however, the work still quotes classical North-

west Coast native art. Ovoids, U-forms, and trigons

emerge in various folds, and the continuous lines of

the composition evoke the primary formline that is the

basis of two-dimensional Northwest Coast design.17

The radical appearance of Stephen’s post amidst the

predominantly classical Northwest Coast native art at

the Burke Museum attracts a good deal of attention,

propelling viewers to investigate the history the post

represents. For those seeking information, the Burke

Museum provides a lengthy wall text next to both Na-

than’s and Stephen’s post: the text describes the original

importance of the posts to the Teikweidi Grizzzly Bear

House at Gaash, the 1899 removal of the house posts

by the Harriman Expedition, the tenure of the posts in

the Burke Museum, and their repatriation in 2001.

The object biography of the house posts is traced here,

mapping the diversions and destinations of two house

posts that now include the Jacksons’ avatars in the

Burke museum. Further, the dialogue between past and

present in this biography of repatriation and prop-

atriation parallels the stylistic differences in the two

house posts: Nathan’s masterful carving in the classical

style affirms the continuation of Tlingit traditions,

while Stephen’s contemporary take suggests the vitality

of an art form that can continue to change. As Nathan

says of Stephen’s work: ‘‘It’s important to see an

approach to [two-dimensional formline design] that is

that different. It shows how the tradition can be taken

further.’’18 Together, the visual impact of these posts in

the gallery as well as the thorough wall text that

describes their history create a powerful statement of

the Tlingit culture’s continuing vitality and of the

Burke Museum’s commitment to representing this

vitality in a hall of Northwest Coast native art.

Field Museum

In April 2007, the Jacksons unveiled another totem

pole, this one fusing the vision of father and son into

a single work (Figure 9). As with the other museums,

curators at the Field Museum in Chicago understood

that the pole they commissioned from the Jacksons

would not be a replica of the Gaash pole it was meant

to replaceFwhich, in this case, was a Neix.adi clan

pole depicting an eagle, raven, and bear. Helen Rob-

bins, then the project coordinator for the Jackson

pole at the Field Museum, told me that she hoped

the pole would blend traditional and modern

elements of Tlingit design, but that in general she was

willing to work with whatever Nathan and Stephen

proposed.19 The result was a fusion of the contem-

porary and classical elements that Nathan and

Stephen had defined at the Burke Museum, with

unique repercussions for the particular gallery space

at the Field.

To create the design for the Field Museum pole,

Stephen ran photographs of his father’s pole from the

NMAI through a morphing logarithm in Photoshop.

The resulting curve and torque represents, as Stephen

states, ‘‘the refraction or bending of traditional

Tlingit culture that occurred during a turbulent his-

tory of cultural loss and recovery.’’20 Nathan drew

the original crests of the Neix.adi pole back into

Stephen’s design, so that the pole retains the eagle,

bear, and raven crests of its predecessor; still, it does

not preserve their composition. Instead of the assured

vertical stacking of the bear, raven, and eagle, the

crests are now subsumed within the strong torque of

Figure 9. Nathan and Stephen Jackson, untitled totem pole, 2007. Cedar,

silicone, paint. The Field Museum. (Author photo.)


132

the pole itself, the raven and eagle wedged into the

spaces allotted them, the bear obscured by the wing of

the eagle. Following Stephen’s lead, one might read

the crests as survivors, emerging from the torque of

history in an altered state that is nevertheless a testi-

mony to continuation and renewal.

Spotlit at the entrance to the Alsdorf Hall of

Northwest Coast and Arctic Peoples, the Jackson pole

announces a new emphasis on contemporary native

life in the Field Museum. Its contorted design and

modern mediaFthe top portion is made of shiny

siliconeFcontrasts with the hall’s numerous dioramas

of 19th century native life, piercing these ‘‘frozen his-

tories’’ with a striking marker of contemporary native

art. The inclusion of the Jackson pole in the Alsdorf

Hall advances the Field Museum’s efforts to revamp its

depictions of North American native cultures. In the

room Living Descendants, which directly precedes

the Alsdorf Hall, a wraparound screen projects videos

of various contemporary native artists, including snip-

pets of Nathan and Stephen Jackson carving their

totem pole in Saxman, Alaska. Wall text in this room

affirms that ‘‘the Field Museum honors and studies the

dynamic nature of the earth’s cultures, both past and

present. We are dedicated to adding contemporary

cultural objects to our collections.’’

Besides asserting a contemporary presence in the

Field Museum, the Jackson pole brings native proto-

cols to bear on the gallery space, working in tandem

with other displays in the Alsdorf Hall to assert

a Tlingit worldview. Robbins credited the pole’s

commission to Cape Fox’s gift of the cedar log: it was

because this Tlingit clan asserted their traditional

protocols of reciprocation that the museum orga-

nized itself to commission a contemporary totem

pole.21 As a symbol of Tlingit protocols, then, the

Jackson pole works in tandem with other interven-

tions in the hall’s representation of Tlingit culture.

Just around the corner from the Jackson pole, for

example, a glass case labeled ‘‘Spiritual World’’ is

covered from view with two signs. One wall text from

the Field Museum explains that the exhibit has been

closed to honor the wishes of Tlingit and Haida

peoples, for whom it is taboo for lay people to view

shamanic objects. The other sign is a copy of a 1996

letter from Edward Thomas, then President of Tlingit

and Haida Central Council. Referencing the Coun-

cil’s request that shamanic objects be removed from

public view, Thomas noted, ‘‘Until now we have

never felt that we could have made such a request

since we assumed that our beliefs were only of an in-

tellectual interest or curiosity to the outside public.’’

Now, however, these beliefs are honored in the

museum, a clear sign that NAGPRA has fostered a

productive dialogue between Tlingit peoples and the

Field Museum.

In her book, Decolonizing Methodologies, Linda

Tuhiwai Smith (1999:18) writes that ‘‘indigenous

methodologies tend to approach cultural protocols,

values and behaviors as an integral part of methodol-

ogy. They are ‘factors’ to be built into research

explicitly, to be thought about reflexively, to be declared

openly as part of the research design.’’ The open incor-

poration and discussion of Tlingit protocols in the Field

Museum furthers the ‘‘indigenizing’’ of the museum

space and thus works to decolonize the museum’s col-

lections. Like the covered case of shamanic objects, the

Jackson pole represents the Field Museum’s willingness

to work with and to honor native protocols. It indicates

a new chapter in museum design: the display of native

arts according to native values.

Conclusion

If propatriation works to acknowledge objects returned

from a museum with objects made for that museum,

then it is not surprising that the practice has developed

on the Northwest Coast. Here practices of reciproca-

tion are fundamental to the potlatch economy, so that

propatriationFa kind of ‘‘balancing’’ of wealthFsignals the vitality of Northwest Coast native cultures in

the NAGPRA era. In fact, in each of the examples of

propatriation studied here, it was the Cape Fox Cor-

poration’s gift of a cedar log that catalyzed the

museum’s commission of a replacement pole. The gift

was extraordinary in many ways, not the least because

the poles taken by the Harriman Expedition were

hardly ‘‘gifted’’ by the Saanya Kwaan. Cape Fox

Corporation’s choice to nevertheless honor the muse-

ums’ return of their at.oow with a reciprocative gift

inserted Tlingit protocols into a relationship that had

previously ignored them: the gift effectively positioned

the museums in a new, Tlingit-defined relationship of

reciprocity with the tribe. The museums affirmed this

new relationship with a commission for Tlingit art and

an invitation, in many cases, for Tlingit peoples to

dedicate the poles in their museums. Purchased legally


133

by the museums, and recognized by the Saanya Kwaan

at the various dedication ceremonies, the Jackson

totem poles could rightfully become the individual

museum’s at.oow.

Propatriation is a powerful practice to develop in

the NAGPRA era precisely because it affirms that

relationships between native peoples and museums can

be built on native protocols. The practice acknowledges

the work of repatriation at the same time that it creates

a space for native histories, customs, and artwork in the

museum; it also works to decolonize museum collec-

tions, returning confiscated objects to their rightful

tribal owners and replacing these objects with artworks

native peoples intend for the museum. Of course,

propatriation should not be seen as a cure-all: Stephen

Jackson cautions that propatriation does not undo the

damage caused by colonial missions like the Harriman

Expedition, and insists that the propatriated poles

cannotFand purposefully do notFequalize the repa-

triated poles. But he believes that propatriation does

take a step toward a more positive, productive rela-

tionship between museums and native peoples.22 And

propatriation provides an objectFand a spaceFwith

which to reflect on the experience, extending the con-

versation between museums and tribes to the public.

Propatriation should have a promising future. Of

the five museums that returned Saanya Kwaan at.oow

in 2001, only oneFat Cornell UniversityFhas not

commissioned a replacement totem pole for its col-

lection, although efforts have been made to secure

funding for such a pole.23 All of the curators inter-

viewed for this article emphasized their profound

experience in working on the exchange with the Saa-

nya Kwaan; likewise, the repatriation of Saanya Kwaan

at.oow is celebrated among Alaska Natives.24 As Rob-

bins reflected, ‘‘Repatriation needs to be more than the

physical return of certain items. Commissioning art

and developing other kinds of relationships are really

important. Progress has been made, but we have a long

way to go.’’25 Propatriation offers one small but im-

portant means of advancing the goals of NAGPRA,

fostering collaborative relationships between museums

and native peoples and indigenizing the museum

space to actively represent native worldviews.

Acknowledgments

For their patience and help with her numerous questions,

the author thanks Nathan Jackson, Stephen Jackson, Irene

Dundas, and the curators at the Peabody Museum, NMAI,

Burke Museum, Field Museum, and Cornell’s Herbet

F. Johnson Museum.

notes

1. As with many indigenous cultures, Tlingits do not regard

their at.oow as inanimate objects; they are, as Rosita

Worl writes, ‘‘sacred and tangible links to their ancestors

and clan histories’’ (Worl 2005:32). The repatriation of

the Teikweidi totem pole thus reunited the Teikweidi peo-

ples with the ancestors represented in the pole, as well

as those ancestors who had commissioned, carved, and

witnessed the totem pole at its raising.

2. In Tlingit ideology, the home village is inalienable from

those born there; thus, it cannot be ‘‘deserted’’ (Thorn-

ton 2008:46).

3. Of course, for the Tlingit and other matrilineal groups on

the Northwest Coast, propatriation should read ‘‘prom-

atriation,’’ but for the resonance with repatriation, it

seems best to keep the root word intact.

4. Although museums have commissioned replicated and

original totem poles from artists in the past, the commis-

sioning of totem poles to replace repatriated poles is

relatively new. In the 1950s, the University of British Co-

lumbia’s Museum of Anthropology and the Royal British

Columbia Museum commissioned Kwakwaka’wakw artist

Mungo Martin to replicate decaying totem poles in the

museums collections; Martin later produced original

poles for these museums as well (Jacknis 2002:161–173).

However, these commissions did not stem from repatria-

tion but from the need to replace decaying poles in the

museum’s collections. There is a case of ‘‘propatriation’’

in Canada, although it did not, of course, follow the repa-

triation laws in the United States: in 2000, Haisla artists

Barry Wilson, Derek Wilson, and Henry Robertson carved

a totem pole for Sweden’s Museum of Ethnography in an-

ticipation of that museum’s return of an original Haisla

pole; they also carved a copy for the Haisla village of

Misk’usa, since the original was too fragile to display out-

side (Rhyne 2009:215). To my knowledge, the Jackson

totem poles are unique in their status as propatriated

native artworks in the United States.

5. Dundas’s research for repatriation claims was itself a

boon for clan identity among the Saanya Kwaan. Because

many of the elders who remembered Cape Fox had

passed away, Dundas was afraid that ‘‘we [the Sanyaa

Kwaan] could not come up with the stories’’ that defini-

tively linked clans with at.oow according to NAGPRA


134

requirements. Dundas dug deep, turning to snippets of

recorded stories or memory; 1900 census statistics for

Tlingit names and clan membership; BIA enrollment,

Presbyterian missionary roles, cemetery plots, and death

certificates; and even tattoos in old photos that helped

link crests to individual families. The outcome of this

labor was extraordinary: the research generated 221 fam-

ily trees with Tlingit names and house membership.

Dundas said the research had resulted in a ‘‘whole life-

style change for clans,’’ recounting one example of a man

who returned to Ketchikan from Washington state in or-

der to help research his uncle’s at.oow. See Dundas

2007.

6. Quote is from wall text at the Peabody Museum.

7. Irene Dundas, personal communication, March 27, 2009.

Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1994:13) trace the impor-

tance of reciprocity in Tlingit life to the division of

moieties that comprise Tlingit social structure: ‘‘The two

moieties, Eagle and Raven, balance each other. Members

of one moiety traditionally selected marriage partners

from the other, and they direct love songs, display of art

pieces, and most formal oratory to each other. In host–

guest relationships at ceremonials, they share in each

other’s joy and they work to remove each other’s grief.

This balancing is reflected in the oral literature itself, in

which song is matched with song, speech is matched

with speech, and display of art piece is matched with

display of art piece.’’

8. Patricia Capone, personal communication March 24,

2009.

9. Fittingly, the dedication followed a semiannual meeting

of the NAGPRA Review Committee, which had convened

to assess the status of the repatriation law. Several

members of the review committee were able to attend

the dedication of Jackson’s totem pole, where the ‘‘bril-

liance of the reciprocal exchange between this tribe and

this museum’’ proved that, in this instance at least,

NAGPRA was working well (McLaughlin 2004:190).

10. Telephone interview, November 20, 2008.

11. Repatriation at the NMAI is directed by the 1989 National

Museum of the American Indian Act, rather than NAGPRA.

12. Bruce Bernstein, personal communication, May 5, 2010.

13. Duane Blue Spruce, personal communication via Pat

Nietfeld, May 19, 2010.

14. My thanks to Dr. Aaron Glass for pointing out that ‘‘shar-

ing culture’’ could be read in this sense.

15. Robin Wright, personal communication, August 11, 2009.

16. Robin Wright, personal communication, August 30, 2007.

17. In his classic book Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analy-

sis of Form, Bill Holm (1965:29) defined the primary

formline of two-dimensional Northwest Coast design as

the black line that creates a ‘‘continuous flowing grid over

the whole decorated area.’’

18. Telephone interview, May 26, 2010.

19. Interview, August 7, 2007.

20. Quote is from wall text at the Field Museum.

21. Helen Robbins, personal communication, May 16, 2010.

22. Stephen Jackson, personal communication, April 8,

2009.

23. Andrew Weislogel, Associate Curator at Cornell’s Herbert F.

Johnson Museum of Art, told me that Cornell had hoped to

commission a replacement pole and bring the artist to

carve in Ithaca as part of an artist-in-residency program

through Cornell’s American Indian Program. For the time

being, however, this project has been shelved due to lack

of funding (personal communication, April 19, 2009).

24. One sign of the notoriety of the Saanya Kwaan case

in Alaska is that both the Alaska Native Heritage Center in

Anchorage and the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Center at

the Anchorage Museum feature the Saanya Kwaan’s

One Hundred Years of Healing Ceremony in their displays.

The repatriation of Saanya Kwaan at.oow was widely

publicized in Alaskan newspapers in 2001 as an example

of repatriation’s power to restore native patrimony to

tribes.

25. Helen Robbins, personal communication, May 16, 2010.

References Cited

Cooper, Karen Coody

2008 Spirited Encounters: American Indians Protect

Museum Policies and Practices. Lanham, MD:

Altamira Press.

Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, and Richard Dauenhauer

1987 Haa Shuka, Our Ancestors: Tlingit Oral Narra-

tives. Seattle: University of Washington Press, in

association with Sealaska Heritage Foundation,

Juneau.

1994 Haa Kusteeyı: Tlingit Life Stories. Seattle: Uni-

versity of Washington Press, in association with

Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau.

Dundas, Irene

2007 Identifying Cultural Affiliations of Saanya

Kwaan and Taant’a Kwaan At.oow. Paper

presented at Sharing Our Knowledge: A

Conference of Tsimshian, Haida and Tlingit

Tribes and Clans, Sitka, Alaska, March 23.


135

Erikson, Patricia Pierce

2005 Voices of a Thousand People: The Makah Cul-

tural and Research Center. Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press.

Goetzmann, William H., and Kay Sloan

1982 Looking North: The Harriman Expedition to

Alaska, 1899. New York: Viking Press.

Holm, Bill

1965 Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analysis of

Form. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Jacknis, Ira

2002 The Storage Box of Tradition: Kwakiutl Art,

Anthropologists and Museums, 1881–1981.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Jonaitis, Aldona

2008 A Generation of Innovators in Southeast Alaska.

American Indian Art Magazine 33(4):56–67.

Litwin, Thomas S., ed.

2005 Harriman Alaska Expedition Retraced: A Cen-

tury of Change 1899–2001. New Brunswick:

Rutgers University Press.

McLaughlin, Robert H.

2004 NAGPRA, Dialogue, and the Politics of Histor-

ical Authority. In Legal Perspectives on Cultural

Resources. Jennifer R. Richman and Marion P.

Forsyth, eds. Pp. 185–201. Walnut Creek, CA:

AltaMira Press.

Rhyne, Charles

2009 The Challenge of International Standards:

Nineteenth Century Native American Totem

Poles as a Case Study. In KulturGUTerhalten.

Uwe Peltz and Olivia Zorn, eds. Pp. 209–218.

Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai

1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and In-

digenous Peoples. New York: Zed Books.

Swanton, John R.

1909 Tlingit Myths and Texts. Bulletin 39, Bureau of

American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Gov-

ernment Printing Office.

Thornton, Timothy F.

2008 Being and Place Among the Tlingit. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, in association

with Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau.

Worl, Rosita

2005 Standing with Spirits, Waiting. In The Harri-

man Alaska Expedition Retraced: A Century of

Change, 1899–2001. Thomas S. Litwin, ed.

Pp. 31–39. New Brunswick: Rutgers University

Press.


136

Documents

PROPATRIATION: Possibilities for Art after NAGPRA