Economics and Authenticity: A Collision of Interpretations in Cane River National Heritage Area,

David W. Morgan, Kevin C. MacDonald, and Fiona J. L. Handley

Ed. note: A version of this paper was originally presented at The Alliance of Natural Heritage Areas 2nd International Heritage Development Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, June 2005.

Introduction Melrose Plantation, a United States national historic landmark, is a focal point for cultural tourism in northern and central Louisiana (Figure 1). It is celebrated as a pre-Louisiana Purchase property,for the origins of Melrose may go back as far as 1796. In that year, legend has it that a freed slave of African descent named Marie-Thérèse Coincoin acquired the land grant for this property on behalf of her son, Louis Metoyer, who was then still a slave (Mills and Mills 1973:33–59). Louis Metoyer was a Creole of Color, which in central Louisiana refers to a distinct group of people of mixed European, Native American, and African ances- try. Cane River is home to the descendents of this original colonial-era community, and the Cane River Creoles, as they call themselves, are a vibrant group of people who have experi- enced a strong cultural revitalization over the last decade. In the Cane River region, Marie- Thérèse herself is considered a founding figure of exceptional—almost mythic—importance, and most members of the Creole community trace their genealogical ties back to Marie- Thérèse and her ten children by the Frenchman, Jean Claude Thomas Pierre Metoyer. Marie-Thérèse’s prominence in popular culture is due in no small part to the fact that their descendants became one of the South’s wealthiest antebellum families of African descent (Louisiana State Museum 2003). Her more global importance has been highlighted recent- ly by the attention given Cane River and Marie-Thérèse by Oprah Winfrey and two contem- porary novelists (Tademy 2001; Mills 2003). For the last four years we have worked of the Maison de Marie-Thérèse, see at Melrose and the other plantations of MacDonald, Morgan, and Handley 2002/ Marie-Thérèse and her family as part of a 2003; MacDonald, Morgan, and Handley, collaborative archaeological and archival in press; MacDonald et al., in press). Little project between Northwestern State by little our research has unraveled the links University of Louisiana (NSU) and between traditional narratives and certain- University College London (UCL). During ties about the history of these properties, these years we have lived very much in the forcing us, as academics, to refine our shadow of Coincoin’s legend (for the story understanding of the plantation’s develop- 44 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Figure 1. Locations of sites discussed in the text. Map by David Morgan.

ment. This has thrust us into a position we sometimes they are discordant. As such our did not anticipate, in which our findings are negotiations over the legend of Marie- sometimes welcomed, but sometimes are Thérèse provide an interesting case study seen as contesting, contradicting, or deny- with which to illustrate the tenets of the ing accepted narrative “truths.” third draft of the proposed Ename Charter There are three main parties who wish for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage to stake a claim in the way in which Marie- Sites (see Silberman, this volume). Other Thérèse’s story is told. One, obviously, are similar charters have mentioned the need the individuals who self-identify as Cane for sensitive, effective interpretation, but the River Creoles. A second party is the Ename Charter, drafted under the auspices Association for the Preservation of Historic of ICOMOS, the International Council on Natchitoches (APHN), a not-for-profit Monuments and Sites, attempts to “define preservation group composed mostly of the basic objectives and principles of site affluent Anglo women who currently incor- interpretation in relation to authenticity, porate Marie-Thérèse and Creole heritage intellectual integrity, social responsibility, into their interpretation of Melrose Planta- and respect for cultural significance and tion. Lastly,there are the outside academics, context” (ECPAHP 2005). It is particularly represented by us, as well as members of the appropriate here, for it begins with the ’s Historic American recognition that interpretation can be con- Buildings Survey program and, over the tentious and should acknowledge conflict- years, an assortment of other social scien- ing perspectives. As an international stan- tists. dard for all types of heritage sites, the char- In this paper we attempt to show how ter is necessarily broad, but there are three these three corporate voices come together principles that are especially appropriate to to relate the tale of the Cane River Creoles. the case we present, because together they Sometimes the voices are harmonious, address the need for interpretation through Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 45

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter scholarly methods and through living cul- Anglo owner responsible for Melrose’s ren- tural traditions, the need for authenticity, aissance in the early twentieth century), and and the need for fiscal sustainability. Clementine Hunter (the celebrated African- American artist who lived and worked at APHN’s Melrose Narrative Melrose during the Cammie Henry era). Melrose Plantation is the only publicly The APHN’s clear focus on strong-mind- accessible cultural heritage site at which the ed, independent women, two of whom were history of Cane River Creoles is currently African American, is unusual, if not unique, presented to the public. The APHN has in historic house interpretation in the owned the historic core of the plantation southern U.S., and is an extremely impor- and acted as its steward for 34 years. The tant and valid interpretive approach. society’s members obviously govern in a The interpretive tour explaining these large measure how the tale of Marie- women’s histories is based around five key Thérèse and her family is interpreted there. “original” buildings. Three are of particular Melrose, with its grand oaks and architec- importance because they have been associ- ture, is certainly capable of attracting ated directly with the Marie-Thérèse leg- tourists for aesthetic reasons alone (Figure end: 2). The real marketing and advertising efforts of the APHN, however, are to convey • Yucca House. It is presented as being Melrose as embodying the tale of three built around 1796, and legend has it influential women: Marie-Thérèse Coin- that this was the original main house, coin, Carmelite “Cammie” Henry, (the built and lived in by Marie-Thérèse Figure 2. Main house at Melrose Plantation. Photo by Jack Boucher, National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey.

46 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

(Figure 3). costume, and from her dramatic perch • Africa House. It is also presented as delivers the story of Marie-Thérèse and the being built around 1796 as a grain plantation’s founding; she then sweeps store, or, according to some accounts, a downstairs and across the lawn to com- slave jail built in a Congolese style by mence the heart of the tour at Yucca and Marie-Thérèse (Figure 4). Africa houses. • Ghana House. A third supposedly As another example, the APHN web- original 1796 structure, this small site’s main page leads visitors to two cabin is reported to have been built in tourism sites, one of which is Melrose. Each an architectural style reflecting Marie- heritage site is linked to a text blurb intend- Thérèse’s African heritage (Figure 5). ed to draw a reader into a closer inspection, and Melrose’s lure is telling: The story of Marie-Thérèse is famous in Cane River country, and the APHN uses “According to the tradition preserved it to their advantage. For instance the by her descendants, Marie Therese Melrose Plantation tourist brochure (2002) Coincoin was the recipient of the grant of land known as Melrose Plantation.” proclaims, “The story of romantic Melrose Plantation begins with the legend of Marie The legend of Marie Therese Coin- Thérése Coincoin.” It is accurate advertis- coin is not just the story of a woman ing, for so too does a visitor’s trip to the but the story of a family grounded in plantation. Special tour groups are some- African tradition, mellowed by French times greeted by Betty Metoyer, a descen- culture, this family developed in the briefest span of years into one of the dent of Marie-Thérèse. Metoyer typically unique societies in American history, awaits her tour groups from the upstairs a culture so distinct, so close-knit, that porch of the main house, dressed in period they have always termed themselves Figure 3. Yucca House at Melrose Plantation. Photo by Jack Boucher, National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey.

Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 47

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Figure 4. Africa House at Melrose Plantation. Photo by Philip Gould, reproduced with his permission and courtesy of the Cane River National Heritage Area.

Figure 5. Ghana House at Melrose Plantation. Photo by Jack Boucher, National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey.

48 The George Wright Forum The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

“The People.” According to legend, it served simultaneously as both a jail for was here that the story began .... Coincoin’s recalcitrant slaves and as a store- room. By choosing and italicizing a quotation Local folk historian Louis Nardini from the author François Mignon, whom scornfully disputed Mignon’s claims that we discuss below, and invoking the word same year. Nardini (1972) asserted that “legend” twice in their explanatory text, the Coincoin never owned Melrose; did not APHN brochure exploits the allure of the build Yucca, Africa, or Ghana houses; and Marie-Thérèse mythos, while attempting to lived in her own plantation at Cedar Bend reinforce it using documented history. But, until at least 1816. That her son alone was how academically reliable are the accounts involved with the construction of Yucca— they have chosen to use? and much later than had previously been believed—became a point of heated debate, APHN and Melrose’s link to Marie- particularly as the dialogue took place in the Thérèse pages of the local newspaper. Much of the legend of Marie-Thérèse told by the APHN at Melrose grew from Figure 6. Folklorist and Cammie Henry at Melrose Cammie Henry and the artists’ colony that Plantation. Cammie G. Henry Research Center Collections, she created around her in the early 1900s Lyle Saxon Album, #014pl., Northwestern State University, (Figure 6). It was one of the members of the Louisiana. Henry community, the self-styled French- man François Mignon (Figure 7), who did the most to embroider and popularize the tale of Marie-Thérèse, first as writer of a regionally syndicated column, “The Cane River Memo” (1961–1963) and then as author of a book on the topic (1972). He invented the name Yucca for the earliest plantation at the property, a name also applied to what is supposedly the original plantation home, and claimed that Marie- Thérèse, a free slave from the Congo, owned Yucca plantation from 1743 on- wards and built Yucca and Africa House in 1750 (Mignon 1972:1–2). Mignon (1972: 1–2) stated that Louis Metoyer inherited Yucca from his mother, and that Louis’ son built the main house in 1833, at which point Yucca House was turned into a home “for indigent slaves.” Mignon (1972:5, 30–31) also claimed that the two-story Africa House was “a replica of tribal houses on the Congo river in Africa” and that it

Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 49

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

ing that Marie-Thérèse acquired the land in 1796 for her son and settled in Yucca House as the plantation matriarch.

Cane River Creoles and Melrose’s link to Marie-Thérèse The story is intriguing, and relatively uncomplicated, when told from only the APHN’s perspective. The issue of telling the Marie-Thérèse tale at Melrose gets more complex when one listens to the second voice: that of the Cane River Creoles them- selves. For many years the Creoles on Cane River were aware of the narrative related at Melrose, but were content to shrug it off as Figure 7. François Mignon. Cammie G. Henry Research Center “somebody else trying to tell what we Collections, Mignon Collection, #105-22, Northwestern State already know” (J. Colson, director, Creole University, Louisiana. Heritage Center, personal communication, The next year, amid growing contro- 17 May 2005). As the Cane River Creoles versy, the APHN hired the historians Gary became more invested in revitalization, they Mills and Elizabeth Mills to write a proper began to ask questions. Why should the account of the origins of Melrose plantation largely Anglo members of the APHN tell (1973). It later developed into the book The their version of our story for the benefit of Forgotten People (Mills 1977) that now their organization? More to the point, why defines the conventional story of Melrose’s are they telling our story inaccurately? That origins. The Mills, with solid archival evi- query was the most problematic, for most dence, laid aside Mignon’s claim for the Creoles believe that Marie-Thérèse was not 1750 establishment of the plantation. They as firmly connected to Melrose as the focused instead on a Melrose property dis- APHN claims. The Creoles, moreover, pute that raged in 1806–1807. Louis Met- knew exactly where on the landscape oyer, Marie-Thérèse’s son, filed claim to Marie-Thérèse’s story should be situated: a what is now Melrose in 1806. Sylvestre private residence several miles upriver. Bossier, the original 1789 grantee, contest- According to the Cane River Creoles, ed the claim. Louis Metoyer rebutted that what remains of Marie-Thérèse’s home is a Bossier’s right to the land had lapsed, since pink-painted, cypress-clad residence on a he had not made the required land improve- piece of property encompassing a portion ments, and that the land had then been of the 68-acre land grant given to Marie- deeded to him in 1796. Louis ultimately Thérèse in 1786, when her long-term rela- won. In hindsight the Mills saw one flaw in tionship with Jean Claude Thomas Pierre Louis Metoyer’s story: he was legally a slave Metoyer ended (Figure 8). For many years it until May 1802, and slaves could not be was generally accepted by the Creoles that deeded land. To bridge this logical gap, the the extant house on this property (known as Mills (1973:41) echoed Mignon by assert- the Coincoin-Prudhomme House) was the 50 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Figure 8. The Coincoin-Prudhomme House on the Whittington Archaeological Site (16NA591). Photo by David Morgan. original and only dwelling associated with cle for reclaiming the Marie-Thérèse story. Marie-Thérèse (Shaw 1983:6). This claim One possible solution a member of the actually had more documentary backing Creole community broached with us was to than the Mills’ Melrose claim, as there is a possibly rehabilitate the structure into a bed tax map of 1794 that depicts the “maison de and breakfast into which a museum display Marie-Thérèse negresse libre,” which is could be incorporated. shown as occupying almost the exact spot as the standing structure. On the basis of The academic voice on Melrose the map and the discovery of 1700s French At this point let us introduce the third pottery in the home owner’s flowerbed, the perspective on Creole heritage sites: the structure was placed on the National academics’. Since 2001 we have actively Register as the home of Marie-Thérèse and been re-examining the archival documents, subsequently featured in African American oral traditions, and material culture at Historic Places (Savage 1994). Melrose Plantation and the Coincoin- As far as the Creoles were concerned, Prudhomme property in hopes of learning the location of Marie-Thérèse’s home was about the material culture process of cre- known to them, it was not Melrose, and the olization. Our work has particularly sought debate thus centered on issues of cultural to elucidate the role Africans and Native appropriation. Who has the right to tell this Americans played in the development of story? They also began turning their atten- Cane River during the colonial and antebel- tion to the dilemma of using this house— lum periods. well-known among the Creoles—as a vehi- Turning first to Melrose, we found the Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 51 The ICOMOS–Ename Charter claims of APHN to be overstated, to say the architectural conclusions cast doubt on least. The Millses’ hypothesis that Marie- many of the “factual” constructs placing Thérèse founded and managed the planta- Marie-Thérèse at Melrose as its matriarch. tion at Yucca House did not make much The archaeology we subsequently conduct- logical sense since Bossier’s challenge to the ed in tandem with our documentary work land claim would have been directed at shed further light on the plantation’s enig- Marie-Thérèse, not her enslaved son, and matic founding at Yucca House. Without the specter of Louis’ legal rights as a slave going into the details, which are published would never have been raised. Thus the elsewhere (MacDonald et al., in press), a association of Marie-Thérèse with Melrose circa 1810 or later initial occupation date is founded upon gaps in the documentary for Yucca House seems reasonable based on record, rather than any actual written proof the associated material culture. Louis could of her presence. Furthermore, as Nardini not have built this structure in 1796. As if (1972) already indicated, the documents this were not enough, the artifacts are sup- that do exist place Marie-Thérèse on her ported by three recently discovered survey own plantation in 1816. documents held in the Louisiana State Other academics found little veracity in Land Office (MacDonald et al., in press). the supporting myth that Ghana House and These three show, without doubt, that Africa House are examples of architecture Louis’ dwelling in 1814 was not Yucca inspired by Marie-Thérèse’s African expe- House, and it is probable that Yucca House rience. For one thing, it is uncertain had not yet even been built, as it is un- whether Marie-Thérèse was born in Lou- marked and unreferenced on these maps. isiana or Africa. For another, the African Indeed, Louis’ residence, which was used influence on the houses is a notion that does as a reference mark, was not even on the not hold up under close scrutiny. Ghana same side of the river as Yucca House is House is a simple log cabin, like many oth- today. ers along Cane River in the nineteenth cen- It is apparent that François Mignon, tury, and several local informants have told the local writer-in-residence at Melrose in us that it was re-located from another prop- the mid-1900s, created the backbone of the erty along the river by Cammie Henry in the increasingly dubious Melrose legend. The 1920s. More attention has been given to irony is that Mignon’s biggest myth was in Africa House. In a recent study of Creole fact himself. Rather than being French, as building practice, Edwards (2002:66) ar- he intimated, Mignon was actually born in gues persuasively that “nothing about this Cortland, New York, as Frank VerNooy building can be directly related to African Mineah (Cammie G. Henry Research Cen- tradition. The builders of Africa House ter 2004). Mineah, a long-term guest of employed no customary African methods Cammie Henry’s at the plantation, invented or design principles, but rather those of Melrose as the point of origin for Creole France.” He goes on to supply illustrations culture by associating it with the story of of French farm structures closely resem- Marie-Thérèse. Thus, by rewriting local bling Africa House (see Figure 44 in history Mignon secured both the impor- Edwards 2002). tance of his adopted home and made him- Our initial findings and Edwards’ self the indispensable gatekeeper of knowl- 52 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter edge about the Creoles and Melrose (Figure ton site (16NA591) we again unwittingly 9). In short, Marie-Thérèse has become entered into a debate on authenticity, espe- firmly associated with the story of Melrose cially regarding the Coincoin-Prudhomme Plantation’s origins on the basis of no posi- House that the archaeological site sur- tive evidence and in the face of a significant rounds. Conventional wisdom about the amount of contrary evidence (MacDonald, Coincoin-Prudhomme House’s tie to the Morgan, and Handley 2002/2003; Mac- Creole ancestress was academically chal- Donald et al., in press). lenged for the first time immediately prior to our initial fieldwork in 2001, when work The academic voice on the Coincoin- by the Historic American Buildings Survey Prudhomme House (HABS) of the National Park Service cast After exploring Melrose, we turned our doubt on the age of the standing structure. attention to the oral tradition of the Cane The HABS team dated this Creole cottage River Creoles, hoping it could lead us to the to no earlier than the 1830s on the basis of place where Marie-Thérèse lived her life. nail chronology and a few stylistic features The Cane River Creoles really did not (National Park Service 2001). object to our findings at Melrose, because it Details of our work are published else- strengthened their own convictions. This where (MacDonald, Morgan, and Handley time, however, our archaeology was on 2002/2003; MacDonald et al., in press), so ancestral turf, and by searching for trash suffice it to say that copious earth moving deposits and slave homes at the Whitting- on our part and re-inspection of excavations

Figure 9. François Mignon in Yucca House at Melrose Plantation. Cammie G. Henry Research Center Collections, Mignon Collection, #105-21, Northwestern State University, Louisiana.

Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 53 The ICOMOS–Ename Charter from the 1970s failed to yield artifacts asso- 1989; Handler 1991; Greaves 1994; Díaz- ciated with the late 1700s or even the first Andreu and Champion 1996; Posey and decade or two of the 1800s, Marie- Dutfield 1996; Haley and Wilcoxon 1997; Thérèse’s intensive plantation period, when Ziff and Rao 1997; Messenger 1999; she accumulated some 16 slaves. We ulti- Warren 1999; Whiteley 2002). In this case, mately began from scratch, georeferenced we think our years of academic archival and the original 1794 map, and discovered that archaeological investigations embrace the the extant house’s location and the location first component of Principle 2, which states of the maison shown on the map were off by interpretation should be “based on system- about 50 m. We redirected our investiga- atic and well-researched evidence gathered tions and, sure enough, some 50 m away,we through accepted scientific methods.” But found a cluster of artifacts typical of the late what about the second component, which 1700s, as well as sub-surface features: the insists that evidence also should come from missing maison de Marie-Thérèse. “traditional sources of living cultures”? Stepping back, it was apparent that our The Millses’ archival work overwrote in work and HABS’s severed the myth of many respects the myths Mignon created Marie-Thérèse from the Coincoin- from traditional stories and, presumably, a Prudhomme House, placing the latter firm- healthy dollop of his own imagination. But, ly in the mid-1800s and associating it with a are our findings also not a partial refutation different family line entirely. That we went of the knowledge carried by members of the on to locate the vicinity where Marie- Cane River Creole community and the Thérèse’s house actually stood probably APHN? We outside academics advocate was not much of a sop to the Cane River that Melrose’s development be reconsid- Creoles. Before our work they had some- ered in light of our “expert” findings, along thing to look at, something to fire the imag- with the identity of the Coincoin- ination. We left them with an empty hay Prudhomme House, and that the interpre- field owned, no less, by a non-Creole fami- tations of these properties be revised ly. accordingly.Should our claims trump those of the Cane River Creoles or the APHN? Melrose and the draft Ename Charter Turning from the academics’ view to Let us move now from the concrete to look at authenticity in another fashion, the the more abstract in order to examine how Creoles assert that the APHN is picking this case study reflects key aspects of the and choosing select aspects of the Marie- draft Ename Charter. A core theme of the Thérèse story to suit their own purposes, charter’s provisions is how to ensure the and thus tell an inauthentic story even as authenticity of interpretation, when nation- they appropriate it. Marie-Thérèse is alism, economics, power dynamics, author- referred to in the standard tour as an exam- ity roles, and competing epistemologies all ple of Melrose’s female residents, even as a determine what we perceive and interpret as strong, independent African American “true” and “accurate,” a conundrum dis- woman, but not as the founder of what is an cussed in many of the academic disciplines active, thriving Creole community.In a tour comprising heritage resource management given in May 2005 by a member of the (e.g., Shanks and Tilley 1987; Greenfield APHN, a Creole woman from Natchitoches 54 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter was rather dismayed to hear twice on the academics, and the APHN—remain tour that the Cane River Creoles had been remarkably cordial considering the emo- “wiped out by Jim Crow” (Michelle Pichon, tional and economic issues at stake. We personal communication, 17 May 2005). have, for instance, worked closely with the Will APHN’s tale be the accepted one, sim- APHN and the Louisiana Creole Heritage ply because it is repeated to the greatest Center, an outreach and research unit number of people, far more than the num- housed at Northwestern State University of bers that make up the Creole community or Louisiana, as well as with many individual who will thumb through academic books representatives of the Creole heritage revi- and journals? talization effort. Part of the reason for the Rather than enter discussions of who amiability is that all of the parties involved has the right to speak for whom, whose share, at some level, a fundamental ground- epistemology has greatest validity, and ing in Western epistemologies, so the prob- whether one historic narrative is more lematic fixed criteria of legitimacy dis- important than any other, the Ename cussed in the Ename Charter is less an issue Charter measures claims of legitimacy here than in some other cultural contexts. against the definition of “authenticity” the Unlike traditional stakeholders contesting United Nations considered in its 1994 Nara interpretation at other sites, we do not face Document. This definition recognizes that the dilemma where one person’s body of value judgments on cultural properties, as proof simply does not exist as a conceptual- well as the credibility of pertinent informa- ly valid measure of authenticity. tion sources related to them, differ cross- Accepting the value of the Creole tradi- culturally and sometimes intra-culturally, tional narrative as the Ename Charter advo- making it impossible to establish fixed crite- cates has not been difficult for those of us ria of legitimacy. Instead, heritage sites must on the academic side of the table. We recog- be considered and judged within their own nize the importance of oral tradition both contexts. This is the tautology of relativism, for the sociohistorical data it contains and apparently broken by the requirement of for its importance in the transmission of inclusivity woven through both the Nara cultural values and knowledge, so the dia- and Ename documents. Alternate views logue that develops from these personal must be heard, or, in the language of interactions is akin to an information Principle 6 of the charter: “Interpretation of exchange between any set of researchers. cultural heritage sites must actively involve The Creoles want to know what we have the participation of all stakeholders and discovered that they either did not know,or associated communities,” who must con- to which they can contribute a personal or tribute to the planning process of the inter- familial perspective. We want to know what pretive program and receive its benefits. personal or familial links we either will At this point it bears mentioning that never find in the archival or archaeological we are in the enviable position where our records or will simply have overlooked academic information contests aspects of because of our own cultural or methodolog- the APHN and the Cane River Creole’s ical blinders. We are not in opposition information, while relations between these because our work does not diminish the three corporate groups—Creoles, outside importance of their past or present, and Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 55 The ICOMOS–Ename Charter indeed only serves to highlight them in pro- costs, meals, and shopping, the average fessional, national forums. As part of their overnight travel party brings $217 to $466 desire to no longer be lost between the color dollars to the area, depending on whether lines, “the forgotten people” of America, as or not they stay overnight in a hotel or a bed they are sometimes described (Mills 1977; and breakfast (Stynes and Sun 2004:9, Sarpy interview in Rodman 2005), seek Table 13). Melrose is one of the major cul- knowledge and information about their past tural tourism sites within the National from whatever quarter it may derive, be it Heritage Area and central Louisiana. Of oral tradition or empirical testing. these 399 sampled visitors, for instance, Accommodating and presenting the Melrose was the heritage site visited by the traditional or academic narratives may not greatest number of people and was the her- be quite as straightforward from the APHN itage site of which visitors rated themselves perspective. By linking the Creoles to most aware (Figures10 and 11) (Stynes and Marie-Thérèse and by linking Marie- Sun 2004:8, and Figure 2 therein). To put Thérèse to Melrose, the Creoles’ heritage this in more concrete terms, last year has become pivotal to the economic success Melrose brought to the parish 13,564 visi- of the heritage site and the area at large, a tors, not counting those who attended vari- concept addressed by the Ename Charter’s ous festivals and the annual Tour of Homes fifth principle on economic sustainability. (Iris Harper, Natchitoches Tourist Com- Central Louisiana is characterized by mission, personal communication, 6 May poverty, geographic isolation, and low taxa- 2005). At $7 per adult and $4 per child, tion capacity. Heritage tourism is one of the these tourists represent a significant income few local industries that exists outside of stream for the APHN and a hefty contribu- lumber and agriculture. In a region with tion to the parish’s tax base. For example, in poverty levels nearly three times greater 2003 and 2004 Melrose brought in from than the national average and with a median admission fees an average of $81,687, and household income less than half that of the visitors in the first four months of 2005 national average (Sims 2005:4), the ability brought in $32,028, an increase of 173% of heritage tourism to generate tax dollars over the amount brought in on average from from outside visitors cannot be overstated. January to April in the prior two years (Sue A survey in 2003 of 399 heritage Weaver, executive director, APHN, personal tourists in the Cane River National Heritage communication, 2 June 2005). Losing one Area, which encompasses Melrose, indicat- of the three women who form the narrative ed that 65% of the visitors to this area came sequence at Melrose could diminish the from out of state and 4% were international heritage site’s appeal to many tourists, visitors (Stynes and Sun 2004:5, Table 2). hence creating a significant economic im- Of the 399 visitors, 74% of them stayed an pact and threatening Melrose’s long-term average of 2.4 nights in the area (Stynes and sustainability. Sun 2004:6, Table 3). This last figure is Melrose is a contested location for especially important, because Michigan more than economic reasons. What makes State University researchers calculate that this particular situation unusual is that, while the average day-trip travel party although we academics have shed consider- spends about $100 on admissions, travel able doubt on the validity of the traditional 56 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Figure 10. Visitor attendance at heritage tourism sites in Natchitoches Parish, 2004 (adapted from Figure 2 in Stynes and Sun 2004, 8).

Figure 11. Visitor attendance at and awareness of Melrose Plantation (adapted from Figure 2 in Stynes and Sun 2004, 8).

Marie-Thérèse myth, and although the the link between the Creole progenitor and Creoles have their own origin location, Melrose is pried apart by archival and Melrose remains the only place where the archaeological evidence, or when the owner historically documented story of Marie- of the Coincoin-Prudhomme House suc- Thérèse can be told in an original historic ceeds in his plans to develop a combination setting or landscape (Martin, n.d.:44)—an museum/bed and breakfast? important interpretive link recognized by The tenets of the Ename Charter Ename Charter’s third principle. No other would direct us to continue telling the Cre- structures associated with her life, however oles’ story at Melrose, for the Creoles are remotely, still stand. So, what happens once primary components of the social context in Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 57 The ICOMOS–Ename Charter which Melrose developed and operated. It APHN thus is not deprived of one of the is simply impossible to comprehend what three women around whose lives their inter- Melrose represents without their story and, pretive tours center, and has the added according to the charter, their direct input incentive of being able to deliver a more on its interpretation. The point may be robust, authentic narrative to the public. moot, because Louis will become the vehi- Once the APHN and the Creoles agree cle by which his mother’s tale is told, and on the manner in which the Marie-Thérèse Louis and Melrose will come to symbolize narrative is presented, cultural appropria- the prosperity of Marie-Thérèse’s descen- tion issues will lose much of their potency. dents; however, for this to happen the Melrose, with its imposing main house, APHN would have to recognize the voices would come to serve the Creoles as an of Creole oral tradition and academic important symbol of the Metoyer family’s archival and archaeological research. The wealth, as is evidenced by its use as a back- Coincoin-Prudhomme property, if ever drop in this context in a 2005 documentary developed into a private commercial ven- on Cane River Creoles aired on Louisiana ture, could serve as a visitor center for the Public Broadcasting (Rodman 2005). (archaeological) Marie-Thérèse home site Viewed in the context of Melrose planta- next door and be marketed in concert with tion, it is easy to argue that America’s “for- Melrose, so that the two complement each gotten people” once were a very successful, other and add yet another dimension to a prosperous part of the American past. visitor’s experience. Meanwhile, the Cane River National Collaborative input on the part of the Heritage Area has identified Cane River stakeholders is in fact the avenue of resolu- Creole culture as one of their primary inter- tion currently being negotiated between pretive themes. Their interpretive plan these various voices we have described. For urges that more research be conducted fo- instance, the negotiation of a mutually satis- cusing on the links between Marie-Thérèse factory narrative is still in progress. The and Melrose, but that her story should con- Tour of Homes Committee has asked for tinue to be told at the plantation in recogni- assistance in telling the “alternate” history tion of her importance to visitors and the the Creoles prefer (J. Colson, director, local community (Martin n.d.:44). More Creole Heritage Center, personal communi- broadly, the challenges faced by the APHN, cation, 17 May 2005), and the Creole Heri- like other heritage organizations, are in tage Center currently is creating a traveling developing well-researched interpretative exhibit on the formation of the Cane River themes and delivering them through well- Creole community that will debut in trained guides and up-to-date presenta- October 2005 at Melrose during the Tour tions, while operating within a tight budget of Homes. The exhibit will explain the his- and dealing with on-going conservation tory of the Metoyer family and their kin (J. issues. In this sense, persuading the APHN Colson, director, Creole Heritage Center, to accept historic information from both personal communication, 17 May 2005). stakeholders and academics as valuable Brochures will supplement the exhibit and contributions to Melrose’s interpretation is will be distributed to visitors at Melrose easy; it is much harder to see a clear way after the exhibit has moved elsewhere. The through the remolding of the interpretation 58 The George Wright Forum

The ICOMOS–Ename Charter of the site, from advertising pamphlets to becomes yet another element of the story. retraining guides, especially when the status We would like to think that we were able to quo of the site operates well from a financial learn something about the structures, their point of view. history, and their inhabitants that added What this discussion reiterates howev- greater depth and texture to the narratives er, is that the Cane River has a rich resource told by both competing voices, and thus of material and social history to draw upon profited the APHN, Cane River Creoles, in developing heritage tourism. Eventually, and the public at large. Even if we revealed the stories of Marie-Thérèse as an influen- more questions than answers, or threatened tial African American woman, and as the the interpretive status quo, perhaps our head of the Cane River Creoles, could be worth is measurable by the motion our told. The more variety there is in interpret- inquiries are beginning to lend to an other- ing these histories, whether through chang- wise static interpretation. When it comes to ing presentations at Melrose to encourage the many daily interpretive tours at repeat local visits, or even through develop- Melrose, or general conversations within ing new audience attractions aimed at the the local community, how our voice ulti- overnight visitor market, the more it will not mately is interpreted and incorporated iron- only add to the nuances of the stories told, ically will be under the control of those who but also alleviate the pressure on one loca- have perpetuated Mignon’s legends. tion to present the definitive history. Through the Ename Charter, it may be pos- As far as we academics are concerned, sible for all stakeholders to use and reinvent the process by which these different com- competing Cane River Creole histories in a peting narratives formed, the myths they way that fosters economically viable, generated, and the way they became inte- informative, and balanced interpretations of grated into something deemed authentic valuable heritage resources.

References Allen, Barbara. 2003. Reconstituting the vanished: Gender, memory,and placemaking in the Delta South. Architronic 5:1.02. On-line at http://architronic.saed.kent.edu/ v5n1.02a.html. Cammie G. Henry Research Center. 2004. Northwestern State University Library’s “Francois Mignon Collection Biographical Sketch.” On-line at www.nsula.edu/wat- son_library/cghrc_core/mignon.htm. Accessed 15 February 2004. Cane River National Heritage Area Commission. 2003. Cane River National Heritage Area Management Plan. Denver: National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Timothy Champion, eds. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Pres. ECPAHP [Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation]. 2005. ICOMOS Ename Charter for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage Sites: Third draft, 8/23/04. Unpublished draft. On-line at www.enamecharter.org. Edwards, Jay D. 2002. Vernacular vision: The Gallery and our Africanized architectural landscape. In Raised to the Trade: Creole Building Arts of . J.E. Hankins and S. Maklansky, eds. New Orleans: New Orleans Museum of Art, 61–94.

Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 59 The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Greaves, Tom, ed. 1994. Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Sourcebook. Oklahoma City: Society for Applied Anthropology. Greenfield, Jeanette. 1989. The Return of Cultural Treasures. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Haley, Brian D., and Larry R. Wilcoxon. 1997. Anthropology and the making of Chumash tradition. Current Anthropology 38:5, 761–777. Handler, Richard. 1991. Who owns the past? History,cultural property,and the logic of pos- sessive individualism. In The Politics of Culture. B. Williams, ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 63–74. Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. N.d. Louisiana: Our culture abounds. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. Louisiana State Museum. 2003. The Cabildo—Antebellum Louisiana: Agrarian life. Louisiana State Museum on-line exhibits. MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan, and Fiona J.L. Handley. 2002/2003. Cane River: The archaeology of “free people of color” in colonial Louisiana. Archaeology International 6, 52–55. ———. In press. The Cane River African Diaspora Archaeological Project: Prospectus and initial results. In African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the Diaspora.J. Haviser and K.C. MacDonald, eds. London: University College London Press. MacDonald, Kevin C., David W.Morgan, Fiona J.L. Handley,Emma Morley and Aubra Lee. In press. The archaeology of local myths and heritage tourism: The case of Cane River’s Melrose Plantation. In [title and editors withheld due to upcoming publication as a Festschrift volume]. London: University College London Press. Martin, Brenden. N.d. Cane River National Heritage Area Master Interpretive Plan. Report prepared for the Cane River National Heritage Area, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, ed. 1999. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? 2nd ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Mignon, François. 1972. Plantation Memo: Plantation Life in Louisiana 1750–1970 and Other Matters. Baton Rouge: Claitor’s Publishing Division. Mills, Elizabeth S. 2003. Isle of Canes. N.p.: MyFamily.com, Inc. Mills, Gary B. 1977. The Forgotten People: Cane River’s Creoles of Color. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Mills, Gary B., and Elizabeth S. Mills. 1973. Melrose. Natchitoches, La.: The Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches. Morgan, David W., and Kevin C. MacDonald. 2003. Refining our view of the Creole land- scape: Using archaeology to locate the house of Marie-Thérèse Coincoin. Paper pre- sented at the Creole Studies Conference, New Orleans. Nardini, Louis R., Sr. 1972. ‘Legends’ about Marie Therese disputed. In Natchitoches (Louisiana) Times, n.d., 8–A. National Park Service. 2001. Historic American Buildings Survey LA-1295: Coincoin- Prudhomme House (Maison de Marie Therese) (draft copy). Unpublished report on file at Cane River National Heritage Area, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Posey, Darrell A., and Graham Dutfield. 1996. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward 60 The George Wright Forum The ICOMOS–Ename Charter

Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa, Ont.: International Development Research Centre. Rodman, Bill. 2005. Cane River Creoles: The Spirit of a Culture. F.R. Ulmer, gen. ed. DVD production funded by the Cane River National Heritage Area, the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities, and the Louisiana Division of the Arts. Savage, Beth L. 1994. African American Historic Places. New York: The Preservation Press. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley.1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press. Shaw, Billy Wayne. 1983. A ceramic chronology for the Whittington House site: 1780– present. Master’s thesis, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Sims, Jan. 2005. Northwestern State University’s 2005 grant application for the Title III, Part A, Strengthening Institutions Programs of the United States Department of Education. Unpublished manuscript on file with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Stynes, Daniel J. and Ya-Yen Sun. 2004. Cane River National Heritage Area: Visitor Characteristics and Economic Impacts. Report prepared for the Cane River National Heritage Area, Natchitoches, Louisiana. On-line at www.prr.msu.edu/mgm2/ default.htm. Tademy, Lalita. 2001. Cane River. New York: Warner Books. Warren, Karen J. 1999. A philosophical perspective on the ethics and resolution of cultural property issues. In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? 2nd ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger, ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1–25. Whiteley, Peter M. 2002. Archaeology and oral tradition: The scientific importance of dia- logue. American Antiquity 67:3, 405–415. Ziff, Bruce H., and Pratima V. Rao, eds. 1997. Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

David W. Morgan, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457; [email protected] Kevin C. MacDonald, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY United Kingdom; [email protected] Fiona J. L. Handley, Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton, Park Avenue, Winchester SO23 8DL United Kingdom; [email protected]

Volume 23 • Number 1 (2006) 61 ADDENDUM

[Ed. note: In April 2008 the co-authors requested that the following addendum, which clarifies some of the key conclusions of the article based on new evidence, be appended to the online (PDF) edition. The addendum was accepted and posted in May 2008.]

Since writing both this article and a chapter which appeared in the edited volume A Future for the Past, we have entered into correspondence with Elizabeth Shown Mills of Samford University Institute of Genealogy and Historical Research, and the widow of the late historian, Gary B. Mills. Through this correspondence we have learned that our assertions concerning her and G.B. Mills’s conclusions regarding the involvement of Marie-Thérèse Coincoin with the foundation of Melrose do not represent the views expressed in their more recent publications on the subject (cf. Mills and Mills 1982:177; G.B. Mills 1984:101; E.S. Mills, in press). Indeed, we have been informed by Elizabeth Mills that their original Melrose booklet, which remains in use at the heritage property and from which our assertions were principally derived, had in fact been nuanced by the property’s proprietors—without the authors’ consent—in order to reflect a stronger link between Marie- Thérèse Coincoin and that property (E.S. Mills. pers. comm., 13 December 2007). We (the co-authors) request that this addendum be published to make clear that our own views and the published views of Elizabeth Mills concerning the relationship of Marie-Thérèse Coincoin and the Melrose property are in fact largely in agreement, and that it was not our intention to in any way to diminish the outstanding scholarly reputation of E.S. Mills and the late G.B. Mills, for whom we have the greatest respect.

References Mills, Elizabeth S. In press. Marie Thérèze Coincoin (1742–1816): Black Creole touchstone and paradox. In Louisiana Women. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Mills, Elizabeth S., and Gary B. Mills. 1982. Slaves and masters: The Louisiana Metoyers. National Genealogical Society Quarterly 70:3, 163–189. Mills, Gary B. 1984. Liberté, fraternité, and everything but égalitié: Cane River’s Citoyens de Couleur. In North Louisiana: Essays on the Region and Its History, vol. 1. B.H. Gilley, ed. Ruston, La.: McGinty Trust Fund Publications, 93–112.

David W. Morgan Kevin C. MacDonald Fiona J. L. Handley