Katsina Today
The Hopi, a federally recognized tribe in Arizona, have thousands of years of history. Out of their long history, what is most studied by artists and anthropologists alike are the katsina. Hopi’s katsina are spirits that symbolize all concepts of the universe, from locations, events, to elements of nature. A combination of sources state that there are over 400 to 500 katsina. They are one of the centers of fascination for non-Natives who visit museum collections filled with katsina dolls, attend once private ceremonies to see katsina dancers, and seek stores to buy their own katsina dolls.
How katsina are represented today started way back in the 1540s, when the Hopi were exposed to a new value system from the Spanish. The Spanish introduced the Hopi to the concept of value determined by the price of items. Before colonization, the Hopi did not have this value system. They began to trade with the Spanish with what they found value in; one of those values being katsina. This was one of the sparks that evolved to how some of the Hopi value their katsina today. The Hopi today possess split views as to what should be commercialized for the good of their economy. While many Hopis publicly object to the imitation of katsina dolls for sale, the tribal government find themselves in a complex state of affairs, trying to balance what katsina means to many Hopis versus individual Hopis who choose to commodify katsina for profit. How people think of katsina and the craft of their dolls have changed along with the Hopi during colonization.
The traditional purpose of katsina dolls are usually that they are given to girls as they grow up, serving a purpose to represent spirits that will teach and guide the child into adulthood. Hopi dancers impersonate those spirits and the katsina dolls are the representations of the dancers. So the dolls represent the dancers, and the dancers embody the spirits (Keane, 2010). This was the meaning of katsina isolated from the world outside Hopi culture. Now katsina are part of a world of museum’s and marketplaces. Katsina are typically called “kachina” by non-Hopi. It is an Anglicization of katsina, as there’s no “ch” sound in the Hopi language (Keane, 2010). Outside traditional Hopi culture, more people than ever are crafting, buying, and showing off katsina dolls, for better or for worse. Some may see a lot of people selling the dolls as a way to spread knowledge of the Hopi, while others are offended that their once private culture is used for profit.
One thing that most Hopi agree on to be a negative impact on their tradition and profit are “fake” or “inauthentic katsina dolls” made by groups of people or individuals who don’t believe in katsina, only using them to make money. One such group is Indian, the Navajo, who are also part of Arizona, possibly making it all too tempting to share the culture of their neighbors. In a book called “Katsina,” written by various katsina artists and Hopi people, showed strong feelings about Navajo katsinas. In the book, someone stated, “Perhaps the greatest proliferation of imitation dolls right now is occurring on the Navajo Reservation where they are made by individual Navajos and by Navajos working in doll factories. These are advertised as ‘Navajo-Kachina’ dolls and I tell people there is nothing Navajo about Katsinam. The Navajos never believed in Katsinam. They are appropriating our tribal term without our permission” (Pearlstone, 19). This shows some Hopi think that authenticity is in belief of katsina within a group of people’s cultural history. While many may feel this way, there is little they can do to get a trademark for the Hopi word “katsina.” In “Katsina,” it is explained that the word “kachina” is in the public domain, which means that by not protecting something, you automatically allow others to have what was once yours (Pearlstone, 19.) Also, since the Hopi themselves are selling katsina dolls to the public, that adds a further complication to policing katsina sales. Now the Navajo have a fifty year history of selling imitation dolls to tourists. It has been found that most salespeople that sell Navajo katsina dolls have little to no knowledge of the difference between Navajo and Hopi religion and art. Sellers with the knowledge though, usually play on the public’s lack of understanding of Indians and the differences among different tribes (Pearlstone, 97). The Navajo have an advantage over the Hopi, as they are a much more well-known tribe due to their large population and abundance of land and resource rights. The Hopi’s land is literally surrounded by Navajo land.
Henry Gatewood, a Navajo woodcarver, believed that katsina dolls were not just Hopi. He believed wooden dolls like katsina were “Yeibichais” which are Navajo spiritual beings. He claimed that there are many Indian dolls made from the same wood as katsina. “When it comes to Indian art,” he said, “tribal blood does not decree what one can create. It’s like the Navajo saying ‘I’m a silversmith so you Hopis can’t be.’ These days anything is art. If it’s done right, anyone could be allowed to pursue it” (Pearlman, 98). On the other end of the argument, some have offended Hopi like Ivan Sydney, a formal tribal chairman who finds it upsetting to see Navajo dolls being sold at stores. “Their facial markings are out of order. Their feathers are not placed right. To us, that’s very serious. It’s like creating a baby doll with an amputated leg” (Pearlman, 98). These arguments between the tribes have a long history. On one end, the Navajo argue that they just want to make a living while on the other end the Hopi are offended by culture appropriation. Now more than ever, articles are being published about Navajo katsina versus Hopi katsina, spreading more awareness. Hopi have also produced brochures to warn tourists of katsina imitation crafts.
It is very difficult to tell an “authentic” katsina doll from an “inauthentic” katsina doll. Some perpetrators have even gone as far as to sandblast the carvings to make them look aged (Pearlstone, 19). There is one story in which a Navajo college student called the Hopi tribal council because she bought some katsina dolls at a Phoenix swap meet and wanted to return them to the Hopi. Her knowledge was limited, but she found katsina dolls meaningful to the Hopi and meant to be with them. She got her college to raise about four hundred dollars for her to buy and return the katsina dolls to the Hopi. When she brought the dolls to the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, they found out the dolls were imitations (Pearlstone, 19-20). This story comes with images of the katsina doll imitations, showing the dolls were made of wood, like most dolls, and had faded paint, cracks, and even warped with the illusion of age. To many, the age of a katsina doll heightens its value. This fits into the concept of salvage anthropology, in which non-natives and at times, even natives, think the further in the past we go, the more “authentic” and “pure” an Indian becomes. Many believe today’s Hopi artists are not as authentic and pure because of their involvement in a colonized world, while artists from the past are more in touch with their culture.
Like most things Indian these days, anthropologists have involvement. Today there are marketplaces created by anthropologists such as “Buffalo Barry’s Indian Art” which have booths at Indian art shows and a website which sells various Indian forms of art such as katsina dolls for hundreds of dollars. Barry Walsh, the owner of “Buffalo Barry’s Indian Art” used to look over an exhibit at an anthropological museum and like many, found a fascination with Hopi katsina dolls. One notable action of Barry was that he wrote an article for the “Indian Trader” in which he infiltrated a Navajo “kachina” factory and disclosed their assembly line methods (Walsh, 2014). This was a double-edged sword for the Hopi, as some may be pleased with Barry eliminating competition in their market or just dismantling “unauthentic” depictions of their culture, others view Barry as part of the problem, as someone profiting from their tradition but is not Hopi.
There are many non-Hopi people who craft katsina merchandise. One such specific example is about a woman named Jean Healey. A retired woman, she made and sold Pueblo and Navajo style dolls to Tiovivo, a toy store in New Mexico. After reading some books on katsina, she made crocheted some dolls and sold them. The dolls were a hit, as she made and sold around two thousand katsinam by 1997. She claimed that she knew many Hopi would see her work as culture appropriation but that did not stop her. She wrote, “A number of people asked me to do Katsinam but I didn’t at the time because I knew that some members of the Hopi Nation objected to anyone, including their own people, selling katsina representations, and I didn’t want to offend anyone” (Pearlstone, 179). Despite her foreknowledge of culture appropriation, the temptation of katsina had Healey. She wrote in her profile, “I make Katsinam because I love them” as many other non-Hopi artists feel.
Also based in New Mexico, another non-Hopi katsina artist, Poteet Victory, paints katsina. Though not Hopi, Victory was raised by his full-blood Choctaw and Cherokee paternal grandmother. He does not claim or identity culture appropriation in his profile (Pearlstone, 168-169). This may be because of his “Indian” past, finding it easier to identify with Hopi katsina. This fits along with the Navajo imitation of the dolls in that society often homogenizes tribes to a central Indian stereotype. This even effects Indian’s themselves, making them feel more justified to appropriate another tribes culture and beliefs.
Another view of a non-Hopi katsina crafter discusses that he “reports” on katsina’s visual beauty rather than replicate them. New Mexican artist, John Farnsworth, made many paintings based off of Indian inspiration. He never felt that he offended the Hopi. He showed distaste towards non-Indian people crowding him when he attended katsina dances, calling them “rude” and “thoughtless” (Pearlstone, 144). He is an example that many non-Hopi artists feel a sense of good in what they are doing. “Reporting” on katsina gives the sense that he is spreading something educational. He may be right, and that his paintings bring awareness to a culture not many know about. On the other hand, many Hopi may be offended as he is non-Indian, using their culture as profit.
Some feel like the most sensitive issue is katsina dolls. Katsina jewelry artist, Michael Horse, stated he would never carve katsina. He wrote, “I see a difference between making katsina dolls and representing katsina in other ways. I object to people marketing dolls as Hopi when they are not. Jewelry seems to me different. People are not as offended by katsina jewelry or katsinam in paintings as they are by making the dolls. Katsinam are religious deities. The carvings seem to me to have more life and are more than just images” (Pearlson, 142). Horse brings up a perspective that it is the dolls that are sacred, not the image. This could give insight as to what fights the Hopi could choose to fight when it comes to others using the image of katsina. As evidence shows though, many issues with Hopi katsina are about the image rather than just the dolls.
Katsina are not just sold as dolls, but also as images in pop culture. One special case for the Hopi was when Marvel Comics published an issue of “Superpro” depicting villains in katsina costumes. Many Hopi found the image to be demeaning of their culture. Buzz Dixon, the creator of that issue wrote a column about the issue. He wrote “I suppose the Hopi are used to completely bogus interpretations of their religion and shrug those off but this one apparently was too close for comfort.” While the Hopi have not seemed to comment on his column, it is rather disturbing to read as the writer seems almost proud to have shaken the tribe. He claimed to have done research but the comic showed a Hopi casino, which Hopi don’t have and have constantly voted not to have. The comic also played a lot into Indian stereotypes, such as Indian’s wearing buckskin outfits. The conclusion to the issue was just as disturbing. The comic was recalled after two to three weeks after being released, but when the Hopi protested publicly, the issue became a collector’s item, costing three times more than it did before the Hopi spoke out (Pearlstone, 21). This is disturbing because it shows that people find value in Hopi recognition, even when it is obviously negative. This story makes one wonder whether the Hopi would have been better off ignoring to issue as that may have given it less worth and attention.
With stories like these, the view of katsina art today could easily be seen as negative for Hopi culture. Luckily, the situation is not so black and white, as contemporary katsina dolls are a great source of pride for Hopi artists. While many outsiders may make imitations, the Hopi have more freedom as well with their katsina craft than they did in the past. Walsh, the anthropologist, said in an interview with Collector’s Weekly “You occasionally run into carvings by women—until just a few years ago that would have been unheard of” (Keane, 2010). The “Katsina” book supports female Hopi katsina carvers, providing profiles of them. One such carver, Esther Jackson, wrote “A Katsina chief told one woman in my village not to carve, and she asked him if he was going to support her family. He said ‘No,’ and she replied, ‘Then you can’t tell me what to do’” (Pearlstone, 128). Traditionally, it was men who carved katsina even though Hopi society was matrilineal. In today’s world though, tradition can afford to ease up in the name of profit. The woman in the village was not going to be supported by the chief, so she sought to support herself through katsina doll carving.
There is not only more freedom in the “who” but also the “what” in terms of katsina art. While traditionally, katsina dolls were made from cottonwood root, now the Hopi use many mediums to produce images of katsina. Another female Hopi crafter, Verma Nequatewa, made katsina jewelry. She describes that she does not depict specific katsina as the dolls or dancers do, but attempts to depict a katsina’s “beauty” and/or “strength.” For better or for worse, there are more medium’s depicting katsina than ever. While some can serve a new artistic and explorative outlet, others are more for tourism such as katsina snowglobes, tissue boxes, pencil cases, pens, aprons, shirts, and mugs.
The Hopi, like many Indians, struggle in identity. They struggle with their representation, and katsina are only the tip of the ice burg for how complicated Indian law and rights can be. As long as the katsina keep getting made and sold by the Hopi, we can be pretty certain that non-Hopi will do the same. We could see a future in which the Hopi gain rights to the image of katsina, but it is unlikely, as the fascination of katsina has reached a global scale to the point where it’s doubtful others would just stop making katsina related products. The public domain may seem merciless at times, but there is comfort that the individual Hopi are free to support themselves while spreading knowledge about their culture at once.
Bibliography
Kennard, E. A. (2002). Hopi Kachinas. New York: Kiva Publishing.
Lewis, O. (2014, November 28). Hopi Kachina Dolls. Retrieved from Native Languages: http://www.native-languages.org/kachinas.htm
Maribeth Keane, B. M. (2014, December 3). Katsina or Kachina? Barry Walsh on the Spiritual Roots of Native American Dolls. Retrieved from Collectors Weekly: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/katsina-or-kachina-barry-walsh-on-the-spiritual-roots-of-native-american-dolls/
MelŽndez, A. G. (2001). Hopi Indian Ceremonies. In A. G. MelŽndez, The Multicultural Southwest: A Reader (pp. 43-49). University of Arizona Press.
Moon, P. P. (2014, November 28). Kachina Dolls. Retrieved from Indians: http://www.indians.org/articles/kachina-dolls.html
Pearlstone, Z. (2001). Katsina. Los Angeles: South Sea International Press.
Walsh, B. (2014, December 3). Buffalo Barry's Indian Art. Retrieved from Buffalo Barry: http://buffalobarry.com/
