Donald E. Crabtree Lithic Technology Collection

CLIR-DHC: Advisory Board Interview Angela Neller 11/09/2022

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (00:00): Um well, Angie, why don’t we just go ahead and dive into, to, these questions here. And, um, usually, what we do is we just want to start off and just say, you know, hello, thank you for joining us. Thanks for being a part of this advisory board. Um everyone has already contributed so much in our just formation conversations. And I mean, your remarks in particular about being cautious with our ‘Get Glue On It’ process and how we present that. That really, really stuck with me and I have been thinking about that. And we are doing some extra, some extra like chemical analysis and verification so that we can really speak more knowledgeably about the impacts of that process. So, um, thank you so much for everything you’ve already contributed to this project, [laughs] which is — is a lot. Um if you wouldn’t mind, could you maybe just give us a little bit of introduction in terms of, um, you know, who you are and your roles as relevant to this project, um, Tribal affiliations, if you want to share, and just kinda let us know, um, and our audience who might be watching, who you are and um how — how — how you like to introduce yourself?

Angela Neller (00:59): Okay. Um so I’m Angela Neller. I’m the curator at the Wanapum Heritage Center. I’ve been there for 20 years, uh, managing the repository. So really, managing the collections. Um, uh, we have ethnographic, archaeological, archival material. Uh my real primary expertise is in archaeological collections, and that’s my background. I’m a Native Hawaiian and have worked previously at the Bishop Museum and also at the University of Illinois where I was with the, um, Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, which is now called the Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Um and so I just have, um, really an archaeology background. I just… sorry, my alarm… um have an archeology background, um, really was interested in archaeology to learn more about sort of my Hawaiian ancestors and, and how they lived before. And so that’s kinda how I got into archaeology, but my, um, my niche really in archaeology is managing collections, um, and just, archaeological collections, ethnographic. And, um, that’s about it.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (02:18): Yeah, that’s awesome. How did you come to get out at the Wanapum Heritage Center, you know? ‘Cause for folks who don’t know, it’s, is Central Washington a fair descriptor for that, you would say?

Angela Neller (02:27): Yes. Yep. Yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (02:29): Yeah. Yeah. So how — how did you end up out there?

Angela Neller (02:31): Um I was working at ITARP, and they had, um, the Wanapum Heritage Center was looking for a person with archaeological curation experience, and they were, um, looking to — to contract with someone. And at the time in my position, I was looking to possibly do some contract work on the side. So I was kinda curious. I saw the announcement and was curious about how that would work. And I think in — in the interview, um, I ended up having with the Wanapum elders, um, the real, the importance of the Heritage Center to the Wanapum in terms of taking care of things that have come from their homeland, having that connection to the past through the collections, um, you know, was really kind of a value that I had for myself in terms of being Hawaiian and having a connection to Hawaiian material culture that can be found in museums. And so I think just hearing what they were interested in was something that made me realize that it would, I would be interested in working with them.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (03:40): Yeah.

Angela Neller (03:40): And so I ended up coming out and working, um, in my current position.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (03:45): Wow, that’s so cool. I had no idea you’d been in that role for 20 years. That, that really impresses me that the Wanapum Center has been, you know, on the scene for that long, and I assume before then, because, you know, that, that’s really, um, innovative in that way for its time too. So that’s so cool that you have such a, a longevity, uh, with that organization. And, um, I feel so blessed to have you on this, on this advisory board, especially being a kind of neighbor, um, to the U of Idaho where this, the Crabtree collection’s based. Um obviously, we’re not like next door, but I feel like out, out in this region if you can get to someone in five hours, that’s pretty good. [laughs]

Angela Neller (04:21): Right.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (04:21): It’s, you’re — you’re pretty close. Um so with that, let’s go ahead and dive into these questions, which I think you’ve had a — a chance to look at. Um but the first one is, what’s your perspective on the Crabtree collection and ones like it? Do you think it’s appropriative of Native cultures, is it appropriative of Native cultures in your opinion?

Angela Neller (04:41): Yeah. I think that’s a hard, you know, that’s a hard kinda question to ask, and I think it’s gonna be different with different people, um, you know, depending on their relationship. You know my understanding with Crabtree is he was really interested in lithic technology, and I think a lot of archaeologists are very interested in lithic technology. And lithic technology really is a worldwide, um, you know, technology that you can find in multiple cultures around the world. And so it’s — it’s not really, um, uh — uh, you know, uh, um, a work or project that, that only Native Americans do in the, you know in the northwest. Um and, and so in — in that sense, I think, you know I think it’s the approach and, and how you maybe recognize the communities that you worked with that kind of maybe make it more appropriated than not, um.

Angela Neller (05:45): I think, you know, in general, in archaeology, I think lithics has always really been a — a process that people really wanted to learn about and understand. Um, you know you look at stone tools, and they’re just beautiful. And so just the concept of even how to make something like that, and just the intricacies of understanding the material and — and, how it, you know, different material types and how it breaks and — and just the, um, technology in terms of maybe heat-treated materials, and — and being able to manipulate that — that, um, you know, the — the raw material in order to create the — the different things that you need it to do for you is really a fascinating, um, process. And I think that’s what really draws people, um, to wanting to learn more about how to do that.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (06:40): Yeah, I — I — I think that’s such a great perspective and the sort of, um, universality of flintknapping as like a human evolution kind of thing. Like — like every ancestral lineage has this practice in it somewhere, does add that — that really important element. And I really, you know, if I can summarize what you’re saying, which is never a good idea, but if I had to, I would say, you know, context is key, right? That really then the context in which it’s presented and the — the conversations around what’s presented and how we talk about it shapes so much what that impact is, right? And so it’s like are we having a, a positive mutual exploration of a shared common technology for all, all humans irregardless of race or specific Tribal, you know, lineage or affiliations? Or are we engaging in this harm again by reproducing the same sort of tired stereotypes in our context and our content? So I — I think — I think that’s a — a great and really, um, nuanced message, and I’ll turn it over to Jylisa for question two.

Jylisa Kenyon (07:45): Okay. So we’ve talked a lot, um, kind of on this project in some of our initial advisory board meetings about our work kind of contextualizing this collection or our goal to do that. So do you think folks digitizing digital collections who are not anthropologists should take up this type of contextualizing work? If so, how can we be successful without causing further harm?

Angela Neller (08:06): Yeah. Um so contextualizing in terms of the history of, of the items or their cultural… You know, I — I think, um, what I see a lot, you know, in — in terms of maybe scientific approaches is the decontextualization of things. So I think contextualizing, um, the work is really important to understanding the history and where, where things have come from and the relationships to communities that that work has. Um you know, and so I look at, you know, I look at like the issues of ancient DNA studies that are being done. It seems like you — you get, you get to a point where you have a specific scientist who is really interested in that, the science of DNA, and looking at the A’s, and you know, G’s, T’s, C’s, whatever those, those things are. Um and they forget that that information comes from individuals, right, that comes from individuals that have relationships to community, you know, that had family ties that are affected by their environment, the places that they lived, the culture that they lived in, and — and, I, you know, there, you get that disconnect there.

Angela Neller (09:24): Um and so I think, you know, doing this kind of work, I think it’s — it’s you know, I don’t, I think if there’s experts that know how to digitize, you know, it — it’s a, it’s a process, right, it’s a learning thing and, and it, and it takes skills to do that work. Um but I think to make sure that the information is always provided with that and the understanding that there’s a bigger context to the work that’s being done, that it’s not just, “‘kay, we’re gonna put this artifact on this thing, and we’re gonna turn it around in 360 degrees and scan it and print it,” you know that there, there’s more than just that part of the process, um, and it, it’s a, there’s a beginning and there’s, uh, an — an after effect too for that work, um.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (10:15): That’s such a great point, Angie. I feel like the, the technological marvel, you know, I think in some ways, we’re sort of like, um, a little unnerved to technology. It’s been around long enough that a lot of us, you know, are so it’s like we work with it all the time, you know we get, we’re on Zoom right now recording this, right. So it’s sort of, uh, banal in a way. And so sometimes we don’t criticize it or we aren’t as critical in thinking about what’s the, uh, sort of the long-term impact of this. Jason Younker in his interview was talking about the sort of hundreds of years down the line impact of digitizing things. And I thought that was such an interesting perspective because we’re maybe thinking about that like, “let’s try to pick the right file formats that are still gonna be working in 50 or a hundred years.”

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (10:57): But we’re not trained as librarians and archivists to think about the social impact as the foremost thing. We think of those technical preservation details. And so I’m hearing I think some similar elements here of like thinking about the broader responsibility when you digitize a collection, you know, don’t just go in there and start measuring things and making your 3D models and, you know, doing all of that and then just reproducing it uncritically, that the sort of responsibility is to think through that a little bit more and take…

Angela Neller (11:26): Right.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (11:26): …take some ownership over the context.

Angela Neller (11:29): Yeah. And I, and I think it provides you know a use down in the future, that you may not be able to, um, imagine what it is right now, but — but, there, there’s gonna be value down the road. And so you should always be conscious — conscious of — of, um, what you’re doing and making sure that the, the value of that work is available, you know, will be there in the future, and it doesn’t just, you know, really disappear because you didn’t migrate that file format to the next format, and this, you know, the time and effort spent in doing the project then really gets lost, um.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (12:16): Yeah. Yeah, that makes me think of, we have a — a resource that was created with the Nimiipuu on, um, like Lewis and Clark from their perspective in this region. You know that’s a, a big part of our K-12 curriculum in Idaho, is the Lewis and Clark story and the sort of regional tie-ins. And it’s a really great website with just a lot of awesome content on it, and you can also tell that it’s like right on the verge of kind of technical obsolescence. And so that’s a great example of how these digital projects can also be really, um, vulnerable to, they’re up on a website for a couple years, and then if the website goes away, where does all that knowledge go? And so it’s a real, it’s kind of a real hat trick to be like the immediate short-term preservation, let’s create the models, but also the short-term futures of the website, and then those longer futures out thinking ahead. And so yeah, lots to think about.

Angela Neller (13:07): Yeah. Yeah, and I think, you know, the knowledge, I liked your — your idea of the knowledge. So, you know, including other people’s voices. And, and that traditional knowledge that they have, part of respecting that knowledge is making sure that that story is still there to be told and it’s not just, um, sort of lost.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (13:27): Well and it, yeah, and you know it means that we have to treat those digital projects a little bit differently than some other things, where I mean, libraries almost rely on kind of these digital projects being shed, sort of like a, a lizard or something [laughs] like moving on to a, its next skin. You know and it’s like, no, we have to remember that if there’s been, uh, any kind of Tribal knowledge, um, or collaboration, that we have to treat those materials as something that we have like a responsibility to care for, and not just something that we get to sort of prune off as our digital profiles grow or change, or, you know. It’s like no, now we need to migrate this for basically the foreseeable future until, you know, the Nimiipuu ask us not to, right? Because otherwise, we’re not being good custodians of that knowledge.

Angela Neller (14:12): Yeah, and I think it gets back to the first question about appropriation, right…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (14:17): Yeah.

Angela Neller (14:17): …you know, and — and, the whole, you know, I think the part of the project looking at, you know, whether enough of, um, the history and the background and the knowledge that Crabtree had gained from others had been shared or not.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (14:33): Yeah.

Angela Neller (14:33): And so, you know, rather than sorta trying to repeat that…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (14:37): Yeah.

Angela Neller (14:37): …repeat that, what, you know, what we’ve discussed in, you know, multiple meetings about, um, just not recognizing that history or that — that, um, input of knowledge that was gained from other people…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (14:53): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (14:53): …and — and then, you know, losing their voice or losing their identity in the process. You know, you don’t wanna kinda perpetuate that.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (15:01): Truly, truly. Um I think that leads really well into this next question, which is what makes a digital effort like this a good partner to Native nations and Native people in your opinion?

Angela Neller (15:13): Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, digitization is a really good tool that — that people can use, um, to help in just different projects. And I think it’s a — it’s a project that really opens a door to maybe building collaborative relationships and, and maybe even expanding the project further than what, what you’ve envisioned as part of this grant process, right? Um and so I think it just, it — it, it’s — it’s a way, um, you know we talk about distance, you know. We’re — we’re neighbors, but we’re still not, you know, really close neighbors, right. Um and, and it’s a way to really close the distance between, um, communities or partners in a project like this, um, and it really allows for expansion of, of different ways to use the information and the data that is being created through this process. And so that it’s not necessarily just gonna be, um, stuck to maybe archaeological concepts of — of, you know, manufacturer of certain kinds of stone tools, but it really could expand into educational opportunities, you know not, you know for Tribal communities, but as well as for non-Tribal communities. And maybe help, you know, I mean, in an ideal world, help maybe expand understanding between non, non-Tribal and Tribal communities so that there’s…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (16:39): Hm-mmm.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (16:39): …a little more, you know, acceptance or, of different, you know of difference, I guess.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (16:47): Yeah, yeah. One of our local schools here does a pretty, uh, like hands-on unit where they, like build like a dugout canoe. And I remember when I — when I first learned about that, I had some trepidation because, you know, we always want to watch out with these, like sort of invitations to role play. We really want to avoid that, but this is a true collaborative activity with the sort of, you know, appropriate people involved and the correct Tribal representation that you want to see, and it’s a culturally responsive activity. And it’s been really interesting to engage with those kids and their sort of expanded level of social sciences knowledge. And, you know, they’re — they’re just at a more engaged level with some of these topics, I think, because of that intensive and, um, intentional experience.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (17:33): And so that’s really great to think about how the Crabtree collection could facilitate something like that and particularly some of these like 3D prints that we’re making, those potentials there to sort of do, to do some of that kind of work, but that also in some ways doesn’t involve as direct of those, um, you know, some of those potential pitfalls that you might see with a sort of like “let’s try to emulate something,” right? We can say, “Let’s talk about Crabtree and this collection, and talk about it from this other side of things as well in terms of a non-Native person emulating and why we don’t want to do that, and how we can still engage with this technology and knowledge in an appropriate and respectful way.” So that’s, that’s super relevant and interesting. Um Jylisa, do you want to take us into question four?

Jylisa Kenyon (18:17): Sure. Uh this is kind of completely going in a little bit of a different direction. Um from your perspective, what should people know about flintknapping to understand the art and practice in a way that doesn’t center this one white non-Native person?

Angela Neller (18:34): Um I think — I think just the — the art of flintknapping itself, just the process and the — the science behind it. Um you know, people, um, you know, I know there, there are flintknappers out there who they flintknap everything. They, you know, make beautiful points out of ceramic, you know, toilets, right. I mean, that they take that dense ceramic and, and flintknap that, or glass or, or things like that. So I think there’s a — there’s a, um, I think there’s just a science behind it that can be learned and thought about in terms of just material and, um, you know, flaking processes, um, just how materials break. And, um, uh, you know what I mean. I mean, I — I think there’s just that aspect of — of, the — the science behind it that would be, would, could take you beyond, um, what you were asking, I have to remember here.

Jylisa Kenyon (19:46): No, that’s a great point. And, and kind of thinking, thinking a little bit more about what flintknapping means, what goes into the creation of a piece like that, and, and how kind of everyone who does that might have a slightly different process, right, and, and it might look different and the materials that they use are different. But, um, kind of thinking about the, um, just kind of the art behind it rather than this one person whose collection we…

Angela Neller (20:14): Right.

Jylisa Kenyon (20:14): …happen to have, is that it’s not just — it’s not just Crabtree who flintknapped. As you said in the first question, it’s — it’s something that’s been happening since time immemorial, right, across — across people around the world. Um so it’s not just this one person.

Angela Neller (20:29): Yeah. I think, I mean I, you know for me, that’s just it. You just, you know you’re not, you don’t focus on him. You focus on the art, right, the craft, um.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (20:40): Angie, with, with flintknapping, does, and I’m, I don’t mean to just take us off totally into a very specific thing.

Angela Neller (20:46): Yes. Go ahead.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (20:46): But I’m curious about this. So like with a piece, does a person tend to work on it over multiple sessions? Or is it more like, um, like you’re throwing a clay pot and you’ve got like three minutes, and either you’re gonna throw these walls up just right and you’re gonna have an even pot or not? ‘Cause it’s — it’s you know, if you don’t have any experience with it, it’s still kind of a mysterious process. And so, you know, I’m imagining a flintknapper, they see like this core and they’re like, “Ooh, I think I can really get a great knife blade,” you know, just using sort of layman’s terms, out of this. What happens then? How does it come from that rock to then this sort of final piece?

Angela Neller (21:26): Yeah, I think, you know, I haven’t, I, I’ve watched folks flintknap before, and I’ve, um — um, I’ve tried it a little bit myself. I am definitely not an expert. I can make a flake, and that’s about…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (21:42): Hey.

Angela Neller (21:42): …that’s about it. Um and, and from what I see when I see people working, they really are, um, you know I don’t know if they go into it thinking, “Okay, I want to make a certain type of point or knife,” or — or if they start to make things, I’ve see some people start to make things, and then that, the — the material itself kinda tells — tells that person what they want it to be, right?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (22:11): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (22:11): Um and then they’ll — they’ll work on it and just keep working on it, working on it, working on it. And I think most people tend to just work on it from start to finish.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (22:22): Hm-mmm. Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (22:22): Um maybe they’ll put it aside and come back to it. Um but I think for the most part, I see folks just kinda working on what they’re working on. And I, you know, I don’t know at archaeology days, if you watch the flintknappers and kind of just saw how they were, how they were doing things.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (22:38): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (22:38): Um I think, you know, there is a cultural traditions that I think archaeologically, you — you see, and certain — certain artifact types that are really tied to certain time periods, um, you know when you’re looking at different parts of the country or the world. And, and so I think people do have specific forms that they’re looking to do…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (23:06): Hm, hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (23:06): …and that’s possibly even tied to what their needs are, whether they’re processing plant material maybe for basket making, or if they’re hunting or you know processing meat, um, you know…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (23:18): Yeah.

Angela Neller (23:18): …whether it’s fish or, or other meat, um, and need certain kinds of tools to do that work.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (23:23): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (23:23): Um so I think you do, you know you do have a set of tools that you probably utilize in what you’re doing, and your, and you, um, gear your work towards that.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (23:34): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (23:34): Um and maybe that’s the difference between a, a person who lives that life and makes what they need to live their life, versus a contemporary flintknapper who’s interested in understanding and learning and making things…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (23:53): Sure.

Angela Neller (23:54): …you know that they’re not necessarily making a certain tool set. They’re kind of, um, looking at other, other things that have made and then try to learn how to make, make it for themselves.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (24:04): Sure, sure. That makes a lot of sense. And it reminds me of like Southwest Pueblo pottery, which is simultaneously just — just a pot that we need for water and is also can be high art, right? Some of these pots sell for tens of thousands of dollars and are incredibly innovative in their — in their technology and the design and, you know, in the art. Fine art truly in all sort of senses of fine studio art. And so it’s I think a similar sort of thing where, again, depending on the context and the need and the vision of the person flintknapping, that’s gonna shape so much what they make and how they make it and, um, what the experience of making it is, right.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (24:43): It could be anything from, I’m literally making something that’s the equivalent of a plastic fork, to I’m making something that’s an extremely specialized tool for an extremely specialized application, to I’m making art, you know. And I think we, it’s helped me to understand Crabtree is more like an artist who, um, you know learned flintknapping, and then innovated and developed his own techniques and styles the way we might see, um, you know we credit like Jackson Pollock or something with doing all these interesting things in abstract art, right? And so it’s helped me to conceptualize him that way while also understanding that, we’ve, um, in archaeology, he’s come to represent a whole, you know, a whole humanity’s whole heritage of flintknapping, which is obviously too much to bestow on a singular person.

Angela Neller (25:28): Right.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (25:28): Um, uh for question five, which I think is our next one, right? Um one of the topics we’ve discussed as part of this grant project is that relationship between experimental archaeology, amateur archaeology, and cultural as well as knowledge appropriation. So can you talk a bit about what you see is the relationship between those concepts? And I think especially experimental versus, experimental archaeology and amateur archaeology, um, sometimes from an outside perspective, those just seem like a type of appropriation or knowledge, or cultural appropriation or disrespect. And so I think that’s one of the veins that we’re sort of trying to tease out in this conversation and talk about a little bit more in this session.

Angela Neller (26:14): Right. So I think, you know, in — in — in terms of like professional archaeology, one of the, um, the aspects, um, for people is to understand process…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (26:27): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (26:27): …and procedures of the past, and how people did things, uh, made things and, and kind of, you know try to — try to learn, um. You know, so I think you get away from, you know, you end up, by not having a conversation, say, with that pottery maker, right, to understand their process, you kinda go off and say, “Oh, they made pots outta clay. I’m gonna make clay and I’m gonna kinda learn,” right?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (26:54): Right.

Angela Neller (26:54): And so I think maybe where the appropriation issues come is that you’re not, you know, maybe you’re not collaborating with a known artist to understand process as you’re yourself learning how you’re doing that. There’s, there was sort of this, um, I think this — this history in archaeology where people didn’t engage with communities, whether that’s because they felt that the communities were different, or maybe were in a part of the country that didn’t have a lot of communities around them. Um and, and so they, you know, try to learn how to make a stone tool on their own, right?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (27:37): Right.

Angela Neller (27:37): “How did, you know, this happen and what am I seeing?”

Angela Neller (27:42): I think the other aspect of it too is, “What am I seeing in the archaeological record, and how can I, how do I reproduce that? What, you know, what is it that I’m seeing? Am I seeing, um, you know am I seeing a workshop area? And, and if I were to sit here and make something, what is, what’s gonna be the results of, of that making?”

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:03): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (28:03): And then, and “Is that what I’m seeing in the archaeological record?” So I think there’s…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:09): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (28:09): …you know part of it is learning and trying to understand the, the, the material culture and how that works…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:14): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (28:14): …but then part of it is also trying to understand how to interpret what you’re seeing in the archaeological record.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:22): Right.

Angela Neller (28:22): So there’s, you know, a lot of people do a lot of flintknap studies where they’re creating, um, workshop areas and then looking to see what that would look like from an archaeological perspective in the record, right, or people will do experimental archaeology where they’ll, um, build fires and, and then cover it up with dirt and let it sit, and come back and excavate it in six months to sort of see, you know, what is the results of being under, you know, being buried for six months?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:54): Sure.

Angela Neller (28:55): And how does that, you know, demonstrate what we’re, we might be seeing in the archaeological record?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:59): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (28:59): Um so I, you know I think from an archaeologist perspective, there’s been a lot of um, experimental archaeology as really a path of understanding, um, versus, you know, maybe an amateur archaeologist. You know there’s, there’s the, SAA did a thing on, um, you know, what is the difference between maybe a person who’s really looting sites to — to make money or sell artifacts or things, versus a person who is truly interested in archaeology and maybe didn’t really pursue that as a career, right, they ended up becoming a lawyer or something, right. Um so I think there’s a difference there. And I — I think people who are interested in archaeology who are amateurs, are, you know, they take advantage of, um, opportunities maybe to attend a flintknapping field school or — or help, you know, I — I know that the Forest Service has a ‘Passport in Time’ program where they, you know, invite the public to help do some of the archaeology work that they’re responsible for, but, you know, have sort of volunteers that come and help do those projects. And so you — you know there’s a, I think that’s a real, you know, people are interested in — in that, and…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (30:23): Hm-mmm. Hm-mmm. That’s a great specific recommendation though. I think that’s very useful to sort of frame. Like if you’re a person who might identify as an amateur archaeologist, like, how can you take those interests and apply them in a way that doesn’t perpetuate further harm, that maybe has some leadership and direction? And also maybe, and here, I’m speaking for myself, not you, so feel free to disagree, but you know, also hopefully do a little reflection on the, the attraction to maybe doing history on a culture that’s not yours. And instead, also say like, “Oh, you know, I could get really interested in my local historical society and the general history of this region and contribute there in that way too,” that right, that this interest in archaeology and history should not just be an exploration of a Native other.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (31:11): Um it needs to be a much more nuanced and considered approach, and you need to, uh, make sure that you are kind of pulling in the correct authorities in this situation if you’re going to, you know. If you want to volunteer in this capacity, find an organization to volunteer with that can provide you leadership and get you in a great space to do something safely. Don’t be out there trying to collect stuff and then you’re gonna do your own repatriation or what have you. Um and I was also really struck in what you were saying earlier about, um, what my brain was thinking was sort of like reverse engineering and how much, and, and understanding the need for that. Um it’s amazing how little we can know about what happened just like 200 years ago, much less a thousand or 2000 years ago. And so there is a need to reverse engineer to understand our history. And also, you can see how, [laughs] how weak that engineering is when it misses, um, the actual input.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (32:07): You know I’ve always, my question for this just very informally is always like, “Well, if you wanted to know, why wouldn’t you just go ask, you know, existing Native people how they do that particular thing?” Like why do we have to like recreate it and pretend like Native people don’t exist to ask, and consult, like people who have oral histories and traditions of this? And of course, that goes into all these bigger issues of systemic racism in archaeology and anthropology. But you do see how it weakens that need to reverse engineer because if you’re trying to engineer technology but you don’t include culture, um, you’re not really gonna understand that technology in a very complete way. So, I think, I think that’s a great answer and gives people so much to think about. So thanks for sharing your thoughts on that one. Um Jylisa, do you think we’re ready for the last, for number six?

Jylisa Kenyon (32:53): Sure. Okay. Uh in your opinion, how can we best respect Crabtree’s legacies and contributions to flintknapping, including the training of many practicing Native and Indigenous flintknappers today, while also respecting the original cultures he sought to emulate?

Angela Neller (33:14): Um, [laughs] this is one of those hard questions. No? Um well, I mean, I think, you know, you recognize the role that he’s had in — in archaeology and training people, um — um, but also recognize that, that that background and understanding he had came from somewhere. And, you know, there’s, there are experts out there, traditional knowledge holders that, um, have, um, information that can share. You know I don’t, I think it’s, you know I think it’s, I would hate to see his history be taken away from this project because I think it’s, you know, contributed a lot, um, to what people know and understand, um — um, but I think we just need to make sure we broaden that, that history to be more inclusive, and, you know, include other voices and, um, and, and provide, um, context to, to some of the cultures that, you know, he may not have talked much about. Um you know? I don’t know. It’s kind of a conversation. Maybe we need to [laughs] have a conversation to answer this question.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (34:42): [Laughs] Yeah, I think, no, I think that’s a really great answer, Angie. And I mean, that’s — that’s what we’re — what we’re trying to do and what a big part of the advisory board has been helping us to do. So, so thank you for that. I mean, I feel like for me, I really, um, your contributions in particular and your knowledge have really helped me to understand Crabtree’s positive impacts, if we have to use a binary like that, the ways that he ran these field schools and, you know, taught so many people to flintknap, and that, um, it was at a time when many people perceived Native people as, you know, on the verge of extinction. And so the ways in which that was a sort of preservation activity, even in its own right, that it allowed people to continue flintknapping.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (35:22): And, um, as we’ve said, you know, there are many Native and Indigenous flintknappers today who partly, that’s part of their knowledge lineage. And so it, it is — it is a really interesting, um, and kinda challenging question for us. So I — I appreciate you taking it on. And I think that, um, we want to make sure that we do respect Crabtree and what he contributed, and also not, um, denigrate any of that intellectual, sort of, heritage that he spread through those field schools, and also at the same time, you know, a lot of the, the existing text about him is kind of cowboys and Indians or genius and Indians, and it’s — it’s just very stereotypical. And so it definitely needs an intervention.

Angela Neller (36:04): I think it’s a hard topic because, and we spoke about this when we first talked, you know, um, a long time ago. You know it is, we have to be careful not to centralize this idea that Indian people know how to do this. But then you also have to be careful not to say that they don’t know how to do it either because, you know, there is a history, there’s oral history there. Maybe, uh maybe somebody doesn’t have, you know, um, you know, they — they themselves may not be a flintknapper, but they have some knowledge that’s been passed down about, you know, which, what are good rocks to use? What are not good rocks to use? Um that, that just kind of, that information is there. And it, and it may be embedded in that, in that history and oral — oral knowledge, but — but there may not be a practicing experience, an actual doing it.

Angela Neller (37:05): And so, you know, on the one hand, you don’t want to say, “Native people don’t know what they’re doing.” But on the other hand, you also don’t want to essentialize and, and say, “Oh, well, because they’re Native, they obviously must know how to do this.” You know, and — and, and I think when you, you look at the flintknappers, say, at like archaeology days that we bring in from the Tribal communities, um, you know, it — it, it’s a lot of practice and — and — and — and work. And you — you learn how to do things, and — and you may have, you may take the things that you hear and learn from other people and apply it, um, and you just become an artist in — in your, you know in your own right, right? It, it’s, you know, it’s uh, there, you know, there’s practice involved in that. And so I…

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (37:53): Hm-mmm.

Angela Neller (37:53): …it’s, it’s a hard question because you don’t want to be stereotypical, but you also don’t want to stereotype in another direction, I think, um.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (38:05): Yeah, yeah. These, these are really, really great points. And, um, not to just digress here, but I’m learning the traditional, um, like Columbia Plateau basket hat, uh, making technique, and I’m learning from Leanne Campbell, who’s a well-known artist in that tradition. But I had some anxiety because I’m not Nimiipuu, nor am I like a Plateau people. And so I was like, “is it okay for me to, to make this?,” you know, because she was saying, “you guys can look at the different designs. And, you know, in many cases, it’s okay to use the designs that are out there in this tradition for these practices.” And I was like, “but is it okay if you’re not a Plateau people? You know, is, is that all right?” And what she explained to me was, you know, that my lineage in knowing this was from her, who was someone that is someone who is the person to be sharing this knowledge, right. She is very much a known teacher. She is teaching us the way that we need to do this.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (38:58): And so she just said like if I were to ever sell my baskets or be giving them to somebody, I might want to put a note with my affiliations and also that I learned from her. And I was like, “oh, this is such a, a really applied experience for me of understanding this kind of, the genealogy of knowledge, and the way in which it’s not about, um, again, this very colonial sort of like bloodline way of thinking about thing, but that you can be granted into something if you are entering into that reciprocal relationship of receiving the knowledge, right. And so it’s taken me years to get to this level of basket making to learn this particular basketry technique. And so it’s very much like a relationship that I’ve built with Leanne that now has transformed how I might present that work. And so I’m very grateful for that experience to help me understand these traditional practices and the, and the very, um, nuanced genealogies that come out of them. And, um, you know, I — I met, Leanne at a U-Idaho basket making event, right. So [laughs] things can come from sort of interesting places.

Angela Neller (40:04): Yeah, and I think an important thing that you said was the acknowledgement — the acknowledgement of where you learned that information. And, and so that genealogy is important. And I think maybe that’s an important part of the project, is to really look at the genealogy of connections, um, between Crabtree and — and, and folks today who are, um, you know, who were part of his — his thing. We, you know we talk about that, um, you know we’ve talked about that in Hawaii. And Hawaiian archeology is — is, um, we always say, “oh, we really should do a genealogy of Hawaiian archaeologists. Who did they learn from? Who were their, you know — you know, who was their mentors?” And things like that, and really kind of understand more of a network analysis of those relationships and — and — and things, so. But I think the, the acknowledging part also then speaks, speaks to how you don’t appropriate. You — you acknowledge where you’ve learned things, you acknowledge your teachers and your mentors, and, and then that gives them voice in, in who they are, you know, so it’s not just a, “hey, this is just me. I made this. Aren’t I a great basket maker?,” right.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (41:20): Well, yeah, and it’s — it’s really powerful on an experiential level ‘cause it reminds me, I’m like, “oh, this knowledge is not mine, right? Like I — I was lucky to learn this. I’m lucky to learn and to practice it. And I would be extremely lucky to pass that benefit of that off onto someone else, either teaching them the knowledge or with a hat itself, but it’s not mine because of, you know, like, I — I belong to it — it doesn’t belong to me.” And — and that’s — that’s a very, um, very different way of engaging with knowledge than sometimes we engage within the university system where you come here and get a degree after you receive your knowledge, right? There’s so much emphasis on the — the individual and, uh, uniqueness in generating your own unique knowledge as opposed to like part of what you do here is you know come and get in the big communal pool, so to speak, and we all vibe together. It’s more individual. So, um, very, very powerful.

Angela Neller (42:14): And I think that gives you a good perspective too on a western versus Tribal perspective in life in terms of being part of a community and how — how Tribal governments and Tribes work, versus how a western, kind of perspective works. You know I — I find myself having a hard time, you know kinda grasping — grasping that idea that, um, you know, we’ve had different projects, not at the Heritage Center, but other work that I’ve done where, you know, you — you hear people say, “well, if — if the Tribe says we’re not gonna do that, then we’re not going to do that.” And me, from my Western perspective, I’m like, “well, no one’s telling me what to do.” You know what I mean? So I mean, I think it really helps maybe bridge some of that understanding of where that, the cultural differences are and, and how maybe things, you know, come to butt against each other.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (43:10): Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, and the unique roles, um, you’re in as a cultural heritage facilitator, which, you know, is an in-group work, and also involves liaison to, you know, external — external people, both like stakeholders and then just in a general outreach sense. And so that, that’s such a great point. Um Angie, I, we didn’t have this as a question, but I’m just curious. From your collections manager expertise, um, what do you think we should try to do about these unprovenanced points, you know, these — these items that people sent to Crabtree or he collected himself that we just don’t have any data about, I mean, where they came from?

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (43:51): And so it’s like, you know, the Crabtree collection, a lot of what we have is his own creation, but then there’s probably about that 10% that we think is effectively looted. And, [sigh] just to sort of state my position, I’m always skeptical as like digitization is repatriation, right? I’m like, I feel like, well, it’s not, and also we will often say it’s gonna help facilitate repatriation, but we haven’t seen a huge wave of repatriation with the advent of digitization, right? If that was just an inherent thing that was gonna happen, there should have been a landslide of it happening over the past 20 years. And in some ways, we’re still fighting the same battles on that. So I’m just really curious from your perspective of that kinda collections manager, you know, what — what should we do?

Angela Neller (44:36): Um, yeah. That, I mean, that’s a hard one. I, I’ve heard some folks say, you know “it should just be reburied,” you know. I’ve heard other people say, “maybe you work on trying to get it back to the community it came from.” I don’t know how you do that if you have to look at point types. I mean, if you can, you know, try to identify a region of the country. Um I don’t know that you can assume because he was in the Pacific Northwest, it’s all Pacific Northwest, ‘cause he had such a wide, um, range. You know I don’t know if that then leads to like, you know, sourcing material and seeing where his sources came from. You know we had a elder who, um, was okay with, you know, we were working in another, in another collection at a university. And she was saying, you know, “it’s okay that you have these, but you need to use them. You need to use them in teaching, and you need to, you know, help teach people. And if you’re not gonna use them, then you need to, we need to just put them away,” you know. And so I think, you know, I don’t know, maybe, uh, if you had a committee who would maybe discuss that issue or how, what might be the best approach for that, um.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (45:58): Yeah. Yeah. Um I’m curious to ask you this. So like in your opinion and in what you just shared there, do you feel like, well, if we’re gonna have these things and they can’t be returned, and in this context, things are, um, flintknapped points that have been looted. I want to be very clear what we’re talking about here ‘cause I feel like people will just put, um, unprovenanced Native American holdings, and that can include anything from points to people. And so we are talking very specifically about points here and not people. Um so in talking about that, I feel like you’re sort of saying, um, almost like a zoo where we’re like, “well, if we’re gonna have a Siberian tiger here, it needs to be performing some, it needs to be helping with the, the continuation of this species effectively,” right, in the sense that we often say we have conservation efforts with animals because they’re about to go extinct in the wild.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (46:51): And so if we take a similar sort of approach here where we’re like, we have these materials, which arguably would be better off in the ground and in their original provenance, but, if we are going to have them in a collection, they need to serve a purpose, um an outreach purpose, an education purpose, a conservation purpose. Is that, do you think that that’s a — a good approach for people to take? Or do you think they should say, “we just shouldn’t do things with these because we shouldn’t have them in the first place,” right? I feel like that’s a sort of a tension for us about can we genuinely make these looted items serve an outreach and conservation function in that example? Or are they just things that we should concentrate on returning?

Angela Neller (47:32): Yeah. I think, I — I mean, that’s why I was thinking a committee might be the best people to talk ‘cause I think you’re gonna get a different opinion from different people.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (47:40): Yeah, that makes sense.

Angela Neller (47:42): Um but I think if you’re gonna keep ‘em, they should serve a function.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (47:46): Right, right.

Angela Neller (47:46): They shouldn’t just be in a box on a shelf somewhere ‘cause then you might as well rebury them then, um, yeah, you know.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (47:54): Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s kind of a net loss there, no matter what. Um if we still have them, they’re not back where they belong, and they’re not doing anything in, in that context, where they’re, they’re just something we’re hoarding at that point without sharing back out. Right. Yeah. Which, yeah, very interesting to think about in these contexts of other digital, other collections and collections approaches, and even in the context of like conservation. We have so many endangered species that we have drawers and drawers of them in museums and galleries where it’s like, “well, maybe if we hadn’t collected 8,000 passenger pigeons in every [laughs], you know, taxidermy collection everywhere, we might still have that as, as species in the, in the wild.”

Angela Neller (48:36): In the wild, yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (48:37): Yeah. Um well, Angie, are there any other thoughts you want to share with us about Crabtree or this project or your role on the advisory board? Um got about 10 minutes left here before we’ll pull the plug for sure. Um but yeah, just wanted to touch base and give you an opportunity on any closing thoughts.

Angela Neller (48:53): No, I don’t think so. I think, I think we’re good. Think the conversation went well.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (48:58): Yes. Well, thank you so much for joining us. I’ll give us an official wrap-up here. Um we really appreciate your expertise, your input, your energy and your thoughts on this. You’ve been a huge contributor and help to us already. So thank you for doing this.

Jylisa Kenyon (49:10): Yes, thank you.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (49:10): We really value and appreciate your time.

Angela Neller (49:14): All right.