Working Together

Unit Author: Nicholas F. Bellantoni, Emeritus; Connecticut State Archaeologist, University of Connecticut

Case Study

When Norris L. Bull began collecting Native American artifacts in the early 20^th-century, he had a distinct purpose. His goal was to assemble Indian cultural materials from every municipality in Connecticut systematically, in order to represent all regions and tribal territories. He assumed that if he compiled a massive enough inventory of artifacts, he would be able to reveal all we would need to know about native culture through time and space. He believed that the sheer volume of different artifact types and their distribution would illustrate the entire story of Connecticut’s Pre-Contact Indigenous peoples. Obviously, this was an intuitive approach with no hypothesis testing and was ultimately less than helpful from a modern research perspective. But in the process, he amassed an extraordinary collection. Unfortunately, some items Bull accumulated were removed from native burials, sacred sites, and cultural properties.

Norris Bull conducted only limited site excavations since he considered fieldwork too exhausting and offering little reward for the effort; it was much easier to purchase cultural materials. He owned an advertising company in the Hartford area and, even during the Great Depression, was wealthy enough to hire men to represent him. On his behalf, they traveled throughout the state of Connecticut questioning local farmers about any Indian artifacts tilled from their fields or dug up by other collectors who were willing to put in the effort of digging. He offered what was top dollar at the time and many farmers could not refuse the money. He was wealthy enough to outbid other Indian artifact competitors for prized artifacts (letters from the time illustrate just how cut-throat these rival collectors were). His collection would grow until his death in 1961, whereupon the Norris L. Bull Collection was donated to the University of Connecticut.

Serving as the State Archaeologist, beginning in 1987, my many roles and responsibilities included the curation of the university’s Anthropological Collections as well as coordination with the state’s Indian tribes on matters of burials and sacred sites. By the time the federal government enacted the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation in 1990, we had been working with the Connecticut’s Indigenous people for a number of years. With NAGPRA, we prepared inventories for the state’s two federally recognized tribes: The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. 

In 1996, we received requests for repatriation from both tribes. The Mohegan were actively working with 10 museums to recover sacred items associated with their tribal history, including 19 objects from the Norris L. Bull Collection. Based on our inventories, all the requested objects had been removed from 17^th-century Mohegan burials except for one artifact, a two-faced soapstone effigy pipe that belonged the Uncas family and had originally been taken from a significant cultural site referred to as the “Uncas Cabin.” 

Uncas was the first sachem of the Mohegan Tribe and probably their most important cultural figure in the Post-Contact Period. Mohegan oral tradition shows that pipes of this kind had been passed down long before the Contact period and are still in use within the Mohegan community. Mohegan traditional religious leaders indicated that present-day adherents for the practice of traditional Mohegan religion would use this particular steatite pipe.

Of the 18 objects found with human remains, eight were recovered from the Royal Mohegan Burying Ground along today’s Elizabeth Street in Norwich, Connecticut. This well-known Mohegan cemetery had been badly disturbed through economic development and looting over the last 200 years. In the Bull Collection, grave goods from the Royal Mohegan Burying Ground consisted of a charm stone, a faceted orange glass bead, one trade axe, metal and stone pestles, a trade snuffbox, a copper kettle, a black angular stone pipe, and a paint pot with ocher staining, among other funerary objects. Fortunately, no human remains were a part of the collection.

Based on our inventory catalogue, there was no question that these cultural items belonged to the Mohegan Tribe and were disrespectfully removed from graves and by unauthorized digging at Uncas Cabin. So, based on our information, when tribal representatives requested repatriation from the Connecticut State Museum of Natural History at UConn, there was no question regarding the cultural affinity of the funerary objects. With both parties in agreement and after posting in the Federal Bulletin, the formal repatriation occurred in April 1996. Melissa Tantaquidgeon Zobel, at the time the Director of the Mohegan Historic Resources Department and Tribal Historian, praised the University of Connecticut for the prompt, thorough and respectful handling of the Mohegan’s repatriation request. 

As far as early NAGPRA repatriations would go, this case represents one of the most successful and least contentious returns of native artifacts at that time. Our records were undisputable as to the shared relationships between these items and the Mohegan Tribe, so there was no reason for us to question their cultural affiliation. But, I think there was another reason for the smooth transfer of these sensitive cultural items: a trust relationship that had developed over the years. In my role as State Archaeologist, I had been working with Connecticut’s indigenous peoples over their concerns about the vandalism and the adverse effect of construction activities on sacred sites. I had attended many meetings with tribal representatives, participated in powwows, and developed understanding and sensitivity through dialogue and personal relationships. Along the way, I made mistakes and, at times, circumstances within the state did become emotional and contentious. But I like to think that through it all, a trusting relationship developed; one that came with time, respect, and personal empathy. We came to understand each other’s needs, and we worked together for a common goal. 

Unfortunately, in many NAGPRA cases, museum and native people may not know each other or have had the time to develop trusting relationships. In some cases, the road has been bumpy to say the least. Sometimes inventory records and cultural affiliation are not as clear; sometimes more than one tribe may make claims to cultural items. Regardless, there is no substitute for a personal rapport built on a history of communication and mutual respect. Only when we open dialogue with each other and understand and address concerns, can we seek common ground and do what is right for everyone. Repatriation does not have to be contentious, but it requires dialogue, sensitivity, trust and the ability to work together.