Table of contents  •  Who we are ... people and programs  •  Where we've been ... and where we're going  •  
Facts and figures  •  Acknowledgments


What we do ... and whom we serve  •  Sacred objects, safely returned

Sacred objects,
safely returned

Beyond the laboratory walls

Breathing safely in the dusty trades

Particulate air pollution

Probing genetic variations

A century or more ago, anthropologists sought to preserve objects of Native American heritage using the best tools they had-preservatives based on compounds of arsenic, lead, and mercury. Today, museums are faced with having potential human health risks in their collections.

Dr. James Nason of the Burke Museum and Leilani Cubby of the Quinault Nation clean pesticide residue from a ceremonial drum

The toxicity of old pesticides has taken on a serious new meaning since the passage of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The 1990 act entitles Native American tribes to claim human remains, and funerary, sacred, or patrimonial objects (those that are part of their cultural inheritance) back from museums.

Ceremonial use

Dr. James Nason, professor of Anthropology and curator of Pacific and American Ethnology for the University of Washington's Burke Museum, was concerned about turn-of-the-century pesticide residues in the Burke's collections. As chair of repatriation operations for the Museum, he knew that many of the sacred objects might be put back into active ceremonial use. Ceremonies can last up to four days, with important roles performed by tribal elders who could be particularly susceptible to toxic effects.

The hand-held spectrometer is so small it can be placed inside a basket

"We had an obvious ethical-and probably legal-obligation to inform recipients of any potential hazard," he said. To detect and weigh the severity of the hazard, the Museum needed to find a non-destructive analytical testing procedure that would preserve sacred objects often made of leather, fur, feathers, or other perishable materials. The Burke turned to the Environmental Health Laboratory.

The lab's initial assistance focused on measuring arsenic, lead, and mercury contamination, using a hand-held x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer. The machine is so small and sensitive that it can take readings by only gently touching the artifact without causing harm. It is what is called a "non-destructive" testing method.

The spectrometer relies on the emission of characteristic x-rays from each element. The lab first ran calibration tests by adding known amounts of the toxic elements to surrogates for the artifacts, provided by Nason. Then the Museum tested about 400 artifacts. Nearly half had residues of arsenic, mercury, or both.

After a surface cleaning of this Quinault rattle, Dr. Nason will again test it with a handheld XRF spectrometer

The next step was to determine how much pesticide residue might rub off, said Laboratory Director Rolf Hahne. The presence of arsenic, mercury, or lead alone doesn't necessarily pose a human health hazard. That depends on whether the pesticides are tightly bound into the artifact's structure, or if they can rub off on the skin and be absorbed or ingested, or if they can become dislodged and become airborne and inhaled.

The third step was drafting guidelines for contact with the object. Since the degree of handling varies from object to object, depending on ceremonial use, the guidelines described three levels of contact-infrequent, moderate, and frequent. Exposure guidelines were developed using the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels for arsenic and mercury, and EPA guidelines for lead.

Tribal Involvement

	Cedar bark basket, Tsimshian catalog #2.5E556

The Quinault Indian Nation, located on the Pacific coast near Grays Harbor, had been working with the Burke on the repatriation of eight sacred or ceremonial objects when the contamination was discovered. The objects include a drum, two rattles, an eagle-feather headdress, a sea otter sash, and a cedar-bark head ring.

The Tribe was motivated to mitigate the contamination-or make it less harmful-because "it was very important to us to bring these sacred objects home," said Guy Capoeman, a Quinault Nation council member and chairman of the Tribe's repatriation committee. "The University gave us a wonderful opportunity," he said. "They offered to give our staff training in how to clean artifacts, in case we get objects returned from other museums. We jumped right on that."

Vest, Sioux catalog #2.0E117

This summer, Leilani Cubby, the Quinault Nation's cultural coordinator, sat down with Nason to test and clean the objects. Of the eight Quinault artifacts, only one-the sea-otter sash-seems so permeated with mercury and arsenic that it probably can't be used ceremonially, Capoeman said.

If a ceremonial object tests positive for contamination, the Tribe has several choices, according to Nason. The Tribe could try cleaning the objects. It could use the artifacts for display and replication, but not for ceremonial use. Or it could allow cere-monial use, but require long sleeves or gloves to minimize skin contact. A less acceptable option would be for the Museum to use a sealant to trap the residues. These ceremonial objects "are living things that are supposed to breathe," Nason said.

	Chilkat blanket, Tlingit catalog #1999-97/210

"The Burke and the (Laboratory) staff were more than willing to help us," Capoeman said. The relationship was so close and respectful that the Tribe wants to invite University staff to a ceremonial dinner when the objects are finally returned. The Tribe is in the final stages of federal approval, and hopes to finish the process this fall.

"The technology has helped us preserve a vital part of our heritage and culture," Capoeman said. "It was a blending of the new and the old that is helping us bring these objects home."

UW in the forefront

The UW has one of only four or five such analytical testing projects in North America, said Nason, who is involved in several national committees. "We know as much about this as anyone in the world and have far better data than most." The joint work between the Laboratory and the Museum is continuing. They will work together to analyze exposure risk, and have requested grant support. The project started with arsenic and mercury, but unanswered questions remain about fumigants and organic pesticides used from the 1930s through 1950s.

More also needs to be known about whether subsurface contamination-pesticides that traveled deep into the wood of a rattle or the pores of a drum skin-can rise to the surface.

Further reading

Burke Museum:
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/

Environmental Health Laboratory:
http://depts. washington.edu/envhlth/cont_ed/ehlab.html

Hahne R, Nason J. Evaluation of total and removable levels of arsenic, mercury, and lead in natural history museum artifacts as a preface to preparing guidance for the handling of repatriated artifacts. American Industrial Hygiene Conference & Expo, June 2001, New Orleans.
http://www.aiha.org/abs01/01exp2.html

National NAGPRA database:
http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nagpra/

Seifert SA, Boyer LV, Odegaard N, Smith DR, Dongoske KE. Arsenic contamination of museum artifacts repatriated to a Native American tribe.
JAMA 2000 May 24-31;283(20):2658-2659

Zappala JL. Artifacts being returned to Quinault Indian Nation. Daily World, Aberdeen, WA. Feb 23, 2001.
http://www.thedailyworld.com/daily/2001/Feb-23-Fri-2001/news/news3.html