UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Shadow and substance : a computer assisted study of Niska and Gitksan totem poles Shane, Audrey Mackay 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 S53.pdf [ 23.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094378.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094378-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094378-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094378-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094378-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094378-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094378-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094378-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094378.ris

Full Text

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE: A COMPUTER ASSISTED STUDY OF NISKA AND GITKSAN TOTEM POLES by AUDREY PATRICIA MACKAY SHANE Dip. I.D. University of Manitoba, 1942 B.A. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1978  ©  Audrey P a t r i c i a Mackay Shane, 1978  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y I  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y  s h a l l make i t  freely  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r of B r i t i s h  available  for  Columbia,  I agree  that  reference and study.  f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s of  this  written  representatives.  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  thesis for financial  gain s h a l l  not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y  Anthropology and Sociology of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  It  October 4.  1978  Columbia  MAP 1. TSIMSHTAN VILLAGES, BRITISH COLUMBIA  A f t er George Via c Donaid N a t i o n a l Museums o f Canada.  Social anthropologists only occasionally turn their attention to a r t , and then usually with some uneasiness. There i s the lurking suggestion that this interest, however i n d i r e c t , might on the one hand undermine their s c i e n t i f i c approach, and on the other c a l l f o r t h from their colleagues one of the current terms of disparagement: ethnologist or ethnographer, with museum or " c u l t u r a l " leanings. I r e a l i z e of course that there are outstanding exceptions; but i t s t i l l seems necessary to emphasize that art i s a legitimate topic f o r anthropological consideration, and one which has not had the attention i t deserves. Ronald Berndt, 1958  ib  ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to d i s t i n g u i s h varying styles i n a p a r t i c u l a r set of massive carvings from the Northwest Coast of North America, the totem poles of the Niska Gitksan.  The method of investigation i s based on the use of  h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g and multi-dimensional programmes.  scaling computer  These programmes are of a type used i n e c o l o g i c a l ,  geological, and archaeological studies. establish a numerical drawn.  and  Their purpose i s to  taxonomy from which inferences may  be  The data used i n the study are based exclusively on  photographs, and i t i s possible to include a r t i f a c t s no i n existence.  longer  There i s an ethnographic record against  which the success of the methodology i s measured. It i s concluded that there are four d i s t i n c t i v e styles of carving and organizing the totem poles.  Two  of these are  attributed to the Niska and two to the Gitksan.  A rhythm of  order i s demonstrated i n the placement of figures on the poles. It i s concluded that the taxonomy gives p o s i t i v e support  to  the hypotheses of previous investigators i n regard to clan formation: o r i g i n a l l y there was  a two-fold rather than a f o u r - f o l d  d i v i s i o n among these Tsimshian groups.  ii  T r a i t s associated with  i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t s are not defined by the programmes, although associated t r a i t s preferred i n c e r t a i n locations are described.  iii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge-with deep gratitude, the support of many friends and colleagues during the course of this study. F i r s t of a l l , thanks are due to Dr. Harry Hawthorn, Mrs. Audrey Hawthorn, and other members of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, who made i t possible for me to embark upon the t h i r d career of my l i f e . As chairman of my committee, Dr. Marjorie Halpin has contributed encouragement her of  and constructive c r i t i c i s m based on  thorough knowledge of Tsimshian l i f e and a r t . Other members the committee, Dr. K.O.L. Burridge, Dr. James Caswell, and  Dr. R.G. Matson have offered advice and assistance i n their several specialized f i e l d s . A former member of the committee, Wilson Duff, was generous i n sharing h i s unique insights on Northwest Coast art although he remained s c e p t i c a l on the subject of blending art and computers. I am indebted to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia for the of  support of a Fellowship prior to my appointment to the s t a f f the Museum of Anthropology. A l l of my colleagues have been  h e l p f u l i n countless ways. Special acknowledgment i s due to the Director of the Museum of Anthropology, Dr. Michael M. Ames, f o r his  active encouragement  of research on the part of h i s s t a f f .  iv  Lastly, as i s usual, I wish to acknowledge the warm and  invaluable support of my husband and family. They have  borne my t r a n s i t i o n from wife and mother to student with seldom f a i l i n g patience.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  i i  LIST OF TABLES  v  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS  vi  INTRODUCTION  1  Chapter I.  THE TSIMSHIAN PEOPLE  II. III. IV.  4  STYLE, ART, AND ANTHROPOLOGY  14  METHODOLOGY  25  . . .  DISCUSSION  V.  .  CONCLUSIONS  37 61  EPILOGUE  70  APPENDICES  . .  BIBLIOGRAPHY  108 120  vi  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1.  Key to the Identity of Gitksan Totem Poles . . . .  37  2.  Key to the Identity of Niska Totem Poles  40  3.  Poles i n the Order of Dendrogram Clustering, Appendix II  41  4.  Percentages of Poles Raised by Clans, by Decade  5.  Niska and Gitksan Poles Clustered by Carving Characteristics  51  Preferred Character T r a i t s , by Location  58  6.  vxi '  .  51  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.  Page Vectors 1 and 2, Multi-dimensional Scaling, Dendrogram, Appendix II  48  Plate I.  II.  III.  Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3.  Pole Pole Pole Pole Pole Pole  1 84 2 66 6 93  71  72  Figure 1.  Pole 3  Figure 2.  Pole 22  IV.  Figure 1.  Pole 54  74  V.  Figure 1.  Pole 56  75  VI.  Figure Figure Figure Figure  Pole Pole Pole Pole  VII.  1. 2. 1. 2.  92 7 26 12  73  . .  76 77  VIII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 46 Pole 38 Pole 45  IX.  Figure 1. Figure 2.  Pole 61 . . . Pole 61, d e t a i l  X.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 9 Pole 18 Pole 47  80  XI.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 43 Pole 10 Pole 33  81  viii  78  . .  79  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued Plate  p  a g e  XII.  Figure 1. Figure 2.  Pole 23 Pole 44  82  XIII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 24 Pole 32 Pole 31  83  XIV.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 68 Pole 29 Pole 34  84  XV.  Figure 1. Figure 2.  Pole 67 Pole 79  85  XVI.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 4 Pole 48 Pole 89  XVII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 78 Pole 13 Pole 27  87  XVIII.  Figure Figure igure Figure  1. 2. 3. 4.  Pole Pole Pole Pole  60 39 49 20  88  XIX.  Figure Figure Figure Figure  1. 2. 3. 4.  Pole Pole Pole Pole  71 37 55 62  89  XX.  Figure 1. Figure 2.  Pole 8 Pole 25  90  XXI.  Figure Figure Figure Figure  Pole Pole Pole Pole  91  F  1. 2. 3. 4.  16 17 14 15  ix  .  86  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued Plate  Page  XXII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 30 Pole 36 Pole 91  92  XXIII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 35 Pole 87 Pole 95  93  XXIV.  Figure Figure Figure Figure  Pole Pole Pole Pole  94  XXV.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 11 Pole 72 Pole 73  XXVI.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 63 Pole 96 Pole 76  XXVII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 58 Pole 59, d e t a i l Pole 77  XXVIII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 28 Pole 51 Pole 88  98  XXIX.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 90 Pole 74 Pole 81  99  XXX.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 19 Pole 53 Pole 94  100  XXXI.  Figure 1.  Pole 21  101  XXXII.  Figure 1. Figure 2.  Pole 40 Pole 52  102  1. 2. 3. 4.  80 83 85 86  , x:  . . . . . . . . . . .  .  95  96  97 , . .,  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued Plate  Page  XXXIII.  Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.  Pole 5 Pole 41 Pole 64  103  XXXIV.  Figure 1.  Pole 65  104  Figure 2.  Pole 82  XXXV.  Figure 1.  Pole 75  105  XXXVI.  Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  Pole Pole Pole Pole Pole  106  XXXVII.  1. 2. 3. 1. 2.  42' 57 50 69 70  107  Map Map 1  Frontispiece.  xi  INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to demonstrate the u t i l i t y of numeric taxonomic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by means of a computer, as a tool i n determining relationships between a r t i f a c t s of a complex nature. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s hoped that such a method can provide s i g n i f i c a n t and r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s when applied to sculptural forms f o r the purpose of distinguishing a p a r t i c u l a r style of an individual or group. Furthermore, i n drawing exclusively upon photographs f o r a data base, i t i s hoped to encourage more studies of a r t i f a c t s not p h y s i c a l l y ~ available to the researchers; i n the case of this thesis, some of the material described has been dust f o r nearly f i f t y years - yet images of i t remain, p o t e n t i a l l y of value. The data to be used are photographs of Niska and Gitksan totem poles drawn from the publications, of Marius Barbeau,. the f i l e s of Charles Borden, the f i l e s of Wilson Duff, and. the f i l e s of the National Museums of Canada.  The selection for further investigation of a group  of objects already well known and widely published may seem redundant. It should be emphasized, however, that none of the written information w i l l be used as part of the data base.  This information, then, exists  as an independent gauge of the r e l i a b i l i t y  of the method. Conversely,  lack of " f i t " between the ethnographic record and the r e s u l t s of computer clustering w i l l pinpoint problem areas. The choice of a r t i f a c t s f o r investigation also r e f l e c t s a 1  deep  2. sense of f r u s t r a t i o n , which i s surely shared by a generation of researchers in Northwest  Coast a r t .  study of totem poles.  There are only two general sources for the  These are the Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper  Skeena River, B r i t i s h Columbia published by Marius Barbeau.  (1929), and Totem Poles (1950), both Without them, a body of monumental sculp-  t u r a l work of international importance would be l i t t l e known.  Yet the  organization of information i n these books i s haphazard, r e p e t i t i v e , and daunting to a l l but the most persistent readers.  The less per-  sistent w i l l not notice a number of inaccuracies and contradictions; worse s t i l l , they w i l l accept some of the conclusions without question. Although I remain unconvinced of the accuracy of some of Barbeau's theories and a r t i s t i c judgments, i t would be ungracious, and c e r t a i n l y less than f a i r not to acknowledge our debt both to him and to the Tsimshian ethnographer, William Beynon, h i s collaborator. The data used f o r the thesis consist of ninety-six totem poles from the iNass and Upper Skeena Rivers of B r i t i s h Columbia. poles w i l l be described by means of a character l i s t .  These  A "character" may  be any aspect of the pole which i s judged by the investigator to be relevant to the study.  Such a character must be capable of being  scored as "present" or "absent".  I have chosen to r e s t r i c t these  characters to those descriptive of form rather than iconography. This choice i s based on the assumption that an a r t i s t , or group of a r t i s t s may be more r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d by means of the manner in which their work i s conceived and executed rather than by the content of  the work.  3. The quantitative techniques employed to transform the score of each pole (in terms of the presence or absence of any given character) into a measurement of s i m i l a r i t y , w i l l be described i n d e t a i l i n a l a t e r chapter.  I believe a technical analysis should precede and complement  any i n t u i t i v e judgmentetof relationships i n art s t y l e s .  I also believe  such an analysis may be greatly assisted by the use of a computer i n appropriate cases.  P a r t i c u l a r l y when dealing with a data set both  complicated and subtle i n i t s v a r i a t i o n s , the sorting c a p a b i l i t i e s of a computer are invaluable.  Only the investigator, with i n t u i t i v e judg-  ment, can determine the meaning of the r e s u l t s of such a sorting process. Employment of a quantitative methodology makes i t unnecessary  to r e l y  wholly upon the reputation of the investigator, as has been the case too often i n the past. It i s hoped that the thesis w i l l : 1.  E s t a b l i s h sub^-populations of poles which may be defined as belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r configuration which constitutes a style.  2.  Define some clusters of t r a i t s which may be associated with a p a r t i c u l a r a r t i s t or group of a r t i s t s .  3.  Demonstrate that the placement of figures on poles i s not random.  4.  I l l u s t r a t e the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s inherent i n applying a new method to old knowledge.  The end result should provide a d e f i n i t i o n of the s t y l e of Niska and Gitksan totem pole carving which i s both empirically based and more precise than any now  available f o r this p l a s t i c art  1929, 1950; Wingert, 1951).  (Barbeau,  CHAPTER 1 THE TSIMSHIAN PEOPLE The a r t i s t s whose styles I hope to define are responsible for some of the f i n e s t massive carvings i n the world, totem poles.  Totem  poles were once an essential part of the l i f e of the Tsimshian, whose home i s on the Northwest Coast of North America.(Tnpl939, -L A.L. Kroeber published h i s d e f i n i t i v e work Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America, i n which his stated purpose was to examine both environmental r e l a t i o n s and h i s t o r i c r e l a t i o n s of culture areas or geographical units.  On the basis of culture t r a i t s , patterns, and  geography, Kroeber i d e n t i f i e d a unit now known as the Northwest Coast. This area stretches from Yakutat Bay i n Southeast Alaska to Trinidad Bay i n Northern C a l i f o r n i a .  Kroeber's d e f i n i t i o n i s now a standard  i n the l i t e r a t u r e . While the connection between the northernmost T l i n g i t and the southern Hupa may appear tenuous, s i m i l a r i t i e s can c e r t a i n l y be seen along the continuum which l i e s between them i f this i s placed i n context with cultures of the rest of the Americas.  Nevertheless, the image  which usually comes to mind when the Northwest Coast i s referred to i s that of a complex which includes feasting, masking, totemppoles, and types of s o c i a l organization which belong p a r t i c u l a r l y to the area l y i n g from Campbell River on Vancouver Island, and the adjacent mainland northward.  Part of this forms the d i s t i n c t Northern Maritime Province,  4  5. r e s t r i c t e d to the T l i n g i t , Haida, Tsimshian, and Northern Kwakiutl (Haisla), a l l of whom share the important concept of m a t r i l i n e a l i t y as well as other t r a i t s which tend to set them apart from the rest of the Northwest Coast  (Drucker, 1955: 109).  The Tsimshian people, whose culture i s the focus of this paper, have been described by Boas (1916) and, following further f i e l d work, by his p u p i l , Garfield.(1939).  These papers are the only published  descriptions of t r a d i t i o n a l culture available to us, and i n some important respects they, have been further refined by Halpin (1973). Halpin has presented a clear and useful outline of the Tsimshian and their s o c i a l organization: which -is a d i s t i n c t improvement on previously existing outlines.  With her permission, the following discussion w i l l  contain extensive quotations from her.dissertation.. There i s confusionn and'inconsistency i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding l i n g u i s t i c , cultural,.and geographic d i v i s i o n s of Tsimshian-speaking people. The following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s proposed and used herein to avoid ambiguity and c l e a r l y distinguish l i n g u i s t i c (e.g., Tsimshian) and major (e.g., Coast Tsimshian) .and, minor (e.g., Lower Skeena Tsimshian) '•"'cultural-geographic units or d i v i s i o n s : Tsimshian i s a l i n g u i s t i c designation for people speaking two related languages (Rigsby, 1969): Coast Tsimshian, IandJ Nass-Gitksan. These two language groups are divided into three broad c u l t u r a l and geographic d i v i s i o n s : Coast Tsimshian, l i v i n g along the lower Skeena River up to and including i t s canyon, and the coasts and islands from the mouth of the Nass south to Milbanke Sound; Niska, l i v i n g along the Nass River and Portland Canal; [and] Gitksan, l i v i n g along the upper Skeena River or i t s tributaries. The Gitksan are often referred to i n the l i t e r a t u r e as the people of the Upper Skeena;  6. ' Tribes: The Tsimshian l i v e d i n some twenty-six l o c a l groups usually referred to as t r i b e s . Each t r i b e customarily occupied a single winter v i l l a g e , often of the same name. The tribes [whose poles are discussed] are l i s t e d below according to the preceding geo-cultural d i v i s i o n s . . . The s p e l l i n g of t r i b a l names i s based upon Marius Barbeau's f i e l d orthography and English translations are approximations derived from h i s f i e l d notes, except where another source i s given. The accepted names and spellings of present Tsimshian bands are given i n brackets (from Duff, 1964: 18-20). . .[Coast Tsimshian omitted here] Generally speaking, the four Niska tribes have not retained clear and separate i d e n t i t i e s to the same degree as have their Coast Tsimshian and Gitksan neighbours. There was considerable population movement i n this area, and the people who comprised the tribes and l i v e d i n the different v i l l a g e s are not always c l e a r l y distinguishable on the basis of present data. . . The people of the lower Nass called themselves the g' i t x a t ' i^n and were divided into two t r i b e s : the g'itxat' i.'n (proper) and the g* i t g ' i ^ ' E o t i x , who were a small offshoot population that moved a short distance upriver to the v i l l a g e of antegwalE '. The g ' i t x a t ' i / n did not conform to the usual pattern of l i v i n g i n a single winter v i l l a g e , and they and the g* itg* ig'E/nix experienced a number of population s h i f t s so that their history of settlement i s complicated. Since the l a t e decades of the 19th century they have been l i v i n g at the two modern v i l l a g e s of K i n c o l i t h ("place of scalps") and Greenville or laxg.aldzap ("on deserted v i l l a g e s i t e " ) . The four v i l l a g e s l i s t e d below for the g ' i t x a t ^ i / n were 19th century "totem pole" v i l l a g e s . . . 1. g* i t 'iks ("people of iks." an exclamation) 2. kwunws^q ("where people sleep" when t r a v e l l i n g ) 3. ang*edE ("where they catch eulachon with rakes") 4. g ' i t l a x * a u s ("people on the sandbar"). . . The people of the upper Nass weretthe g* i t n w i l i k s ("people staying temporarily," r e f e r r i n g to their movement down the r i v e r at eulachon f i s h i n g time). They were divided into two t r i b e s : the g* itw^nksi'lk, ("people of the place of l i z a r d s " ) [Canyon City] who l i v e d at the canyon, and the dominant g* itlaxda.'mks, ("people on the place of springs") [Gitlakadamix] who l i v e d a few miles above them. Around the turn of the century the old v i l l a g e of g* itwgnksi^lk burned down and the people settled at Gwinaha. They have since moved to Canyon City. The Christians of g* itlaxda/mks moved to the missionary v i l l a g e a i y a n c ("early leaves") and, when i t was flooded ca. 1918, they returned to g'itlaxdafmks, which was then given the name ai^ya^nc. Recently, the g*itlaxda.mks have moved to the modern v i l l a g e of New Aiyansh. . . 1  /  /  g  >  /  7. The seven Gitksan tribes each occupied a single winter v i l l a g e , s i x of them on or near the Skeena and one, k'jtwgn-fcku-'l, to the north on the "grease t r a i l " to the Nass. About 1880 another small t r i b e , the anlag.as^mdE'n, joined the k*isg.ag.a/s. Three Christian communities were founded between 1890 and 1910. Glen Vowell, the only one s t i l l i n existence, drew i t s converts from k*ispayaks, k*isg.ag.a.s, and qaldo/; Andimaul ("where they f i s h with hand l i n e s " ) mostly from k'itsggu'kla; and Meanskinisht ("at the base of the b i g mountain") from k* itwang. E and k*itwgnlku l. g'it* anma'ks, at the s i t e of the white settlement of Skeena Forks or Hazelton (founded i n the l a t e 1860's), a t t racted people from neighbouring v i l l a g e s and i t s o r i g i n a l l y small population now exceeds a l l of the others; the k'isg.ag.a.s have now completely amalgamated with them. The people of qald o / have amalgamated with k*ispayaks, and many of the k* itwgn3:ku 1 moved to the Nass i n the l a t e 19th century to l i v e at Aiyansh and K i n c o l i t h . . . /  /j  /:>  Descent Groups Houses: The basic s o c i a l unit i n a l l three d i v i s i o n s of the Tsimshian was a corporate matrilineage c a l l e d a "house" (wglp) and named after i t s highest-ranking chief's name. Larger lineages fissioned into branch lineages, each named after i t s own house chief, but subordinate to the highestraking chief of i t s major branch or segment. The house as a m a t r i l i n e a l descent group was not coterminous with the household i n which l i v e d members of the matrilineage plus t h e i r a f f i n e s and children belonging to other lineages. The larger matrilineages often occupied more than one dwelling, which were named according to a d i f f e r e n t system: dwelling names were inherited as crests (ayiiks), of which high-ranking lineages usually owned several. Branch lineages could draw upon the stock of house names owned by the parent house. The house was the p r i n c i p a l resource-owning corporation i n Tsimshian society. I t s resources included f i s h i n g , hunting, and gathering t e r r i t o r i e s or l o c a l i t i e s , which were exploited under the d i r e c t i o n of the house chief. The house also owned a stock of ceremonial p r i v i l e g e s : names (of several taypes), crests, myths, songs, and feast prerogatives, which were also under control or stewardship of i t s chief. We know that houses fluctuated widely i n s i z e , at times resorting to adoption to prevent extinction, at other times growing so large that they fissioned into two or more separate houses. But there are no descriptions i n the Barbeau notes or { u n t i l recently] i n the published l i t e r a t u r e , of i n t r a house composition and dynamics [Adams: 1973], The l i n e s of f i s s i o n mentioned i n t r a d i t i o n a l narratives were between brothers.  8. Clans: Each house and i n d i v i d u a l belonged t o a l a r g e r , exogamic, s t i p u l a t e d , m a t r i l i n e a l group which i s u s u a l l y c a l l e d a p h r a t r y i n the l i t e r a t u r e , but which I am c a l l i n g a c l a n . There were f o u r , each r e p r e s e n t e d i n a l l t h r e e d i v i s i o n s (the names of two of them change w i t h the G i t k s a n ) , a l t h o u g h not a l l f o u r c l a n s were to be found i n a l l t r i b e s . The names and p r i n c i p a l c r e s t s of each c l a n are as f o l l o w s : . . .  TSIMSHIAN CLANS AND  TABLE I THEIR PRINCIPAL CREST ANIMALS  Coast xcgianha'da* Tsimshian (?)  laxk*ibu ("on the wolf")  II  Niska Gitksan  /  g'isp^wudwa'da  II II  laxse.'l** (g.anha d^ i n Kitsegukla)  II  II II  g " i s j . a.'st ("people of the fireweed")  /  Crests Wolf Bear  Raven Frog  (?)  laxsk'i'k ("on the eagle")  Killerwhale Grizzly  Eagle Beaver  g.anha da may be d e r i v e d from the T l i n g i t Raven c l a n name ganaxadi ("people of ganax") ( G a r f i e l d , 1966: 19). /  **  l a x s e / l may be d e r i v e d from the T s i m s h i a n word, f o r the T l i n g i t v i l l a g e a t Cape Fox: laxsel^.  C l a n exogamy was extended t o the c o r r e s d p o n d i n g c l a n s ( m o i e t i e s ) of the n e i g h b o u r i n g T l i n g i t and H a i d a , f o r which the f o u r T s i m s h i a n c l a n s were grouped i n two p a i r s , as f o l l o w s : TABLE I I TSIMSHIAN, HAIDA, AND TLINGIT CLANS AND  CRESTS  Haida Ravens T l i n g i t Wolves Crests grizzly  T l i n g i t Ravens Haida E a g l e s raven  Tsimshian  g * ispawudwa'dj g*isg.a/st  killerwhale  frog  g.anha d 9 laxse/l  laxk"ibu'  wolf bear  eagle beaver  laxsk'i.'k  Tsimshian  /  9. Adams has complicated the picture sketched by Halpin by proposing that lineages are r e s t r i c t e d solely to people who can claim a mother's mother i n common, stating that t h i s i s due to a b e l i e f that m a t r i l i n e a l grandparents are reincarnated through t h e i r dants. 1973:  descen-  Furthermore he states "Houses are not descent groups" (Adams, 31). This seems strange i n the l i g h t of his e a r l i e r statement  that "The c u l t u r a l forms we observe today are v i r t u a l l y the same as those reported for the Coast Tsimshian (Boas, 1916; G a r f i e l d ; 1939) " (Adams, 1973: 22). Garfield refers to a l l the members of a house as part of a lineage, and furnishes a diagram whose members are c l e a r l y not r e s t r i c t e d to those with a "mother's mother" i n common 1939:  (Garfield,  276-279). Pending c l a r i f i c a t i o n of Adams' d e f i n i t i o n , i t seems  best to adhere to previous proposals. Origins of the clans, as explained by the h i s t o r i e s of the Tsimshian, are quite d i v e r s i f i e d .  Unlike the h i s t o r i e s of the  Kwakiutl and B e l l a Coola, who reckon descent from both parents and who are s p e c i f i c about the establishment of their v i l l a g e s by a p a r t i c u l a r semiedivine sky being (Garfield, 1951), the Tsimshian accounts emphasize the possession of common prerogatives obtained from ancestors, which descend  through the maternal l i n e .  Thus their stories of migrations, beginning i n some accounts with the migrations i n i t i a t e d by a Flood or a disastrous " l o c a l " snowfall which overwhelmed their ancestral home, Temlaham, often mention that wandering groups settled for a time with other groups with whom they shared clan a f f i l i a t i o n s and major crests.  The  10. Kltwancool t r i b e , according to their h i s t o r i e s , i s a group of people of d i f f e r e n t origins; one group t e l l s of leaving their early home on the sea-coast, t r a v e l l i n g up the Nass, and then moving into their present t e r r i t o r y (Duff, 1959). A very important factor i n the l i v e s of a l l three Tsimshian d i v i s i o n s was the annual eulachon run which took place i n early spring. This f i s h , which i s also called the candlefish, i s extremely greasy, and may be rendered to provide an o i l much prized not only by the Tsimshian, but also by other t r i b e s .  A l l Tsimshian groups had  t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h i n g stations along the Nass, and the gathering of the people there was the occasion for intensive trading, not only among themselves but with v i s i t i n g Haida and T l i n g i t .  Trading also took  place by means of the "grease t r a i l " an overland route which linked the Nass and Skeena r i v e r s by way of the v i l l a g e of Kltwancool. The existence of this t r a i l no doubt was p a r t l y responsible f o r the l i n k s which existed between the Niska and Gitksan - l i n k s which were perceived to be closer than those which either group had with the Coast Tsimshian. This i s a land which l i k e any land trodden by human beings has been enjoyed, exchanged, fought over and loved f o r m i l l e n i a . Archaeologists have v e r i f i e d the early occupation of the s i t e at the mouth of the Skeena which we now c a l l Prince Rupert - and this was at least f i v e thousand years ago. "These t r a d i t i o n s are confirmed by archaeological record, which indicates that the Tsimshian have occupied Prince Rupert harbour and the surrounding coastline continuously f o r at least 5,000 years " (MacDonald and I n g l i s , 1976: 34).  11. MacDonald c i t e s the evidence of a r t i f a c t s to argue that, contrary to some other proposals (Barbeau, 1929; G a r f i e l d , 1939), the Tsimshian can be assumed to have occupied the s i t e continuously during that f i v e thousand year span. Like their neighbours the Tsimshian depended heavily for their l i v e l i h o o d on salmon f i s h i n g , seal and sea otter hunting, eulachon f i s h i n g , and, i n the inland areas, the hunting of mountain goat and mountain sheep.  This was supplemented by the gathering of a wide  variety of berries i n season, as w e l l as some root plants.  In the  good years, the hunting and gathering of the spring, summer, and f a l l allowed the people to store enough food for the winter, as well as to build up the surplus needed for trade, c a p i t a l , and to support the expenditures necessary.to maintain and enhance s o c i a l prestige. Although i t i s customary to characterize t h i s land as a land of plenty, and i t may have been so i n contrast, for instance to the t e r r i t o r i e s of the northern Ojibwa, i t was not invariably so. For reasons s t i l l obscure, the salmon run cannot always be depended upon; and the traditions of the people contain many references to starvation.  Nor should i t be forgotten that even when the bounty of  sea and land was available, i t took strength, knowledge, and courage to gather such resources. Both the words of the writer and the drawings of the a r t i s t are inadequate to convey the physical r e a l i t y of this country, the setting for so many bold adventures and supernatural experiences. The sea both nourishes and k i l l s ;  sparkling, r i c h i n treasures, but  12. always ready to suck the unwary into the whirlpool abode of an e v i l s p i r i t or enfold him i n a robe of bone c h i l l i n g fog for endless days. The forest i s the source of shelter, f u e l , and clothing, but i t s heavy dank undergrowth also conceals dangerous animals and even more dangerous ghosts.  To the successful hunter the mountain offers the  prized f a t of the mountain goat as well as i t s meat, horns, and hair - i t also offers freezing winds, storms, and icy slopes. As well as being bountiful and dangerous, this i s a beautif u l land.  It i s a land of mountains whose open meadows are speckled  with flowers, somnolent i n the heat of l a t e spring.  I t i s a land of  forests whose cedar fronds are pungently scented, and whose yellow leaved cottonwoods bend against the blue sky i n the b r i s k wind of autumn.  It i s a land whose t i d a l f l a t s of water sculptured sand are  gentle beneath the bare feet i n the warm dusk of summer.  Above a l l  i t i s a land of a r t i s t s who are keen observers of the world around them. When winter came i t was time to retreat to the winter v i l l a g e s , to carve, paint, and p a r t i c i p a t e i n the sacred season.  In a l l of  these a c t i v i t i e s the cedar tree played a central r o l e . Integral to l i f e , both secular and s p i r i t u a l , was the yellow cedar.  Houses, canoes, boxes and clothes, a l l were of  cedar, easy to carve and b e a u t i f u l when finished. were of cedar.  the red and  Totem poles, too,  Totem poles could be raised as free-standing memorials,  or as f r o n t a l poles for houses.  I t was not an endeavor which occured  every day; i t was the culmination of years of planning by a chief and his lineage.  A l l were part of a s o c i a l system i n which the lineage  13. gained prestige as their chief gained; the system was  not  static.  An e s s e n t i a l part of the s o c i a l f a b r i c involved the assumption of high ranking names and their accompanying r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and vileges.  Public v a l i d a t i o n of such an assumption was  the v a l i d a t i o n was  pri-  necessary;  accomplished during the course of a ceremonial  feast, and the r a i s i n g of a totem pole.  The r a i s i n g of the pole  was  the v i s i b l e and permanent record of the v a l i d a t i o n of the rank and t e r r i t o r i a l claims of a lineage.  Preparations for r a i s i n g a pole  were lengthy and expensive—one of the major considerations was choice of a carver.  According  the  to Barbeau:  The p r i v i l e g e of carving the pole and rendering s p e c i f i c ceremonial services for a l i b e r a l stipend f e l l to a smaller c i r c l e of strangers, who may be termed a l l i e s or r e l a t i v e s by marriage. Not every a r t i s t , though a stranger, could be invited to carve a pole, as has often been supposed even among ethnologists. Far from i t . He must, indeed, be selected from among the "fathers" of the deceased or his h e i r ; i n other words, he must be either one of the "fathers" of the members of this family or one of their immediate r e l a t i v e s according to native computation. The "fathers" always belonged to another I clan] as no one was ever allowed to marry within one's own [clan] even with members . . . wholly unrelated. The carver whose services were sought was as&a r u l e the best available from among the "fathers." When he lacked the required a b i l i t y , he himself appointed a substitute who did the actual work while he "stood over him," as the saying goes. He otherwise assumed the credit of the work. This sometimes made i t d i f f i c u l t to find the name of the actual carvers, a f t e r the lapse of many years (Barbeau, 1929: 7). to d i s t i n g u i s h the work of such a carver, or group of carvers, i s one of the aims of t h i s thesis; therefore the next chapter w i l l consider the important question of s t y l e .  CHAPTER 2 STYLE, ART, AND ANTHROPOLOGY The study of style i s an i n t e g r a l part of the study of mate r i a l culture.  What i s material culture?  According to Kubler  (1965: 9): The term includes both a r t i f a c t s and works of a r t , both replicas and unique examples, both tools and expressions in short a l l materials worked by human hands under the guidance of connected ideas developed i n temporal sequence. From a l l these things a shape i n time emerges. A v i s i b l e p o r t r a i t of the c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t y , whether t r i b e , c l a s s , or nation comes into being. This s e l f image r e f l e c t e d i n things i s a guide and point of reference to the group f o r the future, and i t eventually becomes the p o r t r a i t given to posterity. Style may be understood f i r s t , then, as part of the "shape i n time" of a p a r t i c u l a r culture.  In his c l a s s i c paper on  the subject of s t y l e , Schapiro (1962: 297) says: Although the attempts to explain styles as an a r t i s t i c expression of a world view or mode of thought are often a drastic reduction of the concreteness and richness of a r t , they have been h e l p f u l i n revealing unsuspected l e v e l s of meaning i n a r t . They have established the practice of i n t e r preting the s t y l e i t s e l f as an inner content of the a r t , especially i n the nonrepresentational arts. They correspond ' to"the'conviction of modern a r t i s t s that the form elements and structure are a deeply meaningful whole related to metaphysical views. As part of culture, s t y l e should be of interest to anthropologists; and indeed i t was an issue of considerable importance i n anthropology nearly a century-ago. What does " s t y l e " mean?  Art historians may use i t as a  general term, embracing both form and content, and may  further  define i t as being used i n two d i f f e r e n t senses, depending on 14.  15. whether or not i t i s placed i n a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l context. If i t i s not so placed, i t may be considered "roughly equivalent to a ''complex recurrent type' . . . A style i n t h i s sense i s not limited to any one period, place, or people i n history; i t may occur i n many times and places" (Munro, 1970: 236). An example of the use of the word " s t y l e " i n this sense i s evident i n the terms "archaic s t y l e " , " c l a s s i c s t y l e " , or "decadent s t y l e " , widely applied i n many different contexts.  In the second sense, " s t y l e " means:  An interrelated set of t r a i t s which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the art produced i n a certain place and period, by a certain s o c i a l group or i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t . Style i n this sense i s d e f i n i t e l y linked with some h i s t o r i c a l provenance - chronological, geographical, s o c i a l , or i n d i v i d u a l , or perhaps a l l of these. Works from that source are said to mainfest the s t y l e i n i t s most authentic, t y p i c a l , pure, or highly developed form, although imitations of i t or s i m i l a r i t i e s to i t may be found elsewhere (Munro, 1970: 237). Style i n the present thesis should be understood i n the second sense, and should also be understood to deal primarily with form, not content; morphology, not iconography. The problem of the dichotomy of form and content has been dealt with by Panofsky (1962).  He distinguishes "three strata of subject  matter or meaning" (Panofsky, 1962: 16) which may be paraphrased as follows: primary or natural subject matter, both f a c t u a l and expressional, or the world of a r t i s t i c motifs whose enumeration cons t i t u t e s a pre-iconographical description; secondary or conventional subject matter which relates motifs and combinations of motifs (compositions) to themes, the enumeration of which constitutes an iconographicalj analysis'.in the narrower sense;'.and i n t r i n s i c meaning  16. or content, the world of the discovery of symbolical values (manifestations of the underlying p r i n c i p l e s basic to the attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a r e l i g i o u s or philosophical persuasion), or iconography i n a deeper sense. The t h i r d clause represents a synthesis of form and content  (Panofsky,  1962:  5-8).  Form i n the sense of pure shape, or r e l a t i o n s h i p between such shapes,is a mere component of the pre-iconographical description. Panofsky's argument for this placement of form i s that i t i s impossible to give an adequate description of a shape without some knowlege of i t s context.  His argument may  be v a l i d for the  European corpus with which he deals, but i t i s not necessarily v a l i d i n the context of p r i m i t i v e art.(Panofsky, 1962:  9).  Application of Panofsky's methods presupposes access to a wide variety of l i t e r a r y records, as well as the exercise of a high degree of i n t u i t i o n .  The highest c o n t r o l l i n g p r i n c i p l e of i n t e r -  pretation rests on the art h i s t o r i a n checking what he thinks i s the i n t r i n s i c meaning of the work of art against what he thinks i s the i n t r i n s i c meaning of as many documents as he can master (Panofsky, 1962:  16).  This i s p r e c i s e l y what the anthropologist  does when he" interprets^-the"meaning  of camcomputer i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ;  the difference l i e s i n the intervening steps, i n other words i n the basis for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Levi-Strauss (1963: 91) takes the view that " i n  17. s t r u c t u r a l analysis i t i s impossible to disassociate form; from content". He has also been quoted i n t r a n s l a t i o n (Rossi, 1974: 69) asj-saying "form and matter have the same nature and are amenable to the same analysis. The content derives i t s r e a l i t y from the structure, and what i s called form i s the 'placing i n structure' of l o c a l structures, which i s the content (1960: 21-22)."  This concept  post-dates the well known paper " S p l i t Representation i n the Art of Asia and America" (Levi-Strauss, 1967: 239-263) i n which Levi-Strauss uses the term " s t y l e " i n the sense of a d i s t i n c t i v e association of decorative motifs, while at the same time saying that i t i s a "graphic or p l a s t i c projection of a r e a l i t y of another order" (Levi-Strauss, 1967: 257). McLuhan's dictum "the medium i s the message" also deals, probably, with form and content. One way of interpreting h i s cryptic phrase i s suggested by Culkin (Crosby and Bond, 1968: 181); "The form of communication not only a l t e r s the content, but each form also has preferences for certain kinds of messages. Content always exists i n some form and i s , therefore, to some degree governed by the dynamics of that form'." It i s apparent that there i s no clear general consensus on the meaning of the terms " s t y l e " , "form", and "content" at the present time, although the trend of thought appears to be toward the synthesis of form and content. It was s t y l e mainly i n Munro's second sense (1970: 237)  18. which concerned  anthropologists i n the closing decades of the  nineteenth century, and the opening ones of the twentieth. In a d i s c i p l i n e s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y unspecialized, ethnologists and archaeologists remained closely i n touch, often being wrapped together i n a single person; the right hand was usually aware of what the l e f t hand was doing.  Archaeologists were e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y r e -  constructing ancient c i v i l i z a t i o n s , with much of the evidence being based on s t y l e , as witnessed f o r instance by the work of Arthur Evans at Knossos, and that of Flinders Petr.ie i n Egypt.  Much of Petrie's  work, unlike Evans', has stood up well under the onslaught of succeeding generations equipped with superior technology; i t i s oft-interest that some of Petrie's work bas based on p r i n c i p l e s of s e r i a t i o n : I w i l l return to s e r i a t i o n i n the next chapter. Ethnologists were f u l l aware of the pragmatic value of s t y l e i n archaeology, and of i t s possible application i n studies of culture d e f i n i t i o n and culture change.  P o t e n t i a l l y of equal interest was the  study of the r o l e of the a r t i s t and the arts ast-communication and value reinforcing devices.  Moreover a r t s t y l e was a component of the human  experience worthy of study i n i t s e l f . Somewhat surprising, however, i s the d i r e c t i o n many of these studies took.  Much thought and debate was given to the problem of  the development and progression of design motifs i n general (Haddon,1895; Holmes, 1886; Balfour, 1893; Boas, 1908). The fact that the argument could be cast i n these terms r e f l e c t s the preoccupation of anthropologists at the time with evolutionary theory.  19. One of the better known proponents of the "realism to abstraction"  school of thought i n design development was A.C. Haddon,  marine b i o l o g i s t turned ethnologist.  In discussing Haddon's theories  Herskovits (1966: 244-245) has pointed out Haddon's  developmental  series purporting to show arrow designs from the Torres S t r a i t s moving from a recognizable crocodile motif to an unrecognizable abstraction, and comments: Does not a series of this sort, then, demonstrate how variations of a design indicate the way i n which conventiona l i z a t i o n must have developed out of realism? . . . Like a l l other attempts to devise developmental formulae of universal a p p l i c a b i l i t y , this one f a i l s both because of i t s f a u l t y method and i t s f a i l u r e to take a l l the facts into account. Haddon's arrows . . . were arranged i n accordance with a scheme that existed i n the mind of the student. The postulated development has v a l i d i t y only i n terms of the hypothesis. A l l the objects belong to the same epoch and do not represent a developmental series i n the sense that one item can be shown to have preceded the other. Many f r u i t f u l l i n e s of investigation claimed the attention of early ethnologists—questions of s o c i a l and mental, rather than material, culture.  While art continued to have a place i n the w e l l  rounded ethnographical description or monograph, i t s study became peripheral to the mainstream of thought i n the decades after  1930.  The causes of this decline probably r e l a t e to increasing s p e c i a l i z a t i o n within the d i s c i p l i n e of anthropology;  there was an increasing  sense of the urgency and interest of ethnographic fieldwork, and art  although  s t y l e continued to be a useful adjunct to archaeology, i n that  context i t was not a matter for t h e o r e t i c a l discussion. Not only primitive art studies, but the broader subject of  20. material culture has suffered from a r e l a t i v e decline i n interest. Sturtevant  (1969) has used a chronology i n discussing material  culture studies which r e f l e c t s the s h i f t i n the academic base of the d i s c i p l i n e of anthropology from museums to u n i v e r s i t y departments. This s h i f t , p r a c t i c a l l y complete by 1920,  has emphasized the fact  that important aspects of anthropological research, such as l i n g u i s t i c s , kinship terminology,  r e l i g i o n , and the family usually proceed s a t i s -  f a c t o r i l y without any reference whatever to material culture. According  to Fenton:  Studies of technological subjects have never r e a l l y gone out of fashion and they p e r s i s t i n new guises and serve d i f f e r e n t ends. The commonplace that one hears i n the p r o f e s s i o n — " t h e r e isn't much interest i n material culture studies any m o r e " — r e a l l y says that fewer anthropologists proportionately are involved with materials per se; but the remark overlooks the important fact that other anthropologists are interested i n the ideas that l i e behind the objects and are searching for data to analyze systematically and to treat s t a t i s t i c a l l y [emphasis added] (Richardson, 1975: 21). As the great era of gathering material culture i s passing, i f not already gone, anthropologists may  turn their ingenuity toward  making more innovative use of what has been a v a i l a b l e for a long time: museum a r t i f a c t s .  Fenton has stated this idea very w e l l :  Ethnographic c o l l e c t i o n s become of increasing importance as cultures vanish from the world. Since many of these contain specimens that are undocumented, we can learn much from the archaeologists about how to study them. Museums of Europe are f u l l of what I c a l l "Ethnological Chippendale": the specimens are what someone says they are; but where the^documentation exists to prove their authenticity, we can extrapolate from them to similar pieces, i n the manner of art h i s t o r i a n s who can teach us much.(Richardson, 1975: 31). In the l a s t decades of the twentieth century, we may  be  21. entering an era of "networks" i n research i n which the i n t e r relationships of material culture and s o c i a l and mental culture w i l l be perceived as a valuable study. The work of Claude Levi-Strauss in this f i e l d i s of major importance.  I t has been d e l i b e r a t e l y  excluded from consideration i n this study since the relationship between transformations of iconography and variations i n content i s not of immediate concern.  However i f we accept Levi-Strauss'  position on form and content, then even the very r e s t r i c t e d domain of style i n the sense of form and form r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the domain of this study, inevitably has content. Some indication of this content may be made apparent by quantitative methods of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Levi-Strauss has said that "the p r i n c i p l e underlying a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can never be postulated i n advance. I t can only be discovered a p o s t e r i o r i by ethnographic investigation" f(Levi-Strauss, 1970: 58). A similar idea l i e s at the heart of this thesis. Before a p r i n c i p l e can be discovered a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n must exist. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n must arise from the data i t s e l f , insofar as this i s possible, thereby allowing the museum a r t i f a c t s to "speak."  A numerical taxonomy w i l l  provide just such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , as I w i l l discuss i n the next chapter. Since this i s a new approach to the old problem of describing a r t i f a c t s and c l a s s i f y i n g them, I hope i t w i l l add a new dimension to studies of museum a r t i f a c t s .  A mathematical approach to the data may  be one of the few methods of bridging the gap between material, mental,  22. and s o c i a l culture studies i n a credible manner. The quotation from Berndt which opened t h i s paper r e f l e c t s a state of a f f a i r s which may  be r e c t i f i e d i f a new generation of students w i l l take  the trouble to investigate the sophisticated world of modern technologyc-with a".view to -applying-new methods '-to^problems i n anthropology.  Such methods must be used very p r e c i s e l y , i n con-  junction withpwellst-ried methodsmofhthe past. The old method used i n this study i s , of course, s t y l i s t i c analysis: the search for patterns i n form. In the area of s p e c i f i c interest i n this thesis,^the:-Nbrthwest :Coastv there-have been several r  works which combine keen observation and analysis with clear description. Holm (1965) has described the p r i n c i p l e s of design organization and i n addition (1972) has analyzed carving styles i n some d e t a i l , p a r t i c u l a r l y with reference to the humanoid head. He considers and describes these styles inva geometrical frame of reference. Kaufmann (1969) has contributed a major study on style i n a r g i l l i t e carving. There i s a growing body of journal a r t i c l e s , anthologies, and books on s p e c i f i c aspects of art i n anthropology, i n d i c a t i n g that the subject i s a l i v e (Brasser, 1975; 'd iAzevedS.v 1975; Duff, 1975; Halpin, 1973; Holm, 1965,  1973;  Jppling, 1971;  Forge,  1973;  Otten, 1971). A paper by  Inverarity, "Observations on Northwest Coast Indian Art and  Similarities  Between a Few Art Elements Distant i n Time and Space" (1972), analyzed arm and leg positions on totem poles. The arm and leg positions used i n this thesis are derived from h i s work. Disappointingly, the study which actually has the least to offer  23. i s Tsimshian  Sculpture  (Wingert, 1951). It i s true that this i s  described by the author as a preliminary attempt, but he also states that i t provides a methodology for developing further research i n Northwest Coast s t y l e considerations. According  to Wingert, Tsimshian  the present of a t r i b a l s t y l e .  This i s a dubious proposition.  totem poles "demonstrate emphatically" The d i s t i n c t i v e elements of the s t y l e  are described i n the following passage: Important among these elements are the basic conception of a carved pole, the organization of the design, the p r i n c i p l e s of rhythm and balance, the sense of scale, the system of proportions and the sculptural technique employed. The concept of the pole as a v e r t i c a l shaft with a curving surface i s strongly expressed. The arrangement of the figures i n a series of c l e a r l y defined superimposed horizontal d i v i s i o n s Jemphasis added] confirms v i s u a l l y the convex curvature of the surface, while the rhythmic r e p e t i t i o n of figures or parts of f i g u r e s , often i n an alternating system and usually with v a r i e t y , carries the eye upward and stress v e r t i c a l i t y and height. Scale i s further conveyed by the use of two sizes of figures of p r a c t i c a l l y the same proportions, one very small, the others very large [emphasis added] (Wingert, 1951: 89). While an emphatic t r i b a l s t y l e may  exist, i t s identification  from the cited description would hardly be clear-cut.  In f a c t , only  the passages underlined by the present writer provide any tangible assistance.  Try, for example, reading the f i r s t sentence of the  quotation without makes sense.  the phrase "of a carved pole."  The sentence s t i l l  Or, to further determine whether or not Wingert i s  providing, as s p e c i f i e d , a meaningful description of a  Tsimshian  totem pole, substitute for the deleted phrase "of a carved pole" the phrase "of a Buddha", or the phrase "of the Parthenon."  There i s  no loss of d e s c r i p t i v e power, because there is_ no d e s c r i p t i v e power. If this were an isolated paragraph one could accept i t ; unfortunately  it i s typical.  I t i s also the sort of writing which creates general  scepticism about the v a l i d i t y of art studies.  In a l i t e r a r y sense  i t may be b e a u t i f u l , but i t advances our knowledge of or insight into the subject under discussion not at a l l . After twenty-seven years, this i s s t i l l a major on Tsimshian sculpture.  reference  To determine whether some improvement i s  possible, t h i s thesis has turned to a d i f f e r e n t approach - quantitative techniques.  CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY What have quantitative techniques to do with a r t i f a c t s , art and style?  I believe that just as everything i n the natural world,  from the construction of a nautilus s h e l l to the movements of the stars may  be described i n mathematical terms, so i t i s with the  c u l t u r a l world of mankind:  an inner harmony, which manifests i t s e l f  as a s t y l e , e x i s t s , and i s capable of description i n mathematical terms.  Such a description may  then be translated into words, providing  a secure armature to support aesthetic perceptions whose i n t u i t i v e judgments may  or may  s t a t i s t i c s alone be considered  of the i n d i v i d u a l ,  not be r e l i a b l e .  Nor  should  i n f a l l i b l e ; but when the two approaches  can be brought together, complementing one another, the r e s u l t should be an enrichment of knowledge. The b e l i e f that a mathematical approach may anthropological studies i s scarcely new.  be useful i n  Johnson (1972) has drawn  attention to the r o l e of Franz Boas as an innovator  i n his use of a  matrix of s i m i l a r i t y values as an aid to organizing and anthropological data. i n 1895,  analyzing  Interestingly enough, i n a paper published  Boas used an elementary Q technique of s e r i a t i o n and c l u s t e r i n g  based on f o l k t a l e motifs to pinpoint the Tsimshian as a r e l a t i v e newcomers i n their area of the Northwest Coast.  MacDonald (1976) argued  that Boas' conclusion was wrong.  unaware of MacDonald's  argument.  Johnson was  He describes Boas' method as a " s e r i a t i o n by inspection"  25  in which relationships between neighbouring ethnic groups are compared to determine which ones were " d i s s i m i l a r to their neighbours and hence, by inference, recent a r r i v a l s i n their area of occurrence." (1972:  Johnson  315) also notes "Boas' crude treatment of h i s frequency  data - he f a i l e d to standardize his element counts correctly - and his unsystematic use of the matrix i t s e l f . "  In 1899 Flinders Petrie  used p r i n c i p l e s of s e r i a t i o n i n a matrix to establish a chronology of Egyptian material  (Petrie, 1899). As early as 1908, S.A. Barrett  (1908) used s i m i l a r i t y scores to organize l i n g u i s t i c data. Nevertheless, quantitatively based studies have only begun to achieve wide interest i n perhaps the l a s t f i f t e e n years, coincident with the r i s e of interest in systems theory and also coincident with a tremendous amplification i n the c a p a b i l i t y of computers. drudgery i s involved i n manual mathematical  Sheer  computations;  the information  y i e l d may prove to be quite out of proportion to the e f f o r t .  The  advent of the computer offers the p o s s i b i l i t y of reversing this situation.  But with the opportunity also comes a number of problems.  Appropriate choices of study, data base, and mathematical are by no means automatic.  technique  Nor i s the philosophic approach to such  studies unvarying. Ten years ago a conference called "Computers and Their Po^ t e n t i a l Applications i n Museums" was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1968)  The published proceedings  (Metropolitan Museum of A r t ,  indicated that there are many exciting p o s s i b i l i t i e s .  The areas  which appear to have received the greatest attention i n the i n t e r vening time are those of cataloguing and the establishment of data  27. banks and networks—basic necessities for large scale studies. Application of computer technology to the elucidation of problems has not made equal progress i n applications to modest, but complicated investigations.  More than twenty years ago, Kroeber (1956: 330-331)  said: I continue to believe that s t a t i s t i c a l correlations can be used in s t y l i s t i c analysis, but that t h e i r main function i s to convince those who are, by nature or inexperience, s t y l i s t i c a l l y i n s e n s i t i v e . S t y l i s t i c q u a l i t i e s and their patterns and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s must be taken i n through the senses and digested through the subrational process sometimes c a l l e d i n t u i t i o n , but for which the term "perception with aesthetic f e e l i n g " i s adequate. A mathematical approach, being abstract and r a t i o n a l , seems best deferred u n t i l the pioneering job of analysis has been pretty thoroughly done by exercise of perception. On the other hand, f i n a l proof, i n the sense of formal s c i e n t i f i c proof, has apparently to be quantitative. I believe that most q u a l i t a t i v e data and perhaps even s t y l i s t i c ones, can also be interpreted quantitatively i n the end; but c e r t a i n l y not so p r o f i t a b l y at the beginning of inquiry. The approach of this thesis d i f f e r s sharply i n holding that the quantitative analysis should come f i r s t following i n t h i s regard David Clarke, whose f i e l d i s archaeology.  Speaking of material  culture systems, he says: The i n t u i t i v e and a r b i t r a r y "spotting" of key attributes i n a system, before proper,analysis, leads to the a r b i t r a r y d e f i n i t i o n of group boundaries based on " t y p e - f o s s i l s " which are t y p i c a l . Such set markers may be ultimately established but the " t y p i c a l a t t r i b u t e s " or the key attributes must be the terminal r e s u l t of the analysis - not the premise of the opening gambit (Clarke, 1973: 138). An example of the " t y p e - f o s s i l " approach i s supplied Burkitt, who  advises archaeologists  by  to:  Group the a r t i f a c t s into f a m i l i e s , taking some obvious characti s t i c as a c r i t e r i o n of a family. In practice i t i s found that the numberc-»of othese families i s small, and indeed-in these days they have become perhaps rather stereotyped, and i t i s only r a r e l y that a new and d i s t i n c t family i s recognized (Burkitt, 1963: 29). :  28. To reject Kroeber's approach i s not to deny the value of "perception with aesthetic f e e l i n g . "  The exercise of such perception  i n the analysis of large numbers of complicated a r t i f a c t s may ignore s i g n i f i c a n t structural relationships of a modest and subtle nature. There are many methods of achieving p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t s .  Kaufmann's  (1969) study of Haida a r g i l l i t e carving was mentioned i n the previous chapter.  This i s based on an extremely careful analysis of a combination  of form and iconography, using s e r i a t i o n by frequency of occurence to provide a chronology of s t y l e .  I t provides a p r a c t i c a l guide to  the approximate dating of museum a r g i l l i t e a r t i f a c t s from 1820 to 1910, and i n addition offers an anthropological interpretation of the data.  Kaufmann also i s o l a t e s a number of "internals . . .  which seem to have a l i f e of their own .[which] would correspond to Kubler's notion of an a r t i s t i c infrastructure "  (Kaufmann, 1969:  154). Her conclusion i s that structure changes with symbol, at least in her data.  Her basic method consisted of calculating the percen-  tage occurence of selected characters and arranging these i n a number of separate tables; r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from numerical taxonomy, which calculates i t s r e s u l t s from the whole spectrum of characters or from an unbiased sample from such a spectrum  (the term "character" w i l l be  defined below). Numerical taxonomy i s a method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . It proceeds on these assumptions: generalizations about the taxa cannot be made before one has recognized the taxa; that taxa cannot be recognized before resemblances between organisms l o r whatever the discrete object of investigation happens to be; this i s usually referred to as an OTU, operational taxonomic unit] are known; and that these resemblances cannot be estimated before organisms and their characters have been examined (Sneath and Sokal, 1973: 5)  29. Estimation of resemblance begins with the choice of characters. A l o g i c a l l y i r r e d u c i b l e character i s an a t t r i b u t e of the  OTU  which the investigator considers fundamental - and a basic subjective judgment must be made here - but there are c r i t e r i a for characters.  inadmissable  For example, meaningless characters for an estimate of  resemblance between totem poles would include the negative numbers assigned to their photographs; l o g i c a l l y correlated characters would include measurements of both the height of one segment of a pole, and the height of one half of one segment of a pole; t a u t o l o g i c a l characters would include measurements of the height of a f i g u r e , and the t a l l ness of a figure.  In addition, tautology may  be suspected  i f the  scores on two characters are found to be p e r f e c t l y correlated; i n this case one character should be rejected before computation. Invariant characters, while l e g i t i m a t e l y d e s c r i p t i v e i n themselves, do.not add information, and should be excluded.  An example of this  would be to use "roundness" as an a t t r i b u t e , or character, of totem poles, although this might be a l o g i c a l and useful a t t r i b u t e for some other set of OTU's. It i s obviously not possible to eliminate a l l personal bias from the basic character.selection, nor to determine absolutely the necessary number of characters.  In t h e i r discussion of the r e q u i s i t e  number of characters, Sneath and Sokal (1973) note that there i s no generally v a l i d answer.  However, they also note that empirically,  when large numbers of characters are measured, they obey an apparent p r i n c i p l e of i n e r t i a ; as more and more characters are added, i t takes an increasingly large number of such characters, with quite d i f f e r e n t  30. information, to a l t e r the estimate of s i m i l a r i t y .  On the subject of  the problem of d i f f e r e n t investigators defining i d e n t i c a l characters in d i f f e r e n t ways, or making observations on the same data base using varying numbers of characters, Sneath and Sokal c i t e a study by Sokal and Rohlf (1970) i n which of 17 common factors i n a p a r t i c u l a r data base, 16 were found by an experienced taxonomist c l a s s i f y i n g the data on 119 characters; 14 common factors were found by the "least t r a d i t i o n a l " taxonomist using 53 characters; and a l l 17 were found by an inexperienced person using 62 characters.  Thus i t appears probable  that the choice of at least 45, and no more than 100 characters by any given investigator w i l l y i e l d r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s . A recent study by F.R. Hodson (1971) i s very pertinent to the problems both of a n a l y t i c a l approach and choice of method i n this thesis. of  F i r s t of a l l , i t i s addressed  to a comparison of the r e s u l t s  i n t u i t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering.  The data used were photographs of brooches recovered from Swiss grave s i t e s of the La Tene culture, c i r c a 250 B.C. Hodson had established a v a r i a b l e character l i s t by observation on the o r i g i n a l material; this  l i s t was  scored and clustered.  Then the photographs were submitted  to a number of other professional archaeologists and an anatomist, who agreed to arrange the brooches chronologically by making i n t u i t i v e judgments on the basis of s t y l e .  The arrangement made by computer  clustering was independently v e r i f i e d by stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating.  There was, of course, no question of the computer  providing any interpretation of the meaning of the clustering. Hodson noted:  31. Archaeologist 4 c l a s s i f i e d the brooches b a s i c a l l y into a series of interrelated clusters. Archaeologist 3 and the Anatomist into a more or less l i n e a r development without discrete clusters, Archaeologists 1 and 2 into clusters that are themselves related i n a l i n e a r fashion . . . Thus there are considerable differences i n the general interpretation of the structure within the set. Specific interpretations of i n d i v i d u a l brooches cannot be discussed i n d e t a i l , but i t may be noticed that some brooches are consistently a l l o t t e d the same neighbours by most analysts (cf. brooch 10), while others are not consistently grouped at a l l (cf. brooch 5). Judged between themselves, then, i t may be said that despite a tendency to agree for some brooches, there i s a surprising difference of opinion on others and on the general interpretation of the structure behind the group (Hodson, 1971: 650). In actual fact, the Anatomist's solution was closer to the true chronological  arrangement than: that of any of the Archaeologists';  the separate solutions  of two of the Archaeologists contained grave  errors. While i t might be considered that this indicates nothing more than that some archaeologists should never be c a l l e d upon to make decisions  i n matters of s t y l e , I believe i t highlights the assistance  we can expect to receive from s t a t i s t i c a l techniques such as h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering and multi-dimensional scaling. The p a r t i c u l a r techniques chosen for this study, then, have been demonstrated to have application i n somewhat similar  situations  (Hodson, 1971; Matson and True, 1974; Matson and Lipe, 1978; Flynn, 1976). These techniques avoid the assumption of a r b i t r a r y key a t t r i butes.  Since each application of h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering and multi-  dimensional scaling i s varied to f i t the p a r t i c u l a r case, the method used w i l l be described i n detail'.-.'  32. There are a number of d i f f e r e n t ways to approach the of a measure of resemblance.  computation  On this occasion the method of choice  i s a c o e f f i c i e n t of d i s s i m i l a r i t y (distance), expressed as zero for i d e n t i t y and an undefined positive value f o r maximal distance, or d i s p a r i t y ; i n this case, Jaccard's c o e f f i c i e n t was used.  The un-  standardized values are arranged i n a matrix; h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering of these proceeds by " f i r s t grouping points, objects, variables or observations which are 'closest' together to form a c l u s t e r , then combining these facets and repeating the procedure u n t i l there remains but one item or cluster " (Flynn, 1976:  30). Differences i n methods  of forming clusters are also important.  Ward's error sum of squares  was  the method chosen.  This determines the proximity of two clusters  by forming new cluster groups and calculating the sum of the square of a l l distances from one point to another with the new  cluster.  The solution which minimizes this sum of squares i s the one used to form new c l u s t e r s .  For a discussion and comparison of t h i s and other  methods of h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering, see Flynn (1976). H i e r a r c h i c a l clustering provides a solution along one dimension. It i s also possible to consider the data by means of a multi-dimensional scaling technique providing n number of dimensions i n diminishing order of importance, which may be plotted graphically as a series of two dimensional diagrams.  This technique has also been used for this  study, by means of Torgerson's metric multi-dimensional scaling technique (Matson and True, 1974). For a discussion of the u t i l i t y of  t h i s , see Matson and Lipe (1978).  33. The photographs used f o r the observations were drawn, as indicated i n the introduction, from various sources. after 1925 were not included.  Poles raised  Of the ninety-four poles of the Gitksan  available for study, eighty were judged to be adequate for use on the basis of at least one f u l l length view and one d e t a i l being recorded. These poles were o r i g i n a l l y located at Kitwancool, Kitwanga, K i t s e gukla, Kispiox, and Hazelton.  To them were added sixteen poles from  the Niska, representing Gitlaxdamks, for  Gitwinsilk, Angede, and G i t i k s ,  a t o t a l of ninety-six poles i n a l l . A character l i s t t o t a l l i n g seventy-one characters was esta-  blished by making observations on the ninety-six poles.  These characters  are l i s t e d i n Appendix I. Characters could be scored as present, absent, or no comparison.  In order to provide information on the com-  parative sizes of the poles, as well as to allow for the i n c l u s i o n of  information on the general type of figure occupying each position  on the pole, the f i r s t forty^-eight characters represent twelve r e petitions of four choices - humanoid, animal, b i r d , other - which were scored beginning at the top of each pole.  The term "animal" i n t h i s  case encompasses a l l land and sea creatures other than humanoid. A contentious problem was presented by the frequent  presence  of figures with composite a t t r i b u t e s , e.g. a human with a large beak. While these have names i n the l i t e r a t u r e (although the exact i d e n t i t y of any p a r t i c u l a r one i s a matter f o r considerable dispute), the best solution i n such a case seemed to be to score "present" on both "humanoid" and " b i r d " i n the same p o s i t i o n , thus d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g them from both humans and birds.  "Other" would be scored as present i n  34. the case, for instance, of a figure regarded  as a canoe - i f the canoe  contained a human, "humanoid" would also be scored present for that position.  Some figures absolutely defy characterization as humanoid,  animal, or bird - they became "other" even though s u p e r f i c i a l l y they might appear to be a candidate for one of the other categories. If a pole had only s i x f i g u r e s , the remaining  s i x positions  (of a p o t e n t i a l twelve) were scored as "no comparison".  A pole with  a figure at the top, then a p l a i n shaft, with two or three figures at the bottom, was  assigned a number of empty "no comparison" spaces  proportionate to the size of the figures at the bottom. The remaining characters chosen, numbers forty-nine to seventy-one, record aspects of the whole pole, as well as aspects of i n d i v i d u a l figures on the pole.  No absolute measurements could be  used, due to the varying scale of the photographs and the d i s t o r t i n g effect of perspective.  However some r e l a t i v e measurements were used,  since proportion i s an extremely important  component of s t y l e .  example, the proportion of the humanoid eye orbit to the head established i n each case by means of d i v i d e r s . of the analysis, a second character l i s t was  For was  For the second stage  established, which  dropped the characters pertaining to p o s i t i o n on the pole, and added more which described the figures themselves. After scoring was  completed, the results were transferred  to computer punch cards i n two forms:  that suitable for "Q"  examination, and that suitable for "R"  type examination.  type  "Q"  technique  uses totem poles as OTU's and defines them i n terms of the characters, thus grouping  together poles with similar characters.  "R"  technique  uses characters as OTU's, grouping them together into bundles of t r a i t s which tend to occur i n association on poles.  In both cases,  whether using "Q" or "R" technique, the r e s u l t s of an h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering w i l l appear i n the form of a dendrogram. presentation of s i m i l a r i t y along one dimension.  This i s a re-  Units of closest  s i m i l a r i t y w i l l be paired, with other items added to the c l u s t e r i n the manner described above. "tree" shape.  Well defined clusters w i l l create a  As the clusters become larger, the. l e v e l of s i m i l a r i t y  at which the units cluster, drops.  The arrangement of c l u s t e r s i n  a standard dendrogram i s not s i g n i f i c a n t along the v e r t i c a l axis. What i s important are the relationships of units within clusters and of small clusters within larger ones.  The multi-dimensional  scaling program extracts vectors (or factors) i n order of These vectors may of two-dimensional  importance.  then be graphed as co-ordinate points on a series plots.  The following operations, u t i l i z i n g these  procedures, were undertaken. F i r s t , "Q" sort data using ninety-six OTU's, the poles, and seventy-one  characters were clustered to determine whether meaning-  f u l sub-populations which included figure placement would be formed; thus indicating whether the choice of figure placement was  or was  not random. Second, "Q" sort data using ninety-six OTU's and forty-seven characters, a l i s t from which figure placement had been removed, were clustered to determine whether meaningful sub-populations related to an a r t i s t or a r t i s t i c group would be formed.  Third, "R" sort data using a l l the poles from the Nass, combined with poles from Kitwancool, and Kispiox, were clustered to establish the "bundles" of a r t i s t i c t r a i t s found i n this area, where Barbeau had hypothesized a great deal of mingling on h i s t o r i c and geographiesgrounds. In each case these data sets were also submitted to multidimensional scaling. The results of these operations w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter.  CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION If d i s t i n c t i v e styles of totem poles can be i d e n t i f i e d ,  we  would expect to find them clustered together i n one or more of the following ways:  geographically, chronologically, by schools of  a r t i s t , or by i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t .  The result of an h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t -  ering operation i s a dendrogram, a graphic representation; of s i m i l a r i t y along one dimension.  Although shaped l i k e a tree, i t should hot be  read i n terms of genetic r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but i n terms of l e v e l of simil a r i t y between units. The f i r s t operation consisted of an h i e r a r c h i c a l c l u s t e r i n g of the poles on the basis of characters which are l i s t e d i n Appendix I.  The r e s u l t i n g dendrogram (Appendix II) produced a number of w e l l  defined c l u s t e r s .  A key to the i d e n t i t y of the poles i s i n Tables  1 and 2; i n the following discussion they w i l l be referred to by the numbers used i n that key. TABLE 1 KEY TO THE IDENTITY OF GITKSAN TOTEM POLES  Date Pole Number 1 2 3 4 5  Location Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool  .(Barbeau, '1929) J1875 1875 1885 [1890] 1875  Carver (Barbeau, 1929) Sqateen (Nass) [Nass] Nees-laranows Nees-laranows Pees 37.  Pole Clan A A A A A  Carver Clan C ? C C A  Illustration (Barbeau, 1929) 111:1 111:2 111:3 IV :1 IV: 2  38.  TABLE 1—Continued  Pole Location Number  Date (Barbeau, 1929)  Carver (Barbeau, 1929)  Nees-laranows Qaqhl Nass carver Arhtseeprh (Nass) Harhpegwawtu Nass carver Hrtseeyae (Nass) *Hlamee *Haesemhli-yawn? Nass carver *Haesemhli-yawn Hlamee ~ _ ,* Haesemhli-yawn Hlamee Hlamee Haesemhli-yawn [1870/80]*Nass carver? [Gitksan] [1890]  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool. Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool  27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  Kitwancool 1895" Kitwancool [1890] Kitsegukla 1900 Kitsegukla 1895 Kitsegukla 1890' Kitsegukla 1885 1890 Kitsegukla Kitsegukla 1885 Kitsegukla 1880 Kitsegukla 1875? Kitsegukla 1890 Kitsegukla 1895 Kitsegukla 1910 Kitsegukla *1900 Kitsegukla 1895 Kitsegukla 1925 Kitsegukla 1895 Kitsegukla 1890 Kitwanga 1890 1900 Kitwango *1880 Kitwanga *1890 Kitwanga Kitwanga 1920  1885 [1916] 1865 1880 1900 1860 1870 1890 1888 1860 1875 1895 1875 1885 1905 1865  [1865] [1865] 1880  ?  Sa'anrhkwanks (Nass) Weegyet ?  Weegyet Hlamee Kwaw'amats Sqayaen Hlamee Hlamee William Nass Haesemhli-yawn Negutsrael Hlengwah Qaqhl Geesarhkees Kwawdzabarh Wawralaw Kwawdzabarh Tom Campbell Gitrhawn Kwawdzabarh *Nass carver Nass carver Harpegwawtu  Pole Clan A A  C A  5  A  5 5 4 4  A  A  A  4 A  Carver Clan  ?  B B ?  D A A ?  c c c Co 4  4  X  4  C  A' 4  A  A  l  A  A A  A  i  3 4  t  A A  B  B  2 3 3  B  B  2  B B B A A A A A  A A A . A A A ? ? ?  Illustrati (Barbeau, IV: 3 IV: 4 XII: 3 XIII:1 XIII:2 X:l X:2 X:3  XXV :1 XXV: 2 XXV: 3 XXIV:3 XX:2 XXII:1 XXIV:1 XXII:6 XXII:4  7  B  X:4  B  X:5  7  XXII:5 V:l  B A B D A A B A A A A A A C A A D A 7 7  B  V:2  XII :1 XI: 6 XI:7 XVII:4 XVII:5 XX: 1 XXI :1 XIV: 2 XIV: 3 XVIII:4 XVIII:5 XIX :1 XIV: 4 XV:2 VI:3 VI: 4 VII :1 VII: 2 VII: 3  39. TABLE 1—Continued  Pole Location Number  Date (Barbeau, 1929)  50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 96  1865 1875 1850 1875 1870 1900 1880 1914 1900 1920 1907 1875 *1890 1870 1880 1855 1895 1870 1915 1850 *1870 1900 1855 *1885 1855 1875 1880 1900 1892 1875 1865  *  Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kitwanga Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Hazelton  Carver (Barbeau, 1929) Nees'awaelp *Hlamee? ?  Negutsrael Nass carver Negutsrael? Geesarhkees Qaqhl Tom Campbell Harpegwawtu? ?  Haku Haku Waws emlarha e *Waws emlarhae Nass carver Tsugyet Waws emlar ha e ?  Qelran (Nass) Naeqt Tsugyet Gurhnahaks Tsugyet Kwikihl'wans Hakst Raenem? Raenem? Larhwilemhot, Waws emlarhae ?  I disagree with t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n .  Pole Clan  Carver Clan  cj c D D D D D Do  D A  1  42  A  c  l  B/C A B/C B  I*  ' A ,B B B C l l B C B  2 l A C A C  A  1  ?  A 1  A A A A B 1 A A  B B  1  C  B  Illustration (Barbeau, 1929) XXVII:1 XXVII:2 XXXIII:1 XXIX:3 1:2 - XXVIII:4 XXVIII:2 XXVIII:3 VII: 5 VII: 6 IX:1 XXVI:4 XIX: 5 IX: 4 XIX: 2 XIV: 5 XV: 3 VI: 2  ?  C A C A A A A C C C ?  7  XVI: 2 XVI: 3 XVI: 4 XXII:2 XXIII:2 XVI: 5 XVII:2 XXI:4 XIII:3 V:3 XXII:3 IX: 2  40. TABLE 2 KEY TO THE IDENTITY OF NISKA TOTEM POLES  Pole Location Number 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  Gltlaxdamks Gitlaxdamks Gitlaxdamks Gitlaxdamks Gitlaxdamks Gitwinsilk Gitwinsilk Angede Angede. Angede Angede Angede Angede Gitiks Gitiks Gitiks  The  Date (Barbeau , 1964) 1875 1860 1870 1865 1892 1892 1850 1860 1850 1860 1870 1880 1870 1870 1870  Carver (Barbeau,  1964)  Neeskyinwaet Hladerh Oyai ?  Arhtseeprh? Weesaiks Qaderh Oyai Oyai 7 Oyai 7 Weesaiks? Oyai Aqstaqhl Oyai  Pole Clan  Carver Clan  C  C C C 7 B B C C C  D  1  c A C B C A D C C C D D D  4  Illustration (Barb eau, 1964) P- 440 NMC-70687-B NMC-70687-B P- 450 P- 74 P- 237 P- 438 P- 227 P- 174 P- 48 P- 228 P- 229 P- 231 P- 51 P- 43 P- 23  ?  C 7 7 C C C  f i r s t item of interest i n the dendrogram is the strong  tendency of Niska poles to cluster together, confirming that a substantive difference exists between the poles of the Niska and the Gitksan, the two d i v i s i o n s with which I am concerned. a close association between poles number 84, 81, 90, 88 and and between poles number 83, 80, 91, and 85.  There i s 94;  This can be seen both  i n the dendrogram and i n Table 3 below. The order reflected i n the various sub-clusters was at f i r s t d i f f i c u l t to discern.  Georgraphy c e r t a i n l y appears as a factor i n  the case of the Niska poles, as i t may be i n other cases to be noted below.  I t does not seem to have any general significance for the  UBC  Computing C e n t r e FORTRAN  Programmer  CODING  Page.  Date  FORM  of. IDENTIFICATION  S T A T E M E N T F O R T R A N  1  3  2  > p>lR 1  5  I.ZLI  Bi Rl  <m  N  8 Ri >  b  % H  B, RL  y HoIff/  % f/fti  r >  Bi RI  HttH(\V  Oi HE,?  Hoiff V  HAIHI}L  /?/  RL fit >lf1 N Hi'tfti  F>lRi  Ri  Rt <iL  R  k RPHatM h 'EHB Ri)  ft  famil  ',  JL±L Lull  Li—  'i 'It//  h /HI1  Bi  Ht NRy  Ht,Ht,N  :h M  fa W  fi w  m ttflNd 'li  Bi RI flu P/>  HuIt N  & Bl Ht — I  m b ti& HtIN  y  8t u >iiRJf>  p<m ft V Ji fit  a fti  —  r  tu  ~\  Ht IN, IN  % ttlHI.  5/  75  Kt n IH N>10 )L  K  •5  /?  Kt TK'HI>t Oi >L  n  •0  r?  Kt n 'HIic oc >L  n  5  /?  rf Ki T\ Vfi t\>  r It '0  /?  If A  W, o  /?  ',H  'HIic 01 *  ^  c  it  0  /) c  li  10  Hi RI.  KI  'Hiic oc 'I  /  JO  ?  /<  <?/  KI n F(IVI ;i  7  u H  Iff v< •H Eb01;L ?  dt RJ)  HI Ht'HL Hi Nl IN  Ki Li a •ft,u  RI  iff 'Hi Bi HI  Ki n Ft  <Lf)  HuIDn  BI  Rl  Ki n IRi  oc L  HuNt N  f?A'II 1HI ,  D  Ki  %  0 m TR  o- -Hirft h m 'a OA HiIH ?/y  i/ti  3/m  Ht 'INBL  fam  it i i . L/ /< K '?  >X  Bi R. 0  HAHI) Ht  8i (If)HL HI Uh/?,  "|"  HoHiIN  / 4-  3  Ki 5  HL 'MJ U  y.  /t J-7 5  % 'N,  }  '/£  Kt 5/vc X  t—fD Ki S i  Ht 'INffL  1  6 6  'li  HA IN,91  C 4-  8  JI Sf Ki 7C  % Iff ?L  \\-  /?  9/ 5<J H$ T  *7  % \J>  /  B  KI rs  'ffER  l &  Ht HIH  Hi iff)ti Hi Ittft?  5  fS6  n \Q 5  KI rs EG  B>r Ri ) Or HB ft  X Oi 'Ht.  5,i?/>  & J <EI{  Bt w  01  Kt 51 'US.  KL]  fit Ri  */< :o  Kt T  Hi /it'ii  Ri-  HtiM-L V  W  t.Jr~.  Hotit'ti  fit Ri ?  )  Oi W R,  9N mi  'IN  IN 71 RI\ if* LLM  RI  a  Hu  % Nt n  HuIH y Or Ml R.  % Wlbp >£R finm h  R  /Y Hi UJt Nl  BI  % 7N91-  OI  Ht'ii Ho .LSA L-LL ±3—  B  m ii  HuIffV  9H 'HiJL  Rt)A \ lot fiH,'a m HiINI?N {to m h m  3/ Rl  RL  Bi Rfl  Hi/tit  'y HoLiNil 1.1 j—  HuNt'N Ho "HHY  SV  QL  POLE , -NUMBER,  LOCRT-fQN Ki TI  HoIH V  Ho  48  Iff vc 0()L Ki 'Jk-L * — t  Hi it'/ M -J  )  \D  y_  MlHu -Lid* ,f 1— — BI  % IN U  K  flii IR R>tin  Hi ID  Bi>ID  %  '/// JLLL  RNIN %  Bi v>  IF i  %.  VFR.  Ha, l Ml iff"  T  Hu1fty  Huw v  w  V HnHt) in  Bi)Ifli  UL BL RA  m  'JJ.  b m Ho  Bi  N  Itt MR J  i  a /) RI LSI  ul  7 8 9 10 i i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  6  MfHi -IL  f\ i  5± fit•i  4  S T A T E M E N T  ILC  Ki n IR T\ \ffjti(  S  /,k  ft  c  >0  z  3  /I  +  A  4-  A  /  r,  n ti ii  —  A  xs EL  6 0  X' IE*  6 3  -A  /8 1  ^  f/.  ?/  4.'  >6 4-  r ?5~  4- O 3 f)  Kl s y  Kf\  li M 15  4-  b 1  <  A  C  75 -t-U.  X/  Yi 0  3  j- 6  l  1  / it >0  1 d  i)  il V  0 ?/  ;c  A  / ?( //  Z  3  3  Ri t  5 Z  x; )FC  '.ftx^ )£l  d /  ,EL  IN  '-Hi t(i >FL  3 z  13  8  './?  %  ; / a 'J  !,/? x  1  f 5  -4~  42.  TABLE 3—Continued  UBC  Computing  Programmer  Centre  _  Date  FORTRAN CODING FORM  .  Page  of  c  S T A T E M E N T NO.  c  1!  3 4  2  ft m  0 T  F O R T R A N  6  1 i  N  5  9  S T A T E M E N T  10  12  11  13  15  H  IDENTIFICATION  •  16  1? IS  20 21 22  19  23  25  26  2;  ft,VP  / Ht H,  fA  HL n  HL 'A?  l  HI 'ft f  II\ fit <h ft V Hi,iMI • fAi  Hi  0 W FR  >'HIR  ft V/i  0 "ft  Ho 1M bFH£?<  0 r// \ c  /  < >  77/  0 T%  7s a 'HA  0  Oi  ~R  Hi  m  Iff, Hi •Mi vy 'I! *  Si ? / »  i  :.vHFR  ft) R  fit '/V Hi\II?  Hi w  Ht •MPS  ft/  Him P V  4v, m X  t  ,n  H  1' HI/Ft  •  m  Hi IN  i J HHft  4  t ft. R, )  tfiJh  "iff  f4  Hi  36  V  36  39  40  42  0 76e,\  <3  44  45  46  4  7  48  LQCBT/ON  DA TE  Hi r. ' 1 f  li  A V/tIP L ft// f/A F  K  r.  ChWFV  kt 7"Kw  017L  A/ 77\£  w Ki -/=  % 4£R mT  H\lit  H 7/1  ft/111  ^  1  Fitfft1  T  iff-?  T . ifIN wLA, 1 L t *' r r '<6 £1 )p  ft: Yfiy  ^ /  HP • L / ft ~m •  ft*Iff  Kt  /// %  HL /// »A Hit. / r  %  '-A  Hf  Hi 'Ft? A /  -?.  HL 'M HL Fitn h ON  He  r;  m u  s e  m b, m  % IH  ?L  h  &  —  0  /f  0  /A  \T  •0  m  If 7 /  Kt o7  (1  1  c -f IPmf /  IRL  3  r ?  c  --  4  Ft  (.  ft  an  t  KIK  5 u  ft  /. > —  A  A R  5 5  r  f  B  65 65  9  IR AS•Ft  0  Z  'fit  'jfl  LP  f8  19  T  >A  0  OL 1L  >x  f ft  /S  5  3  P»  ft) t[A  'B  4  ~l I  80  1  3 3  (RL  (rl  3.  -ft  ft LH  A  ,l  30  0  —  0  if  )0 L '&  {1 D p,  n  ft  kt T- ft-liAl (1R ' c \ '\t.  Kt  h  'ft  1  >8l  iff  C  5  KiA  Ki Th m CL >ol_  tin Hi m h *&} Hf,'>•:? 'til•1  •V  —  5  1 h EL t-. 11 1 /? Lf Xi EL // 4-Lh ?EL 1 '  5 ib  W i f  NFIHPFZ  /=}  li  Ki 71*fit IC 00 1 • it Kt r VI ri •  ft/ V/tW /I its  if*-  y5  y< ll I.  -  HkIH  \ L ft  kt fit '10 X  1-1 7/ •-It <\  Ht •HR  TlJ  Li  //  A  ftn  ——  R i)  y HoHF% a.y Hp NJ ?A  35  y/F ft;  / HI V/F (ft 1 Ht H ! f f fit  34  A!  r  Or, &4 t  33  v M FFf, 9A/  o- H>  %Fit?/y  ft>  32  Hi l-  ?  MA lit  31  H )F f/  >  ;  30  He Hi *kWiMi T£ U Hi r iniXKin Hi 9A/  •  Hi  Si  28  EL  LA IT U  J/J  it? 7 01  'J  EL  '/?  EL  Iff  xsEL  3  /  - r  5 (0 8 I  utsL  uompuiing c e n t r e FORTRAN CODING  Programmer  Page_  Date  FORM  of.  S T A T E M E N T F O R T R A N  IDENTIFICATION  S T A T E M E N T  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  _  its Hi 'Hi?A  Bl Hi )  % HL 'tit. (L HL H6  -Hi:R  m  Ri Rl IEA0 \lhm Ul '-'V _ HA\l/HRt  %m 'Ht  foe/ >  8 4-  Ft  'fi X' PL -LI  8 8  9i r K S  It Vi 0  0  'J- m  9 4-  Pi y/iYH/  TL IHI IC Oi ){_ Kt XL -LLL  1 L.  Hi & 2_  EL A 0  r Ki  HI R>lit) '•'J-1  Rt IIIIff l_ 0 Hi -ti  tfttHi its U-fJ.  r  £  L. d Vl  %mk  M BL 'M Hi  Hk  ft*  m 'ftL J-L L /?/ V/l IH •  Ri 'it r  IL. a  )f/t'ffI m 1 fit f-J.l ' ft IJ™  1  M H£  h  W  int  t,'</A'fli  M k m fam  mJ  JA IL -4fa  3i,  C TM& 2_ 1 VI X  am ?AI  >_Hi ULHi  HL HJ J.Li  9/S tft  b  RJSm Hj  FL 3i Iff,  m •h w  a £<•'•Ui  •  ffi u.fa  'Hi IC Oi )L -LLL  uu.  i «.  I 0  f) <-/8  It ti •5  TH.L.  rlsi.  z  c  i—^»  m  9Sf <?/. >e. r '/Ri i.U*  LR  /£ >B5  <r, TI /R ' I.I  'OtIL  Ih 6 5  'R n  li '£ 5 l V  c  'A  —A]  AS**  If \5 ,s  c  'rJ-L R  this  XL IH  'n  i  X Ki 61 Jx 'IC <\  -OS  1UKLg n  (Hii-COi>/ K • 'fi <I T~' >-£. 31 /\ ~n. i ^ • u K\SJ  ff  5  If 5 I—c-fj  1i l  -J.  / IJ  J.—  11  /)  n  \5.  / 3  18  2  JJJ1*  IRL  u IH  s B  4 1  IRLi  LU\  5 'ft is EL R-l—A  C  h  5  i  'fi  R  90  'ff XftLLIL //?/ 'u/l  —  ft 1  )£L  'C 7C L Ki TU'Fll * II  k Lt  v>  ff  H  vc OCV Ki TI /Ft (ft  HIII ifttih 1Ef\  7  Hi  m IR,:—Ho  L—It  iuiiftH Ht IIS b w h '(IfHIf -t-J  'ft i Rt Vff,  "•=1  m  Bi Rt)  l{ Hit'fi, 9L Q, H Ff > lit W I. HA Jft/t Llif Itfi  /  Rj >  Bi SJ  >-R El  \&Q  Hi IN ii  m  R  56  H  e Oi 'HF IH HaHt CV—{ '—Li, -LI— eJJ—  RA 'If,ft i Fliiff 'fl,  lot  5  Lid  Ht ig pp p  L  JJL  Bi Hi  HuW h m  iff "IT  -/-  HL LJJL 'HtLLJ.  IftL Hu HAfit k '/?li ' ff 7 l ILL m Ik J ISJJ  0/  Iff  P  'A U IAL  m  I III if,Mrs— LLL  It  o  t  r  Bi Rl  'ft Hf\  (/?Iff -H  LA*  U  /i 16 / *  Ml Hi 1-1,1.  ?,  ft  ft  Hi IQ -ij-  'HiHi  h Il/ltlic  r  w  R  »  POLE MJHRBR.  p  IH HAi m M in  hkw  If? 'ii  •  ?_ CLF}N  IS 6  % <m  5i  f? n  CI US Z  n 9XOFHi ,5 St •JJ lYl  m 91:  5i Rl  <n IH ex rl Ti Hi Ht 'li  Hi Hi Rl  DBTF  Kt  Bt Rj ) r  L 0CAT/DAf  u  ? /  *  s 0  z  -I—  Q 3 t  IRI  1T  us'.  3 5. j  fiS'i  s  UBC  Computing Centre  Programmer  .  _  FORTRAN  COOING  FORM  Date  Page.  of.  UBC  computing  centre FORTRAN  Programmer  CODING  Page.  Date  FORM  of. IDENTIFICATION  S T A T E M E N T F O R T R A N  S T A T E M E N T  •  1  2 3 4  a  yj.  5  6  UJ  m  7 8 9  10 l l  &  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  CL  IL & 11<£ •n& 'JLL  a V7. n Hi/A '-A  R  (M  8,  P  rH  \ /  y? /?//\  U-t J  &4 J  P>l fi  0  f?,•) d/ •SI 1X1 J.  LL  h  •y  Hi'nIf/  <...  />  ft, r /1 / V.  M  ~H.  T  ) Bi R, —V-  Ht>H,?f\1 Bi RI Hi RI  »  I  HiIH 9t(  '  7/y  IS  ft)\l Ho Ht H J.U. L/JZ.LJ-  Kt  f  *  B, R, )  r  'If 'ft. Ht -U—JJ-i t-t-i  0 p. 'AT.  °l  .a  JJht  H If- iV  R f) J. r~ 1 v / Hi >H V J-L  0  ~Hr.  ?  o  El ?  ,5  •  —  IH Ht •i-L  'p  2, 5  ff  f L-  ___  o  'H KSKlf\  p  '.fft$ KlK  H,  11 >£ ?Si  f  ft  rl->5 fa  ?  I—  R  °/('/y  0  u  'Zl,f  4  2,  'FtKh si-l.  i  Klk  -H  5 9  H  IP X.<1 Lm F.L  H  :R  i  /—I-  -—1~  '0  o  3  /f )t '5  3  ff li  ff  f-i-  /  -i—  0 0  »  5  ft5) rt: '.L~—<  ,1  5//( ;X  T\ /Y rf  ?,  ?  P  o  5 5  6  i  ,  5  y/iIS.«J7  IS  5  l<  )ty. IV  PitH,  2 1  P OL  AlUm S£A  D  Li—  ./-/  —  (o  JHN rf  KtS-Pf 1) Ht7 7 El T.  9i\1  $0  '  '2 0  r/  Hi.'/ftft]I  •t—  15  ?  (ff, HtY/t  19  C/BA1  <// 'At ^ / 77" a./ — /-YJ rfl  ht ?( \h Fi I Hi Iff91 91( HI *PI -f-f-,  I.USTPR  0  19fc )  PI 0) C  )X Vl .tx.  K/  9/ /  r  /<* '9 0  Si 'IC'X A  Ml H)1/ Hi Hi 'JJ. 1J-,J-L A- J-L  •  a  (fi  0) (  Ki. l£ SI  Hi'H ?i\  f  7" ?A q Kt -\-L 1 Jl X— H—L t-S-l  o f) Bi •-</  ~H  DflTF  Iff Y6  Kl  ?A  ff  WW  LOCBJWM.  1  TfFk IN no jj- //_/.  R p>, LZ-< f J th • w /? 'Ri Y.L- iUJi A il Hf), R0 fit'—V Ri >  Htih HiV Q!/ Ht>M J-L  i  / HL 'M Hi i////fi1^ Q-lIJMift C/-4  'H  dLHLw  'Ht-h H,y/HtIf P>'R 1)  11 &  a  -  F)  X5 FI  7 ? 5  f  \GBS 'Ft  Ft  4—  46. entire set of poles. s i g n i f i c a n t patterns.  Chronology and art s t y l e do not show any There i s , however, a meaningful association of  poles by clans, and by arrangement of figures. Table 3 presents the poles i n the order i n which they are clustered by this dendrogram.  The table includes information on  date, clan a f f i l i a t i o n , l o c a t i o n , and p o s i t i o n of the various figures on the poles.  From the l e f t hand margin, the l i s t of figures for  each pole begins at the top of the pole, and moves downward on the pole as the l i s t moves to the right.  Lines represent blank spaces  on the pole or i t s termination at l e s s than twelve f i g u r e positions. Only the f i r s t twelve positions (forty-eight characters), those s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with types of f i g u r e s , are represented  although  seventy-one characters contributed to the clustering. Barbeau's informants distinguished a series of sub-clans to which Barbeau attached descriptive names. they are simply referred to by l e t t e r :  For convenience of discussion  A and i t s subdivisions for  Laxsel, B and i t s subdivisions for Gisgast, C and i t s subdivisions for Laxkibu, and D for Laxskik. While the character l i s t had twelve positions related to clan crest f i g u r e s , the figures were not s p e c i f i c . published and unpublished, the possession of sub-clans  The l i t e r a t u r e , both  states that very specialized crests were i n (Halpin, 1973;  Barbeau/Beynon f i e l d notes).  At the same time i t i s assumed that these specialized crests developed from a stock of 'generalized crests common to the main clans.  At a  very s u p e r f i c i a l l e v e l , i f the order reflected clan a f f i l i a t i o n i t might be expected that there would be four c l u s t e r s , simply representing  47. for  instance, the importance of animals to the Laxkibu, or that of  birds to the Laxskik. Rather than four major clusters the dendrogram i s s p l i t at a very low l e v e l of s i m i l a r i t y into two large clusters.  Within, these  clusters there are other clusters which are related quite closely internally. clusters.  The f i r s t of the two major clusters contains nine subThere i s a preponderance of Laxsel (A) poles, with a tendency  to cluster with Laxskik (D) poles.  Two  exclusively of Gisgast (B) and Laxkibu  of the sub-clusters are composed (C) poles.  Sub-clusters  one, two, and three are dominated by separate v i l l a g e s .  Sub-cluster  nine i s heavily dominated by Niska poles. The second major cluster contains sub-clusters ten to twenty. This major cluster i s composed very largely of Gisgast (B) and (C) poles, clustering together.  Laxkibu  Sub-cluster f i f t e e n brings together  a number of Niska poles with a group from Kltwancool.  Other sub-  clusters do not display any d e f i n i t e geographical trend.  The p o t e n t i a l  significance of the clustering by clan and v i l l a g e w i l l be discussed i n the concluding  chapter.  The same data set was also submitted scaling, using Torgerson's metric programme. was  extracted by 12 roots.  (Fig.  to multi-dimensional 89.84 percent of trace  The f i r s t two vectors are i l l u s t r a t e d  1) and discussed. Once §gain we find a strong tendency for Niska poles to cluster  together, possibly i n conjunction with a chronological trend. i n the centre there i s a group of poles pre-dating 1875,  Directly  from Kitwan-  cool, Gitlaxdamks, and Kitwanga, which are of A and D clan a f f i l i a t i o n :  i—i o  4a  4SK  >6S  00  4«8£  .63  4*  •8a  •35  i 0.O .80 • 3 6 •90.  1  "60  •53  4*  II'  »4fc *4>:  • to  -4a. »43 •S4  6f »34  49. numbers 1, 8, 81, 11, and 52.  In the lower right hand quadrant there  is a looser cluster, also pre-1875, but with the addition of two poles dated at 1880:  a l l of these are also of A and D clan a f f i l i a t i o n ,  numbers 93, 9, 56, 84, 54, and 24, from Kitwancool, Gitlaxdamks, G i t i k s and Kitwanga.  In the upper right hand quadrant i s the previously  mentioned group of Niska poles:  numbers 85, 87, 88, 89, and 94.  Across the top, i n both upper quadrants,  i s a scattered cluster of  pre-1875 poles of the B and C clans, numbers 50, 70, 69, 65, and 72, from Kitwanga and Kispiox.  Scattered around a l l these c l u s t e r s , but  d e f i n i t e l y trending toward the l e f t , are poles of increasingly l a t e r date.  I believe we may i n f e r from this that there were at least four  " n u c l e i " of related early poles.  The large number of o u t l i e r s on the  plot, of l a t e r date, also suggests a trend toward loosening of t r a d i tion. To sum up, the r e s u l t s of an analysis of the ninety-six poles i n terms of seventy-one characters defining pole organization, as w e l l as a r t i s t i c t r a i t s , were the confirmation of a d i s t i n c t difference between the Niska and Gitksan poles; a p o s i t i v e suggestion that the content and organization of the poles r e f l e c t s an older two-fold clan d i v i s i o n of which more below; and a confirmation of the close association of some of the poles to which Barbeau assigns early dates. Following this general investigation, the ninety-six poles were submitted  to h i e r a r c h i c a l clustering i n terms of a character l i s t  from which the f i r s t forty-eight characters, those-dealing with pole positions of figures, had been removed. re-numbered one to twenty-three,  The remaining characters were  and others describing further a r t i s t i c  50. t r a i t s as well as arm and leg positions of the figures were added to make a new character l i s t t o t a l l i n g forty-seven characters III).  (Appendix  This l i s t was used to re-score the ninety-six poles, and to  produce both a dendrogram and multi-dimensional  scaling plots.  The dendrogram obtained from clustering this data set had six major clusters, tabular form.  (Appendix IV). The clusters are i l l u s t r a t e d below i n The underlying organization reflected i s both chrono-  l o g i c a l and a r t i s t i c , and i n most cases the methodology substantiates Barbeau's dates, by tending to cluster poles of the same decade. These dates were obtained from a v a r i e t y of informants.  When alternate  dates were given, Barbeau simply chose between them by assessing one informant as more r e l i a b l e than the other, although he noted the conf l i c t i n g opinions. guesses.  At other times, the dates represent Barbeau's  Generally, the dates are rounded o f f by decade, and should  not be considered absolute.  I f the clustering i s accepted  as v a l i d ,  a number of poles which Barbeau was unable to date now may be dated by association.  Also we'may use the >clustering^ to^compare .the rates v  at which clans were r a i s i n g poles, and by inference have some idea of the power and wealth of the clans i n r e l a t i o n to one another.  Thus,  i f we consider the poles of each clan for each decade by percentage, i t i s obvious that i n clan D power was concentrated before 1875; i n clan C i n the decades before 1885; u n t i l 1910,  clan A shows a fluctuating rate  and clan B, although much smaller, also was able to main-  tain i t s e f f o r t s u n t i l 1910  (Table 4 ) .  51. TABLE 4 PERCENTAGES OF POLES RAISED BY CLANS, BY DECADE  Up to but not Including  %  %  %  %  of A Poles  of B Poles  of C Poles  of D Poles  21% 13% 35% 18% 10%  19% 19% 23% 28% 9%  39% 34% 26% 8%  50% 25% 8% 8% 8%  1850-1875 1875-1885 1885-1895 1895-1910 1910-  Total % of a l l Poles 28% 21% 26% 16% 7%  The most important aspect of the clustering of poles from this dendrogram i n Appendix IV i s the insight i t gives into the styles of the Niska and Gitksan carvers.  In Table 5 below, the poles are  shown i n the way they clustered, with dotted l i n e s between s i g n i f i c a n t sub^clusters.  A s o l i d l i n e separates.the major clusters. TABLE 5  NISKA AND GITKSAN POLES CLUSTERED BY CARVING CHARACTERISTICS  Pole #  Location  Date  Carver  Pole Clan  1  Kitwancool  1875  Sqateen (Nass)  A  84  Gitlaxdamks  1865  Artseeprh (Nass)  A  2  Kitwancool  1875  Nass  A  66  Kispiox  1895  Tsugyet  B  6  Kitwancool  1885  Neeslaranows  A  93  Gitiks  1870  Oyai (Nass)  D  3  Kitwancool  1885  Neeslaranows  A  22  Kitwancool  [1870]  Nass  c  54  Kitwanga  1870  Nass  D  56  Kitwanga  1880  Geesarhkees  D  92  Angede  1880  ?  C  Cluster 1  4  52. TABLE 5—Continued  Pole #  Location  Date  Carver  Pole Clan  7  Kitwancool  1916  Qaqhl  A  26  Kitwancool  1875?  Sa'anrhkwanks (Nass)  A  4  12  Kitwancool  1870  Hrtseeyae (Nass)  A  4  46  Kitwanga  1900  Kwawdzabarh  A  38  Kitsegukla  1895  Hlengwah  B  45  Kitwanga  1888  Gitrhawn  A  61  Kispiox  1875  Haku  c  2  9  Kitwancool  1880  Artseeprh (Nass)  A  5  18  Kitwancool  1875  Haesemhli-yawn  C  47  Kitwanga  1860  Nass  A  43  Kitsegukla  1895  Kwawdzaharh  B  10  Kitwancool  1900  Harhpegwawtu  A  5  33  Kitsegukla  1890  Hlamee  A  4  23  Kitwancool  [1890]  [Gitksan]  c ?  44  Kitsegukla  1890  Tom Campbell  B  24  Kitwancool  [1865]  32  Kitsegukla  1885  31  Kitsegukla  1890  68  Kispiox  29  Kitsegukla  34  Cluster 2  4  A  5  Sqayaen  A  4  Kwaw'amats  A  3  jKwaw'amats]?  A  1900  Weegyet  A  1  Kitsegukla  1880  Hlamee  B  2  67  Kispiox  1870  Wawsemlarhae  A  1  79  Kispiox  1875  Wawsemlarhae  C  [1915]  Cluster 3 4  Kitwancool  11890]?  Neeslaranows  A  48  Kitwanga  *1875  Nass  A  89  Angede  *1850  13  Kitwancool  1890  D *Hlamee  A  4  53. TABLE 5--Continued  Pole #  Location  Date  Carver  Pole Clan  78  Kispiox  1892  Larhwilemhot (Nass)  A  1  27  Kitwancool  1895  Weegyet  A  4  60  Kitwanga  1907  ?  A  3  39  Kitsegukla  1910  Qaqhl  B  49  Kitwanga  1920  Harhpegwawtu  A  20  Kitwancool  1905  Hlamee  C  71  Kispiox  1900  Tsugyet  B  37  Kitsegukla  1885  Negutsrael  B  55  Kitwanga  1900  Negutsrael?  D  62  Kispiox  1880  Haku  B/C  Cluster 4 8  Kitwancool  1865  Nass  A  5  25  Kitwancool  [1865]  A  5  16  Kitwancool  1875  Haesemhli-yawn  c  4  17  Kitwancool  1900  Hlamee  c  4  14  Kitwancool  1888  Haesemhli-yawn  c  4  15  Kitwancool  1860  Nass  c  4  30  Kitsegukla  1895  Hlamee  A  1  36  Kitsegukla  1875  Haesemhli-yawn  B  3  91  Angede  1870  7  C  35  Kitsegukla  1880  William Nass  B  87  Angede  1850  Oyai  C  95  Gitiks  1870  Oyai  D  80  Gitlaxdamks  1875  Neeskyinwaet  C  83  Gitlaxdamks  1870  Artseeprh  c  85  • Gitwinsilk  1892  Weesaiks  c  86  Gitwinsilk  1892  Qaderh?  B  Cluster-  —  5  ••  -  3  2  4  -  11  Kitwancool  1860  Nass  A  72  Kispiox  1855  Gurhnahaks  C  73  Kispiox  *1885  Tsugyet?  C  4  54. TABLE 5—Continued  Pole #  Location  Date  Carver  Pole Clan  63  Kispiox  1870  Wawsemlarhae  A  96  Hazelton  1865  7  A  76  Kispiox  1880  Raenem?  C  58  Kitwanga  1900  Tom Campbell  A  3  59  Kitwanga  1920  Harpegwawtu  A  3  77  Kispiox  1895  Raenem?  A  2  28  Kitwancool  7  c  1  51  Kitwanga  1875  c  1  88  Angede  1860  Oyai  A  90  Angede  1860  Oyai  C  74  Kispiox  1855  Kwikihl wans  B  81  Gitlaxdamks  1860  Oyai  D  19  Kitwancool  1885  Hlamee  C  53  Kitwanga  1875  Negutsrael  D  94  Git: iks  1870  Aqstaqhl  D  21  Kitwancool  1865  Haesemhliyawn  c  40  Kitsegukla  1885  Geesarkhees  B  52  Kitwanga  1850  7  D  •Cluster 6 5 Kitwancool  1875  Pees  A  41  Kitsegukla  1895  Kwawdzabarh  B  64  Kispiox  1875  *Wawsemlarhae  65  Kispiox  1855  Nass  B  82  Gitlaxdamks  1855  Hladerh  D  1  75  Kispiox  1875  Hakst  B  1  42  Kitsegukla  1925  Wawralaw  B  2  57  Kitwanga  1914  Qaqhl  D  50  Kitwanga  Nees awa elp  c  69  Kispiox  1850  Qelran (Nass)  B  70  Kispiox  1882  Naeqt  B  *  1865  *Hlamee  1  1  I disagree with this assignment.  2  1  3  2  2  B/C  1  55. Within the f i r s t major cluster shown on Table 5 there are two related sub-clusters, from pole number 1 to pole number! 92 i n c l u s i v e . These poles generally share the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wide noses, wide mouths, elongated heads, and deep r e l i e f carving. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the poles i s mainly on the Nass and at Kitwancool; the majority of the carvers are said to be Niska. With only two exceptions the carvers belong to the C (Laxkibu) clan. While the poles themselves are not organized i n any d i s t i n c t i v e manner, the execution of d e t a i l by the carvers c e r t a i n l y shows a shared view of a method of rendering. In addition to the associated t r a i t s mentioned above, the majority of these poles show a bold roundness and an o v e r - a l l harmony i n the relationship of the segments. I believe this may  be  called a s t y l e i n the sense of the shared manner of carving. On the grounds of the geographical location of the poles, and their a t t r i b u t i o n mainly to Niska carvers I have called this s t y l e Niska I. This series i s i l l u s t r a t e d on Plates I through VI. The l a s t sub-cluster within the f i r s t main cluster of Table 5, poles number 7 through 61 constitute another group sharing a d i s t i n c t i v e concept. This has to do with the organization of the t o t a l pole. In this case, although d e t a i l s of rendering d i f f e r , the  concept  of the pole surface as a continuous one to which raised figures are applied as separate motifs quite discrete from one another creates a unifying theme. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the poles i s exclusively on the Skeena and the majority of the carvers are Gitksan, s p l i t evenly between A (Laxsel) and D (Laxskik) clans. It should be noted that the two  56. e a r l i e s t poles are at Kitwaneool  and are attributed to Niska carvers.  These poles may represent a proto-type. I believe t h i s manner of organizing the poles deserves to be called a d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e . On the grounds of d i s t r i b u t i o n by l o c a t i o n , and of a majority of Gitksan carvers, I have called this Gitksan I. This series i s i l l u s t r a t e d on Plates VI through IX. The second major c l u s t e r , poles 9 through 79, represents yet another d i s t i n c t idea of pole organization. Shafts are l i g h t l y incised or uncarved, while at the bottom figures whose outer surface continues the same general plane as the shaft maintain the i l l u s i o n of a continuous  surface. The geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the poles  i s e n t i r e l y on the Skeena, with emphasis on Kitsegukla. The majority of carvers are Gitksan, representing clans A (Laxsel), B (Gisgast), and D (Laxskik). There i s a considerable range i n time represented, although one group, poles 10, 33, 23, and 44 are i n the .same decade. I have called t h i s . G i t k s a n . i l ; i t ,is i l l u s t r a t e d on Plates X through XV. The next large cluster, poles 4 to 62 i n c l u s i v e , do not represent any d i s t i n c t s t y l e . They have a wide v a r i e t y of characteri s t i c s and are generally l a t e i n date. Poles number 48 and 89 I believe to be i n c o r r e c t l y dated by Barbeau (1929: 47; 1964: neither case i s the ethnographic  49). In  data very firm. A e s t h e t i c a l l y they  both belong with the l a t e r group i n which clustering has placed them. P a r t i c u l a r l y notable is-the weak execution of the arms i n the lowest figure on pole 89. Generally the poles are poorly proportioned  and  haphazard i n organization, i n my estimation. They are i l l u s t r a t e d  57. on Plates XI through XIX. In the fourth major cluster poles from Kitwancool  and  the Nass predominate. This cluster also contains the l a s t of the four d i s t i n c t i v e styles I believe have been demonstrated by this dendrogram. Characteristic of these poles are strongly marked horizontal d i v i s i o n s , with frequent alternations of large and small figures. The d e t a i l s of execution d i f f e r widely. A long time span i s represented, from 1850  to 1900. Although the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the poles  i s f a i r l y evenly s p l i t between the two areas, I have considered  this  fact to be outweighed by the larger number of Niska carvers; therefore I have called this style Niska I I . It i s i l l u s t r a t e d on Plates XX through XXIV. Major clusters f i v e and s i x are i l l u s t r a t e d on the remaining Plates XXV  through XXXVII. There are no d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e s , but some  of their features w i l l be mentioned i n the concluding chapter. It should be emphasized that none of the styles discussed above exist as a series demonstrating  a l l the features mentioned, and only those  features. On the contrary, I am talking about tendencies which are marked i n certain: .cases and weak i n others, but which nevertheless show consistency over a range of poles. The multi-dimensional scaling plot from this data set (Appendix V  ) did not add any new  information. 82.60cofLtrace  was  extracted by 12 roots. There i s further confirmation of a difference in t r a d i t i o n between the Niska and the Gitksan, with a clustering of Niska poles i n the upper l e f t quadrant. Also noticeable i n the lower  58. r i g h t quadrant  i s a l o o s e c l u s t e r of p o l e s , l a t e i n time and  poor  i n execution. The l a s t o p e r a t i o n undertaken was and  s c a l i n g of the 47  an R t e c h n i q u e c l u s t e r i n g  c h a r a c t e r s as seen on 63  p o l e s ; those from the  Nass, from K i t w a n c o o l , and from K i s p i o x . The dendrogram (Appendix VI has two major c l u s t e r s w i t h i n which are a number of w e l l marked s u b - c l u s t e r s . The numbers used i n thesf611owing<.discussion a r e those of the c h a r a c t e r s l i s t e d  i n Appendix I I I . The o r i g i n a l d a t a were  examined to determine whether the s u b - c l u s t e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of geography. The r e s u l t s a r e l i s t e d order of c l u s t e r i n g . L o c a t i o n s l i s t e d  i n T a b l e 6 below i n the  a r e those i n which the  a s s o c i a t i o n s were p r e f e r r e d . L i n e s s e p a r a t e the  trait  clusters.  TABLE 6 PREFERRED CHARACTER TRAITS, BY LOCATION  Character t r a i t s  Location  1. 36. 13. 31. 42. 47.  Pole f i g u r e s c l e a r l y divided h o r i z o n t a l l y Arms i n " h o l d i n g " p o s i t i o n at c h e s t P o l e segments f u l l y modelled B i r d has human limbs Knock-kneed l e g s Arms hanging, s l i g h t l y bent  Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool  3. 6. 19. 26. 4. 41.  Discrete figures within pole l i n e O r b i t more than 33 1/3% of the head E y e l i d double p l a n e change i n c a r v i n g Prow c h i n Intertwined f i g u r e s Legs "hugging" the p o l e  Kitwancool Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Nass/Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool  )  59. TABLE 6 Continued  Character t r a i t s  Location  2. 39. 32. 40. 3 8.  Series of near i d e n t i c a l figures Arms at waist, dexter over s i n i s t e r Straight hanging arms Straight legs Arms horizontal, s i n i s t e r over dexter  General Kitwancool/Nass Kitwancool/Nass Kitwancool/Nass Kitwancool/Nass  10. 17. 23. 35. 46.  Lips delineated by incised l i n e Eyelid l i n e incised More than one set of segments matching Arms i n ''holding" position at waist Figure kneeling  Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool  15. 34. 22. 45. 33.  Pupil mainl^ebei'ow l i n e , eyelid t i p to t i p Arms akimbo, resting on knees More than two segments matching Knees drawn up and doubled back Arms clasp drawn up knees  Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kitwancool Kispiox  5. 28. 27. 29. 11. 21. 43.  Orbit less than 33 1/3% of head E q u i l a t e r a l nose Mouth and chin i n continuous plane Wide mouth Humanoids with teeth Only two segments same height Knees drawn up, kneecaps turned to touch  Kitwancool Kitwancool General General Kitwancool/Nass Kitwancool/Nass Kitwancool/Nass  8. 14. 37. 9. 18. 20.  Semi-angular carving junctions Pupil mainly above l i n e , eyelid t i p to t i p Arms facing out, palms out, at chest Figures hold smaller figures Eyelid single plane change i n carving Eye c i r c u l a r  Nass/Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool Nass/Kitwancool Nas s/Ki twanc 001 Nass/Kitwancool  60. TABLE 6 Continued  Character t r a i t s  Location  7. 12. 24. 30. 16. 25. 44.  Nass/Kispiox Nass/Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox Kispiox/Kitwancool Kispiox/Kitwancool Kispiox/Kitwancool  Carving junctions angular Discrete figures modelled beyond pole l i n e Eyebrows nearly meet Birds have p l a i n wings Pupil perimeter congruent with eyelid Crisp eyesocket Knees i n s i t t i n g position  Multi-dimensional scaling of this data set did not produce an interpretable plot. . u• This chapter has indicated by means of a dendrogram (Appendix  I I and Table 3) that a clustering by clan r e f l e c t s an  e a r l i e r state of clan a f f i l i a t i o n , and that a rhythm and order exists i n the placement of figures on poles. I have also indicated, by means of a second dendrogram (Appendix IV and Table 5) that four d i s t i n c t i v e styles exist within the totem poles studied. In addition a dendrogram displaying association of character t r a i t s with location was presented. Further implications of the data above w i l l be considered i n the next chapter.  CHAPTER 5 .CONCLUSIONS The object of choosing a quantitative methodology for t h i s thesis i s to provide a framework for consideration of the art of the Niska and Gitksan totem pole carvers. I t i s intended to act as a base for subsequent i n t u i t i v e observations and as a complement to the existing ethnographic record. I t i s also expected  to provide  new angles of v i s i o n , much as the turn of the hand produces a new pattern from the same b i t s of glass i n a kaleidoscope. When the poles were considered i n the f i r s t instance by means of both content and execution, there was strong confirmation of the assumption that a recognizable difference exists between the poles of the Niska and the Gitksan, as demonstrated by their positions in clusters i n the dendrogram. Unexpectedly, the clustering also provides strong support f o r the assumption that the Tsimshian clan system was once two-fold rather than four-fold (Emmons, n.d.; Halpin, 1973). The high incidence of the conjunction of Gisgast (B) and Laxkibu  (C) poles r e f l e c t s their exogamic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the  Haida Ravens and T l i n g i t Wolves, while the equally s t r i k i n g conjunction of Laxsel (A) poles with Laxskik (D) r e f l e c t s their i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the opposing T l i n g i t Raven, Haida Eagle d i v i s i o n . Since the character l i s t used was so generalized that a "bear mother" and a "frog woman" would both have been scored as "human/other", and since the same s i t u a t i o n i s true of other  61.  obvious  62. sources of separation, we must suspect more complicated factors at work. While further investigation of these clan relationships suggested by the dendrogram i s outside the. scope of t h i s , t h e s i s , I believe the data could be used as the basis of such an inquiry. Even more s t r i k i n g are the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of figure placement demonstrated i n Table 3. The f i r s t three c l u s t e r s , f o r instance, show an association between the bird at the top of the pole and the figure i n the f ourth-position; at Kitwancool, Kispiox, and Kitwanga (Clusters 1 and 2), this figure i s a humanoid. At Kitsegukla i t tends to be another b i r d . The series of poles 82, 89, 10, 16,  15,  86, 11, 83, 80, 91, and 85 i s overwhelmingly humanoid, or alternates humanoid and animal. This leads to the inference that the rhythm of placement i s one of the contributors to s i m i l a r i t i e s between the poles of the Nass and Kitwancool. It also may  be part of the reason for  their separation from other Gitksan poles. I believe that these arrangements cannot be random. They deserve further investigation. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the poles on the multi-dimensional scaling plot for this data set underlines the cohesiveness of the Niska poles, and i n some measure the strength of association between Niska carvers and the poles of Kitwancool. As w e l l , the d i s t r i b u t i o n suggests several d i f f e r e n t centres of s t y l i s t i c association. The dendrogram obtained from the clustering of the poles using the 47 character l i s t was discussed by means of Table 5 i n the previous chapter. A series of common themes, elements of which naturally tend to overlap i n such a complicated data set, were  63. identified.  These themes suggest the following conclusions.  Four of the themes are s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t to j u s t i f y c a l l i n g them sub-populations constituting a s t y l e . In other words, I believe they represent manners of carving, i n the case of Niska I, or concepts of t o t a l organization of the pole, i n the case of Niska I I , and Gitksan I and I I . Poles demonstrating  these styles may be found outside  the clustered series. Reference to the plates i l l u s t r a t i n g Table 5 should make this v i s u a l l y clear. The f i r s t s t y l e , Niska I, i s characterized by large scale figures whose heads are higher than they are wide. They generally have wide noses and wide mouths. Many have a prow-like chin. Their carving r e l i e f i s rounded, sometimes angular, but deep and bold i n proportion. Each segment of the pole i s self-contained, giving an impression of horizontal d i v i s i o n s . The poles represent a Niska s t y l e , generally p r i o r to  1880. The second s t y l e , Gitksan I, features a very d i s t i n c t i v e concept  of using a continuous plane as a unifying background f o r the figures. At f i r s t glance this appears a very simple idea, but i n actual technical execution, of course, i t i s not so simple. Generally the carving of the figures i s i n low r e l i e f and s o f t l y rounded; but high r e l i e f and  low  f l a t r e l i e f also occur. The d e t a i l s of the figures vary widely. There i s also a wide v a r i a t i o n i n time, from 1870 to 1916. The t h i r d s t y l e , Gitksan I I , has another d i s t i n c t i v e concept of the whole pole. At least one t h i r d , and frequently more of the upper portion of the pole i s p l a i n , while at the bottom the figures are carved so that their outer surface s t i l l continues the same plane as that of the uncarved shaft. This made i t necessary to cut the pole  64. h o r i z o n t a l l y just above the uppermost f i g u r e , giving the figure the appearance of "sinking" into the pole. The r e l i e f carving tends to be f l a t and low, sometimes with rounded edges, sometimes sharp. Heads tend to be elongated. Other d e t a i l s vary widely. None of the carvers are Niska. This s t y l e occurs mainly at Kitsegukla, although there i s one early pole at Kitwancool, and two o t h e r s — p o s s i b l y by the same a r t i s t — a t Kispiox. There i s another cluster of poles distinguished by the . computer as already noted, which display a v a r i e t y of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , many combined i n an a e s t h e t i c a l l y unpleasing way.  They are l a t e i n  time, 1890-1925, and may be f a i r l y considered to represent a decline i n t r a d i t i o n . They do not constitute a s t y l e . The fourth s t y l e , Niska I I , i s the one which Wingert assumed to be "Tsimshian s t y l e " . The poles are divided h o r i z o n t a l l y ; large and small figures of the same r e l a t i v e scale alternate and the scale i s heavy. Many figures havehproBr-chins.-.arid " T l i n g i t " l i p s ( f o r an v  example of t h i s l i p formation see Plate XXVI: 2). Birds frequently have smoothly carved ovoids on their wings. Most of the animals have extremely large ears, often containing figures. There i s a wide range of dates from 1865  to 1895. Nine of the poles represented are by  Niska carvers. This i s a Niska s t y l e . The next group i s extremely i n t e r e s t i n g . It contains quite a number of poles with early dates. If i t has an underlying theme i t i s that of varying combinations  of small eyes, noses, and mouths. Much  more important, however, i s the fact that i t contains some very  65. i n d i v i d u a l p o l e s whose components l a t e r occur i n other Numbers 72 and uncarved The  contexts.  73, f o r i n s t a n c e , have f i g u r e s a t the bottom of an  s h a f t , from which they are* separated :by 7  a sharp, c u t . -  f i g u r e s , however, a r e not c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the p l a n e l i n e of  upper s h a f t . One  of these p o l e s a l s o has a h o l e surrounded  the  by f o u r  s m a l l f i g u r e s . T h i s m o t i f r e c u r s on p o l e number 21 at K i t w a n c o o l , famous "Hole i n the Sky" p o l e , but as p a r t of the d i s t i n c t i v e  the  style  I have c a l l e d G i t k s a n I. P o l e number 96 at H a z e l t o n , which Barbeau dates a t  1865,  d i s p l a y s an a s t o n i s h i n g range of m o t i f s : prow-chin; T l i n g i t l i p ; K i s p i o x brow ( f o r an example of t h i s d i s t i n c t i v e sweeping brow f o r m a t i o n see P l a t e XXXVII:1); and its it  s h a f t .Although  i t c e r t a i n l y appears t o s i n k i n t o  I c o n s i d e r t h a t i t i s l a t e r a t h e r than  early,.'if  i s e a r l y i t i s a remarkable p r o d u c t i o n . The N i s k a p o l e s i n t h i s  group share the heavy s c a l e and d e c o r a t e d  ears noted  f o r other p o l e s ,  but the f i g u r e s a r e h e a v i l y i n t e r t w i n e d . In t o t a l , t h i s group does not r e p r e s e n t a s t y l e . The one  l a s t group c o n t a i n s some c l u s t e r s of e a r l y p o l e s , and  as l a t e as 1925.  t h a t of broad  I f they can be s a i d to have a common theme i t i s  heads, wider than they a r e h i g h , w i t h l a r g e eyes. F i v e  of the e l e v e n p o l e s are from K i s p i o x , and f o u r of these have the K i s p i o x brow. A l t h o u g h  i t i s tempting  to c o n s i d e r t h i s a s t y l e , I do  not  b e l i e v e t h e r e are enough a s s o c i a t e d f e a t u r e s to m e r i t t h a t term. The does r a i s e some i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s , as noted  below.  group  66. There are i n a l l nine poles i n the data set of 96 which d e f i n i t e l y exhibit the Kispiox brow. Seven of these poles are actually i n Kispiox, which i s what led me to apply this particular l a b e l when the t r a i t came to my attention. These poles are not attributed to the same a r t i s t by Barbeau, nor do I believe they are by the same person. Nor are they a l l attributed to Kispiox carvers: two are Kispiox, two Nass, one Quldo, two are dubious. Poles number 22 and 67 are part of Niska I and Gitksan I I , respectively, on other grounds. The other seven, however, are i n the l a s t two rather indeterminate groups. Is i t possible that they represent a proto-type of a style? If so, i t raises the further question of whether such a development began with the i n s p i r a t i o n of a single pole? Pole number 69 was carved i n 1850, according to Barbeau, making i t one of the e a r l i e s t extant, and perhaps a source for other carvers. Only a very detailed study of the nine poles, with the accompanying ethnography, could answer these questions. Since totem poles have the most secure provenience, as to l o c a t i o n , that could be desired, they are i d e a l for the purpose of determining whether a style i s inspired by v i s i t i n g a r t i s t s , or whether the v i s i t o r s absorb and use what they see before them. The R technique dendrogram as noted i n the previous chapter did produce some bundles of associated t r a i t s . I am not i n a p o s i t i o n to say these associated t r a i t s are preferred by any a r t i s t , or group of a r t i s t s : I can say that they occur more frequently i n some areas than i n others. Generally, they confirm Barbeau's hypothesis of mingling i n t h i s area.  67. The study has defined a number of styles of poles, but the a r t i s t s remain hidden. None of the dendrograms or multi-dimensional scaling plots produced close clustering of a l l poles attributed to any one a r t i s t . There are a number of a r t i s t s , according to Barbeau's a t t r i b u t i o n s , who  are well represented i n the data. Poles number 14,  16, 18, 21, and 36 are attributed to Haesemhliyawn, a Laxsel carver from Kitwancool who  i s said to have worked between 1840 and  1880  (Barbeau, 1929: 5). Poles 14 and 16 sometimes occur i n f a i r l y close association, for example on the dendrogram for clustering poles with 47 characters, and on the multi-dimensional scaling plot for poles with 71 characters. V i s u a l l y also their association i s not  incongruous.  However 18 and 21 do not occur with them nor with each other. Nor are they v i s u a l l y s a t i s f y i n g as the work of the same a r t i s t . In the case of this a r t i s t , the computer offers the p r o b a b i l i t y that not a l l the poles attributed to him are actually h i s work. On the other hand i t also suggests a close association between some poles which are said to be carved by him. Conversely, poles attributed to Hlamee, numbers 13, 17, 19, 20, 30, 33, 34, and 51, remain widely scattered on both dendrograms and p l o t s . Since the work of this a r t i s t has the greatest v i s u a l unity of any group of poles, from a subjective viewpoint, a national explanation for their f a i l u r e to cluster i s hard to f i n d . Personally I would remove poles number 13 and 51 from the l i s t of his  works, but this s t i l l leaves a long l i s t . A detailed study of  Hlamee's poles could illuminate the problem. He may  for instance have  68. copied the organization of d i f f e r e n t works he had seen. The computer has c e r t a i n l y not been able, i n this programme, to capture the essence of his s t y l e . Even more i n t r i g u i n g i s the corpus of work attributed to the carver Oyai: poles number 81, 87, 88, 90, 93, and 95. Barbeau has a great deal to say about Oyai "the outstanding craftsman of the Wolf clan at the canyon of the Nass." (Barbeau, 1964:  53)  best carver of the Nass at the time - about eighty years  ago."  (Ibid: 11) Yet i n a manuscript  "The  t i t l e d Emblems of N o b i l i t y by Barbeau  which contains a l i s t by Charles Barton of notable Nass carvers, Oyai i s not mentioned. Oyai i s however a high ranking chief's name from G i t w i n s i l k , which brings us to the paradox Barbeau mentions only b r i e f l y : that of the chief who  "stands over" the carver,  accepting the c r e d i t . It seems a rather unusual circumstance  that  many of the names given by Barbeau for Gitksan and Niska carvers are also those of chiefs. But i f we put t h i s information together with the fact that the clustering methodology has produced remarkably few conjunctions of the work of named a r t i s t s , we may  begin to  suspect that there were many more a r t i s t s active than the  ethnographic  record indicates. In the case of Oyai, both the clustering and judgment suggest  that the corpus attributed to him may  intuitive have come  from the hands of at least four d i f f e r e n t carvers. I would separate the poles i n t h i s way:  numbers 93 and 95, with possibly the addition  of 1 and 8; numbers 81 and possibly 82; numbers 88 and 90; and number 87.  69. The r o l e of the carver of totem poles i s also involved i n consideration of the r e s u l t s of the c l u s t e r i n g operations. Barbeau (1964), Garfield  (1939), and Halpin (1973) have drawn attention to the r o l e of  the Gidzontk i n Coast Tsimshian society. They were said to be  carvers  i n secret, of the paraphernalia for dancing and i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies. S p e c i f i c a l l y they were said not to be carvers of totem poles. There are a few indications that this type of organization was in Niska and Gitksan t e r r i t o r i e s (Halpin, 1973:  active  90j Barbeau, 1958:  75).  There i s ^ a l s o an implication that the carvers of secret masks might also a c t u a l l y be carvers of totem poles (Barton, n.d.). This matter should be pursued, since i t seems possible that the obscurity i n which totem pole carvers are cloaked may  indicate that their work was  actually connected with that of the Gidzontk. The status enjoyed by t h i s group, as "advisers to the chiefs i n a l l matters" (Barbeau, n.d.: i s surely one of the most powerful ever achieved and a proper subject for further investigation.  by a r t i s t s anywhere,  2)  70. EPILOGUE  ART AND THE COMPUTER I believe this thesis has demonstrated the u t i l i t y of quantitative techniques as aids i n defining a r t styles under certain circumstances. Of the four objectives outlined i n the beginning, three have been met. Only t r a i t s associated with i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t s or groups of a r t i s t s remain to be defined. The establishment of a taxonomy which has been demonstrated to be v a l i d i n terms of the independent ethnographic record i s the objective portion of this study. Inferences drawn from this taxonomy are my own. I believe these inferences rest on a firmer basis than those which I might have drawn had I chosen to proceed by analyzing the data i n terms of attributes obvious to me. Another researcher may draw other inferences from the same taxonomy; i t i s c e r t a i n l y my hope that others w i l l be interested i n the questions raised by my interpretations.  Fig.l  Pole 1  Fig.2  Pole 84  Fig.3  Pole 2  Fig.l  Pole 66  Fig.l  Pole 3  Fig.2  Pole 22  PLATE IV  Fig.l  Pole 54  PLATE V  Fig. 1  Pole 56  PLATE VI  Fig.l  Pole 92  Fig.2  Pole 7  PLATE VII  Fig.l  Pole 26  77.  Fig.2  Pole 12  Fig.l  Pole 46  Fig.2  Pole 38  Fig.3  Pole 45  PLATE IX  Fig.l  Pole 61  Fig.2  Pole 61, d e t a i l  PLATE X  Pig.l  Pole 9  Fig.2  Pole 18  Fig.3  Pole 47  PLATE XI  Fig.l  Pole 43  Fig.2  Pole 10  Fig.3  Pole 33  PLATE XII  Fig.l  Pole 23  Fig.l  Pole 24  Fig.2  Pole 32  Fig.3  Pole 31  PLATE XIV  Fig.l  Pole 68  Fig.2  Pole 29  Fig.3  Pole 34  Fig.l  Pole 67  Fig.2  Pole 79  PLATE XVI  Fig.l  Pole 4  Fig.2  86.  Pole 48  Fig.3  Pole 89  Fig.l  Pole 78  Fig.2  Pole 13  Fig.3  Pole 27  PLATE XVIII  Fig.l  Pole 60  Fig.2  Pole 39  Fig.3  88.  Pole 49  Fig.4  Pole 20  PLATE XIX  Fig.l  Pole 71  Fig.2  Pole 37  Fig.3  89.  Pole 55  Fig.4  Pole 62  Fig.l  Pole 8  PLATE XXI  Fig.2  Pole 17  Fig. 3  Pole 15  Fig.4  Pole 14  PLATE XXII  Fig.l  Pole 30  Fig.2  Pole 36  Fig.3  Pole 91  PLATE XXIII  Fig.2  Pole 87  93.  Fig.3  Pole 95  Fig.2  Pole 72  Fig.3  Pole 73  PLATE XXVI  ft  Fig.l  Pole 63  Fig.2  Pole 96  Fig.3  Pole 76  .1  Pole 58  Fig.2  Pole 59, d e t a i l  Fig.3  Pole 77  PLATE XXVIII  Fig.l  Pole 28  Fig.2  Pole 51  Fig.3  Pole 88  PLATE XXIX  Fig.3  Pole 81  PLATE XXX  Fig.2  Pole 53  100.  Fig.3  Pole 94  Fig.l  Pole 21  PLATE XXXII  Fig.2  102.  Pole 52  PLATE XXXIII  Fig.2  Pole 41  103.  PLATE XXXIV  Fig.l  Pole 65  104.  FjLg.2  Pole 82  PLATE XXXV  .  Fig.l  .  Pole 75  105.  PLATE XXXVI  Fig.l  Pole 42  Fig.2  Pole 57  106.  Fig.3  Pole 50  PLATE XXXVII  Fig.l  Pole 69  Fig.2  107.  Pole 70  APPENDIX I LIST OF SEVENTY-ONE CHARACTERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.  Humanoid Animal Bird Other Character positions 5 to 48 i n c l u s i v e consist of repetitions of the f i r s t four characters. Pole figures c l e a r l y divided horizontally. Series of near i d e n t i c a l figures side by side i n one segment. Figures applied as discrete items, raised from the surface of the pole, but within the outer l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. Figures are intertwined between segments. Humanoid eye o r b i t i s less than 33 1/3% of the height of the head. Humanoid eye orbit i s more than 33 1/3% of the height of the head. The juncture of raised surfaces with thenmain pole surface i s angular. The juncture of raised surfaces with the main pole surface i s semi-angular. Figures hold, or have applied to their surface, other smaller figures. Humanoid or other l i p s delineated by incised l i n e s only. Humanoids have teeth. Figures applied as discrete items, raised from the surface of the pole, but projecting beyond the l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. Whole segments of the pole are f u l l y modelled, with some portions projecting beyond the l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. More than half the humanoid p u p i l l i e s above a horizontal l i n e drawn from outer point to outer point of eyelid. More than half the humanoid pupil l i e s below a l i n e drawn as above. The perimeter of the humanoid pupil i s congruent with the eyelid line. Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s incised. Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s carved with a single change of plane. Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s carved with a double change of plane. Humanoid pupil i s c i r c u l a r . Only two figure segments on pole are of approximately the same height. More than two figure segments are of approximately the same height. More than one set of segments are of approximately the same height. 108.  APPENDIX II in back pocket.  APPENDIX I I I LIST OF FORTY-SEVEN CHARACTERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  6.  Pole figures are c l e a r l y divided h o r i z o n t a l l y . For an example, see Plate XXI, figures 1 and 4. Series of near i d e n t i c a l figures side by side i n one segment. For an example, see Plate XXI, figure 4. Figures applied as d i s c r e t e items, raised from the surface of the pole, but within the outer l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. For an example, see Plate X, figure 2. Figures are intertwined between segments. For an example, see Plate XXIII, figure 3. Humanoid eye orbit i s less than 33 1/3% of the height of the head. „  Humanoid eye o r b i t i s more than 33 1/3% of the height of the head.  -— Eve  7. 8. 9. 10.  O/zp/T  The juncture of raised surfaces with the main pole surface i s angular. For an example, see Plate XXXIII, figure 2. The juncture of raised surfaces with the main pole surface i s semi-angular. For an example, see Plate XXVI, f i g u r e 1. Figures hold, or have applied to their surface, other smaller figures. For an example, see Plate XXII, figure 3. Humanoid or other l i p s delineated by incised l i n e s only.  110.  APPENDIX I I I Continued 11. 12. 13. 14.  111.  Humanoids have teeth. For an example, see Plate X, , figure 3. Figures applied as discrete items, raised from the surface of the pole, but projecting beyond the l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. For an example, see Plate XX, figure 1. Whole segments of the pole are f u l l y modelled, with some portions projecting beyond the l i n e s of the main pole silhouette. For an example, see Plate I I , figure 2. More than half the humanoid p u p i l l i e s above a horizontal l i n e drawn from outer point to outer point of eyelid. 1  15.  More than half the humanoid p u p i l l i e s below a l i n e drawn as above.  16.  The perimeter of the humanoid pupil i s congruent with the eyelid l i n e .  17.  Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s incised.  18.  Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s carved with a single change of plane.  WULNAQAQ AND MEN ESK METHOD 8  JAC Q  3. 5 4 1 0 2. 8891 2.2371 1 .5851 0.9331 0.2811 3.8670 3.2150 2.5631 1.9111 1.2591 0.6071 -0.0449 »  —  APPENDIX II  1(  —  I  I.II  1)  14 <  14)  0.4286  66 (  66)  0.6131  75{  75 )  0.9688  2)  0.5200  12(.  121  0.678 5  3(  3)  0.4444  4"6"T  1*515 2  26 {  26)  0.2857  6H  61)  0 . 9 553  60 r  60)  0.4000  63 (  63)  0.5137  76 {  76)  1.7563  41"  4)  0.5625  40)  0.9830  21"  I I I  I  "46'f  40{  —  I I I  I  0.5238  :  38 { 38,)  0.6667  52!  52)  1.1071  29 {  29)  0.2222  31<  31)  0.5370  32 {  32)  1.3 569  13{  13)  0.4444  78{  78)  0.8648  22(  22 )  0.6970  45(  45)  0.8768  30{  30)  0.4545  67?  67 J  0 . 6 233  33 (  33)  1.0332  109.  I I I I I I J I I  f  \ f  I I I I 1 I I I I  I I I  .I I I I I  I  • -— — "~ •—•' — — ~ —  I I I  —  . I  • T  1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  •  I • —  —  — —  *  I I I I I  • — — — — —  I •  I  I •  •  I I  •  I I I I I I I I I I I I I  •  I I I  I  *  I I . I I. II • II II I  •  —  I  I •  I •  I I I 1 I I I *  •  I •  I I I  0.3333  79(  79)  1.1955  23 (  23)  0 .5094  43 (  433  0 , 3 000  44 (  44)  2.0631  6(  6)  0.4286  93{  93)  0.6101  92 (  92 )  0.7896  27(  27 )  0.3846  47 {  47)  0.4242  9(  •  1 I I 1 I  —  20 )  54(  «  I I I I I I I I I  —  I  T  1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I  —  20(  •  I  —  i  1.0638  9)  0 . 5 000  54  34 {  34)  0.7123  24 (  24)  0.3529  25(  25)  0.434 7  68 (  68 J  1.3844  7(  7)  0.7421  56 (  56)  0.3571  84 (  84)  0.7925  81 (  81)  0.4000  90(  90)  0.722 7  88 (  88]  0 . 5 714  94(  94)  3.7221  5 (  5 )  0 . 2 500  41{  41)  0.§833  1 8(  18)  1.2730  19 (  19)  0.7143  21(  21 )  0.9515  501  50)  0.2857  72 (  72 )  2.0047  I.M..CL /  s  I  I  1  1  i  i  i  •  •  1  i •i — — — — — —  I  I  I  I  I  I  •  I  I  i  i  • ———————— —  i  i  1  X  I  !  i  I  1 i  I  i i  — ——  . i  • ———————  i  i  i •  {  8)  0.3846  36 (  36)  0.5128  17 {  17)  0,8989  37 (  37)  0.4167  "651'  65)  0 . 7 415  82 (  82)  0.5263  89 (  89)  1.3 489  10(  10)  0 . 5 714  16{  16)  0.6978  15 (  15 3  0.5333  86(  86)  0.9410  11 {  11)  0.4000  83 (  83)  0 . 6 749  80(  80)  0.2941  911  91)  0.5328  85(  85)  0.9787  '48148)  1  I  I I.' I I  I "I I  I  ~0TTS¥3  491  49)  1.4133  28 (  28 )  0.4444  '95195")'"  0 . 6 33 0  35(  35)  0.4286  87(  87 )  0 . 7 079  "5"1"{51")  0 . 2 857  70 {  70).  0.9337  53 (  53 )  0 .4950  5 5(5"5")"'  '0'.'3"5'7"i"  64(  64)  2.3417  39 (  39 )  0 . 5 226  62 (  "62"")"  0 . 3 ' 7 50  69{  69)  1.5 572  10_1b  {  I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I  1  I I I I  s (  1  •  I I I I I I I I I I •I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  \  • I  • I • I  •  I I  I  I I  I I I I I  #  I  • I  I .II  — — *—•  42 (  42}  0.2500  73 {  73 )  0 . 7 107  571  57)  0.3333  71 (  71}  0.8825  59 (  59}  0.1000  77 (  77 )  1.1593  58 (  58)  0 . 5 257  74 (  74)  0 . 4 706  96(  96)  / \  1.2591 0.6071 - 0 . 0449 3.8670 3 .2150 2 . 5 631 1 .911 1 2.8891 2. 2371 0.9331 0.2811 3.5410 1 . 5851 DENDROGRAM: EXECUTION  VALUES  VALUES TERMINATED  ALONG X - A X I S ARE  SCALED  ALONG  MERGE  Y-AXIS  ARE  COEFFICIENTS LEVELS  $SIGNOFF  J  WUL MEN METHOD  ET 8  AL  ETC  HO SANS Q U A L I T Y  FRTYSVN  3.2028 2.59601.9891 1.3823 0.7754 0.1686 3.5063 2.8994 2.2926. 1.6857 1.0788 0.4720 - 0 . 1349  APPENDIX IV  H  1)  0.5000  8 4 ( 8 4 )  0.863 2  21 66{  2)  0.6154  66)  0.8423 0.4167  6 { 6 )  I  I  I  I  I  I II  .I  I I I I I I  • I  93)  0.9801  3(  3)  0 . 4 583  "22(22 )  '0.73'lb^  54C  54)  0.4375  56(  56)  0.6718  ( 9 2 )  1.2489  7{  7)  0.6364  26(  26)  1.0501  92  I I I I  93 {  .I  1 2 ( 1 2 )  0.5666  46(  46)  0.7159  38 (  38)  0.7735  45145)  6.6154  61{  61)  1.7021  9t  9)  0.5680  ( 1 8 )  0.4375  43 {  43)  0.9689  1Q{  10)  0.5789  33(  33)  0.772 8  23(  23)  0.4444  18  — —  4 4 { 4 4 )  1.2051  24124)  0.4000  -417-r-  2I  I  I  I  I  ..I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Ji  I i  i.  I  I  I  I  I  I I  6  79)  3.3714  4(  4)  0.6678  48t  48)  0.5000  —  89 {  89)  1.0918  . — I ,  i3(  13)  6.5606  78 (  78)  0.6651  .  27 {  27)  0.5263  60 it  60)  1.0 574  .I  391  39)  0.3750  . I  r  49 {  49)  1.4892  20 (  20)  0.3333  711 371  71 ) 37)  0.8473 0.4286  551  55)  0.6460  •  . — I i I ,1 I  —  . I I  "  I  I  I.—  II  II  II II  I  I  .  I  I  I  I I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  .  I  I  I  .  .  I  . — I  I  62 (  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  .--  I  I  I  JI  •  I I I I I  :  I I I I I  II I I I I  .  I  :  I I.  I  .  I  I  I I '  -  -  I I  —  I  :  I L  0.7289  79 {  I  I  I  68)  1. 295 8  I  •  8(  34)  I  I  T_ I  0.3889  34 (  .  I  ;  I I  31 )  0.4667  I I I  31 (  29)  I I  ;  0.6218  29 (  I  .  I  '  32)  I I  I I I I I I I i I I I  321  I. I  — —  62)  81  8)  0.4231  251  25)  0.5420  16 1 16)  II I  1.8963  171  17)  14 {  14)  5  (  1  5  )  0.4667  0.6712  6.6000 Q.8218  301  30)  0.6390  361  36)  0.4783  911  91)  1.1894  I I I •»•  •  I .I I I —  I I I  I I." II II II II II II II II II II II II II' II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II  I  I  I  I  I I I I  . I  35 <  35)  0.4091  87 (  87)  0. 4902  95 {  95 )  1.0066  80(  80)  0.4167  83 (  83)  0.5356  85 (  85)  0.3913  86(  86)  1.8343  Til  11)  6.4074  72 (  72)  0.5442  73{  73)  0.8204  63(  '63)'  O". 5 6*2 5'  96 (  96)  0.6125  76(  76)  0.8998  "5di  58)  0.5000  59 {  59)  0.6127  77(  77)  1.3294  '28)'  0 . 4 76 2  51 (  51 )  0.6351•  88(  88)  0.5000  90 (  90)  0.8628  74 f  74)  0.3889  81(  81)  1.4334  19{  19)  0.8710  53 (  53 )  0.4583  94(  94)  1.0606  211  21 )  0 . 7 554  40 (  40)  0.4706  52(  52)  2.2750  5)  0 . 2 500  5( 41 (  41)  0.5000  t!7b  (  v (  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  1  I I I I • '  I I I I I I I I I I I I  I .  • ™  *  I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I  . . I  .  I —  4<  64)  0.9834  fc5  (  65)  0 . 5 714  a2(  82)  0.6349  75 )  1.1995  42 (  42)  0.1667  57  57)  0.7714  i  50 )  0 . 2 500  69 (  69)  0.3333  6  75 . I  .  +  DENDROGRAM:  EXECUTION  SSIGNOFF  +  +  VALUES  +  ALONG X - A X I S  I I I I  . I  . I  _+  ARE S C A L E D  V A L U E S ALONG Y - A X I S ARE TERMINATED 08:04:08 7=4.095  MERGE RC=0  (  I 50  — 70 +— 1.0788 0.4720 -0.1349 3.5063 2. 8994 2.2926 1.6857 2.5960 1.9891 1. 3 8 2 3 0.7754 0 . 1 6 86 3.2028 +  (  COEFFICIENTS LEVELS $5.91  (  70)  )  •  0)  •41  *50 •70  •3*  *^  •?4  •8/  ^  •3^'  -So'W  •a a.  •43  •4+ "34  5"4  "5*  •3 *3( *2<?  •<7'3  44  • MADE  APPENDIX V  IN  CANADA  118.  WUL MEN ETC METHOD 8  HRSANS  QUALITY  1  JULY-  2. 1593 1.8023 1.4452 1.0882 0.7312 0.3742 2.3378 1.9808 1.6238 1.2667 0.9097 0.5527 0.1957 +  +  +  +  +  —+  ,  + -  +  +  +  +  +  APPENDIX y i  +  1)  0.7241  36 (  3 6)  0.9106  1 3 (  13)  0 . 5 833  31 (  31 )  0.8010  42 (  42)  0.5152  47  47)  1.2911  3)  0.8621  1 {  * I  .  T—  I I I I I  I  * I I I  .  T  _  (  3t 6  ( b T  0 . 7 63 3  19i  19)  0.6111  26{  26)  1.0542  4  ( 4 )  0.7368  41 (  41) 2)  2i 39 ( 3 9 32 C  32)  0.5357  40{  40)  0.8597  10( .I  I  I  10)  I  ( 2 3 )  6.7668  35(  35)  0.6667  46(  46)  1.4 360  ( 1 5 )  6 . 8 571  34(  34)  0.9661  22(  22)  0.6875  15 I I  T  I .• II  0.8182 1. 1 1 4 6  23  I  "I7T863"  17)  11 \  i i i i i i  0.5556  )  3 3 ( 3 8 )  I I I  1.3341  45 ( 4 ' 5 ) "  0 . 9 275"  33 1  2.2585  33)  119.  i  I  i  ©  I I I  T  I I  I  5(  5)  0.5385  28(  28)  ^0.6 23 6*  27(  27)  0.5000  29 (  29)  0 . 7 648  i n  n)  0.8456  21(  21)  0.6 800  43<  43)  0.9756  )  6 . 3 889  14(  14)  0.5374  37(  37)  0.6592  3 (  I I I I I  1  I I. I  9 ( 9)"' :  I I I  , I  -  I  I  I  T  T  I  I I I I I I  T  I  I  T  I ._+  +..  I I  . I  •-+  •  *  I  I  +•  18(  18)  0.2750  20(  20)  1.278 5  7(  7)  0.5250  12 (  12)  0.6696  4(  24)  0.5714  30 (  30 )  0.8170  16 {  16)  0.4800  25 {  25)  0.5663  44(  44)  2  ©  I I I I I  — +  +-  —  + +0.5527 1.2667 0.9097 1.980 8 1.6238 0.1957 2.3378 2.1593 1.8023 1.4452 1.0882 0.7312 0.3742 —+•  DENDROGRAM: EXECUTION  $SIGNOFF  +-  VALUES  ALONG  —  +-  X-AXIS  +-  ARE  V A L U E S ALONG Y - A X I S ARE TERMINATED 17:56:13 T=1.21  SCALED MERGE RC=0  8  MIL  COEFFICIENTS LEVELS . $1.87  —  +  .  APPENDIX I I I Continued 19.  20. 21.  112.  Humanoid eyelid l i n e i s carved with a double change of plane.  Humanoid pupil i s c i r c u l a r . Only two figure segments on pole are of approximately the same height. For an example, see Plate XXXIII, figure 3. 22. More than two figure segments are of approximately the same height. For an example, see Plate XI, figure 3. 23. More than one set of segments are of approximately the same height. For an example, see Plate XXXV, figure 1. 24. Eyebrows almost meet—separated by less than the width of the bridge of the nose. 25. Eyesocket is:;crisply;:cut.For an example, see Plate I I I , figure'2. 26. The junction of the chin and neck has a "prow-like" appearance, due to the r e l a t i v e l y sharp recession of the f a c i a l planes on either side of a v e r t i c a l median l i n e . For an example, see Plate XXVI, figure 2. 27. The mouth and chin l i e i n a continuous plane, separated from the rest of the face by a deeply cut intersection with the cheek planes. For an example, see Plate I I , figure 3. 28. The base and sides of the nose may be enclosed within an approximately e q u i l a t e r a l triangle. 29. The horizontal dimension of the mouth appears greater than 2/3 of the width of the head. For an example, see Plate'II, figure 3. 30. The wings of birds have no decorative motifs. 31. Bird form has human limbs. For an example, see Plate X, figure 1. 32. Arm position (after Inverarity, 1)  APPENDIX III  Continued  33.  Arm  position (after Inverarity,  4)  34.  Arm  p o s i t i o n (after Inverarity,  5)  35.  Arm  position (after Inverarity,  6)  36.  Arm  position (after Inverarity,  7)  113.  APPENDIX I I I Continued  114.  37.  Arm position (after Inverarity, 8)  38.  Arms held h o r i z o n t a l l y at waist, s i n i s t e r above dexter.  39.  Arms held h o r i z o n t a l l y at waist, dexter above s i n i s t e r .  40,  Leg position (after Inverarity, 51)  APPENDIX III 41.  Leg position (after Inverarity,  Continued 54)  54  42.  Leg position (after Inverarity,  X  55  43.  55)  Leg position (after Inverarity,  58)  58 n  44.  n  Leg position (after Inverarity,  59  59)  115.  APPENDIX III 45.  1  Leg p o s i t i o n (after Inverarity,  62a 46.  .  Continued 62)  Mi  6 2b  Leg position (after Inverarity,  63)  L 63 47.  Arm  -  p o s i t i o n (after Inverarity,  2)  116.  APPENDIX IV in back pocket.  APPENDIX V i n back pocket.  APPENDIX VI i n back pocket.  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, John W. The Gitksan Potlatch: Population Flux, Resource 1973 Ownership and Reciprocity. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Ltd. Balfour, H. The Evolution of Decorative Art. London: Rivington, 1893 P e r c i v a l and Co. Barbeau, Marius, and William Beynon. {Ethnographic Notes from the [ca.1915-1955) Nass and the Skeena, Fieldwork] (Manuscript i n the National Museums of Canada, Folklore Division). Barbeau, Marius. "Haimas' Crab Feast." Pp. 59-64 i n Raven-Clan [ca.1927] Outlaws on the North P a c i f i c Coast. (Manuscript, National Museums of Canada, F o l k l o r e Division) Barbeau, Marius. Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper Skeena River, 1929 B r i t i s h Columbia. National Museum of Canada Anthropological Series Number 12, B u l l e t i n 61. Ottawa. (Reprinted: Ottawa, 1973) Barbeau, Marius. Totem Poles, Vols. I and I I . National Museum of 1950 Canada Anthropological Series Number 30, B u l l e t i n 119. Ottawa. (Reprinted: Ottawa, 1964) Barbeau, Marius. Medicine-Men on the North P a c i f i c Coast. National 1958 Museum of Canada Anthropological Series Number 42, B u l l e t i n 152. Ottawa. (Reprinted: Ottawa, 1973) Barrett, S.A. The Ethnogeography of the Pomo and Neighboring 1908 Indians. University of C a l i f o r n i a Publications i n American Archaeology and Ethnology Number 6: 1-332. Barton, Charles. "Carvers of the Nass River." No page number: i n 1927 Emblems of N o b i l i t y , Marius Barbeau. (Manuscript, National Museums of Canada, ."FolkloreODivision) . Berndt, Ronald M. "Some Methodological Considerations i n the 1958 Study of Australian Aboriginal A r t . " Pp. 99-100 i n Art and Aesthetics i n Primitive Societies, Carol F. Jopling, ed. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co. Inc. Berenson, Bernhard. Rudiments of Connoisseurship: Study and 1902 C r i t i c i s m of I t a l i a n Art. Reprint: New York: Schocken Books, 1962. 120.  121. Boas, Franz. Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen Kuste 1895 Amerikas. Sonder-Abdruck aus den Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthopologie Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. B e r l i n : Ascher. Boas, Franz. Tsimshian Mythology. Bureau of American 1916 Annual Report, 31: 27-1037.  Ethnology  Boas, Franz. Primitive Art. Oslo: H. Aschehoug and Co. '(Reprinted: 1927 Dover Publications, New York, 1955) Boas, Franz. Race, Language, and Culture. New York: The Free Press, 1966 Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Brasser, Ted. A Basketful of Indian Culture Change. National 1975 Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper Number 22. Ottawa. Brothwell, D. and E r i c Higgs. Science i n Archaeology. London: 1971 Thames and Hudson. B u r k i t t , Miles. The Old Stone Age. Toronto: McClelland and 1963 Stewart Ltd. Clarke, David, ed. Models i n Archaeology. London: Methuen and 1972 Co., Ltd. Crosby, Harry H. and George R. Bond. 1968 York: American Book Co.  The McLuhan Explosion. New  Culkin, S.J., John M. "A Schoolman's Guide to Marshall McLuhan" 1968 Pp. 179-189 i n The McLuhan Explosion New York: American Book Co. Darling, John. Tsimshian System of Land Holdings. (Unpublished M.A. 1955 Thesis i n Anthropology, .^University of B r i t i s h Columbia). d'Azevedo, Warren L., ed. The T r a d i t i o n a l A r t i s t i n A f r i c a n Societies. 1975 Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Deetz, James. 1971  Man's Imprint from the Past. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co.  Dixon, R.B. and A.L. Kroeber. L i n g u i s t i c Families of C a l i f o r n i a . 1919 University of C a l i f o r n i a Publications i n American Archaeology and Ethnology Number 16: 47-118. Driver, Harold E. and James L. C o f f i n . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Development 1975 of North American Indian Cultures: A S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis of the Driver-Massey Sample. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. Vol.65(3).  122. Driver, Harold E. "Survey of Numerical C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n Anthropology." 1965 Pp. 301-344 i n The Use of Computers i n Anthropology. The Hague: Mouton. Drucker, P h i l i p . Indians of the Northwest Coast. Garden C i t y : 1955 The Natural History Press. Duff, Wilson, ed. H i s t o r i e s , T e r r i t o r i e s , and Laws of, the 1959 Kitwancool. B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum," Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia Memoir Number 4. Victoria. Duff, Wilson Indian History of B r i t i s h Columbia Vol.1. The 1964 Impact of the White Man. B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum, Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia Memoir Number 5. Duff, Wilson. Images Stone B.C. 1975 Publishers Ltd.  Saanichton: Hancock House  Emmons, George T. Origin Kitcksian. [Fieldnotes] (Manuscript, tea.1910] National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. Flynn, Francis R.J. A Temporal C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Folklore of the 1976 Okanagan Indians. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis i n Anthropology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.). Forge, Anthony, ed. Primitive Art and Society. London: Oxford 1973 University Press. Fraser, Douglas, eS'.ie The'Many Faces of Primitive Art. Englewood 1966 C l i f f s : Pr.ehtice-Hall Inc. Fraser, Douglas: 1962 Inc.  Primitive Art. New York: Doubleday and  Co.,  G a r f i e l d , V i o l a E. Tsimshian Clan and Society. University of 1939 Washington Publication i n Anthropology 7: 167-340. Seattle.  123. G a r f i e l d , V i o l a and Paul S. Wingert. The Tsimshian Indians and 1951 Their Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Haddon, Alfred C. The Decorative Art of B r i t i s h New Guinea. 1894 Dublin: The Academy House. (Reprint: AMS Press, New York. 1977) Halpin, Marjorie M. The Tsimshian Crest System. (Unpublished 1973 Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n i n Anthropology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.). Herskovits, M e l v i l l e J. Cultural Anthropology. New York: A l f r e d 1966 A. Knopf. Hodson, F.R. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by computer. Pp. 649-660 i n Science 1971 i n Archaeology, Brothwell, D. and E r i c Higgs. London: Thames and Hudson. Holm, B i l l . Northwest Coast Indian Art. Seattle: University of 1965 Washington Press. Holm, B i l l . Heraldic Carving Styles of the Northwest Coast. 1972 Pp. 77-83 i n American Indian Art: Form and Tradition. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co. Inc. Holmes, W.H. Origin and Development of Form and Ornament i n Ceramic 1886 Art. Bureau of American Ethnology, Fourth Annual Report: 443-465. Hope, Keith. Methods of Multivariate Analysis. London: University 1968 of London Press Ltd. Inverarity, Robert Bruce. Observations on Northwest Coast Indian 1972 Art and S i m i l a r i t i e s Between a Few Art Elements Distant i n Time and Space. Pp. i n Early Chinese Art and I t s Possible Influence i n the P a c i f i c Basin. V o l . . ^ I l i . Barnard, Noel, and Douglas Fraser, eds. New York: I n t e r c u l t u r a l Press. Johnson, Leroy J r . Introduction to Imaginary Models f o r Archaeological 1972 Scaling and Clustering. Pp. 309-379 i n Models i n Archaeology. David Clarke, ed. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd.  124. Jopling, Carol F. ed. Art and Aesthetics i n Primitive Societies. 1971 New York: E.P. Dutton and Co. Inc. Kaufmann, Carole Natalie. Changes i n Haida Indian A r g i l l i t e 1969 Carvings, 1820-1910. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Ltd. Kroeber, A.L. Anthropology; Culture Patterns and Processes. 1923 Excerpts. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc. 1963. Kroeber, A.L. History and Science i n Anthropology. American 1935 Anthropologist Vol. 37. Menasha. Kroeber, A.L. C u l t u r a l and Natural Areas of Native North 1939 America. (Reprint: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Berkeley, 1947). Kroeber, A.L. Toward D e f i n i t i o n of the Nazca Style. University 1956 of C a l i f o r n i a Publications i n American Archaeology and Ethnology. Number 43(4): 327-332. Kubler, George. The Shape of Time. New Haven: Yale University 1965 Press. Levi-Strauss, Claude. Social Structure. Pp. 321-350 i n Anthropology 1962 Today, Tax, Sol, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1963  Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press.  Levi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Garden C i t y : 1967 Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co. Inc. Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: The University of 1970 Chicago Press. MacDonald, George F. and Richard I. I n g l i s . The Dig. National 1976 Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa. Macnair, Peter. 1977  Personal Communication.  McLuhan, H. Marshall, and Harley Parker. Through the Vanishing 1968 Point. New York: Harper and Row. Matson, R.G., and D. True. Site Relationships at Quebrada 1974 Tarapaca Chile: A Comparison of Clustering and Scaling Techniques. American Antiquity Vol. 39(1), January.  125. Matson, R.G., and W.D. Lipe. Seriatlon of Pueblo Ceramic 1978 Assemblages from Cedar Mesa, S.E. Utah. (In press) Metropolitan Museum of Art. Computers and Their P o t e n t i a l 1968 Applications i n Museums. New York: Arno Press. Munro, Thomas. Form and Style i n the A r t s : An Introduction to 1970 Aesthetic Morphology. Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art and Case Western Reserve University. Otten, Charlotte M. ed. Anthropology and Art. Garden C i t y : The 1971 Natural History Press. Panofsky, Erwin. 1962  Studies i n Iconology. New York: Harper and  Row.  P e t r i e , S i r William Matthew F l i n d e r s . . Journal of 1899 the Anthropological I n s t i t u t e , N.S. 29: 295-301. Richardson, Miles, ed'.P The^Human Mirror :""IMaterial"and S p a t i a l 1975 Imagesaof Man: Baton'Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. ? r " s . ; *V" >: 2"'S •?:? >'h. . _ .. _ Rossi^ /Ino, ed.i , The Unconsciouscini.Culture r^The^ Structuralism 1974 of Claude Levi-Strauss i n Perspective. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co. Inc. s  Salmon, Merrilee H. "Deductive" Versus "Inductive" Archaeology. 1976 American Antiquity 41(3) : 376-380. Schapiro, Meyer. "Style" Pp. 278-303 i n Anthropology Today, 1962 Tax, Sol, ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, Marian, ed. The A r t i s t i n T r i b a l Society. London: Routledge 1961 and Kegan Paul Ltd. Sneath, P.H. and R.R. Sokal. P r i n c i p l e s and Practice of Numerical 1973 Taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Stuart, Alan. Basic Ideas of S c i e n t i f i c Sampling. New 1968 Hafner Publishing Co.  York:  Sturtevant, William C. "Does Anthropology Need Museums?" 1969 Proceedings of the B i o l o g i c a l Society of Washington Vol. 82: 619-650. Sturtevant, William C. "Museums as Anthropological Data Banks" 1973 Pp. 40-55 i n Anthropology Beyond the University Redfield, Alden, ed. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings Number 7. Athens.  126. Tax, Sol, ed. Anthropology 1962 Press.  Today. Chicago: University of Chicago  Torgerson, W.S. Multidimensional Scaling of S i m i l a r i t y . 1965 Psychometrika 30: 379-393. Wingert, Paul S. An Outline Guide to the Art of the South 1946 P a c i f i c . New York: Columbia University Press. Wingert, Paul S. "Tsimshian Sculpture" Pp. 73-94 i n 1951 The Tsimshian Indians and Their Arts. G a r f i e l d , V i o l a , and Paul S. Wingert. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. Wood, John J. "A Computer Program f o r H i e r a r c h i c a l Cluster 1974 Analysis." Pp. 1-11 i n Newsletter for Computer Archaeologists 9(4). University of Arizona.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094378/manifest

Comment

Related Items