CONFERENCE SUMMARY: THE CONTAMINATION OF MUSEUM MATERIALS AND THE REPATRIATION PROCESS FOR NATIVE CALIFORNIA

 by: Bob Spencer, Niccolo Caldararo, Lee Davis, Peter Palmer

 

INTRODUCTION

 

A working conference called “The Contamination of Museum Materials and the Repatriation Process for Native California” was held at San Francisco State University from September 29 through October 1, 2000. The summary was sent to participants for review and has been edited by some but not all people mentioned. Given the importance and timeliness of the issue of artifact contamination, especially for Native Americans pursuing the NAGPRA process, the conference summary is included in this volume. The conference was videotaped and the tapes are available for purchase (see the website for details). The San Francisco State University information website on artifact contamination can be found at http://bss.sfsu.edu/calstudies/arttest/.

 

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

 

I.                     Introduction

 

Artifacts now being repatriated by museums to federally recognized tribes under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) across California and the United States have been treated with hazardous chemicals, including various pesticides and toxins designed to combat insects, rodents and mould. When the tribal leaders return home with the tribe’s sacred objects they are unknowingly putting themselves and their families at risk. Many of these poisons produce the same harmful effects in humans that they do in the pests they were designed to eradicate.

 

An artifact analysis laboratory has been developed by San Francisco State University in consultation with the Hoopa Tribal Museum to test repatriated objects for a full range of poisons. The results from recent tests for contamination will serve as a starting point from which a strategy to evaluate and address this national health problem will be developed. This conference provided researchers and tribal leaders with a unique opportunity to share information and allowed tribes to discuss their needs and concerns as to health and the safe use of sacred objects.

 

II.                   Conference Goal

 

The goal of this conference was to encourage cooperation between scientists, tribal representatives, museum curators, pest control experts and artifact conservationists towards a strategy for addressing the risks to human health and to the process of repatriation. Representatives from tribes and policy agencies discussed responsibility for contamination of NAGPRA materials.

 

III.                 Summary of Presentations and Open Discussions

 

Friday, September 29

 

The conference was opened with a blessing and a song by David Hostler, religious ceremonialist in the Hoopa Tribe. The attendees were welcomed by San Francisco State University Vice President Paul Fonteyn, Dean Kassiola and Dean Almaguer. The conference was then officially opened by organizers, Lee Davis and Niccolo Caldararo.

 

a.                    Catharine Hawks, Private Conservator

Ms. Hawks provided a historical survey of the sources of ethnographic materials in museum collections. Ms. Hawks said little was known about how artifacts were collected. Collections of early periods fell victim to a number of different kinds of damage. Arsenic and mercury compounds became the treatment of choice and were still being used until the end of the 1800s.

 

Ms. Hawks said factors that influenced 20thcentury pest control methods included the size of the collections, the number of museum staff, use of wood cabinets, poor cabinet seals, and poor building designs. Many   organic insecticides were seen as safe to use. DDT, for example, was credited with saving hundreds of thousands of lives because it worked to so well to destroy disease-bearing insects and was not viewed as a threat to humans. She said that by the 1970s regulations regarding pesticides and the natural environment had improved and there was a growing concern for the safety of museum staff who used the chemicals.

 

Ms. Hawks noted that approaches to museum pest control today include Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and non-chemical approaches to pest eradication. Other problems in museum collections include asbestos, lead paint, soot, industrial and agricultural pollution, floods, fires and inherent hazards in some objects. Ms. Hawks said that museums of today are better housed.

 

Ongoing research includes methods of documentation, assessment of risk and the development of analytical methods to test for pesticide residues. Ms. Hawks said that arsenic and mercury can not be totally removed from artifacts. She said that non-chemically bound residues are the main concern. Other initiatives include conferences, publications and risk assessments. Ms. Hawks concluded by saying that anything collected before 1900 should be considered contaminated and that anything collected before 1960 should be handled with great caution.

 

b.                    Nancy Odegaard, Conservation, Arizona State Museum;

Alyce Sadongei, Arizona State Museum

Ms. Odegaard gave an outline of the problem as it has been dealt with in the Southwest together with a report on testing at ASM. Ms. Odegaard said the issue was a complex topic, as a wide range of pesticides had been applied to objects. Together with federal laws, Ms. Odegaard said the voices of tribes were now making it a moral issue.

 

She said that with the process of repatriation now ongoing, the problem had reached an urgent level of concern. Ms. Odegaard said that in testing at ASM, the issue had been addressed from a number of angles, including research, studies and medical implications. Ms. Odegaard said testing had found an obligation for education and outreach. This responsibility lay with museums and tribal leaders. Ms. Odegaard said that as many objects were culturally significant, tribal members should be involved in the testing procedures.

 

The examination and handling of objects pose potential health hazards and there have not been a lot of focus studies on the issue. During the handling of objects, toxic particles and vapors may be inhaled, absorbed, or ingested into the human body. Ms. Odegaard said by adopting the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, museum conservators have become more aware of the potential hazards that pesticides may have on objects as well as on humans. Changes in federal laws affecting occupational safety have also led to the ban of many products that were once used in pesticide formulations. Ms. Odegaard also said that many other legal standpoints related to this issue need to be addressed.

 

She said the research necessary to fulfill this requirement involved a lot more than just checking documents. Some of the questions that need to be asked about objects being repatriated include: Were there prior infestations? Were these infestations treated? If no infestations were present, then was the object already treated? Ms. Odegaard said everyone must look for clues.

 

Ms. Odegaard gave credit to the Hopi tribe, which began formal dialogue with a number of institutions in 1997. The institutions then began testing Hopi objects. The following year, the tribe proposed the use of contamination testing and engaged researchers from ASM to test objects. She said testing protocols allowed for the identification of a range of pesticides and arsenic was found to be the biggest one.

 

Alice Sadongei said it was essential for tribes to talk to scientists and university people and  that tribes be informed and educated about the issue. Ms. Sadongei said that different tribes might handle repatriated objects in different ways. Ms. Sadongei said that in March 2000, the Arizona State Museum held a two and half day workshop for members of the 21 tribes in Arizona in order to present and discuss the issue of contaminated cultural materials in museum collections (reference materials are currently being prepared for publication). ASM held a two and a half day workshop to study the issue. She said that tribes must become involved and must remain involved in this complex issue.

 

c.                    Jens Glastrup, Danish National Museum

A paper by Jens Glastrup that was read by Niccolo Caldararo reported that Danish scientists began looking at pesticides on their artifacts in the 1980s. He reported that they began to realize pesticides were contaminating from one shelf to the next and from room to room. Fur and fabric objects can hide huge amounts of pesticides.

 

The distribution of pesticides is never uniform. Despite test cleaning, pesticides remained on the objects. Measures should be taken to avoid unnecessary exposure to the objects and most methods of cleaning tested proved quite disappointing, even after 15 years of study.

 

d.                    Open Discussion

·         One speaker said a large alarm has gone off throughout Indian country.

·         Catharine Hawks said it was possible to train people to clean repatriated materials. She said some tribes might not want outside people handling their objects.

·         Monona Rossol said that since 1997, all people cleaning toxic objects were required to undergo full training.

·         Monona Rossol said that vacuuming can not remove all the very small particles of hazardous materials.

·         Catharine Hawks said that asbestos flaking off museum building walls and insulation is also a real contamination problem in museum collections. She said that HEPA-vacuuming has been quite effective for reducing asbestos contamination. She does not recommend the use of compressed air as that embeds asbestos and pesticide fibers deeper into the artifacts. She so suggested that HEPA-vacuuming could be effective in reducing powder forms of arsenic.

·         One speaker urged tribes who don’t have a member trained to clean objects to contact their regional EPA office.

·         Nancy Odegaard said that handling objects for cleaning was different from handling objects for cultural reasons and that caution should be exercised in interpreting cleaning studies.

·         Yolanda Chavez said that if tribes started working with repatriated items in their own tribal museums, they would be faced with the daunting task of disposing of the hazardous waste materials (such as HEPA-vacuum filters, asbestos particles, cleaning rags, protective clothing, gloves, etc) that would be generated by their activities.

·         Catharine Hawks replied to Yolanda by saying that EPA guidelines govern the disposal of hazardous waste.

·         Niccolo Caldararo said that in some cases, people trying to treat contaminated items had contaminated the treatment area.

·         One speaker asked why the government could not take responsibility for cleaning the objects before they are given back to the tribes.

·         One museum employee said attitudes in museums were beginning to change and that he now wore gloves and a mask when handling objects.

·         Alice Sadongei said that tribal NAGPRA coordinators must be educated in this issue, and that museums are morally responsible for informing tribes of all the pesticide treatments on tribal collections.

·         Nancy Odegaard said that her experience with the Arizona tribes has shown her that standard museum techniques for handling and cleaning contaminated objects has not been consistent with tribal beliefs and practices around the handling of sacred materials.

·         Monona Rossol said that if you want to make a real difference, you should make museum administrators stick to the law. She said OSHA developed arsenic and lead standards that have been around for many years. She said if museums had met the laws, there would have been 20 years of data to work from already. She said museum administrators do not have a clue about gases, vapors and dust. She said a lot of lawsuits were being filed against museums with gag orders attached to them.

·         Monona Rossol said people were often given cotton gloves to protect the object being handled, but that cotton gloves do not protect from pesticides. While latex gloves do provide protection from pesticides, many people find they develop an allergic skin reaction to the latex. The protective gloves of choice are definitely Nitrile.

·         Pauline Gerber-Montoya of the Mendocino Tribes said she was appalled and concerned by what was being said. She said the burden of responsibility needs to be placed back on the federal government, which should provide more money to museums and tribes to deal with this issue.

·         Monona Rossol said that under OSHA regulations no one should wear respirators until they had undergone medical tests. She said these laws had also been in existence for years and have been ignored by museums.

·         Victoria Purewal said that since no one knows what pesticides are on each artifact, so it should be a high priority to begin a testing program. Until that time we should treat every untested object as if it is contaminated, maximizing protection to our health and reducing the risk of exposure.

·         Alice Sadongei said there was a need for everyone to work together on the issue.

·         Nancy Odegaard said that there needs to be a coming together of the government agencies, museum workers, and native communities around this issue.

 

e.                    Jeff Fentress, SFSU NAGPRA Coordinator

Jeff Fentress gave a report on testing conducted at the San Francisco State University Laboratory. He said the materials tested included storage containers and animal bones.

 

He reported that mercury was found in all of the items tested. He said the ramifications of the testing are complex, for example, where did the poisons come from and how many other poisons are there?

 

f.                     Pete Palmer, Professor of Chemistry, SFSU

 

Palmer presented his group’s work on the analysis of pesticides on objects from the SFSU museum and several items that were recently repatriated to the Hoopa tribe.  Analyses on the SFSU and Hoopa collections showed mercury on the objects.  Analyses on the Hoopa collection showed traces of napthalene and DDT. Palmer said these results raise larger questions including: What are the typical ranges of concentrations in the objects? What are the toxicologically significant concentrations of the contaminants? What should be the goal of the analysis?

 

Palmer said there was a need to educate people working in museums and warn them of potential health risks. He told the attendees they were not alone with respect to ignorance of this problem. He added that with knowledge and collaboration, the problem could be handled.

 

·         Yolanda Chavez suggested that the information be published and circulated to tribes in simple language that everyone could understand.

·         Joseph Moreno asked what happens when repatriated artifacts are re-buried. Mr. Palmer said that toxic metals could leach into the groundwater.

·         Mr. Moreno said some tribes were planning to lay remains to rest by burning them. Mr. Palmer replied by warning that burning materials which contain mercury is dangerous, because the mercury would be released into the air and endanger people’s health.

·         Another attendee said he was about the danger of repatriated artifacts that were going to be used in cultural or religious ceremonies, especially if they were to be used by children.

·         Lee Davis said it was only human for people who had just learned about this issue to be afraid and angry, but we could come together and decide what to do about it.

·         Joseph Moreno asked if scientists had correlated the relationship between pesticide exposure levels to specific consequences for human health.

·         Monona Rossol replied to Mr. Moreno that OSHA publishes the correlation between the thresholds of exposure levels and human health hazards. She said that gathering this information, enforcing the law, and informing employees about this issue, are all the responsibility of the employer.

·         Monona Rossol said that ‘exposure’ is a complex issue and that it is up to the government to educate the tribes about the dangers of toxic exposure and health hazards.

·         Victoria Purewal advises the tribes to buy dose-meters (which record the quantity of toxics in the environment) for their members who work with museum materials, in order to monitor exposure limits as set by various governmental agencies such as NIOSH and OSHA.

·         Victoria Purewal discussed the different effects of short term and long term exposure to pesticides. For instance, breathing air contaminated by burning materials, such as that produced during the cremation practices of some tribes, would easily exceed the legal dose by 25-30 times over the limit for hazardous exposure. At the other end of the spectrum, the amount of exposure in dose-per-contact may be low in an average one-time handling situation.

·         An industrial hygienist in the audience said that the legal dose limit for pesticides as established by OSHA are based on studies of male workers in industrial settings, and don’t apply to women, children, the elderly, or the infirm. The OSHA guidelines also cover only industrial-factory types of exposure, and are not applicable for the very different type of exposure routes experienced in a museum or tribal setting, for instance, ceremonial dancers whose body temperature is high, whose skin is heavily perspiring, wearing a contaminated headdress directly upon the skin of the forehead for a period of several hours.

·         David Goldsmith discussed exposure routes. Body weight and exposure must be factored into the effects of pesticide exposure, especially as regards children.

 

g.                   Monona Rossol, Industrial Hygienist

Ms. Rossol gave a presentation on the health risks to humans resulting from contact with these hazardous chemically treated materials. Ms. Rossol explained the difference between gases, vapors, fumes, dust and mists.

 

She said she was worried about all kinds of things that people were being exposed to. Ms. Rossol said that the artifacts involved a high-risk population, but added that it could all be got down to simpler levels with work on each side of the issue.

 

h.                   Tom Kearney, California Poison Control System, Dept of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF School of Pharmacy

Mr. Kearney gave a power point presentation on the chemical contamination of California NAGPRA materials and the principles of risk assessment for acute and chronic health effects.

 

i.                     Enrique Manzanilla, Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Manzanilla provided an overview of the EPA Pesticide Program. Mr. Manzanilla said the EPA provides money to the state and to tribes to develop environmental programs.

 

He explained how tribes are able to influence EPA policy through the Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC), the Tribal Operations Committee (TOC), the Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC), and the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). He said the issue was very perplexing, as it did not fit routinely into other EPA operations or programs.

 

He said the issue needed to be raised at the national level. He said that tribes need to be advocates for requesting the resources necessary to address this issue.

 

·         One attendee said she would like to see the EPA take a more active role in this issue.

·         Another attendee said that Indian Health Services should be involved.

·         Another attendee suggested that a resolution be sent to the EPA and to tribal representatives on the various committees and councils.

 

Saturday, September 30

 

The attendees were welcomed to the conference by Deron Marquez, Chair of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. Chairman Marquez said it was important that tribes take the driver’s seat on the issue.

 

j.                     David Hostler, Director of the Hoopa Tribal Museum; Shawn Kane, of the Hoopa Tribal Museum; Lee Davis, Associate Professor of California Studies at SFSU.

The group gave a presentation on the Hoopa Tribal Museum’s experience with chemical contamination of repatriated materials. David Hostler said he now has mixed feelings about repatriations. He said two years ago he contacted the Peabody Museum at Harvard for a copy of their inventory. He said when he got there he was unaware of contamination and was told to wear gloves and a mask. He said he didn’t know how to react. Mr. Hostler found each room secured with locks and when the doors were opened he could smell odors. He said he also found some artifacts were being not stored according to Hoopa religious practices, and he did re-store them properly for the Peabody staff.  He said the museum met with tribal elders about the return of some artifacts.

 

Mr. Hostler said during the 1800s many loads of artifacts were hauled away by collectors. He said the artifacts are living spirits who cry to come to the ceremonies back home and dance with “their people”. That is why the repatriation subject is so emotional. Mr. Hostler said the tribe asked for 52 very religious items but only 17 items were returned by the museum. He said a report from the museum warned that the artifacts might contain arsenic, mercury and other poisons. He said right now the artifacts are wrapped with double wrappers and in a container. He said later, during a Jump Dance, the artifacts were placed on a table at the ceremonial grounds, at some distance from the regalia that was to be worn in the dance, so that it could once again be with the other spiritual beings who come to the dance grounds. One head roll was made out of humming birds that would have taken years to collect. He said these materials are irreplaceable.  Mr. Hostler said the Peabody museum was unfamiliar with the tribe’s beliefs, and all artifacts to do with women were left out.

 

Shawn Kane said she would like to see the issue taken to the next level. She said information should be shared nationally. She said she, David Hostler and Lee Davis also went to the Smithsonian and were given the same information about possible contamination.

 

k.                   Niccolo Caldararo, Director and Chief Conservator, Conservation Art Service; Pete Palmer, Associate Professor of Chemistry at SFSU; David Hostler, Director of the Hoopa Tribal Museum; Shawn Kane, of the Hoopa Tribal Museum; Lee Davis, Associate Professor of California Studies at SFSU.

The group gave a presentation on the cooperative development of a sampling technique for testing for pesticides on artifacts for SFSU and the Hoopa Museum.

 

Mr. Caldararo said that taking samples from sacred items requires tribal members with ceremonial knowledge of the item to be tested. He said that dealing with ceremonial artifacts also requires cultural sensitivity on the part of the scientist doing the testing. He said the sampling and testing process could be guided only by tribal ceremonialists. It was impossible for the scientists alone to develop a rationale for how the items would be tested and who was going to do it. Mr. Caldararo said it was essential that the laboratory testing become a collaborative process between the scientists and the tribes. The diverse materials to be tested made sampling even more difficult. Full cooperation was received from the Hoopa Tribe to guide the process of taking testing samples from its artifacts.

 

Mr. Hostler said most ceremonies were undertaken during the summer and dancers wearing artifacts would sweat, increasing the pesticide exposure for the dancers.

 

Mr. Palmer said he was looking for guidance on how to proceed with future testing without being destructive to the artifacts. He said minimally-destructive methods of testing should be developed. He said different types of sampling included random and judgmental. He said that this issue may require compromises between the use of non-destructive sampling methods which provide more qualitative information and destructive sampling methods which provide better quantitative information.

 

Lee Davis said that it would be useful to produce a set of sampling options for the tribes, explaining what the different effects that each sampling method would have on cultural materials.

 

Monona Rossol recommended that those doing the testing be third party people who do not know what the samples are and who have no emotional attachments to them.

 

l.                     Micah Lomaomvaya, Hopi Tribe

Mr. Lomaomvaya gave a presentation on contaminated artifacts and health risks of human exposure through Hopi cultural practices. He said the tribe has an Office of Cultural Preservation, which is responsible for repatriating artifacts and objects to the tribe.

 

He said more than 60 items had been returned to the tribe prior to notification of potential contamination. He said few tribal members were ever warned of contamination by museum staffs. Mr. Lomaomvaya said the tribe still has 400 or more articles that it intends to repatriate from museums.

 

He said he has spoken to the EPA about medical monitoring for tribal members involved in repatriation. He said each tribe was unique and would approach repatriation in a different manner.

 

m.                  David Goldsmith, George Washington University

Mr. Goldsmith gave a presentation on epidemiological studies on pesticide contamination and studies presently underway related to artifacts. Mr. Goldsmith said that while the issue was giving everyone serious concerns, he was most concerned about very old artifacts.

 

He said in the state of California it would be very wise to make friends with the pesticide regulation department in Sacramento. He also urged tribes to get to know their district EPA representatives. He said the pesticides of concern are arsenic, mercuric chloride, DDT, strychnine, naphthalene mothballs, paradichlorobenzene mothballs, dichlorvos, DDVP and vapona. The purpose of his presentation was to review the occupational epidemiology of these pesticides and toxic chemicals.

 

The review entailed knowing the risks, reducing the risk, suggesting prevention approaches and recommending future research studies. The routes and targets of exposure among tribal members are dermal, and the contamination of food and clothes. The routes and targets of exposure for conservators are inhalation, dermal and indirect contamination. Mr. Goldsmith said this could also be a serious problem for children.

 

He said arsenic has been a well-known poison and preservative. He said strychnine was also a very serious hazard to children. Mr. Goldsmith said in the early days of pesticides, the purpose of conservators was to put something on the artifact that would protect it from rodents. He said the record keeping of pesticide use was poor and we now had to determine what was on the artifacts.

 

 Mr. Goldsmith said museums have moved to much less toxic methods for preservations. He said that in order to reduce exposure and lower risks, it is important to examine the history of repatriated items and test them for toxic pesticide residues, and to wear protective clothing. He also said that pesticide health professionals should be consulted and that exposure to artifacts by children should be limited.

 

Prevention approaches recommended include: consult with pesticide and public health experts; communication with tribal members, museum staff and management; recognize the different cultural perceptions and re-consecration of the lives of Indian religious treasures and symbols; and “education, education, education.”

 

Mr. Goldsmith said although current exposures do not appear “high”, there should be consideration of studies including surveillance of exposures and of illnesses and the conduct of epidemiological studies of chronic health conditions and possible reproductive studies. Future research studies should also include surveys of tribal exposures and better characterization of exposures related to repatriation.

 

Mr. Goldsmith said past uses of older pesticides on preserved native artifacts have placed Native Americans at risk. He said public health thinking also suggests that control of exposures and prevention of unnecessary risks must begin by taking a cautionary approach to handling objects and by cooperating with tribes and sharing information.

 

n.                   Jane Sirois, Conservation Scientist, Canadian Conservation Institute

Ms. Sirois gave a presentation on the non-destructive analysis of museum objects for the presence of arsenic and mercury.   The talk focused on arsenic and mercury in museum collections in general, such as in natural history and anthropology collections, and not specifically on pesticides in First Nations artifacts.

 

Since 1988, over 680 natural history specimens (mammals and birds) have been analysed non- destructively, on-site in museums.  Arsenic has been identified in at least trace amounts in approximately 80 % of all natural history specimens analysed to date by this laboratory.  Mercury has been detected in approximately 6 % of the specimens analysed. 

 

Ms. Sirois discussed some of the methods used to detect arsenic, mercury and other organic and inorganic compounds present in surface residues and in the interior of museum objects.  These include: radioisotope excited x-ray energy spectrometry (also known as XRF) to detect elements above atomic number 19 (potassium) in the periodic table non-destructively; spot tests for arsenic; Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR) to identify some organic and inorganic compounds; x-ray diffraction (XRD) to identify crystalline compounds, scanning electron microscopy and x-ray microanalysis to detect elements above atomic number 4 (beryllium) in specific features; and light microscopy to identify particles.    Ms. Sirois discussed the issues of sampling and also the great variability in amount and distribution of pesticides from one object to another.  The advantages and disadvantages of non-destructive analysis were covered.

 

She said proper handling procedures for artifacts treated with pesticides have been developed and are reviewed periodically.

 

o.                    Open Discussion

·         An attendee said she feared that the pesticide issue would be used to stop the repatriation program.

·         Penelope Edmonds, Senior Conservator, Museum Victoria, Australia, said that similar issues were being faced with aboriginal artifacts.

·         Steve Henrickson, Curator of Collections for Alaska State Museum, Juno, said the issue of contamination is much on the minds of native Alaskans. He said there was less of a need to douse Alaskan artifacts with pesticides because the state has less bugs. Because the population of native Alaskans is high, museums there have always had a good working relationship with them.

·         Dale Ann Sherman of the Yurok Tribes is a NAGPRA representative. She said it was a good thing for everyone to come together and talk about the issue. She said it is even better to look for solutions.

·         Yolanda Chavez said she first became interested in the pesticide issue in 1992 while attending a workshop at the Smithsonian. She said this issue would not stop the repatriation process. She represented six tribes at the conference that want to get as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions. She said she was happy that this was being made a national issue. She said that California tribes have been invited to develop part of the agenda for the May 2001 NAGPRA Review Committee meeting at Clear Lake, California.