Journal of the Southwest

In Pursuit of the Ceremonial: The Laboratory of Anthropology's "Master Collection" of Zuni Pottery Author(s): Karen Lucic and Bruce Bernstein Source: Journal of the Southwest, Vol. 50, No. 1, In Pursuit of the Ceremonial: The Laboratory of Anthropology's "Master Collection" of Zuni Pottery (Spring, 2008), pp. 1-102 Published by: Journal of the Southwest Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170437 Accessed: 02-04-2015 22:19 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Journal of the Southwest is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Southwest.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions In Pursuit of the Ceremonial: TheLaboratory of Anthropology^ "MasterCollection" ofZuni Pottery

Karen Lucic and Bruce Bernstein

This is the story of a curious episode in the early history of Santa Fe's Laboratory of Anthropology (Lab) and its efforts to acquire a comprehensive collection of Zuni ceremonial pottery.1 The incident well illustrates the pitfalls that can result from ethnological traffic in sacred objects, as well as the multiple meanings that objects receive from their cultures of origin, which may be quite different from those assigned by scholars and museums. Institutional collecting ventures often disrupt and violate the Native communities where the material originated.2 At - the same time, the purchasers of such specimens sometimes blinded by an overwhelming desire to acquire rare items invested with Native American spirituality- are vulnerable to manipulation and deceit. Signs of ceremonialism can be manufactured, and what passes for tradition is often invented (fig. 1). - We compare this heretofore unexamined incident the acquisition of a "mastercollection" of Zuni pottery- to earlierexamples of institutional collecting at Zuni pueblo and contextualize it in terms of relevant issues: the social consequences of the "salvage ethnology paradigm"; contested definitions of what constitutes a ceremonial object in Native American society; and the reasons why Euro-American institutions and individualshave been so irresistiblydrawn to this kind of material.Draw- ing on extensive documentary evidence, we present a detailed narration of the episode- with all its idiosyncrasies, complications, and unsolved mysteries intact. We end by discussing what the pots themselves, and

Karen Lucic is Professor of Art History at VassarCollege, Poughkeepsie, New York. Bruce Bernstein is the Executive Director of the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts, a non-profit that organizes the Santa Fe Indian Market; previously he was the assistant director for research and collections at the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution.

Journal of the Southwest50, 1 (Spring 2008) : 1-102

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 * Journal of the Southwest

Figure 1. Zuni Olla Maidens at Gallup Inter-Tribal Ceremonial, ca. 1943. The Olla Maidens evokea time when water was carried in earthenjars from sourceto home. In this view, three of the pots the women are balancing on their heads were probablymade by the same person (as evidencedby the similarity of design). Two othersuse Acoma pots. (Courtesyof the Palace of the Governors[MNM/DCA], #90735)

various Pueblo consultants, tell us about the collection's history and significance. The buyers of the materialinclude three men intimately involved with the fledgling Laboratory of Anthropology: Jesse Nusbaum, the institution's first director (R. Nusbaum 1980);3 Kenneth Chapman, the Lab's first curator of anthropology and simultaneously curator of the Indian Arts Fund (fig. 2; Dauber 1993; Ellis 1968);* and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (fig. 3), one of the world's wealthiest philanthropists and principal financialbacker of the Lab (Fosdick 1956; Stocking 1981, 1982). Rock- efeller chiefly funded the Lab's acquisition of what Nusbaum termed a "master collection" of Zuni sacred pottery. Others played important roles in assembling these objects. C. G. Wal- lace, a trader at Zuni (Slaney 1992, 1998; Tharp 1974), supplied the Lab with the bulk of this collection (fig. 4). Although he left school after the fifth grade, Wallace was a skillful entrepreneur who more than held his own against his highly educated and socially privileged clients. Zuni tradersCharles Kelsey and W. S. Barnes sold additional items to the Lab. Finally, John Collier, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Collier 1963; Philp 1977; Kelly 1983), intervened in response to protests from Zuni, to try to prevent sacred objects from leaving the

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 2. Kenneth Chapman on the banks of the Rio Grande, waiting for the train near San IldefonsoPueblo, September1929. (Courtesyof the Palace of the Governors [MNM/DCAJ, #28131)

Figure 3. John D. RockefellerJr. in Santa Fe, 1927. Rockefeller visited Santa Fe several times to checkon the progressof the Indian Arts Fund projectand its new home, the Laboratory of Anthropology.He is in Sena Plaza wherethe temporaryoffices were located. (Courtesyof Archivesof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology[MNM/ DC A], #89LA3.078p)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 * Journal of the Southwest

pueblo. In this, he acted as an isolated force againstthe others' prodigious efforts to bring the pots to the Laboratory of Anthropology. In many ways, this story is not unique; in fact, it exemplifies the well- established practices and assumptions of American ethnographers in the collecting of sacred or ceremonial objects, sometimes with the consent of but often through coercion of Native people. Anthropologists and collectors were looking for objects that representedunique culturalforms or racially "pure" styles (cf. Dubin 2004: 17). They valued ceremonial objects highly as the most "authentic" and "traditional," imbued with the deepest meanings and significance.Theirs was sometimes an obsessive personal quest, hidden within the framework of dispassionate scientific inquiry. Despite its typical features, the formation of a "master collection" of Zuni ceremonial pottery at the Laboratory of Anthropology has an unusually complicated history. Each of the individuals described here had different motives and various degrees of involvement, but they all vitally contributed to the character of this peculiar collecting venture. Although we make judgments about the ethical consequences of their efforts, we as authors acknowledge that our own institutional affiliations may problematize the nature of this critique. Perhapsno one completely escapes the ideological blindness imposed by privileged circumstances or by class position; we can only make our best effort to describe the actions of our predecessors. This story may appear at first to be solely about the victimization of indigenous people by the staff of an Anglo institution,5 and indeed that characterizesan important element of the narrative.But ultimately, - a complex interaction of diverse individuals Indian facilitators, wily - traders, and acquisitive social scientists brought about an unexpect- edly complicated situation for both the Anglos and the Native people involved.6 The full extent of these problematic interactions will become clear as we examine this illuminating case study in the history of contact and exchange between diverse groups in the Southwest.

Collecting at Zuni

It is important to see the Lab's activities in the context of earliercollect- ing efforts at Zuni, because that history in part determined the avidity of the staffs quest during the 1920s and 1930s. The historical precedents,

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 4. C. G. Wallace,Indian Trader, ca. 1940, in front of his store in Zuni, New Mexico, with artists and employees.L to R: Helen Corcoran, R. L. Jones, Zani Zuni, C. G. Wallace, Frank Hamilton, Walter Nahktewa, Jack Mackel, and Robert Tsabetsaye.Figure in back,far right, is unidentified. (Courtesyof the Heard Museum, Phoenix, Arizona, #RC150.331)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 v Journal of the southwest

although numerous, are marked by similar features: boldness, stealth, competition, coercion, and excess. The first systematic anthropological collecting at Zuni began under the sponsorship of the Smithsonian Institution's newly formed Bureau of Ethnology. James Stevenson, his wife, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, the photographer John Hillers, and Frank Hamilton Cushing entered the village in 1879, in the first stop on an extensive survey of Pueblo peoples in New Mexico and Arizona (Fowler 2000; Green 1979; Hinsley 1981; M. Stevenson 1904). Stevenson explained to the Zuni that the great "WashingtonFather" wanted to understandthe ways of "his children"by gathering their objects (Parezo 1985: 768). Based on her firstvisit there, Mrs. Stevenson wrote of Zuni, "Among these remnants of great native tribes, the Zunians may claim perhaps the highest position, whether we regard simply their agriculture and pastoral pursuits, or consider their whole social and political organization" (1881: 8). At the same time, she denigrated the current state of their pottery production, setting up a hierarchyof value that favored ancient wares: "In some of their arts the Zunians have actuallyretrograded. Such is the case with the manufacture of pottery. . . . The pottery found in the ruins throughout the Southwest ... is superior to any made now" (15). Nonetheless, JamesStevenson and his partywere eager to collect both ancient and contemporaryobjects on a massivescale. At Zuni, Stevenson set up a makeshift trading post in missionary quartersand paid members of the community for their artifacts (Cushing [1882] 1979: 59). The expedition gathered more pottery than any other type of artifact, and JamesStevenson concluded that the Zuni, along with the Hopi, surpassed all other Pueblo communities in the craft, in both number and variety (J. Stevenson 1883: 328). On that trip and subsequent visits to Zuni in 1881, 1884, and 1885, the Smithsonian team obtained more than five thousand specimens of pottery (Batkin 1987: 163; cf. Parezo 1985) from a community with a population of approximately one thousand people.7 Mrs. Stevenson called it "the largest and most valuable collection, especially of fetishes and sacred vessels, ever secured from any of the pueblos" (1904: 17). The scale of such endeavors resulted in part from Americanethnologists' fear that European collectors would precede them in acquiring the best Native American material in the region.8 At a deeper level, scientists and lay enthusiasts alikewere searching for "evidence of the spiritual unity of humanity" in "the mysterious communal continuity of Indian life." One contemporary, Sylvester Baxter,

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 7 praised anthropological study for "the light which it throws on many secret springs and motives of human nature," a light shared by Native and Euro-Americansocieties alike (quoted in Hinsley and Wilcox 1996: 43). Because Zuni was a theocracy, early ethnographers viewed it as a sacredplace. The presence of kivasfor secret societies, the many altars,the proliferation of shrines, and the enactment of prayersfor mundane and sacred activitiesserved to transformthe entire village into a sort of open- air cathedral for these scholars and collectors (McFeely 2001: 92). This massive effort to obtain Zuni artifacts also stemmed from the assumption shared by the Smithsonian ethnologists and the larger Euro-American community that Native American culture was on the verge of total eclipse. The "salvage ethnology paradigm"- the notion that it was up to science to preserve the remnants of dying aboriginal cultures- motivated their activities (Berlo 1992: 3; Lurie 1966: 53; cf. Clifford 1987; Dominguez 1987). Most anthropologists of this generation understood their task as an imperative to collect and preserve, with little if any attempt at interpretation and synthesis. Furthermore, the Smithsonian team, in its voracious collecting efforts, virtuallyeliminated important models of the craft traditions at Zuni, thereby undermining contemporary pottery making, which was still very much alive in the 1880s (Batkin 1987: 30; Dillingham 1992; Hardin 1983, 1989). Also the increasedavailability of mass-producedvessels at the Pueblo conspired to undercut pottery production in the late nineteenth century. - The Zuni pottery collected during this period in particular the Stevenson collection in the Smithsonian Institution's Anthropology Department - bears witness to this change. The pottery acquired in 1879-1890 shows clear signs of use by Zuni people. Beginning in 1890, however, used ollas or water jars become increasingly scarce, principally replaced by new, unused pots. This suggests that after 1890 Zunis were not as often using handmade ollas for water carrying, but instead were buying commerciallyproduced metal buckets (fig. 5). On the other hand, bowls continued to be made and used by Zuni people at least through 1940, as evidenced by the vessels in the Heye Foundation collection, formed in the early twentieth century and now part of the National Museum of the American Indian (fig. 6). Most likely, the Zuni willingly sold pots with the confidence that they could easily replace them. Pueblo life had successfully adapted to other changes during the previous three hundred years of European occupation; there was nothing to indicate the force of twentieth-century

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 5. Zuni householdgoods, 1879. Even in the nineteenthcentury, a Zuni - family would typically and unselfconsciously- useZuni-made ceramicsalongside manufactured metal containersand china ware. (Photographby John Hillers. Courtesyof National AnthropologyArchives, Smithsonian Institution, §2268)

challenges to traditional ways of life. In adapting and adopting outside influences, Pueblo people had always effectively enriched and enlivened their own cultures. But beginning in the late nineteenth century, both the Americangovernment and Christianmissionaries applied unrelenting pressure on Native people to assimilate, sometimes using underhanded methods. Poverty and the significantdrops in population from introduced

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 9

Figure 6. Potspurchased by the Hendricks-Hodgeexpedition. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation collection,ca. 1920. TheZuni pottery in the photographis very typical of what was made at the pueblo in the 1920s. Although anthropologistssuggested they avoided purchasing anything madefor tourists or the curio trade, like thesepieces purchased by Hodge, theyoften ended up in museum collections.(Courtesy of National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, #N07810)

diseases dramaticallyaccelerated the rate of societal change at Zuni. In addition, the concurrent arrivalof the railroad to New Mexico ushered in hordes of tourists, and the widespread availabilityof mass-produced wares- along with the recent removal of so many models- all conspired to precipitate an extremely rapid decline in pottery production. Only two decades after her first visit, Matilda Coxe Stevenson complained, "The modern pottery collected by Mr. Stevenson in previous years for the National Museum can well be regarded as belonging to the past" (1904: 381). Yet despite these numerous challenges, Zuni pots are still made today- albeit on a reduced scale- for use within the community as well as for sale to outsiders. A century after these events, these early collecting efforts suggest a twofold irony. On the one hand, the ethnologists' actions in response

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 * Journal of the Southwest to perceived decline helped to diminish the future production of the type of specimens and social contexts they so eagerly sought to acquire and study;9on the other hand, the presumed disappearanceof Zuni and other Pueblo cultures never came to pass. From this context, the eccentric Frank Hamilton Cushing stands out in certain respects (Ladd 1994). Cushing, unlike his contemporaries, sought synthesisand context in place of mere descriptions(fig. 7). Instead of leaving with the Smithsonian expedition, he remained at Zuni from 1879 to 1884, immersing himself in the society to such an extent that he dressed in Zuni costume, served on the tribal council, and was initiated into the Bow Priesthood. The Bow Priests carriedout the decisions of the higher officials and acted as religious police in protecting both sacred and secular leaders (Pandey 1972: 323). At first an invasive and unwanted participant in Zuni life, Cushing eventually became a necessary and helpful advocate for the community during a legal battle over Zuni territory. Cushing's involvement in this incident probably caused the Smithsonian to remove him from the pueblo (Green 1979: 11-12; Hinsley 1981: 192-200; Ladd 1994; Pandey 1972). Yet despite his unconventional status as political advocate for indigenous people, Cushing to a large extent sharedhis colleagues' assumptions and methods of collecting for the Smithsonian. He entered into trading arrangementswith the Zuni that lacked reciprocityby today's standards.10 In 1881, Cushing made clandestine trips to Zuni shrines, taking away groups of ceremonial objects (Merrill, Ladd, and Ferguson 1993; Parezo 1985: 768-71 ).n After gaining the trust of the Zuni, Cushing succeeded in obtaining "the paraphernaliaof their sacred dances." In fact, Cushing immodestly represented himself as a better "Zuni" than the Zuni them- - selves, capable of creating- not replicating Zuni art forms (Bernstein 1989: 10; Fletcher 1900: 367-70; cf. Hinsley 1981: 104-5). On the other hand, Cushing, like his contemporaries, needed the Zuni people in order to bolster his identity. He believed in the "psychic unity" of people and that human culture developed through a singular sequence. His dress and manner may thus be understood as his belief in the ability of man to recover his ancestral past. His writings in popular journals, and those of his de facto publicist, Sylvester Baxter, did much to romanticize the Zuni among Euro-Americans (Hinsley and Wilcox 1996). Cushing described them as archaic survivals;in Zuni, he felt he had discovered the roots of New World civilization (Fane 1992: 67; McFeely 2001: 75-110).

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 11

As Hinsley has observed about the romanticization of Native cultures during this era, "All of these patterns reflected a shared assumption that secret knowledge indeed existed, that it was critical to explaining the observed behavior of the Indians, and that it had great potential value for the dominant culture. Its most salient characteristic- and its greatest value- was the presumed lack of change through generations, for in its pristine insight and instruction lay its profound power to regulate society and the source of its sacrednessfor the Indians- the source, that is, of their spiritualstrength" (Hinsley 1996: 29). Such spirituallongings swelled in the late nineteenth century, when secularization, materialism, and industrial"progress" threatened to rob Anglo culture of its spiritual underpinnings. Therefore, indigenous sources of sacred sentiments were irresistiblyalluring to Cushing and his contemporaries. Although united in shared assumptionsand inclinations, earlyethnog- rapherswere also intensely competitive. Cushing consistently disassoci- ated himself from other members of Stevenson's expedition. He wrote in 1881, "Of the collections 'made by Col. Stevenson' few specimens were such as possessed great intrinsic value among the Indians. Such alone were left for me to collect, with but a fraction of the means and facilities" (quoted in Parezo 1985: 767). Cushing, in fact, felt that the Stevensons were unwelcome rivals. Thus began the turbulent history of anthropologists at Zuni competing with one another for the most esoteric knowledge and artifacts (Pandey 1972: 324). Always Cushing's most vociferous detractor, Matilda Coxe Stevenson returned to Zuni to undertakeextensive fieldwork,which culminated in a massivepublication, TheZuni Indians: TheirMythology, Esoteric Fraterni- ties,and Ceremonies^issued by the Smithsonianin 1904. Her engagement with the community was profoundly different from Cushing's (Hinsley 1981: 192-93). At times extremely aggressive and domineering, she either bought or sometimes bullied people out of information, reportedly "marching in on kiva ceremonies without an invitation and threatening the Indians with the militia if they interfered with her" (Green 1979: 6, n. 4; cf. Lurie 1966: 55-61). She believed her special mission was to acquire objects with sacred associations, especially masks. In her 1904 report, she claimed, "In 1879 no amount of money could have purchased a genuine Zuni mask It was not until 1896 that the writer [Steven- son] was able to collect any of the masks of these people. Through her long acquaintancewith the priests and their attachment to her she then succeeded in securing nine choice specimens" (1904: 381). In gaining

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions /';-=09 )(8* =-0/']

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 7. Cushing participating in a ceremonyof the Bow Priesthood,the Zuni society into which he was initiated, 1888. Gushing is secondfrom the left, in his invented "Zuni* costumeof leggings, shirt, high moccasins,bandolier bag and silverjewelry. MostZuni men of the time would have worn cottonpants, a loose-fittingshirt of handspun wool ... or manufactured cloth, and moccasins. (Photographby I. W. Taber.Courtesy of the National AnthropologicalArchive^, Smithsonian Institution, #78-12294)

'• ' ',. '..i-'*'''?:e

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 v Journal of the southwest the cooperation of priests for her ethnological activities, Stevenson by her own admission created divisions among the Zuni people. "While the priests and other high officials favored photographing the ceremonials . . . the populace were so opposed to having their masks and rituals 'carried away on paper,' that it was deemed prudent to make but a few ceremonial pictures with the camera, and the altars and masks were sketched in color by the writer without the knowledge of the people" (17). Most likely,Stevenson's payments to select individualshelped forge this division in the community, which as a whole was receiving no benefit from her activities. In the face of widespread animosity, she resorted to surreptitious gathering of information (Lurie 1966: 59; cf. Bernstein 1989), which increased polarization in the pueblo. Stevenson and other collectors at Zuni often describe informants' emotional pain and anxiety resulting from compliance with ethnologists' demands. For example, through adamant persuasion, Stevenson gained access to fetishes normally sealed in an inaccessible room (cf. McFeely 2001: 72-73). She reports (1904: 164-65), "The family was in great distress, the young wife being prostrated with fear, for she knew that if her husband and mother were detected in this breach of trust their lives would be in great danger. When the writer expressed her thanks, the wife, after her condition had improved, said, 'We are all very much afraid and very unhappy, but we were glad to serve you.'" Such tales (no doubt inspired by actual interactions) became a convention in the anthropological literature, serving as testimonies to the ethnologists' great power in the community and to vouchsafe the authenticity and preciousness of the artifacts or information obtained. The fascinationwith Zuni ceremonialismcontinued into the twentieth century with the works of FrederickWebb Hodge, Elsie Clews Parson, Ruth Benedict, A. L. Kroeber, Ruth Bunzel, and Stewart Culin. Culin, in particular, saw himself as continuing Cushing's unfinished work of documenting Zuni life (Fane 1992: 69; see also Fane et al. 1991; McFeely 2001: 111-48), and like his predecessor, he feared Matilda Coxe Ste- venson's competition for acquisitions in the field. Furthermore, Culin was perhaps the most obsessive and inventive of the early collectors in his quest to obtain ceremonial objects. As curator of ethnology for the Brooklyn Museum, Culin periodically visited Zuni from 1903 to 1907. He began collecting from door to door, only interested in "old things," for which he sometimes paid as little as five cents. But even this questionable avenue did not yield the articles he

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 15 most wanted: masks and dolls. For these, he turned to missionary and trader Andrew Vanderwagen, who ran an "underground sales outlet" for ceremonial objects at Zuni. Vanderwagen no doubt undertook this extremely lucrativeventure because both tradersand the Zuni knew that museums paid top prices for sacred artifacts. He commissioned Zuni artisans to reproduce twenty-three masks and seventy-five dolls based on old models to sell to Culin, who, in turn, consistently represented these pieces as authentic (Fane 1992: 71-77). At the time, many anthropologists and curators considered such replicas legitimate because they judged them more historically accurate than the artifacts Pueblo communities were commonly making at the time. These professionals felt that the "purer"replicas served as a "cultural catalogue," helping to salvage memories of the past rather than to document current practices. Most anthropologists abhorred hybrid objects whose makers employed mass-produced materials obtained through trade with Anglos. As Parsons wrote in 1939, "Pueblo arts are ritual arts, their motivation is religious. If this motivation lapses, the arts will lapse; for the only substitute motivation in sight is commercial gain. In commercial art the buyer controls, which means, when the artist belongs to another culture, a very rapid disintegration of traditional art forms (1939: 1142). Culin welcomed the chance to buy Vanderwagen's replicas, and later he even began to commission made-to-order masks and dolls directly from the makers. Culin did this knowing full well that the Zuni trader's cache of manufacturedcontraband objects had been discovered, and that it had enraged some members of the community (Fane 1992). Anthropologist Triloki Pandey has compiled many such cases of Zuni resentment toward anthropologists for intrusions into their ceremonial life, and the community often split over the presence of outsiders at the pueblo. During this time at Zuni (as well as at many other New Mexico pueblos), factionalism afflicted community life. Divisions often erupted between those who were friendly to Anglo interventions and those who resisted such efforts. Anglos referred to these factions as "progressives" and "conservatives," respectively; progressives welcomed change from the outside world, whereas conservativesresisted any outside influences. Animosity often deepened during times when government officials or anthropologists intervened in Pueblo life. The traditional Zuni theocracy especially found itself at odds with "American-inducedconditions" (Parsons 1939: 1131).

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 8. Excavations at Hawikku, ca. 1921. Hawikku is adjacent to the farming village ofOjo Caliente, some twelve miles west of present-dayZuni. Hodge made somepreliminary surveysin 1915, but systematicarchaeology began in 1917 and ended in 1922. The mission church,friary, and 370 roomswere completelyexcavated using modern methodsof stratigraphy. (Courtesyof National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, XN06785)

A particularlydivisive event occurredin the early1920s. Therewas disagreementas to whethera Catholicmission church should be read- mitted to the pueblo (Pandey 1977: 202). The mission church was admitted and reestablishedin 1922; this crystallizedfactional align- ments and subsequently,on almost every political or religious issue, opposition between the Catholic and Protestant(as the conservative and progressivefactions were known;neither was particularlyCatholic or Protestant)factions hardened (203 ).12These sideswere neitherhard nor fast,however, but might be influencedby familyand clanmembers as well as accessto cashemployment or governmentprograms and support (cf. Pandey1967, 1994). A dramaticincident of factionalconflict occurred during Frederick Hodge's stay in the village. RegardingHodge, Pandey (1972: 331) suggests that "no anthropologisthas been involved more directlyin Zuni politics."Hodge had accompaniedCushing to Zuni in 1886 as

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 17

Figure 9. Excavations at Hawikku, ca. 1921. By all reports,the Zuni who worked at the Hawikku site regarded Hodge with some affection. Hodge wrote (quoted in C( Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury1966: 3): I employedonly Zuni workmen,all of whomproved to be verystaunch friends, who, I believe,would havegranted any favor. Indeed, one of them, a medicine man, interpretedfor me the significance of many 'finds'which could not have been learned otherwise."(Courtesy of National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, #N07472)

a member of the Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition (Pandey 1972; cf. Hinsley and Wilcox 1996), returning in 1899 under the auspices of the American Museum of Natural History. From 1917 to 1923, he supervised excavationsfor George Heye and his Museum of the American Indian (fig. 8), which has come to be known as the Hendricks- Hodge expedition. The excavations occurred at the ancient Zuni village of Hawikku, occupied for centuries prior to the Spanish arrivalin 1540 and abandoned after the Pueblo Revolt in 1680. Formally titled the Hendricks-Hodge Expedition to honor the principaldonor and Hodge, the archaeological investigations involved at least thirty-nine workmen from Zuni (fig. 9); interestingly,among the Anglo fieldworkerswas Jesse Nusbaum. Hodge uncovered burial sites, excavated village buildings and a mission church, and obtained at least 1,600 ceramic vessels- including a large group of beautiful Matsaki and Hawikku polychrome pots (fig. 10; Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury 1966: figs. 51-79, plates

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 10. This Matsaki bowl, ca. 1400-1500, excavated at Hawikku, is now in the collection of the National Museum of the American Indian. Seefigure 33 for a pen-and-ink drawing of the design. Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury(1966) illustrate this bowl as figure 51k. (Courtesy of National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, #087046)

23-27). These excavations no doubt brought a great deal of cash into the pueblo; account records indicate thousands of dollars in payment.13 The Protestant faction, who supported Hodge, received most of these benefits; no members of the Catholic faction worked on the excavations or participated in the filming and collecting of objects. Hodge's actions unduly influenced political decisions at the pueblo. As Li An-Che (1939: 69) reports, "When Dr. Hodge was excavating the ruins near Zuni, a Protestant Zuni got information from him that a sacred object valued by the people was but a small figure of St. Francis, inherited from the early Franciscanpadres, and he used this information to discredit his Catholic opponents to his own advantage. Previous to this the priests of Zuni valued the object as indigenous, and with this discovery strife of immense magnitude took place between the Catholic and the Protestantelements. Backed by the victorious party,the particular Protestant assumed governorship of the reservation." Exacerbatedby the presence of outsiders and the steady stream of cash and goods to some, but not all, members of the community, factionalism erupted during Hodge's stay. Zuni secular officers sympathetic to his project apparentlygave permission to film the Shalako ceremonies in 1923. But during the filming, a large number of Zunis revolted violently, smashing the cameras and expelling Hodge and his colleagues from the village (Pandey 1972: 331-32).

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 19

Although resentment toward outsiders remained high after this incident, anthropologist Ruth Bunzel shortly thereafter came to live and work at Zuni, gathering information for her classic text, ThePueblo Potter ( 1929). A graduate student at Columbia University and protegee of Franz Boas, Bunzel spent extended periods of time at the pueblo during the 1920s, renting a house from the family of the noted potter Catalina Zunie (Hardin 1993: 261-62). In 1932, the Smithsonian published her extensive report on Zuni religious life, which gives evidence that controversies surrounding the sale of ceremonial material still existed at the pueblo. "During one of the writer's visits katcinas were summoned to administer punishment to a youth found guilty of selling a mask. The accused escaped so the katcinas whipped all men in the kiva for purification." Formerly, the punishment had been death (Bunzel 1932: 479). This knowledge, however, did not prevent Bunzel from buying religious objects from informants, nor from obtaining information about sacred matters that many Zuni felt inappropriate to share with outsiders (1932: 491, 494). But a novel if understated attitude of empathy, ambivalence, and self-awareness about the human consequences of her study distinguished Bunzel from most of her predecessors, who seemed to feel that the demands of science justified causing severe disruptions in the community. She wrote, "And since there is an ill-defined feeling that in teaching prayers, 'giving them away,' as the Zunis say, the teacher loses some of the power over them, men are 'stingy' with their religion" (494). In a footnote, Bunzel adds, "This was made painfully evident to the writer in the death of one of her best informants who, among other things, told her many prayers in the text. During his last illness he related a dream which he believed portended death and remarked, cYes,now I must die. I have given you all my religion and I have no way to protect myself.' He died two days later. . . . Another friend of the writer, a rain priest, who had always withheld esoteric information, remarked, 'Now your friend is dead. He gave away his religion as if it were of no value, and now he is dead.' He was voicing public opinion" (494, n. 20). As we have seen, Zuni had been a site of intense anthropological interest since 1879, and often the salvage paradigm stimulated the ethnologists' attempts to control or "own" the object of their study. By assigning a static finality to the Zuni people, anthropologists felt that - only they could preserve this "vanishing" culture this embodiment of the "childhood" of humankind- through publications and museum

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 * Journal of the Southwest

collections of artifacts. The salvage paradigm, as Virginia Dominguez observes, embodies "a historical consciousness ... of a special sort." We hear an urgency in the voices of the collectors, a fearthat we will no longer be able to get our hands on these objects, and that this would amount to an irretrievableloss of the means of preservingour own historicity.There is a twofold displacement here. Objects are collected no longer because of their intrinsicvalue but as metonyms for the people who produced them. And the people who produced them are the objects of examination not because of their intrinsic value but because of their perceivedcontribution to our understanding of our own historical trajectory.(Dominguez 1986: 548)

We might question whether the privilegedhave ever collected the artifacts of the less powerful "because of their intrinsic value." But Dominguez's dynamic of displacement is certainly relevant in the context of our study; such a mechanism no doubt masked the social consequences of ethnologists' collecting activities.

Trade at Zuni

In the 1920s and 1930s, about 1,900 people lived at Zuni Pueblo (Bunzel 1932: 473), which lay far from main highways, railwaylines and major population centers.14This remoteness enhanced the role of traderssuch as C. G. Wallace in fostering production of commercially viable objects and facilitating the movement of Zuni crafts into Anglo hands. Traders provided vital access to goods that Zuni people desired; in turn, Zunis traded hides and wool, pinon nuts, farm products, and arts and crafts. Wallace arrived at the pueblo about 1919, working first in the Ilfeld brothers' store under manager and vice-president Charles Kelsey (Slaney 1998: 11). The Ilfeld Indian TradingCompany had surpassedthe Vander- wagen trading operation as the most successful general merchandise store in Zuni. Wallacebegan as a clerk under Kelsey,applied for a trading license under his own name in 1920, and established a store in 1927 by posting a bond often thousand dollars to obtain a government license. His brother Robert soon joined him in the business. Despite competition from other merchants and the economic turmoil of the Depression, Wal- lace prospered during the 1930s through his single-minded commitment to his business (Slaney 1992: 21-28, 1998: 11; Tharp 1974).

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 21

Wallaceis best known today for his involvementin Zuni jewelrymaking (Slaney 1998). He commissioned work in this medium in order to provide the cash-poor and isolated Zuni people with money; this, of course, enhanced Wallace'sbusiness when the craftworkers bought merchandise from his store. He also employed numerous Zuni individualsas swampers (janitorialworkers) and jewelry makersin his trading establishment. Like the anthropologists, Wallace found the ceremonial aspects of Zuni life irresistibleand sought to capitalize on the Anglo interest in Native religions. From the first, he strove to forge alliances with Zuni priests and representativesof different clans. As if to follow in Cushing's footsteps, Wallace claimed membership in the Bow Priesthood,15 and for a time, he encouraged his employees to make jewelry that displayed the Knife- Wing design, the emblem of this society; the design also appearedon his business cards and stationery (Slaney 1992: 84; 1998: 48). Ethnologist Edmund Ladd, himself a Zuni, also identifies Wallace with promoting the carving of fetishes- especiallyfrogs - for commercial purposes rather than for personal and religious use. He also encouraged the invention of the fetish necklace (Slaney 1998: 26-27) and the painting of Zuni katsina figures for sale to tourists and collectors. Wallace's still-living contemporaries at Zuni tend to remember him as a friend, but the sons and daughters of those he employed most often view him as exploitative of their parents (Slaney pers. comm. 1993). The documents establish that many at Zuni resented him during the period we are studying. Zuni people nicknamed Wallace "Mujuqi," or owl, because of his nocturnal presence in the village (Ladd pers. comm.). In 1933, the writer Elizabeth Sergeant reported to her friend John Collier, then commissioner of Indian affairs, that the trader was - widely distrusted for- among other things going about at night "trying to get entrance to kivas and houses where ceremonial objects are kept."16 The current Zuni governor told her that "Wallace is a trader we do not like. He goes about the village at night. Kelsey has never been seen doing this ... we can prove it on Wallace."17The governor continued, "It is all right to sell rabbits' feet and pots from ruins. But not pots from kivas and altars. Years back our old people sold masks because they were not interested in these matters, but now it is regarded as wrong."18 A former governor remembered that once when he had a pot associated with a mask in his home, Wallace came three times in one day demanding that he sell it. Another Zuni told Sergeant that Wallace was "mistrusted by all."19

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 * Journal of the Southwest

Despite Wallace's and other traders' efforts to stimulate Zuni crafts, contemporary observers bemoaned the current state of pottery making. For example, Bunzel (1929: 62-68) claimed that only a few potters were working in the village during the 1920s, and she compared their output unfavorably to that produced at Acoma, San Ildefonso, and Hopl.20 Margaretand Moris Burge, field representativesfor the National Association on Indian Affairs,voiced a comparablydismal view in 1934. They reported that no pottery was being produced, "with the exception of an occasional piece made to order," and that "Zuni pottery even if it were made could not compete with Santo Domingo and Hopi pottery commercially."Although they noted that there "are still some women who can make fine pottery," they concluded "that Zuni pottery-making will die out entirely in a few years ..." because "... the whole trend of material progress in Zuni ... is diametricallyopposed to any craft as labourious and producing an article of so little practical use as that of pottery-making."21 In fact, Wallace recalled in 1985 that he had actively discouraged the making of pottery for trade because it often broke during shipping. As noted above, this no doubt further inhibited the already diminished context of ceramic production at Zuni (see also Batkin 1987: 165). In contrast, jewelry was more easily transportableand in constant demand, and this became the community's most saleable craft medium.22 The situation at Zuni contrasted with the successfulpottery revivalsin the more accessibleRio Grandepueblos. Indianwelfare advocates in Santa Fe, including Chapman, became intimately involved in contemporary pottery production and promotion, mainly through the annual Indian Fair, which began in 1922 (Bernstein 1993a, 1993b). Like Culin, these figures imposed their own notions of what constituted "authenticity" in Native American crafts, and on occasion handed out "reprimands instead of prizes" during the judging (Chapman to Faith Meem, quoted in Bernstein 1993b: 187). But the Santa Fe group successfully created a niche for Pueblo ceramic "art" at the high end of the market. Although the pueblo did not enjoy this level of patronage, it is clear that Zuni pottery remained desirable to some collectors; the village's isolation made it relatively more remote than San Ildefonso; however, Acoma, Hopi, and Zia were also isolated. For tourists who wanted to see an "unspoiled"and "authentic"village, at least some of Zuni's attractive- ness was its isolation. Zuni potters catered to this tourist market with smallish pieces such as ceramic animals, ashtrays, and bowls.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 23

Nevertheless, Zuni potters had, without a doubt, a much lower profile than their Rio Grande counterparts. Although the Gallup Ceremoni- al- also established in 1922 - provided a convenient sales outlet for Zuni wares to Anglo collectors, the village's potters had no champions comparable to those in Santa Fe,23 or for that matter, no trader like Thomas Keam, who had actively promoted the Sikyatki revival wares of the Hopi-Tewa potter Nampeyo beginning in the late nineteenth century. To ethnologists like Bunzel and fieldworkers like the Burges, this craft tradition was virtually dead at Zuni and was probably beyond resurrection. They assumed that Native pottery was alive only when its uses were exclusively aboriginal. Collectors and anthropologists already valued historic pots more than contemporary ones, and the apparent demise of Zuni pottery making only increased the prestige and price of older examples.

Rockefeller as Patron

Against this vivid backdrop of Anglo interventions at Zuni, our main story unfolds: the accumulation of a "master collection" of ceremonial pottery by the Laboratoryof Anthropology.This collecting episode recalls the paradigms and methods of the Lab's ethnological predecessors, but through a close examination of correspondence and other records, we glimpse the distinct characterof this incident and the individualsinvolved in it. Perhaps most striking is Rockefeller's key role; literally,the collection could not have existed without his generous benefactions. In many ways, Rockefeller's patronage of the Indian Arts Fund (IAF) and the Laboratory of Anthropology profoundly influenced the history of those institutions (Stocking 1981, 1982, 1985; cf. Fowler 2000: 366-71), as well as more generally affecting the commercial market for pottery in New Mexico. The IAF, founded in 1925, succeeded an organization called the Pueblo Pottery Fund, established three years earlierin order to preserve historic Pueblo pots and encourage a revival of Native ceramics. With its change in name, the IAF broadened its collecting activities to include other media and Southwest groups (Amon CarterMuseum 1966; Dauber 1990, 1993; Johnson 1925). Rockefeller and his wife, Abby, learned of the IAF collection, probably through Nusbaum, who as superintendent of Mesa Verde, had been Rockefeller's host during a visit to the cliff dwellings in 1924 (Fosdick 1956: 307;

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 24 * Journal of the Southwest

Toulouse 1981a: 4). The Rockefellers subsequently traveled to Santa Fe in 1926, and Mrs. Rockefeller asked Chapman- then assistant director of the Museum of New Mexico- to show them the IAF collection. At the time, the outstanding group of more than five hundred pots was housed in the basement of the Fine Arts Museum; the philanthropist and his wife, enthused over the quality of the objects, recognized their need for adequate display.24 Beginning in 1927, Rockefeller gave Chapman funds for accelerated collecting on behalf of the IAF, amounting to fifteen thousand dollars over a three-year period (Dauber 1990: 587). Rockefeller considered Pueblo pottery paramount in the IAF collection, and Chapman had to coax the patron into funding the purchase of other materials, such as Navajo silver and blankets.25Rockefeller's money financed Chapman's buying trips to the pueblos, in particularto Zuni and Acoma, but most of it went to purchase pots from local dealers.26 Also in 1927, the Laboratory of Anthropology was established with Rockefeller's support, in large part to house, study, and exhibit the IAF collection (Toulouse 1981a, 1981b).2? Along with $200,000 for the building and $135,000 in outright and matching grants for the first five years (Stocking 1982: 9), Rockefeller provided extra funds for special projects and concerns- from restorativevacations for the ailing Chapman to the acquisition of ceremonial pots. Rockefeller's previous support to the IAF now came through the Lab, and the older organization was thus enfolded in, but never completely integrated with, the new institution, whose building officially opened in 193 1.28 Continuities in staffing prevailed, however, especially in the case of the pottery specialistsChapman and Harry P. Mera, who were original IAF trustees as well as the Lab's first two curators (fig. II).29

Collecting Begins

Under the auspicesof these conjoined institutions, and with Rockefeller's financial support, the collection of Zuni ceremonial pots began to take shape. The first reference to it appearsin IAF records for February and May of 1928. C. G. Wallacesold Chapman the two examples.30A larger group came through Wallacein 1929: "29 Zuni ceremonial jars, 1 large Zuni Shalako bowl, 5 double ceremonial jars." Chapman purchased related specimens from the Ilfeld Indian Trading Company and "at the

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 25

Figure 11. Kenneth Chapman (standing), ca. 1938, supervising the painting of pottery designs. Chapman sought to provide Pueblo makerswith modelsof good pottery decorations.On the walls are severalfinished paintings, including Zuni designs. (Photographby T. Harmon Parkhurst. Courtesyof Palace of the Governors[MNM/DCAJ, #73955)

Pueblo" in 1929 and 1930.31 By 1930, the collection numbered more than fifty items. In a 1929-30 report to Rockefeller and other select friends of the IAF and Lab, Chapman outlined the status and provenance of the Zuni ceremonial pottery collection to date. Uniquely illuminating, it is worth quoting at length: The collection was secured through the cooperation of a licensed trader[Wallace] at Zuni, who, during his ten yearsthere had learned of two secret cults who had in their possession specimens of antique pottery of special form and decoration, which they still used in their secret rites in underground ceremonial rooms.32 Three specimens of this pottery are known to have been stolen from these rooms within the past forty years. . . . The trader by patient and cautious inquiry learned of the membership of the two societies and advised them to get together and

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 26 v Journal of the Southwest

sell the material and share in the proceeds, rather than to run the risk of further thefts by outsiders or by dishonest members of their own groups. This they finally agreed to do as soon as they could substitute and dedicate other pottery in place of the old, as they must assurethemselves that the potency of their ceremonies would not be impaired by the change. When the members were fully satisfied with the arrangement, they began delivering the material secretly, a few pieces at a time. The ownership of this ceremonial pottery undoubtedly rests with the membership of the cults, but since their rites are performed for the welfare of the entire pueblo, the members have insisted that the transaction be kept from their people who might feel that their interests were being neglected. Before he had received the entire lot, the traderlearned of other societies using antique pottery which they agreed to dispose of in the same way. A competitor [Kelsey] learned of this and succeeded in buying part of it. So far we have bought from the two traders over fifty specimens, at prices ranging from $35.00 to $75.00 each. They find it difficult to store the material secretly, as they employ Indians in their ware-rooms, and on this account we hold fifteen specimens for which we have agreed to pay $70.00 each, as funds are available. Neither we nor the traders had realized the extent of this ceremonial materialat Zuni, and by the close of 1929 we beleived [sic] that we had nearly all of it. But the two traders have since taken in a total of 41 pieces, 35 of which are important and should be in museum collections. Trader no. 1, who delivered the last lot of 15 at $70.00 each, has not set a price on his new lot of 20 pieces but says that he got them at a cost that will make it possible to sell them at a lower figure. Trader no. 2 ... has his pieces priced from $50.00 to $250.00 each but would doubtless make a more reasonable price for his more desirable lot of 16. The pottery is quite unlike anything now in use at Zuni. It was made in sets of six or more, each set having a unity of form and design. . . . The quality of the pottery is far superior to that made today. . . . The importance of preserving as much as possible of this particular collection for the Indians themselves cannot be overstated, and the new Laboratoryof Anthropology is clearlythe most

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 27

convenient place to store and exhibit it. No other institution has such a purpose nor the facilities to make it availableat all times for those of the Zuni and other pueblos who may wish to study it.33

Chapman acquired these objects using a $5,000 fund established by Rockefeller in 1929. Enclosing his report in a letter, Chapman asked his patron for an additional $3,350 to buy fifty more specimens from Wallace and Kelsey.34 Chapman's account reveals much about the collection's unsurpassed importance to the IAF/Lab and also about the values of those acquiring it. The prices paid are especially telling. At the time, a quality piece of contemporary Zuni pottery sold for about two to three dollars (Bunzel 1929: 5); historic pots purchased by the IAF from the pueblos or dealers cost on the average $5.50-$15.50 (Dauber 1993: 266-67, n. 30). (Kelsey's asking price of $250 was almost unthinkable in the 1920s.) That the IAF/Lab paid up to $75 or more for so many specimens suggests that staff members felt they were receiving prizes of inestimable value whose importance could not be "overstated." The collection's absolute novelty increasedits value for the purchasers. Interestingly,the vessels representeda type of Zuni pottery not previously reported nor acquired by Cushing, Stevenson, Culin, Bunzel, nor any other researcher, even though these scholars had spent decades studying, writing about, and collecting the artifacts of the pueblos and were especially interested in the ceremonial aspects of Zuni life. Mrs. Steven- son and Cushing both entered the kivas and described the ceremonies and the accoutrements used. As we have seen, they had succeeded in obtaining many esoteric objects, but none like these. The opportunity to obtain such rare works seemed to justify large expenditures and unorthodox methods. Telling is Chapman'smatter-of-fact reporting of the traders'activities; in fact, he seems to admire Wallace's "patient and cautious" methods, despite evidence that, if found out, the trader would anger many of the Zuni people. Furthermore, the IAF/Lab colluded with the traders in surreptitiously removing pots from the pueblo in order to keep the sales secret at Zuni. Chapman's frank revelations to his chief patron, as well as to other donors, indicates a curious- although widely shared- insensitivity to the social consequences of his institution's collecting activities. And as we have seen, earlier collectors had exhibited similarly blind acquisitiveness.Although Chapman states that the Lab intended to

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 28 * Journal of the Southwest

preserve "as much as possible of this particularcollection for the Indians themselves" and "to make it available at all times for those of the Zuni and other pueblos who may wish to study it," this never occurred during Chapman's lifetime. Of overriding importance was the fact that the staff felt public exhibition of the collection would invite trouble from the Zuni, whereas acquisition would not. In the longer term, Nusbaum, Chapman, and others all viewed their activities as saving the pottery for future generations of Zunis and non-Zunis.

Nusbaum's Report to Rockefeller

As director of the Lab, Jesse Nusbaum pursued these pots with a fervor that matched or even surpassed Chapman's. On August 3, 1932, he authored a twenty-four-page letter to Rockefeller, focusing on expenditures related to the donor's $5,000 pledge made in 1931 for acquisitions.35 In it, he discusses the Zuni pots at great length, while making only passing reference to other acquisitions of Navajo blankets and silver (see Bernstein 1990) or to the Lab's work on ceramic technology and a dendro-archaeological survey. Nusbaum's report provides the most comprehensive account of the Lab's acquisitions as of 1932 and of the complicated bargaining necessary to obtain the pots. As Nusbaum exu- berantlydetails the acquisition of the pots, he trumpets the capabilitiesof the fledgling Laboratoryof Anthropology and its staff and the advantages of being located in New Mexico. While Eastern collectors had come and gone, taking the region's cultural patrimony from the Southwest, the Laboratory of Anthropology was positioned to collect what the other experts had missed or left behind. Indeed, Nusbaum assertsthat his staff had bettered the Eastern anthropologists and curatorsin obtaining these ancient and rare pieces. The director's letter also requests more acquisition funds, in response to Rockefeller'sprevious overture: "If there have been other particularly important things that have been offered at bargainprices which you care to bring to my attention, I shall be glad to know about them." Nusbaum outlines harsh conditions at Zuni: a severe winter and decreased visits by tourists due to the Depression. "These economic factors among the Zuni have resulted in the release to traders of two hitherto unknown groups of most excellent and unique Zuni ceremonial pottery." Given that bad weather and the economic crisis had unearthed an unexpected bounty

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 29

in sacred material, Nusbaum stresses the discounts he has received from traders.Despite his great wealth, Rockefellerwas alwaysa thrift-conscious patron, and getting specimens at cut-rate prices seemed to increase the donor's interest.36 Even more than Chapman,Nusbaum openly revealsthe Lab's dealings with tradersat Zuni, naming individuals and detailing their interactions with the institution. He also makes clear that the trafficin pots between Zuni and the Lab had become very heavy in 1931 and 1932. On June 21, 1931, Wallace arrived at the Lab with "seven especially important Zuni jars comprising the 'Heart of the World jar' and the six cardinal direction jars associated therewith, each decorated with appropriate symbolical designs representative of the East, West, North, the South, the Above and the Below," as well as a complete set of eight large and rare Shalako jars, and a large "medicine" jar "completely covered with turquoise, jet and shell chips embedded in adhesive cement made from clay and deer blood." Wallace wanted $2,400 for the sixteen jars, but after bargaining, reduced the price to $2,000 - which amounts to $125 per jar. At the time of Nusbaum's writing, the Lab still owed Wallace $1,450 for this group. Nusbaum also reports, "Mr. C.G. Wallace, our particularlyhelpful and friendly Indian trader at Zuni, who has done so much in protecting the Laboratory interests in accumulating this marvelous collection of ceremonial pottery, called me on long distance phone on April 29 [1932] . . .to state that twenty-five additional pieces had been released to him, and he wished the Laboratory to have them." Wallace shipped the pots to the Lab on May 5. Mr. Chapman, Dr. Mera and I, following inspection, were agreed to a man that this collection should be added to the main collection in completing distinctive sets heretofore represented by only one or more members of the series of six normally comprising a complete set. Mr. Wallace frankly stated that since we desired them, and because of his great desire to have them remain with us, he would gladly consider turning them to us at his trading cost, that is, the cost to him in cash and supplies furnished to the Indians involved.

Nusbaum and Wallace established a price of $1,000 for the twenty- five pieces, "far less than the average price heretofore paid for this type of pottery. . . . This group of twenty-five pieces is very important from

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 30 * Journal of the Southwest the Laboratory standpoint, and it would breakour hearts here to have to return a single piece, particularlyin view of the very modest amount for which he is willing to release it to us" (emphasis added). In late August 1931, Nusbaum bargained with Charles Kelsey of the Ilfeld Indian Trading Company for "twenty-three excellent specimens, all important to our collection, many of them entirely new and previously unknown to us. I drove a hard bargain, finally establishing a purchase price of $1,400." An outstanding balanceof $700 remained.Then in June 1932, Kelsey offered nineteen more pieces for the Lab's consideration. Regarding this group, Nusbaum wrote to Rockefeller, "Mr. Chapman very franklystated that there was not a single jar that he could sort out from the lot as not necessary to the collection here. He is particularly anxious that this whole group of nineteen pieces be acquired, as they add new forms and types and decorative elements not heretofore represented in the master collectionhere" (emphasis added). In August 1932, Kelsey brought in sixteen of the previously offered pots, as well as two large jars with "fetiches [sic] of deer antlers, sculp- tured stone animal forms or fetiches and arrow heads, each individually embellished with bands of coral, shell, turquoise beads and feathers, all of which are attached in regular and irregular order to the exterior of the jars by the use of rawhide thongs." Kelsey explained that the two jars belonged to an important priesthood and comprised a complete set; he wanted an unprecedented sum for the two fetish jars- $1,000 - but Nusbaum responded that the Lab could not offer more than $100 each. The name of a third trader also appearsin Nusbaum's report. "From Mr. W. S. Barnes of Gallup, formerly of Zuni, we accepted a set of seven Zuni 'WaterBeast' jars,with accompanying fetishes, and three small prehistoric jars, making immediate and full payment thereon at the arranged price of $450." The Lab paid for these in July 1931. Subsequently, Barnes offered three Shalako jars, but Nusbaum "considered his asking price of $192.50 each, excessive, and after some months of negotiation, during which I learned that he had come into possession of the jars by questionable means, I made a flat offer of $75 each, which he promptly refused. ... I believe that Mr. Barneswill eventually ask me to reconsider the purchase at the price of $75 each."37Significantly, Nusbaum - when faced with evidence of unscrupulous dealings- responded by using this information as a bargaining lever with Barnes rather than by withdraw- ing his offer altogether.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 31

Regarding the status of the Lab's Zuni ceremonial pottery collection in 1932, Nusbaum reports 222 specimens: 158 wholly owned by the Lab, 39 with balances due, and 25 on consideration from Wallace. If the Lab purchased Ilfeld's latest group of 19, Nusbaum notes that the number would grow to 241. 38To this accounting, the director adds: Should you ask if the consummation of the purchase of these . . . items would complete our Zuni ceremonial collection, I would franklysay No, since Mr. Chapman and I have on many occasions in the past, upon the purchase of a new lot, mutually agreed that we would not have to worry further about Zuni ceremonial pottery, as we presumably then had all that would ever be released by the priesthood, only to receive word again in the course of a few months from one of the traders at Zuni that a [new set] or group had been released. . . . As yet we have no jarsassociated with one of the most important orders of Zuni, the Koyemshi, or popularly called 'Mudheads.' . . . We would not consider the collection complete without a set of Koyemshi jars, if such a set exists.

Balances due on pottery then held by the Lab amounted to $2,350; additional funds needed to purchaseWallace and Kelsey's latest offerings totaled $1,885, plus more would be required to acquire the hypothetical "Koyemshi" jars, should these ever surface. As if to justify these sizable, indeed unparalleled, expenditures for Pueblo pottery, Nusbaum invokes the authoritativevoice of the Labora- tory board, which included Frederick Hodge, A. L. Kroeber, and Clark Wissler, as well as other prominent anthropologists of the era:

Without a single exception, all trustees have recommended that the Laboratory employ every possible means to accumulate the whole Zuni ceremonial collection if possible here in a single repository. . . . [T]he fact has been stressed that our present Zuni ceremonial pottery collection is the first and only comprehensive collection of strictlyceremonial pottery ever to be releasedfrom any pueblo; that it is very doubtful if any other pueblos of the Southwest ever made and used pottery in such variety of shapes and sizes, decoration and embellishment for esoteric rites; and therefore the Laboratory should complete the collection at whatever cost, since all are agreed that never again will such an opportunity be open to us.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32 * Journal of the Southwest

A compelling effort to obtain a totality, a series of "complete sets" constituting a finite "whole," dominated Nusbaum's efforts.39His appel- lation, a "master collection," implies that ownership of such a totality would constitute a preeminent status for his institution. Although a few specimens had eluded his grasp,40Nusbaum nevertheless gloats over the Lab's special accomplishment in amassing this collection: Matilda Coxe Stevenson, wife of James, lived continuously with the Zunis for twenty-three years [sic] while engaged in ethnological researchfor the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution; but in her voluminous report (the 23rd Annual Report of the Bureau) she does not individuallyfigure a single ceremonial jar in our collection. . . . The obvious conclusion, since she directed particularattention to the study of esoteric rites and ceremonies, etc., is that she was not permitted, during the twenty-three years that she lived there, to see the treasures we have been enabled to accumulate here principally through your splendid interest and generosity.41

And so the Lab continued the tradition of competitive rivalryin its acquisition of Zuni "treasures."To Nusbaum, owning an esoteric ceremonial collection unknown to his predecessors implied a special mastery over the field at large. It represented a personal and institutional triumph. Despite his letter's length and explicit detail, Nusbaum withheld several important facts from Rockefeller. In the first place, the director knew at the time that the "Koyemshi" set was more than a hypothetical possibility. In a letter attached to a copy of his report to Rockefeller, Nusbaum confides to A. V. Kidder, the president of the trustees, [In earlyAugust 1932,] Wallacecame in from Zuni with a Koyem- shi jar covered with knob-like protuberances on all sides, and four small necklaces of coral, turquoise and shell beads, this being one of a group of seven. . . . I did not cover this in my report directly, but you will get, as you read it, my indirect reference to certain possible jars that may yet come in if they exist.

In other words, Wallace had already offered the Koyemshi pots to the Lab, and Nusbaum was coyly planting the seeds for a future appeal to the donor.42 Second and more notably, Nusbaum omits the fact that the seven additional pots offered by Barnes to the Lab in July 1931

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 33 had precipitated a heated battle with Wallace and intense controversy at the pueblo.

Zuni Protests and Government Intervention

Government documents present a vivid picture of how the Lab's trade in these pots disrupted the community at Zuni. According to Mary McGair, a field representativefrom the Office of Indian Affairs,43a Zuni man described as "an agent for various tradersaround Zuni and Gallup" and working "very closely with Mr. Nusbaum" bargained in Novem- ber 1930 with tribal priests for seven pots taken from a kiva, which he promised to sell to Wallace. Instead, the agent gave them to Barnes in June 1931, who offered them to the Lab.44 Barnes refused to pay the amount agreed upon to the agent, who then "asked that the pots be returned to him in order that he might replace them in the Kiva."Barnes turned down this request as well, and apparently at this point the pots were already at the Lab. The agent then turned to the superintendent of the Zuni Indian Agency, G. A. Trotter, for help in getting the pots back from Barnes. Trotter (1955: 110-11) later described these controversial objects as "some ancient pottery pots which, because of their age and curious decorations were of great value to collectors." On July 14, 1931, the Zuni middlemanfiled a sworn statement attesting to his actions and those of Barnes, as well as to the fact that "Mr. C. G. Wallace, who purchased [the pots] from the deponent is willing to have them returned to the Kiva and have his money refunded, which will be done by the members of the Kiva if such action is taken."45On the same day, a group of tribal leaders filed an additional statement backing up the agent's claims On the basis of these statements, Trotter wrote to Nusbaum requesting the return of the contested pots. Nusbaum sent them to Zuni on August 1, 1931, writing to Trotter that "I have purposely wished to avoid my name or that of the Laboratory" to appear as shipper so that that the institution's role in the affairwould not "be identified by your local people" (fig. 12).46 On August 7, 1931, the superintendent wrote to Barnes: "From the general attitude of the Indians, they are very much opposed to this sale and have requested me to warn the two old Indians who have these jars in charge that another move whereby the originals are taken out and substitutes placed within the Kiva, will

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34 ^ Journal of the Southwest result most seriously for the ones who so remove them."47 Nusbaum, however, hoped for the eventual return of the pots to the Lab, having stated to Trotter: "These jars, in my estimation, should eventually be deposited in this institution if they are to leave the pueblo, and it is our hope that the Indians controlling them will, in course of time, permit them to return to the hands of Mr. Wallace so that we may eventually obtain them."48 The superintendent returned the seven pots to a Zuni priest, receiving assurance "that no sale would be made of them unless Mr. Trotter were first notified."49 Trotter informed Nusbaum on July 29, 1931, that should the priesthood "decide to sell these jars or any of the old specimens of the kivas, that you will receive them . . . ," and offered his assistance for such as transaction so that "the sale will be handled without the need of middlemen." Nusbaum replied on August 1, "Confidentially, this method of handling will be more helpful to the Indians, I believe, in the matter of financial return, since it obviates the necessity of sharing with others."50 Government employees of the Indian agency heard no more about the pots until late 1932, but documents in the Lab's archivesreveal that the objects were far from leading a sedentary existence at the pueblo. On April 5, 1932, Wallace wrote to Nusbaum, "At last I have the long faught [He] for Pottery in my hands, also more very interesting ones," and he offered the contested pieces once again to the Lab. Nusbaum wrote in a memo on April 29 that Wallace's seven pots were the same offered previously by Barnes and subsequently returned to Superinten- dent Trotter, then to the pueblo. Wallace told Nusbaum that a priest had released the specimens to him, and he was also offering seventeen additional pieces.51 Nusbaum's memo states that Wallace delivered twenty-five pots on May 5,52 but after mysterious telephone messages from Wallace's brother Robert back at Zuni, the trader decided that the seven contested pieces, plus three others from the new lot of seventeen and four more pots previouslydeposited at the Lab, should not be left. So the staff put the fourteen specimens in a carton, and Wallace took them away. Nusbaum ends his memo by noting that he, Mera, and Chapman would give no consideration to purchasing this material "pending the quieting down of ... the small minority group at Zuni." As it turned out, the Lab did not have to wait long. On May 23, 1932, Wallace wrote to Nusbaum, "I am sure that I have the pots safe and sound. I am sure that there is no danger of any more trouble about this bunch but can't say what would happen if I tried to finish get-

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 35

Figure 12. One of the seven contestedpots shippedback and forth betweenZuni and Santa Fe in 1931. Thissnapshot, taken by Chapman, shows the pot sitting atop the carton usedfor shipping. Chapman wrote on the back of the photograph: <<(<1of 7 Zuni cer pots returned to Trotter, Supt.byLofA1931.» (Photographby Kenneth Chapman. Courtesyof Palace of the Governors [MNM/DCA], #22335)

ting what is left. . . . [W]ith what I have been out on the Barnes lot, I don't expect anything but a loss. ... It will take all my profit from the first ones to stop Barnes and pay all of the Tow-Wows' off."53 While pleading poverty, Nusbaum enthusiastically responded on June 3 to Wallace's renewed offer of the whole lot of twenty-five, including the seven contested pieces, saying that the Lab desired to have them "if it is humanly possible." Accepting Wallace's assessment of the situation at Zuni without seeking confirmation from Trotter, Nusbaum offered the trader a thousand dollars, and on June 7, Wallace agreed to this price, but only because he claimed a severe need of cash at the moment.54 Nusbaum's August 1932 report to Rockefeller lacks a description of this complicated scenario. The director makes no mention of the fact that the contested pots were repatriatedto the pueblo in August 1931.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 "fr Journal of the Southwest

Nor does Nusbaum disclose that the same seven pots comprised part of Wallace'slot of twenty-five offered once more to the Lab in April 1932. Had the donor known of such legal and ethical complications, he may not have felt- as he wrote in 1934 - "that the money provided for the purpose could not have been spent more carefully,wisely or judiciously if it had come out of your own pockets."55 In several other instances, the Laboratory staff was less than above- board in its handling of the collection. On December 2, 1931, Nusbaum wrote to Kidder about a plan to send Elsie Clews Parsons to Zuni, "armed with drawings of the designs on the jars." She would "spend several months if necessary gaining the requisite information [about the ceremonial material], provided we should guarantee to publish it immediately upon its completion. . . . Chap, Mera, and I ... mutually agreed that immediate publication would be disastrous to the future accumulation of like materialfrom Zuni, and might react unfavorablyon the traderswho have assisted us in its accumulation." The parties finally decided that Parsons would publish her findings after five years. "She is to work very, very quietly, without mention of the pottery in any way, and will thus not disrupt any of the channels through which we have acquired the present collection." Apparently,Parsons went to Zuni but abandoned the project when "she was advised to lay off for a while."56 Parsons said of her visit, "I found that the story about . . . selling pots was generally known in the pueblo. ... It is also known that Wallace has been buying ceremonial pots for some years . . . [and that the pots were being sold] to the Laboratory of Santa Fe."57 After Chapman became director of the Lab in 1936,58 he asked Ruth Bunzel to undertake research on the pots at the pueblo. She declined the offer but gave the following advice: "I certainly would not try to bring on the people who once owned the pottery and confront them with the tangible evidence of their sins. It would be quite the worst thing to do; it would make endless trouble. You can't imagine how strongly Zunis feel that in betraying a trust they are signing their own death war- rants." Wallace, on discovering Chapman's plans to sponsor research at the pueblo "advised against an immediate study," warning that such an effort would arouse factional disputes at Zuni.59 Another incident reveals similar behind-the-scenes furtiveness at the Lab. On June 24, 1932, Jesse Nusbaum wrote to A. V. Kidder,reporting that John Collier- then head of the American Indian Defense Associa- tion and soon to be commissioner of Indian affairs- had requested the

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 37 early release of an ethnogeographic map formulated by A. L. Kroeber under the auspices of the Lab. Collier wanted this document to protect Walapai Indian land in Arizona from seizure by the Santa Fe Railway. The director describes the ramificationsof this request to the president of the board:

The Laboratory,according to its statement of policy, is interested in Indian welfare and the protection of Indian rights.60This gives one side of the picture. Collier, however, is a great crusader,with a perfectly marvelous ability to probe sore spots and stir up all kinds of trouble. As a matter of policy, I have always steared [sic] absolutely clear of his trail, knowing that he will turn and bore anything in sight to gain his ultimate ends. I have not seen the Kroeber ethnogeographic map. If given to Collier and would fortify his case, you can rest assured that he will use it in persuasion in the courts, as he states, and thus bring the names of the University of California and the Laboratory into the case. I should hate to lose the friendship and goodwill of our trustees and other officers of the Fred Harvey and the Santa Fe Railway Companies. On the other hand, the Laboratory, through the purchase of ceremonial material from the Pueblo of Zuni and elsewhere, has developed a very vulnerable spot which Collier could probe to the quick and arouse a resentment against us, if we turn down his request and he decides to go after us. ... I have the feeling that indirectly he may have this information and would not stop short of bringing it to Mr. Rockefeller, Jr.'s, attention, in order to gain his point. To turn him coldly down might start a lot of very undesirable publicity on this feature of our collections. ... If it were not for our vulnerable spot in connection with the ceremonial material, I should say no [to Collier's request], but Mr. Rockefeller has contributed splendidly toward the purchase of these collections, and we cannot have his name brought into Collier propaganda, under any circumstances whatever.61 Nusbaum's animositytoward Collier probablystemmed from frictions between members of Indian advocacy organizations, some of whom Nusbaum counted on as supporters of the Lab. Differences arose over working styles and who would control avenues of assistance for Native peoples. More relevant to our discussion, the incident uncovers Nus-

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 * Journal of the Southwest

baum's fear of revealing the Lab's "vulnerable spot"- its purchase of ceremonial material. But this sensitivity to public disclosure did nothing to curb his continuing efforts to acquirematerial potentially embarrassing to the institution and its principal backer. Indeed, communications between the director and the tradersat Zuni remained active during this period. Subsequent to Nusbaum's report to Rockefeller, he continued to negotiate with Kelsey for the especially expensive jars offered in August 1932. Given the ongoing controversy, Kelsey obviously felt nervous about his continuing trafficin ceremonial goods, and he resorted to using a code word in his letters, calling his merchandise"equipment." He also requestedto "havethe Name changed on those other Pots to Ilfeld Indian Trading Co, instead of Kelsey . . . I would feel better to have my Name off those Pots."62Wallace wrote to Nusbaum on December 15, 1932, to provide ethnological information no doubt requested by the Lab. "After having waited and waited, I finally got the old 'Birds' over here to go over the pots with me. I only learned what Dances they represent and the Klans [sic] who used them. ... I have been paying on two Olo-Oskie Klan pots which are supposed to be the best yet. This Olo-Oskie is the dance that they had this Fall." In a note attached to the letter, Wallace sketchily describes a few types of pots, stating what clan used them and in what context. He also offers Nusbaum additional pots, released since Shalako.63But government agencies were soon to interfere with Wallace's and Kelsey's traffic in such goods. In December 1932, SuperintendentTrotter heard rumors at the Zuni Agency that the seven contested jars, first offered by Barnes and then sold to the Lab by Wallace, were not in the kiva. Concerned individuals at Zuni began an investigation, and based on information obtained, Trotter wrote to Wallace on January 28, 1933, telling the trader that he had learned of his role in removing the vessels from the pueblo a second time. Trotter requested a report from Wallace.64The trader's response was vague but implied "that a deal was made and some payment given."65 Then on April 20, 1933, a Zuni man- described as an employee of Kelsey'sat the Ilfeld Indian TradingCompany - wrote about the situation to John Collier, who was by this time serving as Roosevelt's commissioner of Indian affairs. The letter charges that Wallace, in July 1931, bribed community leaders to make false statements to Trotter in order to get control of the contested pots; after Trotter returned the pieces to the pueblo, Wallace offered a sizable payment to the priest

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -> 39 who had them in custody.But on receivingthe pots, the traderfailed to fulfillhis partof the bargain.Kelsey's employee criticizes Wallace for payingthe Zuni makersa minimalrate for the pots, and then selling them at vastlyinflated prices. He also accusesthe traderof buyingand sellingsacred dolls.66 In responseto this information,Collier ordered an investigationat Zuni, and on July24, 1933, field representativeMary McGair submit- ted a report.Despite extensiveinquiries, she remainedunsure whether the pots were the personalproperty of the priestwho last sold them or if they belongedto the communityat large.She statedthat most Zuni peoplehad not knownof the scandalbefore the fallof 1932, but now it was commonknowledge. She noted that since Kelseyand Wallace were rivalsat Zuni, Kelsey'semployee might not be a disinterestedparty. Her finalrecommendations for agencyaction against Wallace are remarkably mild, given the accusationsof briberyand bad faithin dealingwith sev- eralZuni individuals."If, however,one or all [of the pots] . . . were the property,not of individualsbut of the tribe, they should be returned; those who receivedpayment should returnwhat they receivedto the trader;the tribeshould be consultedas to theirfuture disposition; and if they areto be sold the tribeshould agree how the saleshould be made. In the lattercase neither the officenor the superintendentshould enter into the transaction."67 Characteristically,Collier responded with more fire. On August 17, 1933, he wrote to Trotter,instructing him to tell Wallacehis "trafficin Zuni sacredobjects" justified summary revocation of his license,if not the forfeitureof his $10,000 bond. Collierexpected Wallace to provide completeinformation about objectstaken illegitimately. He concluded by stating Will you please also give attention to the element of criminal responsibility,in anycase where a traderor collector,on or off the reservation,may have encouraged any person, white or Indian,in the procuringof thesesacred objects, for tradepurposes, in a manner to violatethe traditionallaw of Zuni Peublo [sic] . . . > Another letter from Collier to Trotter dated the same day was intendedfor publiccirculation. In it, he states,"It is apparentthat this regrettableabuse could not have takenplace except through faithless behavioron the partof some- fortunatelyonly a few- of the members of the Tribe itself." Therefore,the tribe must carryout disciplinary

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 40 * Journal of the Southwest

measures. But "at least one trader is established to have engaged - not once, but repeatedly and persistently- in this demoralizing trafficwhich has involved the stultification of certain of the Indians themselves." Collier threatens that any trader trafficking in sacred objects will have his license revoked and his bond forfeited. If party to a theft, he will be criminally prosecuted. "It is unnecessary to specify the sacred objects in question. They are known to every Indian and are or can be known to every trader and collector." Collier concludes by requesting that his letter be circulated to the tribe, to all other traders, and "to any other person who can be usefully informed."68 The Lab became part of the agency's mailing list, because a copy of Collier's letter is preserved in its files. Collier may have contemplated action against the Lab, but no evidence exists that the institution was ever officially rebuked for receiving the pots a second time, nor that it was asked to return them once again. Wallace, on the other hand, felt the heat. On August 31, 1933, he wrote to Collier defending his activities as a trader: Feeling confident that I have never knowingly done anything that is open to criticism and that I am not subject to the charge that seems to have been made against myself and others, I welcome the fullest investigation. . . . Mr. Collier, I have spent fourteen years in Zuni, working faith- fully to help build up their arts and crafts and helping in any other way that I could and I have never knowingly done one thing against any rules or regulations and I have always been ready and willing to cooperate in every way and to obey any wish or order of the Indian Office and I am still willing to cooperate in any way that is possible.69

These impassioned protests of innocence indicate how much Wallace felt his livelihood was threatened. ConcurrentlyCollier asked his friend Elizabeth Sergeant to undertake an investigation of the situation (Sergeant was often employed by Collier to report the on-the-ground situation in communities); Sergeant spent several days interviewing individualsat Zuni and found that factionalism had intruded into every aspect of Zuni society. In her report, she lamented the loss of faith in Zuni cosmology, quoting at length the testimony of individuals as to the diminished authority of the once-powerful Zuni priests. Despite her observations of rising secularism,she recorded many

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 41 complaintsabout the sale and replicationof sacredobjects, especially katsinafigures.70 Sergeantlater spoke with Nusbaumand Mera at the Lab.In response to queriesfrom Sergeant, Nusbaum reportedly stated that "he hasdone nothing of which he has got reasonto feel regretful- his conscienceis clear.It would [not be] justto askhim to returnthe objectspurchased in this way.[H]e has done as everymuseum does, no more and no less."71 DespiteNusbaum's protestations, Collier's intervention effectively cur- tailedfurther expansion of the Lab's"master collection."72

Collecting Comes to an End

Althoughthey provokedconflict at Zuni, the pots continuedto invoke prideand satisfactionin Nusbaumand his principalpatron. On August 28, 1934, Nusbaumreported to Kidder: The daybefore yesterday [Rockefeller] spent two hoursgoing over the Laboratory,and he saidit waslovely beyond words to describe and he was immensely pleased with its development in every ramification.... He was particularlypleased with the ceremonial collectionof Zuni;was happyto have had a part in its assembly, and wonderedif other pottery of this type were availableshould we desireit.73

On September7, 1934, Nusbaumwrote Kidderthat Rockefeller's contributionsto the IAF and Lab for acquisitionsthen amountedto approximately$20,000. In responseto Rockefeller'squery about the relativeratio in valuesand in numbersof specimensbelonging to the IAF collectionand the Lab:"I told him immediately. . . that while the Laboratorycollections of potterynumbered approximately 750 specimens againstapproximately 1,450 for the IndianArts Fund, the inclusionof the Zuniceremonial collection in the Laboratory'saccessions established the valuesin potteryat approximatelythe same."74 Finally,on December12, 1935, Nusbaumwrote to ArthurPackard, directorof the Davidson Fund, a Rockefeller-financed philanthropic organizationthat had been providingthe Labwith dwindlingmonetary assistance.In one of his last actionsbefore leaving his post as director, Nusbaumasked for fundsto pay off an outstandingbalance of $1,000 owed to Wallacefor nineteenZuni ceremonial jars sent to Labin January

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 42 * Journal of the Southwest

1933 on a deferredpayment basis, plus three more jarsoffered subsequently.In this partinggesture, Nusbaum stressed the specialstatus of the collection."Except for the groupof sixjars purchased in about 1930 by the Museumof the AmericanIndian in New YorkCity, one at the SouthwestMuseum at LosAngeles, and four in ColoradoSprings, all the Zuni ceremonialjars ever to be releasedare here with the Laboratory."75 With this letter, the directorsought to bringto completionthe vigor- ous collectingactivities of the Lab'sfirst years. On returningto Mesa Verdeas superintendentin 1936, Nusbaumleft the Labwith his prized "mastercollection" secretly hidden awayin vault2, known to the staff for sixtyyears as the "CeremonialVault."

Pots, Prestige, and Identity

Dauber(1993: 353) estimatesthat the Lab/IAF collectionof Zunipots cost at least$5,600. Our researchindicates an even higheramount. The figures quoted in Chapman'sand Nusbaum'sreports to Rockefeller add up to more than $10,000 for only a portion of the collection.In the minds of the IAF/Lab staff and their patron,what justifiedthese extravagantexpenditures for materialso controversialthat it could neither be publiclydisplayed nor openly discussedwith the Zuni people? Evidencesuggests that the legacyof the "salvageethnology paradigm" largelymotivated their efforts. Elizabeth Sergeant, in her 1933 investigationof the controversy overthese pots, reportedthat althoughNusbaum, Chapman, and Mera thought "thatit is betterfor the Pueblos not to sell [ceremonialmaterial]"the directorwas "a sceptic [sic] as to the Zuni religiousfeeling for these objects.He fearsthat if [he] does not buy them- he or some otherscientist - theywill be disipated[sic] to the fourwinds in the tourist trade."Maintaining that "the Zunis must haveprofited by the sales in comfortand in life," Nusbaum"holds that the habit of sellingsuch objectsis so inveteratein Zuni that, in his opinion, if the Government forbidsthe sale of ceremonialobjects on the reservation,the Zunis . . . will go on to Gallupor evento SantaFe with theirwares."76 Significantly, Nusbaum'sself-justification ignores the powerfulcontingent at Zuni who vehementlydisapproved of such sales. By 1933, the most expansivephase of museum anthropologyhad ended, yet institutionslike the Laboratoryof Anthropologycontinued

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 43

collecting for the sake of future scientific inquiry, not generally new or modern material, but older, ostensibly more authentic, artifacts. The Lab was primarilyestablished to house, expand, and continue research on the Indian Arts Funds collection, an encyclopedic collection that was intended to document the 1600-1880 time period. The accumulation of the "master collection" demonstrates that not merely old, but specificallyceremonial, objects continued to be the most prized. Despite Indian welfare organizations that sought to preserve Native culture, despite changing government policies that reversed earlier strategies of forced assimilation, the notion of Native Americans as a dying race- unable to appreciateand manage their own heritage- still prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s. Therefore, Nusbaum, Chapman, Mera, and Rockefeller felt Zuni sacred artifacts belonged in their institution. When they thought about the effect their collecting activities had on the pueblo, they envisioned a day when the people would be grateful that their ceremonial objects resided safely in a museum, even if an activist group at Zuni opposed their removal at present. This position was widely held at the time by professionals and interested laypeople alike. For example, Sergeant was an Indian rights advocate herself; she nevertheless defended the Lab's staff and its mission of salvage ethnology to Collier: "Both scientists and artists, in their zeal for the record, or the aesthetic object often forget the human side of these questions. But Mr. Nusbaum worked for years with the Zunis, Mr. Chapman teaches design to Indian children, and Dr. Mera, too is close to the pueblos- they are not cold scientists, working afar for an institution alone. They appreciate the Indian's side of the problem. . . . I do believe that a recordof what is passing away is of great importance; - that the Indians who are being absorbed- and some surely are will themselves value it in years to come" (fig. 13).77 In a more covert dimension beyond familiarrationales, we can imagine other motives and justifications.Although most anthropologicalcollectors in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century believed in civilization's progress, the increasing secularization and chaos of modern life unsettled their moral universe (Hinsley 1981: 8). In a society increasingly perceived as dangerously adrift, scientists studied the American Indian in part to recover an imaginaryworld of social integration, primalemotional intensity, and instinctive religious awe (cf. Carr 1996: 199-256; Lears 1981; Price 1989: 23-36). As mentioned with regard to Dominguez's

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 44 Kr Journal of the Southwest

Figure 13. Studentsfrom the Santa Fe Indian Schoolstudying the pottery collectionsat the Laboratoryof Anthropology,March 12, 1938. Chapman often lectured at the Indian School,and the students used the collectionsfairly regularly. Theywere encouraged to study the collectionsin order to learn about "authentic"Indian designs. (Courtesyof Archives of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Lab oratory of Anthropology,#70.1/2276)

analysis,the stakesin collecting Indian artifacts,especially ceremonial ones, involved issues of personal and social identity in a rapidly modernizing America. Torgonick (1990: 187) extends this idea: "If primitive societies resemble our prehistory and exist in contemporary spaces accessible to individuals, then origins remain accessible. . . . 'Going home' involves only an individual journey- actual or imaginative- to join with a 'uni- versal' mankind in the primitive. There can be no homelessness then." By assembling for public collections objects associated with an idealized, universalpast, ethnologists "salvaged"not only disappearingartifacts but a stable sense of self-origin amidst the uncertainties of their own era. This quest demanded both energy and discrimination. Rockefeller advised Nusbaum that he wanted the artifacts in the Lab "to be the

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 45

outstanding collections of the world" and advocated being "choosy" in selecting acquisitions, settling for none but the best in quality or most unique in kind.78Both patron and director wanted the Lab- as a liberally funded institution just getting off the ground- to carve out an important place for itself in an extremely competitive arena.79Assembling a virtually complete collection of Pueblo ceremonial pottery would be seen as an unparalleledcoup, immediately establishing the Lab as a major player in a crowded field. This explains why Nusbaum repeatedly assured Rock- efeller that he would eventually acquire the few ceremonial pots that had eluded his grasp and were now housed at other museums. Clearly, to those involved with its acquisition, the "master collection" of Zuni pottery satisfied Rockefeller's criteria. By extension, it conferred an exalted status on them. It became a sign of their discrimi- nating taste, abundant financial resources that allowed collecting on a grand scale, and skill at turning market conditions to greatest advantage. Rockefeller's ambition to make the Lab a world-class institution, and Nusbaum's anxiety over the few pots that had eluded him, underscore the competitive and status-conscious motivations behind these acquisitions. Furthermore, the belief that the pots were heretofore unknown ceremonial treasures raised their value inestimably as embodiments of primal spirituality,as keys to the original self. Moreover, the pottery's unknown antecedents and their totally unique qualities enhanced their value as superlative and rare items. Ironically, the Lab's staff did not exhibit or publish these precious status symbols until the 1990s.80 The covert circumstancessurrounding the pots' acquisition dictated that only a small group of insiders could know of the Lab's trophies. Yet the secret nature of the collection may even have increased its value for its possessors. The "owning" of another culture'smost esoteric knowledge- as exemplifiedby sacredpots stored in an inaccessible vault- likely enhanced its mystique for the institution.81 As Dominguez observes, drawing on Douglas Cole's study of nineteenth-century collectors of Northwest Coast Native objects: Collectors competed for ethnological recognition as well as financial reward. . . . The ethnological value of a collection may have been calculated in terms of its "completeness," the age of its items, or - the "beauty"of its pieces, but it was expressed in marketterms in terms of the uniqueness of its pieces, what it cost to obtain them, - and what museums were willing to pay for them in other words, in terms of relative scarcity,supply and demand.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 46 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Rare items tended to be accorded high ethnological value, often cost more thanothers, and had high pricetags when sold to othercollectors or museums.Older pieces - tending,of course,to be in less supplythan newerones - were in greaterdemand. Age was clearlyof interestto museumcollectors, but so were objects that were hardto come by becausethe Indianswere reluctantto relinquishthem. . . . The ironyof the drivefor authenticity(the constantsearch for the "genuine")is that it kept many,if not all, the ethnological collectorsof this period from graspingthe extent to which their very activities. . . were changingthe natureof the objects they collected.Stealing was frownedupon, but buyingwas not, even when collectorsbought items surreptitiouslyin the middleof the night or used . . . intermediariesto establishsociability and trust that might increasetheir chancesof obtaining"nonmarketable" items.So long as the Indianswere paid, few askedethical questions. (Dominguez 1986: 551-52) Of course,in hindsightthe amountscollectors paid Native Americans for irreplaceableheirloom objects were often pitifully small. Furthermore, not only did Nativeartifacts change in the transferbetween community and museum,but the valueof the objectswithin Native societies underwent transformationas well (cf. Appadurai1986). That the staff and the chief patronof the Lab did not considerthe negativeeffects of theircollecting activities on the Zunipeople is problematic fromtoday's perspective. However, their attitudes were completely typicalof theirown and earliergenerations. At leastno Anglospointed guns at the Zuni or threatenedto bring in the militiaduring this episode.82But from the long view,their justification of savingthe pots for posterity- for the Indiansthemselves - ringshollow, since these objects remainedvirtually unstudied and unseen,shut awayfrom scholars,the public,and theirculture of origin,for more thanseventy years. And yet, theirstory does not end with theirlong confinement.

Unearthing the Pots

In our own era,we witnessfrequent challenges to the paradigmsof our predecessors.Amidst requests for (and discussionsabout) repatriation of ceremonialobjects to culturesof originand a still-emergentspirit of

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery »fr 47 collaborationbetween museums and Native communities, it is now time to examinedirectly the materialwe haveheretofore been studyingin the archivalrecords. In openingthe long-sealedvault at the renamedMuseum of IndianArts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,we find 211 items. In addition,about fiftypots once housed and consideredpart of the "mastercollection" now resideat the School of AmericanResearch (SAR)in SantaFe alongwith the restof the IndianArts Fund ceramics. The combinednumber of pots at the two institutions(approximately 261) closelycorresponds to the figurementioned in Nusbaum's1932 reportto Rockefeller,plus a limitednumber of subsequentacquisitions fromWallace and Kelsey.83 The firstpuzzle posed by these pots is the questionof why they are currentlyhoused at two differentinstitutions. As mentionedpreviously, Rockefellerenvisioned the Laboratoryof Anthropologyas a permanent home and researchcenter for the LAFcollection. However, the IAF retainedits autonomythrough all the yearsof its associationwith the Laboratoryof Anthropologyand kept its own boardof directors.This boarddissolved the IAF in 1972 and voted to donate the collectionto the School of AmericanResearch. Whereas the rest of the IAF collection moved to the SAR campuswith completionof their IndianArts ResearchCenter in 1978, the Zuni ceremonialpots remainedat the Lab until Bernstein'stenure as chief curator;in 1991 he successfully reunitedthe IAF portion of the "mastercollection" with the rest of SAR'sZuni objects.84 As the collectionwas being assembled,Kenneth Chapman assigned IAFaccession numbers to all the Zuni ceremonialpots, but only a small numberobtained from Wallace and Kelseyin 1928 and 1929 ultimately remainedwith the IAF.At least ninety-fivevessels acquired from 1929 to 1931- originallywith IAF cataloguenumbers - were transferredto the Lab and stayedwith that portion of the collection.At some point, Chapmandetermined whether each pot should go into the Lab'smore eclectic holdings or stay with the IAF's more canonical collection, althoughhe no doubt consultedwith Nusbaumand Meraand reported his work to the IAF and Lab boards.The documentsdo not indicate the precisedates and criteriafor splittingthe collection.However, the visualevidence suggests various possibilities. We will speculateon this aspectof the case as our discussionprogresses. Confrontingthe vesselsas a group, we find a bewilderingand idio- syncraticarray. Only a few of the pots are familiar.These includeabout

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 48 > Journal of the Southwest five well-used nineteenth-century ollas, or water vessels, with canonical Zuni shapes and decorations. One example displays a familiarrain bird design (fig. 14).85 Also recognizable are terraced bowls (or baskets) (fig. 15),86 known to the outside world since James Stevenson (1883) and Frank Cushing (1886) published their studies (fig. 16). These ceramic bowls usually have four terraced sides and are covered with white slip and painted decorations representing butterflies, frogs, dragonflies, and tadpoles. They are commonly used in Zuni households and also play a role during ceremonial occasions. Slightly more numerous are vessels related to the cornmeal bowl, sometimes with similar terraced sides, white slip, and painted decorations, but with animals appearing in relief (fig. 17). In the late nineteenth century, Zuni potters began producing such embellished works for tourists who sought mementos invested with Native American spirituality(cf. Batkin 1987: 174, 179).87 Another type includes irregularlyshaped pieces: small bowls with terraced flanges or containers divided into four sections. These often have a lug in the top portion to accommodate a cord so that they may be hung from the ceil- ing (fig. 18). Only a handful of specimens in the collection conform to the well-known genres described in this paragraph. A few pots are intentionally archaized(Bernstein 1993b: 90-93), that is, made by potters who copied earlier designs or vessel shapes. These resemblein form and decorationa seventeenth-centurystyle calledA:shiwi (fig. 19). Since the late nineteenth century, Zuni and other Pueblo potters have copied A:shiwi decorations- and sometimes shapes- to sell to tourists. This practice differs from the centuries-old tradition of continuously readapting older designs. These are self-conscious copies- more like replicas- made in response to new Anglo-driven marketdemands for the "purer"forms of pottery reminiscent of earlierperiods. Interestingly, Chapman ultimately placed most of these archaized pieces and terraced bowls in the LAFcollection. The rest of the vessels (fig. 20) - the vast majorityof the collection - are wildly inventive and eclectic. They exhibit enormous variety in size, shape, and decoration. In several respects, however, the pieces have certain features in common, and not surprisingly,tend to fall into distinct categories when arranged by motif or presumed potter. In construction and shape, they are authentically Zuni, but an absence of artistic - individuality a hallmarkof Zuni pottery- creates a curious uniformity in these eccentric pieces. When sorted and viewed as a totality, the pots are eerily alike, a puzzling fact in such a large assortment garnered from

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 14. Zuni olla, ca. 1880. There are some authentically old pots in the " amastercollection, such as this well- used water jar with rain bird designs. Thesellers of theseutilitarian pots representedthem as having special sacred significance. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7537/12)

Figure 15. Cornmeal bowl or basket,ca. 1930. This is one of only two specialized ceramic types usedfor religiouspurposes at Zuni. To this day, terraced bowls continue to befound in homesand in public and private ceremonies. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#42227/12)

Figure 16. Cornmeal bowlsor baskets,plates 448-453 (J. Stevenson1883), illustrating some of the specimenscollected by James Stevensonat Zuni in 1879. Theseare now part of the Department of AnthropologyCollections, Smithsonian Institution, WashingtonD.C. Stevensonwas only interestedin recordingand collecting aboriginal culture. He, like many of his peers, believedNative religions were conservativeand resistant to change; thereforehe focused his collecting on this area of Zuni life. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 17. Cornmeal bowl or basketwith appliquefrog. During the 1890s, potters began adding appliquefrogs and serpentsto bowlsand ollas. Pots of this sort are generally unused and are often sloppilymade, suggesting that they were made to sell to non-Zunis. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7548/12)

Figure 18. Zuni paint pot, ca. 1910. This multi-sectioned,hanging vesselis the secondtype of specificallyreligious Zuni pottery. Unlike the cornmeal bowls, however,these are not used in Zuni householdsfor everydayfunctions. It is a sign of the spurious nature of the ^master collection"that it does not include more containerslike this one. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7697/12)

Figure 19. Zuni olla, ca. 1930. This is a modern interpretation of a ca. 1800 A:shiwi polychrome-stylejar. TheZuni, like otherPuebloan potters, often copiedor used historic or ancestral pottery as models when making new piecesfor collectorsor anthropologistswho requestedauthentic, old-stylepieces without Euro-American influences. Intentionally archaizing is one way potters can provide new pottery with an authentic pedigree of tradition. Most of the pots initially purchasedby the Laboratoryof Anthropologywere of this variety, without theflamboyantly inventive additions of masks,animals, or Hawikku designs. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7509/12)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery < 51

Figure 20. The "mastercollection" as it is storedand caredfor today by the museum staff. Whenthe collectionis viewed as a whole, the similarities of coloration,shape, and design are palpably obvious.If the collectionwere as old and well used as it was purported to be, there would be wide variations in designsand shapes,as well as cracking and chipping. Becauseof the undeniable similarities, it can be concludedthat one mastermind was behind the "master " collection. Seeing the pots as a group makesit easier to assign individual pots to a specificpotter's hand. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein) different sources. Given the size of the collection, the number of makers appearssurprisingly small. The decoration on these pots generally falls into two distinct types: a large-scaled and loosely painted design on the entirety of the vessel (fig. 21); and decoration more typical of Zuni wares, where segregated design zones are divided into carefully painted panels (fig. 22). The latter type, which comprises about one -third of the pots, displays a faithful use of Zuni potting conventions in terms of size, wall thickness, color of decoration and slip, as well as design layout. The designs themselves are eccentric, but the way in which the surface is divided into body, shoulder, and neck zones is well within the expected canons of Zuni style.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 52 * Journal of the Southwest

Figure 21. Shalakojar, ca. 1930. We believethat a man painted this pot, not only becauseof the male-identifiedsubject matter, but also becauseof the departure from normal conventionsofZuni pottery design layout-especiallythe absenceof decoration on the neck and shoulder. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/ Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7648/12)

Figure 22. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial olla, ca. 1930. Thisjar has a canonical Zuni layout, yet appropriatesdesigns from Matsaki bowlsexcavated at Hawikku (seefigs. 56h and 60c in Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury 1966). Although this potter used designs unfamiliar to her, she nonetheless organized thesenovel elementswithin the potting conventionsof the day. The Matsaki design is renderedin medallions withoutfiller lines, and the neck does not repeat what is on the body. (Photograph byBlair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology#7557/12)

Also following the accepted Zuni olla layout, these body designs often include two medallions with filler motifs connecting them. A shoulder band divides the neck from the body, and the neck design differs from those used elsewhere. Following tradition, the rims and bottoms are painted a dark brown. Most likely, highly experienced female potters made these vessels, given the skillful way conventions are employed and the fact that women were generally responsible for ceramic production at Zuni during the period we are studying.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 53

A total of 140, or 66 percent, of the pots have one large design motif painted over the entire surface; these have single subjects, depicting serpents, katsina masks, and other beings from the Zuni cosmology. These thick-walled jars are slipped with the same color from base to rim. They possess a more masculine quality in subject and paint application, similar to the kivamural paintings that are done only by men. (Accordingto Ladd [pers. comm.], women never depict katsina figures at Zuni.) Adding to the masculine associations of these objects is the fact that they resemble drum pots in scale and shape; some are as big as 18 by 20 inches (cf. Bunzel 1929: plate 9).88 Even the smaller pieces of this type have thick walls and shapes reminiscent of the large drum pots. The larger pots, referred to as "Shalako jars" in Nusbaum's correspondence, are peculiarly individualistic, with quite inventive- even humorous- designs, such as the vessel with a serpent whose open mouth awaits the unsuspecting hands of the person who will carry the pot (fig. 23). Another jarhas painted hands that seem to suggest "pickme up here" (fig. 24a). One displays threatening tadpoles, with voracious open jaws and sharp teeth (fig. 25a). All of these vessels were sold as sets by Wallace and the other traders, who told Nusbaum elaborate stories about the pots' use and symbolism. The tradersindicated that the sizes, shapes, and decorations derived from the pots' function of storing masks and other paraphernaliaassociated with Shalako. The sets supposedly corresponded to the different kiva societies at the pueblo (cf. Kirk 1943).89

Figure 23. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial serpentjar, ca. 1930. Thepainter put a cut in the rim to highlight the tension betweenthe openjaws of the serpentand the imagined hand about to reach into the pot. Theserpent's tongue wraps around the rim, serving as thejar's finishing red band. Today,Zuni consultantsfind this pot humorous. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7558/12)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 54 "fr Journal of the Southwest

Figure 24. Zuni pseudo-ceremonialjars, ca. 1930: a. Hand jar; the hands seem to suggest "pickme up here." Thefeeding hole betweenthe hands also createsa face. Weknow of no other use of realistic hands on a Zuni jar. Zuni friends get a larger chuckleout of this pot. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7611/12). b. Feetjar; Zuni friends get the largest chucklefrom this pot. The round toes without nails suggesthuman feet; however,faintly visible toenails suggest they might be bear.Realistic depictionsof peopleare highly unusual, although there was a briefperiod offigurative pottery making at Zuni from 1880 to 1910. During the same period, moccasin-shapedpots were also made, presumablyfor sale. But presently,there are no known realisticpaintings of peopleon pottery, nor was any suchpottery excavated by'the Hendricks-Hodge expedition. (Photograph by Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/ Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7578/12)

Another style of pot is covered with a dark, turquoise-encrusted substance and sculptural attachments (fig. 26). This now-familiar form, described in the documents as a "medicine jar," was highly unusual in the 1920s and 1930s.90 Yet another subset has cutouts in the shapes of lightning bolts, arrowheads, vertical bands, and crescent moons (fig. 27). Many of the pots display round holes in the sides, and some have U-shaped tapered rims (fig. 28). The traders explained that these holes facilitatedthe ritualistic"feeding" of the pots, while indentations accom- modated the beaks of Shalako masks. Some pots have attached fetishes or necklaces of beads, and contain a yellow ochre-colored powder inside (fig. 29). Seven pots have knobby protuberances on their surfaces as

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery & 55

Figure 25. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1930: a. This large storage jar portraysa favorite Zuni subject matter, tadpoles,but is highly unusual in the inclusion of a heart line (most oftenfound in the representationof deer). The verysharp teeth, along with the still developinglegs and fat wiggling bodygive the depiction an amusing edge. b. Thejar's drollnessis further heightenedby the inclusion of a tiny comical bug, in a menacing pose, with its stinger up. (Bothphotographs by Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology, #7675/12). c. Thissmiling and stumpy-leggedtadpole is renderedin a humorousway. Although probably painted by the same person responsible for other tadpolesin the collection,it is interesting to note the different kinds of jars on which theyare painted. This suggeststhat the male painters were using pots more as aflat canvas than a three-dimensionalceramic surface with its accompanyingcomplexities of shapeand canonical layout. In addition, thisjar includes a more conventionalshoulder design, although incomplete. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7539/12)

well as attachments (fig. 30), and these correspond to the "Mudhead" jars Wallace sold to the Lab. A set of double pots with birdlike profiles (Wallace's so-called "Heart of the World" jars) completes the types in this extraordinarygroup (fig. 31 ).91

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 26. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1930. The turquoise-encrusted "fetish"jar is a totally inventedform, still made today. Thereare no similar jars in any collectionacquired before 1930. Thepresence of painting under the turquoisesuggests the crushedblue stone was added to an older and more conventionalpot. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7584/12)

Figure 27. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial arrowheadjar, ca. 1930. Thereare six cutoutjars in the "mastercollection," each as fantastic as the next. Zuni possessno tradition of cutout designs on pots. Thisform might have been concoctedto appeal to stereotyped notions of Indianness; however,there are also Puebloan meanings associated with arrowheads. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7709/12)

Figure 28. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1930. Traderstold Laboratoryof Anthropologystaff that the cutout on the rim of thisjar accommodatedthe beakof the Shalako outfit that was stored inside. This was clearlya fabricated storybecause such a costumewould neverfit in thisjar. Cutouts do occur in Pueblopots. Theycan be intentional or, moreoften, theyare repairs to a piece of thejar that poppedout or cracked during firing. Given thejeweler's tools presentat Wallace'strading post, it would have been an easy matter to makesuch a cutout. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7603/12)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 57

Figure 29a and b. Zuni pseudo-ceremonialjars, ca. 1930. Tradersclaimed that holescut into the bodyof the pot werefor feeding the vessel.But prior to 1930, not a single documentedpot has a feeding hole. Thereare no pots with holesin the Smithsonian Institution yscomprehensive collections made at Zuni during 1879-1900, and ethnologistRuth Bunzel (1929) whostudied Zuni pottery in the mid- 1920s makesno mention of pottery with feeding holes.About two-thirds of thejars in the "mastercollection" include feeding holes,almost withoutfail on male-madejars and clobberedAcoma wares. Theplacement of a feeding hole in the serpent'smouth appearsplayful, suggesting that it guards a secretthat might be unlockedif entranced isgained. (Photographsby Blair Clark Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7600/12 and 7593/12)

In 1937, Chapman gave Ruth Bunzel an overall assessment of the "master collection": "the majority . . . are jars, with symbolic designs of a type quite distinct from that of Zuni domestic pottery. Many have holes cut into their sides, and others have bead necklaces and fetishes tied on the necks, or by means of smaller holes bored in the sides."92 What Chapman didn't mention is that all of the pots have a uniform brown color that appears to indicate great age and use. Before proceeding, consider for the moment the evidence at hand. First, the traders described the pots as coming from separate religious groups- this would mean different society houses, homes, and families, each possessing distinct skills and knowledge. Second, the pots reputedly had been in use for some time, suggesting that different generations of potters should be representedin the collection. But when we examine the pots today, problems emerge regarding these assumptions; as previously

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 58 & Journal of the Southwest

Figure 30. Pseudo-ceremonial Mudheadjar, ca. 1930. This is one of sevenjars purported to have been releasedfor sale by the Mudhead Society.Its literal evocation of the Mudhead ceremonial costumeis in keeping with the male-made pseudo-ceremonialjars in the ccmastercollection "; it diverges strikinglyfrom traditional Zuni pottery. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/ Laboratoryof Anthropology, #7686/12)

Figure 31. Pseudo-ceremonialbird jar, ca. 1930. Theset of six bird jars in the ccmastercollection " is based on a historic glazeware double-lobedjar, ca. 1700. Thejar in this illustration was clearly manufacturedfor sale. Thesame potter made all six; the same bird appears identically on each pot, based on the Baake drawings (seefigure 33). And as with the entire collection,there isfabricated aging through the brown coating and an artificial wear ring on the bottom. The pot showsno signs of use. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropoloay,#7541/12)

mentioned, the pots are suspiciously alike. How could pieces made over time and originating in different parts of the pueblo all look so much the same and show no evidence of use? The obvious conclusion is that the "master collection" was orchestrated by a single mastermind. The specimens described are in fact so problematic that we could not understand them without the help of the Zuni people. Therefore, Bernstein, former director of the Lab (and coauthor of this article), discussed them during several repatriation consultations with sixteen Zuni religious leaders beginning in 1990. On examining this unconventional

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 59 collection, these authorities concluded that with few exceptions the pots were fake, at least in the sense that they were never intended for ceremonial purposes. The specimens that claimed so much of the Lab's time, attention, and financial resources are simply not what the institution bargained for. Close examinationof the objects confirmsthe Zuni leaders'assessment and helps us to understand their astute evaluation of the evidence. Not only inauthentic in terms of reputed function, most are probably not even genuinely old, but were either made or extensively modified shortly before their purchase in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In three main areas- surface treatment, construction, and decoration- the material evidence indicates that these pots were manufactured to look ancient and ceremonial by using techniques designed to deceive. This deception is easiest to spot in terms of surface treatment. In their natural setting, Zuni pots inevitably darken due to proximity to open fireplaces, blowing sand, and dust, especially on their shoulders where environmental dirt and soot can collect. This group does have a dark brownish color, but one that remainsimprobably uniform over the entire surface of virtually every pot, raising suspicion that artificialmeans were used to achieve this effect. In fact, most of these pots received a wash of water-soluble brown paint after firing, which easily rubs off with a wet cloth. Sometimes this coating is whipped on evenly, on other pots it is dabbed; sometimes the results are a thin, delicate coat, and at other times, a dark, thick, splotchy one. There were probably two different substances used, one a paint like that found in an envelope labeled with Chapman'swriting (cat. no. 7514/12), "Brown powder from Zuni Cer. Pot. Handle with Care." The other darkening substance appears to be pine pitch. The dark coating no doubt was intended to suggest long usage, and hence, the objects' antiquity. A second notable anomaly in surface treatment is on the bottoms and rims. Well-used pots are unevenly worn at their bases, revealing whitish rings that result when clay wears off due to sliding along stone floors, ledges, and benches. The specimens in question do exhibit wear rings on their bottoms (fig. 32), but again this detail appearswith suspicious uniformity. Undoubtedly, the bottoms were sanded before sale to the institution. In addition, authentically old Zuni pots show uneven wear and inevitably some breakage or chipping at the rim, yet very few of the "master collection" vessels display such features. Despite the purported age and heavy use of these pieces, the rims appear new, except that they

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 60 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 32. Pseudo- ceremonialjar, ca. 1930. The bottomof thisjar has been artificially worn, as have the bottomsof all the otherjars in the collection. The wear rings are exceptionallysmooth and even; real wear rings are more varied in depth and roughlytextured. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/ Laboratoryof Anthropology, #7616/12) have been sanded smooth with fine-grit sandpaper- like that used by jewelers- in an effort to make them look like they had been used for many years. Finally, authentic Zuni pottery has a dark band of color on the inside neck of jars; virtually all of these jars lack this band of color, in most cases, because it has been sanded away. Another odd visual feature is the pots' attachments and apertures. Up until this date, no other pottery is known to have fetishes and leather thongs with beads and shells attached around their rims. The fetishes are an odd lot; most probably did not exist in the pantheon of pre-1900 Zuni carving (McMannis 2003; Rodee and Ostler 1990). Many are exces- sively large, uniquely carved from antler, and with multiple attachments including eyes, feathers, and beads. Some of these fetishes are doused in cornmeal, no doubt to enhance their ceremonial authenticity. The holes in the pots usually appearin the bottom half of the side wall. Most have been cut into the leather-hardpot as it was made. However, some were bored into the fired and finished surface. No earlier pottery has these so-called feeding holes, and only turquoise -encrusted fetish pots (discussed later) are still manufactured today.93 In terms of construction, the evidence is more complex. Even the most eccentric pots are extremely well formed and expertly executed. Without question genuinely Pueblo-made, they are hand built from coils using indigenous clays and outdoor firing methods. As with all

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 61

Pueblo pots, the makers began by placing a flattened piece of clay into a mold to help shape the object's base. But this feature raises suspicion in certain vessels. In authentic pre-1870 Zuni pottery, the body of the pot typicallyspills over the top of the mold, creating a distinctivelyflared profile. But in some pots under discussion here, the line has been faked by adding a slight protrusion of clay (fig. 32). Having been trained to use molds differently, whoever created these pots could not adequately duplicate this aspect of her ancestors' work.94 This feature, however, like the artificial aging of the pots, adequately established the objects' antiquity for the original purchasers. Another extremely curious aspect of the pots' construction is that many have thinner walls and lighter weights than is normally found in Zuni wares. At least two possible explanations exist to account for this anomaly. Either the bodies of conventional pots were sanded to remove existing decoration and subsequently repainted with the idiosyncratic "ceremonial" designs, or these features indicate Acoma manufacture. Most likely, the collection includes pots that derived from both of these possibilities. In fact, present-day Acoma potters Mary Lewis Garcia, Emma Lewis Mitchell, and Dolores Lewis Garcia (Lucy Lewis's daughters) examined the entire corpus of pots and recognized some as Acoma made. According to another Zuni potter, Josephine Nahohai, Wallace had a Zuni employee married to an Acoma potter. She may have made some of the vessels. In fact, a few pots have Acoma designs underneath the layer of brown overpaint. This, of course, complicates the status of the collection as "Zuni." In terms of their surfacedecorations, the pots tell the most illuminating and complicated story. According to Ladd (Romancito 1992: 55), the vessels with applied ornamentation and dark encrusted coatings belong to the genre of "fetish pots," a market-drivenfabrication invented during the 1920s. (Cushing, Stevenson, and Bunzel neither mentioned nor collected this type of pot in their studies. But subsequent ethnographic publications [e.g., Kirk 1939, 1943; A. Nusbaum 1938] endowed this type of vessel with scientific legitimacy.) Still produced today, such pots are now imported from Mexico and then covered with crushed turquoise and commercial stone carvings to attractbuyers who take them as tokens of Zuni ceremonialism. An initial assessmentof the other categories in this collection indicates that the decorations derive primarilyfrom two sources: (1) then-unpub- lished illustrationsby artistWilliam Baakeof Hawikku and Matsakipoly-

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 62 * Journal of the Southwest

chrome ceramics excavated by FrederickWebb Hodge in 1917-1923,95 and (2) illustrations of non-ceramic ceremonial material published in various nineteenth- and early twentieth-century ethnological studies. Some borrowings are rather literal, but in most cases the adaptations exhibit great inventiveness. For example, Baake's illustration of a Mat- saki polychrome bowl inspired a mask design within a rosette on one of the vessels (figs. 33, 34). The design, although originally on a bowl and therefore concave in its dimensions, was flattened by artist Baake. Subsequently the potter, using Baake's drawing rather than the ancient bowl, re-envisioned the motif as a convex form on the outer surface of a jar.96Although the motif has an antique pedigree, its presentation is completely novel- an ancient proto-Zuni design for the interior of a bowl is adapted for rosette decorations on the side of an otherwise conventional modern Zuni jar. (Rosettes only became part of Zuni design layout beginning in the mid-nineteenth century; they never appeared on the ancient wares found at Hawikku. In other respects, this type of jar follows nineteenth- and early twentieth-century design layout conventions, although the shoulder decoration tends to be somewhat idiosyncratic.)Other pots displaydecontextualized fragmentsrather than a whole design, repeated and reinterpreted as a part of a medallion, a shoulder design, or as bird's eyes (fig. 35). Clearly,those who made or commissioned these objects relied on several of Baake's drawings for inspiration (see Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury 1966: figs. 45a, 46e, 5 Id, 51k). Whoever concocted these designs had access to the drawings (or photographs of them) but transformed these representations of the Zuni archaeological ceramic traditions in an extremely eclectic and freewheeling manner. Interestingly, Chapman had in his possession a set of photographs of Baake'sdrawings, which he turned over to Watson Smith while the latter was writing up the report on the Hodge excavation.97Earlier Chapman had loaned the photographs to Elsie Clews Parsons to entice her to do the analysis of the pots at Zuni; ultimately, she returned them. Today, the photographs are in Kenneth Chapman's papers at SAR in a folder labeled "1927," which includes reproductions of not only these profes- sionally rendered pen-and-ink drawings, but also Zuni schoolchildren's drawings of more "normal" pottery designs. While the designs on these pots have a clear line of ancestry, we may never know who supplied the illustrations and by what means. Hodge primarilyemployed the Protestant political faction at the pueblo during

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery

Figure 33. Drawings by William Baake ofMatsaki bowlsexcavated at Hawikku, ca. 1920s. The level of detail and the museum cataloging numbersin pencil suggest the drawings were done at the Heye Museum in New York,where they werestudied, as is clearfrom the presenceof stickpins in the corners.The four drawings on the right all appear on ((mastercollection" pottery, primarily as medallions on jars. The lower middle drawing was completedfrom the original bowl in figure 10, and the modern reuseof this design is illustrated in figure 34. The bird in the upper middle appears on jar #7541/12, illustrated here in figure 31, and the upper right illustration is used on jar 7553/12, figure 35. Altogether, twenty-twopots in the ^mastercollection" are based on thesedrawings. The location ofBaake's drawings is not at present known. (Courtesyof the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, #N7368) the Hawikku excavations, and some of these families also worked for Wallace. The anthropologist bought three pots by Nina Chavez that were replicas of the pots he was excavating (fig. 36). But the Hawikku vessels were crated and sent to New Yorkafter each field season, so there would not have been opportunities for firsthand study of them at the pueblo by the time that the "mastercollection" was being formulated in

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 64 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 34. Pseudo-ceremonialjar, attributed to Tsayutitisa,ca. I 930. Wedo not suggest that Tsayutitisawas a willing accomplicein " the creation of the ^mastercollection. Rather, it seemslikely that she wasgiven a particular design as a model by Wallace,another trader, or a Zuni middleman. Probablywithout her knowledge,the pot was artificially aged, sanded - on the bottom,and again unbeknownstto - her representedas comingfrom a ceremonial chamber.Several of thepseudo-ceremonial jars in the NMAI collectionare classicollas byher, utilizing her hallmark neckand vertical body filler design. Theholes cut in their sides, the attachedfetishes, and the brownwash do little to detractfrom the original dignity of thepot or its maker.It is reasonableto concludethat Tsayutitisamade pots using suggestedolder designs, rather than creating intentional deception.(Photograph by Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7564/12)

Figure 35. Pseudo- ceremonial birdjar, ca. 1930. Theface of the bird is a pastiche of designsfrom different bowlsexcavated at Hawikku. The bird'sprofile isfrom a Kechipawan bowl, #086327, in the National Museum of the American Indian. It is illustrated in the upper right in figure 33, and as figure 47c in Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury1966. The eye of the bird isfrom a Matsaki bowl, Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury'sfigure 60f and its neck ruff isfrom theirfigure 44a, a Hawikku polychromebowl. (Photographby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7553/12)

the late 1920s (fig. 37). All the evidence indicates that the potters were working from drawings and not directly from Hawikku pots. Another source of design ideas was non-ceramic models. Numerous pots, much less conventional than the rosette type, incorporate animals such as cranes, eagles, badgers, and bears, animalsnot heretofore seen on

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 36. Bowl by Ninita Chavez, ca. 1920, purchasedby the Hendricks- Hodge expedition. This bowl is a direct copyof a Kechipawan bowl (Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury1966: fig. 47h), rather than an adaptation of the design to theform of a jar. Chavez and her husband were employedby the Hendricks-Hodge Expedition (Courtesyof the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, #085663)

Figure 37. Hodge and Zuni workman examining the crated collectionsexcavated from Hawikku, to be shipped to New York,ca 1921. Some 20,000 objectswere removed from the village, including 1,600 wholevessels. In recent years, Zuni peoplehave begun studying the collection. Museum exhibitionsat the puebloprovide inspiration for new pottery designs, and a dialogue between Native peopleand museum professionalscontinues. (Courtesyof the National Museum of the American Indian, #08958)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 66 ^ Journal of the Southwest

Figure 38. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1930. The cranejars are all painted by the same hand, most likely a man. On each body,design fields are divided into four discretepanels by thick vertical lines. In each is an identical crane. Thereare eight crane vesselsin v the amastercollection, the only known Zuni pots with cranes. The thin walls indicate that thesepieces are probably clobberedAcoma pots. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7565/12)

Figure 39. Zuni pseudo-ceremonialjar, ca. 1930. The design on this vesselis intriguing becausethe bearsare nose- to-nose,as would be seen in a mural painting, rather than walking in a line. The neck design seemsbased on a Sikyatkiprototype, but whetherit is adaptedfrom an excavated Hawikku bowl or mimics the modern use of this tradition by Hopi-Tewapotters cannot be determined at this time. (Photograph by Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/ Laboratoryof Anthropology,7568/12)

Zuni pottery but representativeof importantaspects of the Zuni or Pueblo cosmology (figs. 38, 39). Cranes signify winter; badgers, summer; bears, spring;and deer are associatedwith the year'send. The animalsare loosely painted in a "masculine" manner on relatively thin-walled pots that we assumewere made by women. This evocation of seasons suggests clans but not specific religious societies. On these pots, evenly spaced thick, vertical lines usually divide the body into four parts with a horizontal band at the shoulder. There is always a single animal per panel and only one type of animalper pot. On one pot, the four panels representa sequence of actions (fig. 40a-d): the deer grazes, then is startled and begins to run, is shot, and then dies, as represented by the Xs replacing its eyes.98

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 67

Figure 40. Zuni pseudo-ceremonialjar, ca. 1930. On thisfour-panel jar a deer is shown in an action sequence:a. grazing; b. startled and running; c. shot and stumbling; and d. dead. Hunting is part of a man's domain, and therefore this scene is another excellent candidate for having beenpainted by a man. (Photographsby Bruce Bernstein. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,#7506/12)

In many cases, the styles and placement of motifs clearly derive from illustrations of shields, masks, and altars in well-known texts on Zuni ceremonialism, such as Matilda Stevenson (1904: plates 3, 26, 54, 108) and Cushing (1883: plate 11). For example, compare Cushing's illustration of a shield belonging to "The Priesthood of the Bow" with a pot from the "master collection" (figs. 41, 42). The individual motifs on the pots are not precise copies but are decontextualized and recombined inventively.In addition, the "Shalakojars" reproduce katsinamasks (fig. 43), which by the 1920s, were familiar to scholars from illustrations in ethnographic texts; these no doubt suggested an authentic pedigree to Anglo anthropologists. Further study of the pottery in the "master collection" will no doubt reveal many other ad hoc appropriations from the ethnographic literature. Ironically, these professional publications

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 41. Cushing's drawing of his Bow Priesthoodshield (Cashing 1883: plate 11). Puebloshields are never as ornate as Cushing's. (Photographby Blair Clark)

Figure 42. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1 930. The eagle shownhere may be based on Cushing}sshield. In cc keepingwith the humor in the master collection,"however, the bird on this pot is an eaglet, with short legs and adolescent feathers, and a panicked look that suggestsit is having problemsflying. (Photograph byBlair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7706/12)

Figure 43. Zuni pseudo-ceremonial jar, ca. 1930. Katsina masks were well known to non-Zunis throughMatilda Stevenson'sstudy (1904) and the annual Shalako dance, when many of the masked gods appeared in the village and could be seen by non-initiates. (Photographby Blair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology,#7647/12)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 69

largely provided the elements of a manufactured tradition that deceived ethnographers themselves. In this regard, the humor in some of the most outlandish pots can be seen as an inside joke at the expense of the experts. The question now remains as to who made these objects and how many different potters were involved in creating this collection. In terms of decoration, the evidence of numerous repetitive designs and consis- tent styles indicates probably no more than five to eight makers, who were probably not part of the ruse but were commissioned to use older designs in inventive ways. Perhaps as few as three female Zuni potters were involved, including Tsayutitisa, who may be responsible for some of the more conventional decorations, as in fig. 44. The more eccentric pieces, including the large drum-sized pots, may also have been made and fired by women, or perhaps entire families were involved. Other women were apparently enlisted - probably unknowingly - from the numerous excellent potters at neighboring Acoma; their products were most likely altered (or clobbered) after purchase. One or two male artists probably executed the less conventional designs on the Zuni-made pots, using loose, single brushstrokes to create images of Shalako and other katsina masks, animals, mythical figures, serpents, and birds." A single mastermind may have artificiallyaged the surfaces of the pots and sanded the bottoms.

Figure 44. Zuni pseudo- ceremonialjary ca. 1930, attributed to Tsayutitisa, acknowledgedas the bestZuni potter of the twentieth century. Thisparticular jar's design can be seen in the Baake drawing, figure 33, and in the birdjar, figure 31, as well as in a Gila Polychrome bowl illustrated in Smith, Woodbury,and Woodbury (1966: fig. 45a). (Photograph byBlair Clark. Courtesyof the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture/Laboratoryof Anthropology,§7512/12)

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions /U v Journal of the southwest

Assessing the Evidence

What does this material evidence add to our understanding of the Lab's pseudo-ceremonial collection? At first reading, we strongly suspected that Anglo traders at Zuni concocted the "ceremonial" pottery collection with some, but limited, Zuni participation. Initially, it appeared to us that the episode started as Wallace's boondoggle; then Kelsey and Barnes discovered his suppliers and moved in on his operation. But in reviewing the evidence, it now seems unlikely that the crafty Wallace was the sole instigator. Although Wallace provided the overwhelming majority of the specimens to the Lab- especially in the early years- each type of pot and various individual specimens belonging to the unified "sets" came through both Kelsey and Wallace.100In fact, without consulting the accession records, it is impossible to tell which pots came from which trader. Pots of the same type and apparentlyby the same maker arrived at the Lab through both, as well as through Barnes. This indicates that they all depended on a semiautonomous source at the pueblo for the manufacturedpots, one who supplied each of them at various times and in differing quantities. And key documents from the Department of the Interior assert that at least one Zuni man served as an independent agent and instrumental middleman in this episode. Could an individual or group at Zuni have concocted this brilliant subterfuge?Ethnographers record severalattempted or successful frauds in Native dealings with Euro-American collectors. Once systematic collecting began in the Southwest, the Pueblo people soon realized that prices were much, much higher for old ceremonial goods than for new everydayitems. Cushing (1886: 496) reports an incident in which some Hopis "of the Te wa [sic] pueblo brought me a quantity of pottery. It had been made with the purpose of deceiving me, in careful imitation of ancient types." Cushing recognized the deception but paid the going rate for ancient pottery anyway,and the Indians laughingly explained to him how they achieved the fabrication. Stevenson complains about similarpractices among the Zuni, lament- ing that alas, the Zuni as a man and good citizen has fallen far below what he was before he came into intimate contact with civilized man. . . . At present the less orthodox men will manufacturealmost anything a collector may desire. Spurious ancient fetishes are made by the

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 71

sackfuland passed off as genuine. So it is also with masks and altars. Any number of fraudulent objects may be obtained at the prices set by the clever Indians. (M. Stevenson 1904: 381-82) Although she blamed Euro-American civilization for this perceived moral decline, Stevenson- like the collectors Dominguez describes- remained oblivious to her own role in stimulating a cottage industry in sacred simulacra. Indeed, Zuni carvers in Stevenson's time began producing large numbers of fetishes- based on both real and invented models- for sale to non-Zuni purchasers.101 There is another side to this tale that bears mentioning because it sheds light on the social and political contexts of these transactions between the Zuni and non-Zuni worlds. Remember that this incident occurred at a time when factionalism pulsated through the pueblo, giving rise to concerns about the pace of change and who would control Zuni government. The schism between different factions was so intense that it alarmed U.S. officials and Indian advocacy organizations, such as the New Mexico Association for Indian Affairs. The community's increasing dependence on manufactured foods and products required participationin the broader cash economy. Some artistsworked through traders, producing new types of carvings and innovative jewelry styles for the marketplace. These changes encouraged a type of individual initiative heretofore unknown and, most important, anathema to the interdependency that had previously been characteristic of Zuni society. Also disruptive was the fact that various groups experienced differ- ential treatment in their contacts with government officials, traders, and others- such as the anthropologist Hodge - who could provide much- needed employment. The village was never unanimous in consenting to the excavations at Hawikku; few would have condoned replicating or removing altarsand masksfor museum collections. The Zuni faction that had allowed Hodge into the village to excavate at Hawikku gradually lost its authority and therefore governance of the village. The power in the pueblo shifted from one group to another; the deposed faction lost its annual source of revenue and employment and needed to find new economic means. Perhaps the production of pseudo-ceremonial wares arose as an alternative.102 In the episode we have been examining, at least one enterprisingZuni individual learned to take advantage of Anglo demands for ceremonial goods. Such a maneuver provided income for potters, middlemen, or

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 72 * Journal of the Southwest

both, and perhaps deflected market pressure away from items of real value in the pueblo. Yet the traders'involvement - especiallyWallace's - was very great. We may never know the full story of the pots' origins, but surviving documents do shed further light on the matter. Recall that Chapman's report to Rockefeller in 1929-30 mentions that Wal- lace would receive vessels from two religious societies "as soon as they [substituted and dedicated] other pottery in place of the old." In his 1932 report to the donor, Nusbaum states that Wallace needed to be reimbursed for "supplies furnished to the Indians involved."103These oblique references are hardly conclusive, but as the scandal unfolded at Zuni, the notion of substitution became thornier. Government officials receivedallegations that Wallacewas actuallyselling the Lab contemporary ware copied from old ceremonial vessels. In his letter to Collier of April 20, 1933, Kelsey'sZuni employee writes, "The Trader& the Indian man with whom he had planned this deal claims that these pottery that he has sold were reproduced pottery instead of real old sacred pots [sic].n Not completely convinced by these claims, however, the writer questions why Wallacepaid so much in bribes and barterto get the seven contested pots into his hands. But he adds, "I don't want to see a Trader fool any tourist or anybody by saying that such an such a things are very old and sacred if they know it isn't & than [sic] sell them to make big money on it for it seems that way with this case."104 In her 1933 report to Collier, McGair also discusses the challenged authenticity of the pieces. Repeating one version of the story, she outlines the possibility that Wallace's agent "had duplicate pots made by an old Zuni Indian woman which would be worth about $1.50 each." Interestingly, one of McGair's recommendations was to "obtain from some expert like Mr. Nusbaum an appraisal of the value of the - pots whether or not they are originals." Much later, Superintendent Trotter recalled the event: "The young man [who sold the pots to the trader] was told to get the pots back. . . . His mother was a fine pottery maker and as he had access to the old pots, he brought them to her and when she had made duplicates of them, he placed these in the retreat [kiva or society house]." Trotter then goes on to say that he had the originals placed back into Zuni hands and that the young agent was to "offer his clients the fake pots which were well worth the amount received" (1955: 110). In these reminiscences, Trotter, surprisingly, seems to approve of the ruse that possibly fooled both the traders and the Lab.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -0- 73

Reading the documents today, we realize that the claims found in some of the documents were partially correct- the pots were contemporary fabrications,although their designs were not based on actual pots used in the kivas. Through an underground channel, Wallace and his cohorts- unwittingly or in collusion- actuallyplayed an important role in stimulating innovative types of pottery production at the pueblo - at least for a short time and in a covert way.105 If Wallacewas a collaborator in the production of these fabrications, he may have suggested specific design ideas, as he did to the jewelry and fetish makers at Zuni.106 One book in his library contained illustrations of Mimbres pottery designs; on its title page, Wallace wrote, "I kept this for pottery disigns [sic]"107 Also an abundance of surplus materials, such as the chips of turquoise left over in Wallace's jewelry workshop, may have stimulated ideas for adorning the surfaces of the so-called fetish pots.108 By whatever means these pots came into being, they successfully beguiled their intended audience. Portraying a stereotypical but seductive "Indianness," incorporating lightning bolts and arrowheads, feathers, bones, and fetishes; playing on a romantic longing for a purer Indian past; and representing religious masks and mythological figures, the vessels knowingly played upon the Anglo hunger for possession of Zuni ceremonial life. The incorporation of motifs from Hawikku and Matsaki polychrome ware provided an additionally authoritative lineage for the pots, one with which both Nusbaum and Chapman were familiar.109These motifs conveyed an exotic, ancient, but trumped up "authenticity" to the purchasers, fooling the preeminent experts in the field. Vanderwagenand Culin's replicasof Zuni ceremonialmaterial in some ways prefigure this incident, but there, the museum personnel willingly participatedin the fabrication (Fane et al. 1991: 138, plate 122; see also Parsons 1939: 1142-44). Culin knew that he was buying reproductions and perhaps even came to prefer the simulacra, since he could thereby control the "authenticity" of the dolls and masks. Moreover, these earlier instances involve replicas, not fabrications. The manufactured tradition we have been studying evolved without the Lab's knowledge and was based on ad hoc, syncretic ideas about what might pass for a genuine ceremonial pot. It is hard to imagine a collecting episode that more literally illustrates James Clifford's remark, "Cultural or artistic 'authenticity' has as much to do with an inventive present as with a past,

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 74 * Journal of the Southwest

its objectification, preservation, or revival"(Clifford 1988: 222). Or we might add, its complete fabrication. The documents related to this case, the specimens themselves, and the evaluations by Zuni and Acoma authorities tell us much about this highly illuminating episode. But several mysteries remain. A question persists as to why Wallace so ardently wanted the seven pots expropri- ated by Barnes and sent to the Lab. Is it possible that he did not know they were inexpensive fabrications?Could it be, as Kelsey's employee suspected, that one or more of this lot had a legitimate provenance and was of real value to the community? Was Wallacepurposely trying to stir up controversy in order to legitimize the status of the pots as genuinely ceremonial?110Or was it essentially professional jealousy that motivated Wallace to take reckless actions in order to prevent another trader from cutting into his territory? This last possibility recalls the question already raised: how precisely did the pseudo-ceremonial ware come to be divvied up among three competing traders?Lacking any conclusiveevidence, we can only speculate on the various roles of instigators and middlemen. Obviously a minor player, Barnes appeared only briefly as an inept interloper.111But after Wallace, Kelsey was the Lab's most active supplier. Perhaps Kelsey, on discovering or being approached by Wallace's source, intervened to procure similar pieces. The fact that both traders were equally culpable if found out may have prevented them from informing on each other for a time. The animosity between them no doubt grew more intense, resulting in Kelsey's employee contacting Collier with his complaints about Wallace.This is only one possible scenario, but clearlyboth Kelsey and especially Wallace gambled audaciously, gambles which paid off enormously in terms of thousands of dollars in profits.112 Another alternative is that the Zuni facilitator largely controlled the commerce in pseudo-ceremonial pottery and either spread his business intentionally or sold to whomever he located first. No doubt, he wished to dispose of the items quickly, to protect not only himself but also the secret status of the collection. Yet he very much needed the traders' facilities. In a small, insular community like Zuni, it would be difficult to keep such large and unusual pieces secret. Wallace or Kelsey could have provided a back room to work in and to hold merchandise until shipment.113 In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests a close collaboration between a few Zuni individuals and the Anglo dealers.114

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 75

Perhaps the most puzzling question is how the Lab staff, which included the premier experts in the field of Pueblo pottery, were taken in by this scheme. A varietyof factors may have impairedtheir judgment: the mystique of ceremonialism, the lure of the hunt, and the desire to best their rivalsin building a national reputation for the Lab. Also, recall that Wallace introduced the notion of substitution in his interactions with Nusbaum - that Zuni makers were replicating ceremonial pots to replace the old ones in the kivas, which could then be sold to the Lab. This no doubt contributed to the institution's vulnerabilityto deceit. In fact, Nusbaum admitted to Sergeant in 1933 that "tests have revealed that certain pots are copies not originals."115Yet Nusbaum's knowledge that new vessels were currently being substituted for old ones at the pueblo may have allowed him to dismiss these "certain pots" as isolated anomalies, as rare cases where some mix-up had occurred in the transferbetween Zuni and the Lab. And since the new pots supposedly reproduced the old, even these would be of value to the scientific community. At some point, Chapmanrealized the pots were not what they seemed. His skills as a connoisseur of Pueblo pottery no doubt led him to rec- ognize the same anomalies outlined earlier:the suspicious similaritiesin form and design, the wholesale use of Hawikku and Matsakidesigns, and the uniform application of brown over-paint as well as sanded bottoms and rims. Remember, too, that in Chapman'spossession was an envelope with his notation that it contained brown paint used on ceremonial jars. Chapmanannotated the IAF accession book with the words "exceedingly thin" in an entry for one of the pseudo-ceremonial pots that was probably Acoma made (IAF cat. no. 1505). On February 9, 1959, he wrote to Alfred Whiting, "My belated thanks for the photograph of the U. of Vermont Zuni Ceremonial bowl. Am filing it with the others. Maybe some day we can find who was responsible for the mass production."116 Furthermore, the way the collection was divided between the IAF and the Lab may indicate Chapman's attempt to weed out authentic from fake. Our investigation shows that the less eccentric, more credible, and more typically Zuni pots arrived in 1928 and 1929; almost all of these remained with the IAF. The more obviously trumped-up fetish pots and Shalako jars came in 1930 or later. These were transferredor came outright to the Lab. But internecine quarrels between the Lab and the IAF and contested funding sources may have played a part in the division as well. In any case, when Chapman and others at the Lab realized

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 76 * Journal of the Southwest

the deception, they had little incentive to reveal it publicly, since their reputation with their peers and with Rockefeller was at stake.117 Of course, the Lab was not alone in being duped; several other credible institutions were bamboozled by the hoax as well. Yet without Rockefeller's money, the Lab's eagerness for ceremonial material, and its willingness to pay inflated prices, the majority of the pots probably never would have been manufactured.118Clearly, once the client took the bait, the suppliers repeatedly invented stories about yet another unexpected release of pottery from the priesthoods, at least until Collier intervened.119In this sense, Collier was an unrecognized friend to the Lab. Who knows how many more pseudo-ceremonial pots it might have purchased had he not intervened at Zuni? But even so, from 1928 to 1933, the Indian Arts Fund and the Laboratory of Anthropology spent more than ten thousand of Rockefeller'sdollars on Pueblo pots that were not what they seemed. In financialterms, that price was exorbitant. But perhaps most regrettable was the Lab's role in abetting a kind of trade that upset and demoralized members of the Zuni community.

The Pots Today

A last question remains: how should we now regard this material, since most of it dates from the 1920s and 1930s and was never used in ceremonial contexts? Complicating this question is the fact that these pots are wonderfully made, obviously by some of the best potters of the day at Zuni and Acoma. Even the most eccentric jars are "authentic" Pueblo pottery; the collection is "inauthentic" only insofar as it was misrepresented to its purchasers in terms of its age and use. Should it be considered worthless by museum standardsbecause it resulted from a moneymaking scheme concocted by a few individuals rather than deriv- ing from timeless communal traditions?Should it therefore be ignored or deaccessioned, as is an old master painting when discovered to be by a follower instead of by the master himself? This question is especially timely, because the entire relationship of Native American artifacts to concepts of the sacred is currently being reexamined. Recently, Anglo collectors have spent as much as $35,000 to purchase Zuni cornmeal bowls because of their ceremonial associations. But according to Ladd, there is in fact no such thing as a "sacred Zuni pot," only household pieces that may be used in ceremonies and

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 77

then returned to their domestic context. Reporting on an interview with Ladd, Rick Romancito writes, "The concept of sacredness outside of the context of native worship is virtually an invention of non-Indian collectors and traders." (Romancito 1992: 54).120 Given this, the very notion of "ceremonial" status for any collection of Zuni pots comes into question. Once overvalued,treated as reifiedsigns of Native Americanauthentic- ity and spirituality,these pots- now that their new status is recognized- might be shunted aside as worthless. However, the Lab and IAF collection is indeed genuinely Zuni- a Zuni response to a new condition of patronage. It gives evidence of the Zuni people's understanding of the Anglo longing for entrance into private arenas of their ceremonial life. Beyond the obvious profit motive, the Zuni makersperhaps adapted to requests for such material as a way to satisfy this longing at a distance. In another sense the objects remain priceless and merit further study. They are materialculture uniquely revelatoryof Euro-American attitudes toward the production and collection of Pueblo pottery during the early twentieth century. They provide telling evidence of what constituted authenticity for anthropological institutions of that era. Marketed by tradersand assembled by the Lab staff, they exist, as Dominguez (1986: 554) has written in another context, not as pure "representationsof the Other, but rather ... as referential indices of the Self. Their concrete objects come from other societies, but everything about the collection itself- the way the objects were collected, why they were collected, and - how and why they get displayed points to us." Ultimately, this group of pots cautions against overweening collecting ambitions and blind pursuit of the Other's sacred realm. However, because a few Zuni people, some traders, several anthropologists, and a rich patron were all complicit in the formation of this "master collection," its existence perhaps demonstrates an even more fundamental point: at the borders of cultural contact and exchange, it is often hard to distinguish "us" from "them."

Epilogue

- - The excavatedpots from Hawikku the Zuni people's ancestrallegacy sat in the Heye Foundation for decades, relatively unused and unseen, except as secret models for some of the designs in the Laboratory of

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 78 * Journal of the Southwest

Anthropology's "master collection."121But as discussed previously, the Lab's pots were themselves locked away for decades in the "Ceremonial Vault," and not until the 1980s were the Hendricks-Hodge expedition's film and photographs availablefor viewing at Zuni. By and large, Zuni people remained shut off from this material.The situation changed when the Zuni initiated a project to return some of the excavated pieces to the pueblo, culminating in 2001 in the public exhibition, "Hawikku: Listening to Our Ancestors." The exhibition was not a survey or explanation of archeological methods, but rather a history of the intrusiveness of outsiders at Zuni. This project is a public declaration of the Zuni people's intention to be a principalpartner in the interpretation of their cultural legacy. *

Acknowledgments

An earlier and much shorter version of this study appeared as "Sacred Illusions:A Unique Collection of Zuni Pots Comes to Light," American Indian Art Magazine 27 (3) Summer 2002: 50-57. The authors wish to acknowledge the following individualsfor their generous assistancein the research and writing of this paper: Jonathan Batkin, Diane Bird, Eulalie Bonar, J. J. Brody,Antonio Chavarria,Jim Enote, T. J. Ferguson, Dolores Lewis Garcia,Mary Lewis Garcia,Jane Gillentine, Diane Grua, Margaret Ann Harding, Michael Hering, Christie Hoffman, Laura Holt, Tom Kennedy, Edmund Ladd, Lieutenant Governor Barton Martza, David McNeese, Anita McNeese, Emma Lewis Mitchell, Lieutenant Governor Pesancio Lasiloo, Willow Powers, Kathy Reynolds, Paula Rivera, Curtis Schaafsma,Douglas Schwartz,Councilman Dan Simplicio,Brenda Shears, Deborah Slaney, Louise Stiver, Caitlin Sweeney, ValerieVeruz, Douglas Winblad, CathyWright, and Eileen Yatsattie.The Zuni Council's patience and approval for publishing this article are appreciated.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 79

Notes

1. The Lab was established in 1927 as a center for anthropological research in the Southwest. Originally funded by John D. Rockefeller Jr., the Lab became part of the Museum of New Mexico (MNM) in 1949. In 1987, the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture (MIAC) established exhibition galleries for the MNM's Indian art collections, including items collected earlier by the Lab (see Stocking 1982; Ware 1987). 2. The bibliography on this dynamic is now vast. For Native American material, see especially Berlo 1992; Clifford 1988; Dominguez 1986; Dubin 2001; Krech and Hail 1999; Mullin 2001; and Stocking 1985. 3. Nusbaum was director of the Laboratory of Anthropology from 1929 to 1936. He previously worked in a variety of positions related to Southwest archaeology and ethnology, most notably conducting the first archaeological survey of Mesa Verde in 1907-1908, serving as superintendent of Mesa Verde National Park from 1921 to 1929, 1936 to 1939, and 1942 to 1946, as well as superintending construction for the Museum of New Mexico in Santa Fe from 1909 to 1913 and in 1916-1917. He was also involved in the creation of the Indian Village sponsored by the Santa Fe Railroad at the 1915 San Diego Panama-CaliforniaInternational Exposition (1914-1915). Especially relevant is his brief time at the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, that included his work supervising the excavation of the mission church at Hawikku (1919-1921) on the ancestral lands of the Zuni people. 4. The Indian Arts Fund (IAF) was informally founded in 1922 (officially incorporatedin 1925) to collect historic Pueblo ceramicsand make its collection availableto contemporary potters for study. By this means, IAF trustees hoped to stimulate a Pueblo pottery revival. The IAF's relation to the Laboratory of Anthropology is explained later in this essay (See Amon Carter Museum of Western Art 1966; Dauber 1990, 1993). 5. Our use of the term Anglo conforms to common practicein JNewMexico, where it denotes non-Hispanic people, generally of European descent. 6. Due to considerations of length and the current state or our research, the Zuni perspective on this incident is unfortunately truncated here. We hope to remedy this in a subsequent article that will focus more on the collection as it relates to the community at Zuni. However, Bruce Bernstein consulted with the Zuni council and other knowledgeableNative people severaltimes over the course of this study. We made a deliberate decision in this essay not to use the names of known or suspected Zuni participants in order to protect descendents. 7. In the entire Southwest, the Smithsonian collected at least 41,000 objects, and it was only one among many institutions doing so. As Parezo (1985: 766) concludes, "The total number of objects produced and used by the late 19th- century Southwestern groups that have found their way into museums is stag- gering." 8. As Spencer Baird,then secretaryor the institution, wrote, 1 he most potent argument used [for increasing ethnological collections] has been the assertion that unless we occupy the field at once, we shall find ourselves anticipatedtherein

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 80 * Journal of the Southwest by the emissariesof foreign governments, who coming with ample means at their command, and working with great activity, will sweep the localities before we can take the requisite action" (quoted in Parezo 1985: 769). 9. This was something Kenneth Chapman came to realize about his role as collector for various Santa Fe institutions. In a conversationwith MariaMartinez, he reported asking, "Could I make butterfly designs by using all the things the old folks used and putting them together in new ways? Maria gave this some thought and then replied, 'Why Mr. Chapman, I think you could do it better than we can for you have helped take all our old pottery away from us and we can't remember the old designs.' For the first time I realized what we had been doing to our Indian friends" (quoted in Bernstein 1993b: 96). This realization helped shape the character of the Indian Arts Fund, although Chapman never went so far as to advocate returning the historic pottery to the pueblos. 10. In 1879, he asked Baird for "some green or blue argillite or any thing approaching in appearanceof texture either jade or turquoise, any cheap imitation of the latter, or malachite which I might break up into pieces of about this size, I would be able to use them in procuring one of the old heirloom necklaces which these people have numbers, but which they value from one to six horses." (cited in Green 1990; quoted in Slaney 1992: 10-11). 1 1 . Cushing's most flagrantlyaggressive collecting activities were at Oraibi, where he brandished a gun because the Hopi people would not allow him to set up a makeshift trading post (see Parezo 1985: 768-71). 12. Factionalismaffected Puebloan society throughout the twentieth century and continues to influence its social, political, and religious life today. For a fuller discussion of Zuni factions see Pandey 1967, 1977; and for particularlyvolatile and relevant examples, see Pandey 1967: 143, 149 n. 1. For information regarding other pueblos see, for example, Dozier 1966 and Whitman 1947. 13. Annual Report of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Founda- tion Archives, National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, D.C., box #OC204A.ll. Hodge paid his workers from fifty cents to $1.25 a day. The costs of the expedition in 1918 were $6,243, while in 1921 Hodge expended $9,102. These sums included all costs, including wages for Zuni workmen. 14. The closest center of commerce and trade to Zuni was Gallup, thirty-two miles to the north via a primitive road. 15. A passing comment in one of Wallace's letters to Nusbaum belies his purported integration into the religious life of the Zuni. Wallace reported that he tried to attend a dance, but the Zuni "ran all of the Americans away from the Plaza, mysely [sic] included." Wallace to Nusbaum, December 15, 1932, "Wallace, C. G. 1932-7" accession file, Laboratory of Anthropology archives (hereafter LAB). 16. Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, John Collier Papers, reel 29: frame 910, Manuscriptsand Archives, Sterling Memorial Library,Yale University (hereafter Collier Papers). 17. An older ex-governor said of Wallace, "Wallacegoes about the village late at night, trying to get entrance to kivas and houses where ceremonial objects are kept." Ibid, frame 911.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 81

18. Ibid. 19. Ibid, frames 910, 913. 20. In contrast, Batkin reports about a dozen potters active at the village during this period, and works by Catalina Zunie and Tsayutitisa are highly prized today. For an alternative and more positive view of the quality of Zuni pottery during the 1920s and 1930s, see Batkin 1987: 165. 21. Margaret and Moris Burge, "Zuni Pottery," May 1934, "National Asso- ciation on Indian Affairs, 1934 Jan-May" file, Amelia Elizabeth White Papers, School of Advanced Research (hereafter SAR). The Burges give the following list of active potters at Zuni, provided to them by Wallace: Mrs. Flora Zuni, Mrs. Milton's mother, Conrad's mother, Mrs. Lyti, Dishta's mother, Charlie C's mother. They note that the best potters of this group are very old. Edmund Ladd has clarified the situation at Zuni in 1934 regarding these potters. Tsayutitisa is Mrs. Malani's mother, sometimes referred to as Mrs. Milam's or Mrs. Milton's mother. Conrad (probably Conrad Laasarli) had a mother named Ocho:chin:na. Charlie C (Charlie Cuya:ti) was the son of a working potter, and his own son is the well-known contemporary Zuni artist Alex Seotewa. Finally, Ladd adds three more potters to the group: Jo/ja/pi:ya ("old lady light," who always kept a light burning), Jom/guachu (who lived near the first and made mostly ashtraysand owls), and Jo/masi, a traditional potter who made the best cornmeal bowls in the village. Further research indicates Nina Chavez, Mrs. Dishta, Catalina Zuni, and Mrs. Ondalacy were also notable potters during this period. It is interesting how little Anglos knew about this group of potters, who retained their Zuni names, rather than using Anglicized ones. The Zuni names illustrate the isolation of the pueblo in the 1930s as compared to the relatively more Americanized Rio Grande pueblos with their well-known artists like Maria Martinez. 22. Chapman and others had solved the problem of shipping pottery safely by the 1920s (IAF files, SAR); Wallace may have had other, unstated reasons for discouraging pottery production at Zuni. 23. "The Zuni Fair was a delightful revelation of the variety ot crafts which are still practised in that Pueblo and adjacent villages. But the displays mutely confirmed the pessimistic reports on the pottery making in that Pueblo. It is an art which is rapidly dying and unfortunately no plan has yet been suggested whereby it can again be made into a useful, living activity."National Association on Indian Affairs, Inc., "Contemporary Southwestern Indian Arts and Crafts," Bulletin 23 (January 1935): 2-3. 24. Kenneth Chapman, "Memorandum of My Meeting with Mrs. and Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., March 27, 1954." In "Memoirs John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1926-1954" file, Kenneth Chapman Papers, Indian Arts Research Center, SAR: cf. Chauvenet 1983: 171, 199-200. 25. See Ann Adams to Kenneth Chapman, April 17, 1928, SAR, "Memoirs" file. Chapman responded to Rockefeller's concerns, "I am wonderfully pleased over your expression of interest in the pottery collection. We have worked so long and hard to make it what it is, that none of the other crafts can ever quite

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 82 * Journal of the Southwest take its place in our esteem." Chapman to John D. Rockefeller Jr. April 21, 1928, SAR, "Memoirs" file. 26. Chapman located outstanding examples of historic pottery for the IAF and Laboratory of Anthropology collections. At the same time, he encouraged contemporary potters' participation in the annual Indian Fair held each year in Santa Fe, supplying them with his drawings of older and what he considered to be more authentic models of pottery designs. 27. See also Chapman, "Memorandum," SAR, "Memoirs" file. 28. Rockefeller to Nusbaum, April 21, 1931. LAB, file 89LA3.076a; A. V. Kidder to Rockefeller, September 7, 1931. LAB, file 89LA0. 014F. 29. "We understand that Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., first became interested in Southwestern anthropology through the Indian Arts Fund, which thus is in a sense the parent of the Laboratory of Anthropology." "Report of the Survey Committee for the Laboratory of Anthropology," October 20, 1936. LAB, file 89LA3.020.21 (quoted in Dauber 1990: 587, n. 16). Yet even though the IAF was the "parent"of the Lab, the institution's original mission shifted during the Depression because Rockefeller'ssupport diminished and grim economic realities set in. Continual funding problems caused the Lab to merge with the Museum of New Mexico in 1947 (Stocking 1982: 15; Toulouse 1981b: 13). 30. IAF accession book #1, SAR, Indian Arts Research Center, cat. nos. 870 and 908. A letter from Elizabeth Sergeant to John Collier suggests a different source for the first IAF purchase of this kind of material: "Dr. Mera added the information that the first two pots of the type under discussion were called to his attention by Miss Duggan when she was a nurse in Zuni. She reported to him that Kelsey had two pots in which [he] thought the Indian Arts Fund might be interested- valued at $150 each. Dr. Mera thought the occasion was unique and that nothing of the kind would be up for sale again. So he raised the money and bought the pots." Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 48. 31. IAF accession book #1, SAR. 32. In actuality, it is doubtful that there were underground ceremonial rooms at Zuni during the twentieth century; most kivas and society houses are aboveground buildings. 33. [Kenneth Chapman], "A Collection of Zuni Ceremonial Pottery," ca. June 25, 1930. Courtesy T. J. Ferguson. 34. Chapman to Rockefeller, June 25, 1930, SAR, "Memoirs" file. 35. Except where noted, the informationand quotationsin this section are from Nusbaum's August 3, 1932, letter to Rockefeller in LAB, file 89LA3.076a. 36. Rockefellerwrote to Nusbaum in 1934, "It is nothing short of marvelous how much you and your able associates in these enterprises have accomplished with these funds. Only because of your intimate knowledge of the subjects involved and your great care and economy in administration of the fund has this most satisfactory outcome been possible. . . . You have all of you caused me to feel that the money provided for the purpose could not have been spent more carefully,wisely or judiciously if it had come out of your own pockets." Rockefeller to Nusbaum, November 19, 1934. SAR, "Memoirs" file.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 83

37. Willis-Barnes Co., Inc., 1931-1" and "Barnes, W. S., 1931-9," LAB accession files, include letters that give evidence of considerable bickering over prices between Nusbaum and Barnes. In a letter dated January24, 1931, Barnes explained, "Youwill understandof course that I do not lay any claim to the actual value of these jars, but I do know that the Indians are getting suspicious and it costs more money each time to get a jar similar to the one before." 38. Kelsey brought sixteen, not nineteen, jars on his most recent trip to the Lab. Three previously offered pots were not in Kelsey's possession at the time, but Nusbaum still wanted to buy them. 39. The notion of collecting a culture was characteristicof American anthropology as defined by Boas (Bernstein 1989; Dominguez 1987). The intent was to collect materialand data before the predicted demise of Native cultures, with scientific work of synthesis and analysisto be done at a later date. While change has occurred at Zuni and in other Native communities and some might suggest - that collecting hastened that change, these collections now provide as they do here- form and substance to understanding Zuni life and broader American culture. Nusbaum's information regarding "sets" belonging to various priesthoods derived principallyfrom Wallace and Barnes, it seems. See undated notes from Wallaceto Nusbaum in which he categorizes the pots by name, "Shalako,""Rain- bow God," etc. In LAB, "Wallace,1932-7," accession file. In addition, on May 20, 1931, Barnes sent Nusbaum watercolor drawings of the three Shalako jars he previously offered to the Lab, along with "the history of their usage as well as the meaning of the design of the designs." Barnes's typescript enclosed with this letter entitled, "Explanation of the Usage of the Shalako Jars,"states, "The costume or paraphanalia[sic] of the six Shalakos of the Zunis is stored during the interval between the annual usage of the costumes, in jars in six separate kivasand each kiva is supposed to have six jars as receptacles for this purpose. . . . Number one jar contains the mask. Number two the head dress, number three the hair and feathers, number four the beak or mouth, number five the body dress and number six the head dress for the Shalako men, or attendants for the Shalako. . . . The key jar, or the one containing the mask is similar in each set in so far as the hole in the center is made for the purpose of feeding the mask and the fourth jar in each set is similar in so far as the mouth is constructed in U shape to allow the beak of the Shalako to rest in the groove, the beak being almost two feet long and impossible to rest entirely within the jar In fact to understand all that has been attempted to be put on each jar and to correlate the meaning of the full set of jars is difficult for the reason that none of the present generation of Zunis probably fully understand themselves the true meaning of the designs." LAB, "Willis-Barnes,Inc., 1931-1," accession file. 40. Nusbaum especially regretted two pots sold to the Museum or tne American Indian by Kelsey that he felt represented "the plumed serpent clan"; he reported to Rockefeller that they made up the two missing from the Lab's set of of plumed serpent jars. In fact, six jarswent to the Heye Foundation, Museum the AmericanIndian (now the National Museum of the American Indian, Smith- sonian Institution [NMAI]) in about 1930, with cat. nos. 17/5095-17/5100.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 84 «fr Journal of the Southwest

Nusbaum wrote of Heye's purchase (Nusbaum to Rockefeller, August 3, 1932, LAB, file 89LA3.076): "the Museum of the American Indian . . . purchased a group of six at a cost of $500 from the Ilfeld Indian Trading Company of Zuni. . . . The word has passed that this museum will consider re-sale of some of its materials, and this group of six specimens could unquestionably be recovered at its approximate cost if an offer were made." For additional illustrations of specimens from the NMAI, see Hardin 1989: fig. 29; and Bernstein 2005: cat. no. 17/5988, p. 81; cat. no. 22/7879, pp. 79, 95. The decoration on one pot in the NMAI collection (cat. no. 17/5096) closely corresponds to examples in the Lab's collection (see, for example, cat. no. 7512/12; Bernstein and Luck 2002, back cover illus.). Today, there are twenty- one examples of these pots at the NMAI. Heye purchased four in 1951 from Los Angeles-based collector H. A. McHenry. The Southwest Museum bought one jar that the Lab previously refused, and in 1932 was holding the Shalako jars that Barnes originally offered to Nusbaum; but Nusbaum was still confident that Barnes would eventually accept the Lab's offer of $75. (See related pots obtained through the Kirkbrothers [tradersin Gallup] in the Southwest Museum collection, 491-G-249; 491-G-523; 491-G-571.) Most irksome to Nusbaum was the fact that a man (Harry Garnett) from Colorado Springs bought three of the nineteen jars that Kelsey offered to the Lab for consideration in June 1932. Although he did not reveal this in his report to Rockefeller, Nusbaum had had a showdown with Garnett over the pots. In a letter to Wallace,he reports: "I am disturbed by what you have to say regardingthe Ilfeld specimens. Mr. Garnet [sic] of Colorado Springs was here day before yesterday.... He asked me a number of questions regarding our ceremonial specimens, but acted very sheepishly regarding the whole matter; so I rather 'put him in the hole,' I guess, on the subject. I said that we had now had approximately three hundred specimens, that the Heye Museum had purchased six, the Southwestern Museum, one, all of which would come back to us here in due course, whenever we were able to reimburse these museums for the amounts paid, since theyand all otherscientific agencies and individuals thoughtit extremelyimportant that the wholecollection be housed in one institution, so that it could fill its most useful purpose. I told Garnet that since we had worked over a period of years with the traders involved and had expended many thousands of dollars toward this end, any non-scientific specula- tor who would attempt to 'chisel in' or 'high jack' the Laboratory,in particular, and science, in general, for the sake of a few dollars gained personally would be pretty small. . . . [I]t is a serious blow if pieces not heretofore represented have gone to others" (emphasis added). Nusbaum to Wallace, June 9, 1932, LAB, "Wallace, 1932-7," donor file. The Taylor Museum of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center actually owns ten pots related to the Lab's collection (cat. nos. 2019-2020, 2051-2058). Alice Bemis Taylor, founder of the Taylor Museum, bought these pots from Garnett in 1932. 41. Nusbaum is mistaken in his assumption that Stevenson lived continuously at Zuni. She states in her 1904 report (18) that she made "several prolonged visits." 42. Nusbaum to Kidder, August 20, 1932, LAB, file 89C03.023.2.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 85

43. Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section concerning the controversy over the ceremonial pots at Zuni is contained in Mary McGair to John Collier, July 24, 1933, Records of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of IndianAffairs, National ArchivesRecord Group 75, Washington, D.C. A copy was provided from the archivesof the Heard Museum, courtesy of Deborah Slaney. A copy of this report was also provided to us by T. J. Ferguson. 44. On July 1, 1931, Barnes sent a telegram to Nusbaum: "Sending several interesting jars today by express. . . ." The following day, Wallace sent his own telegram to the Lab: "Items you are receiving today from Zuni stolen property . ..." He also included a copy of a telegram that he had sent to Barnes: "Sorry the mixup but as I told you when I got last big jar from your store that it was for replacement and at that time told you that I had advanced a big sum of money on balance of jarswhich all 7 parties accepted as purchase of same/came " in to see you yesterday/compelled to protect myself. . . ." LAB, Barnes, W. S, 1931-9," accession file. Apparently,Barnes had once been Kelsey'semployee and had subsequently set up his own trading business in Gallup. He was appraising Wallace'sjoint estate during a divorce suit when he discovered the existence of the pots in question. While in Wallace's store, a Zuni man arrived with seven pots; Barnes offered the man fifty dollars above the purchase price if he would deliver the pots to him in Gallup instead of giving them to Wallace. Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 48. 45. Sworn statements in the records or trie Department ot tne intenor. McGair's report mistakenly gives the date of these sworn statements as June [instead of July] 14, 1931. Wallace subsequently sent Nusbaum a letter dated July 23, 1931: "Well I found out this afternoon that Barnes had Delibertely [sic] Lied to me last SaturdayEvening, and I have found out tonite too that he is out trying to hatch up some more Trouble for us. Im [sic] seeing Mr Trotter earley [sic] tomorrow Morning and will advise you as soon as I see him as he has asked me to hold back in taking any action untill [sic] he so advises. The Indian are all up in the Air tonite but so far I have not had to talk to any of them. I cant [sic] see Barnes motive only that he wants to cause Mr Trotter My Self and all the Indians a lot of Grief. I understand that he said that he could bluff Mr Trotter & My self out of trying to do anything about them and that we would let him keep them." On the next day, Wallace wrote again to Nus- baum, describing the commotion that had occurred because of this event: "I'm Perfectly Willing for them to come back to the Village- We will get them later on. They are Threatening to try to throw this set of High Priest out but dont [sic] know just how far they Will Go With it." Both letters are in LAB, "Barnes, W. S., 1931-9," accession file. 46. Nusbaum to Trotter, August 1, 1931, in ibid. 47. Letter in the records ot the JJepartmentot tne intenor. 48. Nusbaum to Trotter, July 28, 1931, LAB, "Barnes, W. S., 1931-9," accession file. 49. G. A. Trotter to Wallace, January28, 1933, records of the Department of Interior. On August 4, 1931, Wallace wrote to Nusbaum, "The Seven Pots are back, and are being handeled [sic] to my Satisfactory [sic], also the High

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 86 «fr Journal of the Southwest

Priest, but it sure has put a crimp in the Cerimonial [sic] Pottery for some time for they sure are scared stiff. I regret very much having to take this step but it was the only way I could stop it I was in hopes we could clean the works up this summer, but dont [sic] think you will be troubled with Zuni Pottery for a while now." Nusbaum replied on August 6, "I regret that the pottery game is upset for some time as a result, but there was nothing else you could do in this matter, nor I, that would smooth over the whole problem." Both letters are in " LAB, "Wallace,C. G., 1931-7, accession file. " 50. Both letters are in LAB, Barnes, W. S., 1931-9," accession file. 51. Wallace's letter and Nusbaum's memo are in LAB, "Wallace, C. G., 1932-7," accession file. 52. The numbers as Nusbaum states them add up to twenty- four, not twenty-five. "The pots when returned to [Nusbaum] were still as packed by the Laboratory- they had not even been unpacked in the interval." Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 48. 53. These "pow-wows" are probably code words for Wallace'smeetings with Zuni individuals in which bribes were paid in exchange for statements made or material given. LAB, "Wallace, C. G., 1932-7," accession file. This aspect of Wallace's tactics is discussed further later in the paper. 54. The correspondence referred to in this paragraphis in LAB, "Wallace, C. G, 1932-7," accession file. As noted earlier,Wallace was actually prospering during the early thirties and expanding his business (Slaney 1992: 28). 55. Rockefeller to Nusbaum, November 19, 1934. SAR, "Memoirs" file. Nusbaum told Sergeant in 1933 that he felt "Mr. Rockefeller might be greatly disturbed and distressed if he thought that Indian rights had been violated" in regards to the collecting of these specimens. Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 48. However, Nusbaum and Chapman had openly indicated to the donor that these purchases were clandestine and potentially controversial at Zuni, and Rockefeller enthusiasticallycontinued funding their acquisition. No doubt, the most pressing concern for all parties was to avoid implicating Rockefeller in a public scandal. 56. LAB, file 89C03.023.2; Chapman to Carl Guthe, March 8, 1937, LAB, Guthe files 93CEG.004. 57. Parsons to Chapman, April 23, 1932, LAB, file 93LA4.052. 58. Nusbaum resigned in 1936 to return to Mesa Verde when the National Park Service made him a very generous offer. He would spend the remainder of his careerwith the ParkService. Chapman reluctantly agreed to be acting director, inheriting a dire financial situation given that the five years of Rockefeller support for the Laboratory of Anthropology had ended. 59. Bunzel to Chapman,March 10, 1937, LAB, file 93CEG.004; Chapmanto Guthe, March 8, 1937, ibid. In the wake of Wallace's discouragement, the plan for a professional anthropologist to conduct research at Zuni on the ceremonial collection seems to have evaporated. However, Aileen Nusbaum, Jesse's wife, undertook a study of the pots at the Lab during the mid- 1930s; Chapmanreports in a letter to Neil Judd on September 25, 1937, (ibid) that "she is putting her notes on the Zuni ceremonial pottery in shape to deposit with us, without any

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 87 commitment on our part as to their future use." Nusbaum's notes consist of research into the sources of the pots' iconography and include drawings by her as well as by Chapman. See LAB, "Aileen Nusbaum: Zuni Pots," uncatalogued; Chapman to Guthe, July 15, 1936, LAB, file 93CEG.003. 60. The Lab's formally proclaimed goals were "anthropological research," "publiceducation," "graduateinstruction in the field," and "the welfare of native races of the Southwest," which included "conservation and stimulation of native arts and crafts"and a modest "trailsidemuseum." "PreliminaryStatement of ad interim Executive Committee of the Museum and Laboratory of Anthropology to the Members of the Board of Trustees, November 1927," quoted in Stocking 1982: 7. The professional anthropologists on the board tended to dislike the Indian welfare and museum components of the Lab's mission statement. Parsons was most blunt in her disapproval:"The museum aspect I think questionable. The welfare aspect more than questionable. The welfare work has little or no relation with the scientific, and practicallyis incompatible. However, there may be opportunish reasons." Parsons to Kidder, November 26, 1927. LAB, file 89LA2.026. Such an attitude may help explain the lack of concern by the Lab's staff toward the social disruptions caused by their collecting activities. See Lurie 1966: 76-77, for another context in which to evaluate Parson's remark. 61.LAB,file89C03.023.2. 62. Kelsey to Nusbaum, August 16 and October 5, 1932. LAB, "Ilfeld Trad- ing Co., 1932-25," accession file. See also Nusbaum to Ryan, August 13, 1932. LAB, "Ilfeld Trading Co., 1932-16," accession file. 63. LAB, "Wallace,C. G., 1932-39," accession file. In this letter, Wallace is perhaps referring to the Ololowish/kya, a fertility dance, not a clan. The pots used in this dance are common food bowls (Edmund Ladd, pers. comm.). 64. Records or the Department or the intenor. 65. This information is in McGair's report to Collier. 66. Records of the Department of the Intenor. Further information on Wallace's part in the transaction is in Trotter's letter to Wallace, January 28, 1933, ibid. Sergeant's letter to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 29: frames 906-18, also recounts similar versions of this story told by other individuals at Zuni. 67. Report in the records of the Department of the Interior. The last line is crossed out of the document. 68. Both of Collier's letters are m records ot the Department or the Inte- rior. 69. Letter in records of the Department of the Interior. 70. Sergeant to Collier, October 10, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 29: frames 906-18. 71. Sergeant to (Jollier, Uctober 1U, 1V33, bonier capers, reel i/: rrame 50. 72. With one possible exception. A note in LAB, "Wallace,C. G., 1937-17," accession file, indicates that Wallacesold three examples of "ceremonialpottery" to the institution in 1937. No correspondence appearsin this file. 73. LAB, file 89C03.023.3.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 88 * Journal of the Southwest

74. Ibid. Although the IAFs holdings remained separate from the Lab's, Chapman did transfersome of the Zuni pots in the IAF collection to the latter institution. The Laboratoryof Anthropology was established to house and study the IAF collection, but the two remained separate. 75. LAB, file 89LA3.076.b. 76. Quoted in Sergeant to Collier, October 10 and 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frames 48, 50. 77. However, Sergeant appended a handwritten postscript to this prediction: "But the living religion is even more precious." Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 49. 78. Nusbaum to Kidder, September 7, 1934. LAB, file 89C03.023.3. 79. Fowler (1989, 2000: 366-71) gives a compelling picture of the professional acrimony and competition surrounding the founding of the Lab (cf. Chauvenet 1983). 80. With two exceptions: Aileen Nusbaum (1938) discusses a type of "fetish" pot in the Lab's "master collection," (without mentioning where the objects were housed) and similar examples illustrate Ruth Kirk'sarticles (1939, 1943). As director and chief curator of the Lab, Bernstein provided the context for the discussion and use of these collections, including an open dialogue with Zuni people. He also dismantled the "Ceremonial Vault," an emblem of a bygone and archaic era. And under his direction, a 1993 exhibition at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, "Rockefeller's Gift: Sixty Years at the Laboratory of Anthropology" included two pieces from the "master collection." Bernstein and Lucic (2002) was the first publication to discuss the collection compre- hensively. 81. Over the years, scholars, on promising to maintain silence, were occasion- ally given permission to view the objects in the "Ceremonial Vault." 82. For current perspectives on issues regarding collecting cultural property, see Dubin 2004; Messenger 1989; and Mullin 2001. 83. Preliminary assessments of accession records provide the basis of our figures. A comprehensive comparison of each pot with museum records remains to be accomplished. 84. Bernstein dismantled vault 2 through considered deliberationswith Zuni people and Native staff, in particular,Ed Ladd, himself a Zuni. 85. See also cat. nos. 1272 and 1273 in the IAF collection, SAR 86. All of these cornmeal bowls are in the IAF collection, SAR 87. The origin of this type is not definitively known at this time. Such pots appearin the post- 1890 Stevenson collection, but not in materialgathered earlier. However, in the ninth- to thirteenth-century Puebloan Southwest, some pottery styles include modeled figures. In addition, in the last half of the nineteenth century, Zuni potters marketed eccentric small jars with protruding knobs and bumps that appear to be copies of pre-contact pottery. 88. One of these large ceramic drums, made by Tsayutitisa, is in the IAF collection, cat. no. 1319. The origin of this type of object is not clear; it apparently does not occur prehistorically and is more prevalent in the marketplace than at the pueblo. However, unlike cornmeal bowls, which are used on altars

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 89 and in kivas but also in the home, the drums do not appear in domestic settings (Edmund Ladd pers. comm.). 89. When he firstsold the pots to the Lab, Wallacesometimes providedexplana- tory material on small slips of paper, such as those found in donor file 1931-7; but the longer and more detailed explanations of meaning and use came later from Wallaceand the other traders,as well as Ruth Kirk.As noted earlier,the Lab approached anthropologists Elsie Clews Parsons and Ruth Bunzel to undertake study of the vessels. Aileen Nusbaum also was asked to research the pots. 90. So-called fetish jarsof this type began to appearon the marketconcurrently with the formation of this collection and received anthropological treatment in a series of articlespublished by Ruth Kirk(1939, 1943), wife of Gallup traderMike Kirk, in the Museum of New Mexico's journal, ElPalacio. The author sketches out a ceremonial context for these objects (reportedly based on conversations with informants) and explainsthe function of the holes as being to provide access for feeding the fetishes (1939: 35-36). Interestingly, Kirkdrew upon the Lab's collection for these articles (1943: 43). See also Aileen Nusbaum's 1938 article in the Masterkey."The old men of Zuni say that no one living has any idea of the origin of the turquoise-incrusted jars They believe that this jar covering was the gift of a god; it is unknown art in modern Zuni" (98). Significantly, previous ethnographers only allude in passing to Zuni storage vessels for fetishes and do not indicate that they exhibit any features such as attachments, special coatings, or so-called feeding holes. Cushing (1883: 32) states that "when not in use, either for such ceremonials or for the hunt, these tribal fetiches are kept in a very ancient vessel of wicker-work [basket]." Matilda Stevenson writes that the fetishes of the Rain Priesthood are kept "in a sealed vase in a special chamber in the dwelling house of its keeper" when not in use. An illustration shows familiar types of Zuni pots serving as storage vessels for the fetishes (1904: 164-65). Bunzel (1932: 490) mentions only that important fetishes "are kept in sealed jars in houses where they are believed to have rested since the settlement of the village." Kroeber (1917: 166) does write in passing that certain fetishes are "normally kept in jars of special design" but does not elaborate. 91. In this case, an archaeological precedent exists; the form resembles a prehistoricpot excavated at Hawikku, sold by Kelsey to Chapman in 1928 (SAR, cat. no. 981). However, the decoration on 7541/12 differs dramaticallyfrom that on the earlier example. 92. Kenneth Chapman to Ruth Bunzel, January 8, 1937. LAB, hie 93LA4.052. 93. Kirk,in her articlesabout the pots, purports to have recorded their meanings and use. Yet she notes that she was able to examine only one pot, and "the jar ... had no feeding hole and was in no way unusual" (1943: 20, n. 42). 94. Lackof accessto old models may have resulted in the makers7awkwardness at reproducing this feature. Currently, some Zuni potters are self-consciously replicating pre-1870 examples from museum collections and successfully dupli- cating this technological feature of the pronounced mold line. 95. Hodge's excavationswere well known during the 1920s, and undoubtedly photographs or drawings of the excavated pottery circulated at Zuni. However,

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 90 * Journal of the Southwest the vessels were not published until 1966 (Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury), more than thirty years after the events described here. 96. Hardin (1989: 155) comments on the use of the Baake drawings as models: "Examination of Museum collections, most notably those of the Heye Foundation, reveals that designs from the excavated [Hawikku] vessels were introduced into 20th century Zuni in two ways. As might be expected, designs were copied directly from the excavated vessels onto equivalent vessel forms; thus, for example, designs from the interiors of prehistoricbowls were used again on the interior of new bowls. In other cases (cat. no. 17/5096), the process was not a direct one but mediated by line drawings of prehistoric designs. These drawings, the work of William Baake, eventually came to illustratethe site report (Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury 1966: 136). "Carefulcomparison of the design as rendered on the two vessels reveals differences that argue that the drawings were an intermediate step in the transmis- sion. Most obviously, the design on the bowl's interior, having been reduced to a medallion in the illustration,is then transferredas a medallion onto the exterior of the water jar. The argument is made more compelling by other attributes of the design as it appears on the water jar. The bowl's design incorporates black and red; however, the medallion on the jar is entirely in black, as in the illustration (Smith, Woodbury, and Woodbury 1966: fig. 47c). Further, the versions of the design in the illustration and painted on the jar share the conventions used to represent colors in the black and white illustration. More specifically, both the jar and the illustration have hatching where the original bowl had red, and they both have cross-hatching where the black glaze on the original bowl ran, producing purple." 97. This information appearsas a handwritten note appended to a transcribed interview with Watson Smith, in the anthropology archives of University of Arizona. Courtesy Brenda Shears. 98. A convention made popular through comics, the use of Xs for eyes became common by 1910. We thank Tony Chavarriafor this insight. 99. As mentioned previously, women at Zuni do not make representations of katsinas (Ladd pers. comm. 1990). 100. Based on a survey of accession records, the numbers acquired from the various traders by the Lab are as follows: Wallace = 126; Kelsey = 67; Barnes = 18. These numbers do not account for the pots in the IAF collection but are representative of the traders' relative contributions. 101. Later,Wallace was the chief traderand promoter of these fetishes (Slaney 1993, 1998). 102. For further evidence of this particularlyfractious period in Zuni history, see Eggan and Pandey 1979: 476-79; Pandey 1967, 1972: 331-32; and "Zuni Indians,"in Ina Sizer Cassidypapers, LAB, file 89ISC.018. The last source includes transcriptionsof hearings regarding the 1923 revolt at the Shalako ceremonies. 103. In LAB, "Wallace, C. G., 1932-7" accession file, a handwritten note appears: "Wallace substituted for W's replica of 'Flora Zunis' Mother's Pot' returned to Wallace 1932. Replica was at ceremonial & cracked in shipping to [Santa Fe]."

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 91

104. Letter in records of the Department of the Interior. 105. In an interview with Jonathan Batkin, Wallace stated that he and his brother Robert sometimes commissioned "museum pieces" from Zuni potters, but the trader apparentlydid not elaborate (Batkin 1987: 165). 106. John Adair (1944: 148) observes that a Zuni trader [Wallace]suggested designs to his jewelry makers that were copied from the annual reports of the Smithsonian's Bureau of American Ethnology. But the ethnographic texts that served as models for the pots' decorations were also readily availableto the Zuni people without Wallace'sintervention. In her report to Collier,Sergeant notes that a Zuni elder had Matilda Stevenson's report (1904) in his possession (Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 29: frame 910). Photographs of Baake's drawings may have been in Zuni hands as well, although evidence for this is purely circumstantial. The transferenceof ceremonialdesigns and objects to the marketplace(but not to the museum) was a practice that both Mrs. Stevenson and Cushing lamented, but Culin supported. In the Hendricks-Hodge expedition collections there are numerous examples of replicamasks and altarsthat were made for Hodge and the Museum of the American Indian (Zuni council members pers. comm. 2000). 107. The book was by Wesley Bradfield, Camerson Creek Village:A Site in the MimbresArea in Grant County, New Mexico, Monographs of the School of AmericanResearch, February 1, 1931 (Deborah Slaneypers. comm). Curiously,no Zuni pottery decorations inspired by Mimbres iconography have come to light. 108. This possibility was suggested by Deborah Slaney. 109. Recall that Nusbaum assisted Hodge at Hawikku, and that Chapman once had in his possession copies of the renderings of the Hawikku and Matsaki polychrome ceramics from the Hendricks-Hodge excavation (Watson Smith interview). 110. The fact that Wallacebrought the seven contested pots to the Lab, then carted them away again after telephone calls from his brother, suggests that he was elaborately orchestrating a scenario to confirm the status of the pieces as authentic contraband. 111. Not surprisingly,Barnes went bankruptnear the end of this episode. One of the last lots (accession number 1933-28) to enter the collection came through a lawyernamed Glascock,who handled Barnes'sbankruptcy proceedings. This lot comprises three jars offered to the Lab by Barnes in 1931 but initiallyrejected by the director because he considered the trader'sprice exorbitant. Nusbaum went to considerable trouble to secure these vessels from the Southwest Museum in 1933, where they were being held for possible purchase. See correspondence in LAB, "Glascock, 1933-28," accession file. 112. In this regard, the disparity between what the potters and the traders received for these objects is striking: probably a few dollars per pot to the makers versus sometimes hundreds of times that amount from the Lab to Wallace and Kelsey. An interesting footnote to this episode exists. In the 1970s, Wallacegave two of pseudo-ceremonial pots to the Heard Museum, along with a large collection Zuni jewelry and other artifacts.One (cat. no. NA SW ZU A7 27) is a prehistoric

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 92 * Journal of the Southwest vessel (not proto-Zuni) with holes drilled in the rim and leather and turquoise attached; the other (cat. no. NA SW ZU A7 28) is historic Acoma polychrome covered with turquoise chips and with holes drilled in it and an antler inserted. These were old pieces modified to look "ceremonial." Circumstances suggest that the alterations to these jars probably date from the period we have been examining; for some reason they remained unsold and Wallace kept them for himself. 113. It is interesting to note that the production of the pseudo-ceremonial pottery began only afterWallace opened his own store in 1928. The rivalriesand alliances were probably of long standing; Wallace had worked for Kelsey when he first arrived at Zuni, and Barnes was clearly a competitor. 114. There is evidence in the Lab archives, including Nusbaum's marginal notes on a letter from Elsie Clews Parsonsto Chapman, that other Zuni individuals were involved as intermediariesbetween the tradersand the potters. Nusbaum's notes appear in the left-hand column of this letter (Parsons to Chapman, April 23, 1935, LAB, file 93LA4.052). See also Chapman to Guthe, March 8, 1937, LAB, file 93CEG.004, and "Wallace,C. G., 1932-7," accession file. 115. Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 47. 116. Kenneth Chapman to A. F. Whiting, A. F. Whiting Collection, file T17:156, Cline Library,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,Arizona. Infor- mation courtesy of Louise Stiver and Diane Grua. 117. Apparently,Chapman s knowledge of the true nature of the pots was not even passed on to subsequent staff members. In 1979, when Curtis Schaafsma became director of the Lab, the question of the pots' status arose, and he brought in Wallace to discuss the collection. Wallace maintained that they were authentic ceremonial pieces and should remain in hiding to avoid reprisalsfrom the BIA. Schaafsmathen asked T. J. Ferguson to investigate the situation at the pueblo. Zuni individuals told Ferguson that the pots were a hoax. Even so, the pots remained in the "ceremonial vault" because of an agreement between the Lab and Wallace to keep them secret until the trader's death (Curtis Schaafsma pers. comm.). 118. The IAF records make clear that after receiving Rockefeller support, acquisitions burgeoned, in terms not only of numbers but also in the average price paid per pot (Dauber 1993: 350-51, figs. A.I, A.2), The widespreadaware- ness in the Southwest that Rockefeller money was availablefor the purchase of both ceremonial and non-ceremonial pottery profoundly changed the market for these objects, both raising prices and stimulating the invention of pseudo- ceremonial wares. 119. Mera told Sergeant that after buying the first two ceremonial pots, he thought "nothing of the kind would be up for sale again. . . . But almost at once, pots of this type began to pour out of Zuni kivas and sacred places." Sergeant to Collier, October 13, 1933, Collier Papers, reel 17: frame 48. 120. However, certain objects (such as Ahayu:da, or war gods) have a special status and should never be sold or displayed in museums (Clifford 1988: 209; Merrill, Ladd, and Ferguson 1993).

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 93

121. Some significantresearch was done on the pottery by archaeologists, who also, importantly,made the collectionsavailable to Zuni people (Shears 1989, pers.comm.).

References

Archival American Museum of Natural History, New York Accession Records Cline Library,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff The Heard Museum, Phoenix Copies of the Records of the U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C. The National Archives Heye Foundation, Archives, National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonain Institution, Washington, D.C. Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe Laboratory of Anthropology Institutional Files Guthe Files Accession Files Manuscriptsand Archives, Sterling Memorial Library,Yale University, New Haven John Collier Papers School of Advanced Research, Santa Fe Kenneth Chapman Papers, Indian Arts Research Center IAF accession book #1, Indian Arts Research Center Amelia Elizabeth White Papers Watson Smith interview Transcriptionof audio-tapedinterview, c. 1980. Courtesy of Brenda Shears.

Published

Adair, John 1944 The Navajo and Pueblo Silversmiths. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 94 > Journal of the Southwest

Amon Carter Museum of Western Art 1966 Quiet Triumph:Forty Tearswith the Indian Arts Fund, Santa Fe. Fort Worth: Author. An-Che, Li 1939 Zuni: Some Observations and Inquires. American Anthropologist 39: 63-76. Appadurai, Arjun 1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In Arjun Appadurai,ed., TheSocial Life of Things:Commodities in Cultural Perspective.New York: Cambridge University Press. Batkin, Jonathan 1987 Potteryof thePueblos of New Mexico,1700-1940. Colorado Springs: Taylor Museum of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center. Berlo, Janet Catherine, ed. 1992 The Early Tears of Native American Art History: The Politics of Scholarshipand Collecting. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Bernstein, Bruce 1989 Ethnographic Museum Collections and Their Use by Anthro- pologists. Museum Anthropology13 (1): 2-17. 1990 Learning the Language of Objects: Harry P. Mera's 1932 Navajo Reservation Silver Buying Trip. ElPalacio 95 (2): 7-13. 1993a From Indian Fair to Indian Market. ElPalacio 98 (3): 14-19, 47-54. 1993b The Marketingof Culture: Pottery and Santa Fe's Indian Market. Ph.D. diss., University of New Mexico. 1994 Potters and Patrons:The Creation of Pueblo Art Pottery. Ameri- can Indian Art 20 (1): 70-79. 2005 Ceramicsfrom the NMAI's Collection. In Born of Clay:Ceramics from the National Museum of theAmerican Indian. Washington: D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Bernstein, Bruce, and Karen Lucic 2002 Sacred Illusions: A Unique Collection of Zuni Pots Comes to Light. American Indian Art 27 (3): 50-57. Bradfield, Wesley 1931 Camerson Creek Village: A Site in the MimbresArea in Grant County, New Mexico^Monograph of the School of American Research, February 1. Santa Fe: SAR.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery -fr 95

Bunzel, Ruth 1929 ThePueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. New York: Columbia University Press. 1932 Introduction to Zuni Ceremonialism. In Forty-seventhAnnual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnologyto the Secretaryof the SmithsonianInstitution, 1929-1930. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology. Carr, Helen 1996 Inventing theAmerican Primitive: Politics, Gender,and the Rep- resentationof Native American Literary Traditions, 1789-1936. New York:New York University Press. Chauvenet, Beatrice 1983 Hewett and Friends:A Biographyof Santa Fe's VibrantEra. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press. Clifford, James 1987 Of Other Peoples: Beyond the "SalvageParadigm." In Hal Foster, ed., Discussionsof ContemporaryCulture, pp. 121-30. Seattle: Bay Press. 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Collier, John 1963 FromEvery Zenith: A Memoirand SomeEssays on Life and Thought. Denver: Sage Books. Cushing, Frank Hamilton [1882] 1979 My Adventures in Zuni. In Jesse Green, ed., Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing, pp. 46-134. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1883 Zuni Fetiches. In SecondAnnual Report of the Bureau of Eth- nology to the Secretaryof the Smithsonian Institution 1880-81. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology. 1886 A Study of Pueblo Pottery as Illustrativeof Zuni Culture Growth. In Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnologyto the Secre- tary of the Smithsonian Institution 1882-83. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology. Dauber, Kenneth 1990 Pueblo Pottery and the Politics of Regional Identity. Journal of the Southwest32 (4): 576-96.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 ^ Journal of the Southwest

1993 Shaping the Clay: Pueblo Pottery, Cultural Sponsorship and Regional Identity in New Mexico. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona. Dillingham, Rick, with Melinda Elliot 1992 Acoma and Laguna Pottery. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Dominguez, Virginia R 1986 The Marketing of Heritage. American Ethnologist 13 (3): 546-55. 1987 Of Other Peoples: Beyond the "SalvageParadigm." In Hal Foster, ed., Discussionsof ContemporaryCulture, pp. 131-37. Seattle: Bay Press. Dozier, Edward P. 1966 Hano, a TewaIndian Community in Arizona. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Dubin, Margaret 2001 Native America Collected:The Culture of an Art World.Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press. 2004 Collecting Native American Art in the Twenty-First Century. In Bruce Bernstein and Gerald McMaster, eds., First American Art: TheCharles and ValerieDiker Collectionof American Indian Art, pp. 15-25. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of the American Indian. Eggan, Fred, and Triloki Nath Pandey 1979 Zuni History: 1850-1970. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9: Southwest,ed. Alfonso Ortiz. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Ellis, Bruce 1968 Kenneth Milton Chapman, 1875-1968. El Palacio 72 (2): 35-39. Fane, Diana, Ira Jacknis, and Lise Breen 199 1 Objectsof Mythand Memory:American Indian Art at theBrooklyn Museum. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Fane, Diana 1992 New Questions for "Old Things": The Brooklyn Museum's Zuni Collection. In Janet Catherine Berlo, ed., TheEarly Tears of Native American Art History: ThePolitics and Scholarshipand Collecting. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 97

Fletcher, Alice 1900 In Memoriam: FrankHamilton Cushing. American Anthropolo- gist!: 367-70. Fosdick, Raymond B. 1956 John D. Rockefeller,Jr.: A Portrait. New York:Harper and Broth- ers. Fowler, Don 1989 Harvard vs. Hewett: The Contest for Control of Southwestern Archaeology, 1904-1930. Paper presented at the Eighty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. 2000 A Laboratoryfor Anthropology.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Green, Jesse, ed. 1979 Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1990 Cushing at Zuni: The Correspondenceand Journal of Frank Hamilton Gushing,1879-1884. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press. Hardin, Margaret Ann 1983 Gifts of MotherEarth: Ceramics in the Zuni Tradition. Phoenix: Heard Museum. 1989 Zuni Pottery: The Roots of Revival. In Lowell John Bean, ed., Seasonsof the Kachina: Proceedingsof the California State Uni- versity,Hayward, Conferenceson the WesternPueblos, 1987-1988. Novato, Calif.: Ballena Press. 1993 Zuni Potters and the Pueblo Potter: The Contributions of Ruth Bunzel. In Nancy J. Parezo, ed., Hidden Scholars:Women Anthropologistsand the Native American Southwest.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hinsley, Curtis M. Jr. 1981 Savagesand Scientists:The Smithsonian Institution and the Devel- opmentof American Anthropology,1846-1910. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1989 Zunis and Brahmins: Cultural Ambivalence in the uuaea Age. In George W. Stocking Jr., ed., Romantic Motives: Essayson Anthropological Sensibility. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 98 * Journal of the Southwest

1996 Boston Meets the Southwest: The World of Frank Hamilton Cushing and Sylvester Baxter. In Curtis M. Hinsley and David R. Wilcox, eds. TheSouthwest in theAmerican Imagination: The Writings of SylvesterBaxter, 1881-1889. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Johnson, Willard 1925 An Introduction. Indian Arts Fund Bulletin No. 1, Santa Fe. Kelly, Lawrence C. 1983 TheAssault on Assimilation:John Collierand the Originsof Indian Policy Reform. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Kirk, Ruth F. 1939 SpiritsMust Have Food. New MexicoMagazine 17(11): 16-17, 34-36. 1943 Introduction to Zuni Fetishism. ElPalacio 50 (6-10); reprinted as Zuni Fetishism.Albuquerque: Avanyu Publishing, 1988. Krech, Shepard III, and BarbaraA. Hail, eds. 1999 Collecting Native America, 1870-1960. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kroeber, A. L. 1917 Zuni Kin and Clan. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 18, pt. 2, pp. 37-205. New York: Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History. Ladd, Edmund J. 1994 Cushing among the Zuni: A Zuni Perspective.In FrankHamilton Cushing at Zuni Pueblo, 1879-1881. GilcreaseJournal 2 (2): 20-35. Lears, T. J. Jackson 1981 No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920. New York: Pantheon Books. Lurie, Nancy Oestreich 1966 Women in Early American Anthropology. In June Helms, ed., Pioneersof American Anthropology:The Usesof Biography.Seattle: University of Washington Press. McFeely, Eliza 2001 Zuni and the American Imagination. New York: Hill and Wang.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery > 99

McMannis, Kent 2003 Zuni FetishCarvers: The Mid-Century Masters.Santa Fe: Wheel- wright Museum of the American Indian. Merrill, William, Edmund J. Ladd, and T. J. Ferguson 1993 The Return of the Ahayu:da:Lessons for Repatriationfrom Zuni Pueblo and the Smithsonian Institution. Current Anthropology 34 (5): 523-567. Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, ed. 1989 TheEthics of Collecting Cultural Property:Whose Culture*. Whose Property*.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Mullin, Molly H. 2001 Culture in theMarketplace: Gender, Art, and Valuein theAmeri- can Southwest.Durham: Duke University Press. National Association on Indian Affairs, Inc. 1935 Contemporary Southwestern Indian Arts and Crafts. Bulletin 23 (January): 1-15. Nusbaum, Aileen 1938 Turquoise Incrusted-Pottery of Zuni. Masterkey12 (3): 97-99. Nusbaum, Rosemary 1980 TierraDulce: Reminiscencesfrom theJesse Nusbaum Papers.Santa Fe: Sunstone Press. Pandey, Triloki Nath 1967 Factionalism in a Southwestern Pueblo. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. 1972 Anthropologists at Zuni. Proceedingsof theAmerican Philosophi- cal Society116 (4): 321-37 . 1977 Images of Power in a Southwestern Pueblo. In Raymond D. Fogelson and RichardN. Adams, eds., TheAnthropology of Power, pp. 195-215. New York:Academic Press. 1994 Patterns of Leadership in Western Pueblo Society. In Raymond DeMallie and Alfonso Ortiz, eds., North American Anthropology: Essayson Societyand Culture, pp. 328-39. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Parezo, Nancy J. 1985 Cushing as Part of the Team: The Collecting Activities of the Smithsonian Institution. American Ethnologist 12 (4): 763-74.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 100 4" Journal of the Southwest

1992 Introduction to Zuni Ceremonialism: Three Studies by Ruth Bunzel, pp. vii-xxxix. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Parsons, Elsie Clews 1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Philp, Kenneth R. 1977 John Collier's Crusadefor Indian Reform, 1920-1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Price, Sally 1989 Primitive Art in Civilized Places.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rodee, Marian, and James Ostler 1990 TheFetish Carvers of Zuni. Zuni, N.M.: Pueblo of Zuni Arts and Crafts. Romancito, Rick 1992 Is It Art? Is It Sacred? Indian Market Magazine, p. 54-55. Rushing, W. Jackson, ed. 1999 Native American Art in the TwentiethCentury: Makers,Mean- ings, Histories. New York: Routledge. Shears, Brenda 1989 Using Museum Collections to Re-evaluate Archaeological Research:An Insider's View. In Ann Hedlund, ed., Perspectives on AnthropologyCollections from theAmerican Southwest:Proceed- ingsfrom a Symposium.Arizona State UniversityAnthropological Research Papers, 40. Tempe: Arizona State University. Slaney, Deborah 1992 The Role of C. G. Wallace in the Development of Twentieth- Century Zuni Silver and LapidaryArts. MLS thesis, University of Oklahoma. 1993 Zuni Figurative Carvings from the C. G. Wallace Collection. American Indian Art 19 (1): 68-75. 1998 Blue Gem, White Metal: Carvings and Jewelryfrom the C. G. Wallace Collection. Phoenix: Heard Museum. Smith, Watson, Richard B. Woodbury, and Nathalie F. S. Woodbury 1966 The Excavation ofHawikuh by FrederickWebb Hodge: Report of theHendricks-Hodge Expedition, 1917-1923. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, vol. 20. New York:Museum of the American Indian.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Zuni Pottery * 101

Stevenson, James 1883 Illustrated Catalogue of the Collections Obtained from the Indians of New Mexico and Arizona in 1879. In SecondAnnual Reportof theBureau of Ethnologyto the Secretaryof the Smithsonian Institution, 1880-81. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology. Stevenson, Matilda Coxe 1881 Zuni and the Zunians. Washington, D.C. 1904 The Zuni Indians: Their Mythology, Esoteric Fraternities, and Ceremonies. In Twenty-thirdAnnual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnologyto the Secretaryof the SmithsonianInstitution, 1901-1902. Washington, D.C: Bureau of American Ethnol- ogy- Stocking, George W. Jr. 1981 Anthropological Visions and Economic Realities in the 1930s Southwest. ElPalacio 87 (3): 14-17. 1982 The Santa Fe Style in AmericanAnthropology: Regional Interest, Academic Initiative, and Philanthropic Policy in the First Two Decades of the Laboratory of Anthropology, Inc. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences18: 3-19. 1985 Philanthropoidsand VanishingCultures: Rockefeller Funding and the End of the Museum Era in Anglo-American Anthropology. In George Stocking, ed., Objectsand Others:Essays on Museums and Material Culture, pp. 112-45. History of Anthropology 3. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Tharp, Mike 1974 You Can't Beat Something with Nothing. Arizona Highways 50 (8): 36-39. Torgonick, Marianna 1990 Gone Primitive: Savage Intellects, Modern Lives. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Toulouse, Betty 1981a Prelude: Founding the Laboratory of Anthropology. ElPalacio 87 (3): 4-5. 1981b The Laboratory's Early Years: 1927-1947. El Palacio 87 (3): 6-13. Trotter, George 1955 Prom Feather,Blanket and Teepee.New York:Vantage Press.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 102 * Journal of the Southwest

Ware, John 1987 Introduction. El Palacio 93 ( 1 ): 2. Whitman, William III 1947 The Pueblo Indians of Sun Ildefonso,A Changing Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.

This content downloaded from 164.64.137.196 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:19:16 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions