Saturday, 2 April 2016

More False Face masks from the Iroquois

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 Originally written in the 1950’s it remained unpublished until 1964.The variety and exquisite nature of the False Face masks shown in the paper was quite breath-taking.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.
 
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:
 “..in recent years a White man from Syracuse has been admitted [to the False Face society]. He visits the reservation frequently, takes an active part in the rituals, and is considered by his associates in the society to be an authority on the meaning and use of the masks. In this sense he is more "Indian" than the Indians themselves, insisting that the ancient concepts be followed and the ancient forms observed. This man, Pete Hest, gave me little information beyond the fact that he likes Indians and has been associated with them at summer camps where he picked up his interest in Indian lore. He is regarded somewhat suspiciously by many of the Christians on the reservation who wonder what he is up to.”
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
 
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