I cited a paper by
Jean Hendry (1) in my post about Native American mythological art (see Here). Originally
written in the 1950’s it remained unpublished until 1964.The variety and
exquisite nature of the False Face masks shown in the paper was quite
breath-taking. Therefore I show some of them below as the images are almost
unknown today.
On the origin of the masks Hendry
recounts a number of facts, noting initially that they may have been as late as
the 1600’s in their first use by the Iroquois.
On first observation by
Europeans:
“The first positive evidence of false faces among the New York Iroquois
comes from De Nonville in 1687. Writing about the Seneca he says, "They
make some very hideous masks with pieces of wood which they carve according to
their fancy . . . one foot and a half wide in proportion. Two pieces of kettle
very neatly fitted to it and pierced with small holes represent the eyes. .
."”
Whilst Hendry attributes the
above quote to De Nonville i.e. Jacques-René de Brisay de Denonville, the Marquis
de Denonville, it is more likely quote originates from De Baugy (2) who was the
Marquis’ aide-de-camp.
Hendry explores the probable
earlier use of the False Face masks in the prehistoric period:
“The fact that the first travellers and missionaries found no public use
of masks, and for a long time knew of none among the Iroquois, led Fenton (3)
and Beauchamp (4) to the conclusion that false faces and their rituals made
their appearance among the Seneca in western New York not earlier than the middle
of the 1600's and from there spread slowly eastward to the other four tribes.
Those students who take issue with this theory find support for the antiquity
of masks in archaeological materials.
Parker (5) cites the small stone masks and the faces on pots and pipes,
some of which he takes to represent masked figures. In his opinion, this evidence
and some accounts of idols in the early 1600's that may refer to masks are
proof that the Iroquois masking complex can be dated before the period of White
contact. Converse and Keppler (6) take the same view and point out that the
failure of early writers to mention masks is no guarantee that they did not
exist at that time, as it is probable that the first Europeans were never
permitted to see a mask or to witness the more secret ceremonies in which they
were used.
The new archaeological evidence bearing on the problem of Iroquois provenience
has done much to resolve previous differences of opinion. The probability that
Iroquois culture originated and developed in New York State, and the discovery
of representations of masked faces on clay pipe bowls in prehistoric Iroquois
sites near Onondaga, offers support to those who insist that masking was an
indigenous and ancient trait.”
Amongst the False Face masks
accompanying Hendry’s paper were these:
False Face mask of the Iroquois
from Hendry (1) plate 100a
Original caption: Crooked-mouth
mask.
It is important to note the fact
that Hendry did not give an attribution to this mask in terms of the exact source
of the image, or any of the ones which follow. She comments thus: “I had hoped to obtain some information
concerning the artistic standards of the carvers by showing them photographs of
masks which have been made on the reservation during the last few years. This
plan was blocked by difficulties of an interpersonal sort since after I had
taken pictures of a group of Onondaga masks, the carver who had originally
given me permission to do so was told that under no circumstances should he
allow Whites to photograph them [possibly by Pete Hest - see note at the
end of this post]. He asked me to refrain
from mentioning to anyone that I had already taken pictures, a request which
obviously prevented me from showing them to my other informants. However, I was
able to use photographs of Iroquois masks which I had obtained from museums,
and I found them very effective as a means of eliciting the carvers’ judgments
and opinions about masks and as a rapport device.”
Thus the best photos in Hendry’s
paper seem to be from museum collections or earlier sources (see refs 14-19 for
possible sources). It is interesting however, to compare the above image with
that of the cover photograph from Fenton’s 1991 book (7). It seems to be the
same mask.
There are several other
interesting masks. Here is the next:
Hendry (1) plate 100b. Original caption:
Tongue-protruding mask.
Hendry (1) plate 103. From the
style probably Seneca. Original caption: Straight-lipped wooden mask.
Hendry (1) plate 102. Original
caption: Onondaga 1888 De Costa Smith (8) tongue-protruding masks.
Update:
I had assumed that these masks would be illustrated in one of De Cost Smith's publications. However having consulted the relevant works I find no illustrations of these masks. I can therefore only conclude that these masks were collected in 1888, as it is well known that De Cost Smith collected masks.
Update:
I had assumed that these masks would be illustrated in one of De Cost Smith's publications. However having consulted the relevant works I find no illustrations of these masks. I can therefore only conclude that these masks were collected in 1888, as it is well known that De Cost Smith collected masks.
Hendry (1) Plate 103. Original
caption: Husk Face Society mask.
Other Iroquois False Face masks culled from
internet:
False Face mask.
Image Source: Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin.
False Face masks of unknown
origin and provenance, however the left hand mask is almost certainly the same
as the image above, therefore it seem likely they are both from the Ethnologisches
Museum, Berlin.
Image source: Iroquoisantroinfo
(9)
False Face mask, age
and tribal source unknown. Original image from pinterest, (10) but re-posted
from the auction site Dorotheum where the item was presumably for sale. The
item is no longer listed and therefore assumed sold.
False Face mask Musee
Barbier Mueller, Geneva, Switzerland (11).
These last four masks illustrate
the dual problems that the Iroquois tribes face today, some of their ‘live’
masks - that is those that have been used in ceremonies, by their makers embody
the spirits of the False Face himself and are therefore seen as sacred. Tribes
have therefore sought their return from museums. In the USA and Canada, this
has often been achieved, especially from museum collections. Private sales
still occur in the continental USA, and prices for genuine masks have ranged
from $1000-$12000 in 2015.
An example of the Iroquois
attitude is the statement on the Support Native American Art website (12):
“Many Iroquois masks have produced and sold to collectors and tourists.
The Iroquois leadership responded with a statement against the sale of these
sacred masks and called for their return. Traditional Iroquois object to labelling
these as masks since they are not "things" but the living
representations of spirits. It is considered sacrilegious to sell, publicly
display or mimic sacred False Face Iroquois masks.
Some Iroquois carvers carve "non-live" masks made especially
for sale, but traditionalists disapprove of this as well. All are in agreement
that it is profaning the Iroquois religion to buy or view living masks,
including antiques, or non-native forgeries.
I do not have a picture because public exhibition of all Iroquois Masks
is forbidden.”
An alternative view comes from an
Iroquois carver Chief Jacob Thomas (13):
“I am responding to your letter of October 3, 1994 requesting clarification
of masks being sold to galleries, collectors and other institutions.
First of all in the past the people carved different forms of art to
help support their livelihood. Particularly today as there are no jobs this maybe
the only source for the people to make a living is to sell their art. Therefore
many people do carve and sell their art. I believe that this is an honest thing
to do rather than living on welfare or having to steal to provide for one’s
family.
The masks that I carve are not “blessed” nor given any power for
healing, and there is nothing wrong to sell these masks. On the other hand, I
do agree when the people say that sacred masks should not be sold. Sacred masks
are blessed and given power to heal and cure. This is not a religious practice
but it is a tradition that has been passed on from generation to generation.
People are very critical but they overlook the practice to sell native
medicine, to compete in native dances, and to sell their culture by smudging
and selling lacrosse sticks (its medicine too). Today lacrosse sticks are sold
and played all over the world.
If masks are forbidden to be sold and it becomes too sacred then it
will become a secret and no one will be able to carve a mask and know what it
means and it will become lost among our people.
This is the way I make my living I carve many forms of art and I make
an honest living. If there is anyone out there who needs more information they
can contact personally. I hope that clears the confusion.
- Chief Jacob Thomas”
That was in the 1990’s. But where
did this prohibition about selling, showing or even explaining the False Face masks
originate? Strangely here, the story may come full circle.
Hendry explains a little about
the recent (1950’s) reluctance by some member of the Onondaga community with
whom she worked, to have the masks examined or give explanations to outsiders,
specifically whites. One must remember that scarcely 10 years earlier Fenton in
1941, had received full cooperation from the Iroquois. Anyway Hendy records the
changing attitudes thus:
Under the economic value of the
masks to the Iroquois Hendy has this to say:
“Masks were originally clan property, were later acquired by the medicine
society, and finally came to be individual possessions which were handed down
within families. Exchange in ownership was a ritual rather than an economic
transaction and was effected by the new owner adding his bag of tobacco to
those already attached to the mask (Keppler, 1941, p. 17). There is not enough
historical data to permit an accurate account of the economic significance of
the carvings in the aboriginal culture. However, since they were ceremonial objects,
masks probably had little if any commercial value within the society, an
assumption which explains why the Europeans were able to purchase them at a
very low price during the 18th and 19th centuries (Beauchamp, 1905
a, p. 191). Later, when the Indians realized that the carvings had a monetary
value for the Whites, their attitude began to shift in the direction of greater
conformity to western standards. This change may be responsible for the fact that
masks are now private rather than community property. Today at Onondaga the
economic aspects of mask making are still minimized by those who identify with
the traditional Iroquois patterns. In this respect the art differs from the
beadwork and basket-weaving of the women, which are openly acknowledged to be commercial
enterprises, as well as from carving on some other reservations where masks are
made specifically for the tourist trade and it is possible to order "a
genuine Iroquois false face" by mail. Some Onondagas maintain that masks,
being ceremonial properties, should never be sold, although the more prevalent
opinion holds that it is use which makes the carvings sacred and that they may
be sold if they have never been "doctored" or worn in a ceremony. The
chiefs have forbidden sales at the State Fair and from the roadside stands on
the reservation and do all they can to prevent the old masks from falling into
the hands of the Whites. The position which the carvers themselves have taken
toward selling their work is somewhat inconsistent. They assert quite
positively that although it is permissible to sell and trade masks among the
members of the False Face Society and the other Council House people, it is wrong
to deal with outsiders, particularly as Pete Hest has told them to keep all the
carvings they make.”
I therefore wonder what effect
this random, seemingly amateur anthropologist had on Onondaga/Iroquois militancy
with regard to the lore surrounding the False Face masks?
References
1. Hendry, J 1964. Iroquois Masks
and Maskmaking at Onondaga. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 191 Anthropological Papers, No. 74
2. Louis Henri ‘Le Chavalier’ De
Baugy. 1883. Jourrnal D’Une Expedition contre Les Iroquois en 1687. Ernest
Hubert Auguste Serrigny ed. Merch et co. Dijon
PDF retrieved from: https://dl.wdl.org/15529/service/15529.pdf
3. Fenton, William N. 1941.
Masked medicine societies of the Iroquois. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst, for
1940, pp. 397-439.
4. Beauchamp, William M. 1905.
Aboriginal use of wood in New York. New York State Mus. Bull. 90, Archeol. 11,
pp. 87-272.
5. Parker, Arthur C. 1909. Secret
medicine societies of the Seneca. Amer. Anthrop., n.s., vol. 11, No. 2, pp.
161-185.
6. Keppler, Joseph. 1941.
Comments on certain Iroquois masks. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye Foundation, Contr.,
vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1-40.
7. Fenton, W. N. 1991.
Civilization of the American Indian. University of Oklahoma Press
8. Smith, De Cost. 1888.
Witchcraft and demonism of the modern Iroquois. Journ. Amer. Folklore, vol. 1,
No. 3, pp. 184-194.
9. Iroquoisantroinfo at:
10. Pinterest. Retrieved from:
11. Musee Barbier Mueller.
Retrieved from:
12. Support Native American Art
website. Retrieved from:
13. The views of Chief Jacob
Thomas on the Chichester Inc. website, retrieved from:
14. Speck, Frank G. 1925.
Northern elements in Iroquois and New England art. Mus. Amer. Indian, Heye
Foundation, Indian Notes, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
15. Speck, Frank G. 1950.
Concerning iconology and the masking complex in eastern North America. Univ.
Pennsylvania Mus. Bull., vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 6-57.
16. Wissler, Clark. 1928. The
lore of the demon mask. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Nat. Hist., vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
339-352.
17. Beauchamp, William M. 1885. The
Stone Age in Onondaga County. MS., Cornell Univ. library. New York.
18. Beauchamp, William M. 1888.
Onondaga customs. Journ. Amer. Folklore, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 195-203.
19. Beauchamp, William M. 1905. A
history of the New York Iroquois, now commonly called the Six Nations. New York
State Mus. Bull. 78, Archeol. 9, pp. 125-410.
No comments:
Post a Comment