UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The politics of possession: Louis Shotridge and the Tlingit collections of the University of Pennsylvania… Milburn, Maureen Elizabeth 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1997-251160.pdf [ 48.63MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0088254.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088254-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088254-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088254-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088254-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088254-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088254-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE POLITICS OF POSSESSION: Louis Shotridge and the Tlingit Collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum by M a u r e e n Elizabeth M i l b u r n B.A., the University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1974 M . A . the University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1980 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS F O RT H EDEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department o f Fine A r t s ) W e accept this thesis as conforming I D the reauired standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A F E B R U A R Y 1997 © M a u r e e n Elizabeth M i l b u r n , 1997  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department  of  <rl^l£j  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Abstract  For twenty years,from1912-1932, Louis Shotridge (Stoowukaa V), a Tlingit nobleman of the Chilkat Kaagwaantaan clan, was employed by the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia as field collector, curator, and exhibit preparator. In this position, Shotridge was given full responsibility for the selection and acquisition of a collection of Northwest Coast objects. During this time, Shotridge grew to perceive his collections and  r their attendant documentation as a testament to Tlingit social structures and ancestral histories as well as the moral and ethical values of the Tlingit clans and the legitimating identities of clan leaders. While trained by Franz Boas in ethnographic method, Shotridge remained grounded in existing Tlingit social systems, combined with then-current Native American idealism and political objectives. Thus while he traveled through Tlingit territory collecting objects and recording their clan histories, he was also active in the Alaska Native Brotherhood. In his lifetime, Shotridge was respected both by Tlingit peoples and by the anthropological community. Yet more recently, anthropological and popular writers have vilified Shotridge as a traitor, making him emblematic of a continuing colonial discourse constructed to preserve boundaries which recognize only the "pure products" of the "primitive" Native American. Instead of continuing such dichotomous constructions, this thesis more carefully evaluates the circumstances under which objects were acquired and recontextualized ii  within a Western institutional museum setting in the early part of this century. Rather than glossing over questions of hybridity, this thesis is particularly concerned with the ways certain individuals penetrate societal boundaries, under what circumstances, to what purposes and within what contexts such associations are initiated, sanctioned, legitimated or contested. By discussing and contextualizing Shotridge's life and ethnographic activity, this thesis argues for a broader understanding of Native American political circumstances, values, and struggles within a framework of post-colonial relations. Consideration of these various perspectives provides a clearer view of historical representation and ownership of objects, issues which continue to inform contemporary concerns regarding possession and the meaning of objects within both anthropology museum and tribal contexts.  iii  Table of Contents  Abstract Table of Contents List of Illustrations Acknowledgements Frontispiece  ii iv vii xvi xix  INTRODUCTION  GENERAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS... Life History as a Context for the Collecting Process Museum Collections and the Recontextualization of Objects "A Difference of Opinion" ~ Ownership and the Value of Objects Among Northwest Coast Peoples Indications of Native Attitudes Towards the Preservation of Objects Objects and the Interlinking Effects of Individual and Collective Native Histories  1 4 7 12 20 23  CHAPTER ONE  THE SHOTRIDGE FAMILY AND EURO-AMERICAN CONTACT 36 The Chilkat/Chilkoot People and Euro-American Contact 37 Chief Shaadaxicht: Resistance and Accommodation... 43 The Death of Shaadaxicht and the Passage of an Era of Tlingit Autonomy.... 55 A Noble Family 59 Conclusions 63 CHAPTER TWO  TOWARDS A "CIVILIZED" ALASKA: SEGREGATION, ASSIMILATION AND A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION Sitka and Facilities for Educating Native Peoples Sheldon Jackson: Curios and "Cordwood" The Marriage of Louis and Florence Shotridge: an Entrepreneurial Life Conclusions  83 85 94 99 104  CHAPTER THREE  LOUIS AND FLORENCE SHOTRIDGE AND THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM.. 113 George Byron Gordon and the University Museum ..... 113 Shotridge and The Emergence of "Scientific" Ethnography: Collaboration with Franz Boas and a Position with the University Museum 124 Conclusions 130 T  iv  CHAPTER  FOUR  THE FIRST WANAMAKER EXPEDITION, 1915-1918 John Wanamaker and Turn-of-the-Century Museum Patronage The Shotridges as Expedition Leaders Issues of Ownership and Conflicting "Regimes of Value" The Death of Florence Shotridge Collecting in Tsimshian Territory The Expedition Concludes Conclusions CHAPTER  144 145 149 157 162 163 167 169  FIVE  THE POLITICS OF A NATIVE ETHNOGRAPHER The Society of American Indians and "Progressive" Politics The Alaska Native Brotherhood Shotridge and the Alaska Native Brotherhood Conclusions  183 184 190 194 198  CHAPTER SIX  THE SECOND WANAMAKER EXPEDITION, 1922-1924 Working the "Trailess Field" Conflict over the Whale House Objects The Objects of Everlasting Esteem Shotridge's Final Years with the Museum CHAPTER  206 207 210 222 227  SEVEN  SHOTRIDGE'S ETHNOGRAPHIC STRATEGIES AND THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM COLLECTION ... 249 The Shotridge Ethnographic Material 250 Shotridge and the Oral History of Objects 253 Shotridge's Strategic Approach to the Acquisition of Objects 263 Clan Hats and Shotridge's Historical Approach to Ethnography 271 Shotridge and Museum Display 276 Shotridge and Commercial/Ethnographic Photography 277 Tape Recordings and Film 283 Conclusions 285 CHAPTER  EIGHT  CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONS OF LOUIS SHOTRIDGE Telescoping History — Continuing Associations History, Biography, and Western Interpretations of "Cultural" Politics Conclusions  v  307 308 312 322  CHAPTER NINE  CONCLUSIONS  .328  BIBLIOGRAPHY  345  APPENDIX]  "The Founder of the Whale House" by Louis Shotridge  369  APPENDIX 2  'History of the Tina Blanket" by Florence Shotridge  372  APPENDIX 3  "Notes on the Origin of the Ceremonial Robe called Chilkat Blanket" by Louis Shotridge  vi  375  List of Illustrations  Frontispiece. Portrait of Louis Shotridge, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy Lillian O' Daniel  xvii  Map 1. The Tlingit area,fromEmmons 1991  30  Map 2. DetailfromMap 1. The Tlingit area showing Klukwan, Haines, Chilkoot, Sitka, Juneau, and Wrangell  31  Fig. 1. la & b. Views of the settlement of Klukwan on the Chilkat River, ca. 1895. Winter and Pond photographs, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PC A 87-1 & 87-2  66,67  Fig. 1.2. Marble statue of Kaagwaantaan bear crest commemorating Chief Shaadaxicht. Louis Shotridge photograph, n.d., courtesy University of Pennsylvania Museum, U.M. neg. no. 14760. See also photograph by Frederica de Laguna who identifies Shaadaxicht as a chief of the Chilkat Wolf 1 and cites the inscription on his grave monument as reading: "SHOTRIDGE/Died March 1, 1887/Aged 70 years/YEES-YOUT/KOOUL-KEE-TAR/ ?"(de Laguna in Emmons 1991:278)  68  Fig. 1.3. Yeilgooxu (George Shotridge) and Kuwdu.aat (Coudawot) two chiefs of the Chilkat Gaanaxteidi. Winter and Pond photograph, ca. 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PC A 87-295. Like Yeilgooxu, Kuwdu.aat is identified by de Laguna in Emmons (1991:438) as Raven 3 of the Gaanaxteidi. He is also shown on his death bed in a photograph attributed to Emmons (1991:271). Kuwdu.aat's tunic was acquired by Shotridge at Klukwan in 1918, (U.M. acc. no. NA 8472)  69  Fig. 1.4. Staged photograph of the interior of the Chilkat Gaanaxteidi Whale House at Klukwan. Winter and Pond photograph, ca. 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 87-10. This photograph was taken when the house was no longer inhabited but prior to the dismantling of the house screen and its four house posts in 1899 (Emmons 1916). Kuwdu.aat and his son are in the center of the photograph. On display are crest objects (at.dow) of the Gaanaxteidi Whale House and Raven House families. This image has been reproduced in a several publications however Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1994:592) provide the most detailed description of the photograph including the identity of individuals and a description of some of the objects shown. In 1894 vii  J.F. Pratt also produced a similar image of the interior of the Whale House (see Sinclair and Engerman 1991)  70  Fig. 1 4a. Postcard image of the Gaanaxteidi Whale House, Klukwan. Winter and Pond photograph, ca. 1895, courtesy of the Alaska Historical Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 87-12  71  Fig. 1.5. "Dog Salmon" house posts stored in the Gaanaxteidi Whale House, Klukwan. Harlan I. Smith photograph, 1909, courtesy of the Department of Library Services, American Museum of Natural History, New York, neg. no. 46164. The posts are now located in the Axel Rasmussen collection in the Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon  72  Fig. 1.6. Portrait of Kueit.saakw. Winter and Pond photograph, n.d., courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 87.42 73 Fig. 1.7. George Thornton Emmons and Louis Shotridge as a child. Photographer unknown, 1885, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-134560  74  Fig. 2.1. Members of the Sitka Luknaax.adi receiving Killisnoo people at the 1904 Sitka potlatch. Merrill photograph, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 57-18. See also Merrill photograph (Isabell Miller Museum, Sitka, PHI 737 and Emmons 1971) of the painted gable end of Chief Annahootz's house in Sitka  107  Fig. 2.2. Portrait of Florence Shotridge. Caption reads: "L.S's wife, 1900, Chilkoot, Alaska." Photograph attributed to Emmons, n.d., courtesy of the Royal British Columbia Museum, neg. no. #9163  108  Fig. 3.1. Portrait of George Byron Gordon, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-141710  133  Fig. 3.2. Mask called "The Weeping Man," purchased by George Byron Gordon from Louis Shotridge at the Lewis and Clark Exposition in Portland in 1905 (U.M. acc. no. NA 1242), Milburn photograph, 1982  134  Fig. 3.3. Photograph of painted house screen and houseposts from model of the village of Klukwan made by Louis Shotridge, photographer unknown, n.d. courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. #12590. The model wasfinishedin 1913. According to Shotridge, the mainfigureon the house screen is identified as a grizzly bearflankedby a bear and its cubs on the left and a wolf and its pups on the right. Below the house screen the post on the left viii  represents a two-headed bear and, on the right, "Lgayak." The image on the center door panel represents a splayed killer whale. See also Mason (1960:12) for photograph of the Haida model village made by Shotridge  135  Fig. 3.4. Tinda robe woven by Florence Shotridge, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec, neg. no. #J-3285 136 Fig. 3.5. Louis and Florence Shotridge dressed in Plains regalia. These costumes were part of their personal possessions and were probably worn while touring with the "Indian Opera." Photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-142199  137  Fig. 3.6 Portrait of Florence Shotridge takenfroman unidentified newspaper clipping, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Archives  138  Fig. 3.7. Portrait of Louis Shotridge in Tlingit ceremonial regalia including a "Bear" crest hat belonging to George Heye and a dagger purchased by George Byron Gordon in 1905 (U.M. acc. no. NA 1288). Shotridge wears the Tinda robe woven by Florence Shotridge. Photographer unknown, ca. 1912, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S8-140236  139  Fig. 3.8. Photograph entitled "Chilkat Indian Dancers." F. W. Nowell photograph ca. 1904, courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Individual on the left is wearing a "Thunderbird" frontlet acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1924 in Wrangell (no information on ownership)(U.M. acc. no. NA 9472)  140  Fig. 4.1. Portrait of John Wanamaker at his desk. Photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-141157  171  Fig. 4.2. Field Headquarters, Haines, Alaska, ca. 1914 (now the Nash residence). Louis Shotridge photograph, ca. 1917-1919, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-14739  172  Fig. 4.3. Chilkat weave dancing apron displayed among Chilkat Gaanaxteidi crest objects in Whale House in Klukwan. Winter and Pond photograph, ca. 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PC A 87-161. See Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1994:594) for further information on this photograph  173  ix  Fig. 4.4. Three crest hats purchased by Louis Shotridge in 1917 from the Chilkat Kaagwaantaan Drum House family (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Wolf 1) in Klukwan. Photograph attributed to Emmons, circa 1900, courtesy of the Royal British Columbia Museum, neg. no. 1782. The Drum House was built as an annex to the Grizzly Bear House of the Klukwan Kaagwaantaan. Individuals in photograph are identified as Ykeeshar and his wife (see de Laguna in Emmons 1991). The crest hats are identified as: "KillerWhale" hat (U.M. acc. no. NA5738) on the left; 'Under-Sea Grizzly Bear" hat (U.M. acc. no. NA 5739), centre, (the "Under-Sea Grizzly Bear" hat, made for Daqu-tonk, a headman of the Grizzly Bear House); and the "Murrelet" hat (U.M. acc. no. NA 5740),right.See Shotridge Field Notes or Mason (1960:1213) for further information on the histories of these crest hats  174  Fig. 4.5. Mask of a "ghost" collected by Louis Shotridge on the Nass River 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8515), Milburn photograph, 1982 175 Fig. 4.6. Photograph of the grave houses at Klukwan including the Gaanaxteidi Frog grave house at the extremerightof the photograph. Winter and Pond photograph, copyright 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 87-25. See also Wyatt 1989: figs. 57, 58  176  Fig. 4.7. Louis and Elizabeth Shotridge in Philadelphia, photographer unknown, ca. 1920, courtesy Lillian O'Daniel.  177  Fig. 5.1. Photograph of Louis Shotridge takenfromthe Journal of The Society ofAmerican Indians (1919:280), photographer unknown, n.d  201  Fig. 5.2. Louis Shotridge (front row center) and members of the A.N.B. and A. N.S. in the Sitka A.N.B. Hall, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of Lillian O'Daniel  202  Fig.6.1. The Penn, photographed by Louis Shotridge near Haines, ca. 1924, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S 5-15083  234  Fig. 6.2. Hutsnuwu "Beaver" House Screenfromthe Angoon Tuq-ka Hit family, collected by Louis Shotridge in 1923 (U.M. acc. no. NA 9499-34. Vincent Soboleff photograph, n.d., courtesy of the Alaska State Library, neg. no. PCA 1-410  235  Fig. 6.3. Tahitian gorget called "Raven Cape" shown in display (lower right) along with objects of the Hutsnuwu Deisheetaan Raven House at Angoon (U.M. acc. no. 9476-35). Identified by de Laguna in Emmons (1991:442) as Raven 13 (Hutsnuwu XII). Vincent Soboleff photograph, n.d., courtesy of the Alaska State x  Library, neg. no. PCA 1-19. For a further discussion of this object see Katz 1986:78-90  236  Fig. 6.4. "Frog" crest hat of the Sitka Kiks.adi clan acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1926 (U.M. acc. no. 11740), Milburn photograph, 1982  237  Fig. 6.5. Photograph of the "Ganook" crest hat of the Sitka Kaagwaantaan Bear House (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Wolf 1), acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1924, (U.M. acc. no. NA 6864). See also fig. 7.2. Milburn photograph, 1982  238  Fig. 6.6. Ceremonial headdress with "Wolf crest. Originally part of a canoe prow but said to have been used as a war helmet in time of need (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library, Juneau). Acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1924 in Wrangell (no information on ownership, U.M. acc. no. NA9471) see also Mason (1960:14), Milburn photograph, 1982  239  Fig. 6.7 a & b. Houseposts called "Huts-hun" and "Guteetl" belonging to the Chilkat Gaanaxteidi Frog House (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:438 as Raven 3) in Klukwan. Winter and Pond photograph, ca. 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, neg. numbers PCA 87-14 & 87-17  240, 241  Fig. 6.8. "Shark" helmet of the Sitka Kaagwaantaan (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Wolf 1). Acquired by Shotridge in 1929 (U.M. acc. no. 291 -1), Milburn photograph, 1982  242  Fig. 6.9. House posts of the Chilkat Kaagwaantaan Finned House (identified by de Laguna 1991:438 as Wolf 1) at Klukwan, acquired by Shotridge in 1930 (U.M. acc. no. 31-29-13 to 16), photographer unknown, n.d., photograph courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. 72031  243  Fig. 6.10. Headdressfromthe Sitka Kaagwaantaan Burned House Collection, acquired by Shotridge in 1931 (U.M. acc. no. 31-29-4). U.M. accession notes on this object state: "Headband, Alaska, red cedar bark, circlet offivetwisted cords with plaited oblong of cedar bark sewed tofrontand back, the former covered by silver ornament in the form of a tinda, engraved with sculpin crest." Milburn photograph, 1982  244  Fig. 7.1. Photograph of crest objects most of which were acquired by Shotridge from the Sitka Kaagwaantaan Bear House (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Wolf 1) in 1926, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the Isabell Miller Museum, Sitka, neg. no. PA #1036. Object in this house collection acquired by Shotridge and not shown in this photograph is: "Whale" hat woven and painted with carved wooden dorsalfin(U.M. acc. no. 10512). On tablefromrightto left: xi  a) "Noble Killer Whale" hat acquired by Shotridge in 1926 (University U.M. acc. no. 11741). See also Merrill photographs neg. numbers. PCA 57-22 & 57-20. b) Spruce root basketry hat with carved wood "Killer Whale Dorsal Fin." Woven bark cover for the hat was also acquired (U.M. acc. no. 11743). c) Ceremonial helmet with eagle crest (U.M. acc. no. 11742). Individual in the photograph wears the "Ganook" hat (U.M. acc. no. NA 6864). See also fig. 6.5 and fig. 7.2 (below) for additional photographs of this object Fig. 7.2 Two chiefs of the Kaagwaantaan Bear House identified as Annahootz (left) wearing the "Noble Killer Whale" crest hat and Kolnish wearing the "Ganook" crest hat (right). Photograph taken on the occasion of the 1904 Sitka potlatch by Case and Draper, 23 December 1904, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 39-784 Fig. 7.3. This photograph shows representatives of two Sitka Luknaax.adi clan houses: the Whale House and the Sea Lion House, Merrill photograph, 1904, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 57-31. I. Objects from the Luknaax.adi Whale House (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Raven 6) shown in this photograph are: a) "Raven of the Roof acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (U.M. acc. no. 10511). Once captured by the Chilkat Gaanaxteidi in warfare but returned to the Whale House family through marriage (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library, Juneau). b) The "Octopus-tentacle" staff, acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (U.M. acc. no. 10513), see also Merrill photograph, Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 57-21. c) "Shanisda's staff" (which was captured from the Russians), acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (see Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library, Juneau), (U.M. acc. no. 10514). d) Dance collar, acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (U.M. acc. no. 10515). e) Shirt acquired by Shotridge, n.d. (U.M. acc. no. 10516). II. Objects in the Sitka Luknaax.adi Sea Lion House collection (identified by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:439 as Raven 6) and shown in this photograph are: f) "Barbecuing Raven" hat acquired by Shotridge in 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8502) . g) "Raven" hat of woven spruce root with wooden beak acquired by Shotridge in 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8504), acquired by Shotridge in 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8503) . Other objects from this house collection include: the "Killer Whale" hat (U.M. acc. no. NA 8503), acquired by Shotridge in 1918; a frontlet with raven, wolf, and bear images acquired by Shotridge in 1918 (U.M acc. no. NA 8505), and a robe with Chilkat weave panels (U.M. acc. no. NA 8506). See also fig. 7.4. For funeral displays of objectsfromboth the Whale House and the Sea Lion House groups see xii  Merrill photographs in the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. numbers PCA57-158 and PCA57-37 and at the Isabel Miller Museum, Sitka, neg. numbers PH #1760 and #1743 Fig. 7.4. Two individualsfromthe Sitka Luknaax.adi Sea-Lion House wearing objects acquired by Shotridge including, on the right, the "Barbecuing Raven" (U.M. acc. no. NA 8502) and, on the left, the "Killer Whale" hat (U.M. acc. NA 8503). Also on therightis a robe with Chilkat weave borders (U.M. acc. no. NA 8506). Merrill photograph, n.d., courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 57-147. (The robe worn by the individual on the left is currently located in the Sitka Park Service Museum.) Fig. 7.5. Ceremonial hat made of brassfromthe Hoonah T'akdetntaan Snail House. According to Shotridge'sfieldnotes the hat was made during the early days of Russian occupation by a Russian metal smith. He describes the occasion of its manufacture as "when the owner became as subject to his deceased uncle's helping spirits" (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library). Acquired by Shotridge in 1924 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6847), Milburn photograph, 1982. Other objects in this collection include U.M. acc. numbers NA 6834, 6836, 6837, 6838, 6844 Fig. 7.5a. Frontletfromthe Hoonah T'akdeintaan Snail House collection. According to Shotridge thisfrontletwas carved to represent an episode of the Raven journey when "Raven lured the king salmon" an event which was said to have taken place at Dry Bay near Yakutat (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library). Acquired by Shotridge in 1924 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6834), Milburn photograph, 1982. Note: Other objects in this collection include: a dance headdress with Chilkat weave called "Raven Headcover," apparently worn by a prophet during public performances (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library) and acquired by Shotridge in 1924 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6836); a dance headdress in the form of bear's ears and ornamented with abalone shells made for a Kaagwaantaan "call together" in Sitka (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library) and acquired by Shotridge in 1924 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6837); a headdress called "Raven's headdress," commissioned for the "called together people to the rebuilding of the Snail House at Drum-side town.. The wearing of the headdress on the occasion was an imitation of the great Raven..." who wore a jellyfishto a feast (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library) which was acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6838); a Chinese feather duster with woven spruce root top stock and ermine tail (U.M. acc. no. NA 6838(61) ~ according to Shotridge the original was made offlickerfeathers (see Milburn 1986:71); "Raven the Pilgrim" ~ a dance rattle used on the occasion of a "call-together" for the rebuilding of the Snail House which was acquired by Shotridge in 1925 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6844); and a dance rattle representing a loon which according to Shotridge, ".. .had been made to improve the appearance of the shaman's outfit xiii  and this was the desire of the clan...[t]o make the outfit imposing, the rattle represents... [t]he helping spirit of thefirstshaman of the clan" (Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska State Library) acquired by Shotridge in 1924 (U.M. acc. no. NA 6845)  292  Fig. 7.6. Chilkat Kaagwaantaan knife called the "Ghost of the Courageous Adventurer" acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8488), Milburn photograph, 1982  293  Fig. 7.7. "Lord of the Hawks" ceremonial headdress of the Chilkat Kaagaawaataan Finned House at Klukwan acquired by Shotridge in 1926 (U.M. acc. no. 10832), Milburn photograph, 1982 294 Fig. 7.8. Ceremonial hat representing the "Raven" hat from the Sitka Luknaax.adi Sea Lion House Collection acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1918 (U.M. acc. no. NA 8504), Milburn photograph, 1982  295  7.9. Blankenberg photograph entitled "Group of Indians at Klukwan Potlatch." Frederica de Laguna in Emmons (1991:303) identifies this photograph as depicting Wolf 1 Kaagwaantaan guests from Sitka who are attending the 1901 potlatch given by George Shotridge and other Gaanaxteidi at Klukwan. The occasion was the inauguration of the new Whale House. Photograph courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, #159. Several objects later acquired by Louis Shotridge may be seen in this photograph. They include: two dance batons, one called "Killer Whale" (U.M. acc. numbers NA 8495 and NA 9494); the 'Wolf post (U.M. acc. no. #10524); the "Noble Killer Whale" crest hat (U.M. acc. no. 11741); the "Eagle" helmet (U.M. acc. no. 11742); the "Ganook" crest hat (U.M. acc. no. NA 6864) a dance frontlet in form of a bear (U.M. acc. no. NA 7628) and a dance frontlet with a "Thunderbird" crest (U.M. acc. no. NA 9472) 296 Fig. 7.10. GaanaxteidifromKlukwan attending the 1904 Sitka Potlatch hosted by the Kaagwaantaan Wolf House, Case and Draper photograph, 1904, courtesy Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 39-401. See also Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1994:591  297  Fig. 7.11. Gaanaxteidi attending potlatch at Klukwan ca. 1895. Photograph shows objects later acquired by Louis Shotridge: a mask called "Man who was transformed into a land otter" (U.M. acc. no. NA 5777) held by a man in front row, left, wearing a button blanket and a tunic with the image of the frog mortuary house in buttons worn by a man infrontrow, extremeright(U.M. acc. no. NA 9483). Individual in center with noseringwears the 'Trog" crest hat of the Gaanaxteidi Frog House. Winter and Pond photograph, copyright 1895, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, neg. no. PCA 87-20 298 xiv  Fig. 7.12. Photograph taken by Louis Shotridge, entitled 'Remains of Git-laktemiksh, Naas River," from the Museum Journal (1919: fig. 18) Fig. 7.13. Photograph taken by Louis Shotridge entitled "A Naas chief in a performance of 'Lo-tlam,' a secret society dance," from the Museum Journal (1919: fig.22)  xv  299  300  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The creation of a Ph.D. thesis is not a solitary endeavour. I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all those who gave me their time and their expertise over the several years during which I pursued this project. First and foremost I want to thank my husband Sam Lightman who has patiently supported me in a myriad of ways but in particular with his good humour and editorial skills throughout this project. Bouquets to Dr. Marvin Cohodas, my thesis supervisor, for his steady encouragement, perceptive theoretical comments, and detailed readings of the many drafts of this thesis. Sincerest thanks to members of my thesis committee: Dr. Marjorie Halpin of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology for bringing the depth of her experience and extraordinary knowledge of Northwest Coast material to bear on the subject, and to Dr. John O'Brian of the Department of Fine Arts for his unfailing support and cogent criticism. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Michael Kew of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology who initially encouraged me to work on this topic and to Dr. Julie Cruikshank of the same department for her early support of my work. I am grateful to members of my examining committee: Dr. Victoria Wyatt, Dr. Dianne Newell, Dr. Margery Fee and Dr. Julie Cruikshank for their pertinent comments and detailed criticisms. I also wish to thank Jennifer Cullen, Graduate Administrator, Department of Fine Arts for her expertise in administrative matters. Of those who assisted me in my dissertation research I wish to extend a special thanks to Louis Shotridge's daughter Lillian O'Daniel of Sitka, Dennis Demmert, Executive Director, Sealaska Heritage Foundation; Nora Dauenhauer, Principal Researcher, Language and Cultural Studies, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau; Richard Dauenhauer, Program Director, Language and Cultural Studies, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau. Although the use of material and opinions expressed in this thesis are entirely my own, concerns that I had over the presentation of Louis Shotridge's life story and/or the use of Tlingit intellectual property were dispelled by the encouragement that I receivedfromthese individuals during the course of my research. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistancefromPeter Corey, Curator, Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka; Sue Thorsen, Museum Specialist, Sitka National Historical Park, Sitka; Steve Henrikson, Curator of Collections, Alaska State Museum, Juneau; Elisabeth S. Hakkinen, Curator, The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center, Haines; Karl Gurcke, Historical Archaeologist, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Skagway; Nancy J. Ricketts, Archives Librarian, Sheldon Jackson College, Sitka; Sue Stevens, Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau; Dr. Risa Carlson, Director, The Ketchikan Museum; Ana Lea Vincent, Photo Librarian, Isabel Miller Museum, Sitka; Rosemary Carlton, Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka; Tom Morphett, Reporter, The Chilkat Valley News; Steven xvi  Brown, Assistant Curator, Seattle Art Museum; Michele Yandell, Wrangell Museum; Rebecca Andrews, Collections Manager Ethnology, The Burke Museum, University of Washington; Debra Miller, Registrar, The Burke Museum, University of Washington; Jane Nowak, Department Manager, History and Genealogy Department, City of Los Angeles; Amy J. Roberts, Presbyterian Historical Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Gladi Kulp, Librarian, Alaska State Library, Juneau, Dr. Andrea Laforet, Pacific Coast Ethnologist, Canadian Ethnology Service, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa; Dr. Frederica de Laguna, Professor Emeritis, Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania, Dr. Robin K. Wright, The Burke Museum, University of Washington; Dr. Rosita Worl, University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Charles S. Kline, Photographic Archivist, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia; Nancy Nash of Haines; Esther Littlefield of Sitka; Robert De Armond of Sitka; Walter Soboleff of Tenakee Springs; Irene Jimmy of Sitka; and Susan and Israel Shotridge of Ketchikan. In addition I would like to thank many of the staff and associates of the University of Pennsylvania Museum who encouraged and assisted me in my initial Shotridge research in the early 1980s: Dr. Gregory Possehl, Pamela Hearne, Dr. Eleanor King, Caroline Dosker, Mary Anne Kenworthy, Fred Boschan, Jean Adelman, Dr. John Witthoft, and Dr. William Davenport. Others who aided me in my initial research in the 1980s were: Linda L. Reichert, Reference Librarian, American Museum of Natural History; Judith Beattie, Head, Research and Reference Section, Hudson's Bay Company Archives, Winnipeg; Margaret Haines, Assistant Manuscripts Librarian, Oregon Historical Society, Portland; Dan Savard, Department of Ethnology, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria; Stephen Catlett, Manuscripts Librarian, The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia; Elisabeth S. Hakkinen, Curator, The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center, Haines; William Roberts, University Archivist, The Bancroft Library, The University of California, Berkeley; Phyliss DeMuth, Librarian and Verda Carey, Librarian, Alaska Historical Library, Juneau; Dr. Victoria Wyatt, Project Director, "Winter and Pond: Alaskan Images," Juneau; Dr. Lynne Ager Wallen, Curator of Ethnography and Judy Hauk, Registrar, The Alaska State Museum, Juneau; Robert N. De Armond, Dr. Edmund Carpenter and Dr. Norman Feder. PROJECT NOTE: Initial research on Shotridge and the Tlingit collections and the University of Pennsylvania Museum for this project was conducted in the early 1980s. Some of the material accumulated at that time was published in 1986 in an article entitled "Louis Shotridge and the Objects of Everlasting Esteem" for Raven's Journey: the World of Alaska's Native  Peoples (Kaplan & Barsness). For that project I traveled to Alaska on a research grant from the museum where I worked principally in photographic archives. At that time I was able to uncover a number of photographs which serve to contextualize objects in the Shotridge Collection. Many years later, when I decided to re-explore the Shotridge material as a thesis topic, a travel research grant from the Department of Fine Arts at U B C . enabled me to visit Alaska in 1995. There I met with descendants of Louis xvii  Shotridge, conducted interviews, and visited sites, museums, and archives throughout Tlingit territory. And finally, it should be noted that even though Shotridge's spelling of Tlingit names and places differs from contemporary Tlingit orthography, there should be no misunderstanding of their meaning. Thus when quoting Shotridge I have retained his manner of expression throughout the manuscript although spelling errors are noted to avoid confusion.  Maureen Milburn Salt Spring Island, BC, 1997  xviii  Frontispiece. Portrait of Louis Shotridge (Stoowukaa V), n.d., photographer unknown, courtesy of Lillian O'Daniel.  xix  INTRODUCTION  GENERAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS  This thesis seeks to reconsider the discourse related to the historical representation of Native American peoples, the influence of post-contact period events on collecting activities, and the reactions and interactions of institutions and individuals to these events. It will examine the continuing construction of dichotomous ideas and attitudes towards Native American peoples, a construction which glosses over questions concerning how certain individuals penetrate societal boundaries, under what circumstances, to what purposes, and within what contexts such associations are initiated, sanctioned, legitimated or contested. More specifically, this thesis focuses on the Tlingit people of southeastern Alaska and their colonization subsequent to the 1867 sale of Russian America to the United States (see maps 1 & 2). For Tlingit peoples this was a time of intense interaction with Anglo-American colonizers and of significant socio-economic change as the encounter signaled the beginning of a loss of previous self-determination.  1  Many events surrounding these changes in Tlingit lifestyles impacted on the life circumstances of Louis Shotridge (Stoowukaa V, ca. 1882-1937), a high-born member of the Kaagwaantaan clan of the Chilkat Tlingit (frontispiece). Shotridge worked for twenty years as a museum preparator, curator and expedition leader for the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. As leader of two University Museum Expeditions to southeastern Alaska, Shotridge was charged with gathering ethnographic information and purchasing Tlingit objects. Because of his collecting activities, Shotridge has been the subject of academic criticism and conjecture. The negotiations, contradictions, dichotomies, and circumstances that imbue Shotridge's life and work define the vehicle by which this thesis advances. By way of introduction, here is how the Journal of Science presented Shotridge to its readers in 1919: Chief Louis Shotridge of the Chilkat of the Tlinknit [Tlingit] Indians of Southwestern Alaska, long a member of the staff of the University Museum, has returned from four years' explorations among his own people. In that time, he secured many hundreds of unique ethnological specimens for the museum, having spent most of his time collecting and writing down in the native language the manners, customs, traditions and religious rites of the various tribes. It is believed that Mr. Shotridge is thefirsttrained anthropologist who has ever done work of this sort among the American Indians using the native tongue. 1  Posthumous accounts of Shotridge's life and work, dating primarily from the 1960s onwards, present him quite differently. Biographical accounts, written mostly by academics, describe him in ambivalent terms, invoking words and attitudes which reinforce polarized concepts of "civilized" and "savage." While acknowledging 3  Shotridge's contributions to the collecting process and in some cases his ethnological  2  achievements, they also portray him as a victim, a pawn in a calculated institutional power play, or a self-serving individual who was "reviled" by the Tlingit. According to 4  anthropologist Edmund Carpenter: Photographs show him in tweeds, always with a camera slungfromhis shoulder. He appears on horseback, driving a dogsled, piloting the Perm, always apart, in dress and mariner,fromhis kinsmen. They called him arrogant. They still revile his name....The last known photograph of him shows him beside a small, torn tent pitched in snow. He holds a blackened coffee-pot over a wood fire. His face looks like mask #90, sometimes called "Dying Warrior." 5  Besides presuming to speak for Tlingit people, such negative descriptions are unsubstantiated, of negligible academic value. They ignore the complex interaction of social, political, and historic factors involved in the U.S. colonization of Alaska to which Shotridge was exposed. Criticisms of Shotridge's collecting strategies and motivations erase the circumstances of his time and instead serve to mark the boundaries of the West's radical separationfromand opposition to its constructed "Other." In one sense this thesis is a revisionist history in that it adds facts and information about Shotridge's life which challenge other views of what it means to be "between cultures," "assimilated," or a Native ethnographer. By maintaining a customary biographic narrative (i.e., events proceeding from birth to death), I am able to explore Shotridge's interaction with the various institutions that affected his life. In this respect Shotridge is the interlocutor, but I also perceive his role as that of a conduit for the flow of different forms of authorityfromone institution to another. By engaging in the sale of Tlingit objects, Shotridge became a middleman in an interactive dialogue between two interdependent parties: the Native owner with his/her social responsibilities and the  3  ultimate desires of private or institutional repositories of those objects. The objective of this approach is to underscore the relation of the individual to the social order (in this case a complex set of variables) and to the conditions under which objects were de/recontextualizedfromNative to museum ownership. I will show that Shotridge as the agent of the University Museum controlled the content and scope of the museum's collection and that the choices he made were conditioned and defined by his life circumstances, experiences, and political goals. Thus I intend to examine Shotridge's institutional affiliations, political leanings, and educational accomplishments. In so doing I intend to dispute the discourse that continues to portray Shotridge in exclusively negative terms. Instead I argue that complex socio-political circumstances influenced Shotridge's career and that representations of Native American objects are historically contingent. For example, Shotridge both subscribed to the salvage paradigm in anthropology and challenged its validity in his representation of Tlingit objects in museum collection and display. Further, I will show that a number of interdependent variables impacted on Shotridge's career and the decisions he made as a Native ethnographer: the social exchange values that Northwest Coast peoples placed on objects (both personal and collective); the commercial values determined by individual dealers and collectors; and the objectives, ideologies, and sanctions imposed by dominant institutional interests.  Life History as a Context for the Collecting Process Within the historical context, the earliest non-Native attempts to document the lives of Native Americans often appeared in the form offictionalaccounts. Later 6  4  emphasis was placed on those peoples who, through their leadership, personalities or military campaigns, resisted Euro-American oppression. A broadening of focus which included an anthropological interest in "informants" and those who contributed to ethnographic knowledge emerged in the 1920s with a parallel emphasis on acculturation and more diversified perspectives. In 1978 a publication edited by anthropologist Margot Liberty entitled American Indian Intellectuals resultedfromthe 1976 proceedings of The American Ethnological Society. In this publication, "biographies of Native North Americans who have been important sources of published ethnographic or linguistic data" became the focus of discussion. Liberty sought to address the roles of Native Americans 9  as "informants", teachers, collaborators, co-authors, and independent scholars in ethnography. From these discussions the term "Native Intellectual" emerged as the most accurate and inclusive means of describing this diverse group. Anthropologist Marjorie 10  Halpin was among thefirstto recognize the contributions of Native ethnographers in that publication. In her biography of William Beynon she writes: William Beynon, Tsimshian, did ethnography for White anthropologists for over 40 years (1915-1956). Yet he is known to anthropology, and identified in its literature, as an 'informant and interpreter.' There is an injustice here... 11  Anthropologist Margaret Blackman, who published thefirstlife history of a Native Northwest Coast woman, Florence Davidson, argues that, "The life history also complements the ethnographic account by adding to the descriptive and affective or experiential dimension." Nevertheless there is a disappointing lack of biographical information on those Northwest Coast people who have played a major role in the  5  documentation, preservation, and revitalization of their heritage.  Aside from some brief  biographical sketches and notable exceptions, most studies of Northwest Coast peoples 14  have been concerned with romanticized histories, ethnographic description or theoretical discussions of social structures and practices, particularly "the potlatch." Numerous individuals who would make relevant biographical subjects can be readily identified and the number is growing yearly. Included in this list are those who 15  worked in a variety of disciplines and contexts as guides, interpreters, collectors, ethnographers, informants, cultural representatives or emissaries, museum curators and preparators, scholars, linguists, teachers, historians, authors, and artists. Haa Kusteeyi: Our Culture, a 1994 publication edited by Tlingit historian Nora Marks Dauenhauer and linguist Richard Dauenhauer, relates the life stories of prominent Tlingit peoples. This publication demonstrates the great diversity in individual lives and illuminates a complex world of multiple loyalties. Arising out of previous work done by the Dauenhauers on 16  Tlingit oral history, Haa Kusteeyi is exemplary of a larger effort on the part of Native American peoples to tell their own stories. Today, there is a growing interest in life history accounts and projects which judge individual successes and failures by tribal criteria, not that of the dominant society.  17  As the Dauenhauers put it:  We hope that our focus on the specifics of these elders' lives will introduce them not only to readers outside the Tlingit community but also in new ways to younger generations within the community, reminding all audiences, the whole world, how wonderful these people 18  were and are, and why they should be remembered. Thus a cautionary note on the limitations of the superimposition of Euro-American intellectual structures on Native American lives is in order. Consider, for example, 6  anthropologist Julie Cruikshank's 1990 publication of the life stories of three Yukon Native Elders, Angela Sidney, Kitty Smith, and Annie Ned. Entitled Life Lived Like a Story, Cruikshank's collaboration with these women produced a series of accounts in which they used storytelling as a vehicle for communication of past events and life stories. From this experience Cruikshank concludes that, "Pre-understandings about how subjective experience should be expressed may disappoint a listener steeped in Western categories." In this respect a comparison of aspects of Shotridge's life and ethnography 19  and Western pre-understandings of how people and objectsfitwithin anthropological taxonomies demonstrates a substantial disparity between some Native belief systems and museum approaches towards objects.  Museum Collections and the Recontextualization of Objects This thesis is also about the relations between objects in museums and the life circumstances of those who collected them. There is a wealth of information available to the scholar interested in approaching collectionsfromthis perspective, information that was often neglected or ignored within the allochronic parameters of conventional 20  anthropology  21  and the conditions of Euro-American colonization. Although 22  anthropology museum theory is now undergoingrigorousreevaluation, many institutions continue to present objects as representatives of a pre-modem "primitive" 23  authenticity. " Individual objects are often consigned to exhibit cases, decontextualized, and iconized so as to portray a particular unchanging, dehistoricized perspective. 7  Similarly art historians often overlook the historical relevance of objects that are informed by the circumstances and wholeness of collection politics, part of a network of what anthropologist Nicholas Thomas defines as the discrete discourses of colonization.  24  Yet this approach is contextually illuminating. For example, one has only to visit three major collections of Tlingit objects ~ in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D C , at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia ~ to recognize salient differences in their content and previous context. When acquired, each of these collections was considered to be a definitive representation of Tlingit lifeways, yet each displays its own unique historic character. Aside from some duplication within the collections themselves, significant differences in objects, materials, and artistic styles becomes clear upon examination of the whole. At the Smithsonian wefindwar helmets, walrus hide cloaks, and slat armor collected by individuals who were often militarily affiliated. These objects are indicative of a period of initial Native contact with Russians and other Euro-Americans beginning in the mid-eighteenth century. In the American Museum of Natural History there is a preponderance of shaman's objects, many collected betwen 1882 and 1887 by U.S. Naval Lieutenant George Thornton Emmons. These objects were acquired as a result of the political persecution attending Christian assimilationist policies and a corresponding shift in Tlingit religious practices. At the University of Pennsylvania Museum I will demonstrate that the large numbers ceremonial objects, especially clan hats, were collected between 1914 and 1930 by Louis Shotridge reflect the socio-economic upheaval of U.S. colonization, as well as Shotridge's own desire for the historical recognition of a Tlingit  8  "nation." Each of these collections is indicative of different collecting strategies and periods in Tlingit and Euro-American history ~ examples of ongoing changes in social and political circumstances resultingfromthe impact of contact and colonization. Prior to the 1980s issues related to contact period negotiations were too often 25  relinquished to the disciplines of social history or political science.  Art historians tended  to focus on formal analysis, subscribing to essentializing dichotomies such as distinctions between tourist and ethnographic objects/collections, usually to determine "authenticity" 26  as well as chronological benchmarks.  Methodologically, such studies were little different  from the compartmentalized discussions of "culture traits" found in most twentieth century ethnographies. However, for at least a decade Western "aesthetic-anthropological 27  object systems" have been challenged.  Recent analyses of Northwest Coast collections  have included a mixture of expert commentary (sometimes by individuals of appropriate 28  ethnic groups),  a brief historical background (usuallyfromthe perspective of the 29  organizing institution or the private patron),  and Western analysis of the use-value of  specific objects within the collection.  30  These studies contextualize objects in their capacity as representatives of cultural continuity. Generally they are collaborative in form with contributionsfromprominent Native scholars and artists. The Native authors speak from a contemporary perspective which provides evidence of their peoples' relations to their objects and their attendant use inritual.The Spirit Within, edited by Helen Abbott, Steven Brown, Lorna Price and Paula Thurman and published in 1995, is one example of this blended approach. Contributions by Native writers Gloria Cranmer Webster, Robert Davidson, Joe David, and Nora Marks 9  Dauenhauer offer a picture of the historic continuity and the social value of objects. This theme is exemplified in the words of Nora Marks Dauenhauer: Beyond questions of its form, the Native point of view asks how an art object functions within a generation, and across generations. For a traditional Tlingit person, art ties many components of folklife together. Flistory (the stories of covenants among people, animals, spirits, and the land), song and dance, visual art, and the ritual use of an art object are inseparable. Museum display often does injustice to this traditional sense of totality and, therefore, can be in some ways disconcerting to Native people. In the Tlingit tradition, visual art is displayed in action as part of a ritual process that confirms its mythic and spiritual context. Museum display in Western tradition is by nature more static and 31  decontextualized, at best like a movie without a sound track. Voices such as these reject constructions of discrete disciplines. Museum objects emerge from Western-imposed art/culture categories as historical artifacts to be claimed as dynamic embodiments of an ongoing legacy. Yet some individuals are critical of this form of analysis, arguing that it represents yet another limiting partial truth. Native American performance artist Jimmie Durham states, "It would be impossible, and I think immoral, to attempt to discuss American Indian art sensibly without making the political realities 32  central."  Such multi-vocal questions of how the objects were gathered, by whom, during  what time-frame, and within what socio-political and economic frameworks are critical of 33  those descriptions which continue to neglect contact-period rupture.  Anthropologist  Susan Bean asserts that, although anthropology museum exhibitions and public programs portray themselves as "multivocal, dialogically constructed, internally contested, culturally constitutive, and ongoing" within the framework of the "transnational museum system," 34  collections continue to be viewed from a homogeneous perspective representing a single point of reference within an established Western value system. Similarly curator 35  10  Jonathan Haas argues that although many anthropology museums concern themselves with 36  sharing authority and incorporating diversity, real changes have been modest. The underlying logic is that, as philanthropic and touristic state-dependent representatives of the moral order, many museumsfindit politically useful to suppress the historical imperative of their collections as colonial documents of Native/Euro-American contact. To Haas, "Voice and power are inextricably intertwined in museums and both are subjects 37  of an intense and sometimes disconcerting dialogue in museums of anthropology." Native American peoples are actively involved in this dialogue, particularly with regard to the reevaluation of ownership and the role of anthropology museums as 38  custodians of Native American objects."  In the United States, with the passage of the  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, these  issues rose to foremost importance. Many Native Americans, both in the U.S. and Canada, also raise the issue of intellectual property as well as tangible property. Historian Curtis M. Hinsley Jr. states: The debate is ultimately not over control of bones at all, but over control of narrative: the stories of peoples who went before and how those peoples (and their descendants) are to be currently represented and treated. The heart of the matter, as always, lies in the negotiation 39  between power and respect." The view advanced by anthropologist Virginia Dominguez ~ that non-Western objects were collected because of "their perceived contribution to our understanding of our own historical trajectory" ~ is partially relevant as a relic of the old politics of 40  exclusion. According to this mode of thinking, the collecting process is described as an oppositional rather than interactive encounter between the acquisitive Euro-American and 11  the exploited "Other." Yet this process began with a collector/Native dialogue which was influenced by, yet often outside, museum practices and ideologies. This initial exchange was further governed by overarching social, political, and economic currents — both Native and Anglo-American. To quote anthropologist Arjun Appadurai, "It is the social history of things, over large periods of time and at large social levels, that constrains the form, meaning, and structure of more short-term, specific, and intimate trajectories." It 41  is to the broader issues of social boundaries and object exchange that this thesis is also addressed.  "A Difference of Opinion" — Ownership and the Value of Objects Among Northwest Coast Peoples Euro-American colonial discourses have often obscured the differences in approaches between Northwest Coast peoples and themselves. However, when subjected to closer scrutiny, useful information may be gleanedfromamong the textual distortions and essentializations of Northwest Coast peoples by military officials, missionaries, explorers, and government officials. Datingfromthe mid-1800s numerous Euro-American accounts describe objects acquired through purchase, theft, or as gifts. In most cases accounts of Northwest Coast people's claims to ownership and collective regard for possessions are reduced to the anecdotal, thus trivializing their concerns about the preservation of objects and retention of indigenous practices. Nevertheless, these accounts give us some idea of the types of possessions Northwest Coast peoples were willing to part with as well as those they considered essential to retain. Often recounted in the form  12  of travel journals or letters from collectors to institutional officials, these Euro-American views are unusually consistent through time. They describe the shrewdness of Native traders and the resistance of Native owners to some sales. Laws pertaining to ownership and individual rights to property had long been established in Euro-American society, and by the late nineteenth century they were being reinforced to resist socialist, communist, and labour movements. However, such rights were usually not extended to Native Americans, either in regard to the remains of their ancestors or in reference to their lands and the objects that validated and reproduced their ancestral rights to subsistence on those lands. "Progress," as defined by resource and labour exploitation, was considered by most Euro-Americans to give absolute rights to various kinds of property. This expropriative aspect of the collecting process, generally neglected in favour of institutional perspectives, has been partially documented by historian Douglas Cole in Captured Heritage, published in 1985. The following discussion is not intended as an exhaustive examination of recorded perspectives on this subject. The author acknowledges that it is also based on secondary sources and the writings of non-Native observers. Yet it does outline many of the principal agencies and circumstances by which Northwest Coast peoples sold or were divested of their possessions. These include situations wherein objects were sold when they became functionally useless as a result of contact period events (such as conversion to Christianity), were gifted to Euro-Americans, or were acquired through clandestine EuroAmerican activities or as a direct result of the effects of contact (such as the often poverty-inducing effects of conversion to a cash-based economy).  13  As a result of Euro-American contact, many utilitarian objects lost their exchange value within Native communities but assumed a different value as commodities within a Euro-American cash economy. These objects, and those made exclusively for the EuroAmerican market, were readily sold as trade goods. In the middle- to late-nineteenth century, metal cooking containers replaced wooden ones, iron blades replaced those of bone or stone, and articles of Western clothing were adopted. For example, in 1881-1882 two German scholars in the natural sciences, Aurel and Arthur Krause, collected 178 Tlingit objects no longer in use, including articles of clothing, especially armor suits and helmets and cuirasses of thick leather; personal utensils such as spoons, knives, bowls, paint brushes, and other household items.  42  James G. Swan, an early correspondent for the U.S. National Museum, was among thefirstto note that Native owners varied the price of objects according to their status within the Native community For example, an old Nuu-chah-nulth whale 43  harpoon staff, broken and repaired but used successfully (the critical point), was worth $45.00 — far beyond what Swan was willing to pay to purchase the object. On the other hand Swan was able to acquire new, untried almost identical harpoons for as little as $5.00. Northwest Coast peoples had little difficulty calculating the monetary value of 44  their possessions and some appear to have been deliberately set beyond the means of collectors  4 5  Some socially valuable objects were acquired as gifts, as tokens of friendship or appreciation, or as symbols of political interaction and negotiation. In 1904 Territorial Governor John G. Brady was officially presented with a hat carved in the image of a raven  14  as a token of detente from a group of Sitka Tlingit leaders.  In the area of business  relations, Northwest Trading Company agent John M. Vanderbilt was gifted with "valuable specimens" upon his adoption by a chief of the Stikine tribe. In addition John 47  J. McLean, a member of the U.S. Signals Service,  48  who was commissioned to collect for  the U.S. National Museum, admiringly described objects that Vanderbilt purchased for his private collection (much of it composed of objects "rendered useless"): I have discovered that the N.W. Trading Co.'s manager has been making a large collection of ancient stone and bone carvings, carved wooden household utensils such as spoons, bowls, dishes, eating trays, a fine collection of war knives with quaintly carved handles and bead embroidered sheaths, and among them afinelycarved stone pipe, a 49  stone ax and several pestles and mortars.  Some objects were simply not for sale even when collectors had "insider" contacts. When Johnny Kit Elswa, a Haida, introduced Swan to important chiefs, thus paving the way in his dealings with them, Swan was unsuccessful in convincing owners to sell what they considered to be important objects. At Klawak, a Tlingit settlement on Prince of Wales Island, a chiefs wife protested to Swan that the poles erected there were in memory of the dead and, "we will not sell them any more than you white people will sell grave-stones or monuments in your cemeteries, but you can have one made." Finally, at 50  the Kaigani Haida settlement of Kasaan, Swan arranged to have a pole specially carved when he found that none of the old ones were for sale.  51  When in 1879 the Presbyterian missionary, Rev. Sheldon Jackson (1834-1909) had a pole cut down while on a steamer excursion to an uninhabited Tlingit village near Fort Wrangel, he was quickly reprimanded by his Native guide Kadachan. Jackson found it  15  necessary to make reparations to the owners of the pole in order to resolve the incident. Fortunately for Jackson, the owners were members of the Presbyterian Church. Naturalist John Muir, a member of the touring party described the incident: This sacrilege came near causing trouble and would have cost us dear had the totem not chanced to belong to the Kadachan family, the representative of which is a member of the newly organized Wrangell Presbyterian Church. Kadachan looked into the face of the reverend doctor and asked the pertinent question: 'How would you like to have an Indian go to a graveyard and break down and carry away a 52  monument belonging to your family?' Monumental objects, especially totem poles, were actively sought after. Because of post-contact period disruptions in settlement patterns and a declining population due to the introduction of Euro-American diseases, villages and poles were often left unattended. In addition, the demands of an increasingly active tourist trade were intimately associated with exploitation. Colonial domination accompanied by the collection of "souvenirs" was 53  often synonymous with one society's marginalization and subjugation of another.  The  number of poles removedfromNative ownership during the early to middle years of the twentieth century was substantial. In 1948 anthropologists Viola Garfield and Linn Forrest noted:  One hundred and twenty-five poles were counted by a visitor to the deserted town of Tuxekan in 1916. Only sixty were found when Civilian Conservation Corps workers went there in 1939 to remove them to Klawak... .Many are known to have been sold to dealers and collectors; others were stolen. 54  The Euro-American concept of preserving poles exclusively as "art" objects was alien to most Northwest Coast peoples. In the 1950s anthropologist Wilson Duff acquired  16  four poles for the British Columbia Provincial Museum from among the Tsimshian. Of that transaction Duff observed, They seemed unable to divorce the concept of art from its social context. The only meaning of poles to them seems to be as a symbol of social position. 55  During the heyday of Euro-American collecting The clash of these two systems of "value" was usually overlooked to the advantage of the dominant society. Grave robbing or poking through abandoned villages was yet another method of securing objects, although less is reported of these clandestine activities. Collectors visiting seasonally uninhabited villages sometimes helped themselves to stored objects.  56  Johan Adrian Jacobsen, who between 1881 and 1883 collected objects for the Royal Berlin Ethnological Museum, was most candid in discussing his grave robbing activities: I made a 'fishing and hunting' trip that was not for that purpose; we went to an old cemetery near Koskimo, where we got three exquisite deformed skulls to rescue them for scientific purposes. Wooden masks were found in graves near Nanaimo, 'a few skulls' near Comox and some old horn wedges or axes from an abandoned village along the Nanaimo River.  57  In 1898 anthropologist Harlan I. Smith described an acquisition of grave goods with George Hunt.  58  According to Smith, Hunt, who American Museum of Natural  History anthropologist Franz Boas' principal Kwakwaka'wakw collaborator: Got permission to take these bones. We are doing it secretly however, leaving no traces behind us and will use the permission to cover a possible detection.  59  Both Boas and George Dorsey of the Chicago Field Columbian Museum collected objects and osteological material from shaman's caves and burials. However, Dorsey's  17  activities were perhaps the most seriously disrespectful of Native beliefs and sensibilities. Eventually Dorsey was publicly criticized by the Anglican clergyman Rev. J.H. Keen and the issue was taken up by Victoria's Daily Colonist ^ Boas' response to Dorsey's 6  transgression demonstrates that his priority was maintaining good social relations in order to facilitate continued collecting, "It is too bad that Dorsey should have proceeded with so 62  little regard to the feelings of the Indians and the interest of future work."  Sometimes collecting in remote areas proved fruitless because objects continued to maintain their value in Native society. In one case Jacobsen commissioned a copy of a 63  Bella Bella chiefs seat because he was unable to purchase the original.  Jacobsen  described his visit to the Kwakwaka'wakw village of Newitti, where he hoped to make some purchases: My plan of buying ethnological objects was not successful, because the people there were still carrying on their old customs and dances, so that none of the masks and regalia could be bought. The few objects I did secure were very costly. 64  On the other hand Boas, who visited Newitti in 1889, was more successful because he "established friendly relations with the community," even to the extent of sponsoring a feast. Boas' direct relationship with the Kwakwaka'wakw enabled him to secure sixty65  five ceremonial objects with accompanying contextual informationfromthe same village in which Jacobsen had been so unsuccessful six years previous. The differing responses 66  experienced by Jacobsen and Boas underscore the importance of recognizing the effects of diverse personalities, goals, strategies, andfinancialconsiderations among collectors.  18  Jacobsen, like many others, profited from Native conversion to Christianity to obtain the sale of important property. On Haida Gwaii he purchased a pole from a man he described as a lesser chief by the name of "Stilta," who was also called Captain Jim. Jacobsen knew he was fortunate to obtain the pole, and for only $40.00, remarking that, "The fact that Captain Jim had been converted to Christianity and had adopted many ways 67  of the white man accounts for his readiness to sell the pole."  At Hazelton Dorsey  purchased the complete paraphernalia of a shaman who had just recently converted to Christianity  6 8  Personal distress or the debilitating effects of contact also played a significant role in parting Native peoples from their objects. These included disease, poverty, and starvation. In 1884 J. Loomis Gould, the Presbyterian Minister at Howkan who collected for Sheldon Jackson wrote, " ..[o]ur people are getting poor and ready to sell almost 69  anything, are losing too their estimate of totem sticks and useless carvings." A lengthy history of acquisition as a result of penalties against unpaid debts is often recorded. Swan's 1875 purchase ~ a sixty foot Nuu-chah-nulth canoe — was acquired as a result of 70  a Nimkish chiefs inability to pay his debts.  Confiscation was an extreme method of  acquisition when, as late as 1922, participants in Kwakwaka'wakw Dan Cranmer's 1921 potlatch were given the choice by the Canadian Government of surrendering their 71  ceremonial objects or going to prison.  19  Indications of Native Attitudes Towards the Preservation of Objects In contrast to these incidents are indications that as of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries, some individuals began to take an active interest in the public preservation of their objects and the representation of their history within an AngloAmerican institutional context. Among the Tlingit, for example, the imposition of American rules of patrilineal descent affected objects formerly inherited only through matrilineal descent. Contests over inheritance became increasingly prevalent. Anthropologist Sergei Kan cites examples where items of clan regalia were sometimes presented as gifts to Russian Orthodox missionaries as a demonstration of a commitment to Christianity. However Kan notes, "the missionaries' own accounts of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of native artifacts suggest other possible reasons for such radical action; for example, the absence of direct heirs who could inherit the crest objects, and the 72  custodian's fear that they would fall into anotherrivallineage within the same clan." Furthermore, increasing monetary values and pressuresfromEuro-American art/culture interests were a constant threat. Some custodians, feeling a responsibility for personal or collectively-owned objects, especially such publicly displayed objects as totem poles, sought sanctuary for them within government-supported institutions. For example, the historic site of the Kiks.adi Tlingit fort at the mouth of Indian River in Sitka was set aside as parkland in 1890 and later became a National Historic Park. Thefirstgifts to the park were received in 1902fromthe Haida Chief Son-i-hat of Kasaan. Son-i-hat donated a totem pole, four house posts, a war canoe, and a log community house so that they would 73  stand as memorials to his people. '  20  Also among the earliest examples of this attitudinal shift were the poles secured by John G. Brady, a former missionary and collector who, in 1897, became Alaska's fifth Territorial Governor. When Congress appropriated $50,000 for Alaska's participation in 74  the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Brady was able to secure fifteen 75  Kaigani Haida poles as a gift to the government.  According to Cole, "Brady was himself  surprised and deeply touched by the generosity of the Indians, which extended to donating other material he had not even sought."  76  Evidently Brady's "promise to preserve the  poles in the Sitka park as memorial to their people" was a deciding factor in the gift. As will be noted in the case of the Shotridge collection, social systems of value and political aspirations varied among Northwest Coast peoples, between geographical areas and throughout time. For example, anthropologist Audrey Hawthorne noted in the 1950s that many Kwakwaka'wakw saw museums as places where objects might be preserved 77  while new objects continued to be made and ceremonial practices were maintained. Anthropologist Ira Jacknis observes of this situation: What had changed was the native attitude toward museums, as well as the anthropological attitude toward native culture. Natives now had an understanding of the archival function of museums, that they might be the best places to preserve fragile, old artifacts. Yet anthropologists no longer believed, like Boas, that native culture was doomed to inevitable extinction. Most of the turn of the century collectors thought it enough to preserve the objects in the museum. Now there was a feeling that the museum had some obligation toward fostering native traditions in general. There was also the pragmatic realization that programs such as 78  these were the only way to make contemporary collections. To conclude this brief survey, accounts of dispossession include theft, sale, giftgiving, and situations surrounding economic, religious, and social upheaval, and 21  population decline. Records often show that objects which were readily sold usually had experienced a prior loss of exchange value primarily because of contact period-events such as the introduction of Euro-American trade goods or a crisis in spiritual belief systems. Northwest Coast peoples did not willingly part with what they considered to be socially significant objects. Nor did they fail to discern fair market value for salable objects. Fears of competition and stories of quibbling over prices permeate the letters of all major collectors — anthropologists and private entrepreneurs alike. As documented by 79  Cole  80  and Jacknis,  the competitive perspective of salvage anthropology led collectors  to probe for objects most valued by Native peoples and to cajole owners to sell them. Those in thefieldmade seasonal rounds to keep in touch with their sources, often hoping that what was unaffordable one year might be purchased for less the next. As in the example of Jacobsen and Boas at Newitti, strategy and approach were paramount. Ceremonial objects and those reflecting family histories maintained more of their social value. Sometimes they were relinquished as prestigious gifts or sold to collectors while some individuals sought secure futures for their objects within a public sphere created by the dominant Anglo-American society. Nevertheless, records show that often Northwest Coast peoples sold or were dispossessed of objects that maintained ceremonial or historical values as a consequence of socially disruptive circumstances of contact. This thesis will explore evidence of struggles and initiatives such as those outlined above among the Tlingit for the period 1867 to 1937. The events of this period were to have a significant impact on the work of Louis Shotridge and the collection of objects he acquired. 22  Objects and the Interlinking Effects of Individual and Collective Native Histories Scholars have expended considerable effort in reevaluating the meaning of Native American objectsfromthe perspectives of Western art/culture institutions; and in reassessing histories, collecting processes, and information-gathering activities as they occurred during what anthropologist William Sturtevant calls the "Museum Age" (184081  1920).  Studies of this period are largely associated with the activities of prominent East  Coast institutions and many are included in discussions surrounding the contemporary self82  critique of anthropology.  They document the dispossession and repossession of Native  American objects and their "metamorphosis" as curiosities, curios, relics, specimens, artifacts, and artistic products.  83  To quote anthropologist James Clifford, "Temporality is 84  reified and salvaged as origin, beauty, and knowledge." A number of theoretical discussions have been devoted to questioning the role of objects within a Western colonial aesthetic/anthropological system, notably those of 85  Dominguez,  86  Appadurai,  Clifford,  87  88  and Thomas,  but for the area of the Northwest 89  Coast there are few social historical studies of individual collections or individual artists. Correlations between collecting processes and disruptions within Northwest Coast social and political systems such as land tenure,ritual,kinship, power relations, and the 90  production, distribution, and consumption of wealth are similarly lacking.  As Haas  notes, "In the era of postmodernism, scholars seem to be writing about the anthropology of museums more than anthropology in museums. "  23  91  If, as Appadurai suggests, the social analysis of things must, 'Tollow the things 92  themselves, for their meanings are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories" then priority should be placed on defining pertinent junctures. To scholars such as art 93  historian Susan Vogel,  the most significant juncture is at the point of recontextualization  from one society to another. "Objectified" and stripped of their histories, objects become 94  part of the "metaphorical vision our culture has of them." However, these views of the 95  acquisition process as an exclusively Euro-American activity or, as Dominguez puts it, a self-referential occupation of Western institutions, fail to account for the political struggles, successes, and failures of Native American peoples within the larger context of 96  socio-economic interaction.  Anthropologist Eric Wolf denies this disassociation most  succinctly when he states, "both the people who claim history as their own and the people to whom history has been denied emerge as participants in the same historical 97  trajectory." In the area of the Northwest Coast, most scholars have focused their attentions on 98  the collecting enterprisefromthe perspective of art/culture institutions.  Few studies  explore the acquisition of objects according to the goals of individual collectors, or indeed, from the vantage of the Native collector.  99  interlinking, individualistic histories  100  Nevertheless, current recognition of  challenges previously one-sided interpretations of  the collecting process and offers dynamic possibilities for the re-reading of trajectories of Native American objects in anthropology museum collections. From this starting point I intend to show that the Shotridge collection may be reinterpreted, as Thomas suggests, in  24  specific social contexts so that it can be appreciated within a range of historical considerations, "which may qualify, specify, or even negate wider systemic criteria such as scarcity, utility, and cultural categorization."  101  Within the disquieting obfuscation of colonial discourse, the perspectives of Native peoples on their objects were neglected, essentialized or distorted to fit Euro102  American goals and ideologies.  •  Nevertheless, Euro-American documents (missionary  and museum correspondence being two particularly fertile sources) give some indication of the preferences, strategies, and struggles of Northwest Coast peoples to maintain the integrity of socially significant possessions. As I will demonstrate, the objectives of early twentieth century Native political organizations made some efforts in this regard more publicly discernable as did the collecting activities of Native ethnographers such as Louis Shotridge. The historical record of Tlingit people's attitudes towards their objects, enclosed as they were within a shifting set of social relations, indicates certain actions and reactions to collecting processes. Analysis of Shotridge's collecting activities therefore facilitates the exploration of the socio-economic dynamics of object/culture acquisition within a broader framework of both institutional and non-institutional relations and interactions. This thesis will argue that, contrary to some contemporary accounts (which are shown to be stereotypically regressive), Shotridge was motivated by a complex set of goals and strategies. The various responsibilities he assumed during his lifetime (member of the Tlingit elite, opera performer, museum curator, ethnographer, collector, officer of The Alaska Native Brotherhood, andfisheriesinspector) each reflect specific social 25  interactions and raise issues appropriate to the political and economic history of Native peoples in southeastern Alaska. These multiple contextualizations form a constellation of interrelated socio-economic spheres: Shotridge's personal and family circumstances, the introduction of tourism, the ideals of turn-of-the^century progressive Protestantism, collecting practices, museum objectives, the influence of Boasian anthropology, the aegis of private philanthropy, the pan-Indian movement, and shifting Tlingit perspectives and syncretic and objective strategies towards Anglo-American contact. Each of these spheres 103  of influence or "institutions,"  embodied a specific set of goals and hierarchies which  impacted on Shotridge, occasionally simultaneously. As an anthropology museum curator, Shotridge argued that the institutionalization of Tlingit objects served as a means of preserving the dignity of historic Tlingit lifeways. Yet Shotridge's work was shaped by trends that were linked to broader political, economic, and intellectual events in Native American life and anthropology. Shotridge achieved power and respectfromnon-Natives because he was trained in Boasian ethnography and therefore won the confidence of his Anglo-American employers. Yet I will show that his goals were distinctly differentfromothers in the same field - both amateur and professional. In so doing, I argue that the Western construct of "culture" was manipulated by Shotridge and other Tlingit of his generation as a necessary strategy to effect political and social change. This manipulation influenced Shotridge's choice of objects and the character of the University Museum collection in very specific ways. As an Anglo-American art historian, my perspective is individualistic and objectoriented. It is not, as Jose Barreiro puts it, "the viewfromthe shore" ~ instead, it is, to 104  26  engage a complaintfromTlingit historian Andrew Hope III, "yet another viewfromthe outside."  105  As such my entree into some patterns of thinking and social circumstances is  in most regards accessed through Shotridge's writings and those of his contemporaries, both Native and Anglo-American. My goal is to explore the socio-economic dynamic and complex interactive nature of the collecting process as a demonstration of the diverse and informative histories inherent in museum collections. Instead of being an allochronic representation of a particular "culture," I argue that collections are representative of individual histories and temporally significant statements of social and political circumstances. The Shotridge collection is one such document, representing a dialogue among anthropology museums, owners of objects, and the individual who mediated between them. Rather than offering one more contribution to a Euro-American historical trajectory, I propose that Shotridge's legacy be seen as an articulation of conflicted 106  historical motivations which continue to inform and encourage the study of object relations, anthropology museum approaches, and Tlingit issues of self-representation. My theoretical assumptions are generated out of a Euro-American academic discourse within an object-oriented specialty. In this regard, a subjective/objective approach which composes the basis of social philosopher Pierre Bourdieu's theory of 107  practice informs this thesis.  Bourdieu defines the subjective as the world of the  individual, of the lived experience, and the objective as the intellectual relations which structure social practices. This study is about the intersection of the personal and professional ~ about how the subjective was informed, regulated, and influenced by the objective, both Western and Native. 27  Details of Louis Shotridge's life are, for the most part, gleanedfromhis correspondence, field notes, and his articles published in the Museum Journal. Thus autobiographical details of Shotridge's life were filtered through a self-censoring lens, a strategy necessary to accommodate an employee/employer or student/mentor relationship. Interpretation of Shotridge's life is further informed by the perspectives of the historic period in which he lived and, finally, by other biographical accounts. It should be noted that many non-Native accounts quoted in the text, although often based on eyewitness accounts, were sometimes written years after events took place. For example, S. Hall Young published his recollections in 1915 and 1929, many years after his encounter with the Chilkat in 1879. Where possible, as in the case of Young, I have also attempted to consult original correspondence. Nevertheless, such accounts are often found only in the published literature. It is, however, important to acknowledge that such recollections are likely to be distorted both by subjectivity and the passage of time. While in Alaska during the summer of 1995,1 attempted to locate individuals who knew Shotridge personally or who worked with him. Because Shotridge passed away sixty years ago, I found few people who fit either category. I consulted with members of his immediate family, his daughter Mrs. Lillian O'Daniel and his sister-in-law Mrs. Esther Littlefield. Mrs. O'Daniel was an adolescent when her father died and consequently points out that her understanding of her father's work is limited and her memories confined to 108  personal reflections.  Mrs. O'Daniel is supportive of this project and has generously  allowed me to use her family photographs in this thesis. Mrs. Littlefield, the sister of Mary Kasakan, Shotridge's third wife, is now quite elderly and her remembrances are limited. 28  109  Comments related to Shotridge's personal relationships have not been included in this thesis both because they were shared in confidence and because their content is tangential to the subject of this thesis. I also corresponded with two individuals, Mr. Walter Soboleff and Dr. Frederica de Laguna, who came into contact with Shotridge as a result of their work. Mr. Soboleff was a member of the Alaska Native Brotherhood executive when Shotridge was Grand President. I am grateful to him for sharing his comments on Shotridge's involvement with that organization. Although her association with Shotridge was limited, I am indebted to Dr. de Laguna for sharing her remembrances of him during his tenure as curator at the University Museum. Data on objects in the Shotridge Collection at the University of Pennsylvania Museum was compiled by cross-referencing Shotridge's cardfilesdonated by Mrs. O'Daniel and located in the Alaska Historical Library in Juneau with ethnographic notes and letters in the University Museum Archives, Shotridge's original collection lists, and photographic documentation compiledfroma variety of sources. These images, some of which are included in this thesis, are most useful in determining heretofore unrecognized clan and house affiliations and the use of certain objects in specific events, as well as providing a cross-check on Shotridge's ethnographic information.  29  Map 1. Map of the Tlingit area from Emmons 1991.  30  Map 2. Detail from Map 1 (from Emmons 1991) showing Klukwan, Haines, Chilkoot, Sitka, Juneau, Hoonah, Angoon, and Wrangell.  31  Notes  1  Journal ofScience 23 May 1919:491  2  Mason 1960; Miller and Miller 1967; Carpenter 1975; Cole 1985; Jonaitis 1986; Price 1989; Gmelch 1995.  3  Berkhofer 1978.  4  Carpenter 1975:20; Price 1989:68-70.  5  Carpenter 1975:20 & 22.  6  Berkhofer 1978; Feest 1988; Fiedler 1988.  7  See for example Josephy 1961.  8  9 1 0  See for example Parsons 1922 and Casagrande 1960. Casagrande's work is of interest in that it represents acknowledgement of the "informant" as an individual personality, at least as far as he or she is represented through the anthropologists' perceptions. Liberty 1978:241. Most recently a 1992 session of the American Anthropological Association Meetings organized by Douglas R. Parks and Margot Liberty revisited the role of the Native American intellectual.  1 1  Halpin 1978:141.  1 2  Blackman 1982a:4.  1 3  Milburn 1987.  14  Ford 1941; Halpin 1978; Blackman 1982a; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1994. 1 5  Milburn 1987.  1 6  See also Moses and Wilson 1985:3.  17  18  See for example Abbott et al 1995. Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:ix.  19  Cruikshank 1990:x. 2 0  Fabian 1983.  2 1  Thomas 1994.  22 Karp and Lavine 1991; Macdonald and Fyfe 1996. 2 3  Torgovnick 1990; Phillips 1992.  2 4  Thomas 1994:50.  2 5  See for example Fisher (1977) or Tennant (1990).  2 6  See Phillips 1992.  2 7  Clifford 1988:209.  28 See Gloria Cranmer Webster "On the Contemporary Potlatch" in Chiefly Feasts edited by Aldona Jonaitis (1991) or the catalogue of the Washington State Centennial exhibits Time of Gathering edited by Robin Wright (1991) or more recently the numerous contributions by individuals appropriate to the tribal groups discussed in The Spirit Within 32 edited by Abbott et al (1995).  29  3 0  See John H. Hauberg's commentary in Abbott et al (1995:9-17) or Aldona Jonaitis' From the Land of the Totem Poles (1988) for a history of the American Museum of Natural History collecting on the Northwest Coast. See Jonaitis 1991.  31  32  Nora Marks Dauenhauer 1995:21. Durham in Abbot 1994:xx.  3 3  Clifford 1988; Thomas 1994.  3 4  Bean 1994:888.  3 5  Bean 1994:888.  3 6  Haas 1996:Sl-22.  3 7  Haas 1996: SI.  38  See for example Ames 1992:77-88;140.  39  4 0  41 42  Hinsley, Jr., 1994. Preface to the paperback edition originally published as Savages and Scientists (1981) and revised as The Smithsonian and the American Indian: Making A Moral Anthropology in Victorian America. See also Stocking (1985:5) on relations of power and museums. Dominguez 1986:548 Appadurai 1986:36. Cole 1985:55.  43  The U.S. National Museum received Swan'sfirstpackage of natural history specimens in 1860 (Cole 1985:14). Thefirstspecifically ethnological collection was founded in the 1840s in Denmark (Stocking 1985:7). 44  Cole 1985:46. Considering the shrewdness of Native sellers in interpreting Euro-American tastes, it is also possible that the Nuu-chah-nulth raised the price on the used harpoon because they knew nonNative buyers placed more value on objects that had not been made for sale. See also Phillips (1992) on the topic of Native American responses to the object market. 45  See also Jacknis 1989:94. 4 6  Hinckley 1982:253.  4 7  Miller & Miller 1967:241.  4 8  See Cole 1985:34.  49  5 0 5 1  Miller & Miller 1967:241. It appears that many gifted objects had lost their use-value within Native society but this was not always the case. In 1930 Boas received a mask with ermine skins and a carved cane as a personal gift (Jacknis 1989:95). Cole 1985:23. Cole refers to Klawak as a Kaigani Haida settlement. Jacknis (1989:99) also notes the reluctance of owners to part with objects when they were in active use. For, example, in April of 1897 Boas asked Hunt to get some posts he had seen in a house in Newitti. Hunt replied that it would be hard to get these posts as the owner "got to give Blanket in the house this Coming Winter." Even though he subsequently purchased the poles, Hunt was not able to take possession of them until two years later.  5 2  Muir [1892] 1988:62.  5 3  Stewart 1984:132-166.  5 4  Garfield and Forrest [1948] 1981:8.  33  5 5  Pers.com.: R. Hawker 1996 from Wilson Duff, 1952 Field Notes, U.B.C. Museum of Anthropology Archives, Duff Papers Box 3, File 3-6.  5 6  See Cole (1985:219) on D. F. Tozier who had "accumulated much of his mass of material by theft or 'by the exercise of a show of force and authority."'  5 7  Jacobsen [1896] 1983:75.& 77.  58  Hunt who was raised in the Kwakwaka'wakw community of Fort Rupert was the son of a Hudson's Bay Company official and a Tlingit noblewoman. Jacknis 1989:97. Cole 1985:171; see also Charles Lillard The GhostlandPeople (1989:281-91) for Dorsey's account of the journey.  5 9  6 0  6 1  Cole 1985:175.  6 2  Jacknis 1989:101.  6 3  Jacknis 1989:105.  6 4  Jacobsen [1896] 1983:73.  6 5  Jacknis 1989:49.  6 6  Jacknis 1989:49.  6 7  Jacobsen [1896] 1983.  6 8  Cole 1985:173.  69 7 0  Carlton 1992:106,122. Cole 1985:22.  71  7 2  Jacknis (1989:96) notes that as late as 1942 museums were still considering confiscation as a possible source of objects. Kan 1985:214.  73  Cole 1985:204 and Carved History, a publication of the Alaska Natural History Association, Anchorage Alaska. 74  7 5 7 6  Territorial Governors were appointed by the President. The first to be appointed was John H. Kinkead in 1884. There was a period of two years overlap during which time Lt. Comm. Henry E. Nichols (U.S. Navy) was also responsible for overseeing governance in Alaska. Feldman 1996:59-71. Cole 1985:204.  77  See also Hawthorn ([1967]1979:viii) who states Mungo Martin was, "influential in directing to the museum many of the Kwakiutl people who were at the point of culture change where they wished to abandon their places in the potlatch system." 78 7 9  80 81  Jacknis 1989:105. Cole 1985. Jacknis 1989. Sturtevant 1969:622  82  See for example, Stocking (1985), Cole (1985), Dominguez (1986), Clifford (1988), Jonaitis (1988), Karp and Lavine (1991) and Karp, Kraemer & Lavine (1992). See Dominguez (1986:547-48) on Cole's use of these terms.  83 Hinsely ([1981]1994),  34  Clifford 1988:222.  8 4  85  Dominguez 1986. Appadurai 1986.  8 6  87  Clifford 1988, 1991. Thomas 1991.  8 8  89  Art historian Bill Holm's work on Kwakwaka'wakw carver Willie Seaweed being a notable exception. 9 0  Dominguez 1986:547.  9 1  Haas 1996:S7. See also Ames 1992.  92  Appadurai 1986:5. Vogel 1988.  9 3  94  See also Dominguez 1986; Appadurai 1986. 9 5  Vogel 1988:11.  9 6  Dominguez 1986:546-55.  97  Wolf 1982:23.  98  See in particular Cole (1985), Jonaitis (1988,1991) and Jacknis (1985,1992).  99 1 0 0 1 0 1  See Carlton (1992) on Sheldon Jackson and Jacknis (1989;1991) on Franz Boas and George Hunt. Thomas 1994. Thomas 1991:21  102 1 0 3  Thomas 1994. Defined as a "relatively durable set of social relations which endows individuals with power, status, and resources of various kinds" (Thompson Introduction to Bourdieu 1994).  104  Barreiro (1990) commenting on the 1992 Quincentenary Anniversary marking Native American contact with Europeans. 1 0 5  Hope III (1982:ii) commenting on Carpenter (1975).  1 0 6  See Dominguez 1992:19-42.  1 0 7  Bourdieu 1979.  108 109  Pers. com.: Mrs. Lillian O'Daniel, 1995. Pers. com.: Mrs. Esther Littlefield, 1995.  35  CHAPTER ONE  THE SHOTRIDGE FAMILY AND EURO-AMERICAN CONTACT  Shotridge's life circumstances and by extension the collecting process in which he was involved were mandated by the socio-economic conditions of contact. Datingfromthe mid-1800s numerous Euro-American accounts describe objects acquired through sale, theft, or as gifts. Following the purchase of Alaska by the United States, social disruption from contact intensified as did the collection of Tlingit objects. As clan leaders, Louis Shotridge's father and grandfather participated in the alteration of many Tlingit lifeways. The written record indicates Tlingit response as one in which Native leaders attempted first to resist, then to negotiate a profitable space within rapidly changing socio-economic circumstances. These negotiations sometimes resulted in the indigenization of certain Anglo-American institutions, but more often they resulted in degrees of displacement and 1  disenfranchisement. Tlingit survival necessitated compromise with the dominant American interests, a situation which continued in various forms throughout Louis Shotridge's life. This chapter examines negotiations of Shotridge's grandfather, Chief Shaadaxicht, and his father Yeilgooxu, headman (hit s 'aati) of the prestigious Whale House (Yday hit') 36  in circumstances of Euro-American intrusion. Their lives illuminate the personal impact of contact period events such as the non-Native appropriation of land and economic resources, disease, alcohol, the introduction offirearms,and missionization. These events were to have a significant impact on the education and upbringing of Louis Shotridge.  The Chilkat/Chilkoot People and Euro-American Contact Tlingit-speaking people live in Southeastern AlaskafromYakutat Bay in the north to Cape Fox in the south, predominantly on the coast, but with inland communities along the Chilkat and Stikine Rivers in Alaska, and in Southwest Yukon and Northwest British Columbia (see map 1). It is estimated that they numbered about 15,000 at the time of contact in the mid-eighteenth century.  They comprised fourteen or more distinct tribal  groups or divisions (kwdans), each identified with a specific geographical area. The Tlingit people were divided socially into two groups or moieties: Ravens and Eagle/Wolves. Each moiety was exogamous, which meant that marriage within a person's moiety was prohibited. At contact people lived in large communal wood plank houses, each occupied 3  by a lineage or group of matrilineally related men and their wives and young children. One or more lineages sharing a common ancestry and history formed a clan Clans were 4  hierarchically grouped within their respective moiety and community. At birth an individual became a member of the mother's moiety and clan. The rights to certain names were owned by individual clans or, more often, house groups. They were associated with social position and constituted an important aspect of an individual's social persona.  5  Personal names were acquired at birth (and seen as the reincarnated spirit of a deceased 37  relative), or during a lifetime (as a result of certain achievements such as hosting a potlatch)  6  As social identity, names were a person's most valued possession.  The house group was the center of socio-economic activity for individual families. Within this structure, children were educated and life crises dealt with, resources exploited and trade organized. According to Tlingit custom, a young male child took up residence in the house of his maternal uncle and was subject to his authority. Throughout a man's lifetime he received instruction, economic support, and social legitimacyfromhis maternal uncle. Rules governing inheritance were complex but ideally the eldest male child could expect to inherit his uncle's title and privileges.  High-ranking individuals or clan leaders  were referred to as chiefs but as Kan points out: The leadership position and aristocratic status in Tlingit society were based on a combination of ascription and achievement, with the headman's pedigree and wealth, as well as the size of the kinship group under his authority, being the key factors determining his rank and status. It also appears that his control over his kin was rather limited. Through active participation in socially prestigious activities, individuals improved q  their positions within the system. Persons of high status formed an aristocracy of wealthy leaders and decision-makers. Kan states: Most of the ethnographers agree that the criteria for defining a person's aristocratic status were fairly clear. They included the high rank and wealth of his parents (especially the mother), the number and the scale of the potlatches sponsored by them in his honor, his marriage to a person of equal or higher rank, and his accomplishments in those activities (trade, warfare, etc.) that generated wealth and enabled him to give his own potlatch(es) or actively participate in those given by his matrikin (compare Olson 1967:47-48). 10  38  The headman had ultimate authority in decisions affecting the matrilineal group. Hereditary chiefs, sub-chiefs and their kinsmen were considered the aristocracy (aanydtx 'i) of the matrilineal group responsible for upholding traditional customs and clan 12  etiquette and strove to enhance the prestige of their respective households. Traditionally they were supported in their endeavors by individuals of lesser status and by slaves who had no status. Property was owned personally as well as collectively by kinship groups, although Kan states, "the distinction between collective and individual rights was 13  somewhat blurred." One tribal division (kwdan) the Chilkat-Chilkoot, occupy the territory surrounding the head of Lynn Canal, one of the longest and deepestfiordson the North American continent (map 2). A distinction is made between the people who live along the Chilkat River who are referred to as the Chilkat, and the closely related Chilkoot whose villages were once located north of the missionary settlement at Haines on the Lutak and Taiya Inlets. Prior to 1900, there were four Chilkat/Chilkoot winter villages in the area — three 14  on the Chilkat River: Yandeist'akye, Kaatx'awultu, and Klukwan, and one on the 15  16  17  Chilkoot River called Chilkoot.  Summer villages were located at Deishii (now subsumed  by Haines), Dyea, and Skagway. 18  19  A principal economic pursuit of the Chilkat/Chilkoot peoples was trading — a highly lucrative pursuit. Among the goods originally traded were large quantities of eulachon (candlefish) oil distilled from the spring eulachon runs on the Chilkat River. Forays into the interior werefrequentlyundertaken to exchange eulachon oil with 20  Athapaskan peoples  and consequently the 39 trade routes became known as "grease" trails.  One route controlled by the Chilkat ledfromKlukwan, up the Chilkat and Klehini Rivers, and over the Chilkat Pass to Native villages in the upper Alsek River region. Another welltraveled trail owned by the Chilkoot began near the tidewater village of Dyea at the mouth of the Taiya River and extended over the steep Chilkoot Pass to Bennett Lake and into the 21  Yukon drainage.  A variety of commodities, both Native and later European, were  exchanged for such items as the furs of the beaver, lynx, and fox. During the mid- to late1800s a Hudson's Bay Company musket, costing approximately ten dollars, was worth its 22  height in beaver skins.  Anthropologist Frederica de Laguna provides us with a table of  Chilkat trading profits for 1890. For example, the cost of a silver fox to the Tlingit was 23  $1.25 for which $4.00 was receivedfromthe trader. Twenty-three miles up-riverfromthe mouth of the Chilkat lies the settlement of Klukwan, where Louis Shotridge was born (figs. 1. la & b). It is situated on the north shore at the point of a backwater eddy that allowed easy beaching of canoes out of the main current. Due to its location, residents enjoyed a rich harvest of both terrestrial and marine resources. To this day, great numbers of bald eagles converge along the shores of the Chilkat River when the warm upwellings under its surface encourage a fall salmon run. The village was never isolated, for it could be reached by canoe in the warmer 24  months and by snowshoe in the winter. The settlement, famous for its wealthfromearly contact times, is still inhabited. The historic plan of the settlement was standard for most Tlingit sites. Permanent structures consisted of rows of wooden communal houses and smokehousesfrontingthe river and grave houses were located behind. According to researchers, five clans had 40  houses in Klukwan: the Lukaax.adi, Gaanaxteidi, Kaagwaantaan, Dakl'aweidi and Dagisdinaa.  25  Two clans, the Gaanaxteidi and the Kaagwaantaan, were most prominent. 26  They occupied the center of the village and members of these groups often intermarried. Thus both social hierarchy and economic prestige were articulated in the layout of the 27  settlement. For some, these two clans constituted the "aristocracy of the tribe" and Louis Shotridge, as a high-born child of the Kaagwaantaan and son of a Gaanaxteidi chief, was considered as such. Initial European contact with the Chilkat may have resulted from a series of Russian fur-trading expeditions which began with that of Vitus Bering in 1741 and 28  reached the Alaskan Penninsula by 1762.  In 1788, an expedition headed by the Russian  navigators Gerassim Ismailov and Drnitrii Bocharov was trading at Port Mulgrave on 29  Yakutat Bay.  The Russians met a group of 150 natives under the leadership of a chief  named "Ilchak "  3 0  There is reason to believe that Ilchak and his people had traveled from  the Chilkat area, perhaps evenfromKlukwan.  31  In 1793-94, a British expedition headed by Captain George Vancouver explored the waters of southeastern Alaska. In July 1794, Lieutenant Joseph Whidbey was sent on a survey of Chatham Strait. At Icy Strait, Whidbey entered Lynn Canal where, he was told, eight important chiefs occupied the territory surrounding the upper reaches of the canal. No Natives were sighted until, his survey complete, Whidbey turned south again and was suddenly met by an opulently dressed individual who presented him with a sea otter skin. The following day Whidbey and his crew were confronted by a group of armed Natives 41  whose behaviour appeared overly aggressive. The British deemed a swift retreat to the 32  area of Admiralty Island prudent to avoid a possible confrontation.  Although British and American ships came into Tlingit territory during the trading 33  season, the Russians were active in developing settlements in the area.  From 1799 to  1867, the Russian-American Company established trading posts among the Aleutian Islands and along the Alaskan coastline. The company's interest in this area derived 34  exclusively from the profits to be gainedfromthe fur trade. During the almost seventy years of company occupation, relations with the Tlingit remained unsettled. The Tlingit disputed the pre-eminence of the Russians, preferring to maintain a competitive position with the increasing numbers of Spanish and, more importantly, British and American traders who arrived by ship. These groups paid better prices for skins and, perhaps of equal significance, often traded muskets or rum, two commodities in limited supply from the Russian-American Company. Throughout this period the company discouraged permanent settlement in the area. Thus during the Russian occupation there was little loss of political autonomy or social structure for the Tlingit, who initially profitedfromthe 35  introduction of "exotic" trade goods. With the purchase of Alaska by the Americans in 1867 the territory became known as the "the last Americanfrontier."By the late 1800s thefrontiersmanof America was joined by the scientific explorer ~ the naturalist and ethnologist. Expeditions funded by the U.S. Geological Survey documented the natural resources of the country in the interest of supplying the fundamental needs of industrialization. In Alaska, natural scientists joined 36  fur traders, naval officers, and missionaries in exploring America's latest acquisition. Each 42  had their own particular goals in mind ~ economic exploitation, scientific knowledge, Christianization, and assimilation ~ but underlying all, the assurance of Anglo-American supremacy over the land and its peoples.  Chief Shaadaxicht: Resistance and Accommodation The period surrounding the birth of Louis Shotridge (ca. 1880-84) and up to the turn of the century were years wherein many previous Tlingit lifeways substantially altered. Kan describes changes in Tlingit lifeways as a gradual process which "did not gain momentum 37  until the last two decades of the nineteenth century." These changes and events are particularly well illustrated through the history of Louis Shotridge's family: both his grandfather Shaadaxicht and his father Yeilgooxu (George Shotridge) were chiefs or headmen of their family groups and both had numerous dealings with Euro-Americans arriving in Chilkat territory. Most practices of Anglo-American contact clashed with Tlingit lifeways and contributed to the errosion of tribal autonomy. Lineage heads often acted as spokesmen for their kinsmen in social, political, and economic affairs resultingfromcontact-period events. Leaders such as Shaadaxichtfirstresisted Eruo-American incursions and then, with the tide of events flowing against them, negotiated diverse demands within the 38  trauma of extraordinary social upheaval.  Unfortunately we know little of Shaadaxicht's  thinking as there is only one direct quote attributed to him. The accounts related here describe eventsfromboth the Euro-American perspective and that of his grandson Louis Shotridge. 43  Shaadaxicht was by many accounts one of the most powerful Tlingit chiefs of his time. He was the headman of the Finned House of the Kaagwaantaan clan of the Wolf 39  moiety.  The first physical description of him appears in the writings of Aurel Krause,  where he is identified as Chief Tschartritsch, a German translation of the Tlingit name Shaadaxicht. The name was later Anglicized as "Chartrich" or "Shathitch" and finally 40  "Shotridge." Apparently Shaadaxicht received his namefromhis paternal grandfather, a 41  prominent member of the Wolf moiety of the Stikine Tlingit. According to one source the Tlingit name refers to a shark crest which in translation meant "never hit a shark with a club" or in more practical terms, 'Very powerful, not to be trifled with."  42  The earliest recorded account of Shaadaxicht's activities occurred as a result of the Hudson's Bay Company's construction of Fort Selkirk in 1848. Situated at the junction of the Pelly and Lewes Rivers (now the upper Yukon River) the fort was located 370 km in a straight linefromthe coast and represented a round trip of as many as 60 days on foot  43  The Chilkat perceived the fort as an intrusion into their lucrative interior trade monopoly. They jealously defended their trading routes, insisting that trading alliances and therightto trade with certain individuals were inheritablerights,and that the deprivation of their trade would reduce them to a state of slavery. Thus, in August of 1852, a Tlingit war party 44  composed of twenty-seven Chilkat and led by Shaadaxicht, arrived by canoe at the fort. Chief Factor Campbell along with other Company officers, their wives, and some hunters fled while the Tlingit warriors smashed, burned, or carried away everything of value.  45  The raid was highly successful in that the Hudson's Bay Company's presence in the area was thereafter eliminated for 85 years  4 6  44  However, in 1867 when Russia sold its Alaskan territory to the United States, a group of Tlingit leaders met to discuss the expulsion of the new invaders. Chief Shaadaxicht, thenfifteenyears older and certainly more aware of an increasing AngloAmerican military strength, rejected the idea. The newcomers, he pointed out, had "many cannon," and that was the end of the discussion.  47  Shaadaxicht, chose to negotiate accommodation for the purposes of economic as well as diplomatic interaction with the colonizers. His position as one of the most powerful Tlingit leaders allowed him to meet and entertain Euro-American visitors to the area, including explorers and missionaries. He and Chief Daanawaak, (also Donawok or Danawak in the historical literature), the head of the Lukaax.adi clan who lived at 48  Yandeist'akye, were two of the most wealthy and powerful individuals in the area. Both shared in providing food and shelter to numerous Euro-American visitors and acted as spokesmen for their people. By all accounts no one wanted for anything while staying with the chiefs. In 1869 Secretary of State William H. Seward (who negotiated the American purchase of Alaska, a territory that was thereafter frequently referred to as "Seward's Folly") was one recipient of this hospitality. Upon his return home he sent Shaadaxicht a 49  chinchilla blanket emblazoned with the words, "To Chief Shathitch,fromhis friend, William H. Seward!"  50  Another memorable visit took place in 1879 when Rev. S. Hall Young, a Presbyterian minister stationed at Fort Wrangel (now Wrangell), and naturalist John Muir, in Alaska to study glaciers, together visited the area. After exploring Glacier Bay, they paddled their canoe up the Chilkat River, arriving at Yandeist'akye on thefirstof 45  November amid great excitement on the part of the Tlingit. Following a Native custom 31  for welcoming important visitors a shower of bullets was unleashed and the canoe and its occupants were carriedfromthe water and deposited at the door of Daanawaak's house.  5  While being entertained by the chief, Young and Muir were honored by a visit from Shaadaxicht, regally-clothed in the Seward chinchilla robe he had received years earlier. Young characterized Shaadaxicht as, "the proudest and worst old savage of 53  Alaska" and the Chilkat trading position as "unscrupulous." The following day Young, 54  eager to convert these "most quarrelsome and warlike" peoples, preached to a large 55  audience. Later that afternoon, in the company of Shaadaxicht, Daanawaak, and other important persons, Daanawaak gave Young land for a Presbyterian mission at Portage 56  Bay on Lynn Canal  57  (now the town of Haines ). "I had offered them a missionary and  teachers," Young later recalled, "and had told them of our intention of building a new Christian town where they could speedily learn the white man's ways and Christian habits 58  and where their children could be educated as Boston men and women."  Young was also impressed with Shaadaxicht's great wealth. As a headman who controlled lucrative trading routes into the interior Shaadaxicht had: Several houses full of blankets, guns, boxes of beads, ancient carved pipes, spears, knives and other valued heirlooms. He was said to have stored away over one hundred of the elegant Chilcat blankets woven by 59  handfromthe hair of the mountain goat. Young's detailed list was likely influenced by a developing market interest in Northwest Coast objects and his association with the Presbyterian minister Sheldon Jackson whose collecting activities were well-established. Although Russian, British, 46  European, and American explorers had acquired some objects, intensive collecting was just beginning — a result of a burgeoning interest in Native American peoples among the Western world's natural history museums.  60  Some "Boston men" or U.S. naval officers took advantage of their stay in Alaska to collect Native-made objects, both old and new. Northwest Coast peoples had been making objects especially wood sculpture for sale to non-Natives since the eighteenth century and by the third quarter of the nineteenth century it was common to commission resident Natives to act as agents in collecting. Some government officials also served as correspondents for the Smithsonian Institution founded in 1846 in Washington, D.C. Chief Shaadaxicht's wealth was accumulated as a result of the fur trade with the interior and the Anglo-Americans were quick to enter this market. U.S. presence in the land-based fur trade was established largely through the Northwest Trading Company. In 1880, six trading posts were opened in southeastern Alaska, including one at Deishu under the direction of trader George Dickinson.  Apparently Dickinson's Native wife Sarah  was an exceptional individual. She had studied under the Anglican missionary William 63  Duncan  at Old Metlakatla and attended Forest Grove, a Native boarding school in  Oregon before beginning her teaching career in 1877 at a school for Native children in Fort Wrangel. There she met and impressed the Presbyterian Minister Sheldon Jackson 64  on his initial visit to Alaska in 1879. When the Dickinsons were posted to Deishu in 1880, Sarah Dickinson was commissioned by the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions to open a new school among the Chilkat-Chilkoot peoples.  47  65  With the arrival in 1881 of the Presbyterian missionaries the Rev. and Mrs. Eugene (Caroline) S. Willard, construction of a mission house, church, and school at what was then called Haines Mission began. A boarding school was opened in 1883. The Willards 66  stayed with the Dickinsons at the trading post while George Dickinson worked to construct the mission buildings. Seeking an alliance that would promote congenial trading relations with the Tlingit, the Northwest Trading Company provided assistance to Presbyterian missionaries and made it a policy to place Christian men of Presbyterian 67  denomination in charge of their posts.  The company profited by supplying construction  materials for the mission. Company owner J.M. Vanderbilt wrote to Sheldon Jackson: I am glad to state that the mission at Chilcat is already started and a building for church and school purposes nearly completed—erected by contract with Rev. Mr. Young for the Home Board of Missions. We have been cooperating with Mr. Young in the matter both at Chilcat and also planned to do so with him at Cordova Bay and have already succeeded in starting Christian [sic] villages for the natives....Paymaster Ring of the U.S. ship "Jamestown" has control of the Sitka saw-mill~he 68  will furnish you with rough lumber ... During the winter of 1881-82 Aurel and Arthur Krause, two German scholars in the natural sciences, visited the Chilkat/Chilkoot area. The brothers stayed with the 69  Dickinsons and Sarah Dickinson appears to have served as the Krauses' principal 70  informant.  With her they studied the Tlingit language and met traders who brought their  furs to the post. The relationship enabled the Krauses to purchase 178 objects and in 1885, upon the completion of their expedition, Aurel Krause published an ethnographic 71  account entitled Die Tlinket Indianer. In this work Krause provides us with a detailed  48  picture of circumstances and personalities associated with the earliest period of contact in the area of the Lynn Canal. A more lasting relationship with an individual who collected Tlingit objects was 72  formed in 1882 when George Thornton Emmons first visited the area.  Emmons, who  was stationed aboard the USS Adams, wasfirstassigned to quell a riot in the Auk village at Juneau. There he met Chief Kowee (Cowee) and initiated afriendlyrapport which resulted in Kowee relating a story of the meeting between the explorer La Perouse and the 73  Tlingit.  This initial encounter typified Emmons' interest in Tlingit history and his extra-  official ability to fosterfriendlyrelations with high-ranking Tlingit personalities.  74  Throughout the two decades of his stay in Alaska, Emmons was involved with the Shotridge family at various levels and to varying degrees as Naval official,friend,mentor, historical biographer, and dealer/collector of Tlingit objects. Between 1882 and 1887, Emmons accumulated over thirteen hundred carefully documented items which were sold 75  to the American Museum of Natural History in New York in 1888.  Emmons continued  to acquire objectsfromall areas of the northwest coast and his long-lived career as a 76  collector/ethnographer was to outlast Shotridge's by eight years.  Missionary Caroline Willard's descriptions of Chilkat-Chilkoot peoples are informative for her perception of the customs and circumstances of Tlingit lifeways and for her interest in the re-commoditization of their prestige objects as "Indian Art." She described Shaadaxicht and Klukwan in this way: We found Clok-wan by far the largest Indian village we have seen in Alaska, as well as the richest and most substantially built, many of the houses being elegant in their way. The carvings in many of them are 49  worth thousands of blankets. Three of the largest of these houses belong to Shat-e-rich, and the largest and costliest one he has given to the 77  Mission, in it we held our service on Sunday. Many of Caroline Willard's writings describe the upheaval of contact as well as the continuation of pre-contact patterns as with warfare between clans. Such feuding between clans sometimes disrupted family ties. This was the case when one of Shaadaxicht's two wives, a Tlingit woman of the Stikine division, returned to her clan 78  after a dispute erupted between the two groups. Willard spoke very highly of both Daanawaak and Shaadaxicht, with whom the missionaries often stayed when traveling beyond the mission. "Shat-e-rich," she goes on to say, "is of higher caste than any other chief of the Chilcats, being a Cinnamon Bear and 79  very rich." Both Caroline Willard and her child were "adopted" by Shaadaxicht and soon 80  the chief made arrangements to board his own son at the mission school in Haines.  Later  when Shaadaxicht and other "good families"fromFort Wrangel and Sitka were convinced to send their sons to Forest Grove to receive additional education, Young proudly 81  proclaimed, "This gives us an additional hold upon the heads of the tribes."  The  educational initiative also served to disrupt avuncular rules wherein youths were raised within the residences and under the tutelage of their uncles. In 1881 Haines Mission school opened with four regular pupils and up to twenty82  eight casual attendees.  By 1883 a boy's boarding school had been constructed with  carpenters furnished by Captain Glass of the USS Jamestown. Presbyterian missionary Rev. John G. Brady described the dormitory: 50  Each boy has his own single bed clean and new. A bath-room joins this sleeping room, On the lower floor is the kitchen and many other rooms. On thisflooris the fees dispensary for all, where the Jamestown physician attends every morning. The boys are provided with clothing as cheap as possible. There is room for twenty-five boys.  83  The establishment of Haines Mission was achieved not only through the efforts of Sheldon Jackson but also through the support of Anglo-American interests in the area — both governmental and commercial. This co-operation between public, private, and religious sectors was characteristic of settlement in Alaska. Such co-operation not only contributed to the rapid pace of Americanization but this form of solidarity gave each individual institution a disproportionate advantage in terms of power and influence over the indigenous Native society. The combined presence of the Presbyterians and the fur traders had a dramatic impact on the daily life of Chilkat-Chilkoot peoples. Many parents chose to relocate their residences at Haines Mission where their children could receive an Anglo-American education and where they had easy access to the Northwest Trading Company store. A census taken at Klukwan in 1880 lists 500-600 inhabitants and 65 houses whereas by 1890 84  the population had declined to 326 people in 30 occupied houses.  Resettlement caused  much disruption in household and village life, and contributed to a loss of the autonomy the Chilkat-Chilkoot had previously enjoyed. During the Russian occupation, bilingual education was the norm; however the Presbyterians and U.S. Government prohibited the 85  use of the Tlingit language in schools and in civic functions.  Nevertheless, in spite of  their best efforts, the Tlingit language and customs remained strong, so much so that they  51  were later perceived as significant impediments to Anglo-American concepts of 86  assimilation and progress. The U.S. Army charged with protecting the mission and the Northwest Company's trading post, maintained an often uneasy peace among the peoples of the area. Disturbances were attributed as much to the debilitating effects of alcohol consumption as to Anglo-American entrepreneurs who trespassed on Chilkat- or Chilkoot-owned trading routes. The opening of the area to commercial exploitation also brought prospectors in search of mineral wealth. In 1874 a prospector named George Holt became the first American to succeed in reaching the interior via the Chilkoot Pass. Holt returned to the coast in 1878 brandishing some gold nuggets given to him by a Native and this immediatelyfiredthe imagination of prospectors throughout the panhandle. Shortly thereafter, twenty men protected by a U.S. gunboat arrived at Dyea Inlet (now Taiya Inlet), a short distancefromthe Chilkoot Pass. A few blank roundsfiredfroma Gatling gun convinced the local chief to open the pass. However, soon the Chilkoot began to profitfromthe transport of dry goods for the increasing numbers of gold seekers on their 87  way to the Yukon River.  In 1880 Commander L A . Beardslee of the USSJamestown was ordered to mediate a war between the Chilkat and Chilkoot. Shaadaxicht was among the four headmen, onefromeach of the leading Chilkoot and Chilkat villages, who met with Beardslee on board the schooner USS Favorite. After some discussion Shaadaxicht agreed to pay reparations for a member of bis clan who had taken a life in the confrontation. The commander also settled what had become a long-standing and persistent grievance, a 52  dispute with a group of Anglo-Americans who had violated an agreement with the Chilkat regarding trading rights.  88  In 1884 with the passage of the Organic Act, civil government was established 89  making Alaska subject to the laws of Oregon.  This act, which allowed for the right to  file mineral claims and to homestead land, applied only to U.S. citizens and explicitly excluded Natives. It also stated that, "Indians or other persons in said district shall not 90  be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them, but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress."  91  To further the aims of homesteaders U.S. naval vessels continued to patrol Alaskan waters until the turn of the century. The USSPinta, a small navy gunboat, was one such vessel. In 1885 its commander, Henry E. Nichols, wrote to Daanawaak, "This country isfreeto all White men to go through in the pursuit of their business; it is for your interest to have them here because they bring you wealth by your contracts to work for them." When Californian George Washington Carmack and two Natives, Tagish Charlie 92  93  and Skookum Jim (of Tlingit/Tagish ancestry) Dawson City in 1896, the gold rush was on.  94  recorded their big Klondike strike near Thousands of "stampeders" stormed the  Chilkoot trail in a wild scramble for instantriches.Boats brought the expectant treasureseekers up the north arm of Lynn Canal to the tidal flats of Dyea. There they disembarked to prepare for the steep and arduous climb over the 3,739 foot crest of the pass. "After five miles of good road," one British officer reported, "hell begins." By 1898, 28,000 men 53  and women had traveled the White Pass or the "Golden Stairs," some twelve hundred 95  steps cut into the ice of the one-thousand-foot, thirty-five degree slope.  Prior to 1886  the tiny settlement of Dyea boasted 138 Native inhabitants, 4 non-Natives, and a trading post. By 1897, an estimated three to ten thousand people had passed through the town; a few stayed to erect clapboard hotels, restaurants, and saloons. Historian Ted Hinckley notes that in 1898 Captain R. T. Yeatman of the U.S. Army protested "The forcible removal of Indian homes, the fencing in of land on which the Indian had planted potatoes, and the way Indianfreighterswere being excluded not merelyfromwork butfromusing the Chilkat trail itself." In 1898 soldiers of the 14th Infantry arrived in Skagway to 96  maintain order. The Canadian government required that each stampeder bring enough supplies — approximately $1500 worth, to support himself for one year. The Chilkoot and their Chilkat neighbours were the only able-bodied men capable of packing goods infromthe 97  U.S. side.  During this brief period, they reaped large profitsfromthe Canadian  regulation because pack animals were useless on the steep and treacherous slopes of the 98  pass.  Nevertheless if Anglo-Americans wished to use Native-owned trails to pack their  own goods, Lt. Commander Henry E. Nichols of the USSPinta made it clear to Daanawaak, that they were not to be interfered with stating, "the chiefs of the Tribe and the headmen of families are by me held responsible for the good conduct of their people, and the White Chief, who governs the whole country, is very angry with you for this ill treatment of peaceable people passing through your country."  99  54  The Tlingit transport monopoly was short-lived. Aerial tramways, installed in the White Pass in 1898, provided some competition, but with the completion of the White Pass railwayfromSkagway to Bennett Lake in 1899, an easily accessible route was established. By 1900 the population of the area had declined substantially (Dyea had dropped back to 122), but the impact of those hectic days on Chilkat-Chilkoot lifeways was considerable.  100  The Death of Shaadaxicht and the Passage of an Era of Tlingit Autonomy Emmons described hisfriendChief Shaadaxicht as "thefinesttype of Tlingit, tall straight, intelligent, ideally the most prominent chief in Alaska in thefirstpart of this century." Many years later in a letter to curator J. Alden Mason at the University 101  Museum Emmons stated: "'Old' Shartrige (?) was my bestfriendin 1882-8 and about the time he passed, respected by all."  According to Emmons, Shaadaxicht died in March of  1889 at the age of 70 and designated to Emmons the customary honour of purchasing his ceremonial robe upon his death.  103  In 1918 Louis Shotridge described events surrounding his grandfather Shaadaxicht's funeral. According to Shotridge, Shaadaxicht was, "the last leader who, to the last maintained control [sic] both his side and the opposite of the leading families of Chilkat." Shotridge's report is consistent with activities associated with the death of a 104  headman, including the smoking ritual, an important aspect of the cycle of mortuary  55  rites.  1UJ  Everyone in Shaadaxicht's moiety  1U0  stopped work for eight days (a length of  time reserved for important individuals). Louis Shotridge proudly wrote: Large pipes were provided for the three or four hundred people from without the village who had been invited to the funeral. The relations of the deceased told stories and sang songs relating to the merits of the deceased. The entire moiety of which he was chief were active participants and the complementary moiety was invited to attend. His popularity had been such that the entire tribe wished to help in raising the totem pole (actually a carved marble statue of a bear) over his grave. But George Shotridge and his brothers refused the proffered aid and 107  erected the pole without other assistance (fig. 1.2). The death of a clan member, especially one as prestigious as Shaadaxicht, set in motion a mortuary cycle which often began with a smoking feast leading up to cremation of the body and culminating in a memorial potlatch, ideally one year later. It was customary for the body of an individual to be washed and dressed by members of the opposite moiety. It was then laid out in the clan house with a number of personal and clan108  owned objects displayed around it.  These objects, which were carved, woven, and/or  painted with crest images, were the greatest possessions of the clan and house/lineage. The crests were represented on totem poles, housefronts,and ceremonial clothing such as carved wooden hats, staffs, orfrontletsor woven robes. The right to display a crest was originally achieved by an ancestor who, according to myth or legend, had experienced a supernatural event or phenomenon in the visible manifestation of an animal or natural object. Usually the ownership of a crest and certain crest objects were inherited. Occasionally, however, a crest was acquiredfromanother clan through warfare or some altercation involving perhaps an unpaid debt or a breakdown of social etiquette.  109  56  Crest objects achieved validity and increased in prestige when displayed at important events such as memorial potlatches and peace-making ceremonies. The display of crest objects was accompanied by the recounting of oral history, ancestral myths, songs, and dances. Thus, the social value of crest objects stemmed in part from the fact that they embodied the social rank and history of their owners.  110  Inheritance of personally-owned  objects customarily followedfromthe matrilineal line of succession while the widow received very little or nothing.  111  By the time of Shaadaxicht's death in 1889, Tlingit economic structures had 119  succumbed to the presence of a well-established Anglo-American cash-based economy. Beginning at least two decades prior to the turn of the century, the focus of U.S. economic power and "progress" was defined by industrialization and the exploitation of 113  the country's natural resources.  In the lower 48 states the labour of great numbers of  immigrantsflowinginto the country provided a cheap resource for the operation of factories, mills, railroads, and mines. In Alaska, where immigrant labour was secondary, (some Chinese workers were importedfromSan Francisco), Native peoples with some Anglo-American education were perceived to be an exploitable labour force for operating mills, canneries, and mines.  114  Two company-ownedfishcanneries operated in the Chilkat and Chilkoot Inlets, one of which was located at Klukwan. From 1867 to 1882 the Alaska Commercial Company successfully blocked some 25 bills which were introduced in Congress to provide for the proper administration of the territory. The canneries disrupted 115  subsistence lifeways and decreased fish stocks. By 1889 salmon stocks were so depleted 57  that legislation was required to stave off their probable elimination. The rapid growth of 110  thefishingindustry and Anglo-American commercial life, along with the accompanying labor exploitation, dealt a severe blow to customary Native lifestyles. In hisfinalreport as governor in 1889, Alfred Swineford charged that the company had: Reduced the native population to a condition of helpless dependence, if not one of absolute and abject slavery.... [i]ts insatiable greed is such that it is not content with robbing the poor native in the price it sets upon the product of his dangerous toil, but it robs him also in the exorbitant 117  prices it exactsfromthe goods given in exchange. Extreme population decline also contributed to the errosion of Native autonomy throughout the area. As a result of a lack of immunity to European-borne diseases, smallpox, influenza, venereal disease, and measles ravaged Alaska's Native populations 118  from the mid-1700s on.  Especially devastating was the smallpox epidemic of 1835-40,  which recorded a loss of 31 percent of the population, and the no-less-severe influenza119  120  measles epidemic of 1900.  Medical historian Robert Fortuine writes that these  epidemics were "examples of historical events in Alaska that caused death, social disintegration, abandonment of traditional homes, and despair on a scale unparalleled by 122  anything but a major war."  Those who survived were often so weakened that they  succumbed to secondary infections such as tuberculosis. Tuberculosis appears to have 123  afflicted the peoples of southeastern Alaska most intensively. The introduction of alcohol and Euro-Americanfirearmswas equally disruptive and further contributed to Native mortality. During the Russian period, fur traders agreed to restrict the sale of liquor to Natives and the U.S. government eventually extended that 58 law in 1873, but this did little to prevent its availability. The negative health 124  implications and social trauma brought about by the consumption of liquor were as 125  devastating as those of epidemic disease. Depopulation caused serious shifts in the social hierarchy when some high-ranking titles became vacant, enabling those of lesser status to claim them.  The loss of elders ~  repositories of knowledge and oral tradition and history — was an irreparable blow to all Northwest Coast peoples. A Noble Family  Shotridge's father Yeilgooxu ("Raven's Slave"), a member of the Raven moiety and the hereditary headman of the Gaanaxteidi Whale House, was of a generation seriously impacted by the debilitating effects of Anglo-American contact.  197  Born circa  128  1852  Yeilgooxu (George Shotridge), at six feet in height, was described by the Krauses  as the second tallest man in Klukwan.  His mother Qa.tc-xixtc III was of the  Gaanaxteidi Whale House family. Yeilgooxu was the eldest son and according to Edward Shotridge, a younger brother, there were thirteen children in his family, 8 boys and 5 girls.  130  During his childhood, Yeilgooxu's mother had undertaken certainritualsto make  him a good hunter, to enable him to smell as well as a bear. Apparently the effort was well worth it. As Louis Shotridge recalled: Once we were out in the interior upon a mountain, my father sniffed the air and said, T smell white man.' No one else in the party could smell the white man. But he wasright.Four white men were encamped 111  several miles away. He had a good a nose for horses.  59  Evidently Yeilgooxu's annual trading trip into the interior was something of a social event: The Chilkat met the Yukon or Stik Indians once a year at a place intermediate between the tribal lands, for the purpose of trading. Here, too, dances were given in extending and returning greetings, the participants being decorated with eagle and ptarmigan feathers. Even the mothers carrying babies on their backs joined in the dances. Each tribe traded with a special man year after year, and would trade with no one else until he had offered his wares to him and he had gotten what he wanted. The right to trade with a particular man seems to be an inheritable right. Shotridge's father traded with a special man among the Stik Indians, this right having been willed to him by the latter's maternal uncle. This Stik would trade with no one else until Shotridge's father had come; when exchange with him had been effected, he was free to trade with any one. 132  133  Photographs show Yeilgooxu in both European and ceremonial dress (fig. 1.3). As headman of the Whale House Yeilgooxu held a prestigious position in Tlingit society. The house according to Louis Shotridge was originally founded as an annex to the Raven House by Xet-su.wII. Xet-su.w II consolidated the Gaanaxteidi clan under one house and u  hired the master carver Qa-djis-duaxtc II fromthe Stikine tribe to carve the house posts 134  and the "Worm Bowl" that Shotridge described as among "the master-pieces of all carved wood in the country." (See Appendix 1) The date of the founding of the original Whale House is undetermined but 135  Emmons estimated its construction to be 1835.  In 1895 the Alaska photographers  Lloyd Winter and Percy Pond photographed its interior in a staged display of clan objects (fig. 1.4). At this time the house was used for ceremonial occasions only. One of this series of photographs was later converted into a postcard (fig. 1 4a)  136  and gradually the house  and its crest objects came to symbolize contact-period Northwest Coast "culture" and thus 60  became an object of desire to Euro-American tourists and collectors alike. The house posts and screen were dismantled in 1899 and the remains of the structure and four "Dog Salmon" posts which were stored therein were photographed in 1900 by Charles Newcombe and again by Harlan I. Smith for the American Museum of Natural History in 1909 (fig.1.5). In 1916 Emmons published a paper on the Whale House in which he quoted Yeilgooxu on ethnographic details. Emmons described the house in this way: When Ifirstvisited Kluckwan in 1885, the large old communal houses of the Kon-nuh-ta-di were still standing, the principal one of which, that of the hereditary chief, Yough-hit, 'Whale house,' was in the last stages of decay and uninhabitable, although the interiorfittingswere intact and it was still used upon festival occasions. It was unquestionably the most widely known and elaborately ornamented house, not only at Chilkat, but in Alaska. 137  Yeilgooxu actively participated in the ritual events surrounding his duties as headman of his clan. A newspaper account of a Klukwan potlatch hosted by his clansman Chief Kuwdu.aat (see fig. 1.3) in 1900 records Yeilgooxu as purchasing 250 boxes of food 138  for the event.  As part of his duty it was customary for the headman to build a new  house. Consequently, in 1901 Yeilgooxu hosted an inaugural potlatch for the new Whale House, an event that is said to have cost the family over $10,000. Three Wolf families 139  of the opposite moiety and the Kaagwaantaan of Sitka were invited to attend.  140  According to Louis Shotridge slaves were setfreewith the erection of each of the corner posts. 141 Yeilgooxu's wife Kudeit.saakw, belonged to the Wolf moiety of the 142  Kaagwaantaan clan and was a member of Shaadaxicht's Finned House at Klukwan (figs. 1.6). Her mother Caxixi III, Louis Shotridge's maternal grandmother, was 143  61  Shaadaxicht's sister and her father Say'-duwu.s II was of the Gaanaxteidi Raven House. Louis Shotridge, the fourth of five children, inherited his Tlingit name, Stoowukaa V ("Astute One")  1 4 4  when his elder brother died in infancy.  145  As for his English name, it is  said that he was named after Louis Francis Paul, thefirstmissionary to open a school in Klukwan in 1882.  146  According to customary patterns of descent, Shotridge was a  member of his mother's clan and house group. Establishing the exact year of Shotridge's birth is problematic. It was likely around 1882, but the dates recorded on his tombstone in Sitka indicate that he was born on April 15, 1886, and died on August 6, 1937. Shotridge appears in a photograph with Emmons produced in 1885 (fig. 1.6).  147  If Emmons' dates are correct and the young boy in the  picture is Louis, then his birth date as it is recorded on his tombstone is inaccurate. A second reference to Shotridge's age is found in a notation on a letter written by Shotridge and sent to Emmons in 1896. The notation reads. "In 1902 Louis G. Shartrich 'Stoo-wooka-h' became the chief of the 'Karquanton' family of the Chilkat tribe at the age of 22 148  years."  Thus according to Emmons' calculations Shotridge was born in 1880.  Shotridge listed himself as age thirty when he enrolled in a Philadelphia business school in 149  1912.  A birth date of 1882 would correspond to Louis Paul's arrival in Klukwan and it  is conceivable that he was three when the 1885 picture was taken. Louis Shotridge's sister Klinget-sai-yet, was born in Klukwan in 1874. Klinget-saiyet married James Bernard "Ben" Moore, the son of Captain William Moore, the founder of Skagway. Ben, the youngest of four sons, was caretaker of the Poindexter Cannery on the Chilkat River when he met Klinget-sai-yet at a potlatch hosted by Yeilgooxu in 1889. 62  That same year they were married in an indigenous ceremony at Yandeist'akye and in a Presbyterian ceremony at the Juneau Mission by Rev. Eugene Willard. Klinget-sai-yet was called Minnie by her husband.  150  At this point individuals such as Yeilgooxu appear in the  literature with their Anglicized names. Louis Shotridge, his sister, and most likely their siblings were identified by their Anglicized names. Conversion to Christianity and its attendant legitimizing ceremonies as well as the adoption of Euro-American names served to install patrilineal lines of descent as a legitimizing aspect of American social structures. The Shotridge family stayed with the Moores in Juneau during their early years of marriage so that Kudeit.saakw might assist as midwife at the birth of Minnie's (Klingetsai-yet's)firsttwo children. The Moore family later moved to Skagway in 1897.  151  As a  younger sibling, Louis Shotridge appears to have spent some time with his sister and her family in both locations. Throughout his life Shotridge stayed in close contact with his 152  sister and her children (three in all.)  Conclusions Louis Shotridge was born into a society in transition. By the dawn of the new century when he reached adulthood, the Tlingit had worked to adjust to many aspects of AngloAmerican society and the exploitive economic systems imported by thefishing,canning, and mining industries. Exploitation of Alaska's natural resources caused further disruption to Tlingit subsistence patterns; especially notable in this regard were the depletion of the salmon stocks and the Klondike gold rush To quote Hinckley, "The Klondike Rush of 1898 created a genuine crisis for the Tlingit 63 people in the northern part of the Alexander  Archipelago." " A multitude of well-documented afflictions combined to alter Tlingit 0  5  lifeways, including disease and the violence caused by an influx of firearms and alcohol. Equally pervasive were assimilationist initiatives perpetrated against Native Alaskans in the form of missionary schools, labour exploitation, and the neglect of basic of civil rights by the government. Initially powerful and wealthy families often chose to profit as much as possible from the non-Native presence and the accumulation of individual wealth within American society.  154  Thus individuals like Shaadaxicht and Yeilgooxu retained a financial  independence within the new Alaskan economy.  155  Many Chilkat experienced the Anglo-  American's version of wealth, first by trading furs, then by negotiating with gold seekers andfinallyby packing cargo over the Chilkoot Pass. But economic benefits 156  accompanying these activities soon dwindled or evaporated entirely. The Klondike strike near Dawson City in 1896 had encouraged thousands of "stampeders" to scramble for riches over the Chilkoot trail and many prospectors stayed to take up permanent settlement in "the Great Land." Thus the early period of colonizationfromthe fur trade to Shaadaxicht's death in 1889 was a period during which Tlingit autonomy dwindled as 157  Anglo-American dominance became increasingly oppressive. Asidefromwork in the exploitive labor market of the salmon industry, it became increasingly difficult for Chilkat-Chilkoot peoples to participate in the new cash 158  economy.  A critical disruption of Tlingit lifeways came with the establishment of the  first forest reserve in 1902 which later became the Tongass National Forest in 1907. This land included all areas not previously homesteaded or claimed by miners and canneries. 64  159  While Alaskan Natives were expected to become "civilized," Christianized, and Americanized, their communities were battered by racial prejudice, Euro-American diseases, the loss of their lands, and general lack of economic opportunity. For subsequent generations the struggle for economic and social independence continued as the debilitating effects of Euro-American contact intensified. As a member of the next generation, Yeilgooxu felt this additional burden. Yeilgooxu is known to sometimes have had "trouble with the local authorities" and when he passed away circa 160  1907, his death led to crisis over who would assume the responsibility of headman of I01  the Whale House/Eventually, Yeilxaak, the leader of a related house group, assumed the responsibility, an event which later led to a lengthy dispute over the ownership of the Whale House clan objects. Nevertheless, as historian Victoria Wyatt cautions, "The extent to which they [the Tlingit] adopted aspects of the foreign culture is not a reliable measure of the degree to 162  which they abandoned their own."  Although the customary framework of Tlingit  society was substantially altered, many aboriginal practices continued including: the Tlingit language, the moiety system, matrilineal clans, the potlatch system, a code of justice, arts and crafts, arranged marriages, shamanism, cremation of the dead, oral history, the 163  prestige of certain clan and personal objects, and hunting and trading patterns.  65  Fig. 1. la. View of the settlement at Klukwan on the Chilkat River, ca. 1895. Winter and Pond photograph courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau PCA 87-1. See alsoWyatt 1989:41,42.  66  Fig. 1.1b. View of the settlement of Klukwan on the Chilkat River, ca. 1895. Winter and Pond photographs, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, PCA 87-2.  67  Fig. 1.2. Marble statue of Kaagwaantaan bear crest commemorating Chief Shaadaxicht. Louis Shotridge photograph, n.d, courtesy University of Pennsylvania Museum, UM14760. See also photograph by Frederica de Laguna who identifies Shaadaxicht as chief of the Chilkat Wolf 1 and cites the inscription on his grave monument as reading: "SHOTPJDGE/Died March 1, 1887/Aged 70 years/YEESYOUT/KOOUL-KEE-TAR/ ?"(Emmons 1991:278).  68  Fig. 1.3. Yeilgooxu or George Shotridge (right) and Kuwdu.aat (Coudawot)(left) two Chiefs of the Gaanaxteidi photographed by Winter and Pond ca. 1895. Photograph courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, PCA 87-295. Like Yeilgooxu, Kuwdu.aat is identified by de Laguna in Emmons (1991:438) as Raven 3 of the Gaanaxteidi. He is also shown on his death bed in a photograph attributed to George Thornton Emmons (1991:271). Kuwdu.aat's (Coudawot's) tunic was acquired by Louis Shotridge at Klukwan in 1918 and is now located in the University of Pennsylvania Museum (UM acc.no NA 8472). He is wearing the Gaanaxteidi "Frog" crest hat, a major crest acquired from the Sitka Kiks.adi. See also Carpenter 1975:18; Milburn 1986:61 and Wyatt 1989: fig. 10.  69  Fig. 1.4. Staged photograph of the interior of the Gaanaxteidi Whale House taken by Winter and Pond ca. 1895. Photograph courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau, PCA 87-10. This photograph was taken when the house was no longer in regular use but prior to the dismantling of the house screen and its four house posts in 1899 (Emmons 1916). Kuwdu.aat, in the center with his son, wears the same tunic as in fig. 1.3. On display are crest objects (at.oow) of the Gaanaxteidi family. This image has been reproduced in a number of publications. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1994:592) provide a detailed description of the photograph including the identity of individuals and a description of some of the objects shown. In 1894 J.F. Pratt produced a similar image of the interior of the Whale House which was entitled "Interior of Koh-klux's House at Klukwan" (see Sinclair and Engernian 1991).  70  71  Fig. 1.5. "Dog Salmon" house posts stored in the Gaanaxteidi Whale House, Klukwan. Harlan I. Smith photograph, 1909, courtesy of the Department of Library Services, American Museum of Natural History, New York, neg. no. 46164. The posts are now located in the Rasmussen Collection, the Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon.  72  Fig. 1.6. Portrait of Kudeit.saakw. Winter and Pond photograph, n.d, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau PCA 87-42.  73  Fig.1.7. George Thornton Emmons and Louis Shotridge as a child. Photographer unknown, 1885, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-134560.  74  Notes  I  See Kan 1985:196-223.  Langdon 1987:61  2  3  See de Laguna 1990.  4  According to de Laguna the more accurate term is "sib" but the term "clan" commonly used by Shotridge and others is retained here to avoid confusion (1972:212). 5  Shotridge Ethnographic Notes, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives  6  Kan 1989a:70-71; Emmons 1991:261.  7  Oberg 1973:32. See also Halpin 1984:57-64.  8  Kan 1989a:81.  9  1 0 I I  Whether this represented a class system or a ranked hierarchy is a subject of debate among anthropologists. Most recently Kan concludes that, "Heads of matrilineal groups and their immediate matrikin, who were the most likely candidates for the aristocracy, did not form a separate class but were seen as the senior relatives of their lineage and clan mates of lower rank" (1989a:83). Kan 1989a:82. Kan 1989a:94.  12  See also Emmons 1991:39. Kan 1989a:94.  1 3  14  A small settlement still exists on the Chilkoot River. Now the location of the airport. See Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994: 225 & Wyatt 1989:46. See Wyatt 1989:45 and Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:226. This settlement was destroyed by a mudslide in the 1890s.  17  This settlement was abandoned after epidemics in the twentieth century and the population consolidated in Haines. See Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:861. 18  For an image of Deishu ca. 1885-90. See Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:755. Swanton 1908:397; Krause [1885] 1956:66  1 9  20 2 1  2 2  23  See Greer 1995 for descriptions of this activity and maps of the trails. Olson 1936:214; de Laguna 1972:350. Krause [1885]1956:134-35; Young 1915:83; VanStone 1982:51-52. Compiled from information provided by Mahoney 1870 (see de Laguna in Emmons 1991:445).  24  2 5  Forty-eight thousand acres of land adjacent to the village were established as the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Reserve in 1982. Swanton 1908:404; Olson 1967:7-8; Oberg 1973:58.  26  Emmons manuscript, American Museum of Natural History. Information acquired by Emmons from Shaadaxicht indicated that the Kaagwaantaan originated in Icy Straits and Cross Sound prior to moving to Chilkat. See also Shotridge Ethnographic Notes on family genealogy, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. 75  27  Emmons manuscript, American Museum of Natural History  TO  Pierce 1988:121. 2 9  3 0  3 1  3 2  3 3  Gunther 1972:147. Gunther 1972:147. Krause [1985] 1956:28; de Laguna 1972:135. However, anthropologist Erna Gunther (1972:147) notes that Ilchak's principal residence "was on the coast to the southeast, much farther than the great river Tschitskat (probably Chilkat)." Krause [1885] 1956:26 & 66; Gunther 1972:172-73. Gunther 1972:174.  34  Accounts of this early period may be found, for example, in Khlebnikov (1976), Lisianskii (1814) or Veniaminov ([1840] 1984). 3 5  Kan 1989a:21 & 28.  3 6  Hinsley [1981] 1984:190; Trachtenberg 1982:19-20.  3 7  Kan 1989a:29.  38  See for example Krause [1885] 1956:66.  39  Krause lists the Kaagwaantaan (translated by Veniaminof as "fireflaringup") as the "most important of all clans" ([1885] 1956:75). See also Shotridge genealogy, n.d., Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska Historical Library. 40  Editorial note Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:551; Emmons stated the original name was "klate Shart-to-which" or "never hit a shark with a club." 41  Emmons 1991:117 & 262. An individual by the name of Kohklux is remembered for a map which detailed the route traveled into the interior by the Chilkat. The map was drawn by his two wives for the American scientist George Davidson who visited the area in 1896. Kohklux has been identified as Shaadaxicht by both de Laguna in Emmons (1991:331) and Linda Johnson (1994). An account by Margaret V. Sherlock in "The Medicine Man's Last Prophecy: An Alaska Potlatch Story," in AlaskaYukon Magazine n.d.:\16-\19 describes Kohklux as a powerful Chilkat shaman from Klukwan. Young (1915) refers to Shaadaxicht as "Hard-to-Kill" and Kohklux is described as having a bullet hole in his cheek which may support the identification. Certainly Shaadaxicht would have acquired more than one name over the course of his lifetime and de Laguna in Emmons (1991:262) speculates that Koklux may have been a birth name or a name used prior to his acquiring the more commonly used name of Shaadaxicht. Names on his tombstone include Yees-Yout and Kooul-Kee-Tar (de Laguna in Emmons 1991:238). Nevertheless, after queries to de Laguna (pers. com.:1995) and Johnson (no response), I continue to question whether Kohklux and Shaadaxicht were one in the same person. J.F. Pratt photographed the Whale House in 1894. One clue may reside in Pratt's notation "Interior of Kohklux's House at Klukwan" suggesting that Kohklux was a member of this house group (Sinclair and Engerman 1991). This would mean that Kohklux's clan was the Gaanaxteidi and Shaadaxicht is known to have been Kaagwaantaan. 42  Emmons 1991:262. According to Shotridge the "Sharks" were the warriors in Tlingit society " because theyfightlike sharks" (Shotridge in Wallis 1918:68). 43  Krause [1885]1956:135-37. Transportation time varied according to conditions, see Yukon Historical & 44 Museums Association The Kohklux Map (1995:10) and Fred Whymper (1868:228) Travel and Fisher 1977:32. Adventure in the Territory of Alaska. Krause ([1885] 1956:135) states that the trip into the Yukon took 15-20 days and as many as 50 days to return when packers were fully loaded with furs and trade goods. 76  45  Kirk and Parnell 1942:24-25; Emmons to Mason, 1 April 1942, Mason Papers, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia; McClellan 1970:108; 110; 127.  46  4 7  Edward A. McCourt in Yukon and North West Territories (St. Martins Press, N.Y., 1969), describes unsubstantiated rumors that suggested the raid was instigated by Russian traders who resented the H.B.C. drawing-off of furs "from territory which for trading purposes they had come to look on as their own" (1969:21). Frederica de Laguna (pers. com. 1995) notes that the actual destruction of the buildings at the fort came sometime later. Krause [1885] 1956:266  48  See Greer 1995:58 for a photograph (La Roche Photo #2006) of Chief Daanawaak at Dyea in 1897. Also line drawing in Krause [1885] 1956:99. 49 5 0 5 1  See Sessions, Francis C , From Yellowstone Park to Alaska. (New York: Welch, Fracker, 1890). Young 1915:90 Jackson (1880:245-246) indicates that the Chilkat invited the missionaries to their territory after having heard him speak at Fort Simpson.  5 2  Young 1927:206  5 3  Young 1915: 90  5 4  Young 1915:82  5 5  Young 1915:83  5 6  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:244.  57  Haines Mission was named after Mrs. F.E.H. Haines who was said to have contributed $15,000 to the endeavour (Birkenbine 1912:80). 58 5 9 6 0  6 1  Young 1927:210 Young 1915:82. Russia's most extensive collecting effort was effected by the zoologist I.G. Voznesenskii from 1840-45. His collections now form the nucleus of the Northwest Coast collection in the Museum of Physical Anthropology and Ethnography in the Russian Academy of Sciences (Cole 1985:7 & Siebert and Forman 1967). Krause [1885] 1956:68, 132-37.  62  Sarah Dickinson is often referred to as a Tsimshian whereas Jackson (1880:144) says she was a Tongass Tlingit. Recent research by Wyatt suggests Dickinson was a Tongass Tlingit (1994:181-182). See Krause [1885] 1956:228 for a line drawing of Sarah Dickinson. Duncan, an unordained Anglican minister, arrived in British Columbia in 1857 under the auspices of the Church Missionary Society of England. He began work among the Tsimshian at Fort Simpson after five years he founded an alternate community called Metlakatla. There Duncan believed his followers would be beyond the corrupting influence of Euro-American society. A proponent of Native rights Duncan eventually ran afoul of the authorities and in 1887 he led more than 800 of his followers to Annette Island in Alaskan territory. There they resettled in what was known as New Metlakatla (now called Metlakatla). 6 4  Jackson 1886:1886:17.  6 5  See Wyatt 1994.  6 6  lackson 1886:17.  77  67  Young to Jackson, 9 May 1881. Sheldon Jackson Papers, Presbyterian Historical Archives, Philadelphia.  68  J.M Vanderbilt to Jackson, 12 June 1881. Sheldon Jackson Papers, Presbyterian Archives, Philadelphia. 69  In 1881 the Krause brothers were appointed by the Geographical Society of Bremen to head a scientific ethnological expedition to the Chukkchi Peninsula and unknown areas of Alaska. 70  Aurel Krause stated, "Mrs. Dickinson tells us about the life of the Indians" (Krause 1993: xii). 71 This publication was subsequently translated into English by anthropologist Erna Gunther and published under the title The Tlingit Indians: Results of a Trip to the Northwest Coast of America and the Bering Straits. 72  Low 1991:xxvii-xl.  73  7 4 7 5  According to Low (1991:xxviii, xxxix) Emmons noted, "I had a copy of La Perouse with me in Alaska and was familiar with the catastrophe but Kowie's account that had been handed down by word of mouth through a century proved the accuracy of Native history and was most interesting." See also de Laguna in Emmons 1991:xviii "Editor's Introduction." See Cole 1985:243. Carpenter 1975:16; Wardwell 1978:24-25; Cole 1985:87.  76  7 7  Throughout his life Emmons worked on an ethnography of the Tlingit. His manuscript, edited with additions by Frederica de Laguna, was published in 1991. Willard 1884:78-79.  78  7 9  Emmons 1991:17; Shaadaxicht's wife was a member of Chief Kadishan's family. Children with this name are found in the school registry in Haines (Sheldon Museum Archives, Haines). See also de Laguna in Emmons 1991:17 and Krause [1885] 1956:105. Willard 1884:83.  80  Willard 1884:146. One of Shaadaxicht's sons was sent to Forest Grove but it is not clear who this was (Young to Jackson, 9 May 1881, Sheldon Jackson Papers, Presbyterian Historical Archives, Philadelphia). 81  Young to Jackson, 9 May 1881, Sheldon Jackson Papers, Presbyterian Historical Archives, Philadelphia. 8?  Willard 1884:47-48; Wyatt 1994.  83  " Brady to Jackson, 12 June 1881, Sheldon Jackson Papers, Presbyterian Archives, Philadelphia.  84  Krause [1885] 1956:66 taken from the Compendium of the Tenth Census, Part II, p. 1427 and Bureau of American Ethnography Bulletin 145:541. 85  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1990:29. For a summation of Jackson's educational policies and particularly his English only policy see Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994. 86 89 Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1990:29 87 The act allowed for an appointed governor, one judge, one marshal, a 88  district attorney, a clerk, four Berton 1967:9. and four deputy marshals. Nevertheless, negotiations for a better form of government commissioners, de Laguna in Emmons 1991:332. A different incident in which Shaadaxicht attempted to act as a peacemaker between two clans is recorded by de Laguna in Emmons 1991:50. 78  were necessary and continued into the next century until in 1912 an elective legislature was provided for(Drucker 1958:15). 90  The act which was passed by the House of Representatives on the 14 of May 1884 placed Alaska under the existing laws of Oregon. See Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:38.  91  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:38.  92  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:754 from "Historical documents from the National Archives and the Raven House Collection pertaining to Chilkoot Lukaax.adi history." 93  See Cruikshank 1991:122 and Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:768. Berton 1967:43-47.  9 4  95  9 6  There was; of course, an alternative route, the other "grease trail" over the Chilkat Pass. The journey took longer, but pack animals could easily be used. It had, however, one substantial drawback in the fierce presence of Jack Dalton, a tough frontiersman who had gained control of the trail. Dalton gave the trail his name and demanded a $250 toll for its use (Milburn 1986:59). Hinckley 1970:266.  97  A similar economic boon for a different group of Tlingit had occurred during the Cassiar gold rush in 1874 when the Stikine began freighting cargo up the river in canoes (Drucker 1958:10). 98  Prices quoted range from $5 to $6 per cubic weight (Wyatt 1987:45) to $9 to $12 for each load of 100 pounds (Drucker 1958:10). See also a price quoted in a letter published by Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1995:753) which states that the Indians received $15.00 per hundred pounds. The Athabaskans had the right to pack from the summit of the pass (see Greer 1995). 99  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:754. Berton 1967:249-55; Spude 1980:xi, xii, 25, 178; Morgan 1967:37-38.  1 0 0  Emmons to Mason , 1 April 1942, Mason papers, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.  1 0 1  102  Emmons to Mason, 4 January 1942, Mason Papers, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.  103  Emmons to Mason, 1 April 1942, U.M. Archives states that he died in 1889. A comment by Krause ([1885] 1956:111) tells us something of Shaadaxicht's generosity and sense of fairness, "according to our own observations the relationship between masters and servants is a pleasant one; we never saw or heard of any mistreatment or oppression, also no complaints on the part of the slaves, who enjoyed a great measure of freedom. When Tschartritsch, the Chilkat chief lent us his slaves as guides, they were allowed to keep a specified part of the remuneration." 104  1 0 5 1 0 6  Shotridge Genealogy, n.d., Alaska State Library, luneau. See Emmons (1991:38) on the choice of Shaadaxicht's successor. Kan 1989a: 113. Indicated as the Wolf Moiety (Shotridge Genealogy, n.d, Alaska State Archives, Juneau).  107  Shotridge in Wallis 1918:79-80. For another photo of this marble bear see de Laguna in Emmons 1991:278.  108  See Kan 1989a for more detailed information on customary Tlingit mortuary customs.  109  Swanton 1908:415; de Laguna 1972:453-57; Oberg 1973:126. 1 1 0  See also Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1990 or Nora Marks Dauenhauer 1992.  1 1 1  Emmons 1991:286.  79  112  de Laguna in Emmons 1991:262.  Trachtenberg 1982.  113  1 1 4  Trennert 1987.  1 1 5  Murray 1985:202.  1 1 6  Hinckley 1972:126-27 & 187-90.  1 1 7  Murray 1985:202-203.  1 1 8  Boyd 1990:135.  1 1 9  Tikhmenev 1978:447.  1 2 0  Fortuine 1989:226.  121 1 2 2  123 124  125 126  Fortuine 1989:199. Fortuine 1989:199. Fortuine 1989:260. Hinckley 1982:61-62. See Fortuine 1989, Chapter 17 "Alcohol: Alaska's Curse."  Kan 1989a:29. This circumstance is also well documented for British Columbia especially the Kwakwaka'wakw. 127 According to an interview with Don Cameron in Olson (1933:72), the term "headman" is correct if a man stands at the head of a family while the title "chief was employed to denote a wealthy man.  198  129  Krause [1885] 1956:94.  Krause [1885] 1956:92-94 & 99. A pen and ink portrait of Yeilgooxu is found in Krause [1885]1956:99. At the time of the interview Edward Shotridge indicated that all had passed away except himself and one sister (Olson Field Notes 1933:107). Louis Shotridge listed eight children, 4 girls and 4 boys (Shotridge Genealogy, Alaska State Museum, Juneau.) We know, however, that Shaadaxicht had two wives and Louis Shotridge lists only the children from one marriage to Ga.tc-xixtc III of the Gaanaxteidi Whale House. Wallis 1918:76. Wallis 1918:71.  1 3 0  1 3 1  1 3 2  133  See Winter and Pond in Wyatt 1989:53 &111; Blankenburg photo of Yeilgooxu and his wife Kudeit.saakw on the steps of the "Whale House at Klukwan"; Yeilgooxu wearing a Chilkat robe in Emmons 1991:228. 134 See Brown 1987:157-175; 1994:74-75. 135 Emmons 1916. For a photograph of the structure and details on its construction see Emmons 1991:6162. See Wyatt 1989:117-19. Emmons 1916:18. 138 "Big Potlatch at Klukwan" The Alaskan 1900. For a photograph of the two chiefs see Winter and Pond photograph illustrated in Wyatt 1989:53. 139 Wyatt (1987:46) states, "According to Governor Brady, one potlatch held in a Chilkat village in 1901 80"...over ten thousand dollars in property, food, and cost $17,000." Emmons (1916:33) indicates that, 1 3 6  1 3 7  money were distributed." See also Olson 1933. The house was damaged by a mudslide in 1913 and rebuilt in 1937 (Abbott et al 1995:46). 140 1 4 1  Emmons 1916:33. Wallis 1918:70.  142  See Wyatt 1989:51. Probably taken when Yeilgooxu and Kueit.saakw spent time with their daughter and her family in Juneau.  143  Also called the "Killer Whale's Long Dorsal Fin House" Olson 1967:8 and Shotridge Ethnographic Notes, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives.  144  Also interpreted as "Wise Spirit" referring to one of the mysterious supernatural beings said to hover near medicine men (Wanneh 1914:282). Shotridge (1928:354) also describes the story of his name and its relation to the Eagle crest of the Shungoo-kaedi. In this article he states: "When Ifirstlistened to the legend relating how the Shungoo-kaedi obtained undisputed ownership of the Eagle I could not help but admire the astute mind of chief Stuwuka and I feel honoured and proud of being born of a mother who could bestow such a personal name upon her son." 145  Shotridge Genealogy, n.d., Shotridge Field Notes, Alaska Historical Library, Juneau; see also Emmons to Heye, 2 December 1911, U.M. Archives. Emmons mentions the names of two brothers by name: Walter and Ekecshon. 146  For a biography of Louis Francis Paul see Ricketts (1994:469-502); on Shotridge see Mason (1960) and Shotridge (1928:354). In signing his name, Shotridge used the middle initial "V" and sometimes "G", but it is never made clear as to what the initial stood for. 147  Low 1977:7-8. Emmons states: "I knew Shotridge when he was a little boy about five or six and I have a photo of him taken then standing by my knee" (Emmons to Mason, 4 January 1942, Mason Papers, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.) U.M. Neg.#134560, photographer unknown. 148  Shotridge to Emmons, 10 September 1896 courtesy of Edmund Carpenter 1985.  149  Cole 1985:352. See J. Bernard Moore Scagway in Days Primeval. New York: Vantage Press, 1968. The two story residence occupied a space in front of the original Moore cabin. It is presently being restored by the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park Service for the 1898 Gold Rush Centennial.  1 5 0 151  152 1 5 3  Shotridge to his nephew Benny, 5 April 1924, Klondike Gold Rush National Park Archives, Skagway Hinckley 1970:266.  154  Champagne 1990:70. 1 5 5  de Laguna 1972:258 & Ostenstad 1976:5.  1 5 6  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:750-51.  1 5 7  See also Dauenhauer [1980J1982; Klein 1987; Wyatt 1987; Drucker 1958.  158 159  Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:39-40. Yeilgooxu was charged with helping Kuwdu.aat resist arrest in the U.S. v. George Shotridge, court record, case 213, RG 21, FRC, Seattle (Hunt 1993:126). Estimate based on statement by Emmons (1916:33) that he passed away soon after the dedication of the new Whale House and on Shotridge Correspondence, U.M. Archives (1906-1915). Wyatt 1987:49. 81  1 6 0  1 6 1  1 6 2  See also Wyatt (1987:43-49) on Native wage earning in southeastern Alaska.  See also Champagne 1990:71.  CHAPTER TWO  TOWARDS A "CIVILIZED" ALASKA: SEGREGATION, ASSIMILATION AND A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION  In this chapter I consider Louis Shotridge's early life and activities preceding his employment by the University Museum, including his missionary education and his relationship to Anglo-American influences affecting his decision to participate in the sale of Tlingit objects to non-Natives. Louis Shotridge's name appears in the registry for the Presbyterian Mission School in Haines where he was in attendance until thefifthor sixth grade (circa 1894-1895). Shotridge was thus among the generation of Tlingit children 1  who, as a result of missionary initiatives in education, were deprived of consistent contact with indigenous Tlingit lifeways. As Kan states: The price paid by Tlingit youngsters for acquiring the new knowledge was high. In the Presbyterian school, the use of the native language was forbidden, while the students were persistently indoctrinated in Protestant-American values and taught to despise their parents' way of life. 2  A disruption in Shotridge's Haines education may have occurred when the boarding school burned in 1895; it is difficult to determine what schooling he acquired 83  after that time. However, Shotridge's efforts at continuing an Anglo-American education are evident throughout his early adulthood. His perspective may have been conditioned by his Presbyterian education, a family history of interaction with Euro-Americans, the marriage of his sister to Ben Moore, and his family's friendship with Emmons. A letter written in rudimentary English to Emmons on the 10th of September 1896 indicates an early motivation to further his education at the Sitka Mission. In this letter Shotridge uses his Tlingit as well as his English name — a practice he discontinued in his later correspondence. The letter is interesting in that the reference to a "load" suggests that Shotridge was, in some entrepreneurial way, attempting to work with Emmons on the transportation of objects. The letter is reproduced here as it was written: Dear friend, I will to tell you about mysilf. I am ready to go down to sitka. But I wish you talk to the captin first, and send a load to me & I will gave it to the captain in Rustler. And please write to me if you want me. I like to stay down in Sitka Mission. And the steamer is up here today. But if you don't write to me so I don't go down and I am hurry to write the steamer will start now. And you excuse me if I don't the words right. Your friend Louis G. Shotrich Stoo-woo-kah I will say good by for the present. There is no evidence that Shotridge registered at the Sitka Industrial Training School (originally founded as the Presbyterian Boys' Boarding School in 1882) even though this was his best opportunity to attend a more advanced institution of this nature in Alaska. Nevertheless, because developments at Sitka had the greatest impact on Native  84  education and Anglo-American indoctrination in southeastern Alaska, they will be considered in some detail.  Sitka and Facilities for Educating Native Peoples  Once the center of Russian occupation in North America, Sitka is located on the seaward side of Baranof island (called "Shee Atika" by the Tlingit) The settlement was named New Archangel by the Russians but, on the 18th of October 1867, when the 4  Americanflagwas officially raised for thefirsttime, the settlement, which was to become the district capital was re-named Sitka.  5  Sitka was a center of both Native and non-Native populations in southeast Alaska. An 1890 census of the Tlingit population listed 4,583 persons, of whom 1190 lived at Sitka. The Tlingit represented more than seventy percent of the total inhabitants of the settlement which included Russians and Creoles as well as Anglo-Americans. According to Shotridge, Sitka was home to eleven clans Comprising thirty-five house groups. With 6  the 1867 purchase, Alaskan Natives, previously recognized as citizens of the Russian Empire, assumed they would be granted similar status under the United States. Under the Treaty of Sale, "civilized tribes" were to be accorded therightsof citizens, a condition that was not met and which generated protestfromthe Native residents of Sitka. With the U.S. purchase of Alaska, participation in various Western institutions became essential for Tlingit survival. Kan notes that by the 1880s-1900s, "the Tlingit, determined to overcome a sense of status inferiority created by American domination, had already appropriated many attributes of the Western material culture and life-style." 85  Membership in an array of political, religious, and civic organizations was "crucial for the constitution of the social self."  9  Many families lived in what was called the "Ranche" an area originally separated by a Russian stockade. By the 1880s, single family Euro-American-style houses (fig.2.1) replaced plank houses and crests of clans were sometimes painted on gable ends. Housing changes also indicated alterations in the social structure. In some cases individual allegiance began to include an emphasis on the nuclear family and the extended household based on bilateral kinship ties rather than the matrilineage. These smaller households replaced the lineage as the principal units of production and consumption. To quote anthropologist Sergei Kan: A number of individuals and their families withdrewfromparticipation in collective lineage and clan affairs, and even sold ceremonial regalia belonging to their matrilineal groups. Some of the lineage houses were sold to nonnatives or became privately owned by nuclear families. On the other hand, some of the more conservative men continued taking care of their lineage houses, passing them on to their matrilineal descendants. 10  With an increasing Anglo-American presence, prejudice and discriminatory practices toward Native peoples became more common throughout Alaska and Sitka was no exception. Judicial processes favoured Anglo-American settlers, commercial 11  establishments had separate entrances for Natives and Native movie-goers were required 12  to sit on one side of the theatre.  Signs in the windows of restaurants read, "No dogs or  13  Indians allowed." Discrimination within the Presbyterian Church extended to the creation of a separate Anglo-American congregation that met at a different time for services and in 1884 built its own church.  14  86  As in Haines, civil and military authorities supported missionary sanctions on Tlingit customs. Thus, opposition to the customary Tlingit cremation of the dead was supported by Governor Swineford who, in the 1880s, threatened to call the Sitka fire brigade if another cremation were to occur. Further injustice occurred in the area of land 15  use. Such was the case in 1897, when Governor John Brady usurped Tlingit land for his family homestead and sawmill operation. This included Brady's putting a road through 16  a Native cemetery, displacing remains, and using some of them for the road bed. Petitions to President McKinleyfromboth Tlingit leaders and Bishop Nicholas of the Russian 17  Orthodox Church were ignored.  •  •  Brady, who had been trained as a Presbyterian minister,  represented a Protestant assimilationist perspective. His active support of Native civil rights in Alaska  18  was aimed a those Native peoples who were willing to abandon their  "old customs" and become "civilized."  19  Both federal and local governments failed to assume responsibility for the health and welfare of Native peoples in Alaska, and consequently basic health care was non20  existent.  Missionaries attempted to provide rudimentary social services and, in some  cases, preventative health care. A 1908 report in the Assembly Herald describes the raising of $900 for the installation of a community water system at Klukwan.  21  Nevertheless medical historian Robert Fortuine writes: The need for hospitals to care for the Native people became increasingly apparent to many during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Nearly everyone recognized that health conditions were deteriorating, 22  principallyfromthe destructive effects of tuberculosis and alcohol.  87  Little was done to alleviate the situation until 1912 when the first federal hospital for Native Alaskans under the auspices of the Bureau of Education of the Department of the 23  Interior was opened in Juneau. After America's purchase of Alaska, Russian influence continued in the form the Orthodox Church and its schools. The Orthodoxy supported bilingualism and exhibited a 24  somewhat greater tolerance towards indigenous values and forms of ritual action. Richard Dauenhauer states: Rather than attacking native culture and substituting their own, the church leaders supported a program which reinforced local customs and increased popular literacy, while simultaneously winning converts and building up a strong native clergy upon whom continued church vitality could be counted.  25  In contrast to the Russian Orthodoxy, Presbyterians pursued the assimilationist perspectives of the dominant U.S. society. From the early nineteenth to the early twentieth century, Anglo-American social reformers saw education of immigrants and other minority groups as the cornerstone of democracy, the solution to social problems and the source for inexpensive manual labour. To quote historian Gary Gerstle: Immigrants were to be educated in the ways of American democracy, young women were to be savedfromprostitution, young men from drink. Progressives believed these character-building intentions, which gaveriseto crusades for 'good government,' Americanization, social hygiene, and Prohibition, were essential stepping stones to fashioning 26  the unified moral community that they desired. Similar attitudes applied to North American Native peoples. These Caucasian organizations saw Christianization and "civilization" as their ultimate goals and thus failed 27  to recognize Native American customs associated with family ties and religions.  88  Initially government commitment to Native American education meant subsidizing the educational work of other groups, usually religious denominations, through "contract" 28  schools. The propriety of this arrangement was seldom questioned.  In 1879 Captain  (later General) Richard H. Pratt, a former cavalry officer, founded a grammar school for reservation Natives at an abandoned army barracks in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The Carlisle Indian School was the first non-reservation government-sponsored boarding school for 29  Native Amencans.  Curricula excluded indigenous language and customs and focused on  basic academic courses such as arithmetic and geography and industrial labour or service industry courses such as blacksmithing for boys and cooking for girls. Students wore 30  Western clothes and hair cuts, the idea being that external appearance affected internal identity. This educational mix, which essentially provided an industrial labouring class education, reflected the latest thinking among "progressive" educators. Under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Carlisle Indian School provided a model for government-sponsored education. Its ultimate goal was the extirpation of indigenous identity and the inculcation of American ideals of religious and 31  civil codes. Pratt's slogan "Kill the Indian and save the Man!"  exemplifies what historian 32  Michael C. Coleman calls, "the nonsense logic of the 'friends of the Indian.'" By 1887, nine industrial boarding schools and a number of reservation day schools were established along the Carlisle model, so that by 1900 more than 20,000 Native American children 33  were attending such schools. In 1881 Sheldon Jackson and John G. Brady (then a Sitka businessman) cofounded a Native residential school called the Sitka Training (Industrial) School (renamed 89  the Sheldon Jackson School in 1911).  Brady conjectured that the "Ranche" might one  day be turned into a commercial colony similar to William Duncan's Christian community at New Metlakatla.  35  Hinckley describes Brady's assimilationist and capitalist motivations:  Brady correctly guessed that the district's economic growth was about to improve; ahead layfreshopportunities for skilled labor. He admired the manual dexterity of his Tlingit students, and he knew how prosperous and law-abiding the Tshimshians under Father Duncan had 36  become at Metlakatla.  The educational agendas of Jackson and Brady were consistent with those of Pratt and other late nineteenth century social reformers. They shared an antipathy to the reservation system, a commitment to selfrespecting individualism, and an English-only rule with regard to Native education. Presbyterian Church policy normally followed the custom of imparting the "Word of God" in the local tribal language, the reasoning being that it would be more acceptable if received in a familiar 37  medium. Conflating church and educational ideals espoused by the government, Jackson's pervasive English-only rule discouraged the use of the Tlingit language, especially among Shotridge's generation. Some suggest that Jackson's contrary English-only policy resultedfromhis association with S. Hall Young, a strong opponent of all aspects of 38  Native culture. However, this policy was also characteristic of Pratt's industrial training schools in the lower American states and territories 39  and was a prerequisite for government funding. Under Jackson's English-only policy, educators adopted the practice used elsewhere in America of subjecting children to physical punishment for speaking their Native language in school.  40  By 1883 Jackson was the business manager of the Board of Home Missions and the self-appointed supervisor of that Church's Alaskan missions. He was a persistent lobbyist for educational funds for both Native and nOn-Native children and was highly successful in his endeavours. In 1884, $15,000 dollars were appropriated by the U.S. Congress for the Sitka Training School. When, in 1885, Congress charged the Bureau of 41  Education instead of the Office of Indian Affairs (later the Bureau of Indian Affairs) with 90  responsibility for Native education in Alaska, Jackson was appointed General Agent for Education.  42  Concurrently he was officially appointed head of Presbyterian missions  throughout the district. Jackson immediately relocated the geographic center of church powerfromWrangell to Sitka. However, he spent only six months of the year in Alaska, preferring instead to keep his permanent residence in Washington D.C., where he maintained access to government officials and fostered numerous political connections. As General Agent for Education, Jackson set up public schools in conjunction with the various missions, a situation Richard Dauenhauer describes as an "arrangement, of very questionable constitutionality." Initially Jackson envisioned an integrated school 43  system, but under pressurefromthe Anglo-American community, a two-tier system of education rapidly developed. Native schooling remained under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Education while schooling for Anglo-American and mixed-race children was placed under the office of the governor. It was later recognized that Jackson used his position to channel extra funds towards the operation of mission schools while apparently mismanaging other aspects of the system  4 4  As anthropologist Philip Drucker noted, "This  materially assisted the program of Indian education, and at the same time sowed seeds of resentment among white Alaskans."  45  The Presbyterians argued the success of their programmes. The Tlingit, they pointed out, were becoming increasingly interested in Anglo-American material culture and consequently "more civilized." Through the Sitka Industrial School, the Presbyterians offered Native Alaskans educational opportunities beyond grammar school, thus further enhancing their profile, if not the numbers of their congregation, especially during the first 91  two decades of the twentieth century.  Jackson helped some Alaskan students journey  east to attend Carlisle while others enrolled in various boarding schools throughout the country. In 1886 records show that seventy Alaskans were attending Indian schools outside Alaska. Some of these individuals later became activists for Native American 47  48  rights in their respective communities. For some Tlingit peoples, conversion to the Presbyterian faith appeared initially to offer the possibility of achieving economic advantages in areas other than the labour market. As a result of the Orthodox Parochial and Presbyterian Mission school system, a fair proportion of younger and middle-aged Native Alaskans spoke English with ease and were literate. Education at schools such as the Sitka Training School seemed to be the means by which access to the dominant society could be achieved. Nevertheless most Tlingit continued to work in areas such as mining,fishcanneries, lumber mills, commercial fisheries, boat-building, coopering, furniture-making, and carpentering — all occupations which at the time provided a cheap labour pool for Anglo-American industry.  4 9  At Sitka the Presbyterians maintained assimilationist pressures beyond the years of formal education, attempting to eradicate the rule of moiety exogamy, the Tlingit language, and the potlatch. They encouraged graduates of the Sitka Training School to intermarry in disregard of the moiety system, and to live apartfromthe "Ranche" in "Cottages" built by the mission. By the turn of the century, these strenuous policies led 50  the many of Sitka's Tlingit population to reject the Presbyterian Church for membership in the Russian Orthodox religion.  51  92  Historian Michael C. Coleman notes that industrial schools in the lower 48 states focussed on "practical but lowly skills" and only a small percentage of Native Americans succeeded in attaining advanced levels of education as a result of attending those 52  institutions.  Furthermore, in 1897, after almost one hundred years of missionary  involvement, the government began to phase out religious association with Native American educational programmes both in the lower 48 states and Alaska. By 1901, the administration of Theodore Roosevelt undertook a substantial remodeling of programmes which involved the installation of a systematic cirriculum. Historian Curtis M. Hinsley, Jr. characterizes the era as a time when, "Management efficiency and scientific expertise soon became the watchwords of a generation busily erecting an 'organizational society' in which those who could claim status as scientist assumed important advisory roles in 53  policy-making." Thus when, in 1904, Pratt publicly called for the abolition of the Indian Bureau under whose auspices Carlisle was run, it was Pratt who was forced to resign his 54  position. In Alaska, education was a major issue for almost everyone ~ missionaries, Alaskan settlers, and Tlingit peoples ~ and questions concerning Jackson's management of the education system had been raised for some time. In 1899 a grand jury initiated an inquiry into his educational policies, a process which brought about a groundswell of legitimate complaints. Ex-Governor Alfred Swineford, a long-time political opponent of Jackson, was particularly critical of the low standard of non-Native education throughout Alaska. A 1905 investigation conducted by the Department of the Interior concluded 55  93  that "the favouritism prevailing under Jackson had led to laxity and extravagance in the Alaska school system" and Jackson, too, was forced to resign.  56  In his quarter century as Alaska's dominant educator, Sheldon Jackson energetically pursued the assimilationist policies of the northeastern United States' reformers. Jackson used the Presbyterian mission system to penetrate remote areas where he could reproduce the typical late nineteenth century association of Western-style technological progress with Christianity and an Anglo-Saxon education. As a result of his Presbyterian education at Haines and his association with Anglo-American society (through his sister's marriage and some relatives' entrepreneurial activities), Shotridge was fully exposed to these assimilationist notions of progress and their promise of increased wealth and influence. He was also keenly aware of the range of educational opportunity available to him both at Sitka and, potentially, beyond into the eastern states; consequently, the evidence of his yearning for a place at the Sitka Mission in his 1896 letter to Emmons.  Sheldon Jackson: Curios and "Cordwood" That Louis Shotridge chose to deal in ethnic Tlingit "curios" as his entrepreneurial activity must also be related to the influence of Sheldon Jackson on the definition of the AngloAmerican ideal of progress for Native Alaskans. Jackson's interest in acquiring objects of Native manufacture began while he was working among the peoples of the American southwest. There he collected pottery which he sent east as tokens of appreciation to individuals who were instrumental in raising funds for particular missions or as premiums 94  for a $50.00 pledge. Later he sold Native Alaskan objects to raise funds for similar purposes.  57  Soon after hisfirstvisit to Alaska in 1877, Jackson began acquiring objects for the Presbyterian Seminary at Princeton. Entitled the "Sheldon Jackson Home Mission Collection," partially for the purpose of inspiring young missionaries and attract the 58  attention of moneyed patrons.  In 1887, with Presbyterian missions established in Haines,  Howkan, Fort Wrangel, and Sitka, the Sheldon Jackson Museum was founded at Sitka. The purpose of the museum, it was stated, was "to carry on scientific investigation and preserve [Alaska's] history and culture."  59  Jackson is said to have personally collected over 3,000 objects for the Sitka Museum  6 0  It seems Jackson was as aggressive in his affinity for collecting as he was in  setting up schools and missions. His strategy was to enlist the aid of missionaries such as 61  Amanda McFarland at Fort Wrangel, Alonzo Austin at Sitka, J. Loomis Gould at Howkan, and Eugene Willard at Haines. With little money to purchase objects, missionaries relied on gifts or small acquisitions.  Jackson's plan, associated with  representation of Native Alaskan history stressed the preeminence Anglo-American authority. He argued that the collections were for educational purposes in Alaska, "to show the coming generation of Natives how their fathers lived." Jackson's statement reflected the beliefs of many of his contemporaries that, due to assimilation, the only knowledge the younger generation of Native Alaskans would have with their history would be through Western institutions.  95  In collecting Native-made objects, Jackson competed with tourists, institutional collectors, and dealers, all participating in a growing trade in "Indian" curios. In Alaska, tourist and attendant souvenir-consumption were first inspired by John Muir's wellpublicized 1879 account of his visit to the "pure wilderness" especially Glacier Bay.  64  With the introduction of steamship excursions in 1887, competition for Native objects 65  intensified. Many purchased small objects, some of which were made exclusively for the tourist tourist market. However, the convenience of cruise-boat travel also allowed tourists to purchase large, quantities of objects such as baskets. The Native trader "Princess" Tom (who was said to be the richest Native woman in Alaska) exchanged goods for furs and salable objects throughout the panhandle and extending north as far as the Aleutian Islands. Artists produced baskets, silver bracelets and spoons, and small 66  wooden objects such as model totem poles to supplement the sale of older objects. In his study of the North American "curio" tradefrom1880-1920, art historian Marvin Cohodas notes that Native Americans made a wide range of products "designed to satisfy the diversity of taste among consumers, operating through a diversity of markets," including 67  touristic, hobby collections, local patrons, and anthropologists.  There was general  agreement among collectors, shop owners, and tourists that objects should be bartered for and the lowest prices paid. Nevertheless, all recognized that prices wererisingas Northwest Coast peoples continually readjusted to therisingmarket value of ethnicallymarked objects.  68  Institutions such as Jackson's Sitka Museum competed with tourists, missionaries, andfree-lanceentrepreneurs for similar kinds of objects. One summer Jackson complained 96  to eastern fiind-raisers that Alaskan stores had been cleared out as a result of the tourist season; while at Howkan, Gould reported that tourists paid exorbitant prices for objects 69  he would have otherwise secured for much less. Jackson's collecting motivations were complex and varied throughout his career. On the one hand, as a friend and associate of Richard Pratt, Jackson modeled his ideas for 70  the Alaskan Education system on Pratt's concepts of progress.  At Chicago's World's  Columbian Exposition in 1893, the Bureau of Indian Affairs mounted a series of displays to demonstrate the success of assimilationist policies in education, including a model "Indian School" exemplifying Pratt's agenda at Carlisle. In 1904 Jackson mounted a similar school exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, focusing on samples of school 71  work, including writing, drawing, math papers, and industrial and homemaking skills. Despite official recognition (winning a silver medal) Jackson's St. Louis exhibit failed to attract public interest. The American public was more interested in the romantic recreations of Native American lifeways found in ethnographic displays and in carnival72  like "villages" located outside the exposition grounds.  While Pratt, determined to  terminate Native separateness, refused to celebrate Native ethnicity, Jackson, who had been collecting Native Alaskan objects since 1877, sympathized with the public's interest in maintaining pre-modern constructions of Native Americans as "primitive" forebears of American modernism. Henceforth Jackson included Native Alaskan ethnic material in 73  expositions in which he participated. By 1887, Jackson began to perceive the tourist market as a means by which 97 students at the Sitka Training School could earn money both for themselves and the  museum as Duncan had done at Metlakatla. Thus, historian Rosemary Carlton notes, "Realizing the potential for cash income and quicker assimilation, Jackson encouraged the maintenance of traditional skills" by offering classes in woodcarving and weaving at the Industrial School. An advertisement (circa 1891) placed by Frederick Frobese, overseer 74  of the collections at the Sheldon Jackson Museum listed, "Genuine Thlinket, Indian and Hyda Relics, used and made by the Native of Alaska, also Facsimiles of the celebrated 75  Black Slate Carving of the Hyda Indians" for sale at the museum gift shop. Jackson made little distinction between contemporary objects and objects made previously for Native use. Consequently his collections were later faulted by some 76  researchers imbued with the "authenticity" paradigm.  One author referred to some of  77  Jackson's Princeton objects as piles of "cordwood." However, Jackson's collecting practices were not exceptional, and many museums, which functioned as the repositories for hobby collections like Jackson's, contain similar material. Jackson has also been criticized for failing to provide adequate documentation -- even basic identifying elements of provenience. Only in 1888, and possibly witnessing the advent of more professionalized ethnographic practices, did Jackson begin to record, albeit unsystematically, minimal amounts of information on the objects he acquired. In commenting on Jackson's collecting motives andin particular his claim to have 78  acquired objects "so the coming generations of Native can see how their fathers lived." Cole writes: If this attribution of motive is at all true, it shows a remarkable consciousness. Ottawa, Washington, and Victoria might bewail the loss of the artifactsfromtheir territories and take measures to preempt that, 98  but neither Selwyn and Baird nor the 1886 Victoria petitioners conceived of saving materials for the benefit of future generations of Indians. Most thought, if they considered the matter at all, that there 79  would be few future generations. In fact, Jackson's attempts to assimilate Native Alaskans to Anglo-American Christian and progressive liberal values did not conflict with his attempts to preserve Native ethnicity in his Sitka museum. As in other American museums founded in the late nineteenth century, Native objects were displayed not only as source material for curio producers, but also to provide an object lesson in modernism, an evolutionary benchmark from which to measure Western scientific, technological, and social progress. Jackson directed this object lesson at the younger generation of Tlingit as well to measure their own progress toward modernity. At the end of the nineteenth century, the practices of Sheldon Jackson in missionary, education, museum, and tourism arenas, provided a powerful and synthetic representation of Anglo-American notions of progress for Native and non-Native alike. This synthesis, especially as it related to objects, tourism, and museums, was one to which Louis Shotridge would prove particularly susceptible.  The Marriage of Louis and Florence Shotridge: an Entrepreneurial Life It was also in the context of his Presbyterian education at Haines Mission School that Shotridge became acquainted with his future wife, Kaatkwaaxsnei, of the Raven moiety of the Chilkoot people. Also called Susie F. Scundoo (ca. 1882-1917), apparently she was 80  related to the famous Chilkoot Kaagwaantaan shaman, Scundoo.  The marriage of Louis  Shotridge to Susie Scundoo, subsequently known as Florence, had been arranged at birth 99  - the result of a conventional Tlingit agreement between their two families.  It was,  however, at Haines Mission school that the relationship blossomed. Much of the biographical information we have on Florence Shotridge comes from newspaper clippings or brief notations found, for example, on photographs. She was a member of the Mountain House, of the Lukaax.adi clan. Her village, which is no longer extant, was located on the south bank of the Chilkoot River between Lutak Inlet and Chilkoot Lake, 12 miles southeast of Skagway. In 1880, shortly before Florence's birth, 83  the population of Chilkoot was listed as 120 people living in eight permanent houses. The story of her Tlingit name is recorded in an unattributed newspaper interview from 1916: As for her name, that is a very long story, and comesfroma time when an ancestor chief was giving a party, and instead of mixing ordinary powdered clamshells with the tobacco to be smoked had an idea of making the affair more recherche by powdering and adding the exotic abalone shells. This smart affair and the arranging for it became tribal history, and the name Katkwachsnea, derived therefrom, has for generations been the one which a daughter, who married well and otherwise did the family credit, might in turn give to her daughter. oc  Emmons described Florence as "a very pretty delicate nice girl." Around 1900, OJ  two years prior to her marriage to Shotridge, he captured a memorable portrait in a photo 86  taken at Chilkoot (fig. 2.2).  If we assume Florence was close in age to Louis, she would  have been approximately seventeen when the photo was taken. Emmons describes the customary marriage arrangements between Florence's and Louis's families: All of his maternal relatives, and the immediate male relatives of his father, collected money and valuables, and took these to the bride's family, leaving Louis and an elderly uncle alone. In a reasonable time,  100  the intermediaries returned with the bride, accompanied by her relatives.  87  Emmons' account goes on to relate events following the feast given to the bride's relatives and money and gifts exchanged and distributed to brothers-in-law and fellow clansmen after the marriage. Among Tlingit people, social bonds were constructed out of reciprocity between moieties and personal respect. Kan states, "The crucial role of the woman in establishing and maintaining ties between two matrilineal groups is further 88  emphasized by a special relationship of reciprocity between brothers-in-law." On the topic of marriage, Shotridge himself said, "We do not marry out of love but out of respect. 89  We are not told to love one another but to respect one another." Florence and Louis were also married in a Christian ceremony at Klukwan in the Methodist Episcopalian Church by the Rev. M. A. Sellon on December 25, 1902. The Episcopalians were active in southeast Alaska around the turn of the century; however, both Louis and Florence attended Presbyterian school and their religious affiliation appears to have been Presbyterian. A book of Presbyterian Psalms and an article entitled 90  "Am I a Christian" were found in the Shotridge house in Sitka. Louis and Florence Shotridge's careers as entrepreneurs participating in the marketing of Tlingit objects began at the 1905 International Exposition in Portland, Oregon celebrating the centennial of Lewis and Clark's expedition. Florence's mother 91  had instructed her daughter in beadwork, basket weaving and, in particular, the intricate details of weaving Chilkat robes. When Alaska Governor John G. Brady visited Haines in search of a woman to demonstrate Chilkat weaving at the Exposition, Florence was 101  chosen. Louis decided to accompany her to the Exposition, setting off a series of events that were to substantially alter their lives. Historian Robert Rydell notes that international expositions in the U.S. attracted 92  nearly one hundred million visitors between 1876 and 1916.  Rydell argues that these  expositions presented the American public with a new form of entertainment couched in terms of scientific achievement and dreams of economic progress. They promoted and propagated the ideas and values of the country's political,financial,corporate, and intellectual leaders and offered these ideas as the proper interpretation of social and 93  political reality. Focusing on ethnological displays at these events, Rydell explains that: Significantly, such 'villages' were honky-tonk concessions often located in the amusement sections of the fairs alongside wild animal exhibits, joyrides, and other entertainment features. The villages played on the noble savage theme as exemplified in the wild west show and although they degraded and exploited the people on display, anthropologists generally testified to the ethnological value of the exhibits. 94  Rydell demonstrates that these fairs were among the most authoritative sources for shaping racial attitudes, but they were no less popular with the general public than minstrel shows, circuses, museums of curiosities, dime novels, craft fairs, and Wild West shows — all spectacles of the pre-modern "Other." In the words of cultural historian James Clifford, "the world's cultures appear ....[a]s shreds of humanity, degraded commodities, or elevated great art but always functioning as vanishing 'loopholes' or 'escapes,'froma one-dimensional fate."  95  Living ethnological displays of Native Americans and other non-Anglo peoples were introduced to the American public at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago  102  in 1893. They were found in both the government-regulated anthropological displays and the "villages" adjacent to the official grounds. Much of the programme resulted in the amassing of large "representative" collections of Native American objects, displayed according to current ethnological theories and debates. Funding for construction and display provided by the country's political, financial, corporate, and intellectual elite insured that their agendas and values were properly interpreted. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to assess the ethics of ethnographic display except to note that participation was self-serving on the part of the scientific community. Immediate rewards were found in increased museum collections and positions, while indirectly, public awareness and interest in "vanishing Indians" translated into increased funding for anthropologists in the form of fieldwork and university support. The 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition and the subsequent 1909 Alaska-YukonPacific Exposition in Seattle were thematically focused on the possibilities of economic expansion into Asian Pacific markets while providing the region and nation with the usual 96  images of racial progress.  Florence Shotridge was the ideal candidate for inclusion. As a  weaver of Chilkat robes, she demonstrated her "cultural authenticity;" while her skills in 97  English, a result of her Presbyterian education,  were indicative of Anglo-American  "progress" in civilizing and assimilating Native Americans and preparing them to work as 98  labourers.  The attraction in which Florence Shotridge demonstrated Chilkat weaving has  not been described. Like other ethnological attractions, it may have consisted of "cultural 99  artifacts, and lay-figure groupings of'primitive types.'" 103  Associated with such exhibits in Portland were "art galleries" where entrepreneurs and purveyors of Native objects gathered to sell and trade. In one of these, Louis Shotridge exhibited a number of objects from Klukwan, offering many for sale. The specific circumstances, opportunities, or pressures that motivated Shotridge to begin selling Native objects as curios are unknown. However, as previously noted, through individuals such as the Krauses, the Willards and Emmons, the Ghilkoot/Chilkat were especially familiar with the American and European market for their tribal objects. Emmons, in particular, had spent considerable time collecting in the Chilkat area, and had become friendly with Shotridge's family. Emmons' success as an entrepreneur of Tlingit material would no doubt have set an example that encouraged Shotridge to undertake similar ventures. For Shotridge the pursuit of an entrepreneurial career through interaction with both Native and Anglo-American societies was consistent with the activities of his father and grandfather and thus may be seen as an attempt to achieve a certain income level and thereby maintain his prestige within a changing Tlingit society.  Conclusions  Assertion of Native American independencefromAmerican cultural and political hegemony took various forms. As they hadfromthe time of Shaadaxicht, Tlingit people continued to engage in a "dialogue" with the increasingly dominant Anglo-American society whereby elements of Native practice were blended with creative and strategic, adaptations to a non-Native environment. As Clifford notes: "recent inquiries into  104  processes of missionization show that conversion to Christianity was syncretic rather than a radical either-or choice."  100  Kan, who has explored syncretic adaptation in reference to  the Russian Orthodoxy among the Tlingit states: The growing body of ethno-historical research shows that North American Indians have often reinterpreted Christian ideas,rituals,and institutions, and that their approach to Christianity has been selective, creative, and synthesizing. Christianity, as a result, frequently became indigenized. 101  Lacking the rights of citizenship and excluded from processes of governance, Tlingit entree into the dominant society, either Russian or American, was often through religious affiliation. Kan, for example, identifies the Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods as a 102  means by which individuals interacted with Euro-American society.  During Florence's  and Louis' childhood the process of missionization was particularly intense. Both were educated in the Presbyterian Mission school at Haines and they were married in a customary Tlingit as well as Christian ceremony. Yet educational opportunities beyond the most elementary teaching were limited and membership in a religious group failed to provide the basic civilrightsnecessary for full participation in the dominant society. In general the "civilizing" rhetoric of Protestant America was aimed at providing an English103  speaking labouring class to serve the needs of a burgeoning industrial society.  This  class was expected to settle for the injustice of discrimination, segregation, lack of economic opportunity and social disparity. Opportunity for Native American advancement generally did not extend beyond the curio market or labouring class. As elsewhere in North America, Native Americans were viewed as a labouring class for purposes of wagelabour exploitation but as a race for purposes of social relations and ideological 105  constructions. Individuals like Louis or Florence Shotridge were provided with opportunities for an education in which they would find a life within the labouring class. They were therefore expected to train for the "practical but lowly skills" that would help themfindjobs in Alaskan resource-extraction industries. However, Louis and perhaps 104  also Florence Shotridge had ambitions equivalent to their high status in Tlingit society ~ ambitions that could be served by family connections which provided them exceptional opportunities for the promotion of the sale of Tlingit objects.  106  Fig.2.1. Members of the Sitka Luknaax.adi receiving Killisnoo people at the 1904 Sitka potlatch. Photograph shows Western style housing along the beach at Sitka. Merrill photograph, 1904, courtesy of the Alaska State Library, Juneau PCA 57-18. See also Merrill (PH1737, Isabell Miller Museum, Sitka and Emmons 1971) for photographs of the painted gable end of Chief Annahootz's house in Sitka  107  Fig.2.2. Portrait of Florence Shotridge. Caption reads: "L.S's wife, 1900, Chilkoot, Alaska." Photograph attributed to George Thornton Emmons, n.d, courtesy of the Royal British Columbia Museum, #9163.  108  Notes  1  Shotridge's name is found in the Haines Common School Registry, (The Sheldon Museum Archives) but there are no associated dates for his attendance.  2  Kan 1985:199.  3  Taken from a photocopy of the letter courtesy of Dr. E. Carpenter. Low (1991:xxxix) also quotes the letter courtesy of Frances Emmons Peacock, the daughter of G.T. Emmons. 4  Emmons 1991:439. The Tlingit name of the island was "Shee" meaning "limb of a tree" according to the shape of the island. 5  The capital was moved to Juneau in 1900.  6  Shotridge Ethnographic Notes, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives.  7  Oleska 1994:529.  8  Kan 1987:36.  9  Kan 1989a:4.  10  Kan 1987:38. Discriminatory attitudes extended to Russian Creoles and Chinese workers imported to work in the Treadwell mine in Juneau (Hinckley 1982:99). Hinckley 1982:99.  1 1  1 2  13  1 4 1 5  Gmelch 1995:161. This was also the case in Juneau where such discrimination precipitated action by the Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1929 (Drucker 1958:71). Kan 1985:200. Kan 1987:37.  1 6  Brady served as Governor of Alaska from 1897-1906. He was instrumental in initiating civil, criminal, and land laws for the territory. See Hinckley 1982 for a biography of Brady.  1 7  Oleska 1994:530.  18  1 9  20  Impoverished at death, Brady's casket was paid for by the Alaska Native Brotherhood and their band played at his funeral (Hinckley 1982:374). See Kan 1986b: 15. See also Drucker 1958.  21  Fred Falconer "Saving Souls—and Bodies," in Assembly Herald, 1908 Fortuine 1989:157  22  Fortuine 1989:160  23  24  2 5  Oft  Dauenhauer 1982:34. A summary of missions and churches in Alaska as of 1903 lists a total of 82, 16 for the Russian Orthodox and the same number for the Presbyterians. The Catholics and Episcopalians had ten and 14 respectively while others such as the Baptists and Methodists had far fewer. An Alaskawide system of bilingual parochial schools numbered 44 (Brooks 1953:492; Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:47). Dauenhauer [1980] 1982:34. See also Kan 1985:199-200. Gerstle 1994:1044. See also Dauenhauer [1980] 1982:22 on Alaskan policies. 109  Hertzberg 1971:22.  27  TO  Coleman 1993:38.  29  Szasz and Ryan 1988:290.  30  3 1 3 2  33  Also included was the so-called "outing" programme where students worked a few months or more each year for selected Anglo-American families or firms. The system, which was designed to integrate students into U.S. society often degenerated into cheap menial labour for Anglo-American patrons (Coleman 1993:44). Hertzberg 1971:17. Coleman 1993:46. For complete numbers see Berthrong 1988:263.  34  See also Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer (1994: 47-64) on Jackson's philosophical motivations regarding Native education. The school was located on the grounds of what is presently the Sheldon Jackson College (see Hinckley 1982:59). By an act of Congress New Metlakatla became a reservation in 1891 and was governed by a "Declaration of Residents" and a city council which exercised almost total economic control over the community (Dunn and Booth 1990:294-97). Hinckley 1982:45. 37 Two Presbyterian missionaries, Frances H. Willard and William L. Kelly, wrote a Tlingit grammar in 1905, and there was some hymn translation by Tillie Paul and William Corlies (Dauenhauer [1980] 1982:26, 37 & 38). 3 5  3 6  38  3 9  40  Krauss 1980:22-23; Oleska 1992:98-99. Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer (1994:56) note that Presbyterian Church policy was originally supportive of the Tlingit language as were those of the Russian Orthodox and other church groups who functioned in southeast Alaska. Hertzberg 1971:15. Dauenhauer & Dauenhauer 1994:56. Hinckley 1982:60.  4 1  42  Haycox 1984:156. Haycox describes events leading up to this unusual decision which essentially involved questioning the ethnic identity of Alaskan Natives 4 3  Dauenhauer [1980] 1982:36-37.  4 4  Murray 1985:246.  4 5  Drucker 1958:13.  46  See also Drucker 1958:16. Hinckley 1982:238.  4 7  48  See for example the life story of William Paul who was educated at Carlisle and later became a lawyer and driving force in the Alaska Native Brotherhood (Haycox 1994:503-24). 49 See Jackson 1886:31. 5 0  Kan 1985:199.  5 1  Kan 1985:199.  52  5 3  Coleman 1993. Even as late as 1928 the government admitted that few of its schools offered high110 school-level instruction (Coleman 1993:45). Hinsley [1981] 1994:263.  54  Roosevelt was on the other hand supportive of William Duncan and the Metlakatlans (Murray 1985:247).  5 5  Murray 1985:209  5 6  Murray 1985:208, 246.  5 7  Carlton 1992:52-53.  58  Carlton 1992:95-96. The collection was eventually moved to the Princeton University Museum where it found a permanent home. 5 9  De Armond 1987:3-19.  6 0  Hulbert 1987:xi.  6 1  Carlton 1992:40-59.  62  Mrs. McFarland mentions receiving a carved mountain sheep horn spoon as a gift; Louis Paul purchased a shaman's headdress for $2.00, and Eugene Willard acquired a small green chisel and a stone lamp at Klukwan (Carlton 1992:109). 63  6 4 6 5  6 6  Cole (1985:93) quoted from Jackson to Mrs. Margaret V. Shephard, 29 April 1893, Jackson Papers, Speer Library, Princeton Theological Seminary. Lee 1991:1-15; Muir [1892] 1988:13. De Armond 1987:3-19. Lee (1991:7) quotes Hinckley (1965:70-71) on a statistic of 5000 tourists annually by 1890. Lee 1991:7.  67  Cohodas (in press). 6 8  Carlton 1992:73  6 9  Carlton 1992:105.  7 0  Dauenhauer [1980] 1982:37-38.  7 1  Carlton 1992:253.  7 2  Trennert 1987:203-220.  7 3  Carlton 1992:295-296.  7 4  Carlton 1992:136.  7 5  Carlton 1992:179.  76  7 7  78 7 9  Cole 1985:76. Carleton (1992:114) disputes this charge arguing that the presence of other objects in the collection "stone implements, raw materials and everyday tools" demonstrates its ethnographic importance. More recently this theme has been explored by Phillips (1992). Carlton 1992:124. Carlton 1992:262; see also Cole 1985:93. Cole 1985:93.  80  Marriage certificate found by Nancy Nash in the Shotridge house in Haines and placed in the Sheldon Museum in Haines. Also newspaper clipping dated 14 August 1916. Scundoo was photographed by Case and Draper in 1907 (PCA39-222 Alaska State Library, Juneau). Born in 1821 or 1829, Scundoo participated in the raid on Fort Selkirk led by Shaadaxicht. He is said to have died circa 1912 (pers. 81 Philadelphia Telegraph, 14 June 1917,Museum Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. com.: E. Hakkinen, Historian, The Sheldon and Cultural Center, Haines).  Ill  82  Philadelphia Telegraph, 14 June 1917, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. Krause [1885] 1956:66; B.A.E.A.R. 26:397.  84  Dated 14 August 1916, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives.  85  Emmons to Mason, 4 January 1942, U.M. Archives.  86  Emmons to Mason, 10 May 1942; Royal British Columbia Museum photo, neg. no. PN9163.  87  Emmons 1991:270.  88  Kan 1989a: 159-60.  89  Wallis 1918:72.  90  Nancy Nash 1989. "A Window on a World Gone By."  91  The full title of this fair was "The Lewis and Clark Centennial and American Pacific Exposition and Oriental Fair" (Rydell 1984). 92  Rydell 1984:2. 9 3  Rydell 1984:3.  9 4  Rydell 1984:7-8.  9 5  Clifford 1988:244.  9 6  Rydell 1984:185.  97  Unidentified newspaper account written by F. Maude Smith and entitled "A Little Chat with Katwachsnea," n.d., Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. 98  In Seattle, A.M. Barber, an Arctic trader, was engaged to gather Alaskan Eskimos together for a living exhibit. Barber found thirty-four Siberians to demonstrate the lowest "stage of civilization." Before the Exposition began, Barber housed the Native Alaskans in a Seattle cold storage plant. These people, Barber explained, were partly educated and thus provided an exploitable labour force for operating mills and canneries (Rydell 1984:199). See also Trennert 1987:203-220. 9 9  Rydell 1984:235  1 0 0  Clifford 1988:303 & 344; Kan 1985:196-197.  1 0 1  Kan 1985:196.  102 1 0 3  104  Kan 1985. Trachtenberg 1982. Coleman 1993:46.  112  CHAPTER THREE  LOUIS AND FLORENCE SHOTRIDGE AND THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM  This chapter explores Louis and Florence Shotridge's initial construction of "self as purveyors of exotic Native lifeways and their subsequent emergence as museum-trained employees and, in Louis' case, as a business school graduate. In contrast, within the public context, the Shotridges were promoted as romantic stereotypes and pre-modern remnants of "authentic Indian" times. In spite of their accomplishments, the irony of the Shotridges' circumstances, and indeed that of all Native Americans, surfaces in the inability of Western society to fully accommodate their newly acquired status.  George Byron Gordon and the University Museum The Free Museum of Art and Science, (renamed The University Museum in 1913), was officially founded in 1887 with the University of Pennsylvania offering to 1  supply space for the archaeological findingsfroma privately-sponsored expedition to Nippur (Iraq). The "Department of Archaeology and Paleontology" was instituted as an unofficial academic department dedicated to overseeing the operation of the museum. In 113  1899 thefirstmuseum building was constructed with the help of municipal grants on land donated by the city. One of the stipulations in receivingfinancialaid was that the University Museum befreeto the public. A separate citizens group called the "Archaeological Association" was formed with the sole purpose of securing funds for expeditions and publications of its work. George Byron Gordon (fig. 3.1) joined the museum as Assistant Curator of the American Section in 1903 Gordon, who received a Doctor of Science in Archaeology from Harvard University, led the 1894 Harvard University Expedition to the Maya site of Copan Asidefromthefindingsof major archaeological and ethnographic expeditions and 4  donor gifts, objects either made for, or purchased at, various expositions formed the nucleus of the University Museum collections. Through careful buying and trading with 5  other institutions, Gordon orchestrated collections in ethnological material ranging in scopefromNorth America to more distant areas such as Persia, India, and Tibet. Gordon traveled extensively, visiting craft fairs and expositions in search of appropriate objects to round out existing collections. For some Native Americans, fairs and expositions were an ideal opportunity to sell objects not only to tourists, but also to private collectors and to museum ethnologists (or their agents). In September 1905, Gordon visited the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition in Portland. He was on his return to Philadelphia after a collecting expedition in the Kuskokwim area of Alaska. Encountering Shotridge, Gordon purchased forty-nine Tlingit objects, among these "The Weeping Man" mask (fig. 3.2). Evidently Gordon was impressed that the objects were being sold by an knowledgeable and enterprising Native 114  American, as he later expressed an interest in hiring Shotridge as an agent for the museum Gordon would also have realized the value of a Native contact whose personal 6  connections with Klukwan's most prestigious families might enable the museum to build a respectable Northwest Coast collection in spite of its late start in the area. After his return to Philadelphia, Gordon encouraged Shotridge to continue collecting objects for sale to the museum. "I will buy," Gordon advised, "any good specimen that you may procure." Gordon also reiterated the idea that the museum might fund the Shotridges' travel to Philadelphia in order to properly document the museum's existing collection. While Shotridge responded eagerly to the proposal, his comments on the collecting process also described the difficulty inherent in purchasing objects of functional value within Tlingit society: You were speaking of us getting a collection of old courious [sic] if we agreed to come [to Philadelphia], now I will tell you this. It will take a good while to get a good collection, but I will tell you what I can get now, I can get four more old copper knives and some good old smoking pipes and some old copper dancing rattle and that woman's dancing headdress the same one you saw at the fair in Portland, these are the things we can get now, but the rest the bear and the two wooden hats I q  can't get them, all of my people did not care to sell them. Gordon waffled on the employment proposal but encouraged Shotridge to continue collecting. In a letter dated January 1906, Gordon further clarified his interests, "It does not matter so much what the things are as long as they are good specimens, and the old things are always good." Without afirmcommitmentfromGordon, Shotridge 10  began work as a carpenter on the construction of Fort William H. Seward. He also built a small residence in Haines while Florence Shotridge resumed her education at the mission 11  115  school.  Gordon, lacking either conviction or sufficient funds, continued to delay  employment and the correspondence became sporadic. In the summer of 1906 Shotridge indicated that he had amassed a "good" collection including horn spoons and old pipes and knives. Hoping to make plans for the winter he encouraged Gordon to act on the employment possibility. In his most aggressive sales pitch to date Shotridge declared: I can secure the very best of every thing there is, the real valuable ones they used to keep things that they never thought of selling before, and I am the only one to get them too, most of the totems are owned by father and some other things by my relatives, I have told them that I am 13  going [to] be collecting and we talked together about these old things. In response Gordon agreed to purchase Shotridge's collection and indicated that would be in Alaska sometime in the fall or the early spring of 1907 and he and Shotridge could "talk matters over." Shotridge's hopes of traveling to Philadelphia postponed once 14  more, he and Florence found work at Antonio Apache's Indian Crafts Exhibition in Los Angeles. While there, Florence completed the weaving of the Chilkat robe she had begun for the Portland Exposition and Louis shipped his collection of objects to Gordon in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, Shotridge, inexperienced in dealing with buyers, sent the box C.O.D., an unacceptable procedure rendered even worse by the contents. Gordon responded negatively: I must say that I was very greatly disappointed in the contents of the box, because I wish to receive only old material as I wrote you several times before whereas nearly all of the pieces which you sent are new and made quite recently. It is true that they are very nice pieces, but I got from you in Portland all of the new things I want. It will therefore be quite useless for you to undertake to collect for us unless you can obtain old things. 15  116  Shotridge, perhaps influenced by Sheldon Jackson's activities as collector and stimulator of "curio" production, had purchased some contemporary objects. One report from this period indicated that Shotridge someday hoped to initiate a Native arts cooperative in Klukwan. Although Shotridge had accurately described the objects in his 16  collection as composed of baskets, knives, pipes, and spoons, Gordon may have expected greater things. Shotridge had alluded to "some very nice old dancing hats" owned by an elderly man who was ill and wanted to sell them. He also spoke of objectsfromKlukwan's Whale House: I have already told you about them before, one of the California men is now trying to get them, but I told my father that it will be much niceier [sic] to sell them to you, and told him what you want some[?] thing like that for... 17  Gordon, whose personality was said to be "sometimes as sharp as the points on his 18  mustache,"  purchased ten articles and returned the remainder of the shipment.  Becoming aware that these entrepreneurial objectives were detrimental in his dealings with Gordon, Shotridge wrote an apology and added, "my father thought they were good, and everybody said so because they were the kind of knives and things was used in olden days, so I never thought anymore of it." Shotridge referred to the 19  aboriginal use of copper objects among his people and the fact that some objects had been repaired, an indication he believed of their substantial use. Nevertheless, asidefroma brief collecting expedition to Klukwan, Gordon eschewed further business dealings with Shotridge for the next four years.  117  Shotridge'sfirstunsuccessful dealings with Gordon suggests issues related to Tlingit perspectives and the divergent goals and objectives of institutions. Perhaps the first collection Shotridge sent to Gordon was composed of small, less valuable objects because Shotridge was reluctant to bring more valuable pieces to Los Angeles. However, Shotridge also may have preferred to acquire objects newly made or smaller, personal items that were more affordable. Shotridge's 1905 letter to Gordon outlines the difficulty and expense involved in obtaining more valuable crest objects. On the other hand, the argument employed by Shotridge to purchase objects from his father demonstrates that owners were often concerned with the ultimate destination of their objects. As noted earlier, some individuals believed that museum preservation was an alternative to continued custodianship. This, as much as Emmons' or Jackson's example, may have influenced Shotridge's thinking, as he appears to have been convinced that a museum setting was the most efficacious route to preservation. In spite of their setback with Gordon the years 1907-11 were highly productive for the Shotridges. They engaged tutors to teach them English and music in their spare evenings. Florence an accomplished pianist, accompanied Louis' supposedly outstanding baritone voice. They were talented and educated, and their abilities enabled them to secure a variety of jobs. They toured with an Indian Grand Opera Company and traveled to craft 20  fairs and other events featuring "Indian" displays.  The Shotridges became what Clifford 21  describes as "ex-centric" Natives ~ travelers, purveyors of constructed ethnic histories. From the time when Florence wasfirstasked to demonstrate Chilkat weaving through their years of participation in Indian fairs and the Opera, the Shotridges functioned as 118  entrepreneurs and "cultural" performers, re-inventing their "authentic" and "exotic" selves as the circumstances of their employment dictated. The Chilkat robe (fig. 3.3) begun by Florence for the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition was eventuallyfinishedin Los Angeles at the Indian Crafts Exhibition. Planning a trip to New York in 1911, Shotridge approached Gordon about the possibility of the museum purchasing the garment. Gordon, who in 1910 had been appointed Director of the Museum, responded, "I want very much to see you with regard to the 22  blanket and talk to you about this and some other matters." Encouraged by Gordon's interest, the Shotridges shipped the robefroma previous place of engagement, "The World in Cincinnati", on the chance that Gordon might wish to purchase it. Once again Florence's weaving provided the impetus for renewed opportunities. Gordon declined the robe, but instead offered Shotridge a temporary position at the museum as an exhibit 23  preparator and model-maker. In 1907 Gordon had convinced the wealthy New York collector George G. Heye to store his objects in the museum. Anticipating receiving Heye's objects as a part of the museum's permanent collection, Gordon sought to acquire detailed information on the objects for display purposes. Thus he approached Shotridge as someone who had the 24  expertise to accomplish this task. The Shotridges accepted Gordon's offer from New York and quickly arranged for temporary rooms in Philadelphia. Shotridge'sfirstassignment was to build a scale model of the central section of the village of Klukwan. The making of small-scale museum models was a common display tactic at that time; miniaturization being a popular method 119  of presenting the "primitive" in controlled and ordered classifications.  Shotridge worked  meticulously to render subtle details in his model — thefishdrying racks, the adze marks on the cedar planks, and the paper-thin tanned hide clothing worn by the mannequins and 26  made of mouse skins (fig. 3.4).  J. Alden Mason later praised the work, "Although he had  had no previous training in this art [model making], he made an exquisite true-to-life model, with everything — houses, trees, boats, inhabitants — in perfect replica and to exact scale."  27  Gordon also capitalized on the personal presence of an "official Indian Chief as tangible evidence of a more authoritative authenticity. In keeping with concepts surrounding life exhibits at fairs and expositions, Gordon utilized the Shotridges' exotic personae to raise the profile of the museum among the general population. Newspapers also announced the couple's presence in such stereotypical headlines as, "Alaskan Chief ,28  here on Visit: Situwaka and His Squaw Will Explain Exhibits in University Museum.' Because Shotridge's employment at the museum was temporary, it was necessary to explore possibilities of related work at other institutions. Concerned with his friend's welfare, Emmons wrote to Walter Hough, Curator of Ethnology at the Smithsonian, recommending him for a job in museum display, but received a negative response. Nevertheless Emmons continued to search out possible employment, even suggesting that the couple attend a church benefit in Cincinnati, "I have mentioned the possibility of procuring the devices of Louis and his wife at an adequate sum.' While Emmons was pleased to recommend Shotridge for a position in museum display, in a 1911 letter to George Heye he questioned Shotridge's knowledge of Tlingit 120  lifeways and therefore his reliability as a source of information. In a reference to Shotridge's upbringing, Emmons noted, "Louis is a nice boy but his knowledge of the past is not altogether certain as his sister married a White man and he had lived with the Whites 30  more than with his own people".  Emmons' position, alternately supportive and critical,  was clearly influenced by his sometimes irritable personality and his personal association with the Shotridge family. His evaluation of Shotridge as an informant, while being phrased in terms of "cultural authenticity," was also based on economic competition. As collectors, Shotridge and Emmons competed for the same objects and Emmons, a freelance collector would have found it useful to discredit Shotridge in order to augment •2 1  his position as an authority on Tlingit objects. The Shotridges stayed the summer at the Philadelphia home of anthropologist Frank Speck. Speck recommended Shotridge as "a very valuable man" to the linguist Edward Sapir in the Anthropological Division of the Geological Survey Offices in 32  Ottawa.  Sapir responded with interest and began arrangements to offer Shotridge a  position in the museum's display area. Shotridge eventually chose to remain in Philadelphia, but suggested that the department might consider the purchase of Florence's Exposition robe. After some negotiations over the price, Sapir convinced the museum to 33  make the acquisition.  With it came a short paper written by Florence for the Lewis and  Clark Exposition entitled "History of the 'Tina.'[Tinda] Blanket" in which Florence relates the commonly known bear mother story (see Appendix 2). Florence's decision to create a robe which documented the crests of her father's house served as an intricate biographical and social statement. The grizzly bear crest affirmed both her clan and marital affiliations 121  (Shotridge's matrilineal crest was the grizzly bear of the Kaagwaantaan), and thereby her social relationship to the opposite moiety.  34  Years of studying and working with tutors paid off in 1912 when Shotridge was admitted to the Wharton School of Finance and Economics. For admission he was required to read books on mathematics, American history, economics, and civics (political science). Shotridge studied at Wharton for two years, earning tuitionfromhis museum 35  salary. Through talent, ambition, and hard work, the Shotridges had achieved the educational and social refinements necessary to participate in the middle-class worlds of academe, museum patronage, and business administration.  36  The Shotridges' daily museum duties included the documentation and arranging for display of the growing number of Northwest Coast objects. Another of the couple's duties involved dressing up, in keeping with Euro-American expectations, in Plains Indian garments in order to guide school children through the museum galleries (fig.3.5). Mason later recalled, "Dressed in native costume, he [Shotridge] appealed greatly to the school classes — especially to the younger grades, who listened to his talks on Indian life and 37  customs more avidly than they would to any white teacher."  The "Indian Chief and  Princess" personae that the Shotridges assumed for their public duties at the University Museum are well illustrated in a photograph taken of them dressed in "Plains Indian" garments. Their costumes appear to have been part of their personal collection probably 38  worn in their various capacities as ethnic entertainers.  The Shotridges also offered music  concerts, but it was Florence who was especially popular in her role as "Indian Princess."  122  Newspaper articles profiling her activities indicate that Philadelphia was smitten with "Princess Katwachsnea" (Kaatkwaaxsnei). As one who was knowledgeable in Tlingit lifeways Florence Shotridge actively participated in museum work during these early years in Philadelphia. In 1913 she wrote an article for The Museum Journal entitled "The Life of a Chilkat Indian Girl." For that same publication the Shotridges produced a piece called "Indians of the Northwest." Despite the joint authorship, both articles appear to have been written by Florence Shotridge, whose clear, expository style was quite differentfromthat of her husband. The content of the articles is a mixture of information on social structure and items of technical interest such as house construction, interspersed with biographical details and personal 39  reminiscences.  Their diagram of a Chilkat house structure has often been used to  describe a typical northern house type. Included also is the story of the woman who married a bear, the same story as represented on the Tinda Blanket. A range of activities and other facets of the Shotridges' self- and institutionalconstructions are revealed in photographs taken for museum purposes. For example, one published in a newspaper in 1912 shows Florence in afringedbuckskin dress sitting in front of the Chilkat robe she wove (fig. 3.6). This photograph partakes of a nineteenth century convention wherein Native Americans and their families would dress in particular, often status- as well as ethnically-marked clothing and paraphernalia designed to construct a tribal affiliation (not always their own) and their individual status. Hence for this occasion Florence Shotridge also adorned herself with two family heirlooms ~ a necklace of Russian glass beads and a pair of engraved gold bracelets 123  4 0  A photographic portrait taken of Louis Shotridge, circa 1912 (seefig.3.7), and published in The Museum Journal has been widely reproduced. It is a studio shot taken by the museum photographer with Shotridge dressed in Tlingit ceremonial regalia, including Florence's Tinda robe and a crest hat stored at the museum for George Heye. The photograph is compelling in its dramatic construction of a proud and dignified Tlingit nobleman. Compared to similar portraits of potlatch attendees (fig. 3.8) taken in Alaska this portrait intentionally eliminated articles of Western clothing deemed acculturated, to present an image of pre-contact authenticity. Although formally related to the convention of photographic portraiture mentioned above, the context in which this photograph was disseminated demonstrates its quite different function. This was a photographic version of the allochronic image that the ethnographic curator created in exhibit cases. In the Museum Journal this photograph of Louis Shotridge represents not only an individual but a nation, devoid of historical reference.  Shotridge and The Emergence of "Scientific" Ethnography: Collaboration with Franz Boas and a Position with the University Museum  Perhaps because of his experience with the Peabody Museum at Harvard and the visionary strategies of Frederick Ward Putnam, Gordon became a strong proponent of the educational value of museums as adjuncts to university programmes. He believed "The University Museum should develop [sic] along its legitimate lines in keeping with the other  124  departments, and the best guarantee of this development is through the extended exercise of its normal function as a part of the educational system of the University." After some 41  effort Gordon succeeded in establishing a university-funded anthropology department and taught an initial programme of classes himself.  42  Gordon's emphasis on collaboration between museums and university departments also corresponded with the thinking of Putnam'sfirstprotege, Franz Boas. For a time 43  Boas had fulfilled a joint appointment as Curator at American Museum of Natural History (1901-1905) and professor at Columbia University in New York. At this point in his career, after severing relations with the museum, Boas focused his energies more intensively on linguistics and the gathering of myths and texts. As Clifford and others have noted, the beginning of the twentieth century 44  witnessed the introduction of the professionally trained ethnologicalfieldworkerin the context of privately funded museums and university departments. For Boas and others, this professionalization required not only distancingfromtourism but also discrediting of those amateur collectors of objects and information (e.g. missionaries, military personnel, educators, medical practitioners) on whom the U.S. National Museum, among others, depended. Amateur collectors often pursued broader visions. As noted previously, Sheldon Jackson collected both old and new objects for missionary and institutional purposes. James G. Swan, who worked for the U.S. National Museum (from 1875) was also interested in purchasing contemporary objects as well as older, used pieces. However, in a new era intent on salvaging what Clifford refers to as the "pure products" of the non125  Caucasian world,  newly-made objects such as Haida silver bracelets and argillite were of  lesser interest. Institutional criteria that the objects befinelymade, "old," and/or representative of an overarching typology, i.e., tools, musical instruments, (especially made of bone or stone) predominated as anthropologists strove to achieve a "representative" collection, a rational taxonomy. The area of linguistics offered constructions of both science, in its analytic methods, and complete authenticity, as myths and languages were considered to have survivedfrompre-contact times. For fullest authenticity, anthropologists such as Swanton worked to acquire texts in the indigenous language — a requirement that positioned Native ethnographers such as Hunt and Shotridge in the forefront of "scientific" ethnography. This repositioning served to further discredit amateur collectors like Emmons. Indeed, significant aspects of the anthropological shift that affected collecting practices and validated Shotridge's expertise may be seen in the clash between Emmons and Boas. Much of Emmons' Tlingit material was collected between 1882 and 1899, while he was living in Sitka and employed by the U.S. Navy. When he retiredfromthe navy in 1896 Emmons continued to be associated with U.S. Government initiatives in Alaska and he worked to acquire collections throughout the Northwest Coast until his death in 1945. That Emmons collected most of his Tlingit objects during his seventeen years' 46  residence in Alaska, is a testimony to the impact of changing social conditions within Tlingit society at the turn of the century. As objects lost their use-value within Tlingit society, they simultaneously acquired a cash value within the Western market economy. Shamanic paraphernalia provides one  126  example of this trajectory. It appears that Emmons acquired shamans' equipment from graves orfromshamans persecuted and "defrocked" by both the missionaries and the military government, furthering the disrepute that attended their failure to cure victims of epidemics, especially smallpox. In addition, some inherited shamans' objects were considered to be a spiritual liability, the shamans' helping spirits being characterized by difficulty of control, unpredictability, and potential malevolence. For Emmons, who 47  often lacked the capital to compete with museum-funded collectors, gathering such devalued objects proved to be a lucrative pursuit. Unlike Jackson's contemporary interest in object accumulation and social reform, Emmons was motivated to collect and resell objects forfinancialgain and for the personal satisfaction of being recognized as an ethnological "authority." Most likely Emmons' entrepreneurial pragmatism served as a powerful model for the young Louis Shotridge. When it came to marketing his collections Emmons recognized the value to museums of informative and complete documentation. Ffis documentation includes information on aboriginal usage and material composition. For shamanic paraphernalia, he recorded the place of burial, the name of the original owner, his clan and the identities of the various 48  spirits represented in the kit.  An editorial note in the 1888 Annual Report of the  American Museum of Natural History described its newly acquired Northwest Coast collection thus: Each specimen was obtained by the Lieutenant himself, who kept a full record regarding it, andfromsuch authentic data, he has prepared an elaborate catalogue, with full notes on the use made by the Natives of each kind of object... [t]he series is....[p]robably more complete and  127  authentic than any similar collection ever made in that portion of our continent.  49  During his long career as a collector, Emmons published a number of articles on Northwest Coast topics, and worked to assemble material for a Tlingit monograph, something he failed to complete but which was posthumously edited and annotated by anthropologist Frederica de Laguna and published in 1991. Although Boas praised the value of Emmons' collections, the professional interaction between the two men was uneasy and sometimes openly hostile, with Boas attacking Emmons' methods as unscientific and lacking in objectivity and Emmons casting aspersions on Boas' character. When Boas edited Emmons' 1907 paper on Chilkat weaving to include material recorded by John Swanton, Emmons became particularly offended. Disturbed by Boas' attack on his previously unquestioned knowledge of Tlingit heritage, Emmons argued that his long personal experience among the Chilkat enabled him to present a more accurate and consequently more authoritative interpretation of the imagery. Boas' rejoinder stressed 50  the superiority of the newly formulated "scientific" objectives of professional ethnography. He wrote: I pointed out to you repeatedly the necessity of gaining an objective statement of the explanations of designs, and to bring out the fact that there are discrepancies in the views held by different Natives....I beg to assure you that the differences of interpretation obtainedfromdifferent informants and by different investigators offer one of the most interesting points in the discussion of designs, and are,froma scientific point of view, much more important than any single explanation that has been obtained. 51  Boas and his university-trained associates (like Gordon) were instrumental in transferring authorityfromamateurs such as Emmons, who had lengthy, often close  128  personal experience with Native peoples, to the "scientific" professional equipped with a theoretical perspective and training in principles of empirical research and comparative analysis. In this academic atmosphere, grooming Shotridge to be not only a "cultural insider" with "authentic" knowledge, but also a professionally trained ethnographer carried a tremendous potential for legitimating the growing discipline of anthropology as an "objective" science. Most likely it was their mutual interest in linguistics that led Gordon to suggest the meeting between Shotridge and Boas which took place during the winter of 1914 at 52  Columbia University.  Boas' collaboration with Shotridge involved the acquisition and  study of texts in the Tlingit language to supplement those published by John R. Swanton 53  in 1908.  For two months he and Shotridge worked every morning recording Tlingit  songs and working on Tlingit phonetics. "We are yet undecided," Shotridge wrote, "as to the formation of the new system that we are trying to put to use. In spite of the difficulties, the work is very interesting." Gordon was about to order a specially constructed typewriter when Shotridge cautioned postponement: 54  I have gone over with Dr. Boas the phonetic key which I had prepared in Philadelphia and so far discovered some unnecessary characters and also characters which ought to be employed in the writing of Tlingit words. Everything seems to point in [the] direction of considerable change in what I have already used, so I think, it will be wise to postpone the ordering of the typewriter which we have planned out for the work. 55  In 1917 Boas' publication entitled, Grammatical Notes on the Language of the Tlingit  Indians was published by the University Museum. Shotridge provided a text called "The Origin of Mosquitoes" and afreetranslation of the story at the conclusion of the grammar. 129  While in New York, Shotridge attended Boas' General Anthropology classes at Columbia University and participated in weekly anthropological discussions with a group of peers. Although he did not receive a formal degree, Shotridge was the first academically trained Native American ethnographerfromthe Northwest Coast. This achievement earned him the authority to work unsupervised within the Euro-American art/culture system. In 1915 Gordon offered Shotridge full-time employment as Assistant Curator in the museum's North American Section. He worked for the University Museum for the next seventeen years, the first Native Americanfromthe Northwest Coast to be employed full-time within a museum context.  Conclusions  The complexity of Shotridge's circumstances becomes evident in this exploration of his early museum years. The pervasive dichotomies of the "good" and "bad" Indian, or of traditional versus acculturated are falsely limiting within the parameters of this history. Ethnicity or "culture" as then defined by Euro-American society was the only valuable commodity many Natives could stillfreelysell and many, like Shotridge, took some advantage of this opportunity. For Shotridge, the sale of objects generated funds that could be invested in educational advancement through the employment of personal tutors, as a means of achieving a middle class economic position. On the other hand, Native peoples lacked control over the way their ethnicity would be represented and re-commoditized. While the U.S. Government and missionaries strove to complete an assimilationist programme, the Anglo-American public and  130  anthropologists continued to promote romanticized images of a pre-contact Native American "Other." During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Native 56  American political activists, as well as poets or entertainers, were compelled to portray 57  themselves as "Warriors and Indian Princesses".  A pervasive need to achieve control  over issues of race, class, gender, and nation have been shown to motivate this public 58  representation of Native Americans.  Ultimately disempowering stereotypes of both  genders obscured awareness of reservation conditions, thereby precluding commitment to social justice. While working at the museum, the Shotridges maintained a position similar to that which they had occupied in the commercial art/culture market ~ this time representing an "Indian Chief and Princess" image within a "scientific" Euro-American environment. This constructed image, reflected in photographs, continued to identify the Shotridges as authentic "Others" in Philadelphia, whereas when later photographed in Alaska, Shotridge repositioned himself as a professional anthropologist headquartered in the field. A series 59  of museum photographs illustrates the Shotridges' constructions of self as "traveling indigenous culture-makers," and in the case of Louis Shotridge as an educated 60  professional fully participating in the dominant society. In other words, Shotridge's construction of self was, by necessity, split ~ in Philadelphia his employment dictated that he function as an "authentic" Indian, whereas in Native American society respect was achieved through the image of a successful participant in Western society. In this way Shotridge brokered relationships between Native and non-Native, the metropole (the eastern seaboard) and thefrontier(Alaska).  131  Even so, this range of roles does not begin to match the persona and the various responsibilities eventually undertaken, especially by Louis Shotridge, who was not only a modelmaker, cataloguer/documenter, tour guide, entertainer, lecturer, clan leader, ethnographer, entrepreneur, author, and Wharton graduate but, as I will discuss further, a the leader of two ethnographic expeditions and a politically astute advocate of Native American heritage.  132  Fig.3.1. Portrait of George Byron Gordon, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-141710.  133  Fig. 3.2. Mask called "The Weeping Man," purchased by George Byron Gordon from Louis Shotridge at the Lewis and Clark Exposition in Portland in 1905, (U.M. acc. no. NA 1242). Milburn photograph, 1982.  134  Fig. 3.3. Photograph of painted house screen and houseposts from model of the village of Klukwan made by Louis Shotridge, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. #12590. The model was finished in 1913. According to Shotridge the main figure on the house screen is identified as a grizzly bear flanked by a bear and its cubs on the left and a wolf and its pups on the right. Below the house screen the post on the left represents a two-headed bear and on the right "Lgayak." The image on the center door panel represents a splayed Killer Whale. See also Mason (1960:12) for a photograph of the model Haida village made by Shotridge.  135  Fig.3.4. "Tinaa" robe woven by Florence Shotridge, photographer unknown, n.d, courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec, neg. no. #J-3285.  136  Fig.3.5. Louis and Florence Shotridge dressed in Plains regalia. These costumes were part of their personal possessions and were probably used while touring with the "Indian Opera." Photographer unknown, ad., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S4-142199.  137  Fig. 3.6. Portrait of Florence Shotridge taken from an unidentified newspaper clipping, photographer unknown, n.d., courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Archives.  138  Fig.3.7. Portrait of Louis Shotridge in Tlingit ceremonial regalia including a "Bear" crest hat belonging to George Heye and a dagger purchased by George Byron Gordon in 1905 (UM acc. no. NA 1288). Shotridge wears the Tinda robe woven by Florence Shotridge. Photographer unknown, circa 1912, courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, neg. no. S8-140236.  139  Fig.3.8. Photograph entitled "Chilkat Indian Dancers" taken by F. W. Nowell circa 1904. Photograph courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Individual on the left wears a "Thunderbird" frontlet acquired by Louis Shotridge in 1924 in Wrangell (no information on ownership).  140  Notes  1  Pers. com.: Alessandro Pezzati, Reference Archivist, The University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1996.  2  King and Little 1986: 16-53.  3  See Stocking (1985:113) on the support of museums by wealthy benefactors.  4  Harrison 1927:6.  5  This was common to North American museum collections throughout the country. Gordon to Shotridge, 24 February 1906, Gordon Letterbook U.M. Archives.  7  g 9 1 0  1 1  Gordon to Shotridge, 24 September 1905, Gordon Letterbook, U.M. Archives. Gordon to Shotridge, 17 October 1905, Gordon Letterbook, U.M. Archives. Shotridge to Gordon, 30 October 1905, Shotridge Correspondence, U.M. Archives. Gordon to Shotridge, 9 January 1906, Gordon Letterbook, U.M. Archives. Newspapers found during renovations by the Nash family indicate that the cabin was partly constructed out of reject materials from the fort (pers. com.: Nancy Nash 1995).  12  As indicated by the Haines Common School Registry, The Sheldon Museum Archives, Haines.  13  Shotridge to Gordon, 27 July 1906, Shotridge Correspondence, U.M. Archives.  14  Gordon to Shotridge, 20 July 1906, Gordon Letterbook, UM Archives. Gordon visited Klukwan in 1907 but there is no documentation on the results of this trip or on his discussions with Shotridge. Gordon to Shotridge, 3 February 1907, Gordon Letterbook, U.M. Archives. "Alaska Chief Here On Visit" in The Philadelphia Sun, 10 February 1907, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives.  1 5 1 6  17  Shotridge to Gordon, 28 August 1906, Shotridge Correspondence, U.M. Archives.  18  Madeira 1964:30-31 as quoted in King and Little 1986:19.  19  Shotridge to Gordon, 13 February 1907, Shotridge Correspondence, U.M. Archives.  20  2 1  22 23  "Alaska Chief Here On Visit" in The Philadelphia Sun, 10 February 1912, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. Clifford 1992:101. Gordon to Shotridge, 29 November 1911, Gordon Letterbook, U. M. Archives. Gordon to Shotridge, 29 November 1911, Gordon Letterbook, U.M. Archives.  24  Harrison 1927: 33 & 44. Heye transferred his collection to New York in 1916 dealing a devastating blow to Gordon's acquisition plans for the museum. 25  Stewart (1984); see also Clifford (1992:98) on previous anthropological focus on the village as a culture synecdoche. 26 28  27  "Alaska Chief Herethe Onmodel Visit"inin1913. The It Philadelphia 10 February 1912, Shotridge Shotridge finished was on displaySun, for a number of years before beingCollection, placed in U.M. Archives. storage. In 1982 the museum had the model refurbished and placed back on display. Shotridge later produced a second model of a Haida Village for the University Museum. 141  29  3 0  Emmons to Gordon, 17 February 1912, Emmons Collection, U.M. Archives. Mission fairs were a popular method of raising money among church groups. Often the fair was planned to assist Church efforts in a specific geographical area. Native objects were sold to raise money for the continued operation of the mission. Emmons to Heye, 2 December 1911, U.M. Archives. Both Shotridge and Emmons were at that time attempting to purchase the "Dog Salmon" houseposts (seefig.1.5) stored in the abandoned Whale House structure (Emmons to Heye 2 December 1911, U.M. Archives).  3 1  32  3 3  Speck to Sapir, 28 March 1912, Frank G. Speck Collection, The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Sapir to Shotridge, 10 June 1914, Sapir Collection, Document Collection, Library, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec.  34  3 5  As Cruikshank (1990:2-3) notes, Native American women often placed emphasis on mythological events and oral narrative when relating their life stories rather than recounting positivistic evidence about their past. For information on this blanket and its story see Appendix 2. A list of admission requirements found in the Nash residence, Haines (pers. com: Nancy Nash 1995).  36  3 7  One newspaper article from thistimestates that Shotridge was accompanied in Philadelphia by his wife and daughter. Unfortunately this is the only reference to a child — all other references suggest that the couple was childless. Philadelphia Press, 11 October 1913, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. Mason 1960:11.  38  Shotridge's tunic and leggings are currently on loan to the Sitka National Historical Park. They are owned by a Tlingit family living in Sitka (pers. com.: Sue Thorsen). 39  See Hinckley (1993:12) for another view on Florence Shotridge's writings.  40  4 1  Unidentified newspaper clipping written by F. Maude Smith, "A Little Chat with Katwachsna," Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. King and Little 1986:24  42  King and Little 1986: 24. A dispute between Gordon and Frank Speck and the Department of Anthropology later developed and resulted in a split between of the two institutions until after Speck's death in 1950. 43  Hinsley [1981] 1994:270. Hinsley notes the one exception to this institutional schism was Harvard's Peabody Museum (founded in 1866) where the university department grew out of the museum. 4 4  Clifford 1988.  4 5  Clifford 1988:1.  4 6  See Low 1977:2-11.  47 48 49  5 1  5 2  For further information on Tlingit shamanism see Emmons 1991:368-397. Emmons Catalogue, American Museum of Natural History, New York. American Museum of Natural History, Annual Report, 1888. Emmons to Boas, 1 January 1907; 11 January 1908, Boas-Emmons-Newcombe Correspondence, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. Boas to Emmons, 6 January 1907, Boas-Emmons-Newcombe Correspondence, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. 142 King and Little 1986: 24  Boas 1917:7. Shotridge to Gordon, 17 November 1914, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. Shotridge to Gordon, 4 November 1914, Shotridge Collection, U.M. Archives. See Trennert 1987: 203-220; Albers and James 1983:123-148. Wescott 1994:4-11. Rushcheinsky 1995:2-25. Shotridge 1919b:fig.23. Clifford 1992:101.  143  CHAPTER FOUR  THE FIRST WANAMAKER EXPEDITION, 1915-1918  In describing museum attitudes to collecting, Clifford notes: An excessive, sometimes even rapacious need to have is transformed into rule-governed, meaningful desire. Thus the self which must possess, but cannot have it all, learns to select, order, classify in hierarchies—to make 'good' collections. 1  In this chapter I propose to explore the making of a "good" collection — specifically the Wanamaker Expedition to Southeast Alaska led by Louis Shotridge. By the end of 1914, Shotridge had competed three years of training with the University Museum. Gordon often sent him to view private collections of Northwest Coast objects with the idea of acquiring them for the museum. Encouraged by Shotridge's collecting acumen and ethnographic expertise, Gordon proposed a more extensive expedition to southeastern Alaska. As expedition leader, Louis Shotridge chose to apply certain strategies to the assignment. I will show that Shotridge's choice of objects was influenced not only by his professional training, but also by his personal goals, his responsibilities as a member of Tlingit society, and it was facilitated by the changing terms of Native ownership as a result of Anglo-American contact.  144  John Wanamaker and Turn-of-the-Century Museum Patronage Cole notes that the early years of the twentieth century saw a steady decline in the institutional competition for Northwest Coast objects. Museums, he argues, had a surfeit of "representational" material and a lack of funds. In general this was true. Congressional funding previously made available for Native American displays was diverted to other more politically current projects after the St. Louis Exposition. The last supposedly "major" collection (valued in terms of sheer numbers)fromthe Northwest Coast was purchasedfromEmmons in 1911 by the University of Washington ~ it had been displayed at Seattle's Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition of 1909. As a prelude to encouraging the use of his collection at the Exposition, Emmons described it as "the last real collection that will ever be hadfromSouth Eastern Alaska." A consummate 4  salesman, Emmons cited the touristic desire for ethnic markers, especially those which suggested the less civilized American West and its wide-open opportunities for resource extraction and labour exploitation. Such arguments appealed to Seattle's business 5  community who hoped to attract Asian clients. After the sale of the collection Emmons continued to stress the myth of the "vanishing American" and rarity of the material stating, "I think that the University will always be satisfied that they have the collection, as no more of this material can be gathered as a consistent collection, as the Natives of Southeastern Alaska are rapidly disappearing."  6  In spite of Emmons' protestations, collectors and entrepreneurs such as George Heye and John Wanamaker (the Philadelphia department store magnate) continued to 145  employ specialists to purchase Northwest Coast objects for private and institutional purposes. These individuals were willing to contribute large sums of money for important objects, those items owned by families and clans, many of which were considered to be of significant social value. Moneyed individuals such as Wanamaker were characteristic of the mid-nineteenth century's "Gilded Age," ~ a period wherein an elite class interested in the conspicuous display of wealth saw the promotion of "culture" as an upper class responsibility. This concept served to sanction "morally uplifting" attitudes about the value of "cultural" patronage as a boundary-marker for those who sought social privilege and control. Museums, the principal infrastructures which monumentalized "culture," as Trachtenberg notes, "subliminally associated art with wealth, and the power to donate and administer with social station and training."  9  Lacking government funding the professionally trained personnel who managed museums aligned themselves with this munificence of private wealth. Object- and museum-oriented anthropologists tended to associate themselves with the economically dominant groups in American society and most consequentially, as historian of anthropology George Stocking Jr. notes, "with the cultural ideology that justified their dominance." Stocking describes the relationship between museum anthropology, 10  wealthy benefactors, and objects: From the perspective of donors whose beneficence was sustained by success in the world of commodity production, palpable and visible objects could be seen as a return on investment, even if their aesthetic or utilitarian value was minimal by conventional cultural standards. From the perspective of anthropologists, the collection of objects for sale to  146  museums was an important if somewhat tenuous means of capitalizing research on less marketable topics. Between them at the center of the political economy of anthropological research, stood the museums, institutions premised on the collection and display of objects. 11  Most of the University Museum's early collections were acquired through the patronage of wealthy Philadelphians, many of whom served on the museum's Board of 12  Managers.  Shotridge became the beneficiary of such upper class social initiative when,  1915, John Wanamaker (1838-1922), donated funds for an extended expedition to southeastern Alaska. Wanamaker, who was a member of the Board of Managers from 1896 and Vice President of the Boardfrom1911-22, was a major donor to the museum (fig. 4.1). In the museum's North American Section, Wanamaker funded E. A. Mcllhenny's 1898 expedition to the Arctic and in 1900 and 1901 Museum Director Stewart Culin'sfieldtrips to purchase objectsfromreservations in the western United States. Gordon's expedition to Alaska in 1905 was also funded by Wanamaker. 13  14  Wanamaker is described as a retailing innovator who developed one of the first modern department stores in the country. His trend-setting Philadelphia store boasted 15  six-story glass-domed atrium, a pipe organ, and a massive bronze American eagle as its centerpiece. To quote Trachtenberg: Of all city spectacles, none surpassed the giant department store, the emporium of consumption born and nurtured in these years. Here the citizen met a new world of goods: not goods alone, but a world of goods, constructed and shaped by the store into objects of desire. Here the very word 'consumption' came to life. 16  Culin, Gordon, and other curators were strongly influenced by department store display. Culin referred to Wanamaker's department stores as aesthetic centers for urban  147  communities.  Believing that objects were "more agreeably" presented there than in  museums Culin strove to imitate Wanamaker's display tactics. Wanamaker, who was once hailed as Philadelphia's "most prominent citizen," appears to have subscribed to the reformer agenda. Among his philanthropic endeavours, he built three Presbyterian churches, helped establish the Presbyterian Orphanage and Presbyterian Hospital in Philadelphia and was a member of numerous charitable, civic, and religious organizations. He is also known to have participated in Pratt's "outing" programme for Native Americans attending Carlisle. As previously noted, the reformer's 19  assimilationist programmes and their association with cheap Native American labour promoted the sale of Native American objects to museums as well as through retail outlets. From his Philadelphia and New York stores Wanamaker sold Native American objects, especially baskets and rugs. Wanamaker's support for the purchase of Native American objects by museums while concurrently promoting their value in a commodity market parallels Jackson's attitudes towards tourist consumption and his purchase of objects for his Sitka Museum. Both Wanamaker and Jackson had a flair for marketing "objects of desire." Shotridge came to understand the pervasive influence moneyed individuals who managed the Museum Board had on all aspects of its operation. During his internship in museum display, Shotridge would also have been influenced by the innovative aspects of department store display promulgated by both Culin and Gordon. In particular he was impressed with the concept of museum displays which promoted the "greatness" of other societiesfromprevious eras. The value of equal representation within a venue supported  148  by the dominant American class became, for Shotridge, a persuasive argument in convincing some Tlingit peoples to sell their objects to the University Museum where they 20  would, "stand as evidence of man's claim of a place in the world of culture... Little is known of the negotiations leading up to thisfirstWanamaker 21  Expedition.  As a social reformer and a Presbyterian, Wanamaker did not need to be  convinced of the salvage paradigm, associated with Boas among others. The imminent demise of Native American societies was easily foreseen through the assimilationist perspectives of the social reformers. Hinsley and others have noted the pervasive irony of the salvage paradigm — a premise which contributed to the very demise of societies it 22  professed to preserve.  In this regard it was but an extension of the self-serving  assimilationist policies directed towards Native Americans throughout the history of Euro23  American contact.  Furthermore, Wanamaker recognized the appeal and investment value  of Native American objects, due both to their social signification as metonyms of disappearing American lifestyles and their economic value premised on increasing rarity. The Shotridges as Expedition Leaders Beginning in 1915 and for the duration of the expedition, Shotridge received an annual salary of $1,200 plus expenses. Although only Louis Shotridge was officially under salary to the museum, a newspaper report described the expedition as a collaborative endeavor, with Florence Shotridge as co-leader. They were given complete 24  149  responsibility for the expedition ~ the first such anthropological expedition to be led by Native Alaskans. On their way to Alaska, the Shotridges visited the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco. In response to Gordon's request for an opinion on some Eskimo objects being offered for sale, Shotridge responded that, with the exception of a large musk ox skin, most items were already represented in the University Museum 25  collections.  Shotridge assessed the situation and wrote to Gordon, "Small Indian  collections are to be seen here and there on the Exposition grounds, but all are mostly new and made for the purpose of selling.'  The incident demonstrates Shotridge's acquired  knowledge of the University Museum collectionsfromthe entire area of Alaska. But more pertinently Shotridge's letter indicates a shift in his attitudes towards Native American objects. Initially Shotridge was the seller at expositions and craft fairs, with little experience in the demands of museum collectors. Where he had attempted to sell recent made-for-sale objects in Portland or in hisfirstshipment to the University Museum, Shotridge was now the one in a position to reject contemporary Native American objects. The shift in Shotridge's viewpoint is clearly related to his interim training: his work experience at the University Museum and his time studying with Boas in New York. The initial purpose of the expedition was to acquire ethnological information for what Gordon called, "a systematic account of the Tlingit," and to augment ethnographic information on the Tlingit collections that already existed in the museum.  The museum  publicized the goals of the Wanamaker expedition as, "to make advanced studies of the language, manners and customs of many Chilkat tribes. 150  What Gordon appears to have  had in mind was a "classic" salvage ethnography, one which included such topics as 29  economy, kinship, religion, and the arts and industries.  Nevertheless, museum politics  quickly interfered with this objective. In 1916 Gordon's plans for a comprehensive Northwest Coast collection suffered a serious setback. Gordon had anticipated that the Heye collection would remain with the museum permanently. However, without warning, Heye transferred the objects to New York in order to establish a private facility to store his material.  30  With a large gap in the museum's Northwest Coast collections and Shotridge already in the field, Gordon approached Wanamaker for acquisition funds. Thus in 1917 Wanamaker donated another $10,000 to support the acquisition of objects. From this point forward, the focus of the expedition changed substantially and the importance of collecting ethnographic material became secondary to the acquisition of objects. "We must bear in mind," wrote Gordon, "that for the present and for some time to come the making of collections will be more important for us than the preparation of a book, although this 31  work is also important."  Shotridge understood that Gordon wished to acquire objects characterized as "authentic" or prior to Euro-American influence but also realized Gordon's special interest in "artistic merit." This latter criterion appears to have stemmedfromCulin and Wanamaker's influence on museum display as well as Gordon's "great interest in the 32  visual possibilities of exhibits."  Gordon emphasized authenticity, rarity (i.e. old objects  representing pre-contact lifeways) and visual interest or connoisseurship (i.e. objects  151  whose visual interest demonstrated skill andfinecraftsmanship). Each of these concerns could be highlighted in display, thus increasing the institutional value of the objects. For Florence Shotridge the return to Alaska was timely. She and Louis had been traveling almost nine years and she was now delighted to return to her family. The couple settled into "field headquarters" in their Haines residence and Shotridge wrote to Gordon, "Mrs. Shotridge and I agree that the Alaska climate is doing us more good than any we have known, and despite of the poor accommodations we prefer Haines to Philadelphia."^ With their new income the Shotridges rebuilt their Haines residence creating a comfortable environment for their work (fig. 4.2). Although Florence Shotridge had played an active part in museum activities while in Philadelphia, her health had begun to decline as a result of tuberculosis. Unfortunately she was soon confined to bed and unable to continue her museum activities. Louis Shotridge necessarily began fieldwork alone. Hisfirstconcern was to establish a network of reliable contacts. Amateur collectors such as Emmons and Newcombe cultivated agents throughout the coast. Mostly they depended on the same individuals whose names tend to recur in the ethnographic records. George Hunt (1879-1924) and Charlie Nowell (1899-1924) fromthe 34  35  Kwakwaka'wakw area, and William Beynon (1888-1958) from the Tsimshian area were among the best known representatives of a small, yet growing, number of Anglo-American 37  educated Native ethnographer/collectors.  38  Following Halpin's article on Beynon,  I have  argued elsewhere that collectors of the caliber of George Hunt or Charlie Nowell are more correctly acknowledged as Native ethnographers; nevertheless, they were not treated as 152  such.  Both Hunt and Shotridge constructed their expertise in terms of their abilities to  secure the purchase of objects that would not otherwise be available. Both were able to participate in potlatches, listen to stories and songs, view clan objects, and spend time negotiating sales, and both held positions of responsibility within their societies. As Jacknis notes: Nowell and Hunt both relied upon a wide circle of relatives and friends. Many of the items purchased by Newcombe, especially on hisfirsttrips, camefromNowelPs wife and brothers. While Hunt received a great number of textsfromhis wife's family, he got relatively few artifacts through them. However, his siblings and children often assisted with the location, packing, and shipping of objects. Most of Hunt's collection did comefromlocal contacts. 40  However, Shotridge was academically trained, someone who approximated the ideal of Stewart Culin wherein collections were "secured in thefieldby the trained representatives of the museum itself." In this respect Shotridge was defined as a 41  scientifically trained professional while Hunt was perceived as an "informant" and therefore an amateur in the field. Although most Euro-American collectors were dependent on "professional storytellers" Shotridge was disillusioned with the quality of information he receivedfromsuch individuals. Jacknis describes the activities of these professional informants among the Kwakwaka'wakw: It is likely that many of the Kwakiutl artifacts in Berlin and the Field Museum were made by a small group of people. In 1893 Boas reported that the Kwakiutl whom he had invited to the Chicago World's had made many of [the] specimens which Jacobsen had collected (and because he had retraced some of Jacobsen's steps, perhaps many in his Berlin collection as well)...These claims may have been exaggerated, but there is reason to think that indeed anthropologists were constantly returning to favorite and amenable informants and suppliers. That these 153  individuals also represented the Kwakiutl at the fairs only compounds the concentration in sources. Shotridge voiced a negative opinion of information acquiredfrom"professional story-tellers" citing what he considered the commercialization of the narratives. He wrote: Upon my arrival in Chilkat in the summer of 1915,1 immediately set to work collecting material with a view to recording for the Museum a faithful history of the Tlingit people. I proceeded in the usual way of obtaining informationfromthe natives, which is to hire an informant. For a while I traced events one into another and continued so until I discovered inaccuracies in many polished stories. The part that many Tlingit informants play in recording myths and other data has been to a great extent commercialized. Many important stories are polished ready to be given in exchange for cash. A desire to overcome this habit forced me to scheme as to the safest way to approach the natural self of the man whom I am to represent. I took all precautions and gave myself plenty of time. Meanwhile I madefrequentvisits to different families in various surrounding summer camps and noted different things that are 43  of interest. Acquisition of "quality" information, especially the recording of oral tradition in Native languages, was increasingly a cornerstone of Boasianfieldwork,and one of the criteria on which Boas dismissed Emmons' documentation, as with the issue of meaning in Chilkat robes. Shotridge, having studied under Boas and under one of his supporters 44  (Gordon), was under considerable pressure to fulfill expectations of securing "authentic" texts. When Shotridge recorded stories, he was careful to stress both their origin and social significance thus indicating their importance as testament to oral tradition and their value as oral history. So for example, when he recorded a story of the Chilkat 45  acquisition of thefirstChilkat dancing apron (fig. 4.3) and the origin of Chilkat weaving, Shotridge indicated that the story was told to him by Yeilxaak (Yeil-hawk), the elderly leader of the Gaanaxteidi, and that it related to the history of his own clan 154  4 6  Shotridge's  protestations about "professional story-tellers" versus the quality of his information served to situate him within the professional camp and secure Gordon's trust in his ability to provide ethnographically reliable material as opposed to touristic, or commonly sold "information." Although "reliable" information was an issue, criteria for determining accuracy during this period seems to have depended more on the reputation, training and/or ethnicity of the individual providing it. As a museum-trained Native ethnographer and high-ranking member of Tlingit society, Shotridge was accepted as a credible informant within the parameters of Boasian anthropology. But once having secured the independent position of expedition leader he advanced the concept of a Native contact in thefieldto a new level of responsibility. As a Native ethnographer, Shotridge employed a number of strategies for acquiring information. For example, during the winter of 1917 he organized a story-telling evening, which was held at the public schoolhouse in Haines, to "impress on the minds of the modern Indian children the former life of the tribe to which they belong." He 47  lectured on the "more aggressive" Caucasian culture and in return he recorded Tlingit legends and myths told to the children by elders. Today Shotridge's public pronouncements on the importance of Tlingit history, coming as they didfroman AngloAmerican-educated member of Tlingit society, are recognized as important early attempts to encourage Tlingit children to learn and appreciate the value of their heritage. Mobility in the water-oriented subsistence economy of the Northwest Coast was essential. In the fall of 1915, Shotridge purchased a small gasoline-powered boat, paying  155  half the purchase price out of his personal funds. The boat provided Shotridge with living accommodations and a certain autonomy outside the discriminatory society of southeastern Alaska, where Natives and Anglo-Americans rarely mingled on equal grounds. Hisfreedomof movement secure, Shotridge was able to accompany the men to their hunting camps and thus partake in indigenous Tlingit lifeways for extended periods of time. Shotridge had worked long to adopt the "new ways" of Anglo-Americans, through entrepreneurship, education, and employment. His anthropological training taught him to value indigenous lifeways as something precious and evanescent. But that training, combined with the fact that it was his own heritage and identity that he had come back to Alaska to value, made the experience transformative: Here again I lived the life which I desire to illustrate: performing the daily duties of my people and listening to their after day's work stories, in fact, back to my boyhood days once more. In spite of our frequent associations with the white people, these old families, to my favor, took much pleasure in expressing their old time feelings and living the old life • 48  over again. From his headquarters in Haines, Shotridge made two trips to Klukwan, leading the life that he "seemed to have left in the past." He stayed nearly four weeks on the second 49  visit. There he attended a memorial potlatch which he referred to as a "call together ceremony." Shotridge's published recollections of thisfieldworkallude to his insider 50  position. They are written in the appropriately enthusiastic quasi-personal academic/travelogue style characteristic of the Museum Journal during Gordon's years.  156  Issues of Ownership and Conflicting "Regimes of Value" As a Native ethnographer, Shotridge was witness to or involved in a number of controversies concerning the ownership of important clan objects. He was aware of these issues when he wrote, "I have been shown a number of other collections of fine old things, the immediate disposition of which is at present difficult for the owners who, in some cases, hold a claim only that of a custodian, but such men are fast becoming sole owners.  „51  Such circumstances were common throughout the Northwest Coast as disputes over rights to important objects became more prevalent. With the passing of a generation 52  of hereditary owners or custodians,  and the introduction of U.S. civil law, Tlingit  customs of matrilineal descent and communal property were subjected to question. Some clan objects were sold into Euro-American art/culture markets and this served to increase their monetary value. As Appadurai demonstrates, objects circulate in "regimes of value" created in time and space, and the conditions under which objects circulate or the politics Of the exchange denote value.  53  It was within the context of the potlatch that names,  ceremonial objects, myths, and songs to function as forms of symbolic property inherited from the ancestors in the matriline. Many individuals continued to support the preservation of customs such as the memorial potlatch and the use of historically significant ceremonial objects. For example, Kan describes the enduring importance of the memorial potlatch: It became clear that the mortuary/ancestral complex was the most conservative aspect of Tlingit culture, serving as one of the main links between the past and the present. It was the major context in which  157  matrilineality, dualism, and (modified) hierarchy—the basic principles of the indigenous sociocultural order—were still operating. 54  Nevertheless, the disruption of the potlatch system was a central reason why objects recognized for their societal importance were retiredfrompublic life and sometimes sold to collectors. Thus, the "regime of value" of some clan-owned objects originally established within the potlatch system was transferred to the Western art/culture system and came to validate a different elite. As capitalistic influences became increasingly pervasive, objects previously considered clan property or whose ownership status was dubious were sometimes claimed as personal property. In some cases the focus of object exchange shiftedfromthe clan to the Euro-American art/culture market. Questions of inheritance and ownership were particularly evident among families of powerful clan leaders. The events surrounding the disposition of Chief Shakes' VI "Killer Whale" canoe give some indication of the complexity of these matters. Shotridge had heard that Shakes' war canoe, "the only one without modern repairs so it is complete throughout" might be available for sale. In an east coast atmosphere of competitive 55  museum display, Gordon was anxious to purchase a canoe similar to that on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.  56  His instructions to Shotridge were  terse, "I trust that you will use your diplomacy and experience to the best advantage possible to acquire this specimen for the lowest price at which it can be obtained." Shotridge left immediately for Wrangell but arrived too late. Shakes had passed away suddenly and his possessions werefrozenpending the probate of his will. Shotridge returned to Haines but soon received a letterfromhis brother-in-law stating that the family  158  intended to sell the canoe to thefirstperson who could come up with the asking price. The town of Wrangell was also said to be considering its purchase. Shotridge acted quickly but Shakes' widow suddenly refused to negotiate. Shotridge was able to secure an interview with her because he was "a distant relative of the deceased chief but he failed to 59  convince her to sell.  Members of Shakes clan claimed that the many objects in Shakes'  possession were community property and a U.S. court case ensued. The court ruled that the canoe was personal property but further complications arose when a Wrangell merchant laid claim to it, stating it had been transferred to him in payment for a debt owed by the deceased chief. Under these circumstances Shotridge was forced to discontinue his efforts to purchase the canoe. This example demonstrates that the exchange of Tlingit objects was often subject to a multiplicity of interrelated events and agendas over which the family or clan sometimes had little control. In the case of the Shakes' canoe the distinction between personal objects and clan objects was blurred and subject to controversy. The proposed sale was complicated by multiple claims of ownership and who had the right to sell valuable objects. Some objects had greater social value than others. Crest objects and especially crest hats embodied the social rank of the clans that possessed them while also serving as repositories of clan histories. In Tlingit they are referred to as at.oow which translates as "an owned or purchased thing or object." At.oow is identified by Dauenhauer and 60  Dauenhauer as "the single-most important spiritual and cultural concept for the Tlingit."  61  "The clan histories," they state, "and other stories recall how such an event happens in the 159  life of an ancestor or progenitor and various aspects of the event become the clan's 62  at.oow."  Crest hats or helmets were therefore deemed among the most valuable crest 63  possessions of the Tlingit clans.  In 1917, Shotridge acquired three crest hats belonging  to his own clan, the Kaagwaantaan of Klukwan (fig. 4.4). Called by their crest names the "Killer Whale," the "Under Sea Grizzly Bear," and the "Murrelet" hats, they were all from the Drum House. Shotridge emphasized the importance of clan hats and helmets, in an 64  article published in 1919a: The objects of this class were used only when appropriate occasions called for so doing, such as special performances during important conventions or potlatches, peace dances, in wars and on all formal ceremonies. They are classed as community property, and unlike personal effects, each descendsfroma man to his sister's son; one's predecessor in the holding of any title or right is thus not his father but his maternal uncle. 65  While crest hats or helmets were usually, "inalienable" clan possessions 66  transferable only through proper lines of descent within the clan, changes in political, social, and economic relations under Anglo-American domination destabilized indigenous patterns of property ownership and relations between various forms of property. Earlier, clan relationships that governed control of lands and exploitation of resources through the organization of labour were also represented and reproduced through the possession and ceremonial manipulation of the important clan objects or at.oow. Now that ownership of property and resources was threatened by Anglo-American appropriation and labour relations were changed by population decline and institutionalized education, the relations 67  of important clan objects to its members were also disrupted.  160  As noted previously, some owners accommodated these changes by adopting Anglo-American notions of preservation. For example, according to Shotridge, "Daqutonk, the old leader of the family is very ill and just about reaching his end. This is how he 68  is convinced to find a good place for the old helmets." Shotridge's comments suggest the owner was convinced of the importance of providing a "secure" repository for the objects and a measure offinancialsecurity for his heirs. At the other end of this negotiation stood Gordon and the University Museum as an institutional arm of the dominant society, able with Shotridge's documentation to transfer the social importance of the objectsfromthe Native owner to the museum. Upon receiving the helmets, Gordon praised Shotridge and urged him on to further achievements: I congratulate you on your success in making these collections. The three helmets are of special interest and importance and I am very glad that you succeeded in getting them. If you can continue to procure the old carvings or ceremonial costumes or dishes, we will want to do everything in our power to support you and to provide you with the necessary funds. 69  However, this negotiation reverberated further. Shotridge later admitted that his removal of three highly regarded crest hatsfromthe Drum House was, "something like 70  juggling a hornet's nest." Shotridge was aware that the large sums of money he offered for heirloom objects created tensions and inflamed animosities within Native communities. He used his personal access to owners and objects strategically, but in some instances registered the inevitable conflicts arisingfromhis dual role as a member of Tlingit society and a negotiator for Anglo-American collectors.  161  The Death of Florence Shotridge By the spring of 1917 Florence Shotridge's health was deteriorating rapidly to the 71  extent that she was "not in a condition of being moved at all." Upon hearing of the seriousness of her illness Gordon wrote: I am more sorry than I can tell you to hear that Mrs. Shotridge is in such poor health. I did not at all realize how serious her condition was. I want to say to you now that you must not feel that your duty to the Museum makes it necessary for you to be absent from your wife when she needs your care. You should, on the contrary, place the attention which she needsfirstand the work of the Museum second....Will you kindly give Mrs. Shotridge my affectionate remembrances and my very 72  deep sympathy?  In the spring of 1917 Shotridge was laying out his schedule for that summer's fieldwork when those plans were tragically interrupted. On June 12, 1917, two years into the expedition and after a prolonged and painful struggle, Florence succumbed to the disease which destroyed so many Native Alaskan lives. She was buried in the family 73  cemetery at Chilkoot few days later.  In Philadelphia her passing was recorded in several  articles where she was remembered for her intelligence, kindness, and popularity with museum-goers, most especially the children. Yet the chance to reproduce the tragic 74  archetype of the "Indian Princess" was not overlooked — a headline in a Philadelphia 75  newspaper read, "'Minnehaha' Dead in Alaska."  Florence Shotridge's thoughts and motivations are difficult to discern. Her writings depict a woman who, in spite of her years at mission school, maintained an active interest in Tlingit lifeways. A telling statement appears in her article describing a young girl's training for womanhood: 162  A girl who goes through this training can, when entrusted with anything, whether great or small, be relied upon to see to it properly. She is strongly impressed with the idea that it would be a disgrace if she made a failure. 76  The Shotridges' lives were in many respects metaphorically woven together by the Tinda Blanket. Theirs was a collaborative undertaking which shaped both their careers. A grief-stricken Shotridge wrote to Gordon, "Many changes have taken place in the last few weeks so that it seems almost difficult to continue my work, not that I want to give up but 77  my mind seem[s] to be a total blank."  Many years later Shotridge wrote that her  personality, "was like a shining torch in the way of other women of her race, and until her 78  death, never once did she fail in creating a pure friendship everywhere she went." Personal tributes on the quality of her personality were recorded by all who met and 79  worked with her. 80  in Haines  Today Florence Shotridge's picture hangs on the wall in Raven House  where it is viewed as a tribute to the memory of an intelligent and remarkable  clanswoman. Collecting in Tsimshian Territory  In 1918 Gordon, hoping to take Shotridge's mind off his loss, suggested he make a trip to either the Kuskokwim area in the north or the Nass-Skeena River country in British Columbia. Not relishing the idea of wintering in the inhospitable climate of the northern interior and feeling a greater affinity for the Tsimshian people, Shotridge chose the latter. He spent two months in the area, visiting fourteen settlements along the Nass and the Skeena Rivers. There he made several significant purchases, recorded a number of  163  Tsimshian legends and songs, and took more than one hundred photographs. Shotridge later wrote, "I found no difficulty in mixing in with the coast Tsimshians and learn as much as possible the habits of the people living on both Nass and Skeena Rivers, and also 81  gathered all that was obtainable at this place."  However, in order to acquire "first class"  materials Shotridge argued, a great deal more time was required: One must camp out on the trail of things and live the lives of the people most of whom, regardless of the press of civilization, appeared to be still primitive especially those living in the interior. I believe it will be worth an effort that might be offered by some capable earnest worker. But like in most of the towns along the coast opportunities, I fear, will last only 82  for a little while longer. At Aiyansh he purchased, along with information on its use, "a complete 83  ceremonial dance outfit which belonged to one of the secret societies of Naasman" (fig. 4.5). At Gitsumkelum he met a man who had been a friend of his grandfather Shaadaxicht who remembered him as afrequentvisitor to the area. Here also he recorded the story of 84  some Tlingit people who migrated to the territory, bringing with them a stone eagle. Shotridge photographed the piece and suggested that the owner might wish to place it in 85  the University Museum.  Significantly Shotridge recorded the resistance to sale by the  Native owner, quoting him as saying, "I like to do that, if only I have something besides this piece by which to keep in mind the memories of my uncles and grandfathers, but this is the only thing I have leftfromall thefinethings my family used to have, and I feel as if I 86  might diefirstbefore this piece of rock leaves this last place." Shotridge subsequently published two illustrated articles on the journey (see figs. 87  7.12 & 7.13).  In one article he describes a talk he delivered in a church at Port Simpson: 164  Since my talk was announced to be given on Sunday I was rather compelled to express my true Indian feeling under the influence of the Christian religion. To the disgust of some modern young persons who were in my audience, I appealed too strongly in favor of encouraging the true character of the old time Tsimshian. There were many of the old people in the room, who had lived and learned during the early days, 88  and who expressed much delight in my reception. For Shotridge the Tsimshian were also, "thefirstgroup of Indians I have ever met in the Northwest who foresaw the value of land and who are making efforts to provide 89  some kind of foothold on behalf of the generation to come."  At Getanyow (Kitwankool) 90  he was allowed to photograph a map outlining Tsimshian claims to territory. His writings on Tsimshian land conflict and his lectures on the value of Tsimshian heritage were reiterated within the context of his own circumstances in such forums as public lectures and in his political affiliations. Shotridge struggled with the conflicts of his position and the currency he had gained among the elder generation with whom he worked. For example, he noted his dismay at the extent of missionary influence among Tsimshian people. In a telling insight into Shotridge's thinking at this date, he expressed what he perceived to be the irony of "modern" Tlingit