Gateways : exploring the legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902

1. Gateways : exploring the legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902

2. Table of Contents

Gateways : exploring the legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902

Krupnik, Igor

Fitzhugh, William W., 1943-

Arctic Studies Center (National Museum of Natural History)

Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902)

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.0)

Contributions toCircumpolar Anthropology 1National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian Institution2001

ArcticC^enter

(3 a t e w a u 5

Exploring the ]_egacij o f the JNorth pacific E-Xpedition, 1 51 ^02

Igor Krupnik and

William W.Fitzhugh, editors

GATEWAYS

Exploring the Legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition1897-1902

1 / Jochelson's caravan of reindeer sleds crossing the Verkhoyansk Mountain Range, Siberia, winter 1902(AMNH 1 749)

contents

IX

xixiii

XV

ntroduction

17

25

ContributorsList of FiguresAbbreviationsForeword

Note on Cyrillic TransliterationINTRODUCTION

William W. Fitzhugh and Igor Krupnik

THE RESULTS OF THEJESUP EXPEDITIONFranz Boas

IN MEMORY OF DOUGLAS COLE, 1938-1997Igor Krupnik

part On&

The Expedition

29

71

THE GREATEST THING UNDERTAKEN BY ANY MUSEUM? FRANZ BOAS, MORRISJESUP, AND THE NORTH PACIFIC EXPEDITIONDouglas Cole

FRANZ BOAS AND THE SHAPING OF THEJESUP EXPEDITION SIBERIAN RESEARCH,1 895-1 900Nikolai Vakhtin

part ~]~wo

The Collectors

93 (DIS)PLEASURESOFTHETEXT: BOASIAN ETHNOLOGY ON THE

CENTRAL NORTHWEST COASTMichael Harkin

1 07 KWAZI'NIK'S EYES: VISION AND SYMBOL IN BOASIAN REPRESENTATION

Barbara Mathe and Thomas R. Miller

139

HARU\N I. SMITH'S JESUP FIELDWORK ON THE NORTHWEST COASTBrian Thom

181

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS OF FRANZ BOAS AND GEORGE HUNT:

A RECORD OF 45 YEARS OF COLLABORATION

Judith Berman

part ~]~lir

e e

The Resources

217 THE "RUSSIAN BASTIAN" AND BOAS: WHY SHTERNBERG'S "THE SOCIAL

ORGANIZATION OF THE GILYAK" NEVER APPEARED AMONG THEJESUPEXPEDITION PUBLICATIONSSergei Kan

257 500 YEAR OLD QUESTIONS, 1 00 YEAR OLD DATA, BRAND NEWCOMPUTERS: BIOLOGICAL DATA FROM THEJESUP NORTH PACIFICEXPEDITION

Steven Ousley and Richard Jantz

279 VOICES FROM SIBERIA: ETHNOMUSICOLOGY OF THEJESUP EXPEDITIONRichard Keeling

297 A JESUP BIBLIOGRAPHY: TRACKING THE PUBLISHED AND ARCHIVAL

317 PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS OF THEJESUP EXPEDITION: A REVIEW OF

THEAMNH PHOTO COLLECTIONPaula Willey

LEGACY OF THE JESUP EXPEDITION

Igor Krupnik

327

Index

contributors

Judith Berman is a research associate in the Ameri-can Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar-chaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Her vari-ous publications, as well as her Ph.D. thesis "The Seals'Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation of Boas' Kwak'walaTexts", examine the legacy of Kwakwaka'wakw re-search and publications by Franz Boas and GeorgeHunt, the significance of the Boas-Hunt cooperation,and aspects of the Kwak'wala language and folklore.

Douglas Cole (1938-97) was professor of his-tory at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C. He wasknown for his numerous writings on the contact his-tory of the Native peoples of the Northwest Coast, onscientific exploration and museum collecting in BritishColumbia, and on art and literature in Canadian colo-nial society. His most influential contributions to NorthPacific anthropology include three major volumes: Cap-tured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest Coast Ar-tifacts (1985); An Iron Hand upon the People: The Lawagainst the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast (1 990,co-authored with Ira Chaikin); and Franz Boas: The EarlyYears, /SSS-/906 (published posthumously in 1999).

William W. Fitzhugh is director of the Arctic Stud-ies Center and curator at the Department of Anthro-pology, National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution. He has spent almost 30 yearsstudying circumpolar archaeology and publishing onArctic peoples and cultures in Canada, Alaska, Siberia,and Scandinavia. Special interests include prehistoryand environmental archaeology, circumpolar maritimeadaptations, and culture contacts. At the Smithsonian,

he has produced several exhibits that resulted in ma-jor catalog volumes, such as Inua: The Spirit World ofthe Bering Sea Eskimo; Crossroads of Continents: Cul-tures of Siberia and Alaska; Ainu: Spirit of a NorthernPeople; and Vikings. The North Atlantic Saga.

Michael Harkin is associate professor of anthro-pology and American Indian studies at the Universityof Wyoming. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in anthro-pology from the University of Chicago and has taughtat Emory University and Montana State University. Heis the author of The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture andHistory on the Northwest Coast (1997).

Richard Jantz is a professor in the Department ofAnthropology and director of the Forensic Anthropol-ogy Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. Hisresearch interests are ancient and modern human quan-titative variation in anthropometrics, dermatoglyphics,and skeletal morphometries.

Sergei Kan is professor of anthropology and Na-tive American studies at Dartmouth College, Hanover,N.H. Most of his publications, including his recent bookMemory Eternal (1 999), deal with the Tlingit Indians'culture and the history of Russian Orthodox Christian-ity among Native people in southeastern Alaska. Re-cently he has been working on a new book on Russiananthropologist Lev Shternberg that will coverShternberg's life, his public and scholarly career, andhis relationships with Franz Boas, Waldemar Bogoras,Waldemar Jochelson, and other members of the JesupExpedition project.

Richard Keeling, formerly with the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, worked for several years ondocumenting and analyzing early recordings of tradi-tional Native American music, primarily of native groupsof northern California. He has published several paperson Yurok, Hupa, and Karok music as well as an exten-sive annotated catalog of music and voice recordingscollected between 1900 and 1938, A Guide to EarlyField Recordings (1900-1949) at tlie Lowie Museumof Anthropology 0 991). He now lives in the Bay Area.

Igor Krupnik is an ethnologist at the Arctic Stud-ies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bornand educated in Russia, he has done extensive field-work among the Siberian Yupik people in the BeringStrait area, in the Russian Far East, and recently in Alaska.He is currently coordinator of various internationalprojects studying the impacts of global climate changeand the preservation of the cultural heritage and eco-logical knowledge of Native peoples. He has publishedand co-authored several books and catalogs, and hewrites extensively on Arctic Native peoples. Native heri-tage resources, modernization, and minority issues.

Barbara Mathe is senior Special Collections li-brarian at the American Museum of Natural History inNew York. In 1 997 she co-curated (with Thomas Miller)the Jesup Centenary Exhibition at the AMNH, DrawingShadows to Stone: Photographing North PacificPeoples, 1897-1902. She is currently working on abook of photographs of the anthropological exhibi-tions at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1 904.

Thomas R. Miller is a doctoral candidate in an-thropology at Columbia University. His Ph.D. disserta-tion, "Songs from the House of the Dead," explores therole of the early phonograph in the history of muse-ums and anthropology through a study of shamans'songs recorded by Franz Boas, James Teit, WaldemarJochelson, Waldemar Bogoras, and others, during theJesup Expedition and beyond. He worked for severalyears with the Asian ethnographic collections at theAMNH in New York, including the original collectionsof the Jesup Expedition. In 1997, he was a guest cura-

tor (with Barbara Mathe) of the Jesup Centennial ExhibitDrawing Shadows to Stone at the AMNH.

Stephen Ousley is the director of the Repatria-tion Osteology Laboratory in the Department of An-thropology, National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. He receivedhis Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.His research interests include the history of anthropol-ogy, morphometries, quantitative genetics, and foren-sic anthropology.

Brian Thorn is a Ph.D. candidate in anthropologyat McGill University, Montreal, Canada. His M.A. thesisat the University of British Columbia (1995) was fo-cused on the history of archaeological excavation ofburial mounds and cairns along the Northwest Coast.He worked for several years with Coast Salish com-munities in British Columbia on the problem of aborigi-nal titles to land and cultural resources.

Nikolai Vakhtin is a professor at the EuropeanUniversity, St. Petersburg, Russia. He teaches coursesin field linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the cultural an-thropology of Siberia. He received his Ph.D. (1 977) andfull doctorate (1 993) in Siberian Yupik linguistics fromthe Institute of Linguistic Studies of the Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. He has done exten-sive research in Native languages and modern culturechange among the minority peoples of northern Rus-sia, including the Yupik, Aleut, Chukchi, and Yukagir. Hehas written several books and over 80 articles on thelanguages and cultures of the northern indigenouspeoples of Siberia.

Paula Willey is currently a project manager forGallery Systems, a provider of collections managementsoftware for museums, galleries, and private collec-tions. Previously, she worked at the AMNH Library asSpecial Collections manager.

Saskia Wrausmann is a undergraduate studentat the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.Her primary interests are in cultural and biological an-thropology. In 2000 and 2001 interned at the ArcticStudies Center. She is fluent in German and French.

viii

ist of fiP:ure5

1. Jochelson's caravan of reindeer sleds crossing the Verkhoyansk Mountain Range, Siberia. 1902 ii

2. The Jochelsons' team with the expedition boat at Kolyma River, Siberia, 1901 xii

3. Field of Proposed Operations of thejesup North Pacific Expedition, 1 898 xvi

4. Camp of the Reindeer Koryak and herd of reindeer, with the Jochelsons' tent in the middle 26

5. Franz Boas, 1858-1942 49

6. Morris K.Jesup, 1838-1908 49

7. Waldemar Bogoras, N.G. Buxton, and Waldemar Jochelson before departure to Siberia, 1900 50

8. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and Waldemar Jochelson before the Jesup Expedition, Spring 1 899 51

9. Franz Boas posing for exhibit group 52

10. Jochelson's team rafting down the Korkodon River, Siberia, Fall 1901 53

11. Waldemar Bogoras with his native guides on the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 895 541 2. Waldemar and Sofia Bogoras, with Expedition freight at Mariinsky Post, Siberia, 1901 55

13. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky, 1862-1941 56

14. Dina and Waldemar Jochelson in their field tent in Eastern Siberia, ca. 1 896 571 5. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky emerging from native sod-covered hut, Summer 1900 581 6. Waldemar Bogoras and his native guides in Chukotka. Spring 1 901 581 7. Bogoras and his guides preparing for winter sled trip. Spring 1 901 591 8. Bogoras and Russian Cossacks on the Anadyr River, Summer 1 900 591 9. James Teit and his wife Lucy Antko 60

20. George Hunt and his wife Ttaflatawidzannga, at Beaver Harbour, British Columbia 61

21. N.G. Buxton in Gizhiga, Siberia, flanked by the local Russian officer and his secretary. Spring 1901 62

22. Harlan I. Smith during his excavations at the Great Eraser Midden, Eburne, British Columbia 63

23. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and native guides in field camp among the Reindeer Koryak, 1901 64

24. Kwakwaka'wakw woman poses for museum life group, as Boas and Hunt hold backdrop 90

25. Kwazi'nik, a Niaka'pamux woman, 1897 106

26. The photographer's figure, his camera, and tripod reflected in the eye of Kwazi'nik 113

27. Typical "physical type" photographs from the Jesup Expedition, Siberia, 1900 114-115

28. First of two photos depicting the Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch at Fort Rupert, 1 898 116

29. Second photo of the same Kwakwaka'wakw potlatch ceremony 117

30. Sketches of facial paintings of the Niaka'pamux (Thompson Indians) 118

31. Yukagir shaman's coat from thejesup Expedition collections being modeled for camera 11832-33. Yukagir shaman in full costume, photographed for a mannequin-style museum display 119

34. A grave marker in the form of a carved wooden "copper," Fort Rupert, British Columbia 1 20

35. Native woman in traditional deerskin clothing, with a little girl, 1 897 121

36. Secwepemc (Shuswap) woman in traditional clothing posing for a root-digging scene 122

i X

37. Emma Simon, a Niaka'pamux (Thompson) woman, posing for a staged life-scene photo 123

38. Niaka'pamux life group at AMNH based on staged photographs from the Jesup Expedition 123

39. Miniature diorama of the Koryak winter settlement based on the Jesup Expedition 124

40. Koryak hunters dragging killed white whale on sledge, Spring 1901 125

41. Koryak men posing for a "dog-offering" ceremony, Siberia, 1 901 125

42. Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) of the Kamloops Band, Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation 126

43. Haida painting of a bear, illustrating "split representation" 127

44. Yupik (Siberian Eskimo) man from the village of Ungazik (Indian Point), Siberia, 1 901 128

45. Map of locations visited by Harlan I. Smith during the Jesup Expedition, 1 897-99 16146-47. Smith's burial excavation at Kamloops, Thompson River area, British Columbia, 1 897 162

48. Archille James, age 1 9, from Katzie, British Columbia, 1 897 164

49. House post collected by Smith at Musqueam, British Columbia, 1898 163

50. Crave post, called "Laxktot," Comox, British Columbia, 1898 165

51. Salish burial ground, Nicola Valley, British Columbia, 1 899 166

52. Map of the Kwakwaka'wakw area 167

53. Sketch of K'odi's copper by George Hunt 168

54. Site plan of Fort Rupert (Tsaxis) as it was ca. 1 865. Drawing by George Hunt, 1919 169

55. Fort Rupert asaxis) beforel 865 * 170-71

56. Watercolor of Fort Rupert, May 8, 1 866 1 72

57. Fort Rupert (Tsaxis), 1 881 173

58. Map of Clio Channel showing Kwakwaka'wakw historical villages, ca. 1 840 174

59. Killer whale mask * 175

60. Tlingit seal bowl * 1 76

61. Jesup Expedition collections displayed at the American Museum of Natural History, 1 905 214

62. Lev Shternberg conducting a census among the Sakhalin Island Nivkh (Gilyak), ca.l 895 249

63. Staff of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg, including Lev

"ft

Shternberg, Vasily Radloff, Sarra Ratner-Shternberg, and Waldemar Jochelson 249

"it

64. Lev Shternberg and Sarra Ratner-Shternberg 250

65. Lev Shternberg in 1924 25166-67. Front and back of JNPE North American anthropometric data sheet filled in by Boas, 1 897 252-5368-69. Front and back of JNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet filled in by Jochelson, 1901 254-55

70. Use of the Edison phonograph for sound recording, Mariinsky Post, Siberia, 1900 256

71. Map indicating location of groups measured during the Jesup Expedition 261

72. Canonical analysis of Native Siberians and Aleut measured during the JNPE and Riabushinski Expeditions 269

73. Dendrogram of Siberian and Aleut anthropometric samples 2 70

74. North Pacific canonical distribution plot 2 71

75. Dendrogram of populations measured during the JNPE and the Riabushinski Expedition 272

76. Notation of song sung by a Koryak female shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900 281

77. Notation for a song sung by a Koryak male shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900 282

78. Notation for a song sung by a Tungus male shaman. Recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1901 282

79. Notation of a song sung by a Yupik Eskimo man. Recorded by Waldemar Bogoras, 1901 283

Note: All photographs (unless marked by an asterik above) are courtesy Department of Library Services,American Museum of Natural History. Maps were produced by Marcia Bakry, National Museum of NaturalHistory. Other figures were provided by the respective authors and are separately credited.

X

abbreviations

AAA American Anthropological Association

AAAS American Association for the Advance-

ment of Science

AAN Arkhiv Akademii Nauk (Archives of the

Russian Academy of Sciences)

AFC American Folklife Center, Library of

Congress, Washington, DC

AMNH American Museum of Natural History, NewYork

AMNH-DA American Museum of Natural History,Department of Anthropology

AMNH-L American Museum of Natural History,Library, Special Collections Division

APS American Philosophical Society,

Philadelphia

APS-C American Philosophical Society, FranzBoas Professional Correspondence

ATM Archives for Traditional Music, Indiana

University, Bloomington

BAAS British Association for the Advancement

of Science

BAE Bureau of American Ethnology,

Washington, D.C.CUL Columbia University Library, Rare Books

and Manuscripts, New YorkHBC Hudson's Bay Company

HBCA Hudson's Bay Company Archives,

Winnepeg, ManitobaHUA Harvard University Archives, Boston

lASSA International Arctic Social Sciences

Association

InV-JC Institut Vostokovedeniia (Institute of

Oriental Studies), St. Petersburg, WaldemarJochelson Collection

JNPE Jesup North Pacific Expedition

MAE Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology

and Ethnography, St. Petersburg

MJC Melville Jacobs Collection, University of

Washington, Seattle

NAA-BAE National Anthropological Archives,Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ameri-can Ethnology Collection

NMNH National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

NYPL New York Public Library, New York

RAS-B Russian Academy of Sciences,

Archives, St. Petersburg Branch,Waldemar Bogoras Collection

RAS-F Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, Fonoteka (Pho-nographic Collection)

RAS-J Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, WaldemarJochelson Collection

RAS-S Russian Academy of Sciences, Archives,

St. Petersburg Branch, Lev ShternbergCollection

SI Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

2/ The Jochelsons' team with the expedition boat at the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 901 (AlVlNH 1 679)

X i i

^orcsNorc

This book, Gateways: Exploring the Legacy of the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902, honorsanthropology's most prominent founding father, FranzBoas. It follows the historical trails of Boas' first (andlast) attempt to produce a comprehensive and syntheticpanorama of native cultures of the North Pacific Rim.As part of a decade-long retrospective of Boas' signa-ture contribution to the science of anthropology andto the construction of a regional culture history, thisbook has been an academic exploration through spaceand time.

Our involvement with the Jesup Expedition beganin the 1980s when our team at the Smithsonian's Na-tional Museum of Natural History was working on theexhibit Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska and its accompanying catalog (published! 988).Inevitably, the Crossroads project looked both to thepast and the future, since it explored the history andprospects of both the peoples of the North Pacific andthe discipline of anthropology. The central issue forBoas in the 1 890s, as for our team in the 1980s, waswhether contemporary anthropology could answer thefundamental questions about the origins and historyof Native Americans and their relationships to Siberianpeoples and cultures. To Boas, the traditional disci-plines of history and anthropology of his time seemedinadequate for the task, as there was neither writtenhistory for the North Pacific prior to the 1 740s nor acompetent ethnography, archaeology, folklore, or lin-guistics for most of the Native nations in the area.

In the early 1990s, as the centennial of the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition (1 897-1 902) was approach-ing, we anticipated the opportunity to reopen the ques-tions posed at the start of this early anthropologicalrite of passage in the North Pacific. New perspectivesbased on a full century of advances in anthropologicalmethods and theory could be combined with hopes fora new political geography. This would allow trans-Beringian research and cultural exchange to commenceafter decades of denial. We hoped that new scholarshipand rapprochement might lead to a reevaluation andrenewal of Boas' goals for the Jesup Expedition. Withsome temerity, we decided to give an appropriate nameto the undertaking and called it "Jesup 2." We orga-nized a session on the subject in 1992 at the FirstCongress of the International Arctic Social SciencesAssociation (lASSA) in Quebec, which was itself a crea-ture of the new detente between East and West. And weproposed there a neo-Boasian effort to take up thetask of North Pacific anthropology and culture historymore or less where Boas and his Russian, German, Ameri-can, and Canadian colleagues had left it when theircareers and lives expired in the 1930s-1940s.

This volume represents one of the several tributar-ies of the Jesup 2 stream that we imagined might flowfrom the resurgence of North Pacific cultural studies.Originally the plan was crafted for a panel discussionorganized at the 1 993 American Anthropological As-sociation meetings held in Washington, D.C. At thatsession we intended to explore new perspectives on

xiii

the original Jesup Expedition through the study of itsrecord of unpublished manuscript materials, photo-graphs, personal papers, notes, and ledgers, from col-lections in both Russia and North America. Many ofthese documents were not available to the originalexpedition team (or its successors), and they add mea-surably to our understanding of their efforts, as well asto what did not get accomplished. We also felt that athorough reevaluation of the Jesup Expedition legacywould serve as added mortar to the scholarly struc-ture we hoped would be soon forthcoming.

As it has turned out, the opportunities for a coordi-nated Jesup 2 program produced some pleasant sur-prises. Through much hard work we were able to en-gage a new group of curators and institutions in Alaskaand the Russian Far East to produce a smaller versionof the Crossroads exhibit. It traveled to rural Alaskaand the Russian Amur-Sakhalin region, spreading itsmessage of cultural exchange and cooperation to thepeoples responsible for these cultures in the first place.Another surprising development was the opportunityto produce a major exhibition on the Ainu people, oneof the cultures targeted by Boas for the Jesup Expedi-tion. As it happened, very little ethnographic work onthe Ainu was accomplished during the expedition, andtheir exclusion from its collections and publicationsresulted in an ambiguous status for this culture as aNorth Pacific people for the remainder of the 20th cen-tury. Fortunately we found a way to correct this defi-ciency in 1999 through a special exhibition, Ainu: Spirit

of a Northern People, and a book featuring this cultureand its history and art.

In addition to such opportune windfalls, we alsofound our Jesup 2 voyage marked by unanticipatedshoals and navigational hazards. Wiser heads from the1 992 lASSA meeting were right to caution us aboutplanning such an optimistic program in the absence ofa Smithsonian "Morris Jesup," or some suitable institu-tional or philanthropic replacement to sponsor new re-search and publications, and we have had to refocusand adapt. I would like to thank all those people andinstitutions who have contributed by participating assymposia and panel members, correspondents, con-tributors, and supportive bystanders in our various ef-forts of the past decade to forward the Boasian goalof a more integrated and inclusive North Pacific an-thropology. Although it has not been possible so farto launch a multi-institutionally, orchestrated centen-nial Jesup 2 program, many elements of this conceptare nevertheless moving forward in the broader inter-national anthropological community. We can, belat-edly and with only slightly chastened optimism, re-port progress on many fronts, as reported in the fol-lowing Introduction. Not the least of these advancesis the current volume, which suffered several untimelypublication setbacks before reaching this happy con-clusion. Though Boas' team made little use of writtenhistory in its "Jesup 1" project, it is proving an invalu-able component of the "Jesup 2" effort some one hun-dred years later.

William W. Fitzhugh, DirectorArctic Studies Center

X I V

note on Cmh \ctransiiterarion

Two coexisting systems are in use in the United Statesfor transliterating Russian Cyrillic letters into English:that of the Library of Congress (LC), and that of theNational Image and Mapping Agency (NIMA, formerlythe U.S. Board of Geographic Names). The LC system isused for bibliographic references; the NIMA system ap-plies to geographic names (place names) and to mostethnic names.

All Russian or Siberian geographic names aretransliterated here according to the NIMA system,which uses ya, yu, and yo for Cyrillic /o, and e(Yakutsk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, etc.). Throughout thisvolume, Native Siberian ethnic names are transliter-ated in accordance with the Peoples of the SovietUnion map produced by the National GeographicSociety in 1989, which basically adheres to theNIMA system (Yakut, Yukagir, Koryak, Nanay, etc.).Most of these ethnic names are already establishedin Western anthropological literature—thanks largelyto the Jesup Expedition's pioneering publications.This system also results in names reminiscent of sev-eral Native American group titles familiar to NorthAmerican readers: Yurok, Maya, Yup'ik, Eyak, Yokut,Yakutat, Tlingit, and so on. Furthermore, the NIMA-based spelling of ethnic and geographic names issimilar to the Russian/Cyrillic transliteration systemadopted in England and Canada and to the one com-monly used by modern Russian authors when writ-ing papers in English. The NIMA-based system is alsoapplied here for transliterating a few Russian or

Native Siberian personal names, words, and ethno-graphic terms in individual papers.

In contrast to the NIMA system, the Library of Con-gress transliteration system uses ia, in, and io for theCyrillic >7, /oand eand an apostrophe for the Russiansoft sign (b). Because today's highly standardized elec-tronic library catalog formats are based on the LC sys-tem, names of Russian authors and all titles of items inthe bibliographic reference sections in this volumeadhere to the LC system. Using two transliteration sys-tems in a single book may be inconvenient, but everyeffort has been made to adhere strictly to each of thesepatterns in its designated application in order to estab-lish a high level of consistency for all future ArcticStudies Center publications. For the convenience ofreaders, an alternative NIMA-based transliteration ofRussian authors' names is sometimes provided in pa-rentheses in those cases where such a pattern has beenestablished by earlier publications (for example, theoriginal Jesup Expedition series, Antliropology of theNorth: Translations from Russian Sources). Despite allour efforts, we may not have been able to eliminate allpotential cases of confusion or the occasional idio-syncratic usage.

We are grateful to our colleagues Pavel llyin (U.S.Holocaust Museum), Michael Krauss (Alaska Native Lan-guage Center, University of Alaska), and MarjorieMandelstam Balzer (editor. Anthropology and Arche-ology of Eurasia) for their advice on transliteration prac-tices for ASC publications.

x V

1897 1898 1899 1900 1901

3/ Field of Proposed Operations of thejesup Nortli Pacific Expedition, 1 898 (adapted from American Museum of Natural History. AnnualReport of the President for the Year 1897)

xvi

introduction

WILLIAM W. FITZHUCHAND IGOR KRUPNIK

Ever since the European discovery of America, the ques-tion of the origins and history of Native Americans hasbeen a subject of ardent public interest and scholarlydebate. Theories of Asian origins, first advanced byJose de Acosta in 1 598, remained eclipsed for centu-ries by Eurocentric theories of Phoenician, Egyptian, orCeltic migrations across the Atlantic. But with the emer-gence of academic anthropology in the late 19th cen-tury, the idea of an Asian/Siberian route to the Ameri-cas prevailed and was elaborated into major researchinitiatives. Of these, the most crucial was the jesupNorth Pacific Expedition (1897-1902), the first, and asyet the most coordinated, single study ever under-taken of the peoples and cultures of the North Pacificregion.

Throughout most of the 20th century, politics hasbeen the most difficult stumbling block for trans-NorthPacific scholarship. Although Asia and North Americaare clearly visible from each other's shores at the BeringStrait, during most of the 20th century this narrow 56-mile waterway was both a symbolic ideological bar-rier and a bristling frontier of military and political con-frontation. The struggle not only separated Native fami-lies from their relatives across the Bering Strait; it alsohad a crushing effect on scholarly cooperation. Previ-ous experience demonstrates that meaningful researchin the North Pacific requires active international col-laboration between American, Canadian, Russian, Eu-ropean, and Japanese scientists. Such research expandsdramatically with open communication, including data

exchanges and comparative study, and it progressesbest within a framework of multidisciplinary perspec-tives and close linkages between the social and natu-ral sciences.

Anthropological research conducted by partici-pants in the Jesup Expedition between 1897 and 1902began with these principles in mind. After many de-cades of embargoed communications and stifled schol-arship, we now may reexplore the opportunities thatwere originally pioneered bythejesup Expedition team.

This volume is an outgrowth of such an attempt topursue the study of peoples and cultures across theNorth Pacific area a full century after the Jesup Expedi-tion crews were sent to the Northwest Coast of NorthAmerica and the shores of Siberia. This new initiative iscalled Jesup 2 in honor of its predecessor and becauseit follows in the steps of the original Jesup Expeditionsurveys and publications. With borders reopening andexchange resumed, the time may be opportune fornew research and partnerships. If history and currenttrends are a guide, the 21 st century will bring renewedlife and importance to the Alaskan-Siberian crossroads,a region that has been a breeding ground for culturaldevelopment and intercontinental human links for thou-sands of years.

Shared Lands, Common History

The Greater North Pacific Region has special impor-tance in the study of Native American and Siberiancultures. As far as is known, the Bering Strait was

1

the major (if not the only) proven entryway for move-ments of human populations from the Old into theNew World before A.D. 1 500, and it has been host tomany subsequent Asian-American interactions. For thisreason, the vast region around the Bering Strait is usu-ally called "Beringia," and it has a very special impor-tance for the culture history of the Americas.

During the Ice Age, lowered sea levels produced abroad land bridge that enabled intercontinental dis-persal of animals and plants, either through the harshcontinental interior or following a milder Pacific coastalroute. Even after the disappearance of the last landbridge about 11,000 years ago, prehistoric communi-cation across the Bering Strait continued by boat oroverwinter ice. Unlike the North Atlantic region, wherethousands of miles of ocean and uninhabited landsseparate Europe from North America, in the North Pa-cific region Beringia acted both as a channel and as a"quality control" point for contacts and exchange. Otherpossible routes exist along the Aleutian Chain, acrossthe open waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, or, forthe more hapless, across the expanses of the NorthPacific, pushed by westerly currents and winds. Thus,people as well as artifacts large and small found theirway from Asia to America (and back) on a sporadicbasis. Regular contacts and exchanges between hunt-ers from neighboring tribes situated around the entirecoastal margin of the North Pacific Rim would havebeen even more influential over the long run.

Historically, the North Pacific region was one of thelast large areas of the world to be contacted by Euro-peans, and it is still one of the world's best-preservedcultural regions. As the Russian, British, Spanish, andAmerican explorers witnessed in the 1 700s, its pro-ductive lands and waters supported indigenouspeoples and cultures with highly developed technolo-gies, social structures, and art. On their first encoun-ters, many European observers reported that Nativegroups from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to theNorthwest Coast of North America exhibited certainsimilarities in culture, language, and physical type.

Suggestions of common origins or shared ancestrywere made on the basis of these early observationsand anecdotal evidence. Similar observations weremade about the region's natural history, since bothsides of the North Pacific have a common set of ma-rine mammal, avian, and fish species and share manycomparable environments and climate regimes.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,1897-1902

Despite similarities noted by explorers, early ethno-logical studies in Alaska and Northeast Siberia through-out the 1 700s and most of the 1800s were orientedtoward description of regional and even individual eth-nic cultures. In that halcyon era of "natural history" schol-arship, detailed observation and systematic record-ing, rather than theorizing, carried the day. For thisreason, the launching of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion in 1897 marks a milestone in the history of NorthPacific studies. Its objectives, field program, and sub-sequent publication activities were all designed byFranz Boas, then assistant curator in the AnthropologyDivision at the American Museum of Natural History(AMNH) in New York. Boas and others realized thatscience would never solve larger questions by study-ing cultures and regions in isolation.

Funded privately by Morris K. Jesup, president ofthe AMNH, the Jesup Expedition had as its purpose theinvestigation of the history of Native cultures and theirrelationships throughout the North Pacific region.Among the questions posed were some of the oldestand most exciting in the history of American anthro-pology: the origins and migration routes of the Ameri-can Indians and Eskimos; cultural relations betweenAsia and the Americas; and the histories, ethnology,and material culture of the complex tribes of the GreaterNorth Pacific Region.

The objectives of this broad regional synthesiscalled for field studies on a scale never before at-tempted in anthropology. In drafting the Jesup Expedi-tion program, Boas skillfully integrated a number of

2

INTRODUCTION

scholarly resources of his time. The project was builton his previous work among Northwest Coast tribesin the late 1880s and early 1890s (see Cole, this vol-ume); on the successful record of the earlier Smithsoniannaturalists' work in Alaska (Fitzhugh 1988), and onwhatever bits of information about the Native peoplesof Siberia were then available to western anthropolo-gists (see Vakhtin, this volume). As a newly appointedmuseum curator. Boas also saw the Jesup Expeditionas a vehicle for building museum collections for scien-tific and exhibition purposes.

Ideally the Jesup Expedition was to be conductedby teams of anthropologists (or other trained profes-sionals) who specialized in ethnology, archaeology, folk-lore, linguistics, and physical anthropology. Carefulcollections were to be made, and the geographic dis-tribution of cultural elements—ethnographic and ar-chaeological objects, language, physical traits—wasto be thoroughly documented, following newly for-mulated principles of diffusion and cross-cultural stud-ies. By utilizing this plan, Boas expected to produce abroad regional synthesis that would be a model for hismethod of detailed comparison and multidisciplinaryfield research.

As might be expected of the founder of Americananthropology, Boas was decades ahead of his time.He instructed the members of the team he assembledto gather masses of ethnological data, including facialcasts, body measurements, photographs, folklore texts,wax recordings, archaeological artifacts, and linguisticrecords. He dispatched his field crews to the North-west Coast, Alaska, and Siberia with the imprimatur ofthe AMNH and with funds provided by Morris Jesup,together with his own detailed instructions on datacollecting. Fieldwork lasted from several summermonths (for Boas, Dixon, and Farrand, in North America)up to two full years (for the Jochelsons in Siberia). Theresearchers then returned and prepared monographsunder Boas' direct supervision.

The AMNH's coffers soon filled with thousands ofethnographic specimens, and its archives burgeoned

with documents, field notes, and photographs. Even-tually, 11 Jesup Expedition volumes, comprising 31separate reports on detailed ethnographic descriptions,folklore, and physical anthropology, were published,as were several dozen external articles and other mono-graphs. All this made the Jesup Expedition one of themost extensively published anthropological projectsever (see Krupnik, this volume).

As project leader, Boas had the task of complet-ing the final monograph and synthesizing its field re-sults. But despite heroic efforts, his team had barelysucceeded in scratching the surface, and even Boasbecame daunted by the immensity of the task and bythe dragging performance of many of his associates(see Ousley and Jantz, this volume; Kan, this volume).To the dismay of his sponsor, Morris Jesup, he nevercompleted what was to have been the final mono-graph in the JNPE series. Boas and his partners didpresent some of their conclusions in numerous sum-mary papers (Boas 1897, 1903, 1905, 1910a, 1910b,1912, 1925, 1933; Bogoras 1927, 1 929; Jochelson1926), but to many later critics, this was too little andtoo late (Krupnik 1998).

In retrospect, the expedition's greatest accomplish-ment was to gather invaluable collections and publishmasses of ethnographic data that documented cul-tural practices of the North Pacific peoples at a transi-tional time in their history. Working relationships werealso forged between North American and Russian sci-entists and institutions that benefited subsequent gen-erations of scholars. The principle became establishedthat cultural relations between Asia and North Americahad deep roots and could not be understood by re-searchers working in isolation. The Bering Strait actu-ally never was a significant geographic or cultural bar-rier to prehistoric communication and exchange, andneither should it be for scholars who wish to under-stand its regional history. The tangled political realitiesof the 20th century, however, imposed harsh limita-tions on the spirit of partnership and cooperation ex-emplified by the Jesup Expedition.

W. FITZHUGH AND I KRUPNIK

3

Post-Jesup Research

From our perspective, the Jesup Expedition was a hugesuccess. The voluminous series, dozens of other publi-cations in English, German, and Russian, presentationsat international meetings, and large collections of mu-seum artifacts, photographs, and other resources thatit fostered attracted interest and stimulated new re-search (Krupnik and Vakhtin 1997a). While Boas wenton to assume a professorship at Columbia University,forsaking his curatorial duties (and, eventually, his prom-ised Jesup Expedition summary volume), he continuedto publish the expedition's field materials. Some of hisJesup associates the Jochelsons, Swanton, Dixon, andSmith—expanded their research in the North Pacific toareas not covered (although originally envisioned) bythe Jesup Expedition (Fig. 3). A few, particularly Jochelsonand Bogoras, developed new support for their earliertheories. But no new Joint projects of a similar magni-tude were to follow, and as Soviet power and Stalinistpolicies took hold in the Russian Far East, communica-tion, travel, and collaborative research across the BeringStrait gradually ceased. By the late 1930s and the early1940s, Russian (Soviet) and western studies of the NorthPacific cultures, restricted by national borders and ideo-logical constraints, diverged and went their separateways (Krupnik 1998).

As integrated cross-cultural research across theBering Strait came to a virtual standstill, the plight ofinternational scholarship produced an eloquent pleafor cooperative studies by the famous Danish Arcticexplorer Knud Rasmussen. He himself had once beenexpelled from Siberia while on a field trip because helacked proper visa papers. Calling for a multinationalresearch program in northeastern Siberia and Alaskaat the Fifth Pacific Science Congress in 1933, only afew months before his death, Rasmussen predicted, "Iam quite aware that a task like this cannot be broughtto realization in the twinkling of an eye. ... It is, how-ever, my firm conviction that one day there will be agreat co-operative undertaking of this kind, and thatthis plan will be carried out" (Rasmussen 1934:2772).

Sadly, his proposal, like many others, died as a resultof the harsh political regimes to come.

Although both Russian and American scholars con-tinued ethnological surveys in their respective regions,they had begun to recognize the critical need for ar-chaeological evidence for their general scenarios ofprehistoric connections and culture change. Soon, ar-chaeologists took the lead, thanks to the advances inarchaeological techniques, the numbers of sites exca-vated, and the sheer amount of prehistoric artifactsrecovered across the Arctic. Boas had included archae-ology in the original Jesup Expedition program, butpractical problems, including the relatively early stateof development of archaeological techniques andtheory, limited its contribution (see Thom, this volume).Fortunately, the Jesup Expedition had stimulated anawareness of the importance of archaeological inves-tigation in the Arctic. It was by this means, and throughthe later work of Jochelson in the Aleutians, Collins onSt. Lawrence Island, Hrdlicka at Kodiak Island, Jennessat Cape Prince of Wales, and Larsen and Rainey at PointHope, that a more detailed story of North Pacific pre-history began to unfold during the 1920s and 1930s.

With the onset of the Cold War mentality in the late1940s, all research cooperation, as well as human con-tacts, across the Bering Strait ceased. The minimal anddeclining competency in the Russian language on thepart of American scholars, and Soviet censorship, en-sured that little information entered academe acrossthe Soviet-American frontier. As a result, Russian-Ameri-can scholarly communications had all but evaporatedby 1950 (Krupnik 1998). Nevertheless, important sur-veys dealing with trans-Beringian archaeology andphysical anthropology by Russian scholars (e.g., Debets1951; Levin 1958 [1963]; Rudenko 1947 [1961]) andWestern scholars (e.g., Collins 1937; De Laguna 1947;Larsen and Rainey 1948; Laughlin 1952) continued.These studies clearly documented the divergence ofRussian and Euro-American scholarship in that they in-volved minimal direct exchanges and recorded fewcompatible results.

4

INTRODUCTION

During the 1950s, new theories on the origins ofthe North Pacific peoples and cultures were advancedthat redrew or even rejected the old scenarios of theJesup Expedition (see, for example, Chard 1960; Drucker1955; Levin 1958 [1963]). None, however, was basedon coordinated field research or on a compatible setof field data collected on two continents, which hadbeen the inspiration for Boas and his partners.

As a result of post-Jesup research, the "Paleoasiatic"peoples of northeastern Siberia (called "Americanoids"in some of the Jesup Expedition-based publications)are no longer believed to have originated in NorthAmerica or to constitute a coherent entity of their own.Nor are the Eskimo [Yup'ikand Ihupiat] people in Alaskaand Siberia considered to be a relatively recent Cana-dian "wedge" that split the initial continuum of coastalNorth Pacific groups from Kamchatka to Oregon. Cul-tural similarities between the Native peoples acrossnortheastern Siberia, the Northwest Coast of NorthAmerica, and southern Alaska exist, but their origin—by migration, cultural transfer or diffusion, or conver-gent development—is not known.

As these examples show, the complexities of NorthPacific cultural history are now recognized as immense,especially since Alaska has been occupied for at least12,000 years and eastern Siberia for 40,000 years ormore. Given this demonstrated complexity and theprobability that people have been moving back andforth across the Bering Strait with ease for at least1 0,000 years (see Fortescue 1 998), it is ironic thatmany archaeologists, bio-anthropologists, and linguistscontinue to be impressed by three-stage models ofNew World prehistory (see Greenberg 1 987; Turner1988). There is hardly a possibility of simple migrationtheories or scenarios of massive population or culturaltransfers across the North Pacific, such as those ad-vanced by the Jesup Expedition team a century ago.

Gateways to Jesup 2

Beginning in the 1970s, initiatives by the InternationalResearch and Exchanges Board (IREX) began to rebuild

a bridge for bilateral Russian-American exchange in theNorth Pacific. The effort included research visits, con-ferences, publications, and even some limited instancesof Joint fieldwork (Campbell 1976; Gurvich 1981;Laughlin 1980: 70-4, 1985; Laughlin and Okladnikov1975; Michael 1979; Michael and VanStone 1983).These events drew North American and Russian re-searchers in Arctic and Pacific studies into their firstsubstantial contacts since the 1930s. Personal friend-ships were forged and research partnerships were onceagain established, although lengthy visits and joint fieldsurveys were all but impossible. These early connec-tions eventually culminated in the exhibit Crossroadsof Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska (1988),produced jointly by the Smithsonian Institution's Na-tional Museum of Natural History and the Soviet (nowRussian) Institute of Ethnography and Museum of An-thropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg (Fitzhughand Crowell 1988). The exhibit traveled throughoutNorth America during 1988-92. Featuring an integratedview of North Pacific cultures. Crossroads of Continentsserved as a visual ethnography and a preliminary syn-thesis of the area first covered by the Jesup Expeditionsurveys. It also highlighted the expedition's principalfindings and the outcomes of anthropological researchof the intervening 90 years.

In addition to incorporating Jesup Expedition col-lections from the AMNH, the joint exhibit and its cata-log featured early Russian collections from Alaska ofthe 1800s and Alaskan materials from the Smithsonianand other North American museums. The Crossroadsproject served as a meetingplace for large numbers ofAmerican, Canadian, Russian, and European scholarsover a 1 5-year period from 1 978 to 1 993. This long-term exhibit venture, its numerous symposia, and itscuratorial, conservation, publication, and education pro-grams (Fitzhugh and Chaussonnet 1 994; Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988; Johnson etal. 1991; Sadler and Greenberg1 989) offered new possibilities for direct communica-tion among dozens of researchers working on bothsides of the North Pacific divide.

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

5

As Smithsonian scientists were building theirCrass-roads exhibit and scientific collaboration network, cu-rators at the AMNH in New York launched their ownventure in the Jesup Expedition legacy. Their effortswere focused on exploring and exhibiting the magnifi-cent AMNH collections of the indigenous cultures andart of the Northwest Coast. The AMNH program, whichstarted in the 1980s, produced the Chiefly Feasts ex-hibit on the vibrant spiritual traditions of theKwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI] people, based on theobjects and data collected by Boas and his partnersduring the Jesup Expedition. It also generated severalvolumes and papers focused on the expedition's ac-tivities, collections, and participants (Freed et al. 1988a,1988b, 1 988c; Jonaitis 1 988,1991,1992,1 999). Otherresearch projects were soon to follow or were ad-vanced independently (Cole 1985;jacknis 1984;Jantz1995; Jantz et al. 1992; Ousley 1995). This triggered arevived interest in Franz Boas' academic legacy andcareer (Berman 1992; Stocking 1992), including a spe-cial issue of Ewdes/lnuit/SwdiesiSur les traces de Boas:100 ans d'antmpologie des Inuit/In Boas' Footsteps:One Hundred Years of Inuit Anthropology, 1984), andled to the first detailed studies on JNPE participantssuch as George Hunt and James Teit who had receivedlittle attention during their lifetimes (Berman 1994;Cannizzo 1983;Jacknis 1991, 1992; Maud 1989;Wickwire 1988). By the early 1990s, the Jesup Expedi-tion saga, its collections, and the life stories of its teammembers had emerged as a thriving field of researchand museum activity in North America and Russia alike.

Additional trans-Beringian exchanges and scholarlyand exhibit projects were launched in the early 1990s(see, for example, Durr et al. 1992; Smith and Barrett1990; Varjola 1990). In 1991 the Alaskan Office of theU.S. National Park Service initiated the Shared BeringianHeritage Program for research and cultural exchangesalong the Siberian and Alaskan shores of the BeringStrait, under the framework of the proposed BeringiaInternational Park. In 1993 a new "mini-Crossroads" trav-eling exhibit. Crossroads Alaska/Siberia, was organized

by the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Center togetherwith key Alaskan and Siberian museums. For severalyears (1 993-97), it toured to many regional centers inAlaska and the Russian Far East (Chaussonnet 1995;Chaussonnet and Krupnik 1996; National Museum ofNatural History 1997).

Today, a new generation of scholars is activelyrecharting the course of North Pacific/Beringian stud-ies, and an impressive volume of archaeological re-search has been amassed. Still, despite much new work,the larger perspectives of culture history, the origins ofNorth Pacific cultures, and the dynamics of prehistoricculture change in the Greater Northern Pacific Regionremain almost as subject to dispute as they were atthe end of the Jesup Expedition. (Of course, the samecan be said of other anthropological fields.) We are lefttoday with hardly any firm evidence beyond the past500-1,000 years for interpreting the culture history ofthis region and of its amazing linguistic, biological, folk-loristic, and ethnological diversity. Despite volumes ofnew scholarship, the basic documents on which werely for North Pacific ethnography date back to theclassic 19th-century studies on the Northwest Coastand Siberia alike. It is obvious that the ground hasbeen laid for reassessment of the Jesup Expeditionlegacy in the light of modern knowledge. We nowface the need to build new relationships and to trainand equip new students in the field. A shared scientificlanguage needs to be created, after two generationsof scholarly isolation, and new sources of funding forjoint research ventures must be secured.

As official barriers to communication across theBering Strait were relaxed after 1988, new airline routesand connections, joint commercial and educationalenterprises, direct phone and fax lines, e-mail, and manyother developments emerged. A steady stream ofNative and scholarly contacts across the North Pacificarea was soon to follow, paralleling the pattern, if notthe intensity, of ancient trans-Beringian contacts. TheNorth Pacific is a natural and active crossroads be-tween Asia and North America; it must have been so

6

INTRODUCTION

ever since the first peoples migrated into what wasthen, 12,000-1 5,000 years ago, truly a "new world."Since then, meetings, migrations, intermarriages, trad-ing, fighting, exploring, and getting lost and beingfound by neighbors have occurred more or less con-tinuously over the millennia, except for some brief pe-riods of isolation. The 50-year-long break of the pastcentury was probably the most effective barrier everimposed, and the hardest to overcome.

Jesup 2 Beginnings

In 1992—almost 100 years after Boas, Frederic W.Putnam (head of the AMNH Department of Anthropol-ogy), and Jesup had begun their first discussions onthe proposed survey of the North Pacific region—theArctic Studies Center of the Smithsonian Institutionadvanced a blueprint for new long-term research to-ward these same goals. The proposed venture wascalled Jesup 2, as a centennial and intellectual succes-sor to the (first)Jesup North Pacific Expedition of 1897-1902 (AAAS 1992; Fitzhugh and Krupnik 1994).

The new initiative, which was undertaken concur-rently with the approaching (1997) centennial of theJesup Expedition, was submitted in 1992 at a specialsession at the First Congress of the International ArcticSocial Sciences Association (lASSA) in Quebec (Fitzhughand Krupnik 1992). The symposium's title, "Jesup 2:Survival, Continuity, and Culture Change in the NorthPacific Region," became the core framework for sev-eral individual and Joint research ventures now com-monly recognized as "Jesup centennial activities."

Three successive symposia were organized follow-ing the initial panel of 1992. The first, "Gateways toJesup 2: Evaluating Archival Resources of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, 1897-1902," took place in 1993,at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Anthro-pological Association in Washington, D.C. Participantsfrom the United States, Canada, and Russia reviewedunknown or poorly studied museum, archival, photo-graphic, manuscript, and other collections and raw dataoriginating from the Jesup North Pacific Expedition (AAA

1993). This volume is the result of the "Gateways" sym-posium. The second session, "Cultural Continuity andChange in the North Pacific Region," was organized atthe "Bridges of Science" joint conference held by theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) inAnchorage, Alaska, in 1994. In November 1 997 a con-ference celebrating the Jesup centennial, "Construct-ing Cultures Then and Now. Celebrating Franz Boasand the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902,"was held at the AMNH, the birthplace of the JesupExpedition. This five-day international conferencebrought together an impressive team of over 50 schol-ars, museum curators, and Native cultural workers fromNorth America, Russia, Europe, and Japan and was byfar the largest and most representative gathering ofpeople active in "Jesup area" research (Graburn 1998;Lee 1998). An exhibit of historical photographs andsome ethnographic objects collected by the expedi-tion was organized at the AMNH, and a wonderfulcatalog. Drawing Shadows to Stone (Kendall et al.1997), was produced for the opening of the centen-nial celebration. The volume of conference proceed-ings is now in preparation for the same AMNH seriesthat also contains the volumes of the original JesupExpedition (Kendall and Krupnik n.d.). A similar Russianconference took place in Vladivostok, in the RussianFar East, in April 1998 (Artem'ev 1998).

The new venture was initially designed to be sus-tained by a scattered community of international schol-ars (Fitzhugh and Krupnik 1994:2), instead of being,like its famous predecessor, a centralized project withan established budget and defined responsibilities. Asa result of the loose structure, many research and pub-lic activities have been initiated or have been supportedby individual research and museum institutions. A newbibliography is gradually being accumulated (e.g.,Fitzhugh 1996; lARPC 1995; Krupnik 1998, 2000;Mandelstam Balzer 1996; Vakhtin 1993). Four recentlypublished books are outgrowths of the Jesup centen-nial efforts (Artem'ev 1998;Jochelson 1 997; Kendall et

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

7

al. 1997; Shternberg 1999), and two more volumesare in press or in preparation (Ivanov-Unarov andIvanova, in press; Kendall and Krupnik n.d.). Several in-ternational projects documenting cultural continuityand the modern revival of Native nations first surveyedby the Jesup Expedition were completed during the1990s, including an international seminar, "Develop-ment and Self-Determination among the IndigenousPeoples of the North," held in Alaska in October 1996(see reviews in Stern et al. 1997). Scores of new publi-cations have been directly linked to or inspired by theJesup centennial agenda (e.g., Fitzhugh and Dubreuil1999; Kan 2000; Kasten 1996; Krupnik 1996, 1998,2000; Krupnik and Vakhtin 1 997b; Ousley 2000; Roon2000; Schweitzer and Colovko 1995; Thom 2000).

These successful public activities and exchangesrelating to the Jesup centennial brought together schol-ars, museum curators, and Native cultural activists fromthe two sides of the North Pacific in an effort that per-haps deserves the name Jesup 2. Progress in communi-cation and broad network-building is clearly the big-gest current advantage over our "First Jesup" prede-cessors, who often needed months (and sometimesyears) to get their messages from New York to Russia/Siberia or Alaska and back.

New Research Targets

As the world enters the new millennium, scholars andthe public alike are concerned with the dramatic out-comes of the past century and the legacy it will leaveto future generations. Issues of environmental degra-dation, pollution, loss of species, and ecosystem in-tegrity are currently of major concern to the broadconstituency of natural scientists, public activists, andpoliticians. Both Native leaders and social scientistsexpress a similar set of concerns with regard to humancultural diversity and the rights of local populationsand cultures. Government policies, industrialization, andthe spread of consumerism have damaged indigenoussubsistence and languages worldwide; they have alsoundermined traditional arts and crafts and distorted

the cultural continuity and ethnic diversity of Nativepeoples on an unprecedented, global scale.

Despite the differences in political systems, in manyrespects 20th-century developments in Siberia and inAlaska and the Northwest Coast produced surprisinglysimilar results. Both areas have recently experiencedrevivals of indigenous cultures and sweeping drivesfor Native political empowerment, land rights, and self-determination. The movement has been far more suc-cessful in Alaska and Canada than in Siberia but is alsogaining momentum there. Both in the Russian Far Eastand along the Northwest Coast of North America, cul-tural and language survival. Native rights, educationpolicy, and economic and political issues are loomingas major concerns on local agendas for the new cen-tury. The challenges to Native cultures are mounting,since in many northern communities Native languageshave been weakened or lost, poverty has increased,subsistence economies have been weakened, and al-coholism and social disorders remain significant threatsto physical and communal well-being.

As a tool for evaluating the current pace of change,the North Pacific region already has a baseline data setproduced by the Jesup Expedition exactly a centuryago. A new effort should be made to produce a sum-mary of indigenous cultural continuity (and losses) dur-ing the past century. Through the example of theJNPE'smethod and organization, new efforts can be initiatedto conduct a reanalysis of the JNPE field and its archivaldata, to concentrate new surveys in the same geo-graphic area, to ensure data comparability, to facili-tate studies of centennial culture change, and to en-courage cross-cultural comparison.

A centennial-focused assessment of old and newdata on cultural relationships and continuity may pro-vide invaluable assistance to native communities andpolicy groups. It is now axiomatic that such studiesshould be carried out in cooperation with and on be-half of Native constituencies, with the aim of encour-aging local educational, cultural, and professional de-velopment. The standard practice is certainly to take

8

INTRODUCTION

ethical considerations into account in such work. Suchstudies, and concrete implementation of their majoroutcomes, are particularly urgent throughout the Rus-sian part of the North Pacific region, where the recentpolitical transition and the shift to a market economyhave left many Native communities in a more desti-tute situation than under the Soviet communist regime.We hope this volume will serve as a catalyst for thesescholarly and practical endeavors.

The Focus of This Volume

As noted, Boas never completed his assigned task ofsynthesizing data from the Siberian and NorthwestAmerican field surveys into a final volume for the JesupExpedition publication series. For this reason, the JNPEhas been viewed as an inconclusive, though signifi-cant, event in the history of North American anthropol-ogy (Cole 1999; Darnell 1998). Unfortunately, Boas'last (and practically his only) general review of theexpedition's outcomes, methodology, and theoreticalframework was presented in German in 1908 as theopening address at the 16th International Congress ofAmericanists in Vienna (Boas 191 Ob). It is still unknownwhy such a milestone paper has never been publishedin English. Whatever the reason, it remained out of sightfor generations of English-speaking scholars in NorthPacific research. These and other factors eventually side-lined the JNPE from the mainstream of scholarly ad-vances in anthropological theory and field practice. Torestore a rather belated justice to the JNPE efforts, andfor the record of its founding father, we include here amodern translation of Boas' seminal Vienna address of1908 (see Boas, this volume). There is no doubt thatBoas was fully aware of the great methodological andtheoretical value of the JNPE multidisciplinary approachand of its input to the study of human cultural devel-opment in the most general sense.

It is uniformly recognized, however, that the JesupExpedition did achieve a more restricted goal of pro-ducing a set of "classical" ethnographic monographson many groups of the North Pacific region. With Boas'

resignation from his position at the AMNH after increas-ing tensions between him and Jesup led to his depar-ture for Columbia University in 1905 (see Cole, thisvolume; Darnell 1970:211-4), the "final chapter" andthe overall evaluation of the legacy of the JNPE havebeen left for others to complete.

At the centennial of the Jesup Expedition era, amore dedicated and multifaceted appraisal is needed.What can be said now about Boas' theoretical motiva-tions in organizing the Jesup Expedition? How can thisbe tested against the general intellectual discourse andthe dominant anthropological paradigms of the era? Inparticular, the Boasian perspective on "culture" hassparked a new debate and is currently the subject ofextensive scholarly reevaluation (see, for example,Berman 1996; Bunzl 1996; Darnell 1998; Jacknis 1996;Liss 1995; Stocking 1992, 1996). In this sense, theresults of the century-old Jesup Expedition surveysacross Beringia and the Greater North Pacific Regionare as fresh in our own time as they were in Boas' day.

This volume is the first summary of such a centen-nial reappraisal effort. It is an outgrowth of the "Gate-ways to Jesup 2" panel that was organized by thevolume coeditors at the 92nd Annual Meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association in Washington,D.C., in 1993. A few of the nine original papers fromthe AAA panel do not appear in this volume, whilesome new contributions—those byCole,Thom, Krupnik,and Willey—were submitted after the session. Abridgedversions of two papers from this collection appearedearlier in a special issue of the European Review ofNative American Sfurf/es under the editorship of Chris-tian Feest (Kan 2000; Thom 2000).

This volume thus initiates the process of a modernreappraisal of some of the less recognized aspects ofthe JNPE legacy that extend far beyond its voluminouspublications and ethnographic collections of a cen-tury ago. The task leads us into three separate aspectsof JNPE historiography: (a) the origins and intellectualbackground of the expedition; (b) a critical assess-ment of its fieldwork and collection practices; and

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

9

(c) its various archival legacies, which provide a last-ing trove of documentary evidence for analysis of theexpedition's results. The contributions in this volumeare organized to emphasize such a progression.

Part 1, "The Expedition," with contributions by Coleand Vakhtin, explores the intellectual roots of the JesupExpedition and presents an informative historical coun-terpoint that aids in assessing the complexity of theproject and its final outcomes. Douglas Cole—whopassed away in August 1997, a few months beforethe Jesup Centennial Conference in New York (see "InMemory of below)—produced the most detailed up-date of the completeJNPE multiyear saga. His approachproceeds from the perspective of the Boas-Jesup rela-tionship and what each was hoping to achieve. "Purescience" and museum goals were clearly juxtaposed,and ultimately, the outcome favored the museum'spriorities more than those of science. Nikolai Vakhtinoffers valuable insights on the less-known record ofthe assembly of the Siberian portion of the JNPE, whichwas in certain ways a more radical scientific venturethan what was done on the American Northwest Coast.Of the two. Cole's perspective is more critical of Boas'motivations and tactics, and of the end results thatleaned in favor of Morris Jesup's expectations.

Part 2, "The Collectors," with papers by Harkin,Mathe and Miller, Thorn, and Berman, presents mod-ernist perspectives on the field approaches of the JesupExpedition, particularly from the point of view of re-searcher-Native relationships. It is hard to imagine lesscongruent sets of data—textual records, photographs,and archaeological excavations—yet combined, theyreinvigorate the image of the interdisciplinary and pio-neeringJNPE research. Harkin examines Boas' fieldworkamong central Northwest Coast groups in the contextof his training in German Romantic and liberal socialscience thought, in which texts and myth rather thanhistory determine cultural content. Mathe and Millerreview the photographic practices of the JNPE teammembers from the modern perspective, which directsattention to the "framing" (even the "staging") of the

ethnographic reality, as well as the power/status in-terplay of the photographers and their human sub-jects. Thom's paper is a modern archival chronicle ofarchaeological work conducted by Harlan Smith alongthe southern Northwest Coast between 1 897 and1899. This was a region in which Boas expected ar-chaeological data to reveal significant evidence of his-torical change. Smith's finds importantly reinforcedBoas' mistaken view that archaeology, linguistics, oralhistory, and culture could be combined into a singleunified thesis of North Pacific (pre-)history. Smith's pre-viously unstudied archival documents reveal a humancontext for this early archaeological research andshows how social relationships, good and bad, shapedhis and Boas' conclusions about regional prehistory inways that are not evident in the published JNPE re-ports. Finally, Berman offers a new perspective on theBoas-Hunt collaboration and on George Hunt's contri-bution to the JNPE and later documentation efforts. Ina detailed review of the unpublished manuscripts fromBoas' and Hunt's monumental corpus of Kwak-waka'wakw [KwakuitI] texts, she unveils an intricateand often conflicting play of human and professionalrelationships that were never disclosed in their volumi-nous folkloric and ethnographic writings.

Part 3, "The Resources," with papers by Kan, Ousleyand Jantz, Keeling, Krupnik, and Willey, presents a se-ries of new studies of both known and "rediscovered"materials produced during or after the expedition. Thelist ranges from Kan's story of the painful saga of LeoShternberg's manuscript on Gilyak [Nivkh] social orga-nization that was produced for, but never publishedin, the JNPE series, to the modern appraisal by Ousleyand Jantz of the monumentalJNPE corpus of anthropo-metric measurements that was duly collected but nei-ther processed nor published in Boas' time, to Keeling'sanalysis of the expedition's ethnomusicological legacy,preserved on old wax-cylinder recordings.

Next, Krupnik demonstrates the overall impact ofthe Jesup Expedition in a comprehensive bibliographyof its published and unpublished writings. This record

INTRODUCTION

alone fully validates the JNPE's preeminent role in thehistory of regional and theoretical studies in anthro-pology and culture change. It furnishes strong supportto those of us who believe that the JNPE did establishan unprecedented and monumental record of anthro-pological documentation. In a similar way, Willey'spaper provides a comprehensive review of theexpedition's photographic record of some 3,500 his-torical images that are now catalogued and organizedthematically in the AMNH Special Collections files. Thereis clearly more grist to grind here, both for those inter-ested in regional scholarship and for those seeking tobuild on the vision of trans-Beringian contacts and his-tory begun by Boas and his partners.

Editors' Notes

A few technical comments will be helpful to readers inmatching the old realities of the Jesup Expedition erawith today's practices in anthropological publications.The names of the Russian members of the expedition,including Waldemar Bogoras, Waldemar Jochelson, hiswife, Dina Jochelson (Jochelson-Brodsky), and LeoShternberg, have been spelled in many different waysin various languages. Throughout the volume, we fol-low the long-established spelling used in their Englishpublications and in major reference bibliographies:Bogoras,Jochelson,Jochelson-Brodsky, and Shternberg.Some references to Russian or German publicationsand personal correspondence, however, preserve theforms used in the respective languages: Bogoraz,Jochelson-Brodskaya, and Sternberg. In certain sectionsthe Russian spelling—for example, Bogoraz instead ofBogoras—is preserved to underline the Russian settingof the story.

In this volume, as well as in several other publica-tions by the Arctic Studies Center, we adhere to thecommonly accepted practice of presenting Nativeethnic and tribal names as singulars (Eskimo, Chukchi,Koryak, Aleut, etc.) instead of plurals. We generally usemodern names in contemporary text; for example,Chukchi, Yukagir, and Nivkh instead of the names

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

Chukchee, Yukaghir, and Gilyak that were commonduring the Jesup Expedition era. We do keep the oldnames when referring to the Jesup Expedition volumesand to the subsequently produced publications. Sev-eral ethnic names, both in Siberia and in North America(for example, Eskimo, Tungus, Kamchadal, KwakiutI, andThompson), have been abandoned or have becomeobsolete since the time of the Jesup Expedition. Weintroduce modern names (InuitorVup'ik, Even, Itelmen,Kwakwaka'wakw, NIaka'pamux) wherever appropri-ate, but we usually allow the authors to follow thename patterns now accepted by local communities intheir respective areas.

This book is illustrated by numerous original pho-tographs from thejesup Expedition era, including manytaken by the expedition field crews in Siberia and NorthAmerica. We are grateful to the JNPE's host institution,the American Museum of Natural History in New York,for permission to reproduce these precious historicalimages. Special thanks go to Barbara Mathe, head ofthe Special Collections division at the AMNH Library,who was instrumental in selecting and securing mostof the illustrations on the AMNH files. Some other illus-trations—individual photographs, copies of fieldsketches, personal notes, etc. are reproduced fromthe originals on file at the American Philosophical Soci-ety in Philadelphia; the Archives of the Russian Acad-emy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; the Peter theGreat Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, alsoin St. Petersburg; and the Hudson's Bay Company Ar-chives in the Provincial Archives of Manitoba. (See theList of Illustrations.) We thank all the institutions thatgranted us permission to use these documents as il-lustrations in our Jesup centennial collection.

Acknowledgments

This volume's progress was by no means smooth andeasy, and, like many of the proceedings of the JNPE,it suffered several setbacks—although, of course, fordifferent reasons. The full manuscript was completedand submitted for publication in 1997. Dori Stewart

1 1

provided invaluable assistance in preparing that ver-sion. We praise her heroic contributions in formattinginto a single editorial cast the 11 original papers (anddisks), delivered with unimaginable individual variations.Three years later, Elisabeth Ward of the Arctic StudiesCenter undertook the challenging task of breathingnew life into a long-dormant venture. She skillfully co-ordinated the uneasy process of updating the papersand again editing the volume, with professional assis-tance from Nancy Levine. Last but not least, we wantto thank all the contributors for their support, patience,and dedication. Their trust and commitment helped uspersevere through years of delays and withered hopesto see this volume finally published under the ArcticStudies Center's newly established Conthbutioms toCircumpolarAnthmpologySerles.

References

AAA (American Anthropological Association)

1993 Gateways to Jesup II: Evaluating Archival Re-sources of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902. In American Anthropological Association An-nual Meeting, 92. Abstracts. Pp. 40-1. Washington,DC.

AAAS (American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science)

1992 Arctic Research Repeats History. Science

256:163.Artem'ev, A. R., ed.

1998 Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdu korennymnaseleniem tikhookeanskogo poberezhiia Severo-Zapadnoi Ameriki i Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. K 100-letiiu Jesupovskoi Severo-Tikhookeanskoi ekspeditsii(Historical-cultural contacts between aborigines ofthe Pacific Coast of Northwestern America and North-eastern Asia. For the centenary of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition). Proceedings of international con-ference. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeol-ogy, and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East.

Berman, Judith

1 992 Oolanchan-Woman's Robe: Fish, Blankets, Masks,and Meaning in Boas's Kwak'wala Texts. In On theTranslation of Native American Literature. B. Swann,ed. Pp. 1 25-62. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press.

1 994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-pological Linguistics 36(4):482-514.

1996 "The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-self": Boas, George Hunt, and the Methods of

Ethnography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-says on Boasian Ethnography and the German An-thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed.Pp. 215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.Boas, Franz

1897 Die Jesup-Boas-Expedition nach Nordwest-Amerika. Globus 2] .342.

1 903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1 905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-tional Gongress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:Eschenbach.

1 91 Oa Ethnological Problems in Canada.Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain andIreland 40:529-39. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1910b Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. InInternationalen Americanisten-Kongress, 16. Tagung,Wien 1908. ErsteHdIfte. Pp. 3-18. Vienna and Leipzig:A. Hartleben's Verlag.

1 91 2 The History of the American Race. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83.

1 925 America and the Old World. In Congres Interna-tional des Americanistes, Gompte-Rendue de la 2leSession, Deuxieme Partie. Tenue a Coteborg en 1924.Pp. 21-8. Gotebord Museum.

1933 Relations between North-West America andNorth-East Asia. In The American Aborigines: TheirOrigin and Antiquity. D. Jenness, ed. Pp. 357-70.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1927 Drevnie pereseleniia narodov v Severnoi Azii i vAmerike (Ancient human migrations in northern Asiaand in America). Sbornik Muzeia antropologii ietnografii6:37-62. Leningrad.

1 929 Elements of the Culture of the Circumpolar Zone.American Anthropologist 31(4): 579-601.

Bunzl, Matt!

1996 Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: FromVolksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropo-logical Concept of Culture. In Volksgeist as Methodand Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and theGerman Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stock-ing, Jr., ed. Pp. 1 7-78. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin Press.

Campbell, John M.

1 976 The Soviet-American Siberian Expedition. Arctic

Anthropology 29(l):3-6.Cannizzo, Jeanne

1 983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-ogy 200):44-S8.

Chard, Chester S.

1960 Northwest Coast-Northeast Asiatic Similarities:

INTRODUCTION

A New Hypothesis. In Men and Cultures: SelectedPapers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthro-pological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956. AnthonyF. C. Wallace, ed. Pp. 235-40. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.Chaussonnet, Valerie, ed.

1995 Crossroads Alaska: Native Cultures of Alaskaand Siberia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Chaussonnet, Valerie, comp., and Igor I.Krupnik, ed.

1996 Perekrestki kontinentov: Kul'tury korennykhnarodov Dal'nego Vostoka iAIiaski. Katalog vystavki(Crossroads of continents: Cultures of native peoplesof the [Russian] Far East and Alaska). Exhibit catalog.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution; Moscow:Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage of Russia.

Cole, Douglas

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NorthwestCoast Artifacts. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.Collins, Henry B.

1937 Archaeology of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 96(1). Wash-ington, DC.

Darnell, Regna D.

1970 The Development of American Anthropology1879-1920: From the Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy to Franz Boas. Ph. D. diss., University of Pennsyl-vania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor, Ml: University Micro-films, Inc.

1998 And Along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolu-tion in Americanist Anthropology. Amsterdam Stud-ies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science.Series III, Studies in the History of the Language Sci-ences, 86. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Debets, Georgii F.

1951 Antropologicheskie issledovaniia v Kamchatskoioblasti (Physical-anthropological surveys inKamchatka Province). Trudy Instituta etnografii ANSSSR, 17. Moscow.

De Laguna, Frederica

1 947 The Prehistory of Northern North America asSeen from the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, 3. Salt Lake City.

Drucker, Philip

1955 Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. In NewInterpretations of Aboriginal American Culture His-tory. Pp. 59-81. Washington, DC: AnthropologicalSociety of Washington.

Diirr, Michael, Erich Kasten, and Egon Renner,

eds.

1 992 Franz Boas: Ethnologe, Anthropologe und

Sprachwissenschaftler: Ein Wegbereiter der modernenWissenschaft vom Menschen. Berlin: Staatsbibliothek.Fitzhugh, William W.

1988 Baird's Naturalists: Smithsonian Collectors inAlaska. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Si-beria and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds. Pp. 89-96. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

1994 Crossroads of Continents: Review and Prospects.In Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. William W.Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonnet, eds. Pp. 27-52.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1996 Jesup II: Anthropology of the North Pacific. North-ern Notes 4:4]-62. Hanover, NH.

Fitzhugh William W., and Valerie

Chaussonnet, eds.

1994 Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberiaand Alaska. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Chisato O. Dubreuil,eds.

1999 Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People. Washington,DC: National Museum of Natural History; Seattle: Uni-versity of Washington Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Igor Krupnik

1 992 "Jesup-2": New Interdisciplinary Perspective onthe Anthropology of the Beringia/North Pacific Area.Manuscript. Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Insti-tution, Washington, DC.

1994 The Jesup II Research Initiative: AnthropologicalStudies in the North Pacific. Arctic Studies CenterNewsletter (jesup II Newsbrief). Washington, DC: Arc-tic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution.

Fortescue, Michael

1998 Language Relations across Bering Strait: Reap-praising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence.London and New York: Cassel.

Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila

Williamson

1988a The American Museum's Jesup North PacificExpedition. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofSiberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds. Pp. 97-103. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

1 988b Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

1988c Scholars amid Squalor. NaturalHistory97(3):60-8.

Graburn, Nelson H. H.

1 998 Constructing Cultures Then and Now. Ameri-can Anthropologist 100(4): 1009-1 3.

W. FITZHUGH AND I. KRUPNIK

Greenberg, Joseph H.

1987 Language in the Amehcas. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.Gurvich, ll'ia S., ed.

1981 Traditsionnye kul'Wry Sevemoi Sibih i Severnoi/Amen7(/ CTraditional cultures of North Siberia and NorthAmerica). Papers from the Soviet-American Sympo-sium, 1979. Moscow: Nauka.

lARPC (Interagency Arctic Research Policy

Committee)

1995 U.S. Arctic Research Plan Biennial Revision: 1996-2000. Arctic Research of the United States 9 (spring).

Ivanov-Unarov, Vladimir Kh., and ZinaidaIvanova, eds.

In press. Vladimir I. loi<helson. lukagiry i iul<agizirovannyetungusy(Jhe Yukagir and the yukagirized Tungus).Yakutsk: Sapipolis. [Translation of the originalJochelson monograph, The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3, 1910-26. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, 1 3.]

Jacknis, Ira

1984 Franz Boas and Photography. Studies in VisualCommunication iO(l):2-60.

1991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. InChiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.Aldona Jonaitis. ed. Pp. 1 77-224. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press; New York: American Museumof Natural History.

1992 George Hunt, KwakiutI Photographer. In Anthro-pology and Photography, 1860-1920. ElizabethEdwards, ed. Pp. 143-51. New Haven and London:Yale University Press in association with the RoyalAnthropological Institute.

1996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Eth-nology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeistas Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnogra-phy and the German Anthropological Tradition.George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 185-214. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

Jantz, Richard L, ed.

1995 The Population Biology of Late Nineteenth-Cen-tury Native North Americans and Siberians: Analysisof Boas' Data. Special issue. Human Biology 67(3).

Jantz, Richard L., David R. Hunt, Anthony B.

Falsetti, and Patrick J. Key

1992 Variations among North Amerindians: Analysisof Boas' Anthropometric Data. Human Biology64(3):435-61.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1926 The Ethnological Problems of Bering Sea. /S/ofu-ra/H/sforK26(l):90-5.

1997 Koriaki: MateriaTnaia kul'tura i sotsial'naiaorganizatsiia (The Koryak: Material culture and so-cial organization). St. Petersburg: Nauka. [Translationof the Jochelson monograph, The Jesup North Pacific

Expedition,vol. 6, pt. 2, 1 908. Memoirs of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, 1 0.]

Johnson, Kirk R., Leo J. Mickey, and Cynthia

Adams Hoover, eds.

1991 Crossroads of Continents: The Material Cultureof Siberia and Alaska. Report of a Yale-SmithsonianSeminar on Material Culture, 1 989. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution; New Haven: Yale University.

Jonaitis, Aldona

1 988 From the Land of the Totem Poles. The North-west Coast Indian Art Collection at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.

1991 Chiefly Feasts: The Creation of an Exhibit. InChiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp. 21-70. Seattle: University ofWashington Press; New York: AMNH.

1992 Franz Boas, John Swanton, and the New HaidaSculpture at the American Museum of Natural His-tory. In The Early Years of Native American Art His-tory: The Politics of Scholarship and Collecting.]. C.Berlo, ed. Pp. 22-61. Seattle: University of Washing-ton Press; Vancouver: UBC Press.

1999 The Yuquot Whalers' Shrine. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press.

Kan, Sergei

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, WhyShternberg's "The Social Organization of the Gilyak"Never Appeared among the Jesup Expedition Publi-cations. European Review of Native American Stud-ies 14(2): 19-38.

Kasten, Erich

1996 Politische Organisation bei nordpazifischenKustenvolkern. In Kulturen und Innovationen:Festschrift fur Wolfgang Rudolph. G. Elwert, J.Jensen,and I. Kortt, eds. Pp. 293-320. Berlin; Duncker undHumblot.

Kendall, Laurel, and Igor Krupnik, eds.

n.d. Constructing Cultures Then and Now: CelebratingFranz Boas and the Centenary of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, 1897-1902, vo\. ]. Historical Per-spectives. In preparation.

Kendall, Laurel, Barbara Mathe, and Thomas

R. Miller, eds.

1997 Drawing Shadows to Stone: The Photographyof the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902.New York: American Museum of Natural History; Se-attle: University of Washington Press.

Krupnik, Igor

1996 The "Bogoras Enigma": Bounds of Culture andFormats of Anthropologists. In Grasping the Chang-ing World: Anthropological Concepts in thePostmodern Era. Vaslav Hubinger, ed. Pp. 35-52.London: Routledge.

INTRODUCTION

1998 "Jesup Genealogy": Intellectual Partnership andRussian-American Cooperation in Arctic/NorthPacific Anthropology (from the Jesup Expedition tothe Cold War, 1897-1948). Arctic Anthropology35(2):1 99-226.

2000 Jesup-2: The Precious Legacy and a CentennialPerspective. European Review of Native AmericanStudies 14(2): 1-2.

Krupnik, Igor, and Nikolay Vakhtin

1997a "The Aim of the Expedition ... Has in the MainBeen Accomplished": Words, Deeds, and Legaciesof the Jesup Expedition. Paper presented at the cen-tennial conference "Constructing Cultures Then andNow." New York

1997b Indigenous Knowledge in Modern Culture: Si-berian Yupik Ecological Legacy in Transition. ArcticAnthropology 34(1 ):236-52.

Larsen, Helge, and Froelich Rainey

1 948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture.Anthropological Papers of the American Museum ofNatural History, 42. New York.

Laughlin, William S.

1952 Contemporary Problems in the Anthropology of

Southern Alaska. Arctic Institute of North America,

Technical Publication, 1. Pp. 66-84.1980 Aleuts. Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1985 Russian-American Bering Sea Relations: Research

and Reciprocity. American Anthropologist87{4):77S-

92.

Laughlin, William S., and Alexei P. Okladnikov

1975 Sovmestnye issledovaniia amerikanskikh isovetskikh arkheologov na Anangule (Aleutskieostrova, Alaska) Ooint research by American andSoviet archaeologists at the Anangula site on theAleutian Islands, Alaska). In Sootnoshenie drevnikhkul'tur Sibiri s kul'turami sopredel'nykh territorii.Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Lee, Molly

1998 Exhibition Review: Drawing Shadows to Stone.

American Anthropologist 100(4): 1005-9.Levin, Maxim G.

1958 [1963] Etnicheskaia antropologiia i problemyetnogeneza narodov Dal'nego Vostoka (Physical an-thropology and ethnogenetic problems of thepeoples of the Far East). Trudy Instituta etnografiiAN SSSR, 36. Moscow. Trans. H. Michael, Ethnic Ori-gins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia, Arctic Insti-tute of North America. Anthropology of the North,Translations from Russian Sources, 3 (Toronto: Uni-versity of Toronto Press).

Liss, Julia E.

1995 Patterns of Strangeness: Franz Boas, Modern-ism, and the Origins of Anthropology. In Prehistoriesof the Future: The Primitivist Project and the Culture

of Modernism. E. Barkan and R. Bush, eds. Pp. 114-30. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Mandelstam Balzer, Marjorie

1996 Introduction. In "Classics" (Stars) of Russian An-thropology. Special issue. Anthropology and Archae-ology of Eurasia 35(3):6-l 1.

Maud, Ralph

1989 The Henry Tate-Franz Boas Collaboration onTsimshian Mythology. American Ethnologist16(1): 158-62.

Michael, Henry N., ed.

1979 A U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on the Peopling ofthe New World. Special issue. Arctic Anthropology16(1).

Michael, Henry N., and James VanStone

1983 Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers froman International Symposium. New York: InternationalResearch and Exchange Board.

National Museum of Natural History

1997 Crossroads in Siberia. National Museum of Natu-ral History Annual Report, 1996. Pp. 5-9. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Ousley, Stephen D.

1995 Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians,and Aleuts: Old Data, New Perspectives. Human Bi-ology 67(3):427-58.

2000 Boas, Brinton, and the Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition: The Return of the Americanoids. EuropeanReview of Native American Studies 14(2): 11-17.

Rasmussen, Knud

1934 Eskimos and Stone Age Peoples. In Proceedingsof the 5th Pacific Science Congress, 4. Pp. 2767-72.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Roon, Tatiana P.

2000 Kollektsii narodov Amuro-Sakhalinskogo regionaV muzeiakh SShA (Ethnographic collections on thepeoples of the Amur-Sakhalin Region in Americanmuseums). Izvestiia Instituta naslediia BronislavaPilsudskogo 4:1 39-57. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

Rudenko, Sergei I.

1947 [1961] Drevniaia kul'tura Beringova moria ieskimosskaia problema (The ancient culture of theBering Sea and the Eskimo problem). Moscow andLeningrad: Glavsevmorput'. Trans. P. Tolstoy. ArcticInstitute of North America, Anthropology of theNorth: Translations from Russian Sources, 1 (Toronto:University of Toronto Press).Sadler, Carolyn, and Laura Greenberg1989 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. An Instructional Guide to the Exhibition, forGrades 7-10. Washington, DC: Office of Education,National Museum of Natural History and TravelingExhibition Service, Smithsonian Institution.Schweitzer, Peter P., and Evgenyi V. Colovko1995 Travelling between Continents: The Social

W. FITZHUCH AND I. KRUPNIK

Organization of Interethnic Contacts across BeringStrait. Anthropology of East Europe Review 1 3(2): 50-5.

Shternberg, Lev

1 999 The Social Organization of the Cilyak. BruceGrant, ed. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 82. New York.

Smith, Barbara S., and D. J. Barrett

1 990 Russian America: The Eorgotten Frontier.Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society.

Stern, Pamela R., George W. Wenzel, and

Sergei Kan, eds.

1997 Power, Resistance, and Continuity:Papers in Honorof Richard C. Condon, Steven L.. McNabb, AleksandrI. Rika, William W. Richards, Nikolai Galgauge, NinaAnkalina, Vera Rakhtilkon, Boris Mymykhtikak, andNikolai Avalnun. Arctic Anthropology 34{]).

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1992 The Ethnographer's Magic and Other Essays inthe History of Anthropology. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1996 Volksgeist as Method and Ethic. Essays onBoasian Ethnography and the German Anthropologi-cal Tradition. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

Thom, Brian

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition. European Review of NativeAmerican Studies 14(2):3-10.

Turner, Christy H.

1 988 Ancient Peoples of the North Pacific Rim. In Cross-roads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska.William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp. 111 -6. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Vakhtin, Nikolai B.

1993 JESUP-2: Novaia programma sotsial'no-antropologicheskikh issledovanii naSevere (JE5UP-2:A new program of social and anthropological re-search in the North). Kunstkamera. Ethnograficheskietetradi 1:211 -3. St. Petersburg.

Varjola, Pirjo

1990 The Etholen Collection: The Ethnographic Alas-kan Collection of Adolf Etholen and His Contempo-raries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki:National Board of Antiquities of Finland.

Wickwire, Wendy C.

1988 James A. Teit: His Contribution to CanadianEthnomusicology. Canadian Journal of Native Stud-ies 8(2): 183-204.

Wixman, Ronald

1988 The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Hand-book. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

INTRODUCTION

*J"he f^esuits of the Jesup Expedition

Opening /\ddres5 at the/\mericani5t5, \J\enna 1 905

oth 1 nternational (^-Ongress o f th e

FRANZ BOAS

Translated by Saskia Wrausmann

If I accept the honor of this invitation to report on theresults ofthejesup North Pacific Expedition, I must firstexpress my deepest regret about the loss of a manwithout whose heartfelt interest in ethnological researchwe would not have been outfitted for this expedition.This spring Morris K.Jesup, president of the 1 3th Inter-national Americanist Congress [in 1902—ed.] and presi-dent of the American Museum of Natural History inNew York, passed away. He lent his continued interestto the development of American science and dedi-cated his great organizational skills and rich resourcestoward the loftiest goals of humankind. For more than25 years, Mr. Jesup was head of administration at theAmerican Museum of Natural History. During those years,he was able to advance not only the natural sciencesbut also anthropology in every possible direction andto foster the value of scientific inquiry in his fellow citi-zens.

I had the honor to lead the largest comprehensivestudy that Mr. Jesup sponsored, the North Pacific Expe-dition. Starting in 1897, we conducted extensive eth-nological and archaeological research on the East Coastof Siberia and the Northwest Coast of America. Thegoal was to investigate how the peoples of this vastterritory interrelate. The expedition itself was completedin 1902. The results of our observations are accessibleto the scientific community in a large number of vol-umes, which should all be completed in about four tofive years. Mr. Jesup himself paid for the expenses in-curred by the expedition and the publications, a totalcost of about $100,000.

Before I discuss the results of the expedition, itseems appropriate to delineate the aspects thatguided the development of my research plan. In myview, the goal of the expedition was to resolve thequestion of how the cultures, languages, and races ofthe Old World relate to those of the New. Of particularinterest was the extent to which Old World influencesextend into the heart of North America, and vice versa.These questions naturally are connected in a funda-mental way to the larger problem of the place of Na-tive Americans among the peoples and races of theworld.

Our theoretical framework is directly linked to newperceptions on the evolutionary history of humankindthat have been recently developed by a number ofresearchers.

In all anthropological investigations, we face thedifficult fundamental question of how to explain simi-larities in cultures that are geographically distinct. Somescholars, in particular those of the British school of an-thropology, consider similarities as evidence for paral-lel evolution of humankind in all parts of the globe. Inits most extreme form, their view proposes that hu-man culture everywhere always follows the same path.Thus, currently existing circumstances represent differ-ent stages in the course of human development. Otherscientists do not feel that similar ethnological appear-ances prove the existence of different developmentalstages but that they are the effect of analogous psy-chological laws which appear with great uniformity inall parts of the world and at all levels of development.

1 7

In opposition to these views is a more individual-ized theory in which culture is a product of a specifichistory and development that relies not only on themental and physical accomplishments of a people butalso acknowledges that new ideas and modes of liv-ing arise through contact with neighboring peoplesand external forces. Supporters of this theory tend toattribute cultural similarities between discrete areas toa common history. Cultural similarities that occur inneighboring areas are interpreted as fairly recent bor-rowings and adaptations. A common ancient culturecore {KulWrgut) explains parallels in distant regions.

Obviously, approaching the issue of cultural resem-blances from a strictly psychological and developmen-tal-historical standpoint makes a research question suchas the one posed by the Jesup Expedition seem im-possible to solve. If all the differences of a restrictedregion are ascribed only to faster or slower culturaldevelopment, or if all the similarities are attributed onlyto common psychological processes, a historicallybased examination of mutual influence in cultural de-velopment is futile.

We must now admit that many of the cultural simi-larities in remote areas are so sporadic and unrelatedthat it is extraordinarily difficult to defend a commonorigin. The wealth of ethnographic information that hascome to light in the past decades points to the ines-capable fact that the customs and innovations of onepeople—say, in North America—can be paralleled bythose of another people in any other part of the globe.Thus, it is undeniable that convergent developmentsand inventions of a people cannot be unequivocallyused as proof of a historical connection because eachwould have to be linked historically to all others. Onthe other hand, we have a wealth of proof regardingthe dissemination of ideas from one people to another.We have convincing evidence that the Verbreit-ungskreise, the expanding circles of cultural achieve-ments, of early, prehistoric times extended very far.The spread of cultivated plants and domesticatedanimals in the New and the Old Worlds, and the

1 8

enormous distribution of complicated folktales, pro-vide clear testimony for widespread diffusion.

These considerations were imperative in workingout the complete plan and in choosing a particularquestion for investigation. It seemed that our methodof research had to be based on the recognition ofhistorical lines of diffusion but should also acknowl-edge similar psychological tendencies in remote areasand among all peoples, which result in parallels thatare not historically caused. If we keep in mind bothsources of cultural similarity, we must demand, in acareful, methodical investigation, that an isolated simi-larity of singular traits should never be seen as proof ofa historical connection. We may only, if there are otherinfluential reasons, work with the hypothesis of lostgeographic links. A historical connection, then, can onlybe considered established when a number of compli-cated cultural forms appear evenly over a contiguousregion, outside of which they are either missing or aredisjointed and fragmentary.

This does not yet demonstrate that certain appear-ances emerge from a single center. However, it is ex-traordinarily likely that related cultural forms blend overthe total area. The question of where a cultural traitwas acquired should be left out of further discussionbecause the present concentration of its distributionprovides only very unreliable evidence for the locationof its first appearance.

For this research technique, the negative element—the absence of typical cultural forms outside an iso-lated region—carries a lot of weight. This circumstancecalls for special care in the collection of evidentialmaterials. I want to emphasize sharply that from thispoint of view, the evidence for a connection betweenthe Melanesian-Malay culture and the northwesternAmerican culture in the sense of Friedrich Ratzel is notconvincing. Instead, one should demand a gradualexploration of a problem that is of such sweeping im-portance.

These observations provide the foundation for theentireJNPE research. Exactly determining the geographic

INTRODUCTION

distribution of ideas and cultural forms, carefully ana-lyzing assumed cultural acquisitions, and studying theconnection between contemporary and prehistoricpopulations within the land stretches in question areall necessary in order to obtain a clear picture of thedevelopment of culture and the distribution of peoplesin all areas.

Most of all, it seemed imperative not to shirk anyeffort in explaining the historical development of theculture of each area. Aside from the geographic com-parison, no research method now seems more prom-ising than surveying how different tribes perceive theirown customs and interpret their own traditions. If it istrue that a large part of every tribe's culture is acquired,then it is no less true that the acquisition only becomesa genuine part of the culture if it fuses with native per-ceptions into a comprehensive whole which has a moreor less expressed character. In other words, the for-eign element in a culture becomes native by beingpermeated by the spirit or style of the native culture.Because of this, knowing the spread of an objectivelysimilar form in connection with its subjective interpre-tation gives us the best method for explaining the pro-cesses that made each culture, in form and content,what it is now; both are naturally in a relationship ofthe closest reciprocity. This point of view gave weightto study of the people's own interpretation of theirtraditions. It thus seemed supremely important to docu-ment the anthropological material through uncensoredaccounts of natives in their own words and in theirown language, to preserve the original meaning. Inaddition, text material gained through such a processprovides an unparalleled basis for purely linguistic re-search. Such research is clearly superior to a simplecollection of vocabulary and grammar and is abso-lutely necessary for our purposes. The division of lan-guages into dialects, word borrowings, tonal and gram-matical influences, and the presence of large morpho-logical groups are all manifestations that are vital inanswering our question.

It hardly needs to be mentioned that the study of

FRANZ BOAS

body types of different peoples should not be ne-glected. A study of the kind I have outlined seemsworthwhile for two reasons. First, we hoped to makean important contribution to our knowledge of therelationships between the indigenous peoples ofAmerica and those of the Old World. Second, we hopedthat studying the historical development of a largearea inhabited by peoples of a simpler culture wouldgive us the means to treat with greater methodologi-cal precision the vexing ethnographic problem of in-dependent invention versus acquisition.

It appears to me now that this method of carefullyanalyzing a geographically connected region throughour work with the goal of clarifying historical associa-tions is vividly justified. We found clear proof of cul-tural acquisition everywhere. Not only that; this methodallowed us to reconstruct population migrations. Thus,the people of the North Pacific coastal region no longerappear to be unchanging, ahistorical entities. We seecultures as changing constantly, each people influencedby its proximal and distal, spatial and temporal, neigh-bors. We recognize that although in the historical sensethese peoples are certainly primitive, the structure oftheir thoughts and beliefs should not be interpreted ascomparable to that of our earliest ancestors and thusplaced neatly within the developmental-historical or-der. Instead one should look for their origin in the com-plex ethnic relationships of all people.

We do not deny that the acquired cognitive mate-rial with which these populations operate has the ten-dency, through certain psychological laws, to take onforms that remind us of distant peoples. We regard theclarification of these psychological factors as one ofthe most important tasks of ethnology. It should resultnot in a simple evolutionary formula that can be ap-plied to all humankind but rather in laws of perception,thought, feeling, and desire that affect the various cul-tural forms of humankind.

Thus, the results of our research complement theconclusions drawn from detailed studies of Africa,Oceania, and early European history.

1 9

After this brief presentation of our research assump-tions, I would like to go on to discuss my course ofaction and the more specific results of the expedition.The people we studied in Asia can be grouped to-gether as the isolated tribes of East Siberia. Four inde-pendent language families are spoken there, from Ja-pan northward to the Bering Strait and westward tothe Kolyma River: Ainu, Gilyak, Chukchee, and Yukaghir.Tungus and Turkish tribes have invaded the region fromthe south, considerably changing the cultural and physi-cal characteristics of some natives. Only the Ainu ofSakhalin Island and Hokkaido Island were not coveredby the original expedition proposal because older re-ports are numerous. Messrs. Waldemar Bogoras, andWaldemar Jochelson, Mrs. Jochelson, Ph.D., and Mr.Berthold Laufer, Ph.D., worked on the Asian side. Later,we were fortunate to receive the assistance for theexpedition of Dr. Leo Shternberg, whose extensiveknowledge of the peoples of the Amur River area is ofgreat importance for our problem. Unfortunately, it wasnot possible to extend our work to the isolated tribesof West Siberia.

The area covered in North America stretches fromthe Bering Strait south to the Columbia River. The tribesthere speak 10 independent languages. We did notconsider two of these tribes, the Eskimo and the SouthAlaskan Tlingit, because other research was available.Unfortunately, it was impossible to include in our ob-servations the Aleut, a tribe whose position is still un-clear. Our main focus incorporated the tribes of theprovince of British Columbia and the state of Washing-ton. Considering our prior knowledge of the Haida,Tsimshian, KwakiutI, and Bella Coola, it seemed advan-tageous to focus our attention on these and otherSalish tribes.John R. Swanton, Ph.D., James Teit, Profes-sor Livingston Farrand, and I conducted this work.Gerard Fowke, on the Asian side, and Harlan I. Smith,on the American side, were responsible for archaeo-logical research. Mr. Bogoras, Mr. Jochelson, Mr.Swanton, and I were especially dedicated to linguisticresearch, with Mr. Bogoras working with the Chukchee

and Koryak, Mr. Jochelson with the Yukaghir, Mr.Swanton with the Haida, and myself with the Tsimshian,KwakiutI, and Salish tribes. Mrs. Jochelson, Ph.D., prima-rily collected anatomical and anthropological materialin Siberia, and I did the same in America. This materialconsists of large collections of photographic types,skeletons and skulls, and measurements taken bothdirectly from humans and from plaster casts, which Ivalue greatly. Naturally, the skeletal material is incon-sistent, since skulls and skeletons are hard to obtain inareas where cremation is practiced or other obstaclesoccur.

In recounting the results of the entire enterprise, Iwill first remark on the stark contrast that has devel-oped between the tribes of the American North andNorthwest and those of the southern parts of NorthAmerica. A comparison of our results with two new,detailed studies of the Plains Indians and the tribes ofCalifornia and the Western Plateau area of North Americaconvinced me that the tribes of the Pacific states, in-cluding the larger part of California and the Arctic Coast,are marginal populations, in the sense of Friedrich Ratzel.Undoubtedly, these cultures originally covered a muchlarger part of northern North America. The more wefamiliarize ourselves with the specific ritual culture ofthe southern Indian tribes of the Union, and the moredetails of their art we understand, the better we candisregard the secondarily formed perceptions of theworld that distinguish the culture circles of NorthAmerica, and the clearer it becomes that they appearto be gradually attenuating from south to north andthat we may in all likelihood be seeing the northernripples of the Central and South American culture circle.Two Kulturstmme, or cultural flows, seem to have ad-vanced northward from Mexico across the deserts andsteppes of the Southwest, as well as from the Antilles.These migrations make North American culture andthe central areas of both North and South Americaappear to be a unique entity.

I am therefore impelled to assert that the culturecircle of the Arctic and Pacific Coasts, including the

20

INTRODUCTION

larger part of California, represents an older Americanculture type that has been barely touched by the ex-pansion of the civilized American peoples. What weusually call typically American represents a blendingof the cultures of the larger part of the continent, whichtook place relatively recently, without reaching thesouthernmost and northernmost parts of the hemi-sphere. The expansion of Indian maize cultivation, tothe extent that it is independent of climatic condi-tions, clearly demonstrates the aforementioned con-trast.

The northwestern peoples of the American coastseem to have originally had an intimate connectionwith the isolated peoples of East Siberia. The problemthat confronts us here is perhaps one of the most dif-ficult and strangest that we encountered during ourresearch expedition. In superficial observations, simi-larities in the cultural lives of East Siberian coastalpeoples such as the Chukchee and Koryak and of theEskimo are noticeable. It would seem as if the coastalChukchee and Koryak possessed the main character-istics of the Eskimo culture. On the other hand, a sig-nificant contrast appears between the inhabitants ofthe coast of British Columbia and the shores of the Seaof Okhotsk. Nevertheless, a comparison of the mytho-logical repertoire of these peoples teaches us that awidespread concurrence is found between East Sibe-ria and the southern parts of the North Pacific Coast.Mr. Jochelson, Mr. Ehrenreich, and I discussed a numberof these parallels at length, so that I can point out herethat an association between American and Asian mo-tifs undoubtedly exists. I will mention here only magicflight, a complicated myth motif that is common andwell developed only in northwestern America, althoughit does seem to have reached far into the prairie andthe South.

It is certainly not insignificant that the Raven playsa prominent role as ancestor and sometimes as cre-ator in the mythology of East Siberian peoples. TheRaven has the same role with the North Pacific peoplesof America. The interpretation of this similarity is made

considerably more difficult by the fact that neighbor-ing Indians heavily influence the Eskimo from Alaskaeast to the Mackenzie River. We know that Indian ani-mal mythology plays an equally important role. Un-doubtedly, the mythological repertoire of the entireNorth Pacific Coast, starting from the Sea of Okhotskeast and south to the Columbia River, contains manycommon elements.

However, there is an important difference here. WhileEskimo animal mythology, as far as I know, is largelynewly acquired, the Indian-like myths of the East Asianpeoples such as the Koryak are much older. I am im-pelled to assume a very old association in that direc-tion, and it does seem likely that an ancient connec-tion existed between the peoples of the Sea of Okhotskand the Indians of British Columbia—a connection thatcould be older than the arrival of the Eskimo at theBering Strait.

At present, we are not able to answer this impor-tant question with full conviction. We do hope, how-ever, that archaeological explorations along the coastof Alaska will give us a definitive answer. This hoperelies mainly on the sharply defined physical type ofthe Eskimo, which differs so much from that of neigh-boring peoples that a row of Eskimo skulls can bereadily recognized as such. If other types were to bediscovered in older layers on the shores of the BeringSea, we would have proof that the Eskimo of Alaskashould be looked at as later migrants from the moreeastern regions of the (North) American Arctic.

I would like to point out a phenomenon that I findsignificant and that reopens in a certain sense the Boyd-Dawkins theory of a possible connection betweenprehistoric Europe and the Eskimo. As is well known,Boyd-Dawkins compared the occurrence of Paleolithicharpoon types and carvings with those of the Eskimoand concluded that their obvious similarities meant apossible connection between the two. One must nowrecognize that although harpoons are found almosteverywhere, the unique tools with holes in them, andthe tendency toward artistically realistic objects, are

FRANZ BOAS

hardly found in the same pattern of association. Nowone must emphasize that the ornamental designs ofprehistoric Europe also show a distinctive similarity tothe designs of Arctic America. For example, a designof two carved parallel lines with short alternately placedgrooves that point inward at a right angle and, whenwide enough, create a zigzag pattern can be found inboth areas, on ivory or bone. As far as I know, thisdesign has not been discovered in any other part ofthe globe. I do not want to draw from these similari-ties the conclusion that the Boyd-Dawkins theory isproved. I do believe, however, that these similaritiesdeserve our continued attention by way of keeping inmind the possibility of cultural links.

Given the importance of this question, it seemsappropriate to examine more closely the range of thementioned ornamental types. When compared withthe older collections from Europe, the collections madeduring the Jesup Expedition prove that the types anddesigns in Siberia evidently occur up to the Lena River,and in North America all the way east to northernGreenland. I myself have had the opportunity to in-spect large collections from southern Greenland. How-ever, my friend Dr. Thalbitzer tells me that he has seenno types of this sort in the Greenlandic collection inCopenhagen. I do not know whether these ornamen-tal types exist in prehistoric western Siberia and in Russia.

Let us now turn to a discussion of the relationshipof languages and the anthropological types of North-west America and Northeast Asia.

According to the data collected by Mr. Bogorasand Mr. Jochelson, it seems safe to say that the iso-lated languages of Northeast Asia cannot be sepa-rated from the American languages on the basis ofphonetic and morphological characteristics. However,one must remember that a unity of all American lan-guages, in the form proposed by earlier researchers,does not exist. Instead, we can group the colorfulmultitude of American languages into a number ofmorphological categories that display significant, evenfundamental, differences among each other. Neither

incorporation nor polysynthesis can be considered aspecifically American language trait. The interpretationof these language family groups whose genetic rela-tion cannot yet be determined causes the same prob-lems in America as in other continents. I assume thatthis phenomenon is similar to the one that led Mr.Wilhelm Schmidt to group so many of the languagesof Southeast Asia together and on which Lepsius al-ready focused in his study of African languages.

Whatever the later interpretation of this problemmay be, it does seem confirmed that the eastern groupof the isolated Siberian languages leans more towardAmerica than toward Central Asia and that if one mustdraw a line, they are best categorized with the Ameri-can languages.

Physical anthropology studies in the area in ques-tion reveal similar conditions. Because of intrusions byTungus and Yakut [Sakha—ed.] tribes. Northeast Sibe-rian tribes undoubtedly undera/ent assimilation, so that,for example, the Yukaghir have strong blood relationswith the Tungus and Yakut. The Mongolian features ofthe Northeast Siberian peoples, which are especiallyexpressed in the shape of the eye and nose, are thusstrongly developed. On the other hand, the develop-ment of the cheekbones seems at the very least lessprominent in the tribes of the Far East, such as theChukchee and Koryak, than in the Yakut.

In America, the purely Mongolian features increasesignificantly toward the Northwest. First and foremost,the strong development of the nose in the AmericanNorthwest disappears, as is typical among the peoplesof Asia. The "Mongoloid eye" is more strongly devel-oped, although not with the same intensity as in Asia.The face shape approaches the flat Asiatic shape moreand more, and even the skin color varies little betweenAsiatic and American peoples.

So, it seems that the native Siberians and the Ameri-cans of the Northwest Coast constitute one entity.

I am perhaps permitted to rephrase the problemof the position of the Native American population inlight of this new information. Everything leads me to

INTRODUCTION

believe that humans have inhabited America for a longtime. It has not yet been decided whether the migra-tion occurred before or after the last Ice Age, but allcriticism by geologists notwithstanding, an early mi-gration may be supported in all probability. If we mayassume such an early migration in America, it does notseem impossible that the isolated peoples of Siberiarepresent a postglacial back-migration out of America.On the other hand, it may also be possible that thewhite race, which has flooded the entire globe overthe course of time, originally appeared as a localizedvariety.

Let us turn from these general questions, whichinevitably lead to more or less uncertain hypotheses,to the specific results of the Jesup Expedition. I wouldfirst like to note that we were able to prove a signifi-cant number of shifts of populations and culture inAmerica and Asia. Mr. Harlan I. Smith's archaeologicalresearch and the linguistic studies conducted by Mr.James Teit and myself all led to the same conclusion.The distribution of peoples in southern British Colum-bia has been changed by a wave of migration thatbrought Salish tribes from the interior across the RockyMountains to the coast. The coastal inhabitants haveculturally assimilated these tribes almost completely.We have here the interesting theoretical example inwhich a totem and clan organization was acquired bya tribe that previously had a simple family organiza-tion. This transition has been found in a number of tribesthat were subjected to the cultural influences of thecoast. Thus we cannot assume the typically unspeci-fied development from totem organization to a sim-pler form.

Our in-depth anthropological study of the residentsof northern Vancouver Island supports the fact thatthe Native tribe here originally had a close connectionto the tribes of the Columbia River. These relationswould have been subsequently interrupted by the im-migration of inland tribes.

A second interesting migration wave can be fol-lowed in northern British Columbia. The Tsimshian are

part of the groups of the Alaskan coastal regions, whichare characterized by strongly expressed high culture.Their myths and basic religious beliefs, however, pointto a close association with the population of the north-ern section of the West American Plateau area. Morespecifically, these data point directly toward a con-nection with the cultural group represented by theNorthern Shoshone. To fully clarify the matter, we willlook at the extensive collection of material from thewestern parts of the Mackenzie River basin. It has al-ready been determined that the Tsimshian can be con-sidered new settlers in the coastal region. It is remark-able that their type of language is completely isolatedand that it seems to be most closely related to theShoshone and Kutenai groups.

I have already discussed the probable shift of theEskimo westward.

Unfortunately, there is a total lack of precise infor-mation on the Aleut information that is imperativefor a comprehensive solution to the problem we arediscussing here. We should therefore greet with joyMr. Waldemar Jochelson's preparations to study theAleut in connection with the large Raboushinsky Expe-dition that has been planned.

Aside from the more recent and documented inva-sions by the Tungus and Yakut in Northern Siberia, nosimilar larger movements can be proved in Asia. Mr.Bogoras and Mr. Jochelson have shown that theKamchadal, the Koryak, and the Chukchee comprise alinguistic unit and that their original range of distribu-tion reached as far west as the Kolyma River. Mr.jochelson has finally determined the Chuvan people tobe a branch of the Yukaghir. j

One of the most important cultural-historical factsemerging from the expedition's research relates to thedomestication of reindeer in East Asia and the con-spicuous and complete lack thereof in America. Toput it briefly, it seems that West Siberian peoples usereindeer in the same way as their neighbors use cattle.The Central Siberians use the reindeer like Turkishpeople use the horse. In contrast East Siberians now

FRANZ BOAS

use reindeer more like they once used the dog. Fromthese and other facts, we may draw the conclusionthat rein-deer breeding everywhere adjusts to the olderculture of a people or to the cultural forms of its neigh-bors. With the East Siberian peoples, everything seemsto support the idea that perhaps only a few centuriesago the Chukchee, as well as the Koryak, were purelycoastal inhabitants with economic practices not un-like those of the Eskimo. A strong proliferation of thesetribes and a peopling of the interior seem to have hap-pened only after the reindeer gradually started replac-ing the dog. Considering the lively exchange betweenAsia and America in the area of the Bering Strait, thecomplete lack of the reindeer culture alongside a livelytrade in other cultural attainments in America can hardlybe explained otherwise. A confirmation of this viewalso results from the unusual lack of adaptation of theChukchee dwelling to the demands of the nomadiclifestyle. The Chukchee tent is to be understood archi-tecturally as an adaptation to the nomadic lifestyle of

the Eskimo-type subterranean dwelling. In its heavyclumsiness, it differs surprisingly from the easily mobiletent of the Eskimo.

I cannot discuss here in detail every conclusion ofour whole endeavor. As expected, the members ofthe expedition have collected a wealth of ethnologi-cal, linguistic, and anthropological data. We originallyestimated that these materials would be published in1 2 quarto volumes. Now that about 7 volumes havebeen published, we realize that there is too much in-formation for the planned size of the publication. How-ever, I hope we will reach a satisf/ing conclusion forthe exploration Mr. Jesup so generously organized bypublishing its complete results.

Note

This is a translation of Franz Boas (1 91 0), DieResultate der Jesup Expedition. InternationalerAmehcanisten-Kongress 16, 1908. Erste Hdlfte, pp.3-1 8 (Vienna and Leipzig: A. Hartleben's Verlag).Printed as a separate issue in 1909.

INTRODUCTION

In Memort) of Douglas Co'e, 1 5^55-~l ^5>7

IGOR KRUPNIK

Douglas Lowell Cole, of Simon Fraser University, diedsuddenly of a heart attack on August 18, 1997. Hewas not quite 59, and his death came as an unex-pected tragedy. It happened three months before theJesup Expedition Centennial Conference in New York in1997, where Cole was to deliver a plenary review pa-per with the same title as his chapter in this volume.His life and professional career have been covered atlength by several posthumous publications, (see Cole,this volume), to which an interested reader can turn.

In this era of virtual communications, personal con-nections are built quite differently than in the time ofBoas and the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. I nevermet Douglas Cole in person, and we spoke by phonebut once. Introduction to each other, progress in un-derstanding, and building of mutual respect all tookplace in cyberspace. The communication lasted forabout a year, and it left a file of some 40 e-mail lettersand messages. This is, of course, not much, but theresult is this contribution of Cole to the Jesup volumeand our deep sense of a sad loss.

In April 1996, Douglas Cole sent me a short letterexpressing his interest in our forthcoming collection ofpapers on Boas and the Jesup Expedition. Of course,we knew of his book on the history of the NorthwestCoast museum collections, Captured Heritage (1985),and of his many other publications on Northwest Coasthistory and Franz Boas. In response, I wrote to himabout the Jesup 2 program and invited him to exchangesome materials of mutual interest. Intrigued, Cole of-fered to send us a rough cut excerpt of sections onthe Jesup Expedition from his forthcoming biography

of Boas for comments, advice, and criticism. As weread this first pasted draft, I invited him to rework itinto a review paper on the expedition's history for ourcollection of Jesup essays. Within four months, we re-ceived a 60-page manuscript.

This is however only part of the story. Douglas Colehad his special and quite distinctive view of Boas as aperson and a scientist and of Boas' interactions withother prominent personalities of the time, and he didnot flinch when his revisionist opinions contradictedmany a popular perspective. In any convention ofmodern Boasian admirers, Douglas Cole was an indis-pensable and a challenging ingredient. His initial evalu-ation of the Jesup Expedition as an artificially inflatedventure and merely a Boas failure was highly provoca-tive, at the least, and it was largely unfair, to our minds.

In underlining this, I offered to include Cole's paperin our Jesup 2 volume as a "voice of dissent," reservingour right as editors to submit an editorial rejoinder.Although tough as an opponent, Douglas Cole wasvery keen in accepting criticism. Several letters followed,and many comments and materials were exchanged.The final result of this interaction is presented in thenext chapter. It preserves Cole's original critical stand,though moderated to mutual satisfaction.

Douglas Cole did not live to see the publication in1999 of his major scholarly volume, Franz Boas. TheEarly Years, 1858-1906, or to personally meet the net-work of Jesup 2 researchers. This loss to our commonstudies of the Jesup Expedition history and legacy isindeed irreplaceable. We will miss Douglas Cole andhis insights tremendously for many years to come.

IGOR KRUPNIK

4/ Camp of the Reindeer Koryak and herd of reindeer, with the Jochelsons' field tent in the middle, 1901(AMNH 4168)

26

THE EXPEDITION: HEMISPHERIC PERSPECTIVES

i

Tiding

(Undertaken htj f\/[uscum"?

Y'ranz £)oa5, Morns Jesup, and the fNjorth f acifi'c Expedition

DOUGLAS COLE

Franz Boas was a curator in the Department of Anthro-pology at the American IVIuseum of Natural History(AMNH) for almost 10 years, from January 1 896 untilMay 1905. From this Central Park West locale, he initi-ated numerous projects, some of which, such as anAfrican and Asian missionary collection, were fruitlessand forgotten. He invested his greatest ambition inthree major museum initiatives: an East Asiatic projectwhich, beginning with China, would move to the Phil-ippines and Malaya; a North American "VanishingTribes" project that hoped to salvage ethnological andlinguistic information from the scores of North Ameri-can Native groups endangered by Euro-American settle-ment; and the jesup North Pacific Expedition to inves-tigate groups on both sides of the Bering Strait.

The East Asiatic project placed Berthold Laufer inChina from 1901 to 1904 but then collapsed. "Vanish-ing Tribes" went on fruitfully, though never at Boas'desired pace, both under him and under his successor,Clark Wissler. The Jesup Expedition, the most cherishedof Boas' museum projects, ran for its full five years,produced a large quantity of publications, and exer-cised a continuing influence on research, especially onthe western side of the Bering Strait. It was the show-piece of Boas' association with the AMNH. Recentevaluations of the Jesup Expedition have been kind.The expedition was "an anthropological tour deforce," a "grandiose, brilliantly conceptualized, andmasterfully orchestrated attack on one of the mostimportant problems in American anthropology"

(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988; 14) that "still ranks as theforemost expedition in the history of American anthro-pology" (Freed et al. 1 988b:7).

The prime instigators had more ambivalent feel-ings. To AMNH President Morris K. Jesup, the expedi-tion had, by the time of his death in early 1908, be-come a matter of "many disappointments," "an enter-prise that has involved expense and anxiety out of allproportion to the representations that were originallymade" Oesup to Osborne, 30 April 1906, AMNH, File293b). Boas, too, faltered in his faith. Although he pub-licly praised Jesup and the expedition, he privately ex-pressed a wish to "simply dump the whole Jesup Ex-pedition and concern myself no further with it" (FranzBoas to Sophie Boas, 18 March 1909, APS).'

Background

Born in Prussian Westphalia and educated at Heidel-berg, Bonn, and Kiel, Boas began his anthropologicalwork during a yearlong expedition to Baffin Island. Hesought a position, preferably in the United States, butcould find nothing except a temporary assistantshipat Berlin's Royal Ethnological Museum. There he en-countered its recent, rich Northwest Coast collectionsand had an opportunity to study briefly a group oftouring Bella Coola [Nuxalk]. All the more intent on anAmerican career (and, cherche la femme, on seeing hisNew York fiancee), he traveled to New York and,borrowing money from relatives, made a first visitto the Northwest Coast. He was then asked by the

2 9

Northwest Tribes Committee of the British Associationfor the Advancement of Science (BAAS) to survey theNative tribes of British Columbia, which were threat-ened by settlers brought in by the recently completedCanadian Pacific Railway. Boas made five more trips tothe Northwest, on behalf of the BAAS or with the sup-port of the American Bureau of Ethnology. In the mean-time, he had secured a position with Science, a weeklyNew York journal, and had married Marie Krackowitzer,the American-born daughter of an Austrian "Forty-Eighter," one of the liberal-minded Germans who hadleft after the disappointment of the Revolution of 1848.

Boas had come to the United States in part be-cause of the opportunity it offered as a raw scientificfield. But rawness carried, as he soon found, the prob-lem of there being few positions. He suffered a seriesof false starts: at Science, at the new Clark University[in Worcester, Mass.], at the Chicago World's Fair [the1893 World's Columbian Exposition], and at Chicago'snew Field Museum. In 1896, however, his chief at theChicago Fair, Frederic W. Putnam, who had becomecurator of anthropology at the AMNH as well as direc-tor of Harvard University's Peabody Museum, wedgedhim into an assistant curatorial position at AMNH anda lecturer's appointment at Columbia College. Fromthese posts. Boas' training, disciplinary breadth, abil-ity, and incredible industriousness allowed him to be-come a commanding presence in his field.

Boas had arrived at the AMNH at a bad time. Thecountry was in a severe depression, with the museum'strustees and donors made all the more nervous by thegrowth of the populism, free silver, and single tax move-ments. The Anthropology Department received no ac-quisition budget in 1896, and the museum's president,Morris K. Jesup, soon had regrets that he had taken onBoas' salary commitment. Jesup had, however, alreadydecided that the Anthropology Department, alongwith vertebrate paleontology, should receive prioritytreatment. To this end he had hired Putnam, the bestman he could get as curator, and had agreed to takeon Boas as an associate curator.

The accidental arrival of a damaged collection ofBritish Columbian artifacts in New York allowed Boasto breakJesup's budget restrictions, although the presi-dent expressed surprise that the museum's NorthwestCoast collections, among its strongest areas, shouldneed supplementing. Boas assured him that it wouldbe the easiest matter in the world to spend $3,000 onthat region (Boas to Putnam, 1 8 December 1 896, HUA,Box 8). Since this area of the KwakiutI [Kwak-waka'wakw], Bella Coola [Nuxalk], and Salish was hisspecial interest. Boas was anxious to fill gaps. The sal-vage purchase was a mere tidbit. Boas had his eye onmuch more.

He realized immediately the value to research andcollecting represented by the wealth of the AMNH'strustees and friends. Late in 1896, he drafted a letterto Henry Villard, sponsor of the museum's Peru andBolivia expeditions, proposing that Villard, the formerpresident of the Northern Pacific Railway and now pro-prietor of the Evening Po5f (and a fellow German Ameri-can), contribute toward filling the gap. With severalthousand dollars over the next two years. Boas wrote,the museum "should have the most thorough and Imay say a complete collection from the region be-tween Columbia River and Mt. St. Elias" (Boas to Villard,23 December 1896, AMNH, Acc. 1897-30). The letterproved unnecessary. Jesup himself soon took up a muchmore extensive proposal for an elaborate explorationof the anthropological affinities between Asia and NorthAmerica.'^

Boas put this idea, which had matured for well overa year, before Jesup on January 19, 1897. Describingthe question of the influence between Old and NewWorld cultures as one of the most important problemsof American anthropology. Boas proposed in his letterto Jesup a systematic ethnological and archaeologicalinvestigation of both sides of the North Pacific. (SeeAppendix A, this chapter). Fragmentary study, he wrote,had demonstrated the commonality of certain culturalelements in the two regions. Bows, body armor, andcanoes, for example, had common features. The great

30

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

diversity of language along both coasts was striking,but since the languages on the Asian side were practi-cally unknown, it was unclear whether there were anyactual linguistic similarities. Particular points of mytho-logical coincidence suggested early communication.Northwest Coast Indians physically resembled theAsians more than did any other American stock.

In short, there are so many points of similar-ity between the tribes of this whole regionthat we are justified in expecting that here amutual influence between the cultures of theOld and of the New World has existed. Thusa foundation for the solution of this impor-tant problem with all its important bearingsupon the ancient civilisation of America maybe laid in this region. (Boas to Jesup, 1 9January 1897, HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 16)

Conveying his ingrained sense of salvage urgency,Boas noted that everywhere, but especially on theAsian side, the culture of the people was rapidly dis-appearing "and the whole work is becoming more dif-ficult from year to year."^

Jesup's imagination was struck by the great prob-lem of Asian-American contacts. He "got very muchinterested in that question" (Putnam 1902) and, in hisannual report written in January 1897 commented that"the theory that America was originally peopled bymigrating tribes from the Asian continent" was a sub-ject of great interest to scientists. Opportunities forsolving this problem were rapidly disappearing, Jesupcontinued, and he then asked that friends of the mu-seum contribute toward a systematic investigation ofthe problem Qesup 1897:24-5).

Before there was an opportunity for a response tohis appeal, Jesup himself jumped. On February 9 hetold Boas that he wanted personally to take up theplan and asked for a detailed scheme for carrying itout. Boas was overwhelmed. "Mr. Jesup looks at theproposed expedition in the light that it will be thegreatest thing ever undertaken by any Museum eitherhere or abroad and that it will give the Institution anunequalled standing in scientific circles" (Boas to Putnam,11 February 1 897, HUA, Box 8; emphasis added)." Thus

DOUGLAS COLE

began the Jesup North Pacific Expedition to investi-gate affinities between the peoples of Northeast Asiaand Northwest America.

Jesup's move was not uncharacteristic. A self-mademan of considerable wealth, generous with his timeand money, he had always been sympathetic to granddesigns and large-scale ideas: he had underwritten theJesup Collection of North American Woods, some 10years in acquisition, and the Jesup Collection of Eco-nomic Entomology and was now supporting the polaraspirations of Commander Robert E. Peary. Boas hadput before him a vast project that promised to ad-dress the fundamental question of the relationshipbetween Asia and aboriginal America. He acceptedthe challenge.

Jesup's decision launched Boas into frenzied ac-tion. He visited Leonhard Stejneger, a Smithsonian natu-ralist familiar with the Siberian coast, in Washington,D.C., and wrote to some orientalists to ask about youngmen suitable for Siberian work. The matter was madeall the more urgent because Jesup had seized on theexpedition as a lever for securing another museum wingfrom the New York state legislature. The public an-nouncement, made a little too hastily for Boas' tastebut dictated by the state assembly's calendar, wasreleased for March 12 newspaper editions. (Boas hadto provide details and corrections to reporters overthe next two days.) "The main object of the expedi-tion is to investigate and establish the ethnologicalrelations between the races of America and Asia, andis intended as a contribution to the solution of thatquestion." Field parties would work on the AmericanWest Coast, along the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk,and in the northern portion of the Bering Sea. The ex-pedition will be the greatest, it is said, in point of timespent and territory traversed ever backed by privateindividuals in this line of research" {New York Times, 1 3March 1897, 2:5).

The roots of Boas' intercontinental project, nowJesup's, reached back to well before Boas' employ-ment in Jesup's museum. In 1895 Boas had sounded

3 1

out people in Berlin about a prospective fieldworkerand had then investigated, through Stejneger, trans-portation routes to Siberia's Amur River region(Stejneger to Boas, 16 November, 11 December 1 895).An expedition, he told Berlin sinologist Wilhelm Crube,"had in the last year almost come to fruition twice"(Boas to Grube, reported in Boas to Laufer, 5 May 1896,AMNH, Acc. 1900-12). What Boas meant, at a timewhen he was without a position, is unclear, but hecertainly foresaw an investigation of the relationshipbetween Siberian and Northwest American groups.

During that same Berlin summer he had raised, moreexplicitly than ever, the question of the probable con-nections between Asian and American peoples. A num-ber of complicated British Columbian myths, he toldthe Berlin Geographical Society, showed such similar-ity with Old World myths that a cultural connectionbetween the two continents was very probable. Thedistribution of other phenomena, including physicaltype, pressed toward the same conclusion and madeit probable that firm links between the cultural areas ofboth worlds would be found (Boas 1895b:266-70).

Boas' interest in the question of intercontinentalrelationships arose in large part from the publicationthat summer of his book Indianische Sagen (Boas1895a). Breaking up myths into elements, he showedthe mixture of these among the coastal and interiorgroups of the Northwest and traced some far beyond,to the Mackenzie and Mississippi River basins, the NorthAtlantic coast, and along the Arctic, to Greenland. Themythologies of the Northwest tribes also incorporatedforeign elements from the Old World.

According to a letter Boas wrote to a German edi-tor in 1897, he had long collected collaborating datafor the mutual influences of the coastal inhabitants ofthese areas. His reading of Georg Steller's 18th-cen-tury description of Kamchatka "transposes me almostdirectly into familiar Northwest American surroundings,"but he had been especially struck by Grube's recentarticle in Globus on shamanism among the Nanaypeople of Siberia's lower Amur River (Boas to Andree,

32

4 May 1897, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File). Some legendsrecounted there coincided almost exactly with thoseof the Northwest Coast, which, more importantly, werelimited in North America solely to those coastal groups.^Other data argued emphatically for an early influenceon Northwest Coast cultures.

The Jesup Expedition would be pursued within theresearch strategy that Boas had now developed. Thiswas to be an explicit demonstration of the efficacy ofthe historical method of anthropological research. "Ibelieve," he wrote to Globus editor Richard Andree,"that our science urgently requires an investigation ofthe historical development of the cultures of primitivepeoples in order to obtain a clear understanding of thelaws of cultural development." The Jesup Expeditionwould cover an area "unusually favorable" for such amethod since "the major influences have occurred alonga direct coastline" (Boas to Andree, 4 May 1 897, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File). This would be an opportunity. Boastold Edward. B. Tylor, for a rigid adherence to the his-torical method, whose superiority over the compara-tive method he had recently asserted in a paper at theBuffalo meeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS). "I want to investi-gate the geographical distribution of certain customsand characteristics over continuous areas." The histori-cal method meant that "we shall not obtain dazzlingresults, but I hope such as will stand the criticism oflater times" (Boas to Tylor, 13 April 1897, Balfour Li-brary, Oxford, Tylor Papers). The Buffalo paper, "TheLimitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropol-ogy," had been a reassertion of Boas' decade-old pointthat generalization must come from careful investiga-tion and induction, not from a priori assumptions. Themethod required a limitation to a restricted and well-defined territory, with comparisons that did not ex-tend beyond the limits of the cultural area itself.

A detailed study of customs in their relationto the total culture of the tribe practicingthem, in connection with an investigation oftheir geographical distribution amongneighboring tribes, affords us almost always

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

a means of determining with considerableaccuracy the historical causes that led to theformation of the customs in question and tothe psychological processes that were atwork in their development. (Boas 1896b)

Boas' criticism was methodological and was con-cerned in large part with the weakness of the "com-parative method" (Carneiro 1973; Leopold 1980; Stock-ing 1987), but he did mention the research area thathe already had in mind. While no one believed thatslight similarities between Central American and EastAsian cultures were satisfactory proof of a historicalconnection, "no unbiased observer will deny that thereare very strong reasons for believing that a limited num-ber of cultural elements found in Alaska and in Siberiahave a common origin" (Boas 1896b, 1940:277).^

Fieldwork in America's North Pacific Region

The first season's work of the Jesup Expedition wouldbe confined to British Columbia in order to give Boastime to organize the Siberian work for the followingyear. He had already been planning a summer trip tothe coast, partly in the museum's interest, partly toprepare a final report for the BAAS's Northwest Tribescommittee. He had originally arranged for only a two-month trip, one month of which would be withoutmuseum pay, although with BAAS assistance.'' Now itbecame a four-month first field season of the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition.

"I go west better equipped than ever before," hewrote before his May departure (Boas to parents, 9April 1897). More money was part of it; so too was hisnew intimacy with the museum's collection. Equallysatisf/ing was the presence of collaborators and com-panions who, though often pursuing their own assignedwork, would be with him much of the summer.

He was mostly with Harlan Smith, the taciturn youngman from East Saginaw, N.Y., whom he had knownsince the Chicago Fair. Smith was just 25. A boyhoodinterest in Indian remains had led him to Putnam andarchaeology. Boas liked the bachelor archaeologist."His heart is in the right place and he is absolutely

reliable," but he doubted that Smith would ever amountto much in archaeology. Although resourceful, clever,and good with his hands. Smith lagged behind in any-thing to do with real scholarship. The "many gaps" inhis knowledge were obvious, his questions were "un-believably simple," and he was unable to "see the con-nection between his work and the general broad ques-tions of anthropology" (Boas to parents, 1 5 August1897; F. Boas to M. Boas, 21 August 1897; Boas toPutnam, 10 April 1900, HUA, Putnam Papers).

A second companion was 30-year-old Columbiapsychologist Livingston Farrand, who now lectured inethnology as well. Farrand, totally inexperienced infield-work, wanted to apprentice with Boas and volunteeredto go west at his own expense. That had not goneover well with Jesup, who, taking a "narrow-minded"view, wanted no outsiders on his great expedition (Boasto parents, 9 April 1987). Boas' long letter turned thesituation, and although Farrand's field assignments werelargely separate from his own. Boas found that Farrand'sgaiety, unassuming naturalness, and good mannersmade him a pleasant companion (F. Boas to parents, 9April, 27 May, 15 June 1897; reproduced in Rohner1969:206).

The three New Yorkers arrived in British Columbiaat the beginning of June and traveled immediately toSpences Bridge in the southern interior. There they ren-dezvoused with James Teit, the Scotsman whom Boashad first met in 1894. Teit had prepared things well,securing local NIaka'pamux [Thompson Indians] for thephysical measurements that Boas wished to take. WhileSmith went on to dig in Kamloops and Lytton (seeThom, this volume), Boas and Farrand, guided by Teit,began a long horseback trip northwestward along theEraser River, across the Chilcotin plateau, and over theCoast Range to the Bella Coola [Nuxalk] on the Pacific.Farrand detached himself at Puntzi Lake when Boasdecided that the Chilcotin were so interesting thatthey deserved a month of Farrand's time. The over-land journey took 38 often unpleasant days: rainpoured over the 10-horse pack train in the usually dry

DOUGLAS COLE

interior, bogging down the horses. Rations seldomstrayed from beans and bacon. Natives along the waywere not keen to allow themselves to be measured.Only the beauty of the mountains and valleys mademuch of the journey rewarding.

Bella Coola, remote as it was, came as a relief. ThereBoas found a welcome bed at the home of JohnClayton, a local storekeeper, and enjoyed the dietarychange to fresh salmon. More important, George Hunt,Boas' collaborator from Fort Rupert, had done his ad-vance work well. The two worked together everymorning, going over the Kwak'wala texts that Hunthad been sending East, with the balance of the dayspent investigating Bella Coola religious ideas.

Boas then went north to Port Essington on theSkeena River to measure, make casts, and identifymuseum pieces. There he met Charles Edenshaw, aHaida artist, and hired him to identify items from themuseum's collection and to show him something ofnorthern art and the basics of Haida ethnology. Boasthen spent two weeks with Hunt among theKwakwaka'wakw [Kwakiult] of Rivers Inlet. That con-cluded Boas' fieldwork. He met up with Farrand, andthe two left for New York, while Smith stayed on withhis excavations until winter rains drove him home inmid-November.

Boas was pleased with the season. They had madeover a hundred plaster-of-paris facial casts and manymore body measurements. Boas had enough informa-tion from Edenshaw to write the first contribution tothe Jesup Expedition series, "Facial Paintings of the In-dians of Northern British Columbia" (Boas 1898a), whichenlarged on the place of geometric design in North-west Coast decorative art. He had also corrected andrevised over 300 pages of Hunt's texts and had gath-ered new material, all of which was published as "TheMythology of the Bella Coola Indians" (Boas 1898b),on the peculiar cosmology of that group. Farrand, un-fortunately, "had not done very much" (F. Boas to M.Boas, 1 3 September 1897). The Chilcotin had beenless than cordial, and Farrand had not been able to

find a good interpreter. His collection of legends, how-ever incomplete, did show "a not very rich indepen-dent mythology, but a surprising receptivity to foreigninfluences" (Farrand 1900:4).

Smith's archaeological results seemed very impor-tant. The older shell mounds of the coast revealed askull type resembling that of the interior, while yet olderones contained deformed skulls related to those ofthe Koskimo Kwakiutl. This seemed to indicate that atan earlier time a rather uniform population had pre-vailed along the coast from the Columbia River tonorthern British Columbia and that the various typesnow found on the coast stemmed from migration ofIndians from the interior, with the earlier populationprevailing now only on the Columbia River and north-ern Vancouver Island (Boas, unpublished lectures, Feb-ruary 1898:17; Seattle 1985).

Boas did not participate in the next two Jesup Ex-pedition field seasons. Farrand returned to the coast in1 898 to investigate two Olympic Peninsula groups,the Quinault and the Quileute. Despite considerabledisappointment, he collected enough to show a mythtransition from the Northwest Coast toward the Chi-nook (Farrand and Kahnweiler 1902:79-80). In the sameseason. Smith made excavations in Puget Sound andat Lillooet and then continued his archeological workin 1899 on Vancouver Island. The results seemed toconfirm an early migration from the interior to the coastand to Vancouver Island that carried with it the art ofstone chipping and geometric decoration (Smith1907:439).

Boas himself went west in 1900, the fourth year ofthe expedition. His field season in British Columbia wasrelatively simple: six days with Teit in the Nicola Valleyand then two full months at Alert Bay.

Teit had proved to be the treasure that Boas hadanticipated at their first meeting in 1894. At that timeTeit, age 30, had been in British Columbia for 12 years.Raised in the Shetland Islands, he had left school at 16and two years later had joined an uncle who ran astore in Spences Bridge. Teit was soon drawn into the

34

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

Native world: within three years of his arrival he wasliving with Lucy Antko, a NIaka'pamux woman whomhe officially married in 1892 (Wickwire 1993). He madehis living by a variety of frontier occupations: packing,guiding, freighting, and serving as a big-game huntingguide. By the time Boas met him, Teit was already se-riously studying the Indians around him. By 1900 hehad finished, in addition to several small pieces, a vol-ume containing Thompson [NIaka'pamux] texts and areview of their ethnography, which was now in pressas ajesup Expedition publication (Teit 1898, 1900).

Boas' purpose in meeting Teit on this trip waslargely to take anthropometric measurements of theIndians south of Spences Bridge. Boas—soon stiff andsore—rode on the horse familiar from the Bella Coolatrek from village to village with Teit, then survived theeight-hour, 41 -mile return to Teit's home. Furnished withonly a table, two chairs, and a bed, the one-room cabinwas filled with books about Indians and the Shetlands."Mr. Teit can give us all an example of great industryand of the unassuming fulfillment of duty," Boas wrotehis children (29June 1900). After looking through Teit'snotes, Boas boarded the train for Vancouver and thenthe boat to Alert Bay.

At Alert Bay he enjoyed comfortable accommo-dation with George Hunt's brother-in-law, the merchantS. A. Spencer, and had the daytime use of a small cabinwhere he could work with the Kwakwaka'wakw. Hefound a good interpreter in William Brotchie for thelanguage and a painter to explain details of the art.Older men came by to tell him stories, and he soughtout recipes and information on food preparation andmedicines from the women. The sole difficulty wasthat Hunt was kept busy in Spencer's cannery, and so,for most of the time, he could help Boas only in theevenings and on Sundays.

It was during this Jesup Expedition period that thecollaboration between Boas and Hunt solidified. Al-though Boas had worked with Hunt since 1888,particularly for the Chicago Fair and then at Fort Rupertin the winter of 1894-95, and Hunt had long been

DOUGLAS COLE

sending Kwakwaka'wakw stories to Boas, the BritishColumbia Native had never gained his full confidence.Both at the Chicago Fair and at Fort Rupert, Boas hadfound Hunt difficult to deal with and too lazy to usehis brain. In 1 897, however. Hunt had come to BellaCoola and prepared things well for Boas' arrival. Boasdid find Hunt unbelievably clumsy with the Rivers Inletdialect of Kwak'wala, but he had time to improve Hunt'sgeneral orthography (Berman 1991; Cannizzo 1983;Jacknis 1991; Rohner 1969:183, 214, 211, 236).

The son of an English-born Hudson's Bay Companyemployee and his high-born Tlingit wife. Hunt grew upin Fort Rupert, where his father was normally the onlywhite man. Although he could not necessarily con-sider himself Kwakwaka'wakw, he was raised almostas one. His knowledge of the Fort Rupert languageneeded little qualification. He was an initiate in theHamatsa, the highest Kwakwaka'wakw dance soci-ety, he acquired shaman credentials, and he might haveparticipated in a cannibal ceremony. For the latter hesuffered a penalty: though he was acquitted of thecharge, the trial cost him over $400 (Cole and Chaikin1990:73-5). He twice married high-bornKwakwaka'wakw women and raised his large familywithin Indian society.

By 1900, Boas was satisfied with Hunt and his com-mand of language and tradition. His experience withhim that summer, when he was able to check Hunt'sversions against Brotchie's, confirmed Hunt's ability. "Ifind him quite dependable, more than I had thought"(F. Boas to M. Boas, 16 August 1900). While retainingreservations about Hunt's linguistic idiosyncrasies, histendency toward a formal style, and his command ofKwak'wala grammar. Boas felt confident with Hunt'smaterial (Berman 1991:27-36). Hunt would continueto send texts to Boas for the rest of his life.

Boas left Alert Bay and British Columbia satisfied.He had a much clearer understanding of the "terriblydifficult" Kwak'wala language and was now, after work-ing with Hunt in 1897 and again in 1900, in a positionto publish many of the texts he had been collecting

3 5

for six years. He thought he also had enough materialfor a detailed description of the manners and customsof the Kwakwaka'wakw. "That," he wrote, "will makea very peculiar cultural picture" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 1 6August 1 900).

Boas' 1900 trip was virtually the last on the Ameri-can side of the Jesup Expedition. Hunt and Teit wouldwork in their own areas over the next two years, butthe only visitor was John R. Swanton, whom Boas hadassigned to the Queen Charlotte Islands. Swanton wasa Putnam student, a well-trained Harvard Ph.D. whohad studied linguistics under Boas at Columbia.Swanton worked for the Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy, which paid his salary on this trip while the AMNHpaid expenses. He was instructed to study the Haidalanguage, religion, and social organization while he col-lected specimens for the museum (Boas to Swanton, 5June 1 900, AMNH, Acc. 1901-31). He left much of theartifact collecting to the Victoria physician turned mu-seum collector C. F. Newcombe so that he could con-centrate on language, mythology, and ethnology.

Fieldwork in Siberia

The Asian side of the expedition was more difficult toorganize. Boas had had one man, Berthold Laufer, inmind for the southern portion of the work since 1895,when Crube had mentioned his name to Boas as apromising young scholar. Laufer, son of a Cologne con-fectioner, was nearly finished with his degree and camewith strong recommendations from Leipzig and Berlin,where he had studied Eastern languages, religions, andcultures. He had, moreover, sat in on lectures by Berlinanthropologists Adolf Bastian, Felix von Luschan, andEduard Seler. Unfortunately, Laufer still had before himhis military obligation. Boas, even though he as yethad no expedition arranged, suggested that Laufercomplete his service as soon as possible so that hewould be available should a Siberian worker be re-quired. Laufer did so, receiving his degree, magna cumlaude, while in the army. Formally appointed in May1897, he came early next year to New York to prepare

for his Siberian work, in March, just as he was sched-uled to depart, the museum received word that hisvisa had been refused by the Russian Interior Ministry(see Vakhtin, this volume). Laufer was a Jew, and Jewswere not allowed into Siberia [by the Russian govern-ment—ed.].

It was all very difficult and embarrassing. Boas hadJust arranged a large farewell reception for the trav-eler, and Laufer might never be able to leave. Workingwith urgency. Boas went to Washington to meet withofficials at the State Department, where, in Jesup'sname, he pulled all the possible strings. He touchedbase with Andrew White, the U.S. representative inBerlin, but first reliance was put on the American minis-ter to St. Petersburg, Ethan A. Hitchcock, who spokewith the interior minister. The minister, Ivan Goremykin,remained immovable, replying, in every instance, "sim-ply that it was against the law to grant such request—Dr. Laufer being a German Jew who were prohibitedfrom entering Siberia." Vasily V. Radloff of the ImperialRussian Academy of Sciences accomplished what dip-lomats could not. He called on Grand DukeConstantine, who served as president of the academy,and on the governor of Siberia, then in the capital.Suddenly, word reached New York that Laufer had, byspecial permission of Tsar Nicholas II, been authorizedto visit Sakhalin and the Amur River (Zvolianski toOlarovsky, 1 2 March 1 898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File;Hitchcock to Jesup, 4 April, 23 April 1 898; G. Dewollantto Jesup, 26 April 1898). Laufer was aboard the nextsteamer. He arrived in Yokohama on May 23.

Accompanying Laufer was an archaeologist,Gerard Fowke. Fowke was one of Putnam's un-schooled proteges, although he had most recentlyworked for W. H. Holmes and the Bureau of AmericanEthnology in Washington. Already in his forties, he hadbeen digging mounds and other sites in the easternUnited States for over a decade. The two men were amismatch: Fowke, the unrefined American outdoors-man, almost 20 years older than Laufer, with scantuniversity training; Laufer, the aesthetic, urbane, and

36

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

scholarly European (Ohio Archeological and HistoricalSociety 1929). Laufer, Fowke judged, was a "book-student, 25 years old" with "no practical sense, butany amount of theoretical knowledge'—"Can'i tie astring, drive a nail or whittle a stick; hell of a man for awilderness trip!" (Fowke to W. H. Holmes, 5 March 1898,NAA, Folder 44).'° Fowke's attitude carried on into Si-beria. "Laufer is a good fellow," Fowke told Boas, but,as a fieldworker, "he is helpless." That tone enragedBoas, who was partial to the young German. Fowkehad been sent to work with Laufer, not to sneer at him.Even more, Fowke's archaeology had been, on his ownadmission, a "dismal fizzle." He found nothing on theAmur River, complaining that the banks were toodensely covered with vegetation to dig and that theriver had constantly changed its course. Boas was dis-gusted but recommended that Fowke remain in Japanfor three months of excavation on shell heaps. Eventhat hope of salvaging something from Fowke's ex-pense was a failure (Fowke to Boas, 1 5 September

1898, AMNH, Acc. 1900-17; Boas to Fowke, 12 Sep-tember 1898; Fowke 1899; Boas tojesup, 19 January

1899, AMNH,JesupEx. File).

Laufer attributed the difficulty to Fowke's unwill-ingness to adjust. "As a true American he cannot andwill not set himself into the new Russian relationshipsand rejects everything that comes his way." Laufer wascertain that, with energy and concentration, thingswould be found on the Amur River (Laufer to Boas, 4March 1899, AMNH, Acc. 1900-12).

While Fowke was dabbling on the Amur River andthen in Japan, Laufer spent eight months, from July 1898to March 1 899, on the east coast of Sakhalin Islandworking among the Nivkh, Tungus [Uilta—ed.], and Ainupeoples. Field conditions were difficult; travel was byhorseback, reindeer sledge, and dog sled; and for twoand a half months Laufer was ill with influenza thatturned to pneumonia. Worse yet, he could find no in-terpreter for his ethnological work: no Nivkh knew morethan the most common Russian phrases, and the Ainuwere not very familiar with Japanese. Having traveled

down the east coast of the island, he returned north toNikolayevsk in time to cross the ice to the mainlandbefore the spring breakup. Here he settled atKhabaravsk on the Amur River to study the Nanay,with whom Crube had also worked. With the springthaw, he traveled downriver, stopping at various Nanayand Nivkh villages until he reached the river mouth inAugust. By October he had finished the season, travel-ing over Vladivostok to Yokohama, where he spentthe remaining weeks of 1899 packing his collectionbefore sailing for New York (Boas 1903:93-8).

Boas found Laufer's huge assemblage of art andartifacts exceptionally interesting. So too was Lauferhimself. Looking forward to Laufer's February arrival.Boas confessed, "I take a great interest in the youngfellow as if he were my own young brother." Once inthe city, Laufer became the Boases' frequent guest,often for dinner twice a week. "It is amusing," Boascommented, "to see how my earlier feelings return withthis young fellow. He told me today that he wantedto tear up all his Siberian work and begin it all overagain." That, Boas observed, was just the same as hehad been with his Baffin Island research. (F. Boas to S.Boas, 1 2 January, 20 February 1 900).

Laufer's Siberian difficulties paled before those ofthejesup Expedition's northern researchers. Boas hadhad problems even finding someone for the job. Hehad initially been in touch with Freiherr Erwin von Zach,an Austrian studying in Leiden." Boas was impressedby his credentials and engaged him in May 1 897, onlyto have the arrangement collapse in August. There weredoubts about von Zach's ability to endure Siberianhardships, but Boas blamed Leiden museum director J.D. E. Schmelz for the Austrian's withdrawal (unknowncorrespondent to Boas, 21 September 1897; F. Boasto M. Boas, 21 August 1897). Boas then fell back onVasily Radloff, who was later to help with Laufer's visaproblem. Radloff recommended two experiencedSiberian fieldworkers, Waldemar Jochelson andWaldemar Bogoras (Radloff to Boas, 23 May 1898,AMNH, Acc. 1901-70). In the summer of 1898, Boas

DOUGLAS COLE

met in Germany with Radloff and Jochelson and con-firmed arrangements for the two Russians, who aftermaking equipment purchases, sailed to New Yorl< tosecure Boas' instructions and receive tutoring inanthropometrics (see Vakhtin, this volume).

Boas found them "very curious" men, "so different"in personality from western Europeans. Marie did notparticularly like either, in part because they kept Franzuntil late in the evening and everything was put onhold at home "until the Russians go" (F. Boas to S. Boas,6 March 1900; M. Boas to S. Boas, 23 March 1900).The Russians left for San Francisco in late March 1900,sailing then to Nagasaki and finally to Vladivostok.

Siberia was familiar territory to both Jochelson andBogoras. Their experience there was initially as politi-cal exiles, and their friendship was cemented in a com-mon attachment to Narodnaia volia (Peoples' Will), aradical populist group that did not shun violence. Bothused their exile to study the local indigenes—avoca-tions that became a profession. Jochelson, the elder ofthe two, had spent three years in isolated confinementbefore being transferred to Yakutsk and then to themouth of the Kolyma River on the Arctic Ocean (F.Boas to S. Boas, 27 August 1903). He then workedwith the Yukagir with the Imperial GeographicalSociety's expedition. Bogoras, with the Sibiryakov Ex-pedition, did research on the Chukchi, which he wasnow seeing through publication. At the time of hisengagement, Jochelson was registered for a doctoralprogram in Switzerland, where his wife, DinaJochelson-Brodsky, was studying medicine, but he was willing tointerrupt his work, and his wife's.

The Jochelson-Bogoras expeditions can only be de-scribed as heroic. Arriving in Vladivostok in May 1900,the party split. The Bogorases went to Mariinsky Poston the Anadyr River, the most remote Russian settle-ment in Northeast Asia, to study the Reindeer andMaritime Chukchi and the Asiatic Eskimo [Yupik]. Mrs.Bogoras remained there while Waldemar Bogoras trav-eled to the Sea of Okhotsk to meet Jochelson. Therehe lent his Chukchi linguistic ability to studying the

language of the Koryak, a related group. After theirmidwinter work among the Kamchatka Koryak,Bogoras left on his own for the west coast of theKamchatka Peninsula to collect material from theItelmen [Kamchadal] and then, after more study of theChukchi and Yup'ik on the Chukchi Peninsula, traveledto St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Strait. He returnedto Anadyr by Native boat, a voyage of 28 days, tomeet Mrs. Bogoras, who had remained there to makecollections along the Anadyr River valley. They left inAugust for Vladivostok by steamer and, after shippingtheir collections to New York, returned to St. Peters-burg by rail. Illness delayed their departure to NewYork; the couple arrived there only in April 1 902.

Jochelson and his wife Dina had an even more dif-ficult trip. Half the winter was spent among the Mari-time Koryak in underground dwellings filled with smoke,stench, and lice. The other half was spent among theinterior camps of the Reindeer Koryak in bitter cold.They had had to search out the Koryak, who had fledto the mountains to escape an epidemic. That neces-sitated a difficult trek by horse across the boggy tun-dra. Summer boat trips to Tungus [Even] and MaritimeKoryak groups were accompanied by privation. TheJochelsons stayed on, as planned, for another year tostudy the Yukagir of the Kolyma region.'^ That requireda difficult 56-day trip across unmapped mountains tofamine-plagued villages, then on to Yakutsk before re-turning to St. Petersburg via Irkutsk in the summer of1902. They had traveled some 8,000 miles by foot,sled, boat, or horse.

The research portion of the expedition ended in1902, although Boas sought to fill in and round outparts of it after that. Hunt continued to work on theNorthwest Coast, gathering texts and other informa-tion and collecting objects for the museum not onlyfrom the Kwakwaka'wakw but also from the Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka]. Teit labored on among the inte-rior groups, collecting material for later volumes on theLillooet and Secwepemc [Shuswap] and on Thomp-son myths. Otherwise, field activities for Jesup's great

38

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

expedition were over when the Jochelsons arrived inIrkutsk late in the summer of 1902 (Boas to Jochelson,5 December 1898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File; Boas toJochelson, 24 March 1900, AMNH, Acc. 1901-70).

Working Up the Results

Boas wished for more. He requested money to pay amissionary for work among the Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka]and, in 1905, money for Jochelson to visit the AsianEskimo and Aleut in order to follow up "fundamentalquestions" raised by his earlier work. Boas also soughtan appropriation for research to investigate his theorythat the Tsimshian were recent arrivals on the coast(Boas to Bumpus, 22 December 1902; Boas to Jesup,25 November 1905, AMNH, File 293). He was unsuc-cessful in securing funds for any of these projects.Jochelson, however, independently succeeded in hisAleutian ambition, with the [Russian-funded—ed.]Riabushinski Expedition to the Aleutians and theKamchatka Peninsula in 1909-11 .'^

Long before then, Boas had become disillusionedwith Jesup and the AMNH. The Jesup Expedition wasbut part of Boas' grandiose ambitions for anthropol-ogy in New York, and things in the museum were notas they should be. He had problems about his ownstatus and salary and about museum assistance, his"Vanishing Tribes" of North America was underfunded,and his East Asiatic project had failed. The enormouseffort he had to spend on installation, labeling, andcataloging, in addition to his teaching responsibilitiesat Columbia University, meant that he made littleprogress on his own scholarly work. His dissatisfac-tion grew as research support stagnated or declined.Things were going backward, with less done daily, hewrote, yet the material was disappearing "day by day.""I have capacity for work, but am dissatisfied at fritter-ing away my energies in vain attempts to reach a settledpolicy of work to be pressed. If the Museum cannotassist me in these plans, my interest lags." While hisdissatisfaction included the lack of support and plan-ning in the museum, the Jesup Expedition publications

lay "especially on my heart" (Boas to Jesup, 9 January1902, AMNH-DA, Reports File; Boas to Bumpus, 21February 1902, AMNH-DA, Bumpus File; F. Boas to S.Boas, 28 February 1902).

The Jesup Expedition memoirs had been ambitiouslyprojected at some 30 contributions in 12 volumes.Many of those from the American side were preparedquickly. An album of photographs, Farrand's paper onSalish basketry designs and on the Chilcotin andQuinault, Teit's NIaka'pamux ethnology, Smith's workon British Columbian archaeology. Boas' facial paint-ings and Bella Coola myths, and his and Hunt's firstKwakiutI [Kwakwaka'wakw] texts were ready by thebeginning of 1902. Still to come were further reportsby Smith, Teit's Lillooet and Shuswap [Secwepemc]ethnologies and Thompson [NIaka'pamux] texts, sev-eral volumes of KwakiutI work, and Swanton's Haidaethnology and texts. For the Asian side, Laufer hadcompleted his slender volume on Amur decorative art,but Jochelson and Bogoras were, after their arrival inNew York in 1902, only beginning their writing.

Publication costs had never been included in theexpedition budget, although Jesup agreed to financethe first set of publications, at a cost of $2,000. Boasfeared that without a special appropriation, themuseum's limited publication budget, which had tocover all competing departmental requests, wouldhopelessly delay the dissemination of his valued re-sults. In February 1902 he pleaded with museum di-rector Hermon C. Bumpus for extraordinary money. "Thedanger is again imminent that the whole enterprise,the appreciation of which has constantly increased asits publications progressed, will fall flat." He found itunbearable to think that the Jesup Expedition shouldbe another example of an enterprise started with greatvigor but ending in disappointment. He wanted a de-cision, once and for all. His estimate of costs was$20,000 (Boas to Bumpus, 21 February 1 902, AMNH-DA, Bumpus File). Boas got some of what he demanded.Jesup agreed to finance the expedition publicationsthen in preparation, at an estimated cost of $4,425,

DOUGLAS COLE

should museum funds be insufficient. This was a relief,but, all in all. Boas wrote in July 1902, it had been abad year: "nothing has worked out—or only a little"(Bumpus to Jesup, 19 May 1902;Jesup note, 19 May1 902, AMNH, File 293a; F. Boas to S. Boas, 2 July 1 902).

Worse yet, relations between President Jesup andCurator Boas were becoming tense. Jesup now seemeddisappointed with his expedition, acting as if "nothingwill come of it." He was reluctant to agree to newplans before results were complete, something Boasregarded as nonsense. With this went Boas' growingview that there was "a minimal understanding for ac-tual scientific work ' in Jesup's museum. Then, in early1903, the president changed his mind on the JesupExpedition publications: in future they would have tobe paid for from the museum's general publicationsfund. Boas was devastated. "It was perhaps a harderblow than all those that I have received in recent years"(F. Boas to S. Boas, 4 September, 5 September 1902;Boas to Jesup, 20 Februan/ 1903, AMNH, File 293).

Boas pleaded with Jesup to reverse a decision thatwould reduce the publication program to a role en-tirely out of keeping with the work accomplished. Hiswhole scientific reputation, he said, was at stake, and"I cannot afford to have an enterprise for which I havethe responsibility, fail." He had done his part, and nowhe asked Jesup "to see me through, that I may comewith honor out of the undertaking." Jesup remainedimmovable. Boas had not told him at the beginningabout the large sums required for publication. The ex-pedition was over, and it was for the museum to seeto publishing the results. He would allow enough moneyin the museum budget to keep the publications inprogress, but no more. "All is now being done," wroteBumpus to Jesup, "that is imperatively necessary." Atleast, said Boas at year's end, the publications go on(Jesup to Boas, 24 February [1903; microfilmed as1900]; Bumpus to Jesup, 28 April 1903, AMNH; F. Boasto S. Boas, 23 December 1903).

Boas made things somewhat easier by cuttingcosts. He had long thought that the museum was

paying too much to publish its memoirs. He suggestedthat instead of the museum acting as its own pub-lisher, the memoirs go to E. J. Brill in Leiden (Boas toBumpus, 20 February 1 903, AMNH, File 293). Bumpusfollowed up the suggestion, and future volumes werepublished by that house, with C. E. Stechert & Co. act-ing as American agents. The contract cut costs sub-stantially (Boas to Winser, 28 July 1905, AMNH. File1905:B).'^

Jesup's reluctance to expedite publication stemmedin large part from the accumulating costs of his expe-dition. One thing after another had contributed to over-runs. Boas' initial estimate had projected the expedi-tion costs at $5,000 a year over six years, a total of$30,000 from Jesup's pocket. In his haste to preparethe proposal. Boas had assumed that the museum andnot the expedition would bear transportation expenses.He had also not realized that salaries of museum staff,such as himself and Smith, when in the field, wouldhave be borne by the expedition's budget and not bythe museum's. These costs upset budget projections.Then the engagement of Bogoras and Jochelsonbrought an embarrassing crisis. Boas had expected toemploy young men, like Laufer, just out of university.The two experienced Russians would do the workmuch better than untried newcomers, but they weremuch more expensive. Jochelson and Bogoras were,at ages 45 and 35, mature scientists who deservedlong-term contracts and salaries commensurate withtheir standing. That meant $1,200 a year, comparedwith young Laufer's $500. It was all very embarrassingfor Boas, but Jesup agreed to proceed with the Rus-sians despite the enormous overrun his expedition wassuddenly facing (see also Vakhtin, this volume). Boasnow expected that work on the Asian side alone wouldcost $27,667, with the entire expedition running toalmost $50,000, excluding publication costs (Boas toJesup, 2 November, 1 8 November 1 898, AMNH-DA,Jesup Ex. File; Boas to Putnam, 1 December 1 898,AMNH-DA, Putnam File). "The whole thing is somewhatunpleasant," he confessed, "since it appears as if I made

40

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

a false estimate, though I can show Jesup where andhow the large expenditure comes." Jesup complainedin 1900 that he could not keep the business part ofthe expedition in his head: "I only know I am advanc-ing a pile of money in this affair & time will prove thesuccess of it." By 1901 Jesup's obligations, not includ-ing publications to date, were already $53,470. Boaswas estimating that the cost, including publications,was likely to be $75,000; he later raised it to $100,000(Boas to Papa [Meier Boas], 31 October 1898; Jesup toWinser, 1 9July 1 900, AMNH-DA,Jesup Ex. File; Winserto Jesup, 1 April 1901, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File; Boasto James H. Lamb Co., 9 November 1900, AMNH-DA, LFile; Boas 1910b).

The toll, financial and personal, continued to mountas relations turned sour. When Jesup made remarks criti-cal of the expedition, Boas was outraged: "Seldom doI get excited in conversation," he wrote, "but I becamequite angry, so much so that it was difficult for me toremain within the borders of propriety." In Boas' mind,Jesup's intention was to restrict his obligation so thathe would "not have to put out money for publica-tions" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 26 November 1903).

Printing was not the only continuing cost. Bogorasand Jochelson had been contracted to write up theirresults at a monthly salary of $1 50 each. For over ayear, they worked at the museum. An attempt to getthem fellowships with the Carnegie Institution failed,and both returned to Europe in 1904, their contractsaltered to $1 50 per chapter. Jochelson settled in Zurich,where his wife was completing her medical training;Bogoras went to St. Petersburg.

Before their return to Europe, Boas had seen themfrequently, and both spent a good deal of the summerof 1903 with him at his Lake George retreat. Boas re-vised his earlier ambiguous opinion of Bogoras, "whobecame very attractive upon longer acquaintance." Hewas a man of fine sensitivity, intelligence, and enthusi-asm, Boas wrote, and his whole life and aspiration weredirected to political ideals, a drive to implement themand, if necessary, to sacrifice for them. Jochelson, too.

became likable on closer acquaintance. He went outevery day to pick up the newspaper because, asJochelson himself said, "In Russia the unexpected mayhappen at any time and I think that any day a constitu-tion could be promulgated" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 26October 1902, 9 October 1903; F. Boas to S. Boas, 27August 1 903).

Jochelson's writing was slow but regular. Bogoras,caught up in revolutionary 1905 St. Petersburg,stopped his entirely. For long periods, he ceased evento write letters. "I have had nothing from Bogoras for amonth," Jochelson wrote Boas, and "that concerns usvery much." Boas finally received a letter from Bogorasthat excused his neglect. "But you will understand thatan epoch like this happens only once in many centu-ries for every state and nation and we feel ourselvestorn away with the current even against our will." Boaslectured him about priorities: "If events like the presenthappen only once in a century, an investigation by Mr.Bogoras of the Chukchee [Chukchi] happens only oncein eternity, and I think you owe it to science to give usthe results of your studies."

April brought another long silence. Boas was againconcerned, especially because he had read in the pa-per that Bogoras had been arrested but then released.Boas' worry was not merely for the man's safety. "Dur-ing the present excitement in Russia I am sure he willnot give any time to his scientific situation." Boas wouldhave liked to have had him out of Russia so he couldconcentrate on his work. A letter in November fromBogoras brought renewed regrets at the lack of progressbut no change of mind. "Events that are going on inRussia request from all citizens their best attention andability." Things were so dreadful, victims so numerous,that he felt no right to retreat from the struggle. At 40,he had time ahead to finish all yet to be written. Hewould have to be forgiven: "my mind and soul haveno free place to let in science." On December 4 Boasreceived a cable from Moscow that Bogoras had beenarrested. He wired St. Petersburg, asking Radloff s as-sistance in securing the revolutionary anthropologist's

DOUGLAS COLE

release. Slowly the details came out. Bogoras had beenarrested as a participant in the Peasants' Congress buthad been released on bail after two weeks. He hadreturned to St. Petersburg and had then gone on toFinland, where he gradually returned to his scholar-ship. Jochelson, too, was affected by the revolution,and, lacking "the necessary calm," his writing slowed.Even from afar, Russia's internal turmoil had an upset-ting influence. "You know, of course, that next to theresearcher stands in me a citizen" Oochelson to Boas, 7March 1905, AMNH-DA, Jochelson File; Bogoras toBoas, 6 April 1905; Boas to Bogoras, 22 April 1905,AMNH-DA, Bogoras File; Boas to Jochelson, 28 Sep-tember, 13 October 1905; Bogoras to Boas, 23 No-vember 1905, AMNH-DA, Bogoras File; Jochelson toBoas, 7 March, 10June, 8 May, 29 August 1 905, AMNH-DA,Jochelson File).

If 1905 was a memorable year for the Russians, itwas also for Boas. The previous summer, he had trav-eled to Europe, where he had an opportunity to con-sult with E. J. Brill about the Jesup publications, to visitStuttgart for the 14th Congress of Americanists (1904),and to meet there with Jochelson, Bogoras, and oth-ers. The last day of the congress was largely taken upwith papers on the Jesup Expedition from Boas andJochelson and a complementary one from LeoShternberg. "I presided that day," Boas wrote themuseum's director, "and feel very well satisfied withthe reception that the works of the Expedition received."On his return to New York, however, he determinedthat he could no longer carry on both his museum anduniversity responsibilities. "I simply can no longer fillboth posts" (Boas to Bumpus, 30 August 1 904, AMNH,File 293; F. Boas to S. Boas, 25 October 1904).

Much as he was attached to the museum projectshe had initiated, and no matter how integral the mu-seum had become to his teaching program, the insti-tution had lost its allure. The prospect of meaningfulactivity there was hopeless. He no longer had faith inJesup. The parting was complicated, and in the endBoas angrily resigned from the museum in April 1905,

42

but with continuing responsibilities for the Jesup Expe-dition publications. Difficulties between Boas and Di-rector Bumpus, however, required a more precise de-lineation of Boas' role and led to an even greater breachin the strained cordiality between Boas and Jesup.

Boas insisted that payment to him, irrespective ofthe published amount, should never fall below the$4,000 he had counted on as his annual museum re-muneration. This insistence touched a sensitive Jesupnerve. All Boas' previous appeals had been expressed,the museum president noted, as concern for the meansto sustain his scientific work and for funds to supporthis scientific reputation. The tone had altered, and Jesupexpressed his great disappointment at "the presentcondition of an enterprise that has involved expenseand anxiety out of all proportion to the representa-tions that were originally made." Jesup was confidentthat he had himself always acted with "the utmostliberality and fairness" and felt that Boas was not nowliving up to his commitment. He felt sorrow at "themany disappointments that have come to me in con-nection with this expedition" (Jesup to Osborne, 30April 1906, AMNH, File 293b).

The final agreement contracted Boas to completethe expedition series by 1911 for a stipulated pay-ment per published signature, the total cost not toexceed $25,000 (Agreement of 31 May 1906, signedby Boas on 8 June 1906). Boas, for his part, was scorn-ful of the whole business. The contract, he wrote, "islike that for building a house; goods to be paid ondelivery, and the shoddier my work, the better finan-cially for me! True Bumpus-Jesup style" (Boas to Putnam,23 June 1906, HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 14).'^ The newarrangement might have expedited publication—allinvolved were now being paid according to results—but it did not.

Expedition Publications' Later History

Relations between the AMNH and Boas were chilly,even frigid, after 1906. His difficulties with the mu-seum had destroyed his desire to get on with the Jesup

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

publications. Two volumes were about to appear, butthere would follow a long pause, since he had doneno work for two years. "The fault lies in the obstruc-tionism in the museum" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 23 June1910). Indeed, "if I could do so in a way consistentwith my scientific commitments, I would simply dumpthe whole Jesup Expedition and concern myself no fur-ther with it" (F. Boas to S. Boas, 1 8 March 1 909).

But he could not drop it; he had too much investedand too many commitments to it. The material fromthe Russian side came in fitfully, and Boas worked onit, sometimes just as fitfully. Despite delays, some ofthe Russian material was so extensive that Boas hadto find outlets beyond the restricted confines of theJesup Expedition Series, under the AMNH Memoirs.Bogoras was certainly the most productive. His Chukchiethnology had come out in three installments by 1909;the Chukchi mythology was published in 1910 andthe Siberian Eskimo [Yup'ik] folktales in 1913. His Koryaktexts and Chukchi grammar were essentially completeby 1914. Jochelson's Koryak ethnology was in printby 1908, but his Aleutian-Kamchatka expedition of1909-10 delayed his work on the Yukagir volume. Themost remiss was Shternberg, who had been addedbelatedly to write on the Amur River groups he knewfrom exile and expeditionary study. He did send thefirst part of his manuscript to Boas in 1912, but even itwas never published (see Kan, this volume).

Then the outbreak of World War I [in 1914] madecommunications between New York and Russia almostimpossible and severely interrupted mail to and fromE.J. Brill, the Dutch publisher. The AMNH extended Boas'contract to 1916 and then again. The Russian Revolu-tion and its aftermath disrupted things even further.Boas' contact with his Russian collaborators was rees-tablished only in September 1921. Boas gathered foodand clothing in New York for Jochelson, Shternberg,and Bogoras, and the latter two were given $300 to-ward their work. The following year, the Jochelsonscame to the United States, where their scholarship wassupported by the AMNH, the Carnegie Institution, and

private assistance arranged by Boas, largely throughfinancier Felix Warburg. During this time, Jochelson wasable to publish part of his Aleutian Islands archaeol-ogy (Jochelson 1925), to see his Jesup Expedition Yukagirvolume through the press (Jochelson 1926), and to writea handbook. Peoples of Asiatic Russia (ioche\son 1928),for the AMNH. Mrs. Jochelson was given money andspace in the museum to continue her anthropometricwork, although no publications seem to have resulted.[DinaJochelson-Brodsky's manuscript, "On the Anthro-pometry of the Native Peoples of (Northeast) Siberia,"was prepared for the Jesup Expedition Series as Part 2of Volume 11 but was never published; see also Krup-nik, this volume—ed.]

The war and postarmistice conditions in Europeabsorbed a great deal of Boas' attention and robbedhim of scholarly concentration. Like Bogoras andJochelson, he could not sever himself from politicalconcerns, as a patriotic American with strong Germansympathies and commitments. The Jesup publicationslimped along, hampered by war, revolution, and re-construction and squeezed in among Boas' many otherconcerns, none of which included the writing of a con-cluding volume.

When Jesup died in 1908, his widow expressed awish to see the final volume soon, but Boas was unin-terested. "I have sworn to myself that I will not writethe volume until all material is published" (F. Boas to S.Boas, 9 July 1909). It is doubtful that by 1909 he wasany longer committed to writing it. He could maintaina workman's duty to scientific responsibilities, but hispassions were elsewhere.

Such a project, moreover, ran against Boas'temperamental difficulty with the sustained treatmentof the broad sweep. At least as much of a factorwas his deep hostility to the AMNH, which enduredbeyond Bumpus' departure and Jesup's death. Thiscombination of temperament and hostility wasenough to prevent the completion of a summaryvolume, but the delayed Siberian results allowedBoas to procrastinate. As his other commitments

DOUGLAS COLE

multiplied, the nonappearance of a fitting conclusionwas almost predetermined.

Evaluation

Assessment of Boas'Jesup North Pacific Expedition isdifficult. The research was never as complete as Boaswould have wished, and new problems arose thatcould not be explored. The results were never fullypublished, introducing another complication. Moreover,evaluation must tread the fine line between legitimatehistorical perspective and superficial hindsight.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition was, in manyways, two quite different projects: a North Americanone, and a Siberian one (Krupnik 1 996). On the Ameri-can side, the expedition can be viewed as a well-en-dowed continuation of Boas' previous research. AMNHsupport and Jesup's money allowed Boas to add ar-chaeology to his research tools; otherwise the Ameri-can work was an extension of his previous methodsand strategy. "I am going to continue my previouswork without practically changing my plans at all," hetold W. J. McCee in 1897, "but since I have amplerfunds than heretofore, I shall be able to work to betteradvantage" (1 2 April 1 897, NAA-BAE).

His old collaborators, Teit and Hunt, went on inmuch the same way as they had before the Jesup Ex-pedition and as they would continue to do after itsclose. Research concentrated on Boas' Central Coastand southern interior interests, stretching only slightlynorthward to include the Haida and, quite superficially,the Chilcotin, Quinault, and Quileute to the south. Theareas touched on lightly by the expedition—those ofthe Nuu-chah-nulth, Quinault, Quileute, Tsimshian, andSouthern Athapaskan groups—were those on whichhe had done little or nothing before 1 897.

But most serious was the neglect of Alaskan groups.The Alaska Eskimo and Aleut had earlier been desig-nated as part of the expedition, but no research ap-propriation was listed beside them (see Fig. 3; Boas toJesup, 2 November 1898, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex. File).The justification for the omission was that accounts of

other investigations among these groups were acces-sible (Boas 1901:357, 1 908:1 298). The reference pre-sumably was to Smithsonian work, probably to W. H.□all's work on Alaskan groups, especially the Aleut, inthe 1870s; more certainly to John Murdoch's work inthe 1 880s on the Point Barrow Eskimo (Murdoch 1 892);and, most importantly, to E. W. Nelson's then unpub-lished study of the Bering Strait Eskimo (Nelson 1 899).Boas did seek some "ancient" Alaskan Eskimo mate-rial, especially skulls and bones, from Captain MinorBruce in 1899 and-bought part of his existing collec-tion (Boas to Bruce, 1 April 1 899, AMNH-DA, Jesup Ex.File; AMNH, Acc. 1899-13). In 1901 Boas expressedthe hope that it might still be possible for the expedi-tion to do a systematic investigation of prehistoricsites along the Yukon River and the neighboringcoastland in order to discern whether a pre-Eskimoculture or type existed in the area (Boas 1901). By then,however, the expedition was all but over, and Jesupwas unwilling to extend its scope.

Essentially, however, Boas did not consider the Es-kimo to be part of the Jesup Expedition problem. TheSiberian Eskimo [Yupik] were themselves interesting,and Boas asked Bogoras to survey them and makecollections from among them, but only if the opportu-nity offered, since they were "not primary objects" ofthe expedition (Boas to Jochelson, 26 March 1900,AMNH, Acc. 1 901 -70). In all this, there is a consistentlack of interest in the Eskimo. At the AMNH, Boas con-tinued his interest in the Eastern Canadian Inuit thathad been his first love, working with visiting Labradorand Greenland Natives and using his old friends GeorgeComer and James S. Mutch to gather material, but henever seriously considered using the Jesup project tostudy the place of the Eskimo and Aleut in connec-tions between Siberia and North America.

The Indians of southern Alaska had been includedin the initial plans, with Boas apparently intending todo the work there himself (Boas to Jesup, 19 January1897; Boas to Putnam, 11 February 1897, HUA, PutnamPapers). In 1 898 Fowke was to do archaeological

44

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

excavations in northern British Columbia and southernAlaska, but he was dispatched to Siberia instead (Boasto Fowke, 7 April, 11 April 1 898, AMNH, Acc. 1 900-1 7). There were few accounts of the Tlingit except fora limited yet very good one by Boas' old Berlin friendAurel Krause (Krause 1885). The museum did have "amass of manuscript material" on that southeasternAlaska group, but it belonged to G. T. Emmons andwas not accessible even to Boas. Emmons seemed"to know a great deal," and his manuscript would ulti-mately become the museum's property, but Boas knew,or soon came to think, that he could provide informa-tion only on "industries and history" and little pertain-ing "to their arts or to their inner life," let alone anthro-pometrics, linguistics, or even mythology. Yet Boas didnot "feel like spending money in that country as longas this work has been done" (Boas to Swanton, 4 April1901, AMNH, Acc. 1901-31; Boas to Bumpus, 11 No-vember 1903, AMNH-DA, Bumpus File; Boas to Farrand,20June 1 903, AMNH-DA, Farrand File).'^ A factor in theneglect of the Tlingit may simply have been that themuseum already had rich artifact collections from thatgroup. The same was true of the Alaska Eskimo, butthe main reason for their omission was that Boas thoughtthe Eskimo a late arrival in the area and thus irrelevantto ancient North Pacific problems.

The American research itself, then, was very un-even. The published results form no coherent corpus.Boas' facial painting piece (1898a) was entirely con-cerned with problems of decorative art, something thatwas then a major concern of his. His Bella Coola my-thology (1898b) did attempt to place that anomalousSalish-speaking group within its central coastal rela-tionships, but it was almost as much a methodologi-cal study on acculturation and diffusion, and it led no-where near intercontinental relationships. TheKwakwaka'wakw texts he published with Hunt wereenduring salvage contributions to the primary materi-als of anthropological interpretation but, again, werepart of his long-term interest in that group and didlittle to elucidate any broad generic relationships. His

Kwakwaka'wakw ethnography dealt almost exclu-sively with industrial and domestic pursuits and is muchmore a complementary volume to his earlier The So-cial Organization and tlie Secret Societies of theKwakiutl Indians (Boas 1 897) than a contribution tobroader questions.

Farrand's work was thin and peripheral. His Salishbasketry design piece was concerned with decora-tive art, and his Quinault study (Farrand and Kahnweiler1902) made a minor contribution toward placing thatsmall Salish-speaking group in context. His work onthe Chilcotin (Farrand 1900)—the only Athapaskangroup at all studied—revealed only a receptivity toneighbors' traditions. Boas only later realized that moreattention needed to be given to the wide-rangingAthapaskans, especially those of the far north (Boas191 Oa, 1940:336). Smith's Salish archeology was sug-gestive, but misinterpreted (see Thom, this volume).His cranial finds reinforced Boas' propensity to thinkthe Salish a coastal intrusion from the interior, mostlikely a mistaken idea.''

In contrast, no burden of history—neither Boas' pre-vious interests nor existing museum collections—dis-turbed the expedition's objectives on the Asian side.There the expedition was much more productive andsuggestive of relationships. Laufer, Boas' favored"younger brother," contributed little except for collec-tions. This, too, was in large part Boas' fault. He was soeager to keep the young man in New York as part ofhis East Asiatic project that Laufer was, in June 1901,sidetracked to a quite separate Chinese expeditionthat occupied him foryears. His single substantial JesupExpedition publication. Decorative Art of the AmurTribes, was "disappointingly spare" (Kendall1988:1 04).'8 Even his excellent collection, largelyundescribed by its collector, remains relatively mute.

Enormously more substantial were the contribu-tions of Bogoras and Jochelson. Both Jochelson's Koryak(1908) and Bogoras' Chukchee (1904-09) were ex-tended ethnographic treatments, and Bogoras wenton to compilations of Chukchi, Asian Eskimo, and other

DOUGLAS COLE

myths and an extended treatment of the Chukchi lan-guage in later contributions. The two had also returnedwith huge accumulations of artifacts—collections fortheir groups that remain superior to any others, eventhose in Russia (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:15). Asimportant, some of the Russians' findings allowed Boasto draw far-reaching conclusions on the great prob-lem that was the expedition's focus.

On the American side, only Boas was involvedenough to take a comprehensive view. The Russiancollaborators, to whom Boas had introduced Ameri-can material, were much more attracted to the funda-mental problem of Boas' project. Even if they pursuedtheir own research agendas (Krupnik 1996), theirJesupwork coincided, over the long term, with Boas'.

The two Russians were struck at least as much asBoas by the closeness of northwestern American tonortheastern Asiatic folklore. They became certain thatthere had to have been either close contact or a kin-dred origin, and probably both in earlier times (Bogoras1902:669; Jochelson 1906:125). Bogoras found ideascharacteristic of the American Northwest Coast pre-vailing far into Siberia, so much so that he wrote, "froman ethnographical point of view, the line dividing Asiaand America lies far southwestward of Bering strait"(Bogoras 1902:579).

Boas reviewed the Siberian evidence, compared it,as Bogoras and Jochelson had, with his own collec-tions of Northwest myths, and reached the same con-clusion. The Koryak, Chukchi, and Itelmen formed onerace with the Northwest Coast tribes. The unity hadbeen much greater in earlier times, but "enough re-mains to lead us to think that the tribes of this wholearea must be considered as a single race, or at leastthat their culture is a single culture, which at one timewas found in both the northeastern part of the OldWorld and the northwestern part of the New World"(Boas 1903:11 5). Traditions showed far-reaching con-formity between the two regions and the interrela-tionship of motifs was beyond doubt.Boas cited par-ticularly the "magic flight" theme and the widespread

46

prominence of Raven as ancestor and creator. Nor couldthe languages of the two areas be separated: the speechof the Asian groups inclined more toward Americanthan toward Central Asian, and if a linguistic divisionwere to be made, eastern Siberian languages werebest grouped with those of America. All evidence fromphysical anthropology tended toward the same con-clusion (Boas 1908, 1910b).2°

Later events had broken the ancient homogeneity.Just as Tungus and Sakha [Yakut] people had reducedthe area once occupied by these related tribes of Si-beria, migrations had broken the continuities on theAmerican side. The Salish along the Fraser River andadjacent coasts were a recent intrusion; so too werethe Tsimshian, who seemed originally to have been aninterior people more akin to the Shoshone andKootenay. Both, however, had been assimilated intogeneral Northwest Coast culture. The Eskimo, on theother hand, were a more obvious intrusion, a sharplydefined physical type, essentially different from theirneighbors, who further broke the North Pacific con-tinuum. Though Eskimo material culture was very closeto that of the Chukchi, their language and physicaltype were quite different from those of the Siberiansand Americans. The Eskimo did have elements of my-thology in common with other coastal people, butthese appeared to be an "essentially recent acquisi-tion" (Boas 1908, 1910b).

Some of these conclusions are plausible so far asanthropology and archaeology are able to interpretthe obscure past. A school of recent scholarship ar-gues for a tripartite division of Americans: NorthwestCoast groups, along with neighboring Athapaskans,may be the descendents of a separate migration fromAsia; other American Indians are seen to be descendedfrom a Paleo-lndian group, likely the earliest migrants,who formed the initial, widespread, Paleo-lndian Clovispopulation; and the Eskimo and Aleut, descendants ofEskaleut ancestors, constitute the third broad group.^'This would support the view of the Eskimo as a dis-continuity, although the thesis is increasingly contested

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

by others using different evidence. The Tsimshian andCoast Salish discontinuities are more dubious.

Within this general schema, however, Boas was ledto several other conclusions. He was persuaded, ap-parently on the basis of Jochelson's and Bogoras' find-ings, supported by the research of Leo Shternberg, thatthe commonality of the Northwest Coast and Siberiacame from a reverse postglacial migration. Boasseemed convinced that the Siberian groups were anoffshoot of American peoples (Boas 1910a, 1912,1940:325, 337; Shternberg 1906:138). This idea, the"Americanoid" theory, receives no current support."Boas was even more certain that the Eskimo were anAmerican people, recent invaders from the easternArctic. They had, he thought, been driven northwardby the Athapaskan and thus descended to the Arcticcoast (Boas 1891, 1908:1301). 'The much discussedtheory of the Asiatic origin of the Eskimo," he wrote in1910, "must be entirely abandoned" (Boas 1910a:537).However, the dogmatism was usually tempered witha wish for archaeological confirmation that an earlier,non-Eskimo type had inhabited Alaska (Boas 1902,1908, 1910b, 1936). Boas' insistence is curious. Herecognized the strongly "mongoloid" physical type ofthe Eskimo, their very strong maritime cultural similar-ity with the Koryak and Chukchi, and the possible con-nection of Yukon pottery with Siberia (Boas 1904,191 Oa, 1940:341), but he never committed himself toany detailed sorting out of the relationships, and hisinsistence on a central Arctic origin for the Eskimogoes back to his conclusions of the mid-1880s (Boas1883:118, 1888). The view was endorsed by Bogorasand Jochelson, both of whom wrote of the Eskimo asa wedge that split the trunk of the common tree(Bogoras 1902:670; Jochelson 1908:359). Eskimo ori-gin was, as a later anthropologist noted, Boas' ideefixe (Drucker 1955:60). Boas could be a stubborn, evenopinionated man: once he grasped a notion, he tendednot to let it go.

Part of his difficulty was understandable ignorance.The Alaskan Eskimo were imperfectly known. He noted

DOUGLAS COLE

the paucity of knowledge of Eskimo mythology westof the Mackenzie River that prevented "a clear insightinto the main characteristics of the folklore of the west-ern Eskimo" (Boas 1902,1904,191 Oa:530). Boas prob-ably thought the Alaskan Eskimo to be more similar tohis Central Eskimo than they actually were. The unifor-mity of Eskimo culture was "remarkable," and althoughhe cited "a certain amount of differentiation" west ofthe Mackenzie River, he attributed it to influence fromIndian neighbors (Boas 1910a:537).

Another difficulty was that Boas was working with-out adequate archaeology, and, had he pursued ar-chaeological research in Alaska and northern Siberia,the methods of the time would probably not haverevealed the necessary data. He was also hamperedby a too-recent view of ethnic relationships. He tended,understandably, to project historical entities back intoremote prehistory. He continued—despite his concernwith acculturation and diffusion, despite his attemptat historical depth—to lapse into thoughts of migra-tions of peoples more or less congruent with historicaldivisions. Although he made salient the idea that tribeswere not stable units lacking in historical developmentbut cultures in constant flux, each influenced by itsnearer and more distant neighbors in space and in time(Boas 1908:1296-7, 1910b:8), he could not totallyfree himself from that fallacy. While northwestern In-dian ancestry reaches back to the Old World, recentarchaeology has shown the great age of culture in theregion and its continuity from its first discernibleforms to its appearance at European contact. Currentthought tends to the view of stability of population inthe region over a long time, with an emphasis on con-tinuity that almost discards migration models (Carlson1990:69, 115; Fladmark 1986:5).

The expedition did establish some of the affinitiesit sought between Paleoasiatic groups in Siberia andthe Northwest Coast Indians and their interior neigh-bors. Similarities of bows, housing, watercraft, harpoons,and body armor, for example, could be found on eachside of the North Pacific. Elements, even structures, of

4 7

mythologies were strikingly similar. That much seemedtrue. On the other hand, Boas was blinded by his ideaof Eskimo origin and remained ignorant of the com-plexities of Alaskan relationships. He (and Jochelson)willfully dismissed counterevidence of Eskimo partici-pation in North Pacific culture."

The Siberian expeditions led Boas to important in-tercontinental hypotheses. They also, in the work ofBogoras and the Jochelsons, made permanent contri-butions with long-term effects. Events hindered the fullcompletion of the Russians' projects. Shternberg's workon the Amur tribes never reached publication, nor didBogoras' on the Itelmen. Only a small portion of theSiberian anthropometry was published. Yet the corpuswas significant, probably far more than the NorthwestAmerican material, and, as important, the Jesup Expe-dition spurred Bogoras and Jochelson into continuingactivity. Moreover, theirs was the only concern withintercontinental connections for a generation or more.

Since no final summary volume appeared, we haveonly sketchy and fragmentary suggestions of Boas'conclusions. His comparisons drew on similarities ofmaterial culture and mythology and on vaguely de-scribed physical and linguistic similarities. Even thesedid not entirely support his conclusions: he was forcedto acknowledge but dismiss the importance of Chukchiand Eskimo similarities. The conclusions that he pub-lished in conference papers or journal articles after theexpedition's end ventured only a little beyond the evi-dence he had used between 1895 and 1897 to urgeit. The material gathered, important as it was and is,probably could not have sustained much more. That,as much as any other factor, may have determined thenonappearance of the summary volume.

Conclusion

The Jesup Expedition proved a disappointment forMorris K. Jesup and for his museum. Boas, too, wasdisillusioned, much more by the museum and Jesupthan with the expedition itself. While he remained proudof its accomplishments, it had not unfolded in the way

he foresaw, and its publications went on interminably,inconclusively. Worse, he never was able to fill in theresearch gaps. It has taken almost a century for theresuscitation and redemption of the Jesup project.

The Jesup Expedition's limitations are clear. In a per-haps ironic way, Boas had foreseen that the slow,steady results of his "historical method" would not bedazzling. Even measured by its aspirations and pro-spectus, however, its success was limited. The answersto its research questions never went much beyondthe postulates that formed the question. On the North-west Coast, it was an extension, "by ampler means,"of his earlier program, one which then continued, inHunt and Teit's ethnological gatherings, in LeoFrachtenberg's painstaking linguistic research, and inHermann Haeberlin's precociously brilliant essays onart. The Siberian story was somewhat different. There,the expedition sustained the work of two, or eventhree, pioneering anthropologists. Jochelson andBogoras, almost alone among Jesup participants (Boashimself being the only other), not only practiced their"historical method" but extended their imagination toembrace the intercontinental context of the project.The impact of the Jesup Expedition had its limitationswithin scholarship on the North American area, but theconsequences for Siberian scholarship have been muchmore significant and enduring.

Appendix A

Franz Boas to Morris K. Jesup,President,

American Museum of Natural IHistory,Jan. 19th, 1897

Dear Sir,

One of the most important problems of American an-thropology is that of the influence between the cul-tures of the Old and of the New World. Investigationson this problem have mostly been confined to com-parisons between the ancient cultures of Central Amer-ica and of South Eastern Asia. The comparative studyof that region in which contact and transmission of

48

PERSPECTIVES/ NORTH AMERICA

5/ Franz Boas, 1858-1942 (AMNH 2A5161)

11/ Waldemar Bogoras, with his native guides on the Kolyma River, Siberia, 1 895 (AMNH 22402)

5 4

14/ Dina and Waldemar Jochelson in their field tent in Eastern Siberia. Photo ca. 1896.Note the drying negative plates on a small rack on the table (AMNH 2A1 3549)

1 5/ Dina Jochelson-Brodsky emerging from native sod-covered hut, summer 1 900 (AlVlNH 337626)

1 8/ Bogoras and Russian Cossacks on the Anadyr River, summer 1 900 (AlVINH 2654)

21 / N.C. Buxton in Gizhiga, Siberia, flanked by the local Russian officer and his secretary, spring 1 901 (AMNH22089)

22/ Harlan I. Smith during his excavations at the Great Fraser Midden, Eburne, British Columbia(AMNH 42964)

63

Itonn ,- ■ ■ ■ -

23/ Dina Jochelson-Brodsky and native guides in the Jochelsons' field camp among the Reindeer Koryak,1 901. W. Jochelson, photographer (AMNH 41 48)

64

culture has most probably taken place has never beentaken up in a thorough manner.

Fragmentary studies of the Ethnology of the tribesof the North Pacific Coast reaching on the Asiatic sidefrom the Amoor [River] to the Behring Strait and on theAmerican side from Columbia River to Behring Straithave proved beyond reasonable doubt, that there arecertain cultural elements in common to all the tribes ofthis region. The bows, the armors, the method of build-ing canoes may be given as instances. The mytholo-gies of the people of this extensive region show alsovery peculiar points of similarity which suggest an earlycommunication. Close analogies between Siberian talesand such from British Columbia and particularly talescollected among the Ainos of Yezzo [Hokkaido island-ed.], the Kamchadeles and the Indians of VancouverIsland have been noticed. The whole question, how-ever, is by no means definitely settled and cannot besolved until all the tribes of this region have been thor-oughly investigated. We also know that the physicaltype of the inhabitants of the North Pacific coast ofAmerica resembles Asiatic types more than any otherAmerican race.

Both the Asiatic and the American sides of the NorthPacific Ocean have one important peculiarity in com-mon. They are inhabited by numerous tribes speakinga great diversity of languages, only a few of which areknown. I have indicated on the accompanyingsketchmap the distribution of tribes and languages.Those spoken on the Asiatic side are practically un-known, and all of them are disappearing. We do notknow if any similarity of structure between these lan-guages and American languages exists, but we mustadmit the possibility of this being the case. The interiorof the Asiatic side is inhabited by people speakingallied languages. The diversity of language does notextend beyond the coast region. The same is the casein America. In short, there are so many points of simi-larity between the tribes of this whole region that weare justified in expecting that here a mutual influencebetween the cultures of the Old and the New World

DOUGLAS COLE

has existed. Thus a foundation for the solution of thisimportant problem with all its important bearings uponthe ancient civilisation of America may be laid in thisregion.

A systematic investigation of the whole problemwill have to include the following points:

1. An ethnographical study and the makingof ethnographical collections of the tribes onthe American side.

2. An ethnographical study and the makingof ethnographical collections of the tribes onthe Asiatic side.

3. An exploration of the immense shellmounds, and of ancient monuments on theNorth Pacific coast of both continents.

The study of this subject on the Asiatic side re-quires a thorough knowledge of Chinese and Mongolethnology and languages. That in the region of BehringStrait a thorough knowledge of American ethnologyand of the Eskimo language. Farther south work isparticularly needed in southern Alaska and in the Statesof Oregon and Washington.

So far as collecting is concerned, this region is oneof the few, where a vast amount of material may stillbe gathered at comparatively slight expense. This istrue particularly in the region of Behring Strait, amongthe Chukchee, the Koryak, and more than anywhereelse on the Amoor River. But in all these regions theculture of the people is disappearing rapidly and thewhole work is becoming more difficult from year toyear.

I have made an approximate estimate of the ex-pense of exploration in this region and judge that atan expenditure for field work of $5000 a year for sixyears the whole region may be covered with fair thor-oughness. [HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 16].

Appendix B

Franz Boas to Frederic W. Putnam,February 11, 1897

This letter would have to be about 10 pages long, if Iwanted to say all I have to say; but I want to be briefand leave all details until your next visit here.

6 5

Mr. Jesup called me down to his office the daybefore yesterday and told me that he could not giveme any money for this year's trip to the North PacificCoast, except that he would give me 2 months leaveof absence—and that very reluctantly only and placeat my disposal $250.00 with which to make collec-tions for the Museum and that he would get me freetransportation. I have to give up one month's salary.

Furthermore he told me that he wished to take upthe general plan of exploration on the North PacificCoast and instructed me to consult with you and topropose a detailed scheme of work for the carryingout of the plan. He also asked me, if anything could bedone this year and I requested that I might do somethings, but that it would be best probably to beginsystematic work in Siberia not until next spring.

Now there are two matters for which I must work.The first and less important (although very importantfor me) is, that I stay away longer and utilize my time,because it would be absurd to go to B.C. for 2 months.I wish to make a plan which I can present to Mr. Jesupputting the matter in such a way that I keep the workfor the B.A.A.S. [the North-Western Tribes Committeeof the British Association for the Advancement of Sci-ence] entirely distinct of all the rest and then put in acouple of months or at least six weeks on work for theproposed Jesup Expedition, which will be a great thing,if it is to embrace the whole work of ethnological ex-ploration of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Jesup looks atthis proposed expedition in the light that it will be thegreatest thing ever undertaken by any Museum eitherhere or abroad and that it will give the Institution anunequalled standing in scientific circles. I will not makeany proposition in this letter but must talk the matterover with you in detail when you come here. My gen-eral idea is to present the matter in such a way that Icommence the work on this side this summer, that atthe end of each year enough material should be accu-mulated to allow us to make a report of the collectionwhich will be a material addition to our knowledgeand thus to keep the interest in the subject.

66

The second point is the making of a detailed planof work. In order to do this intelligently I must go toWashington to get certain information which I want topresent to you when you come here. But first of all wemust find the men to do the work when the mattercomes to the point. My idea is almost as follows: Judg-ing from what you said you might include Mr. Dixon toprepare specially for ethnographic work among theChukchee, Eskimo and Yukageer.'^'' Would he be readyto take the field for a whole year beginning next spring?(a year from May). Then we must engage a student ofMongol languages who must be imported in order todo the work on the Amoor; and at present I am thebest man for southern Alaska & B.C. and farther south.Our prime endeavor now must be to impress Mr. Jesupwith the necessity of having trained specialists do thework, and not give it to adventurers or people withsuperficial knowledge. I have written a bunch of let-ters to American Orientalists asking, if there is any goodyoung man who has devoted himself to the study ofMongol Ethnology. And I have written abroad for thispurpose. You are aware that I have a certain youngman in mind who I think will be first class, but I shallwait until I obtain full information." These are the twofundamental points I wished to write about.

Mr. Jesup instructed me to ask your consent tomy proposed trip. I hope you will not object to mygoing away for 2 months and I trust you will showMr Jesup that it is desirable for me to stay away forfour months... .[HUA, Putnam Papers, Box 8].

Notes

1. All subsequent correspondence that isuncited as to repository is from the Boas Papers,American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. MarieBoas (Boas' wife) and Sophie Boas (his mother) areabbreviated as M. Boas and S. Boas, respectively.

2. But compare Boas' own statement: "I in-terested Jesup only through Villard" (F. Boas to S.Boas, 27 November 1900). In discussing severalissues throughout the paper, I am indebted topreviously published work on the Jesup Expedi-tion: Jonaitis (1 988); Freed et al. (1 988a, 1 988b).

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

3. See also Boas to parents, 1 9 January 1 897.

4. The letter is reproduced in Appendix B.

5. The English version, translated by DietrichBertz from German for the British Columbia IndianLanguage Project, remains unpublished, althoughtypescript copies are available in a few reposito-ries. Boas' conclusions were summarized and elabo-rated in the Journal of American Folk-Lore (Boas1896a) and reprinted in Boas 1940:425-36.

6. Crube's article is cited in Boas 1 897:663n.The Steller description is also in the conclusion ofIndianische Sagen (Boas 1 895a).

7. See his more forceful conclusion and insis-tence on research in "contiguous areas" in Boas1896b.

8. Both Boas' paper in the Folk-Lore Journal(1896a) and his AAAS paper (1896b) were in-tended in part as a refutation of Daniel Brinton'sultraorthodox view of independent invention andcultural evolution (see Ousley 2000). Mixed in,however, are a number of other themes, such asconcerns about the psychological process of ac-culturation of cultural elements, the complexityof origins, and the need for strict induction.

9. The BAAS contributed 480 Canadian dol-lars (G. M. Dawson to Boas, 14 May 1897, Na-tional Archives of Canada, Geological Survey ofCanada, 63.94).

1 0.1 am indebted to David J. Meltzer of South-ern Methodist University, who brought Fowke'sletter to the attention of Stanley Freed, and toFreed, who kindly passed it on to me.

11. Born in Vienna in 1872, von Zach laterserved with the Austrian consular service in EastAsia and then in the Dutch government in Indone-sia. He published a number of Chinese linguisticstudies and translations of Chinese literature be-fore his death in 1 942.

1 2. The Jochelsons' work on the Yukagir wasnot originally to be part of the expedition, butBoas later accepted the addition of this group tothe program (see Vakhtin, this volume).

1 3. Boas initially was ambivalent about thislatest trip of Jochelson's. He welcomed the long-sought research, but it delayed Jochelson'scompletion of his Jesup writing.

14. Costs were reduced to $2 per page, be-low even Boas' estimate. The first part of Bogoras'Chukchee, which came out in 1904, was the first

volume published by E.J. Brill.

1 5. Boas seems himself have recommendedthe piecework idea in order to avoid conflicts withBumpus. See memo by Boas, 25-27 April 1906,although this is contradicted in Boas to Osborne,28 April 1906.

1 6. See also Boas 1 901:357 and Boas 1 903:77, where Boas writes that, because of Nelsonand Emmons, the principal work of the expedi-tion had to be done in British Columbia and Wash-ington State. Swanton did do four months of workin 1904 in southeastern Alaska, but that was un-der Bureau of American Ethnology sponsorship.He published a long account for the bureau's 26threport on Tlingit society, beliefs, and linguistic re-lationships in 1908 and a collection of Tlingitmyths and texts the following year. The Emmonsmaterial was published only in 1 991, after almostheroic editorial work by Frederica de Laguna (in-cidentally, a Boas student).

17. Subsequent studies suggest that theCoast Salish arise from a very ancient technology,the Pebble Tool tradition, that inhabited thecoastal region for 9 or 10 millennia (Robinson1976.

18. Laufer did publish some short contribu-tions, including "Petroglyphs on the Amoor" (Laufer1899) and "Preliminary Notes on Explorationsamong the Amoor Tribes" (Laufer 1 900).

19. This was based largely on Jochelson'scomparative analysis in The Koryak (1908:354-82), the purport of which had been published ear-lier in Jochelson 1 906.

20. These somewhat repetitive reports areperhaps the best summary of Boas' conclusionsin the years following the expedition.

21. This remains a difficult and controversialarea in which new evidence undermines old mod-els while increasing the complexity of the prob-lems. Nevertheless, much of Boas' general con-clusion remains plausible.

22. The term "Americanoid" was used in thisconnection by at least 1904. Stephen Ousley[Ousley 2000—ed.] has pointed to its earlier, butdisparaging, use by Daniel Brinton.

23. Jochelson, for example, did not includeNelson's Alaska Eskimo myths in his evalua-tion because "a large part of the episodes of thelatter cannot be considered as genuine Eskimo

DOUGLAS COLE

elements" and would only "have caused confu-sion." Yet the Eskimo influence on Koryak culture-myths, religious rites, and material culture-pointed to a direct intercourse between Koryakand Eskimo at some period. When, and under whatcircumstances could only remain an open ques-tion CJochelson 1908:359). See Chowning 1962.

24. Roland Dixon was a Harvard student. Hemade a brief trip to the West Coast for the JesupExpedition but never went to Siberia. His disser-tation on the Maidu was supervised by Boas. Hereceived his Ph.D. degree in 1900, after which hebegan a long career at Harvard.

25. Obviously, Boas refers here to BertholdLaufer, with whom he maintained an extensivecorrespondence.

References

Entries marked by an asterisk were added by the editor.Beattie, Owen B.

1985 A Note on Early Cranial Studies from the Gulf ofGeorgia Region: Long-Heads, Broad-Heads, and theMyth of Migration. BC Studies 66 (summer):28-36.

Berman, Judith

1991 The Seals' Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation ofBoas' Kwak'walaTexts. Ph.D. diss.. University of Penn-sylvania, Department of Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Boas, Franz

1883 Uber die ehemalige Verbreitung der Eskimos inarktisch-amerikanischen Archipel. Zeitschrift derCesellschaft fur die Erdkunde zu Berlin 1 8(2): 11 8-36.

1888 The Eskimo. Transactions of the Royal Society

of Canada for 1887, 5. Pp. 25-39.1891 Dissemination of Tales among the Natives of

North America. Journal of American Folk-Lore 4:1 3-

20. Reprinted in Boas 1940.1 895a Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifi-

schen KUste Amerikas. Sonder-Abdruck aus den

Verhandlungen der Berliner Cesellschaft fiir

Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1891

bis 1895. Berlin: A. Asher&Co. Reprint: Bonn: Holos

Verlag, 1992.1895b Zur Ethnologie von British-Columbien. In

Verhandlungen der Cesellschaft fur die Erdkunde zu

Berlin 22 (4 May).1896a The Growth of Indian Mythologies: A Study

Based upon the Growth of the Mythologies of the

North Pacific Coast. Journal of American Folk-Lore

9:1-11. Reprinted in Boas 1940.1896b The Limitations of the Comparative Method of

Anthropology. Science, n.s. 4:901-8. Reprinted in

Boas 1940.

1 897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societiesof the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Observa-tions and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt. Re-port of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Pp. 311-738. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 898a Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern Brit-ish Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol.1, pt. 1, pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 2. New York..

1 898b The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 25-127. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York.

1901 Die Jesup Nordpazifische Expedition. In Verhand-lungen der Cesellschaft fijr die Erdkunde zu Berlin28. Pp. 356-9.

1902 Some Problems in North American Archaeol-ogy. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Se-ries, 6:1-6. Reprinted in Boas 1 940.

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3(5): 73-11 9.

1904 The Folk-Lore of the E.sk\rr\o. Journal of AmericanFolk Lore 1 7(64): 1 -1 3. Reprinted in Boas 1 940.

1 908 Die Nordpazifische Jesup-Expedition. Interna-tionale Monatschrift fur Wissenschaft, Kunst undTechnik 2(41): 1291-306.

191 Oa Ethnological Problems in Caudiddi. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute ofCreat Britain andIreland 40:S29-39. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1910b Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. In Inter-nationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress, 16. Tagung, Wien1908. Erster Hdlfte. Pp. 3-18. Vienna and Leipzig: A.Hartleben's Verlag.

1912 History of the American Race. Annals of TheNew York Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83. Re-printed in Boas 1 940.

1 936 History and Science in Anthropology: A Reply.American Anthropologist 38(1 ):1 37-41. Reprintedin Boas 1940.

1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York:Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1902 The Folklore of Northeastern Asia, as Comparedwith That of Northwestern America. American An-thropologist 4(4): 5 77-683.

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseumof Natural History, 11. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert.

Cannizzo, Jeanne

1983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-ogy 20(l):44-58.

Carlson, Roy L.

1990 Cultural Antecedents (pp. 60-9); History of

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

Research in Archeology (pp. 107-1 5). In Handbookof North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Coast.Wayne Suttles, ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian In-stitution.Carneiro, Robert L.

1973 Classic Evolution. In Main Currents in CulturalAnthropology. Raoul and Freda Naroll, eds. Pp. 57-122. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chowning, Ann

1962 Raven Myths in Northwestern North Americaand Northeastern Asia. Arctic Anthropology 1 :l-5.Cole, Douglas

''1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NorthwestCoast Artifacts. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

*1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.Cole, Douglas, and Ira Chaikin1 990 An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.Drucker, Philip

1955 Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. In NewInterpretations of Aboriginal American Culture His-tory. Pp. 59-81. Washington, DC: AnthropologicalSociety of Washington.

Farrand, Livingston

1900 Traditions of the Chilcotin Indians. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 1 -54. FranzBoas, ed. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 4. New York.Farrand, Livingston, and W. S. Kahnweiler1902 Traditions of the Quinault Indians. The Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 3, pp. 77-132. FranzBoas, ed. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 4. New York.Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell1988 Crossroads of Continents: Beringian Oecumene.In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. William Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp.9-16. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Fladmark, Knut R.

1986 British Columbia Prehistory. Ottawa: National

Museum of Man.Fowke, Gerard

1899 Archaeological Investigations on the Amoor

River. Sc/e/ice 9(224):539-41.Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and LailaWilliamson

1988a The American Museum's Jesup North PacificExpedition. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofSiberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds. Pp. 97-103. Washington DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

1988b Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Jacknis, Ira

1991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. InChiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp. 1 77-224. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press; New York: American Museumof Natural History.

Jesup, Morris K.

1897 Annual Report of the President. . . for the Year1896. New York: American Museum of Natural His-tory.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1906 Uber asiatische und amerikanische Elemente inden Mythen der Koriaken. In InternationalerAmerikanisten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904.Erste Hdlfte. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer. First publishedin 1904 in Russian, Zemlevedenie 11(3):33-41.

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E.Stechert.

1925 Archeological Investigations in the Aleutian Is-lands. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication,367. Washington, DC.

1926 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pt. 3. Memoirsof the American Museum of Natural History, 1 3.Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1928 Peoples of Asiatic Russia. New York: American

Museum of Natural History.Jonaitis, Aldona

1988 From the Land of the Totem Poles. The North-west Caost Indian Art Collection at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.

Kendall, Laurel

1988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads ofContinents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. WilliamW. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 104. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Krause, Aurel

1 885 Die Tlinkit-lndianer: Ergebnisse einer Reise nachder Nord-westkQste von Amerika und derBeringstrasse. Ausgefuhrt im Auftrage der BremerCeographischen Cesellschaft in der Jahren 1880-1881 durch die Doctoren Arthur und Aurel Krause /geschildert von Dr. Aurel Krause. Jena: HermannCostenoble.

Krupnik, Igor

1996 The "Bogoras Enigma": Bounds of Cultures andFormats of Anthropologists. In Grasping the Chang-ing World: Anthropological Concepts in the

DOUGLAS COLE

Postmodern Era. Vaclav Hubinger, ed. Pp. 35-52.London: Routledge.Laufer, Berthold

1 899 Petroglyphs on the Amoor. American Anthro-pologist, n.s. 1 (October);746-50.

1900 Preliminary Notes on Explorations among theAmoorJribes. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2(2):297-338.

Leopold, Joan

1980 Culture in Comparative and Evolutionary Per-spective: E. B. Tylor and the Making of Primitive Cul-ture. Berlin: Dieter Reimer.

Murdoch, John

1 892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedi-tion. 9th Annual Report of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology for the Years 1887-1888. Washington DC:Government Printing Office.

Nelson, Edward W.

1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Annual Reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology (1896-1897),18, pt. /.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Ohio Archeological and Historical Society

1929 Gerard Fowke. Ohio Archeological and Histori-cal Quarterly^iBi.IOO-} 8. Reprint: Pamphlets in Ameri-can History, B 758 (Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming Corp.of America, 1979). Microfiche.

Putnam, Frederic W.

1902 Synopsis of Peabody and American Museum ofNatural History Anthropology Departments. In Inter-national Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. P. xliii. Easton, PA: Eschenbach.

Robinson, Ellen W.

1 976 Harlan I. Smith, Boas, and the Salish: UnweavingArcheological Hypotheses. Northwest Anthropologi-cal Research Notes 10(2): 185-96.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters andDiaries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coastfrom 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Shternberg, Leo

1906 Bemerkungen uber Beziehungen zwischen derMorphologie der giljakischen und amerikanischenSprachen. In Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress,14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Halfte. Pp. 137-40. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

Smith, Harlan Ingersoll

1 907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and PugetSound. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt.6, pp. 301 -41. Memoirs of the American Museum ofNatural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E.Stechert.

Stocking, George W, Jr.

1987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free

Press.Teit, James A.

1898 Traditions of the Thompson River Indians ofBritish Columbia. Memoirs of the American Folk-LoreSociety, 6.

1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 163-392. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York.

Wickwire, Wendy

1993 Women in Ethnography: The Research of JamesA. Teit. Ethnohistory 40i4):S39-62.

•*2000 "The Quite Impossible Task": Douglas Cole andthe Ecumenical Challenge of British Columbia's Cul-tural History. BCStudies. The British Columbian Quar-terly ]2S-6 (spring-summer):5-32.

70

THE EXPEDITION/ NORTH AMERICA

["ranz j^oas and tKe ^Kaping of the JesupExpedition Siberian j^esearch, 1 55^^-1 ^OO

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

To ensure the productivity of their research, I am con-vinced that American scholars who nowadays ven-ture on research projects in Siberia must study the his-tory of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition QNPE), 1897-1902, as a prerequisite. Likewise, Russian academicsconsidering participation in joint projects supportedby American grants should familiarize themselves withthe historical background of the JNPE. All—especiallythose of us participating in the Jesup 2 project (seeFitzhugh and Krupnik 1994)—are well advised to studythe achievements, challenges, mistakes, and limitationsof their predecessors as they arranged internationalcooperation 100 years ago. The astonishing similaritybetween political, social, and scholarly paradigms thenand now makes this task not only necessary but alsoemotionally powerful.

Although this alone would justify interest in thehistory of the JNPE, there is another reason for suchinterest. Extensive American literature on the subjectfocuses, quite understandably, on the "American" sideof the JNPE—on its influence in shaping American an-thropology and on its American participants. The ex-pedition, however, had two sides, and its "Russian"side is of no less importance to the development ofRussian anthropology.

It is a fact that the JNPE played an important role inshaping Russian scholarship, especially the develop-ment of Russian (and, later, Soviet) research in socialanthropology, ethnography, and linguistics of theSiberian Native peoples. A miraculous interplay offavorable circumstances—for the development of

anthropology—led to the emergence of a "school" thatproved to be extremely productive and fruitful. Tosome extent, to study the roots of Russian northernresearch after 1897 is to study the history of the JNPE.In an excellent review paper by Freed et al. (1988), thedescription of preparations for the Jesup Expeditionand the obstacles it had to overcome takes abouttwo pages. Of these, the authors have given the Sibe-rian side two lines: "In Siberia, the principal problemswere politics, climate, terrain, logistics, miserable livingconditions, and the enormous distances ..." (Freed etal. 1988:9). Was there, then, anything that was not—isnot—a problem in Siberia?

This paper tries to fill in at least the broadest "Rus-sian gaps" in the early history of the JNPE, largely on thebasis of archival resources in the United States andRussia. More specifically, I relied on vast collections ofcorrespondence between the members and organiz-ers of the expedition and the dozens of other peoplewho were in one way or another involved in this monu-mental enterprise.'

Developing The Project, 1895-1897

There is a well-known, though certainly somewhat un-fortunate, tradition of naming buildings, halls, universi-ties, book series, and projects not after those whobuilt, wrote, or invented them but after those whoprovided the funding. This is understandable: goodarchitects, writers, and scholars will, with some luck,be remembered, but for the rich, this may be their onlyopportunity.

The role of Morris K. Jesup in establishing the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is, of course,fundamental. Similarly, without his support the NorthPacific Expedition would hardly have been possible.Nevertheless, the Boas North Pacific Expedition mightbe a better name: the amount of time, talent, and en-ergy that Boas invested in this project was incredible.

Franz Boas' Employment at the AMNHFranz Boas was born in 1 858 in Minden, Westphalia.He chose a university career in natural sciences andmathematics, and from 1877 to 1881 he studied inHeidelberg, Bonn, and Kiel. After a year of military ser-vice. Boas spent some time in Berlin studying the "re-action of the human mind to [the] natural environment."In the summer of 1883 he went to Baffin Island andspent more than a year with the Inuit. After severalmore years in Berlin at the Ethnographic Museum (Mu-seum fur Volkerkunde) and more fieldwork (on the WestCoast of North America, in 1 887), he moved to theUnited States and took a position at Clark University.After resigning from Clark in 1892, Boas spent the nexttwo years in Chicago, first as chief assistant to FredericW. Putnam, a leading anthropologist at Harvard whomBoas helped to organize anthropological exhibits atthe Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, and lateras curator of anthropology at the Field Museum. Boas'resignation from the Field Museum in 1894 was fol-lowed by a year of unemployment (Stocking 1973).

Putnam, who was hired as part-time curator, De-partment of Anthropology at the AMNH in New York,began working on a plan to invite Boas to the depart-ment. As early as December 1894, he wrote to Jesup:

Complying with your request that I put inwriting the substance of our conversation ofyesterday ... I respectfully make the follow-ing suggestions: First,—that I be authorizedto propose to Dr. Franz Boas that he shall soarrange his plans as to be able to accept aposition in the department as early aspossible next Fall. . ." [Putnam to Jesup,December 8, 1894, AMNH-DA].

Putnam used every meeting with Jesup to persuade

him that they needed Boas in New York. This persis-tence eventually bore fruit. In March 1 894, AMNH Sec-retary John H. Winser had informed Boas that therewas no position for a curator of anthropology at themuseum (Winser to Boas, 3 March 1 894, AMNH-DA).Five months later, however, the likelihood of a posi-tion already appeared to have increased. Putnam en-couraged Boas, writing that he hoped that the cloudyperiod of Boas' life was over and there was sunnyweather ahead (Putnam to Boas, 3 August 1 894, APS-NYPL; see also Dexter 1976).

During this time, Boas was not simply waiting pas-sively for other people to decide his destiny. In May1895 he wrote to the U.S. National Museum in Wash-ington [later renamed the Smithsonian Institution'sNational Museum of Natural History, NMNH—ed], of-fering to enlarge, describe, and sort out its AmericanIndian collections in order "to make a systematic ex-hibit covering the whole North Pacific coast" (Boas toNMNH, 27 May 1895, APS-NYPL). In this letter, the con-cept of the North Pacific Coast included only the fourAmerican Indian groups from the Yakutat [NorthernTlingit] to the Salish.

During the summer of 1895 Boas was in Europe(Germany, England, and France). While there, he receivedan offer from J. W. Powell for a permanent position inWashington with the Bureau of American Ethnology(BAE). Simultaneously, he received a letter from Putnam:

I wrote to President Low [of ColumbiaUniversity] about getting you for ColumbiaCollege, after a consultation with Mr. Jesup.Mr. Jesup thought if we could manage tokeep you in New York through the wintersomehow or other, that next year wouldopen better for us in many ways, andbetween Columbia College and the Museumwe could be pretty sure of giving you asatisfactory position. (Putnam to Boas, 19June 1895, APS-NYPL)

Putnam asked Boas to postpone the decisionuntil things clarified in New York. With Boas, Farrand,and Ripley, the AMNH would have had an "unbeat-able anthropological team" (Freed et al. 1988:9).They could establish there, Putnam wrote, "a great

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

anthropological institution," whereas in Washington, heargued. Boas would not be so free in his actions.

Thus, by the summer of 1895 Boas had two offers,one from the AMNH and one from the BAE. He wasuncertain which to choose. The position at the AMNHlooked more attractive, but the one with the BAE wasmore secure and could be taken right away.

The North Pacific Expedition Idea EmergesBefore 1 895, Boas never discussed field research inAsia or in Siberia in his letters. He wrote several lettersdescribing his plans for future work in British Columbiaand along the Northwest Coast (e.g., letter to G. M.Dawson, 1 5 May 1894, APS-NYPL), but he never spokeabout expanding beyond the Bering Strait, nor is anymention of Siberia to be found in his early correspon-dence with Putnam or Jesup.

It was probably during his trip to Europe in thesummer of 1895 that the idea of the North Pacific Ex-pedition—a comparative study of the American andSiberian Native people—struck Boas' mind. This ideawent beyond anything Boas had envisioned before.Whether he was inspired by something he had read orheard in Europe or by the forced idleness of the seven-day transatlantic trip back to New York, Boas obvi-ously landed on American soil with an idea that wasto become the nucleus of the North Pacific Expedition.

Boas had acquired unique experience on the North-west Coast, particularly in British Columbia, and he waswell equipped to address the problem of contactsbetween the Old and the New Worlds.

The types of man which we find on the NorthPacific coast of America, while distinctlyAmerican, shows a great affinity to NorthAsiatic forms; and the question arises,whether this affinity is due to mixture, tomigration, or to gradual differentiation. (Boas1898b:2)

This was put into an even broader and more challeng-ing context:

We have come to understand that before wecan build up the theory of the growth of allhuman culture, we must know the growth of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

cultures that we find here and there amongthe most primitive tribes of the Arctic, of thedeserts of Australia, and of the impenetrableforests of South America; and the progress ofthe civilization of antiquity and of our owntimes. We must, so far as we can, reconstructthe actual history of mankind, before we canhope to discover the laws underlying thattheory. (Boas 1898b:2)

Soon after coming to New York (or perhaps whilestill in Europe), Boas must have written to LeonhardStejneger, an old friend in Washington who had visitedthe Russian Far East, to ask for advice. In November1895, Stejneger answered; another letter from himfollowed in December. Inviting Boas to visit Washing-ton, Stejneger wrote:

We can then better talk of the various thingsyou write about. As a matter of fact, withoutknowing how it is proposed to travel "in theAmur region and further North" [evidently aquotation from Boas' letter], I can have noidea as to costs ... my experience has beenin such a different quarter of that part of theworld that they would be of but little use. Ihave today written, however, to a friend inSan Francisco . . . who could provide neces-sary information. (Stejneger to Boas, 26November 1895, APS-NYPL)

A month later, Stejneger described the means oftransportation from Vladivostok to Petropavlovsk andto small towns such as Cizhiga, Okhotsk, and Tigil alongthe Sea of Okhotsk. This information was obviouslybased on the letter from the "friend in San Francisco"he had mentioned earlier (Stejneger to Boas, 21 De-cember 1 895, APS-NYPL).

In the meantime. Boas accepted the AMNH posi-tion, on January 3, 1896. Along with his everyday ac-tivities at the museum, he began to dig trenches aroundJesup. Since Putnam, as head of the Department ofAnthropology, was his superior, there was no way forBoas to leave him out of the project. In fact, it is un-likely that he had such intentions; Putnam was a friend,and the two thought largely along the same lines,whether the museum structure or anthropological field-work was at issue. Putnam had demonstrated thisclearly in his memorandum to Jesup (see Annual

7 3

Report on the Department of Anthropology for 1894;Putnam to Jesup, 11 August 1 894, AMNH-DA).

I believe that the original idea for the North Pacificexpedition was developed by Boas and later promotedby Putnam. The two, however, worked closely together.Putnam was the boss, and Boas naturally did not havea chance of persuading Jesup to pay for the expedi-tion without Putnam's support, authority, and name.Although an original letter addressed to Jesup describ-ing the plan of the North Pacific Expedition was notdiscovered by myself nor other researchers (Brown1910; Dexter 1976; Freed et al. 1988:9; Hinsley andHolm 1 976; Kennedy 1 969), there are some indica-tions that such a crucial letter was written.^ For ex-ample, Putnam wrote to Augustus Lowell:

. . . you have probably noticed in a newspa-per . . . some account of the Expedition tothe North Pacific which is to be carried onunder my direction for the American Museumof Natural History in New York. Mr. Jesup,who is the President of Board of Trustees ofthat Museum, will personally pay all the ex-penses of the expedition. Dr. Franz Boas . . .will take charge of a party to make explora-tions on Vancouver Island this summer. ... Inorder that you may understand the scope ofthe above-mentioned expedition ... Ienclose a copy of my letter to Mr. Jesup onthis subject. (Putnam to Lowell, 20 March1897, APS-NYPL) [See also Appendix A toCole, this volume—ed.].

Note the phrases "under my direction," "my letter",they clearly indicate that the letter was signed (or per-haps cosigned) by Putnam. In any case, the fact thatthe North Pacific Expedition was organized and fi-nanced "at the suggestion of Boas and F. Ward Putnam"(Rohner 1969:199) can be regarded as proved.

One can get a clear idea of the contents of thisletter from another letter written by Boas to Jesup inNovember 1898 in which he tries to "restate the ob-jects of the expedition, the original plans, and thechanges that seem desirable at the present time." Boasformulates the two goals of the expedition as follows:

1. Is there a racial affinity between theAsiatic race and the American race, which

74

will compel us to assume a common originof both? 2. Can we prove by archaeologicaland ethnological investigation the existenceof historical contact between the tribes ofthe two continents? (Boas to Jesup, 2 No-vember 1898, AMNH-DA)

He then explains at length the information that led himto expect a positive answer to these two questions.

The Expedition Takes ShapeFor several months, the idea was discussed in manymeetings. Jesup soon became an ardent supporter ofthe proposal and tried to raise money for it. When itseemed that nobody was willing to sponsor the project,Jesup made a bold decision to cover the expenses outof his private funds. John Winser wrote to Putnam inFebruary 1897:

Mr. Jesup has about concluded to take upthe cost of the Bering Sea explorations. He . .. would like you to have the matter in mindand be prepared to give your views on hisreturn. Entering into this work is howeverentirely dependent upon the discovery of theright man for the work . . . (Winser to Putnam,12 February 1897, AMNH-L)

In March 1897, the first public announcement ofthe expedition appeared in the form of an anonymousarticle in Science (Proposed Explorations... 1897:455-7) [presumably written by Boas]. It was followed bynumerous articles in the New York Times and othernational and local papers. The papers flashed tempt-ing headings:

Round the World for Science. Morris K. Jesupto Send an Expedition for the Museum ofNatural History to Search America First.Anthropologists Will Gather Evidence as toFirst Men on This Continent, Will Cross toAsia Then . . .

When the expedition was announced, dozens (per-haps hundreds) of letters poured into the AMNH. Allkinds of people begged to be allowed to take part-young and old, adventurers and doctors, journalistsand students, and even a shorthand expert. (The last-named offered, rather boldly, to write 1 50-200

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

syllables per minute in any language, including thosenot previously known to exist.) Most of the letters,which typically began, "it has always been my dream,"were written in 1897; all or most were answered nega-tively: "At present we have completed the researchparties; your letter will be filed for the future". A letterfrom a W. F. Brock is worth quoting as an example;

For several years I have devoted all of thetime that I could spare from my profession ingathering together Indian history and leg-ends. ... As a newspaper correspondent, Ihave traveled over ALL of Oregon, Washing-ton and Idaho. I have visited many parts ofMontana, British Columbia, Alberta andAssinaboia. ... I was with the Piute Indians ofNevada for four months. ... I lived amongthe Yakimans. ... I converse freely in theChinook Jargon. ... I can handle a train ofpacked horses and manage canoe with askill which has been acquired by a liferesidence in a new country. ... I should liketo work under you or in one of your divi-sions, in any capacity in which I can be themost useful. (Brock to Jesup, n.d. 1 897,AMNH-DA)

In a letter to Jesup complaining, hypocritically, thathe was besieged by reporters eager to learn detailsabout the expedition, Putnam indicated that, on thewhole, "[i]t again shows the great interest which thepeople take in everything anthropological and espe-cially in all research relating to the ethnology of America"(Putnam to Jesup, 16 March 1897, AMNH-DA).

Now that the expedition had the necessary fund-ing and wide publicity. Boas realized, as Winser hadput it, that beginning the JNPE project in earnest was"entirely dependent upon the discovery of the rightman for the work." Boas began to look for the man.

Looking for the Man: Von Zach and BailyThrough his German and American contacts. Boas sooncame across two names. The first person was a V.Baily, recommended by Stejneger. Very little is knownabout him except that he "has had the intention forsome time to go to Eastern Siberia collecting" (Stejnegerto Boas, 27 April 1 897, APS-NYPL).

The otherwas a young German scientist from Leiden,Edwin von Zach, who was recommended by ProfessorGustav Schlegel. Boas' letter to von Zach in April 1897is probably the earliest source available from whichone can judge how Boas had envisioned the proposedexpedition before it actually began:

From what Dr. Schlegel writes me, I supposethat you will be well prepared to undertakelinguistic and anthropological work, both ofwhich will be of great importance for theundertaking; but ... it is also necessary topay particular attention to the collection ofethnological and anthropological material. Idesire to have particularly good collection ofcrania, when such can be obtained, and of allthe objects used in the daily life and religiouslife of the people. Besides these, I lay particu-lar stress upon the collection of goodlinguistic data, of collection of myths andother traditions in the original language, ofsongs, etc., and furthermore I want extensiveservice of measurements of the people; thatis to say, I want to cover the whole field ofethnological, anthropological, and linguisticresearch as fully as possible. . . . You willunderstand that this letter is not a definiteand final proposition on my part, but thisletter is written in order to inform you of ourproposed work. (Boas to von Zach, April1897, AMNH-DA)

Von Zach's answer was prompt and enthusiastic:

I am much obliged to you for your flatteringproposition . . ., and I am perfectly satisfiedwith the conditions. . . . Although I am not aman of means, a scientific investigation ofthis kind is not a question of making money;but I am doubtful if I am able to adequatelycarry out the proposed work. I have studiedmedicine and the Chinese language andliterature, but I have not paid much attentionto the isolated languages of eastern Siberia. .. . All I can claim, therefore, as specialacquirements, is a general knowledge of thesubject and a deep interest in every thingpertaining to the same. If you should finallydecide to engage me, I should propose todiscontinue my special work on Chineselanguage and literature, in order to prepare,so far as feasible, for the proposed expedi-tion. I should study in detail the linguistic andethnographical literature of Siberia, and visitthe collections at Berlin, London, and St.Petersburg. I should also take up with greatervigor my practical studies of the English andRussian languages. Finally I beg to ask you

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

to inform me if the worl< that I would beexpected to do is confined to the Kot7akand Youkageer, or if you intend to take upother tribes of eastern Siberia as well, (vonZach to Boas, 24 April 1897, AMNH-DA)

Boas was obviously impressed by the young man'sresponse. On May 7, 1 897, he wrote to both GustavSchlegel and Morris Jesup stating that the recommendedcandidate was "excellent." "I do not believe from whatI hear," he added, "that we can find a better man thanhim for the work north of the Okhotsk Sea, and I wouldsuggest that he be engaged for doing this work"(AMNH-DA).

By mid-May, the proposed expedition began totake shape, as Boas wrote to Jesup:

It will be possible to send two parties toAsia next spring. One of these would go toArctic Siberia . . . the other party would goto the Amoor River. It would be best forboth parties to stay away for a whole year. Ihave engaged Prof. Von Zach to go to ArcticSiberia, and another gentleman [Boas isprobably referring here to Laufer—N.V.] whoseems to be very well prepared for the workhas been recommended to me. (Boas toJesup, 16 May 1897, APS-NYPL)

On May 1 9, 1 897, shortly before leaving on thefield trip to Victoria, British Columbia, Boas sent an of-ficial letter to von Zach and offered him a position onthe expedition team, with the task of studying theChukchi, the Koryak, and the Yukagir tribes of Siberia.For this, he suggested a salary of $500 per year, withall expenses in the field to be covered by the AMNH(Boas to von Zach, 19 May 1897, AMNH-DA).

At the same time, steps were taken to secure thecooperation of the Russian government. On March 1 5,Morris Jesup signed a formal letter to Russia's EnvoyExtraordinary to the United States, E. Kotzebue. In de-scribing briefly the aim of the expedition, he expressedhope that "the Imperial Russian Government will giveus authority to carry on explorations in its territory"Oesup to Kotzebue, 1 5 March 1 897, AMNH-DA).

Relations with Russian government authorities de-veloped slowly but steadily. On September 1 9, Dr. E.O. Hovey, a geologist employed by the AMNH who

had taken part in the International Geological Con-gress in St. Petersburg, submitted to Jesup a report onhis consultations with Russian officials (conducted atJesup's request) about the possibility of sending anexpedition to Siberia. The Russian government, regard-ing the whole proposition quite favorably, requesteda list of the people who were to take part in the expe-dition, with their titles and positions, "without whichnothing could be done." No foreign expedition wouldbe allowed to enter Siberia unless its personnel wasknown and approved in advance. Dr. Hovey also talkedto General Dubrovin, of the Imperial Russian Academyof Sciences (RAS), and he met with Dr. Amstant, theassistant to the permanent secretary of the RAS, Pro-fessor Vasily V. Radloff. (Radloff himself was away onvacation.) In addition, Hovey called on Grand DukeConstantine, president of the RAS, leaving with his sec-retary a letter explaining the plan for the Siberian expe-dition. His conclusion was "that the Russians are or willbe thoroughly interested in the investigations in north-eastern Siberia and that the government will authorizeand assist the expedition" (Hovey to Jesup, 19 Sep-tember 1897, AMNH-DA).

Change of Plans: Jochelson AppearsEverything seemed in order, but later that year some-thing must have happened with von Zach. There areno more letters to or from him in Boas' correspon-dence collection, and the leadership of the JNPE field-work in northeastern Siberia was again uncertain. Thesequence of the Siberian work suddenly changed; theAmur River area would now first be investigated byBerthold Laufer (on Laufer, see Kendall 1988). On Janu-ary 4, 1 898, Boas wrote to Radloff:

For the Spring of this year we have plannedan expedition to the Lower Amoor [Amur]River. We have requested and have beengranted authority from the Imperial RussianGovernment to conduct our investigations inthat region, and I have selected Dr. BertholdLaufer of Cologne, who has studied Asiaticlanguages in Berlin and Leipzig, to study thelanguage of the Gilyak; he will be accompanied

76

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

by Mr. Gerard Fowke. ... I hope to extendour work in 1 899 towards the more northernregions, but I have not yet found a man wellfitted for this work. ... I am desirous offinding a young man who will spend a yearor two in Northeastern Siberia, with a viewto studying the customs, manners, languagesand physical characteristics of that district.Could you recommend to me a young manfitted to undertake this work? (Boas toRadloff, 4 January 1898, AMNH-DA)

Radloff promptly responded on February 23, 1898:^

I have found a gentleman willing to take partin your expedition, a Mr. Jochelson, who hasjust returned from an expedition to theYukagirs, and among whom he has lived fortwo and a half years. ... He consents to takepart in the expedition for one year only, andonly to the Yukagirs. For the expedition tothe Chukchee he recommends a friend of his,a Mr. Bogoraz, who has lived two yearsamong them and knows their language. ... Itis my opinion that you would do well tosecure the services of these two gentlemen,since they are both well acquainted with thecountries to which they will have to go, andhave already made special studies of thelanguages as well as the habits and customsof the peoples. . . . Unfortunately I have notyet been able to receive the consent of thelatter gentleman, since he is living in EasternSiberia, but I have written to him and hopeto have his answer in about two months.(Radloff to Boas, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA)

Radloff also rendered to Boas the conditions uponwhich Jochelson consented to undertake the work. Alltravel expenses should be paid, as well as a sufficientsalary starting on the date Jochelson left St. Petersburgand continuing until he had fully prepared his fieldmaterials for publication. Jochelson was willing to giveBoas full benefit of all the materials he had alreadygathered, as well as those yet to be collected, but hereserved the right to publish in Russian as much ofthese findings as he wished.

This is the first time the names of Waldemar(Vladimir) Jochelson and Waldemar (Vladimir, also calledNathan) Bogoras (or Bogoraz) appear in the correspon-dence." A question that is often asked—why Radloffdid not mention the third potential participant, LeoShternberg—has, in my opinion, an obvious answer.

The original letter from Boas indicated that he alreadyhad a person for the study of the Cilyak [Nivkh] peoplein the Amur River area. Boas was asking for help inidentifying one man to do research in northeastern Si-beria for two years. Radloff instead suggested twomen, each for one year. For Shternberg, there Just wasno vacancy at the time (see also Kan, this volume).

Radloff also wrote tojesup informing him that "theAcademy of Sciences at St. Petersburg has consentedto assist in every possible way the scientific expedi-tion." In addition, he requested official information: thenames of all persons who were to take part in theexpedition, when they expected to arrive in Siberiaand the duration of their stay, and what parts of Sibe-ria they intended to visit. This information, he explained,was necessary for a letter of recommendation to thegovernor-general of Eastern Siberia, so that each mem-ber of the expedition could be supplied with an openletter from the minister of the interior to all the admin-istrative powers of that part of the empire (Radloff toJesup, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA).

However, the matter of acquiring permission fromthe Russian government did not proceed smoothly.On April 4, the U.S. Embassy in St. Petersburg informedJesup that Laufer would not be able to get a Russianvisa to conduct fieldwork in Siberia. The visa was re-fused by none other than Minister of the Interior IvanCoremykin, who was perfectly familiar with the wholeproject and was much interested in the matter.Coremykin's position was that this would be againstRussian law: Laufer, as a German Jew, was prohibitedfrom entering Siberia [according to the Russian anti-Jewish regulations—ed.] (U.S. Embassy tojesup, 4 April1898, AMNH-DA)."-

Boas wrote to a contact in Germany, a Mr.Grundwedel, to discuss the possibility of influencingthe Russian government. The answer was pessimistic:

. . . the Russian government seeks totally tothwart all scientific investigations by non-Russian scholars on Russian territory. ... I seeno other way but that the expedition makeitself directly available to the Russian Academy.

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

77

Of course the Imperial Russian Academywould have first rights to both the collec-tions as well as any literary output. Forscience it would be all the same, of course,but not for you. (Grundwedel to Boas, 2 May1898, AMNH-DA)

The matter was settled only after Radioff addressedGrand Duke Constantine, titular president of the RAS,who appealed to no less than his nephew. TsarNicholas II.

By June 1898, everything was more or less ready.In July 1898 Berthold Laufer and Gerard Fowke begantheir work among the Nivkh [Gilyak] and Ulch [Tungus]people of the Amur River region, as well as among theAinu of Sakhalin Island. They remained in the field untilMarch 1899 (Freed et al. 1988:13-14; Kendall 1988;Segel n.d.). By that time, the other half of the SiberianJNPE expedition had also been arranged.

The JNPE Siberian Team: Two PopulistRevolutionaries

It is now time to explain who those two "Russiangentlemen," Vladimir Jochelson and Vladimir Bogoras,were. To use Radioff s wording, they "had Just returnedfrom an expedition" to Eastern Siberia and were rec-ommended by the RAS to Boas on the strength oftheir two-year experience of fieldwork in the area, theirgood command of Native languages, and their deepknowledge of the "habits and customs of the people."In fact, the two people in question were dissidents.

Vladimir Jochelson was born in 1855 and had joinedthe revolutionary movement, the People's Freedomparty, at a rather young age.^ Between 1875 and 1881,he was an underground party activist. In 1881 he emi-grated to Switzerland, where he worked at the partyprinting house and studied social sciences and eco-nomics at the University of Bern. In 1885 he returnedto Russia and was immediately arrested and impris-oned. He spent 1885-87 in solitary confinement, andin 1887 he was exiled to Eastern Siberia for 10 yearsof ssylka (political exile).^ While in Siberia, he becameinterested in the Yukagir, a small Native nation living in

the area of his exile. He later took part in the SibiryakovExpedition (1 894-98) organized by the Russian Geo-graphical Society [and sponsored by Russian gold-min-ing tycoon Alexandr Sibiryakov ed.]. Jochelson re-turned to European Russia in 1 898 and immediatelywent to Switzerland, where he enrolled at the univer-sity in order to finish his education (RAS-J).

Vladimir Bogoras was born in 1865 in the smalltown of Ovruch in Volyn Province, western Ukraine. In1880, at the age of 1 5, he entered St. Petersburg Uni-versity. He took courses in mathematics but laterswitched to law. Like Jochelson, Bogoras was a mem-ber of the People's Freedom party. In 1882 he wasexiled to his hometown and then, in 1883, arrested.After serving a short term in prison, he again becamevery active in party affairs. In December 1 886 he wasarrested for the second time, sent to prison for threeyears, and afterward exiled for 10 years to the KolymaRegion of eastern Siberia, where he lived from 1890until 1898. Around 1 894, he too became a memberof the Sibiryakov Expedition and worked on the eth-nography of the Chukchi. He returned to St. Petersburgin 1899 and was employed as a fellow of the Museumof Ethnography (Al'kor 1935:5-7; Krader 1968:116).

A third person, Leo (Lev) Shternberg, became con-nected with Boas and the JNPE project several yearslater. Since his name will be mentioned many timesbelow, and since Shternberg's earlier years were sostrikingly similar to those of Bogoras and Jochelson, itis appropriate to say a few words about him here. (Amore detailed account is found in Kan, this volume.)

Born in 1861 in Zhitomir, Ukraine, Shternberg stud-ied at St. Petersburg University in 1881, enrolling in theDepartment of Natural Sciences. He soon joined theCentral Student Circle, the main branch of the People'sFreedom party among the students. There, he metBogoras for the first time. After being involved in largestudent demonstrations and clashes with the police,Shternberg was exiled from St. Petersburg in 1882 andbecame a law student at Novorossiysk University inOdessa. He studied and continued his "revolutionary

78

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

activities" in Odessa for four years until his arrest in1886, when he was in the middle of his graduationexams. After being imprisoned for three years, in 1889he was exiled for 10 years to Sakhalin Island. He be-came interested in the language and culture of theCilyak [Nivkh] people and published his first paper onthe Cilyak in 1 893. In 1 899 he returned to St. Peters-burg (Bogoras helped him get permission to live in thecapital) and in 1901 became an ethnographer at theMuseum of Anthropology and Ethnography, rising tothe level of senior ethnographer several years later (Kan1978; Ol'denburg and Samoilovich 1930:7-8).

Jochelson, Bogoras, and Shternberg: Early

Anthropological Interests

During their years in Siberia, these three members ofthe People's Freedom party wrote to each other asfrequently as they were permitted, exchanging what-ever news they had, words of support for each other,opinions on the books they had read, and the booksthemselves. The letters are full of complaints aboutthe unbearable conditions of life and the idleness andboredom. This is especially true for Bogoras who, be-ing the youngest and the most energetic of the three,obviously suffered most from living "on the sidewalkof the road of life," as he put it, and watching life gopast. This excerpt of a letter from Bogoras in Sredne-Kolymsk to Shternberg in Sakhalin captures his mood:

Your warm-cold and wet-dry island is stillpart of the globe, and lives and movestogether with it, if not forward, then at leastbackwards. Kolymsk is a different planet,even less connected with Earth than theMoon, completely alien to Earth, a block ofice cast out into space and suspended thereabove the emptiness, where every accidentalspark of life freezes down and suffocates.(20 June 1 894, RAS-B).

The reasons why the three exiles become inter-ested in the ethnography of the Siberian Native peoplesare rather complicated. To some extent, it was a con-tinuation of their interest in "the people"—a central

concept in the People's Freedom party ideology. An-other reason was the immense demand for educatedpeople in those remote areas. The services of Jochelson,Shternberg, and Bogoras were soon engaged by thelocal administration and by the Sibiryakov Expeditionfor the purposes of conducting censuses, recordingstatistics, and describing the life of the people. Ofcourse, they were political exiles and could not betrusted, but they were also educated people formeruniversity students—and thus could be useful. To someextent, the idleness and boredom of their everydaylives impelled them to find something to do in order to"preserve their sanity and will to live," as Kan (1978:11)put it. Ten years, after all, is a long time.

Initially, they might not have taken their ethno-graphic pursuits seriously. For example, Bogoras, aftertwo paragraphs of the usual complaints about hisboredom and idleness, rage at being cut off from life,and irritation, wrote in a letter to Shternberg:

I am now flirting with ethnography. I traveledthrough the area, lived for seven months withthe Chukchi, goddamn them, rode onreindeer back, went downstream on rafts-well, this is hardly interesting to anyone butan ethnographer. (Bogoras to Shternberg, 4November 1895, RAS-B)

Shternberg himself, after several months of isolatedlife at a distant military post (he had to share a hutwith his guards), established friendly relations with resi-dents of a neighboring Cilyak [Nivkh] settlement. Go-ing there almost every day, he began to learn theirlanguage and to document their customs.

Thus it happened that almost simultaneouslyOochelson in 1898, Bogoras and Shternberg in 1899),three men experienced in studying Siberian ethnologyand languages and willing to publish the materials theyhad collected arrived in St. Petersburg. Of course, inmany ways they were quite naive about how sciencewas done. In 1899, for example, Shternberg, still inSakhalin, wrote to Bogoras, who was already in St.Petersburg, asking him to find "an international Cilyakalphabet" and "a reader in comparative philology."

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

Bogoras wrote back quickly, "There is no such thing asa Cilyak alphabet. What you have to do is copy acouple of Cilyak texts and send them to the Academywith detailed grammatical commentaries" (Bogoras toShternberg, 22 February 1899, RAS). Shternberg mailedhis manuscript on the Cilyak language to Bogoras, whopersuaded K. Zaieman, a well-known linguist workingwith the academy, to publish it (see Kan, this volume).

Obviously, Bogoras, Jochelson, and Shternberg wereusing their ethnographic and linguistic materials andthe unique knowledge they had acquired in Siberia asa means of recapturing their standing in life. In 1899Bogoras wrote to Shternberg that he had visitedRadloff, who promised to support Shternberg's inten-tion to come to St. Petersburg to work on his collec-tions, which would be donated to the Museum ofAnthropology and Ethnography (MAE). Bogoras advisedShternberg to write to Radloff immediately that he,Shternberg, had a certain collection from a certain landand was willing to present it to the museum but neededtime to organize it. That would require his presence inSt. Petersburg. "Advertise yourself with reserve but in-tensively," Bogoras wrote, not without a hint of irony(Bogoras to Shternberg, n.d. 1 899, RAS).

They seem rather surprised themselves at how theirlives were turning out. Before their exile to Siberia, theynever dreamed of becoming ethnographers. Politicalactivism, journalism—these were the stuff of real life.Bogoras somewhat sarcastically joked, "Ah, this iswhat the Acheans went to conquer Troy for! So thatthey could afterwards take apart Chukchee, Yukaghir,Cilyak and other texts. Mais tu I'a voulu, GeorgeDflAic//>7.'"(Bogoras to Shternberg, n.d. 1899, RAS). Butanother obvious undertone of Bogoras' letters of theperiod was sheer pride. He was proud of himself andhis comrades because they had managed not to per-ish, physically and mentally, during those 10 extremelyharsh years in Siberia. Instead, they had found some-thing there that helped them reestablish their socialstanding. These former convicts and exiles had col-lected copious data previously unknown to scholars,

80

and they were publishing their works in the prestigiousproceedings of the RAS and the Imperial CeographicalSociety. The RAS had no one but the two (or eventhree) of them to recommend to Boas as experiencedethnographers with considerable knowledge of Sibe-ria. "By God, attaboys, those old Siberian Jews!" (Bogorasto Shternberg, 1 9 August 1 899, RAS).

Boas Employs JochelsonIn the fall of 1898, Boas went to Berlin, where, for thefirst time, he had an opportunity to meet Radloff inperson and to make the acquaintance of Jochelson,who was still in Switzerland working on his doctoralexaminations (Boas to Jesup, 4 October 1 898, AMNH-L). After meeting Boas and securing his own position,Jochelson began to promote Bogoras persistently, re-minding Boas about him in almost every letter. Forinstance, he wrote:

I just received word from Yakutsk, from Mr.Bogoraz, that he agrees to study the Chukchifor the Museum and travel to the Beringpeninsula for that purpose. He is satisfiedwith the conditions I had stated. Mr. Bogorazshould have arrived in Irkutsk by now, and inNovember we hope to meet in Russia . . .(Jochelson to Boas, 23 September 1898,AMNH-DA)

And:

I beg to repeat that he is by far the best manfor the investigation of the Chukchi and theother tribes of the Bering peninsula.... Mr.Bogoraz speaks Chukchi fluently. He is wellprepared to conduct ethnological work, andhe is willing to start at once, if so required.(Jochelson to Boas, 3 November 1898,AMNH-DA)

On October 28, 1898, Boas mailed to Jochelson aletter containing the terms of the latter's employmentfor the expedition: the AMNH offered to employJochelson for a period of three and a half years at asalary of $ 100 a month, with an additional $4,000 setaside for field expenses. Jochelson had to come toNew York on or around February 1, 1899, in order toreceive special instructions in regard to his fieldwork.He was required to then proceed to the north coast of

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

the Sea of Okhotsk in spring 1 899. He was to devotehis time from summer 1 899 until late winter 1900 tothe study of the local Koryak people and then pay avisit to the eastern groups of the Yukagir. The scope ofhis work was defined as follows:

You would have to make collections ofspecimens illustrating the customs and thephysical characteristics of the people. Thesecollections should include ethnographicalspecimens of all kinds, skeletons and skulls,so far as these can be obtained, photo-graphs, and casts in plaster-of-Paris. Yourstudies would be devoted primarily to theethnology of the people, including a thor-ough study of language and mythology andanthropometric measures. After you havecompleted your studies, you will return toNew York. Your return will be expectedapproximately in the beginning of 1 901. Thefollowing year and a half you would engageto work up in the American Museum ofNatural History the scientific results of yourfield work. The scientific results, as well ascollections made during the journey, wouldbecome the exclusive property of theAmerican Museum of Natural History. Noresults could be published except accordingto directions given by authority of theMuseum. (Boas to Jochelson, 28 October1898, AMNH-DA)

In addition, the AMNH would furnish photographicequipment and supplies for the journey and pay fortransportation to and from Vladivostok via New York.

Jochelson replied from Bern that he could acceptthe conditions if the AMNH were ready to considerwhat he called "changes and clarifications in detail."**These included an increase of his monthly salary to$1 50 for the 18 months in New York in 1901-02; pro-vision of additional resources for shipping the collec-tions from the town of Gizhiga on the Sea of Okhotskto New York; payment of $ 100 extra for acquisition ofethnographic literature on Siberia; insurance to be paidby the museum; and some other financial conditions.But far more important were Jochelson's "clarifications"regarding his future rights as a collector and author:

I don't want to process the results of theanthropological research (measurements,masks, etc.) myself, but prefer to leave it to the

Museum to give to an anthropologist to do. .. . I would like to evaluate the Koryakethnographic, ethnologic and linguisticmaterial myself. The finished work which willbelong to the Museum will be publishedunder my name. The Yukagir material is mine,I collected it during three years of field work.... I can give the old Yukagir information tothe Museum on the condition that I can alsogive the combined old and new material atthe same time to the Russian GeographicalSociety, in Russian (both publications mustnaturally appear under my name). (Jochelsonto Boas, 10 November 1898, AMNH-DA)

He also discussed minor details of purchasing suppliesand shipping equipment to Vladivostok (the RASagreed to pay for the latter) and indicated that it wouldbe better for him to postpone the expedition for twoyears and complete his doctorate. He was, however,ready to abandon that and leave for St. Petersburg inearly December of 1 898 if Boas insisted. Boas repliedon December 5, 1898. He accepted some ofJochelson's "clarifications" while declining others.

You must consider it as the primary object ofyour journey (1) to study and to collectamong the Koryak, and (2) to make ethno-logical collections among the Yukagheer.Everything else is secondary. ... On thewhole, your proposed modifications of mypropositions seem to imply a fear that thisMuseum might interfere with your rights asan author and investigator. There is noinclination on our part to do so. On thecontrary, we hope that the expedition, whencarried out, will materially contribute to yourreputation, and assist you in obtaining asatisfactory station in life. (Boas to Jochelson,5 December 1898, AMNH-DA)

By this time, Jochelson's and Bogoras' participa-tion in the Jesup North Pacific Expedition had alreadybeen decided by Boas. But he still had to persuadeJesup that this choice was the best one, even thoughemploying two men was more expensive than one.As Boas wrote to Jesup, "These two men acquiredsuch familiarity with work in that region, that it ap-peared unwise to employ any one else to do workthere" (2 November 1 898, AMNH-DA). This new deci-sion, however, implied certain complications:

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

For the immediate purpose of the JesupExpedition, it would have been sufficient tocollect a certain amount of information onthe tribes of the Sea of Okhotsk and of thewest coast of Bering Strait, without goinginto certain details. Mr. Jochelson, however, isnot willing to take up work in eastern Siberiaunless he can exhaust the field, besides, heasks to be employed for a considerablelength of time, and his salary represents avery considerable sum of money. The samewould be true of Mr. Bogoraz, although to aless extent. Thus we are placed in thefollowing position: we might adhere to ourold plan to send a young man to the regionreferred to, and try to obtain what we want.If we do so, the work will be done lessthoroughly, and not so well as it would bedone by Messrs. Jochelson and Bogoraz.Besides, since these two men exist, and astheir work is appreciated by Europeanscientists, there is no doubt that efforts willbe made to give them an opportunity tocarry out the proposed work. ... If, therefore,we should not employ them, but send an-other man, we should be exposed to dangerof doing imperfect work, which in the courseof a few years might be superseded by themuch better work. ... A difficult choice is,therefore, presented to us, in that we needinformation from the region in question, andthat we cannot wisely employ any one butthe two Russian gentlemen. (Boas to Jesup, 2November 1898, AMNH-DA)

It is difficult to say whether this letter was justpolitical or if, in fact. Boas was really impressed by theextensive knowledge Jochelson had of the area andthe Natives. In any case, he allowed Jochelson to influ-ence the original plan of the expedition by expandingits area to encompass the Yukagir and "exhaust thefield." A semiofficial letter was written on December 6,1 898, proposing that Bogoras survey the Chukchi be-ginning in 1900 for 12 to 15 months, on conditionssimilar to those offered to Jochelson.

A month later. Boas received a letter from Jochelsonin Paris. Jochelson accepted all the proposed condi-tions and agreed to leave Switzerland in September1899 to start preparations for his departure. He onceagain reminded Boas of Bogoras: "It should be advis-able that my departure and Mr. Bogoraz' should takeplace at the same time" (Jochelson to Boas, 4 January1 899, AMNH-DA).

In January 1 899 Bogoras returned to St. Petersburgand began working at the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography under the direction of Radloff. In thefirst week of March, Boas received a letter from Bogorasin which he accepted all the conditions. "I am happy,"Radloff wrote to Boas, "that my mediation had suchpositive results and you can now go ahead with thearrangements for the expedition in Asia" (Radloff toBoas, 27 February 1899, AMNH-DA).

Siberian Expedition Preparations, 1899-1900

For several of the months that followed, the corre-spondence between Boas and his Russian partnersfocused mainly on purchasing supplies and equipmentfor the expedition. Both parties tried to do this as inex-pensively as possible; they wrote numerous letters andmade dozens of inquiries about the prices of flour,canned milk, barter items, and gifts for local people.The whole plan was beginning to take tangible shape,although the organizers had to overcome all sorts ofproblems, some of them rather peculiar. For example,the U.S. Customs had no classification entries for "eth-nographic objects"; if they were "Specimens of Natu-ral History," no tax was due, but customs officials werenot sure. An officer cited a letter by the auditor for theTreasury Department and then presented his own in-terpretation:

The articles are classified as specimens ofNatural History, free, under Paragraph 666New Tariff. This classification however wouldappear to be erroneous. In the opinion of thisoffice, the term "Specimens of NaturalHistory" applies only to natural objects, anddoes not apply to any artificial product ormanufacture. ... As to the "AnthropologicalSpecimens" it is impossible to tell from thedescription whether they were natural orartificial. ... I think the Auditor right in hisclaim that the plaster casts and the Indianladder are not specimens of Natural History .. . [and are to] be classified under Paragraph702 N. T. . . . because, in my judgment,Ethnology is a science, viz.; the sciencewhich treats of the division of mankind intoraces, their origin, distribution and relations,and the peculiarities which distinguish them.

82

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

If they are to be classified under paragrapli702, tlien a bond is required. (Official toWinser, 10 November 1897, AMNH-DA)

At the turn of the century, even customs officers werediscussing the definition of ethnology. But, along withanswering letters from the U.S. Customs, Franz Boashad much more serious decisions to make.

Where to Go and What to StudyIn the shaping of the content and route of the Siberianportion of the Jesup Expedition, the very different back-grounds, training, and experience of Boas and his twoRussian partners had unforeseen consequences. In so-cial science research, it is almost impossible to investi-gate one's ideas in a purely technical manner or evento collect data according to a rigid, standardized ques-tionnaire. The interference of the researcher's personal-ity—the "observer's paradox"—sometimes is so strongthat two people who study the same phenomenonmight get very different results. What Boas expectedthe Russians to do was to become his eyes, ears, andarms. They had to go to specific areas, make anthro-pometric measurements, record folklore texts, collectobjects, and return to Boas in New York. He wanted totrain them specially for the job. He wrote to Radloff:

My intention is to have both Mr. Jochelsonand Mr. Bogoras here for a few months, inorder to make sure that the work on physicalanthropology will be done according to thesame methods, so that our results may becomparable. (18 April 1899, AMNH-DA)

Boas aspired, within the limited funds he had, tocarry out the maximum research to both satisfy hisscholarly interests and give Jesup and the AMNH asmuch prestige and publicity as possible. But it becameclear from the start that the Russians had their ownideas as to where and how to do research in Siberia.

jochelson was the first to resist Boas' plan. In aletter quoted above, Radloff informed Boas thatjochelson consented to go "only to the Yukagirs"(Radloff to Boas, 23 February 1898, AMNH-DA), al-though Boas needed information on the peoples of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

the North Pacific coast—the Koryak, Chukchi, and Nivkh.The Yukagir were located too far in the interior to be ofspecial interest, according to Boas' vision of the expe-dition, jochelson eventually yielded and agreed to gofirst to study the Koryak. But even after this incident,he continued to suggest various side trips, such as atrip to visit the ancient Yukagir burial sites. To that.Boas had to answer rather bluntly, "I think that thejourney to the ancient graves of the Yukagirs is practi-cally out of the question on account of the additionalexpense" (Boas tojochelson, 5 December 1898, AMNH-DA). Then Bogoras proposed a similarly unwelcomeside trip. He suggested a route for his expedition thatwas obviously designed not so much to meet the goalsof Boas and the jNPE as to satisfy his personal scientificinterests. After consulting with Nikolay Condatti, theformer governor of the area, Bogoras wrote to Boasregarding the route of the expedition:

The best starting point should be Markovoon the river Anadyr. . . [from there] to theChaun Bay and . . . along the coast to BeringStrait. . . [then] Naukan and Welen, thegreatest villages of the littoral Chukchee,[and] return to Anadyr by baidara [skin boat]in the next summer. In that way I can visit allthe littoral villages of both oceans. (Bogorasto Boas, 22 March 1899, APS-NYPL)

This was an ambitious and clever plan. Bogoraswas, quite understandably, more interested in theMaritime (or coastal) Chukchi than in the Reindeerpeople whom he already knew, so he tried to con-vince Boas of this plan. He seemed also unaware atthat time that Naukan was not a Chukchi villagebut a Yupik one.

The study of Chukchean language had beenmade by me before and needs now but forsome supplement, the more that in theChukchee there exist but very scarce differ-ence of dialect. I have also collected materi-als concerning the material state of life, folk-lore, rites and myths, family and tribe life etc.of the reindeer Chukchee. In my further studyI must firstly complete all these informationsand secondly get corresponding investiga-tion of the littoral part of the people.(Bogoras to Boas, 22 March 1899, APS-NYPL)

8 3

The timing of the expedition was also disputed.Both Bogoras and Jochelson were busy publishing theirmaterials, and on top of that, Jochelson was planningto complete his doctoral exams in Switzerland. As lateas July 1899, Bogoras asked for Boas' consent to post-pone the start of the expedition until 1901 (Bogorasto Boas, 9 July 1 899, APS-NYPL). But the expedition, forboth Bogoras and Jochelson, was obviously too at-tractive to risk missing the chance. Four days later,Bogoras wrote another letter and said that he wouldleave the decision in Boas' hands. He was ready tostart right away: it was Just that 1901 would havebeen better for him.

Boas was ready to postpone the expedition butwas not happy about it. In a letter to Radloff, he wrote:

I have agreed to his [Bogoras'] request todelay his expedition until 1 901, although Ishould be glad to get the whole matterstarted. ... If you do not consider the delaynecessary, I beg to ask you kindly to sug-gest to him the desirability of not delayingthe expedition any longer than is absolutelynecessary. (Boas to Radloff, 8 August 1 899,AMNH-DA)

Eventually, the whole matter was settled. Shortlybefore leaving Switzerland, Jochelson informed Boasthat he had convinced Bogoras not to postpone theexpedition (20 August 1899, AMNH-DA). In a joint let-ter 11 days later, Bogoras and Jochelson informed Boasthat they had had a conference, that Radloff insistedthat Bogoras go together with Jochelson, and that theywould come to New York in mid-February 1900. The"mutiny" was suppressed; the Russians were now readyto go at the time and to the area decided by Boas andto become students. "We would like to know howmuch time will be required to get acquainted withyour anthropometrical methods, as well as with othergoals of the expedition" (Bogoras and Jochelson toBoas, 31 August 1899, AMNH-DA).

Why was the idea of such an expedition so attrac-tive to both Bogoras and Jochelson? We will probablynever know; perhaps they wanted to return as freepeople and scholars to the land of their exile to prove

84

something to somebody, or perhaps they believedthat this expedition would, as Boas put it, "materiallycontribute to their reputation and assist them in ob-taining a satisfactory station in life," or perhaps theyhad fallen in love with ethnography.

New Scenario for the Expedition

Boas began advising Jochelson and Bogoras on theliterature they should acquaint themselves with be-fore departing. He sent them copies of the first publi-cations on the Jesup Expedition (Boas 1898a, 1898b,1 898c), Hoffman's monograph on the art of the Es-kimo (Hoffman 1897), and Petitot's book on the Cana-dian Indians (Petitot 1886). He also referred them toAurel Krause's volume on the Tlingit (Krause 1885), tohis own Indianische Sagen (Boas 1895), to his newlypublished contribution on KwakiutI social organiza-tion and secret societies (Boas 1 897), and to someother books. "The most important literature on thePacific Coast of North America," Boas added, "is con-tained in the early descriptions of Veniaminoff[Veniaminov 1846—N.V.], the early Russian mission-ary, which you will certainly find in St. Petersburg" (Boasto Jochelson, 1 9 September 1 899, AMNH-DA).

After many discussions, a new plan for the expedi-tion was drawn up jointly by Jochelson and Bogorasand approved by Boas. According to this plan, thetwo Russian participants were to do research on theKoryak as a team. They were planning to go first tothe small Russian town of Gizhiga on the coast of theSea of Okhotsk and spend half a year together work-ing among the nearby groups of Koryak. Jochelsonwas to take the photographs and anthropologicalmeasurements and make the plaster-of-paris masks,while Bogoras was planning to study the Koryak lan-guage (using his previous knowledge of the closelyrelated Chukchi). Ethnographic work was to be donejointly, but mostly by Jochelson, since it would be histask to write a book on the Koryak for the Jesup Expe-dition series. After that, they proposed to go to theAnadyr River together and to share the work among

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

the Chukchi in the same manner: Bogoras would docu-ment the language and folklore, whileJochelson wouldhandle the anthropometry and photography. By theend of spring 1 901 Jochelson would go backtoCizhigato complete the work on the Koryak, while Bogoraswould proceed to the Arctic coast and on to the BeringStrait. On their return to the United States, Bogoraswould complete two volumes: a study of both lan-guages, Koryak and Chukchi, and a monograph on theChukchi (for the JNPE series). Jochelson would presentthe bulk of the photographs and anthropometry andwould write a monograph on the Koryak, working fromthe data collected by both of them. Jochelson alsoproposed that he write a detailed monograph on theYukagir and their language on the basis of both exist-ing and new materials (Bogoras and Jochelson to Boas,30 October 1 899, AMNH-DA).

This seemed a good plan, although it was some-what removed from Boas' original research programfor the JNPE Siberian division. In any case, this exactplan did not materialize in the field; instead, Bogorasand Jochelson came to New York, met Boas face toface, and sorted out numerous minor disagreementsand misunderstandings. I believe that they must havepersonally liked each other, for the final plan of theexpedition bears visible traces of compromise, collec-tive thinking, and consensus.

In late November 1 899, before departing for NewYork, Bogoras went to the Caucasus to attend to somepersonal matters, and Jochelson paid a short visit toZurich. They agreed to meet in Antwerp by the end ofthe year and informed Boas that they were coming toNew York around February 1 900.

Formal Contract and the Final PlanIn late March 1 900, after Jochelson and Bogoras ar-rived in New York, a formal contract between MorrisJesup and Vladimir Jochelson was signed [and cosigned,probably later, by another Russian, Alexander Axelrod,a junior friend and assistant of Jochelson and Bogoras,who was hired as the Siberian team field assistant—

ed.]. Under this contract, Jochelson was appointed totake charge of JNPE activities in northeastern Asia. Theexpedition consisted of four people: Jochelson; Bogoras;N. C. Buxton, a zoologist in charge of zoological col-lecting for the AMNH; and Axelrod. In addition, thetwo wives, Mrs. Jochelson [Dina Jochelson-Brodsky,1 864-1941 ] and Mrs. (Sofia) Bogoras were allowed toaccompany the expedition in the field, although theexpenses were to be deducted from their husbands'salaries at the expedition's end. The object of the ex-pedition was formulated as "ethnological and biologi-cal survey of northeastern Asia, in accordance withspecial instructions given to you under this date byProfessors J. A. Allen, Franz Boas, William Beutenmuller,and L. P. Gratacao" Cesup to Jochelson, 24 March 1900,AMNH-DA).

Two days later. Boas wrote the letter containingthe final instructions. It was a good example of a com-promise between the two parties: it combined theoriginal plans Boas had envisioned for the northeast-ern Asian research and numerous (and often contradic-tory) suggestions and amendments put forward bythe Russian scholars. The document is very carefullyworded; every expression, every word, even the orderof some words, was evidently the result of many dis-cussions. This final plan was written to satisfy every-one. As Boas stated:

The principal object of your work will be athorough investigation of the Koryak,maritime Chukchee, and eastern Yukagheerfrom all points of view, ethnological,linguistical, and somatological. You will useevery effort to collect as full information andas full collections as possible from thesetribes. Your collections are to embrace, so faras feasible, the whole range of objectsmanufactured by the tribes enumeratedabove. You will endeavor to represent fully inyour collections objects that are new toscience. You will also make special efforts toobtain a good collection of anthropologicalphotographs and plaster casts. You willmake studies and collections among theLamoot, reindeer Chukchee, Eskimo, andKamchadal if opportunity should offer; butthese are not the primary object of the

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

expedition. You will use your judgment indetermining the movements of the expedi-tion in the field, and you are expected toarrange the movements of the party in sucha way as will secure the best results. (Boas toJochelson, 26 March 1900, AMNH-DA)

It seems that after meeting with the two Russians,Boas gained a wider perspective and saw greater po-tential in ethnographic work in Siberia. Now, insteadof insisting that they do only what was assigned tothem by the JNPE plan, he tried to exploit the suddenopportunity of learning and acquiring more than hehad expected. The rather liberal instructions quotedabove as regards the schedule, the route, and the listof Native peoples that the expedition had to explorecan be seen as confirmation that Boas' attitude to-ward the project had changed slightly. Some time later,learning that Jochelson was planning to return fromnortheastern Asia to St. Petersburg not via New Yorkbut by land across Siberia and that on his way he wouldbe passing the land of the Yakut [Sakha], Boas wrote aspecial letter to Jesup. In it, he stated that, althoughthe Yakut people were, of course, "beyond the scopeof the JNPE, it would be a shame to miss such a rareopportunity and not to acquire, with Jochelson's help,his Yakut collection for the Museum" (Boas to Jesup, 26March 1900, AMNH-L).

"Double-Faced Janus"

In the meantime, all the necessary steps were taken tosecure the cooperation of the Russian government.Boas wrote to Radloff in March 1899, "I beg you toinform the Imperial Academy of Sciences of our plans,and to solicit the assistance of the Academy in carry-ing out the work" (Boas to Radloff, 24 March 1899,AMNH-DA). Letters were also written to everyone con-cerned. Jesup wrote a special letter to Governor-Gen-eral Crodekov of Amur Province thanking him for his"valuable assistance" to Laufer and asking for furtherassistance to Jochelson's team in regard to transporta-tion to Gizhiga (Jesup to Grodekov, 9 March 1900,AMNH-DA). In October 1899 Radloff wrote to Jesup:

I am very glad that the affairs regarding theexpedition to North-eastern Siberia are ingood shape, and I shall do my best that theMessrs Bogoraz and Jochelson shall receiveall possible aid from the Russian Government.(Radloff to Jesup, 26 October 1899, AMNH-DA)

Both Jochelson and Bogoras received open letters fromthe Russian government that ran as follows;

All institutions and persons under the juris-diction of the Ministry of the Interior areherewith commanded to render the bearer ofthis all possible aid within their lawfulpowers, to enable him to discharge hismission. [Dated November 11, 1899 andsigned Head of the Ministry of the Interioretc., etc. Sipyagin; Director of the Depart-ment of General Affairs . . . Trepov.]

Five months later, when Jochelson and Bogoras werealready on their way to Vladivostok, the Russian Min-istry of the Interior issued a completely different mes-sage (28 April 1900). Confidential instructions weresent to the local Siberian officials in charge requestingthat secret surveillance be established to monitor theactions of both Bogoras and Jochelson. It was statedthat, due to their earlier antigovernment activities, itwas "entirely unwarranted to render them assistanceof any kind in the scientific work assigned to them" (fordiscussion, see Freed et al. 1988). As Bogoras put it inone of his letters to Boas several years later, and in adifferent connection, "this is Russia, you know."

The whole story became known several years laterwhen a Russian-language newspaper, Osvobozhde-niye ("Liberation"), based in Stuttgart, published an ar-ticle entitled "The Double-Faced Janus." The story wasactually written by Jochelson himself in January 1903in St. Petersburg but was published under the alias"Docent." The article was later translated into Englishfor Morris Jesup's attention and information. In a coverletter. Boas wrote:

I think the loyalty of Mr. Jochelson, whoknew about all these matters while in Siberia,and the energy and skill of both Messrs.Jochelson and Bogoras, deserve specialcommendation under these circumstances. . .. You will appreciate how difficult the work

86

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

of both Mr. Bogoras and Mr. Jochelson wasmade by these secret orders; and the fullsuccess of their investigation deserves, forthis reason, the highest praise. (Boas to Jesup,4 March 1903, AMNH-DA)

Epilogue: The Beginning

Five years after the idea of a full-scale anthropologicaland linguistic expedition in the North Pacific area firststruck Franz Boas, the second Siberian party of theJesup Expedition, led by Vladimirjochelson and VladimirBogoras, was set to leave for fieldwork on the North-east Coast of Siberia.

On May 16, 1900, Jochelson and Bogoras arrivedin Vladivostok. Here they met Axelrod, who had pre-ceded them. Everything that had been shipped fromRussia and Europe arrived safely, and they began get-ting the equipment ready. In his first letter to Boas,Jochelson wrote that Governor Grodekov was veryobliging and had promised to give them any help theyneeded (Jochelson to Boas, 20 May 1900, AMNH-DA).Obviously, the governor had not yet received the se-cret memorandum from the Ministry of the Interior cir-culated two weeks earlier.

On June 14 Bogoras and his wife Sofia left forMariinsky Post at the mouth of the Anadyr River onboard the ship Baikal. About a month later, on July 24,Jochelson and his wife Dina Jochelson-Brodsky (accom-panied by Buxton and Axelrod) followed them. Themain work of the JNPE in Siberia thus began.

The history of the JNPE Siberian fieldwork in 1 900-02, as well as the long and painful story of the publica-tion problems, took place against the backdrop of,and was illuminated by, the many dramatic events ofthe first third of the 20th century. These included WorldWar I, the three Russian revolutions and the RussianCivil War, the Great Depression, and other milestoneevents in the history of the two countries (see alsoKan, this volume). As such, it deserves to be the sub-ject of a special study and is more than this one papercould hope to encompass.

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the Fulbright Schol-arship I was awarded in 1 993 (November 1 993-Feb-ruary 1994), as well as by the generous cooperationof the American Museum of Natural History in NewYork. I also wish to thank my friends and colleagues,who provided assistance, help, and compassion dur-ing this work. 1 am especially grateful to Igor Krupnikand Bill Fitzhugh for inventing this insightful and stimu-lating project, Jesup 2; to Belinda Kaye, archivist at theAMNH Department of Anthropology; and to BarbaraMathe, then the archivist at the AMNH Library. Theirpriceless help and friendly cooperation made this worknot only possible but often pleasant. 1 am also gratefulto Sergei Kan for sharing his data with me; to LaurelKendall, who, apart from valuable bibliographical as-sistance, admitted me into her office at the AMNH forthree months, without realizing how much trouble thiswould cause; to Tom Miller for his friendly, practical,and timely advice; and to Molly Lee, the first reader ofthe first draft, for most valuable critique.

Notes

1 . Part of the Boas-Bogoras-Jochelson-Shternberg correspondence is currently held at theArchives of the Russian Academy of Sciences inSt. Petersburg (RAS-J and RAS-B). Some of Bogoras'and Shternberg's personal collections are storedat the Archives of the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnology in St. Petersburg (MAE); Jochelson'scollection is mostly at the Institute of OrientalStudies (iOS), St. Petersburg (see the descriptionof the Aleut section of the latter collection inBergsland and Dirks 1990). Originals of the FranzBoas Professional Correspondence are at theAmerican Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadel-phia. Microfilms of Boas' correspondence are avail-able at many institutions; I used the New YorkPublic Library copy (APS-NYPL). The major institu-tion that houses the papers and correspondencerelated to the Jesup North Pacific Expedition is,naturally, the American Museum of Natural His-tory in New York, in the Library, Special Collec-tions Division (AMNH-L), and in the Archives of

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

the Department of Anthropology (AMNH-DA).

2. The text of this letter is reproduced inAppendix A of Douglas Cole's paper, this volume—ed.

3. All dates for the Russian letters are "NewStyle" (referring to the Gregorian calendar that wasadopted in Russia in 1918, replacing "Old Style,"based on the Julian calendar). For example, thisletter from Radloff has two dates: February 11/23, 1898.

4. The usual spelling in English is "Bogoras".In his Russian publications, it is always spelled"Bogoraz" or "Bogoraz-Tan" (Tan-Bogoraz), the lat-ter having being his political and academic penname since the early 1900s. Judging by his let-ters of the JNPE years written in English, he pre-ferred that his name be spelled in the Russian way(Bogoraz), although in all his JNPE publications heis listed as Bogoras ed.

5. A detailed discussion of this episode isavailable in Freed et al. 1988:12-13.

6. The party's name in Russian was Narodnaiavolia, conventionally and quite correctly translatedinto English as "People's Freedom." However, theword volia can mean mean both freedom and will(see Vladimir Dahl, The Dictionary of Russian,Moscow, 1956). The name of the party can thusbe understood as "People's Will."

7. Two types of political exile were in use inRussia before the Revolution of 1905, both de-termined either by courts or by the local adminis-trative authorities. Exile to a certain area (ssyll<a),usually to Eastern or Western Siberia, meant thatone had to live in a small, remote town or village,had to report to the local police every week ormonth, and had no right to leave the place with-out special permission. Exile from a certain area(vysylka) usually meant that one was forbiddento live in the capitals, big cities, or central prov-inces of Russia but otherwise was free to move.Jochelson, Bogoras, and Shternberg were sen-tenced to ssylka—the worst kind of exile.

8. I quote here from the available Englishtranslation of Jochelson's letters, originally writ-ten in German. These were translated in 1986 byRenate Khambatta and Laila Williamson; the trans-lation is now kept at the AMNH Department ofAnthropology in New York.

ReferencesAl'kor, Yan P.

1935 V. G. Bogoraz-Tan. Sovetskaia etnografiia 4-5:5-31. Leningrad, ffanslated in AntlnropologyandArcheology of Eurasia 35(3):43-72 (1996-97).]

Bergsland, Knud, and Moses L. Dirks, eds.

1990 Aleut Tales and Narratives, Collected 1909-1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Alaska Native Lan-guage Center. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.

Boas, Franz

1888 The Central Eskimos. Sixth Annual Report of theBureau of American Ethnology, 1884-85. Pp. 399-669. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1 895 Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen KCisteAmerikas. Sonder-Abdruck aus den Verhandlungender Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologieund Urgeschichte, 1 891 bis 1 895. Berlin: A. Asher &Co. Reprint: Bonn: Holos Verlag, 1992.

1897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Obser-vations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Pp.31 1-738. Washington, DC: Government Printing Of-fice.

1898a Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern Brit-ish Columbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,\/o\.1, pt. 1, pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 2. New York.

1898b The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 1 -12. Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 2.New York.

1898c The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 25-127. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York.

Brown, W. A.

1910 Morris Ketchum Jesup: A Character Sketch. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Dexter, R. W.

1976 The Role of F. W. Putnam in Developing Anthro-pology at the American Museum of Natural History.Cwrator 19:303-10.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Igor Krupnik

1994 The Jesup II Research Initiative: AnthropologicalStudies in the North Pacific. Arctic Studies CenterNev\/sletter(jesup II Newsbrief). Washington, DC: Arc-tic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution.

Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and Laila

Williamson

1988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

THE EXPEDITION/ SIBERIA

Hinsley, Curtis M., Jr., and Bill Holm

1976 A Cannibal in the National Museum: The EarlyCareer of Franz Boas in America. American Anthro-pologist 78(2): 306-16.

Hoffman, Walter

1 897 The Graphic Art of the Eskimos. Report of theU.S. National Museum for 1895. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution.

Kan, Sergei

1978 Lev Shternberg: From Revolutionary Populismto Evolutionary Anthropology. Manuscript. [Quotedwith author's permission.]

Kendall, Laurel

1988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads ofContinents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. WilliamW. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 104. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kennedy, J. M.

1969 Philanthropy and Science in New York City:The American Museum of Natural History, 1 868-1968. Ph.D. diss.. University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

Krader, Lawrence

1968 Bogoraz, Vladimir C, Sternberg, Lev Y.; andJochelson, Vladimir. In International Encyclopedia ofthe Social Sciences, vol. 2. David L. Sills, ed. Pp. 116-9. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Krause, Aurel

1885 Die Tlinkit-lndianer: Ergebnisse einer Reise nachder Nord-westkuste von Amerika und derBeringstrasse. Ausgefuhrt im Auftrage der BremerCeographischen Gesellschaft in der Jahren 1880-1881 durch die Doctoren Arthur und Aurel Krause /geschildert von Dr. Aurel Krause. Jena: HermannCostenoble.

Ol'denburg, Sergei F., and A. N. Samoilovich,eds.

1930 Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-1927) (Inmemory of L. la. Shternberg). Leningrad: AkademiaNauk SSR.

Petitot, Emil

1 886 Traditions indiennes du Canada Nord-Ouest. LesLitteratures populaires de toutes les nations 23. Paris:Maisonneuve Freres et Ch. Leclerc.

Proposed Explorations on the Coasts of the

North Pacific Ocean

1897 Science, n.s. 5(1 1 6):455-7.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northvt/est Coastfrom 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Segel, S.

n.d. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Manuscript.Stocking, George W., Jr.

1973 Franz Boas. In Dictionary of American Biogra-phy, supp. 3. E. T.James, ed. Pp. 81-6. New York:Scribner.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

Veniaminov, Ivan E.

1846 Zamechaniia o koloshenskom i kad'iakskomiazykakh i otchasti o prochikh rossiisko-amerik-anskikh, s prisovokupleniem rossiisko-koloshenskogoslovaria, soderzhashchego bolee 1000 slov (Remarkson the Tlingit and Koniag languages, and partly onothers of Russian America, with the addition of aRussian-Tlingit dictionary containing more than 1,000words). St. Petersburg: Academy of Sciences.

NIKOLAI VAKHTIN

24/ Kwakwaka'wakw (KwakiutI) woman at Fort Rupert demonstrates cedar spinning for a museum life group, as FranzBoas and George Hunt hold up a backdrop. O.C. Hastings, photographer, 1894 (AMNH 11604)

THE COLLECTORS: MODERN PERSPECTIVES ONJESUP FIELDWORK

(Di5)p

easures o

f th

e

ext

^oasian {^thnoiogtj on the (^entra! |\jorthwest (^^oast

MICHAEL HARKIN

The ambitious project of the Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition (1 897-1 902) was historically significant for manyreasons: the cooperation between anthropologists andcapitalists (see Freed et al. 1988); the expedition's richlegacy of Siberian ethnography (see other papers inthis volume); and its contribution to the understandingof important ethnological issues in the North PacificRim. However, the ethnographic legacy of the JesupExpedition on the Central Northwest Coast, by which Imean the area populated by the Bella Coola [Nuxalk],the Oowekeeno, and the Heiltsuk [Bella Bella], is rathermeager. The three cultures are closely related, and thelatter two possess very similar languages. The povertyof the Boasian record in this region is possibly attribut-able in part to the practical difficulties Franz Boas hadin getting the Jesup materials published. A survey ofthe archival materials, however, is equally unsatisfying;the American Philosophical Society indexes are sur-prisingly silent on Oowekeeno, Bella Bella, and BellaCoola material from the Jesup Expedition period.

What we do have are a volume of Bella Coola mythscollected by Boas and several Heiltsuk myths collectedby Boas' Columbia colleague, the psychologistLivingston Farrand (Boas 1898a, 1898b, 1916:883-8,1932).' Boas, assisted by George Hunt and Harlan Smith,conducted research at Bella Coola from mid-July tolate August 1 897. Boas and Hunt were occupied pri-marily with the collection of myths, while Smith madecranial measurements and completed a valuable pho-tographic portfolio of the area (Boas 1 898a; see Tepper1 991; Thom, this volume). Farrand, along with George

Hunt, spent about a month from mid-August to mid-September 1897 in the village of Bella Bella; they werebriefly joined by Harlan Smith, who made cranial mea-surements (Boas 1 898a).

In 1897, when the research was being carried out,both these societies were undergoing rapid, radicalculture change and were displaying renewed culturaland political vitality. After decades of suffering thescourge of introduced diseases, these groups wererelatively healthy, their populations were resurgent, andthey were enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Theywere experimenting with new artistic and architecturalstyles, and they were attempting to reconcile evan-gelical Christianity with traditional belief systems. Theywere coming into contact with more than just theevangelical and commercial aspects of European andCanadian society. For instance, the Bella Coola had anunusual opportunity to observe European culture whena group of dancers was invited to tour Germany in1885-86 (Tepper 1991:142-9). They brought backmany new ideas that they incorporated into their cul-ture. Most strikingly, Gothic architectural forms ap-peared in at least one chiefly house, where spires wereused to represent a nearby mountain (Mc llwraith1948:194; Tepper 1991: 7).

The Heiltsuk, in the village of Bella Bella, were en-gaged in what may be described as a "revitalizationmovement" based on enthusiastic Methodism (seeHarkin 1993).^ The Heiltsuk combined Methodist mor-alism and work ethic with traditional concepts of per-sonal power to create a powerful new ethos relevant

9 3

to contemporary problems. Although this resulted inthe curtailing of many traditional practices, there wasalso a large element of syncretism present. Christmascelebrations bore a strong resemblance to potlatchesand even, to some degree, to winter dances (ceremo-nies). Moreover, the self-initiated changes in Heiltsuksociety had resulted in a level of prosperity unprec-edented in any native community in British Columbia.Local businesses, including a cooperative general store,flourished, providing the Heiltsuk with a reasonablesupply of luxury items, as well as staples. While suchchanges may strike the romantic anthropologist asdistasteful, they nevertheless were central to theevolving Heiltsuk identity at the turn of the century(Harkin 1997).

Ironically, the Methodist missionaries, not the eth-nographers, are the ones who give a full account ofthese changes. Although their reports are strongly bi-ased, missionaries such as C. M. Tate, the founder (in1881) of the Bella Bella mission, were sensitive to cul-tural dynamics. Tate, along with his wife Caroline, kepta close journalistic record of changes in Heiltsuk cul-ture. Later missionaries, such as the first medical doc-tor to minister to the Heiltsuk, R. W. Large, were like-wise extraordinarily sensitive to a range of issues con-cerning culture change. It is relatively easy to factorout their biases and to derive a fairly good picture ofHeiltsuk culture in this transitional period. Change didnot always proceed smoothly; it was often resisted inways both subtle and direct. The missionaries were,arguably, the very best observers of such things, asresistance was a threat to their authority. By drawingon missionary sources such as diaries, articles publishedin denominational journals, and membership and finan-cial records, it is possible to gain some understandingof fin de siecle Heiltsuk society (Harkin 1993).

The missionaries were biased against traditionalculture, but they were nevertheless engaged in it. Boas,however, harbored a long-standing opposition to mis-sionary activities and a strong distaste when forced torely on missionaries for linguistic data (Berman 1996;

221-3; Stocking 1974:68-9). In part, this arose fromethical concerns generated by cultural relativism; in part,it reflected an unrealistic methodological stance thatasserted several related principles (discussed below)—foremost among them, a positivist assertion that itwas possible to be an unbiased and objective ob-server, in the fashion of the natural sciences. This stancewas taken to great lengths, to the degree that Boassystematically disguised the identity of George Huntand his role in actively generating ethnographic datafor the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI] and other groups(Berman 1996:228-9). The idea was to reach someoverarching, static, ideal type of culture, detached fromits pragmatic and socially positioned moorings amongreal people. This stance proved difficult for Boas'KwakiutI ethnography and simply unworkable for hisethnography of the Central Coast. Ultimately, and ironi-cally, the obviously positioned observer, such as themissionary—provided he or she is reasonably sympa-thetic—is more reliable than the objective scientist.

Boasian Fieldwork: Objects and Methods

In contrast to missionary accounts, Jesup materials (andBoasian ethnography more generally) give little senseof a living community in transition. Indeed, Boas' often-affirmed commitment to empiricism notwithstanding,it is difficult to view Boasian texts as transcriptions ofactual experience. Of course, Boas was driven by con-temporary concerns, such as the evidence for diffu-sion that myth and physical anthropology could pro-vide. Moreover, the rich legacy of KwakiutI ethnology,resting on its "five-foot shelf," is not to be dismissed(Darnell 1992:44-5). Although we cannot agree withRadcliffe-Brown that Boasian texts are utterly useless—indeed, the rich ethnographic minutiae of the KwakiutIwork is its great strength—it is undeniable that Boasianmaterials fail to address any of the important andinteresting cultural transformations that occurredunder the very noses of the Jesup ethnographers(Berman 1996:216-7; Darnell 1 992:41). While it wouldbe unfair to criticize Boas for failing to comprehend

94

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

and thematize in his anthropology issues of socialchange that would not be addressed systematicallyuntil the first wave of acculturation studies in the 1930s,we can allow ourselves to wonder why all evidence ofhistory and change was systematically suppressed inBoasian texts. After all, the Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy ethnographer James Mooney did produce histori-cally and culturally sensitive work during the very samedecade of the 1890s.

The situation is analogous to the position of AlfredKroeber with respect to California ethnology andethnohistory. As Buckley (1996) has pointed out,Kroeber consistently underrepresented the importanceof history in understanding the contemporary Califor-nia Indians. What is more, he denied the severity andsignificance of genocidal policies and actions, whichcontinued even after Kroeber was established in Cali-fornia. Clearly, Kroeber's failure to account for historyand culture change, especially in comparison with con-temporaries such as T. T. Waterman and J. P. Harrington,was a moral as well as epistemological one. Boas' fail-ing was not primarily moral, as he spoke out againstCanadian government actions that were certainly muchless destructive than the California genocide. Never-theless, his systematic ethnography, like Kroeber's,failed to take account of such matters in the way thatothers, less systematic but more sympathetic, did.

As a young anthropologist working the village ofBella Bella (Waglisia) in the mid-1980s, a village thatmy professional founding ancestor had visited in 1897and 1923, I was naturally interested to collect anystories that might persist. But few stories about Boasremained. The only information I ever heard—from sev-eral people—was that during his 1923 visit Boas spentmuch of his time going to the post office. The postoffice was located several miles from the main villagesite, over low mountains; a round trip took two hoursor more. The large investment of time in this activityillustrates the rather peculiar Boasian methodology—Berman aptly calls it "epistolary ethnography"—whichrelied heavily on postal services and was devoted

above all to the production of texts (Berman 1996:235).

Three characteristics of Boasian fieldwork are worthexamining, for they explain the dearth of informationon dynamic social processes, particularly on the Cen-tral Coast: framing, textualism, and "Kwakiutlism." Infairness, these characteristics explain some of thestrengths of Boasian anthropology as well, such as therich legacy of KwakiutI ethnography and of myths andstories from other groups.

Framing

Framing refers to Boas' method of sorting out the ab-original from that which was tainted by white contactand, generally, by the modern world (see Coffman1974:10). In his experiments with ethnographic filmand in his principles of museum display, the object isstrictly framed; it is recontextualized in an artificial framethat nevertheless purports to represent ethnographicreality Gacknis 1985). Such simulacra allow for detaileddescription and (perhaps) analysis of the ethnographicobject. They separate the object from its background,the semantic message from pragmatic "noise." In tex-tual ethnography, this goes beyond the problem ofanachronism. Unlike Edward Curtis, who wished to re-capture a lost world that was in large part a productof his own and a collective national imagination. Boasobserved what was actually present. However, whathe observed was only an increasingly small part of theactual world and was, moreover, often dependent onthe ethnographic frame itself. As Berman points out,the conditions of production of the KwakiutI texts werecrucial to their existence (Berman 1996:232). Hunt pre-pared texts in response to questions from Boas andafter consulting with several informants. The end prod-uct is a distillation of Hunt's interpretation of both Boas'interests and the diverse testimony of informants.

Even when Boas was carrying out his own field-work, the object of collecting texts that represented awhole culture's shared beliefs tended to filter out infor-mation that was not consistent with such a holisticand traditional picture. This ethnographic Heisenberg

MICHAEL HARKIN

effect is to some degree an unavoidable part of field-work. However, the complete reliance on formal inter-views of elderly and "traditional" individuals, charac-teristic of Boas' Heiltsuk and Bella Coola research, se-verely limited the type and quality of data. The consti-tution of the ethnographic object by its frame mayserve a useful pedagogic or scientific purpose, as inhigh-energy physics, but it does not provide much in-formation about the everyday world, or about pro-cesses common to the readers and objects of ethno-graphic texts.

The peculiar framing device known as the "ethno-graphic present" is central to Boasian anthropology. Itis a distancing technique, one that "denies coevalness"with the ethnographic object (Fabian 1983). All ac-tion, apart from speech, takes place in a Neverland ofunlived time. The ethnographic present is founded onthe linguistic and logical paradox of past action that isrecorded as if it were taking place in the present, on-going, and unaffected by normal relations of beforeand after. Not only are the ethnographic objects notto be found in the same historical epoch as the anthro-pologist and his readers; their world appears to betemporally constituted outside normal human time andbeing. In a rhetorical move opposite to Barthes' "real-ity effect," which rests on the verisimilitude created bytemporal sequencing in historiography, the effect ofreading texts cast in the "ethnographic present" is dis-tinctly one of unreality (Barthes 1986:141 -8).

In the introduction to his Jesup volume The Mythol-ogy of the Bella Coola Indians, Boas essays an ethno-graphic synopsis of the Bella Coola that epitomizessome of the distancing tropes employed throughoutthe Boasian corpus:

The Bella Coola are a small tribe inhabitingthe coasts of Dean Inlet and Bentick Arm,two long and narrow fiords situated in aboutlatitude 52' north, in British Columbia.. .. Thename "Bella Coola" is a corruption of theword "Bilxula" by which name the tribe isknown to the Kwakiutl. There is no term intheir own language embracing all the tribesspeaking the Bella Coola languages. It seems

96

that at a former time the tribe was quitepopulous; but, owing to various epidemicsand the introduction of other diseases, itsnumbers have dwindled down, so that atpresent time it has been reduced to only afew hundred souls. (Boas 1898b:26)

By various rhetorical means, Boas reduces the com-plexities of the lives of "a few hundred souls" to theabstract questions pertaining to "a small tribe." Thefirst and most extraordinary linguistic act is a naming.As elsewhere in North America, ethnonyms are assignedto groups that have none, often using terms borrowedfrom other groups (see Harkin 1988). Such a name isessential for the anthropologist, who, after all, studiestribes. For Boas, this naming was equivalent to desig-nating a Volk, with all that entailed.^ Such baptismwas necessary to the overall framing strategy.

The Volksgeist method originated by J. G. Herderand adapted by Boas relied on a certain degree ofabstraction from observed reality. Questions of cul-tural psychology and group mind superseded the di-rectly observed fact. Although Boas at times stronglydefended his approach as one of strict methodologi-cal individualism, it clearly was not that (Berman1996:218; Liss 1996:1 71). Rather, it gave the researcherlicense to structure information in such a way as todemonstrate the "genius" of individual cultures (Bunzl1996:69). Clearly, such a model deflects the immedi-ate interests and concerns of real people in favor ofthemes chosen by the researcher as indicative of thetimeless truths of that culture.

Boas alludes only briefly to the problem of changein Bella Coola society. He is forced to admit that "theirnumbers have dwindled down," but this does not pre-vent him from accepting the present as a true repre-sentation of the past, nor indeed of systematicallydoing away with any evidence of temporality. The re-mainder of the text is constructed after the manner ofits inaugural statement: "The Bella Coola are ..."

Perhaps most striking about the quoted fragmentis its emotional detachment from the physical suf-fering of the people who constitute the purported

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

subject of Boas' text. Populations in the region de-clined from infectious disease by as much as 80 per-cent over the 50-year period prior to Boas' fieldwork(Boyd 1990; Harkin 1994). Although health and popu-lation levels were temporarily on the rise again at theturn of the century, fresh memories of great sufferingwould surely have been expressed to Boas and otherJesup ethnographers. It is a measure of their sangfroidand the perceived duties of the scientist that all thiswould have rated merely a token reference. Like hisstudent Alfred Kroeber, who spoke of the genocide ofCalifornia Indians as "the little history of pitiful events,"Boas was relatively unconcerned with the hardshipsand anguish the people had experienced in recentmemory (Buckley 1996).

Boas' emotional detachment is in great contrastto the other main observers of Native cultures, the mis-sionaries, who were, if nothing else, engage. On thematter of death and dying (of obvious concern to thoseprofessing the existence of a glorious afterlife), we hearthe wailing and feel the sorrow of the death of chil-dren. A typical example of missionary writings duringthe plague years is by the wife of the first missionaryto the Heiltsuk:

They brought her home, and, seeing that shewas seriously ill, we brought her to theMission House; tried all within our power torestore her to health. But the delirium set in,and after three nights and days watching allthat was mortal of Jane lay with foldedhands in the sitting-room of the house, thereto await Christian burial. One of her lastconscious acts was to take her Bible fromunder her pillow, and kissing it lovingly sheexclaimed, "Oh how I love Jesus!" (Tate1883:1 11)

The pathos of this passage is representative of mis-sionary rhetoric. It is interesting that Native peoplesshould have received two sets of white visitors at thesame time, with such opposite interests and textualstrategies.''

Of course this was no coincidence. Boas' detachedlanguage represents, above all, an attempt to distin-guish his writings from those of others interested in

Native cultures: missionaries, "do-gooders," Indianagents, and so on. Boas professes an interest that is,unlike those of other whites, disinterested. Again, thecontrast with the ethnographer James Mooney is in-structive; Mooney, in his work on the Sioux Ghost Dance,never considered ethnography and empathy to becontradictory (see Mooney 1896).

Social, temporal, emotional, and geographic dis-tance is indeed essential to Boas' view of anthropol-ogy as a science. It is Claude Levi-Strauss who hasmost explicitly formulated this position. For Levi-Strauss, le regard eloignee (the distant, or distanced,view) is the sine qua non of anthropology (Levi-Strauss1976:55, 1985; Todorov 1988). This would seem es-pecially true for Boas, who felt the need of distancingin his early "psycho-physical" research among the Es-kimo of Baffinland. There he hoped to achieve the "sim-plest possible circumstances" in which to conduct hisresearch into perception of the environment (Stocking1968:140). Levi-Strauss—and, arguably, Boas—equatedthe scientific status of ethnography with "the relativesimplification which affects every mode of knowledgewhen it is applied to a very distant object" (Levi-Strauss1976:47). Ironically, it was also Levi-Strauss whopointed out the connection between such distancingand the legacy of brutal conquest: "Anthropology isthe daughter to this era of violence: its capacity toassess more objectively the facts pertaining to thehuman condition reflects, on the epistemological level,a state of affairs in which one part of mankind treatedthe other as an object" (Levi-Strauss 1966:126, quotedin Buckley 1996).

Boas certainly thought of himself as a scientist andplaced great value on objective methods (Stocking,ed. 1974:11-2). Especially in Boas' time, the distinc-tion between science and hobbyism was crucial. Notonly was anthropology just beginning to beprofessionalized in the United States and Canada, butthe strong claims that evolutionary anthropology madeto scientific status, based on its connection to evolu-tionary biology, were not available to diffusionist

MICHAEL HARKIN

Boasians. If Boasian anthropology could not claim toapply to cultural data "the methods and the instru-mentalities of the biologist" (according to Otis Mason,as quoted in Stocking, ed. 1974:12), then it seemedthat there was little, other than techniques of objecti-fication and distantiation, that prevented it from sink-ing into an antiquarian bog.

Framing was, above all, an attempt to get at cul-ture as opposed to civilization, local as opposed touniversal truths. This distinction is central to the Ger-man Counter-Enlightenment and laid the foundationfor both Boasian anthropology and German ethnol-ogy (Bunzl 1996:20; Stocking 1992:11; see also Kuper1988:149). It was an increasingly untenable position.The tension between the idea of local cultures as purefounts of the "genius" of a Volk and the reality of thecolonial and postcolonial world resulted in increasinglyradical framing devices. Boas' earlier published workamong the KwakiutI (1897), ethnographically denseand admitting some questions of change, contrastswith his later, austere publication of "texts" (e.g., Boas1928). This increasing tension perhaps accounts in partfor the irony Krupat (1990) has noted in Boas' work,which he attributes merely to the tension betweentheory and fact.^ This tension is nicely epitomized in afamous photograph showing Franz Boas and GeorgeHunt arranging a field photograph in Fort Rupert in1894. Hunt and Boas are holding up a backdrop be-hind a KwakiutI woman dressed in traditional attire,spinning cedar (Fig. 24). The backdrop hides a picketfence and Victorian frame house, which would have"spoiled" the shot (see Berman 1996:237).

Textualism

Textualism, a quality of all Boasian anthropology, is atype of framing that masks itself. Textualism is a strat-egy designed to quarantine the object from lived real-ity. Texts are presented as if unmediated, as if the eth-nographer has done nothing other than record andpublish texts that exist independently. The role of theanthropologist in eliciting the texts, and the role of the

9 8

narrator in creating and performing them, are sup-pressed. Above all, the role of translation, both culturaland linguistic, is denied. The mediation provided by"informants," and especially by the supremely media-tional figure of George Hunt, is never fully acknowl-edged (Berman 2000). These allegedly unmediated"genuine, difficult, confusing, primary sources" (Sapir,quoted in Darnell 1992:42) constituted the founda-tion of linguistic and ethnographic description andanalysis.^

And yet texts were thought to be more thanmetonymic fragments of a culture. They were meta-phors of that culture, standing for a culture in toto. Theidea of the text is little changed from that of thebrothers Grimm, who saw folktales as the texts thatwould reveal der Geist (the spirit) of the Volk. Textswere viewed as standing in an "organic" relationshipto society itself (Ziolkowski 1990:108). They revealeda distinctive genius that, as Hegel believed, animatedall aspects of society and through which one couldapproach specific social institutions (Ziolkowski1990:14). Wilhelm von Humboldt formulated this con-nection between text and Ceist most explicitly; forhim a "radical identity" obtained between languageand "the ideal totality of spirit" (Steiner 1992:86). Itwas this Humboldtian concept of language as textthat framed the basic problematics of Boasian meth-odology (Bunzl 1996:69-70).

Boas, of course, realized that there were other ex-pressions of culture, other types of data he might col-lect, but these were, in this sense, supplemental to thetexts, which would reveal all. In his KwakiutI ethnogra-phy Boas did indeed collect and publish data on alarge range of matters, in large part to bolster hisdiffusionist arguments on descent, totemism, and kin-ship (Berman 1 996:21 5-7; Kuper 1 988:1 35-40). Thesedata were given a form which mimicked the canonicalmyths that he and Hunt also collected by systemati-cally erasing traces of their construction. This was notthe case, however, for the Heiltsuk and Bella Coola, forwhich Boas provided ethnographic descriptions—

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

ranging from very brief to nonexistent—appended tothe texts/ Paradoxically, he comments that Heiltsukculture had "practically disappeared" as he wascollecting the texts—a statement that calls into ques-tion both the usefulness of his concept of culture andthe posited connections between culture and myth(Boas 1928:ix).

In his study of myths, Boas laid the foundation forthe modern anthropological culture concept, although,as we have seen, this idea was borrowed directly fromthe German Vo/Zcs^e/sr tradition (Bunzl 1996:21-9;Stocking 1968:214). In examining myths, the anthro-pologist gained access to a "deeper" level of culturethat was partly unconscious, unrepresented, orunderrepresented in manifest behavior, perhaps eventhe remnant of elements of culture that had disap-peared Gacknis 1996:198). Moreover, myths providedthe basis for ethnological comparison and even thepossibility of reconstructing histories of the region(Stocking 1968:206). By collecting complete sets oftales from different cultures in a region and statisticallytabulating the results, Boas believed that he could an-swer all important questions about culture contact anddiffusion (Boas 1896; Stocking 1968:207-8).

This concern with myth has become characteristicof American anthropology in general, and yet the un-derlying Boasian assumptions have attenuated con-siderably. For Boas, the burden placed on myth is suchthat it is made to bear the entire weight of a culture. Inpractical terms, this meant that for the non-KwakiutIcultures Boas studied or on which he commissionedstudies, myth is the only data published, even if othersorts of data were collected. When Boas and Huntreturned to Bella Bella in 1923, they collected a varietyof data on religion and social organization (Boas 1923).Several hundred pages of notes deal with beliefs andpractices that were rapidly disappearing, especially theWinter Ceremonial. Very little of this material, however,was published (see Boas 1924, 1928, 1932).

The only justification for the view that myth standsfor culture in toto—which, if never expressed so baldly,

MICHAEL HARKIN

was nevertheless the operating principle of Boasianresearch—is a form of neo-Kantian idealism that sub-ordinates all factors to mental ones. This is seen mostclearly in the work of the German psychologist TheodorWaitz, which was read and cited extensively by Boasand Boasian anthropologists (Smith 1991:49). Waitzheld that human cultures were united by a shared psy-chic unity but that important cultural differences wereexpressed in myth. Cultural variation was a product ofenvironment, history, and the existence of individualgeniuses—ideas clearly influential in Boasian anthropol-ogy, although Boas preferred to talk about the geniusof culture, in the Humboldtian vein.

While not evident in all aspects of Boas' work, theseideas permeate his research on myth, which wasstrongly influenced by other anthropological idealists,such as Bastian and Tylor (themselves influenced byWaitz), who were interested in the "psychic life" of primi-tive peoples (Bunzl 1996:49-51; Stocking 1968:152,207). It is on this ground that Boas and Levi-Strauss, sodifferent in other respects, meet. Like Waitz, Boas, inhis desire to distance himself from the racialist elementsof German romanticism, exaggerated the significanceof myth as a mental phenomenon in the constitutionof culture (Smith 1991:50; Stocking 1992:92-113). Hewas so engrossed with the collection of myths that heviewed performed culture, such as the Winter Ceremo-nial, as a hindrance to the collection and transcriptionof texts Oacknis 1996:199).

The problems with such a view from a philosophi-cal position have been addressed repeatedly in thesocial sciences. For present purposes, it is appropriateto address the issue on a more pragmatic level. Therelation between myth and social change is worth ex-ploring, for my initial critique of Boas rested on his habitof ignoring dynamic processes.

Myth may give us a sort of "window" into the past,as Boas says, in the sense of providing data on migra-tions and diffusion, but this is Ratzelian history on avery large scale that is not likely to be relevant tothe people telling the myths. Using the very Boasian

9 9

concept of culture as it has been adapted by modernAmerican anthropology, we can say that it is preciselyan i7cu/tura/history that is thus provided. Oral traditioncan, indeed, provide data and insight into rememberedhistorical events on a human scale, a truly cultural his-tory (Harkin 1988). There is, however, a time lag of ageneration or more between the event itself and theappearance of a myth—as opposed to anecdotal nar-ratives—about the event. Moreover, as time passes,the myth becomes more "mythlike," more canonical,and less anecdotal. After a few generations, the newmyth may be indistinguishable in form from other myths(Vansina 1985:24).

A methodological problem arises. If researchers areinterested only in collecting "texts," or canonical myths,they will entirely miss the embryonic myth that speaksof relatively recent events and changes. Moreover, theywill deny themselves the opportunity to study the pro-cess of myth-making and its relation to changing cul-tural contexts. How many of the "idiotic stories" Boascomplained about (as quoted in Stocking 1968:204)were such incipient myths, we cannot know. We doknow that stories depicting the arrival of the whiteman, the effects of European disease, the fur trade,and Native warfare were in circulation at the time andconstituted the most important means of understand-ing and coping with change available to the people ofthe Central Coast. The Boasian failure to treat thesematerials seriously calls into question the Volksgeistconception of texts and culture that Boas bequeathedto modern anthropology.

Kwakiutlism

A third critique of Boas applies especially to his workwith the Heiitsuk and Oowekeeno. Boas' ideas aboutethnic groups and boundaries revolve around a cen-tral feature of his ethnography, which we may term"Kwakiutlism." This is problematic in two senses.First, the term "Kwakiutl" does not properly denoteeven the groups that it primarily refers to—theKwak'wala-speaking people of Fort Rupert, Alert Bay,

and adjacent mainland and island groups. The AlertBay group has adopted the ethnonym Kwakwak-a'wakw. These various groups do not recognize thecommon identity that is implied in the use of theethnonym "Kwakiutl." A second, related problem is inthe extension of the term to incorporate all the north-ern groups speaking North Wakashan languages, in-cluding the Heiitsuk, Haisia, and Oowekeeno. It is im-possible now to eliminate the term "Kwakiutl" fromour vocabulary, but I will use it selectively to refer tothe core groups that Boas studied.

The ethnography of the Kwakiutl was Boas' lifework. As such, it is understandable that the Kwakiutlconstituted a fixed point of reference for him and thathe would compare other Northwest Coast groups withthem. It is even unsurprising that he would accept theKwakiutl view of the social landscape and their centralplace in it. As Buckley (1989) has cogently argued withreference to Kroeber's Yurok-centrism, the assumptionthat the group an anthropologist studies is in someway central is borrowed from that group's own eth-nocentric self-assessment. I would add that this inter-sects with the ethnographer's egocentrism to create apowerful concept that is reinforced both objectivelyand subjectively. While Kroeber's Yurok became a cul-tural climax. Boas' Kwakiutl became a cultural empire.

Like any empire—the German, for example—theKwakiutl (as an ethnographic concept) could only "ex-pand" at the expense of their neighbors, the Heiitsukand Oowekeeno. This augmentation was made on thebasis of points of ethnographic correspondence. Thereare indeed a number of important similarities betweenKwakiutl and Heiitsuk cultures. Most clearly, the Win-ter Ceremonials in the two cultures share many ele-ments. In large part, this is because the Kwakiutl bor-rowed many elements from the Heiitsuk, including thehamatsa, or cannibal dance (Boas 1966:258,402). Thisdiffusion is attested by oral traditions prominent in theregion, as well as by Boas' own data. However, theKwakiutl Winter Ceremonial is somewhat different inthat it combines two distinct traditions into a single

1 00

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

performance: the tsaiqa, or shamanic dances, and thedieaa, or crest dances (Boas 1924). The KwakiutI per-formance loses the dialectical element so obvious inthe Heiltsuk version. This also strongly suggests a north-to-south direction of diffusion, as Boas himself readilyadmits (Boas 1924).

Despite his awareness that the Heiltsuk, far frombeing peripheral to the culturally climactic KwakiutI(to borrow Kroeber's terminology), were correctly seenas the originators of much that the KwakiutI hadborrowed, Boas still insisted on referring to them as"northern KwakiutI" and on viewing them officially asthe Kwakiutl's poor relations. Even when faced withthe seemingly insurmountable obstacle of language,Boas failed to grant the distinctiveness and "genius" tothe Heiltsuk that he does to other groups such as theBella Coola.

The boundary between Kwak'wala and Heiltsuk isone of language, not dialect. They are both membersof the North Wakashan subfamily, along withOowekyala and Haisla. The two languages are approxi-mately as close as Dutch and German; there are a largenumber of cognates, but little mutual intelligibility. It isa testament to George Hunt's linguistic skills that hewas able to communicate at all with Heiltsuk consult-ants, even though much of the 1923 fieldwork wasconducted in English (Boas 1 923). The transcription ofHeiltsuk terms reflects a consistent Kwak'wala bias.While Boas acknowledges these difficulties, he neveradmits that they cast doubt on his Kwakiutlist assump-tions (Boas 1924). Language, in theory, is not itself suf-ficient to constitute cultural boundaries, but it is sig-nificant that nowhere else on the Northwest Coast doesBoas see cultural wholes not coterminous with linguis-tic boundaries.

In fact the KwakiutI constitute a special case inwhich the judgment of cultural boundaries was a priori.The Heiltsuk certainly do not consider themselves tobe KwakiutI. If Boas had asked them, he would havelearned that they consider themselves to be closelyrelated to (although not identical with) the Bella Coola,

MICHAEL HARKIN

Oowekeeno, and Haisla. So, if Boas wanted an exampleof strong cultural affinity crossing linguistic boundaries,the Heiltsuk and Bella Coola provided such a case. Hementions a number of similarities between the BellaCoola and the "KwakiutI" but never fully examines theissue of Heiltsuk and Bella Coola affinities, apart fromthe Fort Rupert tribes (Boas 1898b: 124-5). Certainly,there would be much more justification for consider-ing these two groups to be a "single culture" than forthinking of the Heiltsuk as KwakiutI.

There is a fundamental epistemological problemunderlying the designation of groups as cultures.Since Fredrik Barth's important work, modern anthro-pologists need no longer trouble themselves with find-ing perfect matches between social groups and cul-tures, even in tribal societies (Barth 1969). However,for Boas ethnic boundaries enclosed unique and au-tonomous lifeworlds, replete with their own modes ofthought, their own "genius," revealed especially in theirmyths. This is the relativism of Herder and the GermanCounter-Enlightenment (Berlin 1991 ;37-9). The dangerof strong forms of relativism is, of course, solipsism.Certainly, the various groups Boas encountered on theNorthwest Coast were very different from Europeancultures, and Boas' relativistic assumptions could easilybe justified in this context. However, could each indi-vidual group be its own self-contained lifeworld, inopposition to all others? Boas himself was never clearon this; he seemed to waver between ideas of thegenius of cultural wholes and the diffusion of culturaltraits (Liss 1996:1 71-5; Stocking,ed. 1974:4-6,1996).

Designating a group as "a culture" was somethingthat could be done only after the analysis of culturalelements and their paths of diffusion revealed that this"accidental accretion" resulted in "an integrated spiri-tual totality that somehow conditioned the form of itselements" (Stocking, ed. 1974:5-6). In the face of thisrather paradoxical criterion. Boas seemed to fall backon two basic strategies: resorting to linguistic bound-aries as de facto ethnic boundaries, and establishingsomething like Barth's "plural societies." The first, more

1 01

common, strategy acknowledged the genius of indi-vidual groups, while the latter was a useful way oflooking at cultural similarities and borrowings.^

The latter was applied to the case of the KwakiutIand other North Wakashan groups. Ironically, thisrepresents potentially the greater theoretical advance-ment. In his construal of the inhabitants of 200 miles ofBritish Columbia coast as "KwakiutI," Boas erred in anumber of respects, but the concept of individualgroups speaking different languages yet sharing anoverarching culture is a valuable one. Of course, theidea is not original but has precedents in the Germangeographic tradition, especially in Friedrich Ratzel'sconcept of Lebensraum, or "living space" (Smith1991 ;219-33). In fact, this area was a poor candidate,since a variety of cultural differences in, for example,descent, marriage, and kinship pertained among theWakashan-speaking groups. The problem went beyonda poor application of the concept; rather, it lay in Boas'failure to comprehend that this concept of culture wasdifferent from the idea of a distinctive cultural "genius."To call the Heiltsuk KwakiutI is absurd; to say thatthere is a North Wakashan cultural sphere is not absurdand is, moreover, empirically testable. Although theresults of such testing would be less than reassuring,the idea could be usefully applied to other groupingssuch as the Heiltsuk, Oowekeeno, Bella Coola, andHaisia or the Citksan, Nishga, and Coast Tsimshian.

It is unfortunate that unreflective "Kwakiutlism"caused Boas to give short shrift to Central Coast groups.The paucity of Heiltsuk and Oowekeeno ethnographicmaterial that we have, especially from the Jesup pe-riod, is due in large part to the assumption that thesegroups were in fact KwakiutI. As the KwakiutI had beentreated extensively in earlier works (e.g.. Boas 1897),there was no need to provide another complete eth-nographic corpus.

Conclusion: The Central Coast as a LimitCase of Boasian Anthropology

It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that

Boas' concepts and methods of anthropology weretested and found wanting on the Central Coast. This isonly partly because we have the rich KwakiutImaterial with which to compare it. The contradictionsand weaknesses inherent in many of the concepts bor-rowed directly from the German Romantic and liberalsocial scientific traditions, and indeed the paradoxicalmanner in which Boas applied some of these ideasand methods, became more evident in his peripheralwork. Boas as the ethnographer of the KwakiutI wasguided in large part by praxis—by his pragmatic asso-ciation with the KwakiutI—although this dimension wassystematically suppressed in his published work. In pe-ripheral regions, such connections were lacking, andhe was forced to fall back on "first principles," whichincluded the idea of objective science, the privilegedplace of texts, the autonomy of cultural wholes, andthe idea of culture as a mental phenomenon, all bor-rowed directly, and with little change, from their Ger-man sources.

German social theories of the middle to late 19thcentury were constructed within a specific politicalcontext, against the background of two broad issues:the Counter-Enlightenment revolt against French uni-versalism, and the unification of Germany, with the at-tendant problems of minority populations, especiallyPoles and Jews. Boas imported these theories into thenew world of American anthropology, in many caseswith relatively little self-awareness of the fact. The po-litical context of North American internal colonialismwas much different from that of post-1848 Germany.It is only logical that tools honed in the study ofThuringian peasants would be found less than optimalfor the study of Northwest Coast Indians.

Boas' strengths as an ethnographer, and especiallya linguist, which were unparalleled in anthropology atleast until Malinowski, were somewhat undermined inthe case of the Central Coast by these theoretical weak-nesses and contradictions. It would be presentism ofthe worst sort to find fault with Boas for not operatingwith the full complement of modern anthropological

1 02

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

concepts and methods, some of which he helped todevelop. This, however, does not preclude a criticalreading of his work, or a comparison of his work onone group with that on another. By any reasonablestandards, Boasian ethnography on the Central North-west Coast will be found wanting, instructive as thefailure may be.

Notes

1. Farrand later became a university adminis-trator and was president of the University of Colo-rado and of Cornell University.

2. In calling the Heiltsuk embrace ofMethodism a "revitalization movement," I am ex-tending the sense in which the term is generallyused. Several elements, however, suggest theusage: the importance of Native "prophets" andpreachers, the centrality of ideas of disease, health,and purity in both missionary and Native discourse,and, of course, the background of sickness, cul-tural dislocation, and rapidly changing moralsagainst which the movement appeared. By thestandards of such things, this movement was quitesuccessful.

3. Boas' designation of the Bella Coola as aVolk is especially interesting in view of the factthat he did not ascribe such status to the Heiltsuk.

4. On the rhetoric of missionary writings, seeHarkin (1993:7-10).

5. Pragmatically, the shift in the nature ofBoas' Northwest Coast publications reflects hisattenuated engagement with the NorthwestCoast—his personal distancing—and his practiceof publishing George Hunt's materials with littleeditorial change.

6. This belief in unmediated perception oftruth, with its roots in Reformation theology, ischaracteristic of German Romantic philosophy,especially that of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (see Ber-lin 1991:190-1).

7. Boas provides a single systematic, al-though extremely brief, description of Heiltsuksocial organization (Boas 1924:329-32). The un-published field notes from Boas' and Hunt's sec-ond, post-Jesup, visit to Bella Bella (Boas 1923)are a rich source of data on social structure (al-though not on social change).

8. This opposition between culture and re-

gion between Volk and nation—was preciselythe central political problem in the Germany ofBoas' youth (see Smith 1991:94-5).

ReferencesBarth, Fredrik

1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Croups and Boundaries:Tine Social Organization of Cultural Difference. FredrikBarth, ed. Pp. 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown.

Barthes, Roland

1986 The Rustle of Language. Richard Howard, trans.

New York: Hill and Wang.Berlin, Isaiah

1991 The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in

the History of Ideas. New York: Knopf.Berman, Judith

1 996 "The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-self: Boas, George Hunt, and the Methods of Eth-nography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-says on Boasian Ethnography and the Cerman An-thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed.Pp. 215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

2000 Raven and Sunbeam, Paper and Pencil: GeorgeHunt of Fort Rupert, British Columbia. Paper presentedat conference, "Ethnologie de la Cote Northwest:Bilans et perspectives," College de France, Paris, June21-23.

Boas, Franz

1896 The Growth of Indian Mythologies. Journal ofAmerican Folk Lore 9:1 -11. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Obser-vations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.Report of the United States National Museum for1895. Pp. 31 1-738. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.

1 898a The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp.1 -1 2. Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 2.New York. Reprinted in Stocking, ed. 1974.

1898b The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 25-127. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York.

1 916 Tsimshian Mythology: Based on Texts Recordedby Henry W. Teit. Annual Report for the Years 1909-1910, #32. Pp. 29-1037. Washington, DC: Govern-ment Printing Office.

1923 Bella Bella notes. Boas Collection 372, Reel 1.American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

1 924 The Social Organization of the Tribes of theNorth Pacific Coast American Anthropologist 26:323-32. Reprinted in Boas 1940.

1928 Bella Bella Texts. Columbia University

MICHAEL HARKIN

1 03

Contributions to Anthropology, 5. New York: Co-lumbia University Press.

1 932 Bella Bella Tales. Memoirs of the American Foli<Lore Society, 52. New York.

1940 Race, Language, and Culture. New York: FreePress.

1966 KwakiutI Ethnography. Helen Codere, ed. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.Boyd, Robert T.

1990 Demographic History, 1774-1874. Handbookof North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Coast.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Buckley, Thomas

1989 Kroeber's Theory of Culture Areas and the Eth-nology of Northwestern California. AnthropologicalQuarterly620)^ 5-24.

1996 'The Little History of Pitiful Events": The Episte-mological and Moral Contexts of Kroeber's Califor-nian Ethnology. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic:Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the GermanAnthropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr.,ed. Pp. 257-97. History of Anthropology, 8. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bunzl, Matti

1996 Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: FromVolksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropo-logical Concept of Culture. In Volksgeist as Methodand Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and theGerman Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stock-ing, Jr., ed. Pp. 1 7-78. History of Anthropology, 8.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Darnell, Regna

1992 The Boasian Text Tradition and the History ofAnthropology. Culture 17(l):39-48.

Fabian, Johannes

1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes

Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and LailaWilliamson

1988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: TheJesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Goffman, Erving

1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organizationof Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Harkin, Michael

1 988 History, Narrative, and Temporality: Examplesfrom the Northwest Coast. ff/7/10/7/storK 35:99-1 30.

1993 Power and Progress: The Evangelic Dialogueamong the Heiltsuk. EthnohistoryAQA-3>3.

1994 Contested Bodies: Affliction and Power in HeiltsukCulture and History. American Ethnologist 2]-.586-605.

1997 The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and History

on the Northwest Coast. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.Jacknis, Ira

1985 Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the Limitations ofthe Museum Method of Anthropology. In Objectsand Others: Essays on Museums and Material Cul-ture. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 75-111. Historyof Anthropology, 3. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin Press.

1996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Eth-nology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeistas Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnogra-phy and the German Anthropological Tradition. G.W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 185-214. History of Anthro-pology, 8. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Krupat, Arnold

1 990 Irony in Anthropology: The Work of Franz Boas.

In Modernist Anthropology: From Field work to Text.

Marc Magnaro, ed. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.Kuper, Adam

1988 The Invention of Primitive Society: Transforma-tions of an Illusion. London: Routledge.Levi-Strauss, Claude

1966 Anthropology: Its Achievement and Its Future.

Current Anthropology 7:124-7.1 976 Structural Anthropology, vol. 2. Monique Layton,

trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1985 The View from Afar. Joachim Neugroschel and

Phoebe Hoss, trans. New York: Basic Books.Liss, Julia E.

1996 German Culture and German Science in theBildung of Franz Boas. In Volksgeist as Method andEthic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the Ger-man Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stocking,Jr., ed. Pp. 1 55-84. History of Anthropology, 8. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Mcllwraith, Thomas F.

1948 The Bella Coola Indians, vol. 1. Toronto: Univer-sity of Toronto Press.Mooney, James

1896 The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Out-break of 1890. Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bu-reau of American Ethnology. Pp. 301-97. Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Smith, Woodruff D.

1991 Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany1840-1920. New York: Oxford University Press.

Steiner, George

1992 After Babel: Aspects of Language and Transla-tion. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the His-tory of Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

1 04

THE COLLECTORS/ FRANZ BOAS

1987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.

1992 The Ethnographer's Magic and Other Essays inthe History of Anthropology. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press.

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

1996 Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on BoasianEthnography and the German Anthropological Tra-dition. History of Anthropology, 8. IVIadison: Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press.

Tate, Caroline

1883 Correspondence. Missionary Outlook 3.]]].Toronto: United Church of Canada Archives.

Tepper, Leslie H., ed.

1991 The Bella Coola Valley: Harlan I. Smith's Field-work Photographs, 1920-1924. Canadian EthnologyService Mercury Series Paper 123. Ottawa: NationalMuseum of Civilization.

Todorov, Tzvetan

1 988 Knowledge in Social Anthropology: Distancing

and Universality. Anthropology Today A{2):2-S.Vansina, Jan

1 985 Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press.Ziolkowski, Theodore

1 990 German Romanticism and Its Institutions.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

MICHAEL HARKIN

1 05

25/ Kwazi'nik, a NIaka'pamux woman from Spences Bridge, British Columbia, 1897. Harlan I. Smith,photographer (AMNH 1 1661)

1 06

wazi^ni

|<^wazi niK 5 i Lj<

Vision and ^tjmbo! in ^oasian j^epresentation

BARBARA MATHE

AND THOMAS R. MILLER

The photographer crouches behind a tripod, head un-der a black cloth. Emerging, he steps forward and closesthe lens, sets the shutter, loads the film holder into theback of the camera, and pulls the slide away from theplate. When all is ready, the photographer stands nextto the apparatus, reviews the scene, makes any ad-justments, and issues last-minute instructions. Finally,the photographer presses a cable or pulls a string, theshutter is released, and the picture is taken. In the in-stant of exposure, the shutter opens, and the mechani-cal eye meets the gaze of the subject. What the cam-era records is the subject watching this photographicperformance (Fig. 25).

Now imagine the scene through the eye of thesubject, a NIaka'pamux woman named Kwazi'nik. Thereflected image of Harlan Smith the photographer—and his tripod can be seen in her eyes (Fig.26).

Collecting Images

The photo was taken in 1897 at Spences Bridge, Brit-ish Columbia, as part of Franz Boas' continuing col-laboration with the British Association for the Advance-ment of Science (BAAS) in describing the physical andhuman geography of western Canada. That year Boascombined his anthropometric work for the BAAS witha new and ambitious project for the American Mu-seum of Natural History (AMNH)^the Jesup North Pa-cific Expedition.

Between 1 897 and 1902 the expedition producedsome 3,400 photographs.' The pictures were sent fromthe field to Boas in New York, where they became part

of the AMNH collections from North Asia and the Pa-cific Northwest of North America. The visual informa-tion gathered by the expedition's photographers in-cludes scenes of daily and ritual activity, collected ar-tifacts shown in use, architecture, landscapes, andpeople wearing traditional costumes. The largest groupof images consists of "physical types," photographs inwhich individuals were pictured from various angles(usually front, side, and three-quarter views; see Fig.27). These portraits were intended to complementphysiognomic measurements, casts, and bones andhelp establish an anatomical databank of "racial" char-acteristics. Boas' instructions emphasized photogra-phy among the varied field activities. He directedWaldemar Jochelson, leader of the Siberian side of theexpedition, to stress physical anthropology, charginghim with "special efforts to obtain a good collectionof anthropological photographs and plaster casts"(Boas to Jochelson, 26 March 1900, AMNH).^

Morris K. jesup, president of the AMNH and theexpedition's patron and namesake, wanted a sweep-ing, illustrious scientific achievement for the museum.The search for the first Americans' racial origins hadcaught the public imagination. In a quest to prove thehypothesis that the first Americans had migrated acrossthe Bering Strait from northern Asia, Jesup found aproject of grandeur and scope to suit his Gilded-Ageambitions. As a scientist, Franz Boas was more inter-ested in reconstructing the histories of tribes to dem-onstrate relationships and historical contacts betweenNorth Asians and American Indians.

1 07

Boas and others were convinced that colonialincursions into the indigenous societies of the NorthPacific had brought traditional cultures to the verge ofdisappearance. Boas' fieldworkers made a consciouseffort to record or reconstruct traditions as remem-bered from the past. The combination of artifacts, texts,photographs, wax-cylinder recordings, casts, and physi-cal measurements was intended to form an encyclo-pedic body of data. The collections were chosen toillustrate as many facets of traditional peoples andcultures as possible. As a tool linking the expeditionand exhibition phases of the museum enterprise, pho-tography was a valuable means of documentation andre-creation.

Boas' primary goal was accumulation—the collec-tion of racial, cultural, and linguistic information of alltypes on a massive scale. This project of salvageethnology was a response to the social conditions ofmodernity that threatened traditions. Although remov-ing cultural artifacts from their contexts may havehastened the onslaught of change, science could atleast record and preserve the past even as it wasbeing effaced (Cruber 1970). The urgent efforts of thephotographers to preserve images of a vanishing pastconvey the anxiety of salvage anthropology, frame byframe. As Smith wrote to Boas from Eburne,

I got the explanation of the house posts Ibought as well as they could give them. Thelarge one is interesting the man's figure theysay is simply an ornament or a carving made tobe a carving and had no meaning. . .. Theydon't seem to know as much of the old timesas we wish they did. (1 7 May 1 898, AMNH)

The museum photographers composed and col-lected scenes whose corresponding realities they didnot expect to survive. Embedded within these ideal-ized, fragmented, metonymic images of culture werevisual symbols of native tradition, heritage, and iden-tity. These distinctive features were chosen to repre-sent cultures not only as they then existed but in animagined and reconstructed "ethnographic present,"situated in the past and staged for the future.

Dictated texts, sound recordings, photographs, andhead casts—all objects that in some sense were cre-ated by and for science—can be thought of as docu-mentary collections which augment and explain col-lections of "found" objects (a category that includesmost collected art and artifacts, as well as humanbones). Although both types of collection dependedon a complex negotiation of collaboration and coer-cion between anthropologists and Native subjects inthe colonial-era encounters of the late 19th and early20th centuries, under certain circumstances documen-tary ethnographic collections might have allowed par-ticipating Native artists and informants a more activevoice in deciding how they wished their cultures to berepresented. Today, when North Pacific peoples andtheir cultures have not only survived but are growingmore numerous and stronger in the expression of theirunique identities, both documentary and "found" col-lections constitute a powerful and potentially con-tested resource for the reanimation and reinventionof traditions.

The jesup PhotographersBoas was an enthusiastic proponent of modern tech-nology in fieldwork, advocating the use of recordingdevices such as the camera and the phonograph todocument cultural traditions. He had studied photog-raphy as a university student in Germany and, from hisearliest solo trip to Baffin Island, had made use of pho-tographic equipment. Boas himself spent only aboutfour months in the field on the Jesup Expedition, duringthe summers of 1897 and 1900, and no photographsare attributed to him personally. His ethos, however,pervaded the entire enterprise.

Harlan Smith, then a young employee at the AMNH,was the principal photographer on the North Ameri-can side, producing more than 500 images on theNorthwest Coast.^ He was already familiar with Boas'methodology and ideas on anthropological represen-tation, having worked with Boas and George Hunt(Boas' principal collaborator) at the 1 893 Chicago

1 08

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

World's Columbian Exposition. In correspondence fromthe field, Smith referred to Boas' 1894 work with WestCoast photographer O. C. Hastings as a precedent."Hastings was also hired for the Jesup Expedition in 1898and worked as an assistant to Smith in Fort Rupert.Gerard Fowke took archaeological pictures in Victoria,British Columbia, in 1898, as well as a small number ofimages in Siberia and the Russian Far East. EthnologistRoland Dixon photographed Quinault and Quileute in-dividuals as part of his fieldwork for the expedition inWashington State in 1898.

Two individuals on the American side of the expe-dition, George Hunt and James Teit, proved invaluablebecause of their close ties to Native communities; theirinfluence on the photographic work of the Jesup Expe-dition was immeasurable. Hunt, the son of a Britishfather and a Tlingit mother, was raised in the KwakiutI[Kwakwaka'wakw] community of Fort Rupert, BritishColumbia. He worked closely with other members ofthe expedition team, making their encounters withIndians more relaxed and perhaps more revealing.James Alexander Teit, an immigrant from the ShetlandIslands who lived in Spences Bridge, was married to aNIaka'pamux woman, Susanna Lucy Antko. Kwazi'nik,who posed for Figure 25, was Antko's sister (WendyWickwire, personal communication). Teit's insider sta-tus allowed him to collect information not easily avail-able to others (see Thom, this volume). Although Teittook up the camera only after the Jesup Expeditionyears. Hunt started sending photographs back to Boasin New York as early as 1901, and he later went on toproduce an important body of pictures (Cannizzo 1983;Jacknis 1985).

In Siberia, most of the photographs were taken byWaldemar Bogoras, Waldemar Jochelson, and DinaJochelson-Brodsky. [Alexander Axelrod, the Siberianteam assistant, probably also took several photo-graphs—ed.] Jochelson wrote to Boas in 1901 abouthis pictures of Koryak and Tungus, "Half of my photo-graphic plates are of anthropological subjects"—i.e.,physical types. Jochelson-Brodsky, who interrupted her

medical training under Rudolf Martin in Zurich to ac-company her husband on the expedition, took the an-thropometric measurements and assumed responsi-bility for much of the photography as well. Jochelsonwrote to Boas in the summer of 1901, "Mrs. Jochelsonhas developed the plates and done the other photo-graphic work and acts now as my secretary" (3 Au-gust [22 July, old style] 1901, AMNH).

Dina Jochelson-Brodsky measured the faces of some720 Koryak, Tungus, and Sakha [Yakut] men, women,and children. In addition, she produced anatomicalmeasurements of more than 120 Tungus, Sakha, andYukagir women's bodies. Together with her photo-graphs and plaster casts of heads, these data formedthe basis of her dissertation in medical anthropology,which she eventually completed in Zurich. During theyears of the Jesup Expedition, epidemics caused wide-spread population decline among the Koryak, Chukchi,and Yukagir, so opportunities to measure and photo-graph individuals were limited.^ In a 1907 Journal ar-ticle based on her dissertation research, Jochelson-Brodsky reported that conditions had severely con-strained her work:

Unfortunately, I was not able to make specialwomen's measurements of the Koryak. Welived with the Gizhiga Koryak around Primorskiregion the entire winter of 1900-1901.... Myhusband, myself, the interpreter and otherassistants worked in our tight, small canvastent, heated by a little iron stove. Faced withsuch arrangements it turned out I was not ableto produce special measurements of Koryakwomen. (Jochelson-Brodsky 1907)

On both sides of the North Pacific, additional pic-tures were commissioned from local professional pho-tographers. In the Amur River region of the Russian FarEast, Jesup anthropologist Berthold Laufer's dismal at-tempt at photography prompted Boas to urge him tohire a professional photographer instead (Kendall 1988).

Boxes of Light

The elaborate performance of the view cameraformally staged and framed the relation between

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 09

anthropologist and subject, visually marking the in-herent power imbalance that was at other times mutedby friendly and casual exchange. The manipulation ofscenes before the lens was a collaborative act of the-ater, a performance engaged in by foreign guest andNative host with varying degrees of coercion and co-operation. The extent to which the composition ofpictures was designed and controlled by the photog-raphers and their subjects depended on factors thatincluded the familiarity and relative status of photog-rapher and subject, the didactic purpose of the pho-tograph, lighting and weather conditions, and the tech-nical limitations of the apparatus. The project of sal-vage anthropology itself was often one of complicitybetween subject and collector to dramatize tradition.To represent a culture to the public, an image had tobe reconstructed in the museum; frequently, this im-age was in turn based on a scene deliberately com-posed in the field.

Turn-of-the-century technology imposed strict limi-tations on field photographers. Correct exposure gen-erally required subjects to hold still in well-lit and care-fully arranged poses. The slow film of the period andthe large format of the view camera required eitherstrong light or slow shutter speeds for good expo-sure. A tripod was almost always needed. Most of thephotographs were taken outdoors. Although hand-heldKodak box cameras had been in use since the early1890s, they were mostly relegated to amateur use.Instead, large view cameras with glass-plate negatives,capable of fine detail, were chosen for the expedition.

While basic provisions like food and clothing couldbe obtained locally, specialized supplies and technicalequipment had to be requested by post, shipped fromNew York to Vancouver or Vladivostok, cleared throughinternational customs, stored in repositories, pickedup, and finally transported to field sites. Some ship-ments never arrived, and others languished in ware-houses for months. Writing to museum clerk John Winserfrom Victoria in July 1897, Harlan Smith pleaded em-phatically:

Please trace at once the phonograph cylin-ders and the photographic plates sent hereto Dr. Boas from the museum in May. Theyare not here and as a consequence I have topay big British Columbia prices for photoplates and to do without the phonographcylinders. I have worked every means to getthem from early morning. I have been toevery depot, customs and express. This lossis a very serious matter to this year's work. Iam bending every effort to try to securethem from some where before my steamersails. (Smith to Winser, 30 July 1 897, AMNH)

Almost a year later, during the second Jesup Expedi-tion field season. Smith wrote to Boas from Fort Rupert:

At last the photographic plates, sent outhere in 1897, have reached me and we haveused some of them but find all the picturestaken with them failed. It is too bad they willbe a dead loss on our hands. I will try onefrom each box and so try to use them. If oneis good we will try others in the box. Theyare all speckled. I suppose caused by age ormoisture while lying a year at Victoria. (Smithto Boas, 22 June 1 898, AMNH)

The temporal and spatial constraints of photo-graphy's fixed vantage point and moment of expo-sure could be partially compensated for by picturing asubject from several angles in succession. In photo-graphs, sequences could string moments together, en-hancing time, and panoramas could extend the spaceof the camera, overcoming the boundaries of the pic-ture frame. These techniques were used to broadenthe parameters of the medium, to capture landscapesand views that could not be contained within the con-fines of an individual photograph (Figs. 28, 29). Theconventional front, side, and three-quarter views of19th-century physical-type photography provide a clas-sic illustration of this approach.

Perceived and Represented "Types"The search for "types" in descriptions of people wasthe primary scientific mode of assessing racial and eth-nic characteristics in the late 19th century. Amassingphysical anthropology data in the form of skeletal ma-terial, casts, measurements, and photographs provided

1 1 0

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

crucial evidence for the racial component of Boas' tri-adic model of race, language, and culture. Yet much ofthe physical anthropology data collected on the JesupExpedition, including Boas' voluminous anthropomet-ric records, remained unanalyzed for more than 80 years(see Ousley and Jantz, this volume).^

Early in his career. Boas had been concerned withthe effect of the observer's perceptual bias on typol-ogy and classification. His physics thesis at the Univer-sity of Kiel, completed in the early 1880s, dealt withthe role of perception in determining variations in thecolor of seawater. Ranging widely across the Germandivision of scholarly disciplines in his studies, the youngBoas evinced a keen interest in methodology, initiallyproposing a thesis on the problem of random errors inscientific investigations. When this topic was rejectedby the faculty at Kiel, he took up the assigned prob-lem of seawater with little enthusiasm, encounteringgreat difficulty in accurately recreating minute naturaldifferences under laboratory conditions (Cole 1999:38-62). In a sense, his efforts showed that scientific errorswere not merely random but were often induced bythe artificial character of the scientific setting or byunrefined laboratory methods of reconstructing real-world conditions. The notion that the bias of the ob-server was among the most prominent and determin-istic of these effects would later profoundly influenceBoas' construction of cultural relativism in his seminal1 889 essay "On Alternating Sounds."

A strikingly similar orientation is reflected in thediscussion of the distribution of colored sticks in his1922 article "The Measurement of Differences betweenVariable Quantities." In the human sciences, however,the basic framework of classifying data into morpho-logical types was immensely complicated by the par-ticular historical and environmental variables of humanmigration and intercourse. From the time Boas resignedfrom the ANMH in 1905 until his death in 1942, hegradually tempered his insistence on the quest foruniversals of human behavior and fixed racial catego-ries in favor of a historical method that placed local

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

conditions above universal or evolutionary stages ofsocial development (Stocking 1974:12-1 5). In contrastto the magisterial certainties of structural functional-ism and the rigid hierarchies of social-evolutionarytheory, Boasian anthropology developed in a more re-flexive mode. As with seawater or colored sticks, theperception and classification of human subjects de-pended on the point of view of the observer. Thiscounter-social evolutionary position was manifest notonly in Boas' physical anthropology but also in his studyof representation in cultural artifacts.

For Boas, mere visual qualities could be danger-ously misleading if taken as guides to understandingthe meaning of cultural objects or physical evidence.When comparing objects of similar form collected fromneighboring tribes, he repeatedly cautioned that theirtrue significance could be found only in the context oftheir originating cultures. Usage and lore, not externalsimilarities of form, were the keys to comparison andclassification. The method of museum display hedeveloped between 1886 and 1905 depended onnarrative scenes depicting the life of particular culturalgroups more than on grouping visually similar artifactsfrom disparate regions together in exhibit cases.^

Boas' cautious analytical attitude toward the ex-traction of meaning from form was central to his visionof museum display. He concluded a 1904 brochurefor AMNH visitors by noting that objects with the sameform carried different meanings for different Indiantribes. "This seems to indicate," he wrote, "that theinterpretation may also be adapted to the design, or... an idea has been 'read into' the design" (Boas [1904]1995:1 87). A comparable process of "reading in" takesplace when looking at archival photographs. Just asan object's meaning depends on its cultural context, aphotograph's meaning depends on its original setting,its subsequent place in a museum or a publication,any accompanying text, and the biases of a viewer'sown culture and historical worldview.

Boas retained a basic distrust of the photograph,with its single point of view, lack of perspective,

1 1 1

narrow bracketing of space, and freezing of a singleinstant. He considered the scientific value of physical-type images to be limited by the perspectival distor-tion inherent in two-dimensional representation Gacknis1 984). Characteristically, his solution to the limits ofgraphic representation was to gather as much evidenceof as many types as possible. The visual medium wasvalued for the degree of completeness it could add toa body of textual or numerical information and toassociated collections, as well as for guidance in con-structing museum exhibits.

Photographic images were to be a supplementaryform of data. The huge corpus of physical-type photo-graphs, for example, was intended primarily to illus-trate cranial and body measurements taken in the field.Skulls and bones were determined to be the mostvaluable evidence, followed by casts, measurements,verbal descriptions, and photographs. Physiognomicresemblances as shown by the camera were surfaceappearances which, though not analogous to simpleracial stereotypes, were nonetheless data to be ap-plied to racial formulae in determining the physical typesof individuals and populations. But in human society,classification had to account for highly complex histo-ries over vast areas of distribution. Although they origi-nated in a search for typology. Boas' considerations ofrace moved him instead toward historical particular-ism. His insistence on local differentiation stood in con-trast to the prevailing evolutionary models of culture.Boas believed that truly scientific explanations couldonly be based on an immense corpus of detailed eth-nographic data. One of the chief aims of the Boasianmethod during the Jesup Expedition period was, there-fore, the extrapolation of general laws, which he stillthought possible, from a preponderance of facts.

Exchanging Vision

Photography is in some regards ill suited to the projectof idealizing types for classification. Disinterestedlyrecording every visible quirk and flaw, the camera tendsto favor the details of specific corporeal realities over

idealized conceptual forms. This is why medical andbiological journals, for purposes of idealization andclassification, often prefer drawings instead of photo-graphs as anatomical illustrations. Whereas an artistcan depict a model of an organism in diagram or cross-section, showing all the features deemed distinctiveand characteristic of its species, the camera can onlydepict the unique individual specimen.

The statistical profile of North Pacific peoples soughtby the anthropologists was to be based on a com-posite of individual features.^ In a circular establishingits guidelines for photographic portraits, the Ethno-logical Survey of Canada of the BAAS, Boas' employeron the Northwest Coast, instructed its investigatorsthat

facial characteristics are conveniently recordedby means of photographs" taken in the follow-ing ways:

(a) A few portraits of such persons as may, inthe opinion of the person who sends them,best convey the peculiar characteristics of therace . . .

(b) At least twelve portraits of the left side ofthe face of as many different adults of the samesex. ... If the incidence of the light be not thesame in all cases they cannot be used to makecomposite portraits. . . . The distance of thesitter from the camera can be adjusted withmuch precision by fixing a looking glass in thewail (say five feet from his chair), so that hecan see the reflection of his face in it.'

The exchange of vision between photographer andsubject mediates the act of photography.

The image of Harlan Smith and his camera reflectedin Kwazi'nik's eyes is a visible manifestation of whattakes place every time a subject looks at a camera.The seeing eye and the camera lens reflect one an-other; each is mirrored in the other (Fig. 25).

That exchange of vision in which another's pointof view gets captured is illustrated metaphoricallyin a Thompson River tale, "Coyote Juggles with HisEyes," collected by James Teit. The mythic trickster-hero Coyote loses his sight only to steal someoneelse's:'"

1 1 2

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

26/ The photographer's figure (Harlan I. Smith), his camera, and tripod reflected in the eye of Kwazi'nik(from AMNH 1 1661)

1 1 3

114

27/ Typical "physical type" photographs fromthe Jesup Expedition databank of physical (ra-cial) characteristics (front, side, and three-quar-ter views). F. Nehulin, young Chuvan(Chuvantzy) woman from Markovo (?), 1 900(AMNH 1409, 1410, 141 1).

1 1 5

- ^

28/ First of a two-photo sequence photographs depicting the Kwakwaka'wakw (KwakiutI) potlatch at FortRupert, British Columbia. Harlan I. Smith, phtographer, 1 897 (AMNH 42968)

116

29/ Second photo of the same potlatch ceremony at Fort Rupert. Blankets piled on beach, with a speaker inthe middle (AMNH 42967)

1 1 7

30/ Sketches with facial paintings of the Niaka'pamux (Thompson) Indians. Reprinted from Bureau of Ameri-can Ethnology, 45'^ Annual Report, 1 930 (Plate 7)

32/ Yukagir shaman in full costume, with his sha-

man drum and drumstick, photographed for a man-nequin-style museum display (AMNH 1 835)

33/ Yukagir shaman in full costume photographed fora mannequin-style museum display (AMNH 1 834)

1 1 9

34/ A grave marker in the form of a carved wooden "copper," Fort Rupert, British Columbia. Harlan I. Smith,photographer,! 897 (AMNH 411 809)

1 20

35/ Native woman in traditional deerskin clothing (probably borrowed for photo session), with a littlegirl in a gingham dress. Harlan I. Smith, photographer,! 897 (AMNH 1 1 682)

121

37/ Emma Simon, a NIaka'pamux (Thompson Indian) woman posing for a staged life-scene photo to illustrate traditional practice of deer-hide tanning (AMNH 42930).

39/ Miniature diorama of the IVIaritime Koryak winter settlement, American IVluseum, Hall of Asian Peoples(AMNH 1 8237). The actions and poses of the human figurines are precisely based on Jochelson's photographsfrom the Jesup Expedition, including the the two facing photographs.

1 24

40/ Koryak hunters dragging killed white whale on sledge, springl 901 (AMNH 1423)

41 / Koryak men posing for a "dog-offering"' ceremony (AMNH 1519)

125

A Z 1 •\ S

42/ Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) of the Kamloops Indian Band, Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation, holding achild (AMNH 42745).

1 26

43/ Haida painting, possibly by Charles Edenshaw, representing a bear. The paintingillustrates the method of split representation whereby different viewpoints of an animal,front and sides, are shown on a single plane. It also shows how the parts of the animalclosely identified with a bear, the ears and claws, are used as a symbolic representationof the creature. Published in: Franz Boas. The Decorative Art of the Indians of the NorthPacific Cofl5t.l897,p.l27(AMNH24537)

1

44/ Yupik (Siberian Eskimo) man from the village of Ungazik (Indian Point, Chaplino) Chukotka, Siberia, 1 901(AMNH 2438, 2437, 2439)

1 28

Continuing his travels, he came to a placewhere he saw Blue-Grouse throwing his eyesup in the air and catching them. Coyote saidto himself, "I can also perform that feat," sohe pulled out his eyes and threw them up inthe air; but Raven caught them and flewaway with them, so Coyote was left withouteyes and unable to see. He went gropingabout, and, coming to a patch of kinnikinnikor bearberries, he selected two of the berries,and put them in his eye-sockets as substi-tutes for eyes. He was then able to see alittle, but only very dimly. Continuing on hisjourney, he came to the outskirts of a villagewhere some boys were playing. One boywho was near him called him "red-eyes" andother sarcastic names. Coyote said, "Al-though my eyes are red, I can see as well asyou can. I can see the Pleiades (nxa'us)." Theboy laughed and said, "How can you see thePleiades? It is just noon. I know now for acertainty that you cannot see with your redeyes." Then Coyote seized the boy, and,taking out his eyes, put them in his ownhead, and, putting his bearberry eyes in theboy's head, he turned him into a bird calledtceia'uin. (Teit 1912:212)

In the face paintings reproduced on templates inthe jesup archives and publications, the eyes areexplained as a site of symbolic visualizations andextraordinary powers of vision. Figure 30 shows aThompson Indian motif whose meaning was notcertain but, according to Teit,

is said to be connected with sight or theexpectation to see. Some say the circlesrepresent the eyes and the lines are symbolicof woodworms or strength, and the wholemay be a prayer for strength of the eyes. Theperson using this painting may have wantedhis powers of vision increased so that hemight see supernatural beings, or he mayhave wanted sore eyes to be made well.(Teit 1930:424-5)"

Boas collected a large number of face-painting de-signs from the great Haida artist Charles Edenshaw,and three-dimensional miniature cast representationsof George Hunt's face serve as templates for a largecollection of face-painting motifs. In his Facial Paint-ings of the Indians of Northern British Columbia^ 898),Boas used face paintings to exemplify the problem ofmapping designs not only from three dimensions to

two but also simultaneously from a variegated andchanging surface to a static representation. In thisessay Boas at once classifies the designs from mostrealistic to most abstract and describes the Indians'

peculiar method of adapting the animal formto the decorative field. There is no endeavorto represent the form by means of perspec-tive, but the attempt is made to adapt theform as nearly as possible to the decorativefield by means of distortion and dissection. .. . if I could obtain a series of representationson very difficult surfaces, the principles ofconventionalism would appear most clearly.No surface seems to be more difficult totreat and to adapt to animal forms, than thehuman face. For this reason I resolved tomake a collection of facial paintings such asare used by the Indians when adorningthemselves for festive dances. (Boasl 898:1 3)

Visualizing Cultures

Like museum collecting and anthropology itself, pho-tography both records and represents. As a mediumof record, photography documents the visual, produc-ing a permanent image of a subject's physical charac-teristics from a fixed and framed optical perspectiveat a single instant. Within the constraints of the me-dium, photography can accurately depict a person'sface, an environmental setting, or the detailed surfaceof an object. But as a representation, the meaning of aphotograph is mutable and depends on many factors.The context from which the image sprang fades away,while the context in which it will be viewed changescontinuously over time. The anthropological photo-graph presents a deliberate image of the traditionalpast, recording a unique moment of contact betweenscience and its object. Subsequent interpretations areattempts to read meaning and context back into theseisolated visual fragments.

The jochelsons, while acquiring shamans' coats,hats, and drums in Siberia, photographed some of thecostumes being worn in the field. The poses suggestthat the pictures were meant to serve as models formuseum mannequins on which the costumes wouldbe displayed. One effect of such comprehensive

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 29

collecting of objects was the self-fulfillment of theanthropological prophecy that theethnographers werewitnessing a last performance, since by acquiringthese artifacts they were removing them from thesphere of the living culture. Meant to demonstrateprocesses for purposes of study and display, thesephotographs also documented the transfer of the sha-mans' ritual garb to the museum. The photographicritual marked the desacralization of powerful shamanicvestments as they were transformed into inert museumobjects (Figs. 31-33).

In collecting artifacts and creating ethnographicimages for the museum, the members of the Jesup Ex-pedition sought out symbols of traditional culture thatcould represent the past in idealized museum displays.Individual signs of colonialism and acculturation werefrequently left out of the collection. Harlan Smith wroteto Boas from Eburne, British Columbia:

I tried to get the big wooden drum cheaper. .. . They had two but one showed whitecontact. It would have interested me asshowing contact but I thought Museumwould prefer the old style and would notcare to see how white men's pipes and hatsare drawn by Indian artists. . . . (Smith toBoas, 17 May 1898, AMNH)

Although the anthropologists often strove to avoiddocumenting obvious signs of modernity, they none-theless collected many signs of intermingling cultures.Boasian techniques of dramatizing precolonial tradi-tions were more difficult and less relevant in settle-ments where Russians, English, Canadians, or Ameri-cans had lived for centuries than they were amongnomadic hunter-gatherers on the tundra (Laurel Kendall,personal communication, 1996). Some photographs,like a wooden "copper" grave marker in British Colum-bia, clearly show a combination of traditional cultureand western influence (Fig. 34). In Siberia, many signsof Russian influence are visible in photographs taken inand around Yakutsk, imperial headquarters for the col-lection of/flsfl/c(fur tribute) for more than 250 years.In heavily Russianized areas such as Yakutsk and

1 30

Markovo, Bogoras and Jochelson focused on accul-turation and collected many objects from groups thatthey considered ethnically mixed, such as Chuvantsy[Chuvan] and so-called Russianized Natives.

Representing the Past

James Teit amassed a large collection of semiobsoletetraditional Indian costumes that many local photogra-phers borrowed for photo sessions throughout theNicola Valley region (Wickwire 1993; Fig. 35). HarlanSmith, working with Boas, besides acquiring tools forthe collection was able to arrange photographic scenesof a Secwepemc [Shuswap] woman stretching deerhide and digging roots (Fig. 36). The scenes were ex-pressly composed to serve as the basis for a life grouprepresenting the Thompson Indians" in the Hall of NorthWest Coast Indians that Boas was curating at the AMNH(Miller and Mathe 1997:39-40, 100-1; Fig. 37):

At Kamloops got 1 pestle or hammer-bonebeater, part of a carved digging stick handle.Deer skin, scraper, stone in handle—birchbark basket and stone scraper. For these last4 I paid $4.00. This seemed high but Iphotoed the woman scraping skin andthought you would need a skin and scraperfor a group showing squaw scraping skin.Then I photoed woman digging roots andknowing you had a digging stick I onlybought basket for I thought you had no olddirty used baskets and would want one forthe group so not to take any out of the casecollection. Teit says $5.00 was cheap forthem. (Smith to Boas, 27 April 1 898, AMNH)

These scenes were used as references, along withSmith's photos of underground Kikulie houses, for aminiature group that has remained on exhibit in theHall of North West Coast Indians and for a large-scale"Thompson Indian" [NIaka'pamux and others] life groupin the same hall (Fig. 38). The life group shows the deerskin—considerably smaller than that in the original fieldphotograph—and the scraper. The juxtaposition ofscales and the combination of authentic artifacts withfabrications to present a seamless vision inside theglass box create a theatrical fantasy of traditional

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

culture. The pictorial effect created by the view of oldcostumes, genuine artifacts, architectural motifs, andwax physiognomies was, as a critic wrote in anothercontext, "neither genuine nor spurious, but illusory andfantastic."'3

When comparing the life group with the photo-graphs on which it was based, the most obvious dif-ference, besides the altered scale, is that the womanphotographed by Smith was wearing western-styleclothing, while the mannequin is in traditional dress.At about the same time, Charles Hill-Tout observedthat "the old-time clothing has gone entirely out ofuse, with the exception of the moccasin, which is stillalmost exclusively worn by the old people of bothsexes" (Hill-Tout 1978:51). In a guide to the North WestCoast Hall, Boas noted that Interior Salish Indians nolonger wore deerskin. Other cases representing theThompson Indians in the hall also show and describethe older traditional clothing of the NIaka'pamux andtheir neighbors. One hundred years later, anthropolo-gist Marianne Boelscher Ignace was able to identifythe individuals in Harlan Smith's photographs as Sec-wepemc tanner Emma Basil Simon when Simon's nieces,Christine and Florence Simon of Skeetchestn, BritishColumbia, recognized their aunt as the figure in thephotos. The image itself has attained iconic stature asa symbol of traditional Interior Salish cultures and hasbeen widely reproduced—for example, as a largeanonymous mural in the Royal British Columbia Mu-seum in Victoria, the provincial capital.

As guest curators of the AMNH's 1997 Jesup Ex-pedition centenary exhibition. Drawing Shadows toStone: Photographing North Pacific Peoples, 1897-1902, we were fortunate to be able to name EmmaSimon and her family as the individuals behind the im-ages. With the kind permission of the Skeetchestn Band,we were also allowed to include Marianne Ignace'sown contemporary photographs documenting NellieTaylor—^a Secwepemc elder who passed away in1997—demonstrating the same art of hide tanning,which has endured to this day. The tanning process

has become a symbol of the strength and indepen-dence of Interior Salish women, who have sustainedthe art despite its suppression in government mission-ary schools in Nellie Taylor's youth. Harlan Smith's JesupExpedition photographs of Emma Simon, placed sideby side with the Boasian life group and Ignace's mod-ern pictures of Nellie Taylor, visually demonstrated fortoday's museum visitors the perseverance of the verytraditions that Boas and his peers had feared were dy-ing out.

Exchanging Images

The indexical authority of a photograph as historicalfact normally seeks to assert itself over the mutableiconic meaning of the picture (Barthes 1977; Sontag1977). To a certain degree, this equation is reversed inthe artifice of museum representation, where patentlyconstructed images stand as models of culture. In "TheMuseum as a Way of Seeing," Svetlana Alpers (1991)maintains that a museum can transform anything con-tained within its walls into an art object. By virtue ofits selection for inclusion in the museum, an objecttakes on a symbolic mantle, signifying a meaning be-yond itself. The investiture of artifacts with ethnographicor historical significance manifests itself as a visual trope,spotlit in isolation and displayed on a pedestal vitrine.The individual object comes to represent an idealizedtype.

The dramatic reconstruction of precontact life istypical of the museum models based on photographsfrom the jesup Expedition. The museum, as a stage forthe objects claimed by salvage anthropology, recon-structed their contexts within the visual trope of dis-play. The efficacy of images for purposes of illustrationand representation was largely independent of howthe images were obtained. Although Koryak people inthe remote coastal village of Kamenskoye were reluc-tant to submit to many aspects of the Jochelsons'strange anthropological endeavor, they posed for aseries of photographs of their village and annualritual cycle (Miller and Mathe 1997:35-40). These

B. MATH^ AND T. R. MILLER

photographs later served as the basis for a detailedminiature diorama that is still on display in the Hall ofAsian Peoples at the AMNH, where it is labeled as arepresentation of Paleolithic life. The composite of pho-tographic scenes modeled in the diorama employs asurreal juxtaposition of activities and rituals drawn fromdifferent times in the ritual cycle of the Maritime Koryak,creating a distorted, theme park-like view of thepeople's daily lives (Figs. 39, 40, 41).

The process of representation began in the fieldwith the imagining of the museum. Photographs of themuseum were useful in the field for anthropologistshoping to acquire collections. To explain their unusualrequests, the anthropologists showed pictures of theAMNH.'5 If suitably impressed, people were some-times more willing to provide objects and images forthe museum's collections. Smith wrote to Boas fromEburne:

I have used up all the pictures I have of theMuseum persuading the Indians here to letme have houseposts. I show them that theposts are in rain and weather then picture ofmuseum & ask them to let us house theposts. If you can please have sent to me 3 or4 more pictures each of Museum, lecture halland a case hall. (Smith to Boas, 1 9 May1898, AMNH)

Under certain circumstances, such tactics provedall the more persuasive for being backed by colonialauthority, as was the case with Chief Louis (Fig. 42).Chief Petit Louis (HIi Kleh Kan) led the Kamloops IndianBand from 1855 to 1915, a period of cataclysmicchanges on the interior plateau. He helped to holdtogether the Secwepemc [Shuswap] nation whennative cultures were under attack, voicing persistentclaims to land, sovereignty, and distinct identity. Theband had already objected to Harlan Smith's takinghuman remains when Boas, moonlighting for thecrown as an agent of the BAAS, attempted to obtainthe chief's consent for anthropometric work. He suc-ceeded only by invoking the authority of the queen ofEngland over the Indians who were legally her royalsubjects. In a lantern-slide lecture following the first

1 32

Jesup Expedition field season. Boas admitted usingcoercive pressure to overcome the Indians' resistanceto being cast, photographed, and measured:

I am afraid, that, in trying to coax him tosubmit to the operation, I gave him a ratherwrong impression in regard to the characterof our work. ... I told him that the Queendesired to see the great chief of theShushwap, and since she was too old to visithim, I had been requested to take his portraitand bring it to her, and that at the same timeshe had asked me to present him with hisown bust, which he was to place in hishouse, so that his people might understandhow important a man he was. This argumentremoved all his objections, and, after he hadconsented, there was of course no difficultyin getting just as many men of his tribe as Ipleased. (Boas 1 897a)

Boas showed Chief Louis' portrait as an anonymousclassic Shuswap male physical type in the publishedalbum of photographs from the jesup North PacificExpedition. Subsequent presentations of the same im-age have varied according to different contexts, in-cluding a prominent place in the gallery of theSecwepemc Cultural Education Society located onKamloopa reserve land and its presentation as an arti-fact of historical Interior Salish-European relations inthe Jesup centenary exhibition Drawing Shadows toStone.^^

Boasian Visions

The logic of Boas' directives to the scientists on theJesup North Pacific Expedition was to document entirecultures to the greatest extent possible. His vision ofanthropology was as a science of inductive methodwhose aim was the description and historical recon-struction of entire societies. Representing a whole cul-ture by means of fragments vested with iconic signifi-cance, the visual ethnographer judged which aspectsto emphasize and which to omit. The criteria forchoosing which elements were distinctive featuresof a culture and which were mere acculturations oradaptations were ethnographic litmus tests of tradi-tion and authenticity as seen by the anthropologist.

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

The features chosen by the ethnographer—most of-ten, those elements considered to represent precontactsurvivals—were seen as the salient features that couldsymbolize a culture as a whole.

A comparable method of visual typology is em-ployed by artists on the Northwest Coast. The artistshighlight the symbolic elements that signify an animal'stotemic character. Boas wrote in 1 897:

In consequence of the adaptation of the formto the decorative field, the native artist cannotattempt a realistic representation of his subject,but is often compelled to indicate only its maincharacteristics. ... It would be all but impos-sible to recognize what animal is meant, if theartist did not emphasize what he considers thecharacteristic features of animals. These are soessential to his mind that he considers norepresentations adequate in which they aremissing. ( Boas 1897b:126)

In his January 1897 lecture, Boas asserted that for Ameri-can Indian artists.

One of the greatest. .. difficulties is the lack ofknowledge of the principles of perspective. Tomost primitive people a picture of a solidobject that shows only one side is incomplete.They ask: Where is the rest of the object? . . .[B]y the desire to represent all the parts of thething pictured, the artist is led step by step todisregard their relations in space. The character-istic design is added as a distinctive feature tothe conventional figure representing a type.. ..There is only a short step from this stage to thesecond characteristic stage of primitive art inwhich the realistic picture of the object isomitted entirely and only its distinctive symbolis represented. (Boas 1897a)

In his study of Northwest Coast decorative art follow-ing the first jesup Expedition field season. Boas de-scribed the Native artist's method of representation:

I conclude . . . that it is the ideal of the nativeartist to show the whole animal, and that theidea of perspective representation is entirelyforeign to his mind. His representations arecombinations of symbols of the various partsof the body of the animal, arranged in such away that if possible the whole animal isbrought into view. ( Boas 1897b: 176)

Nearly two decades later, in 1916, Boas restated andelaborated on the concept:

While in our modern perspective drawing thepainter tries to give the visual impression ofthe object, showing only what we believewe see at any given moment, we find that inmore primitive forms of art this solution ofthe problem appears unsatisfactory, for thereason that the momentary position of theobject will not exhibit certain features thatare essential for its recognition. For instance,if a person is seen from the back, the eyes,the nose, and the mouth are not visible; butat the same time we know that the eyes,nose, and mouth are essential characteristicelements of the human form. This idea is sofundamental in the view of most primitivepeople that we find practically in every casethe endeavor to represent those elementsthat are considered as essential characteris-tics of the object to be represented. It isobvious that when this is to be done, theidea of rendering the momentary impressionmust be given up, because it may not bepossible to see all these different features atthe same time. (Boas 1916, 1940:537)

In his monograph Primitive An, Boas finally admit-ted that perspective representation was an option oc-casionally employed by "primitive" artists, but he con-tinued to stress the aspects of symbolic representa-tion in their art (Boas 1928:78).

Reasoning that specific techniques of represent-ing a three-dimensional form in two dimensions areculturally determined. Boas developed a theory ofgraphic representation in his studies of NorthwestCoast Indian art. He considered the approach and pointof view of the Northwest Coast artist to be essentiallydifferent from that of the Euro-American. Whereas thewestern artist's illusionistic perspective showed a sub-ject from a single point of view at a specific momentin time (much as in a photograph), the Northwest Coastartist's rendering could be read as symbolically show-ing all the important features of a subject at once,without reference to a fixed vantage point. One suchform has come to be called "split representation": animage is divided into two halves splayed down thecenter, with all aspects of the creature front, back,top, bottom, and both sides represented at onceon the same plane (Boas 1 928:221-51; Levi-Strauss1963; Fig. 43).

B. MATHE AND T. R, MILLER

133

In archives, multiple points of view can be recon-structed simultaneously to achieve an effect outsidethe constraints of a fixed vantage point in space andtime. Although the individual photograph is limited toa single perspective, viewing collections of photographsallows the construction of symbolic models of cul-tures. The multifaceted research collections commis-sioned by Jesup and organized by Boas represent cul-tures in a manner that recalls the way Northwest Coastartists represent animals: as a combination of distinc-tive features seen from numerous angles all at once(Fig. 44). Artifacts and images sampled from the greatercultural whole form an inevitably incomplete record ofthe change over time. As visual archaeology, archivalcollections are the shards and fragments of history andcultural memory (Miller and Mathe 1997:29-32; seealso Blackman 1 981; Morris 1 994). The photographerrepresents the scene as he or she has composedit, the camera records the reflection of a subject, andthe viewer reads meaning into the image. As timepasses, the photograph becomes a memento mori.

In contrast to the myriad viewpoints approximatedby the collections in the archives, in designingmuseum exhibits Boas strove for a theatricalized, illu-sionistic effect more like that produced by the camerain a single photograph. While planning the Hall of NorthWest Coast Indians in November 1 896, a few monthsbefore he embarked on the Jesup Expedition to collectobjects for the hall, Boas described to Frederic WardPutnam, the chief curator of the AMNH Department ofAnthropology, his vision for the life-group models:

It is an avowed object of a large group totransport the visitor into foreign surroundings.He is to see the whole village and the way thepeople live. ... the larger the group the more itis necessary to allow ample space around it sothat it can be seen from a distance. (Boas toPutnam, 7 November 1896, AMNH)

Boas conceded that a complete illusion was onlypossible within a panorama building where viewerscould be surrounded by an image that filled theirperipheral vision, creating the impression of a scene

1 34

without boundaries. But although a full panorama wasnot feasible in the museum hall, he described to Putnamhow an illusionistic effect might be achieved:

In order to set off such a group to advantageit must be seen from one side only; the viewmust be through a kind of frame which shutsout the line where the scene ends; the visitormust be in a comparatively dark place, whilethere must be a certain light on the objectsand on the background. (Boas to Putnam, 7November 1896, AMNH; see also Jacknis1985:100-3)

The creation of a pictorial illusion by fixing the view-ers' perspective, framing and isolating the scene, andfocusing light on the object resembles photographyas a mode of seeing. The museum viewer looks througha glass darkly at a bound and boxed image. The lifegroups, mannequins, and miniatures Boas planned forthe display cases would be based on Jesup Expeditionphotographs that were yet to be taken in the field.The life group is presented as a photographic vision,while the photograph on which it is based aspired toa three-dimensional mode of representation.

Acknowledgments

Over the past decade—from the initial invitation in1992 to present a study of the Jesup North PacificExpedition photo collection to the American Anthro-pological Association's meeting, up to the publicationof this volume many friends and colleagues havehelped us with this work and with the Jesup photogra-phy project in its various stages. They include ChrisAbajian, Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, Jackie Beckett,Alexia Bloch, Valerie Chaussonet, Craig Chesek, CarmenCollazo, Rob Cox, Denis Finnin, William Fitzhugh, StanleyFreed, Sarah Granato, Jacob Gruber, Marianne BoelscherIgnace, Chief Ron Ignace, Vladimir KharlampovichIvanov-Unarov, Ira Jacknis, Aldona Jonaitis, Suzi Jones,Belinda Kaye, Laurel Kendall, David Koester, JenniferKramer, Igor Krupnik, Gavril Kurilov, Larry Langham,Andrea LaSala, Molly Lee, Stephanie Marlin-Curiel, TomMoritz, Maya Nadkarni, Stephen Ousley, TuyaraPestrakova, Anibal Rodriguez, Enid Schildkrout, John

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

Swenson, Michael Taussig, Sigurd Teit, Nikolai Vakhtin,Kris Waldherr, Kevin Walker, Elisabeth Ward, WendyWickwire, C. Y. Wilder, Paula Willey, Laila Williamson, andmany others. The authors alone are responsible for anyerrors or misjudgments herein. Special thanks go tothe Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian Institution; the Departments ofAnthropology, Library Services, and Exhibition, Ameri-can Museum of Natural History; the American Philo-sophical Society Library; the Secwepemc Cultural Edu-cation Society; the Nicola Valley Archives; theSkeetchestn Band; the Cooks Ferry Band; the Ministryof Culture, Sakha Republic, Russian Federation; theAnchorage Museum of History and Art; the Universityof Washington Press; the members of the MuseumAnthropology graduate seminar at Columbia Univer-sity; and the Robert Goldwater Library, MetropolitanMuseum of Art.

Notes

1. As a whole, the Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition produced far fewer images of the PacificNorthwest than of Siberia. The collections fromboth sides of the North Pacific contain fewer eth-nographic images than physical types, especiallyfrom the North American side. The smaller num-ber of such scenes may be partly attributable tothe availability of earlier photographs from theNorthwest Coast, including those from Boas' pre-vious trips to the area.

2. In keeping with the anthropological fash-ion of the time, some parts of the collection areonly sparsely annotated. Poor, post facto, or miss-ing notations on objects and images are not un-usual. The assemblage of photographs, artifacts,texts, sound recordings, and memoirs is full ofcross-references, some documented but many un-documented. The montage effect of the succes-sion of fragmentary images reconstituted as partsof the archival whole reveals the carefully con-structed character of Boasian museum collections.See also Willey, this volume.

3. Harlan Smith was acutely aware of the usesof cross-referenced image materials as supple-ments to the collected artifacts and fieldwork of

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

all the team members. In a letter to Boas sent fromNimpkish River, British Columbia, he scrawled anote across the top reading, "please save theseletters as a portion of my field note" (AMNH). Theletter, describing his methodology at that particu-lar site, was annotated with illustrations of a shellheap and sketches of his archaeological finds. OnJune 22, 1898, Smith wrote to Boas from FortRupert, "I take a sample of every foot from a sec-tion that is I have chosen two places at this heap,photoed a section at each taken a handful of shellsoil etc. from each layer of each of these sections"(AMNH). See also Smith 1903.

4. As Ira Jacknis (1984:10) has noted, whileHastings may have snapped the shutter, Boas "wasalways by his side, directing his work, choosingsubjects and maybe even camera angles."

5. See Krupnik 1993. Because of sharp de-clines in population combined with seasonal mi-gration, Bogoras and jochelson encountered fewernatives than they had hoped, but every nomadicYukagir and Tungus they met was "held, measured,photographed and questioned" (jochelson to Boas,17 July [4 July, old style] 1902, AMNH).

6. On physical-type methodology in turn-of-the-century anthropology, see also Miller, in press.

7. On Boas' views about museum display andhis criticism of contemporary methods, see Boas1887; Jacknis 1985; Stocking 1994.

8. In 1 885 John S. Billings had assembled ac-tual composite photographs of skulls in order tocompare cranial profiles, using a technique devisedby Francis Calton in the late 1870s. See Spencer1992:105.

9. Source document published on EarlyCanadiana Online Website.

10. One of the most marked differences notedby Boas as distinguishing the coastal North Pa-cific culture area from that of the interior of NorthAmerica was the animal identity of the mytho-logical trickster-hero figure in collected traditionaltales. The role is played by Raven from Kamchatkaand Chukotka eastward across the Pacific Oceanand the Bering Sea as far as Vancouver Island andthe Olympic Peninsula. On the North American in-terior plateau east of the Pacific Coast mountainranges, the principal trickster character is Coyote,with Raven taking a supporting role.

1 1. Loss of vision was of special concern to

1 35

Teit, who frequently and apologetically com-plained in his letters to Boas (housed at the Ameri-can Philosophical Society, APS) that his own pro-ductivity was hampered by a painful eye condi-tion and failing eyesight.

12. The Sakha [Yakut], a Turkic-speakingpeople, originally migrated from the southwestto northeastern Siberia and settled aroundYakutsk. Although technically not classified as aNorth Pacific group, they were included in theJesup research program principally becauseJochelson, as a former exile, had excellent con-tacts in Yakutia and could provide the museumwith a unique opportunity to collect anthropo-logical material. Although the Yakut had them-selves absorbed cultural elements from smallerneighboring groups as well as from Russians andCossacks, they remained culturally dominant oversmaller groups in Yakutia. Jochelson's observationsled him to characterize some Tungus and othersas "Yakutized" subgroups.

1 3. The quotation is from "Loitering throughthe Paris Exposition," Atlantic Monthly, March1890, most likely written by Thomas BaileyAldrich; "in the Rue de Caire . . . minarets,moucharabies, Saracenic roofs, horseshoe arches,and fretted lattices, under a strip of dark blue sky,overhung booths in which a brilliant confusion ofEastern colors, shapes, fabrics, physiognomies,turbans, fezes, perfumes, and sounds, with themore frequent Oriental dress, created a theatricalEast, neither genuine nor spurious, but illusory andfantastic, like the hallucinations of anodynes" (p.364). World's fairs and expositions of the era werein fact the venues for which many of theSmithsonian Institution's early life groups wereoriginally created.

1 4. In his main publication on the ThompsonIndians for the Jesup series, James Teit noted ofthe Lower Thompsons and Upper Fraser Band that"intercourse with the Hudson Bay Company affectedthe dress of the tribe, especially of the upper divi-sion. Skins, etc. were often exchanged for HudsonBay pantaloons and coats, colored handkerchiefsand sashes, red blankets, red or blue cloth, col-ored ribbons, beads, etc., so that ... all thesearticles were in common use among the tribe" (Teit1900:220). On traditional NIaka'pamux [Thomp-son] clothing and symbolism, see Tepper 1994.

15. See Miller 1999 on resistance to pho-tography and object collecting in Siberia.

16. For details about the AMNH's travelingexhibition marking the Jesup centenary, DrawingShadows to Stone: Photographing North PacificPeoples, 1897-1902 (Thomas R. Miller and Bar-bara Mathe, guest curators; Laurel Kendall, projectdirector), see Lee 1998.

ReferencesAlpers, Svetlana

1991. The Museum as a Way of Seeing. In ExhibitingCultures: The Poetics and Politics of Display. Ivan Karpand Steven D. Lavine, eds. Pp. 25-32. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Barthes, Roland

1977 Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang.Blackman, Margaret B.

1981 Window on the Past: The PhotographicEthnohistory of the Northern and Kaigani Haida. Na-tional Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Eth-nology Service Paper 74. Ottawa: National Muse-ums of Canada.

Boas, Franz

1887 Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification.Science 9(228-9):587-9, 612-4.

1889 On Alternating Sounds. American Anthropolo-gist 2:47-53.

1897a The Art of the North American Indian. Lecture.January 16. Columbia College and American Museumof Natural History. Archived at American Philosophi-cal Society, Philadelphia.

1897b The Decorative Art of the Indians of the NorthPacific Coast. Bulletin of the American Museum ofA/flrwra/H/sfo/y9:l 23-76. Washington, DC. Reprintedin Boas 1995:58-106.

1898 Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern BritishColumbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1,pt. 1, pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 2. New York.

[1904] Guide to the North West Coast Hall. AmericanMuseum of Natural History pamphlet. New York.

1916 Representative Art of Primitive Peoples. In HolmesAnniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Pre-sented to William Henry Holmes in Honor of His 70thBirthday. Pp. 18-23. Washington, DC: Bryan Press.Reprinted in Boas 1940:535-40.

1928 Primitive Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York:Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.

1 99 5 /A Wealth of Thought: Franz Boas on Native Ameri-can Art Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Seattle: University ofWashington Press; Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre.

1 36

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

Cannizzo, Jean

1 983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-ture. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-ogy 20(l):44-58.

Cole, Douglas

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.Edwards, Elizabeth, ed.

1992 Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920.New Haven and London: Yale University Press in as-sociation with the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.1 988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Gruber, Jacob W.

1970 Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Ameri-can Anthropohg'^. American AnthropologistVZ:] 89-99.

Hill-Tout, Charles

1978 The Salish People: The Local Contribution ofCharles Hill-Tout, vol. 1. The Thompson and theOkanagan. Ralph Maud, ed. Vancouver: Talonbooks.Original edition, 1899.

Jacknis, Ira

1984 Franz Boas and Photography. Studies in VisualCommunication 10( 1): 2 -60.

1985 Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the Limitations ofthe Museum Method of Anthropology. In Objectsand Others: Essays on Museums and Material Cul-ture. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 75-111. Historyof Anthropology, 3. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin Press.

Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina L.

1907 K antropologii zhenschin plemion krainegosevero-vostoka Sibiri (Contribution to the anthropol-ogy of the women of the tribes of northeastern Si-beria). Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 25(1 ):1-87. Moscow.

Kendall, Laurel

1988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads ofContinents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. WilliamFitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 104. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Krupnik, Igor

1993 Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Rein-deer Herders of Northern Eurasia. Hanover, NH: Uni-versity Press of New England.

Lee, Molly

1 998 Exhibition review: Drawing Shadows to Stone.

American Anthropologist 100(4, Septem-

ber):l 005-9.Levi-Strauss, Claude

1963 Split Representation in Art of Asia and NorthAmerica. Structural Anthropology 1:245-68.

Loitering through the Paris Exposition

1890 Atlantic Monthly 65 (389, March):360-74.Miller, Thomas Ross

1999 Mannequins and Spirits: Representation andResistance of Siberian Shamans. Anthropology ofConsciousness 10(4):69-80.

In press Seeing Eyes, Reading Bodies: Color, Percep-tion and Race in the History of the Human Sciences.In Colors 1800/1900/2000: Signs of Ethnic Dif-ference. Birgit Tautz, ed. Beitrage zur neuerenCermanistik. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Miller, Thomas Ross, and Barbara Mathe

1 997 Drawing Shadows to Stone. In Drawing Shad-ows to Stone: The Photography of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, 1897-1902. Laurel Kendall, Bar-bara Mathe, and Thomas Ross Miller, eds. Pp. 18-102. New York: American Museum of Natural His-tory; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Morris, Rosalind C.

1994 New Worlds from Fragments: Film, Ethnogra-phy, and the Representation of Northwest Coast Cul-tures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Smith, Harlan I.

1903 Shell-Heaps of the Lower Fraser River, BritishColumbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2,pt. 4, pp. 1 33-91. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 4. New York.

Sontag, Susan

] 977 On Photography. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Spencer, Frank

1992 Some Notes on the Attempt to Apply Pho-tography to Anthropometry during the SecondHalf of the Nineteenth Century. In Anthropologyand Photography 1860-1920. Elizabeth Edwards,ed. P. 105. New Haven and London: Yale Univer-sity Press in association with the Royal Anthropo-logical Institute.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1974 Introduction. In The Shaping of American An-thropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader.George W. Stocking. Jr., ed. New York: Basic Books

1994 Dogmatism, Pragmatism, Essentialism, Relativ-ism: The Boas/Mason Museum Debate Revisited.History of Anthropology Newsletter 21(1).

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1985 Objects and Others: Essays on Museums andMaterial Culture. History of Anthropology, 3. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin Press.

Teit, James Alexander

1 900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 163-392. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York.

1 91 2 Mythology of the Thompson Indians. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 8, pt. 2, pp. 199-

B. MATHE AND T. R. MILLER

1 37

41 6. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 1 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill; New York: C. E.Stechert.

1930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau. InAnnual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnologyfor the Years 1927-28, 45. Franz Boas, ed. Pp. 23-396. Washington, DC.

Tepper, Leslie H.

1 994 Earth Line and Morning Star: NIaka'pamux Cloth-ing Traditions. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum ofCivilization.

Wickwire, Wendy

1 993 Women in Ethnography: The Research of JamesA. Teit. Ethnohistory 40{4).S39-62.

1 38

THE COLLECTORS/ PHOTOGRAPHERS

I^arian 1, ^mith^s Jesup ["leldworkon the iNjorthwest (^oast

BRIAN THOM

In three consecutive field trips to British Columbia andWashington State between 1 897 and 1899, HarlanIngersoll Smith worked as the leading archaeologistforthejesup North Pacific Expedition, under the direc-tion of Franz Boas of the American Museum of NaturalHistory (AMNH). Smith's contributions to the JesupExpedition left an important published legacy for thearchaeology of the North Pacific Coast.' These pub-lished works are well known to the archaeologistswhose careers followed Smith and, to some degree,defined much of the next 75 years of research (Ames1994; Matson and Coupland 1995; Moss and Eriandson1995). Research excavations have often been under-taken at places Smith documented in his publishedsite maps (Smith 1907:303; Smith and Fowke 1901).

During and after the Jesup Expedition, Boas inter-preted Smith's archaeological results as beingsuggestive of the historical relationship betweenculture groups of the North American Pacific Coast.Although these archaeological interpretations of North-west Coast prehistory have long since been super-seded. Smith's work continues to be a resource forwhat it has to say about the material culture of thecommunities in which he worked. In addition to Smith'spublished work on the Jesup Expedition, he left anarchival legacy of correspondence, photographs, andphysical and ethnological collections. This importantbody of little-known work provides insight into thedynamics of scholarship and research operating aroundFranz Boas and the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's Jesup work is a highly interesting and rel-evant tale about the relationships between archaeolo-gists, anthropologists, and the people they study. UnlikeBoas' important local collaborators—for example,James Teit and George Hunt—Smith had no knack forpicking up Native languages nor any personal, long-term connections with community members.

In 1 897, Smith was merely 25, only six years intohis professional career. He was prevented from com-pleting his master's degree by the collapse of his father'sbusiness. Insecurity about his finances and his positionaccompanied him throughout his Jesup work and wasat first manifested in what Boas characterized as acautious manner. With his marriage, and with someJob security promised in his second field season. Smithacted more boldly, sometimes against his own betterJudgment, to secure material for the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's worries over the security of his post at theAMNH at times put him at odds with Boas' researchmethodology. Smith was eager to excavate at sitesthat would yield quantities of artifacts and human re-mains so that he could please the benefactors of themuseum with his collections. He was loath to spendmuch time in regions that he felt would not producemany artifacts and was reluctant to leave areas thathe found productive. Boas, on the contrary, frequentlyurged Smith to expand his investigations to cover theentire region so that a broad picture of the archaeol-ogy could be obtained. Specific research questionsbeing asked today may be different, but many of the

1 39

issues and situations faced by Smith 100 years agohave repercussions for anthropological and archaeo-logical fieldworkers of the present. The following ac-count of Smith's work demonstrates the dilemmas ofrapport between himself and the community mem-bers he worked with and between himself and his pro-fessional colleagues (see also Thom 2000).

Smith's and Boas' correspondence has been keptrelatively intact in the accession records of the AMNH,and additional notes made by Smith on photographsrecord information that supplements his correspon-dence.'^ Unfortunately, Smith's field notes cannot befound in the AMNH archives or in the archives of theCanadian Museum of Civilization, where he spent thelatter half of his career. The references Smith makes tothe notes in a number of his letters indicate that theywould have contained a great deal of detail about hisinvestigations and his interactions with Native com-munities. The archivist at the AMNH has suggestedthat the notes were probably destroyed once the re-sults of Smith's work had been published (Belinda Kaye,personal communication, September 1995), and indeed.Smith's published works relating to the Jesup Expedi-tion are the other main source of information on hisinvestigations. Although these articles are generallyvery descriptive of his archaeological investigations,they tell only a small part of the story of his work andalmost nothing of the ethnographic work he didrecording information on contemporary Native com-munities. Only by putting all these pieces together canwe examine the difficulties and controversies experi-enced by Smith during visits to Native communities inBritish Columbia for the Jesup Expedition.

Smith's Early Life

Harlan I. Smith was born in Saginaw, Michigan, in 1872.He attended public school and received his bachelorof arts degree from the University of Michigan in 1 893.Between 1891 and 1895 he had several jobs; curato-rial assistant at the Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer-sity; assistant to the Department of Anthropology for

1 40

the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago; curatorof anthropological collections at the University of Michi-gan museum; and researcher in Michigan for the Ar-chaeological Institute of America {Who Was Who inAmerica 1 942:1142). Although he wished to continuehis formal education, when the familybusiness suddenlyfolded he could not afford to return for his master'sdegree (Smith to Boas, 17 September 1897, AMNH).In 1895 Smith was hired by the AMNH as assistantcurator of the archaeology collections; his initial taskwas to coordinate research at the Fox Farm site inKentucky (Wintemberg 1940). When Boas began plan-ning the Jesup North Pacific Expedition in 1896, healways intended to include Smith as the archaeologistwho would investigate the prehistoric remains of thepeople living on the Northwest Coast of North America.

In Boas' first published summary of the Jesup Expe-dition (Boas 1898:5), he presented his broad ques-tions that would serve as a framework for studyingthe historical, physical, and cultural connections be-tween the people living in Northeastern Asia and onthe Northwest Coast of North America. Boas statedthat although a unique "race" of Native people living inNorth America could be obsen/ed, there were manydistinct "types" of people within that race, given dif-ferences in skin color, form of head and face, and bodyproportion (Boas 1 898:6). He proposed that while thisvariability in "type of man" indicated "long-continueddevelopment by differentiation" of physical type andof cultures, the similarities between these peoples mustbe carefully explained by ethnological, archaeologi-cal, and linguistic evidence:

What relation these tribes bear to each other,and particularly what influence the inhabitantsof one continent may have exerted on those ofthe other, are problems of great magnitude.Their solution must be attempted by a carefulstudy of the natives of the coast, past andpresent, with the view of discovering so muchof their history as may be possible. ... Byfollowing out patiently and in detail the lines ofinterchange of culture, it is possible to trace thehistorical development of the tribes inhabitinga definite region. (Boas 1898:6)

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Smith's work would be a key component in un-

I covering the history of these connections, both throughthe examination of "physical type" represented in skel-etons uncovered from graves and through the artifacts

I that represented the cultures of the people who leftthem behind. In addition, Smith was charged with mak-

1 ing extensive photographic records of the communi-ties he visited and with making plaster cast and pho-tographic sets of the "physical types" represented in

, the North American regions being studied by the JesupExpedition (Boas 1897:537). Although Gerald Fowkeand Waldemar Jochelson would carry out incidentalarchaeological investigations in Northeast Asia, themain Jesup Expedition archaeological research wouldbe conducted in North America by Smith.

Boas set out his priority areas for ethnological andlinguistic research in those places not already exten-sively studied and reported on by other contempo-rary scholars. As systematic regional surveys of archaeo-logical sites on the Northwest Coast had not yet beendone. Smith's archaeological research was to be "car-ried on in the whole region" (Boas 1903:77). Smith'sbroad focus was intended to provide critical informa-tion for Boas' overall scheme of collecting local histo-ries and mythologies to understand long-term relation-ships between communities. Thus, as shown by themap of Smith's work (Fig. 45), Smith worked in manyof the Native communities studied by other membersof the JNPE North American contingent. Boas, however,also placed particular emphasis on the archaeology ofthe Coast and Interior Salish people living in British Co-lumbia and Washington State. This emphasis was in-spired by a hypothesis made by Boas in previous workon the relationship between Coast and Interior groups.Several years before the expedition. Boas had corre-sponded with Charles Hill-Tout, a local ethnographerand archaeologist. Hill-Tout had found, in the shellmiddens and burial mounds of the lower Eraser Riverdelta, skulls that were, he claimed, "significantly differ-ent from the 'type' found among people living in theseareas today" (Hill-Tout to Boas, 1895, in Hill-Tout

1978:35-40). If there were indeed two "types," suchevidence was what Boas needed to understand thelong-term historical "intermixture, linguistic borrowing,and exchange of cultural forms" (Boas 1898:6) betweenCoast and Interior peoples—an important piece of thelarger picture of the peopling of the North Pacific Rim.

Smith's Fieldwork, 1897

In May 1897, at age 25, Harlan I. Smith accompaniedBoas and Livingston Farrand to the interior of BritishColumbia. Smith's first year of investigation was filledwith the enthusiasm and insecurities of a young re-searcher working under the dynamic Boas. The yearalso brought Smith his first experiences with workingin Native communities on the Northwest Coast.

Spences Bridge

Smith, Boas, and Farrand set out from New York on theNorthern Pacific Railway, arriving in Spences Bridge onJune 2, 1 897 (Boas 1903:78). There they met up withJames Teit and worked for five days making collec-tions from archaeological sites and taking photographsand plaster casts of Native people from the SpencesBridge area. Teit, a non-Native who had married intothe NIaka'pamux [Thompson] community, worked withSmith in explaining the processes of photography andcasting to community members, who were otherwisereluctant to take part.^ Teit was familiar with the majorarchaeological sites in the area and guided Smith toseveral sites along the banks of the Thompson River,where Smith made his first collections. Smith expressedhis early thoughts and future expectations in a let-ter to Marshall Saville, his colleague in the AMNH'sArchaeology Department:

I like this region very much. It makes one feellike a man; as if one had a right to live andbe free & equal to his fellow men. It strikesme as a bustling region where work is to behad by all who really desire to work. The airis clear cool & rich & puts new life into afellow. ... I have seen a number of Indiansand last eve found a village which I had notbeen told of and had a pleasant time looking

BRIAN THOM

141

at canoes & talking with natives. ... I verymuch hope to make a big collection and fillmy notebooks so that next winter I will havea good time working up the results with you.(Smith to Saville, 3 June 1 897, AMNH)

Boas, Farrand, and Teit soon went to the Chilcotinand Bella Coola regions and left Smith on his own inthe Thompson River and Fraser River area of BritishColumbia (Boas 1903:81). Smith made moderate ar-chaeological collections in the area but did not satisfyhis initial desire to make a large collection in the vicin-ity of Spences Bridge. After about 10 days, he movedhis work up the Thompson River to Kamloops, wherehe thought more profitable excavations could proceed.

Kamloops

In Kamloops, Smith met up with Father Jean-MarieRaphael Le Jeune, a local minister who had extensiveknowledge of the Secwepemc [Shuswap] language.Boas had already arranged for the expedition to meetwith Le Jeune and have him help explain to the Sec-wepemc people the procedure of making plaster casts(Boas to Le Jeune, 1 5 April 1897, AMNH). After makingtheir work clear through Le Jeune, Smith took photo-graphs and made casts of seven people from the area."Upon completing his work documenting the "physicaltype" of these people, he began archaeological exca-vations at the sites on the bank of the Thompson River(Smith 1900d:403-5). He quickly ran into oppositionas he began to unearth human remains (Figs. 46-47):

Indians here object to my taking bonesaway—They are friendly & will allow me todig graves & take all but the bones. I haveseen [Indian] Agent and Indians are on thefence. We hope they will change their minds& allow bones to go to N.Y. for study not forJoke as they fear. (Smith to Boas, 1 8 July1897, AMNH)

Father Le Jeune explained the purpose of Smith's re-search to the Secwepemc people in their own lan-guage, and Smith received the community's permis-sion to proceed. The main concern of the Secwepemchad to do with the respect with which their ancestorswould be treated:

They, after holding a big council where myside was presented by the Priest [Le Jeune]telling them I came to get things to use toteach to people in N.Y., decided to let mehave a few bones to teach with, but I mustcover up all I did not take so as so no badwhite men would take them to make fun ofthe Indians. (Smith to Saville, 11 July 1 897,AMNH)

Le Jeune's role in convincing the community of thevalidity of the work, although vital, was not revealedin a subsequent publication:

The Indians do not know to what peoplethese burials belong, but they do not like tosee the bones of what may have been theirancestors, disturbed. For this reason thechief called a council in which the subjectwas very fully discussed. Finally the confi-dence of the people was gained by the helpof a number of photographs of the museum,in which it was shown how the peoplevisited the halls in order to see the wonderfulworks of the Indians, and how they wereinstructed, by means of lectures, in regard tothe meaning of all these objects, and fromthat time on they rather helped than resistedany endeavour to obtain collections. (Smith1898a:101-2)

Following this meeting. Smith was able to work inten-sively through the month of June, making a substantialcollection of human remains and artifacts from theKamloops area (reported in Smith 1900d). He sent thecollections back to New York by train before movingon to Lytton, a town at the confluence of the Thomp-son and Fraser Rivers.

Lytton

Smith camped on the side of the Fraser Canyon nearLytton and worked on a number of archaeological sitesthat had been exposed by erosion. He was joined byCharles Hill-Tout and a local man, John Oakes. Severalweeks in July were spent in Lytton collecting from theseexposed sites and photographing pictograph sites inthe Stein River valley (AMNH 42818-42823), all ofwhich Smith reported on in his first Jesup Expeditionmonograph (Smith 1899b). Smith used his "little knowl-edge of the Chinook language" to get permission to

1 42

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

make archaeological collections and to make contactswith people from whom he could collect ethnologicalmaterials. He photographed two young babies fromLytton and the remains of some recently abandonedpithouses.5 As he wrote to Saville, he began to makesubstantial collections in a very short period of time:

Last night we worked until midnight carryingto the depot at Lytton (there is no wagonroad) on our backs the 11 boxes of speci-mens I secured during the 6 preceding days.How is that for one week, eleven boxes? . . .This is a glorious country. One feels so wellhe can work hard and not notice it any morethan play. Saturday I crossed the rapids andclimbed up a mountain—and got 6 cradlesand a stone pestle and raw material of whichpipes are made and with the help of my mancarried all that load many miles back overthe river in a boat, washed Vz mile downstream by the rapids and in time to carry our11 boxes of specimens to the depot. At anyrate I mean to make so big a collection thatit will be my time to catalogue and arrange itor break my leg trying. (Smith to Saville, 11July 1897, AMNH)

In the 11 boxes Smith packed several skeletons fromgraves that he had photographed (AMNH 42808-42810,42817). At the end ofjuly he parted with Oakesand Hill-Tout and headed north to the Skeena River,where he would meet again with Boas.

North Coast of British ColumbiaSmith went down the Fraser River to Victoria and thenup the coast by steamer to the Skeena River. He metwith Boas on August 11. There is, of course, no corre-spondence from Smith to Boas from this period, andno published reports by Smith. Boas, however, doesdiscuss Smith's work on the coast between the SkeenaRiver and Fort Rupert in several letters and publica-tions (Boas 1903; 1905; Rohner 1969). Smith's cata-logue of photographs shows that he spent consider-able time with Boas in Prince Rupert photographingthe artwork of the Haida and Tsimshian people whocame to town and the people themselves.'' Very fewof these photographs made it into publications of theJesup Expedition (see Mathe and Miller, this volume).

Smith then moved down to the village of Bella Bellaand worked with Farrand for some time, assisting himwith making casts and photographs of Heiltsuk [BellaBella] people and with taking several views of an oldhouse.^ Boas and George Hunt met Smith and Farrandat Bella Bella and moved on shortly thereafter to FortRupert so that Boas could continue his work with theKwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI]. During this time. Smithwas engaged in photographing and making casts ofpeople in the communities at Alert Bay and Rivers In-let.^ After working during the month of August withBoas making casts and taking photographs on theNorth Coast, Smith took his leave from Fort Rupertand traveled to Fraser River to continue his archaeo-logical research. It is interesting that while with Boason the Northwest Coast, Smith did almost no archae-ology, instead assisting Boas with work in physicalanthropology—a pattern consistent with Boas' personalavoidance of field archaeology (Mason 1943:59).

Marriage and Money

Boas' correspondence with his family during the timehe spent with Smith on the North Coast sheds light onSmith's enthusiasm for making large archaeologicalcollections in other areas of British Columbia. Boaswrote to his wife, on Smith's arrival at the Skeena River,that Smith had been considering getting married inthe fall but was concerned about his financial security:

I have some news for you which will be asurprise. The night before last Smith came tome and told me that he wanted to dosomething which I would think was verystupid. He wants to get married on the wayback. He thinks he could live with a wife on$60 a month. He wanted to know myopinion. Still waters run deep! He said he hadthought over everything carefully and that hehas been engaged for many years and nowhe wants to get married. I told him whatdifficulties he would have living on such asmall amount and that his chances for amajor raise were very slim. I told him I couldnot argue with him, that I could only warnhim of all the problems he would have, butthat I was convinced he would do whateverhe wanted anyway. He asks whether you

BRIAN THOM

1 43

think that he could make ends meet . . .Maybe that explains to a large extent Smith'scurious being and his sensitivity. (Rohner1969:225-6, and Douglas Cole, 1996)

Boas' impression of Smith's financial situationcaused Smith some concern. Smith quickly wroteletters to Putnam, the head of the Department of An-thropology at the AMNH, and to Winser, the managerof accounts, regarding his concerns over finances-letters that. Boas told his wife, were most tactless:

Yesterday I wrote a long letter to Putnam onbehalf of Smith. Smith wrote him that hewants to get married, and Putnam is verymuch worried about it. One cannot giveSmith advice because he is going to dowhatever he wants to do. Putnam told meabout a letter Smith had written to Winser. Iwish Smith would learn certain things,especially to hold his tongue with respect tosome people. I don't know but I have doubtsthat he will ever amount to anything. Hiseducation has many gaps, and it will alwaysbe apparent because he does not have themind to spur him on and help him try to fillthe gaps. He likes mostly activity which hecan do with his hands. He is clever andresourceful, etc., but where theoretical workis involved, he lags behind. His attitude in allpossible fields is very naive, and frequentlythe questions he asks are unbelievablysimple. I often tell him to think it over himselfand then give me the answers to his ownquestions. On the other hand he is such anice fellow that I really feel sorry for him. Wellmaybe he will succeed yet. He is onlytwenty-five years old. But if he really shouldget married with an income of not over $60,I don't know what will become of him.(Rohner 1969:229)

The day Smith was to depart, Boas and Smith hadanother discussion. Boas wrote a final note to his wifeabout Smith's situation:

Yesterday the Princess Louise [a vessel thatcarried passengers up and down the coast ofVancouver Island] arrived, and Smithpromptly made ready and went aboard. Lastnight we had an earnest conversation inwhich I urgently advised him to wait with hismarriage. I told him he would get moremoney after January, I am almost certain. Ialso told him that I thought it was dangerousto get married on $60. I could see that allthe time he talked with me, he was thinkingabout his letter to Putnam. ... I hope he will

be good in his future work. I wanted himaway from here because there was not muchfor him to do, and every day during thisseason counts for his work. (Rohner1969:233, and Douglas Cole, 1996)

Boas' uncertainty about the possibility of Smith andhis wife living on only $60 a month must have deep-ened Smith's anxiety about making large, good-qual-ity collections to satisfy the patrons of the AMNH.Boas was much less concerned with the size of Smith'scollections than with getting a broad picture of thearchaeology of British Columbia and Washington.Smith's possible financial insecurity made him want toconcentrate his excavations in productive areas suchas the lower Fraser River and distracted him to a cer-tain degree from pursuing the broad research agendathat Boas had set out for him.

Port Hammond

After arriving at the lower Fraser River on September2, 1897, Smith took room and board near the largeshell heap at Port Hammond. Here he conducted ex-tensive excavations until the end of October. Smith'swork on the lower Fraser River had been preceded bythe surveys of Charles Hill-Tout, who had investigatedarchaeological remains in the area for several years.Hill-Tout had previously sent Boas descriptions of un-usual skulls that he had obtained from archaeologicalsites in the lower Fraser River area (Hill-Tout to Boas,1895, in Hill-Toutl 978:35-40). These skulls were longand narrow, showing evidence of lateral pressure. Theywere thought by Boas and Hill-Tout to represent theremains of an earlier group of people, as the later popu-lations on the lower Fraser River had wide heads andbroad faces, produced by posterior pressure. The prob-lem of the age and distribution of this type of skullwas one of the main questions Smith was supposedto address in his investigations. If, indeed, two differ-ent "types" of skulls were represented archaeologicallyin the lower Fraser River region. Boas' linguistic hy-pothesis of a recent Salish movement into the coastarea from the interior would be confirmed.

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

The findings from Smith's excavations at PortHammond are well described in a number of his publi-cations (Smith 1899a:536-9, 1903, 1904c; Smith andFowke 1 901:60). Smith's archaeological work focusedon recovering human remains—skulls, in particular—and on making collections of the artifacts from theshell heap.5 In much of his correspondence with Boasabout the archaeological work, Smith reported on day-to-day finds and his concerns regarding the packingof this material and its shipment to New York. Duringthese first excavations at a lower Fraser River shellmidden, Smith noted the similarity between the skullsand art found in the shell heap and those of the present-day people living on the lower Fraser River (Smith toBoas, 17 September 1897, AMNH). He felt that he hadto excavate deeper to get to the more ancient type ofpeople represented by the long, narrow skull collectedby Hill-Tout (Smith to Boas, 23 September, 3 October,5 October 1897, AMNH). Without these deeper inves-tigations in the lower Fraser middens. Boas' hypoth-esis could not be adequately tested.

Excavations in the shell heap at Port Hammond didnot reveal as many artifacts or skeletal remains as hadSmith's work in Kamloops and Lytton. At the end ofhis first week of excavation, Smith wrote a number ofconcerned letters to Boas in which he expressed dis-appointment at the quantity of finds from the site:

Got a child below undisturbed shell heaptoday. The skull was not there. Several boneimplements constitute our day's finds. I shallphoto a cross section tomorrow. I am a littledisappointed in results here. The field looksvery rich from the surface and we may yetmake a strike. I hope those at N.Y. will notexpect too much from this place for I fearthey will be disappointed if they do. (Smithto Boas, 7 September 1897, AMNH)

Boas, now in New York, swiftly replied to Smith,again reminding him of the "scientific" objectives ofthe research. On the same day Smith received his let-ter, he replied to Boas, "I will try to do the scientificwork as you desire in the shell mounds and overcomemy fear of not securing sufficient specimens to please

the persons at the museum who look for such eagerly"(Smith to Boas, 1 5 September 1 897, AMNH). After giv-ing the matter further consideration that night. Smithwrote a follow-up note to Boas regarding his insecuri-ties about his situation:

I fear you think I act very strangely at timesand I guess I do. I know I have still a trace ofthe effects of being in father's office duringthe time everything went to the dogs. Itmade me have fear of being able to earn aliving, fear of being cheated, fear of every-thing & everybody which was often withoutthe slightest reason and while I could & canreason that there is no sense in such fears Ican not even yet escape them. At times theyso upset my nerves that I hardly know what Ido. I never have been able to escape the fearof losing my situation. I suppose it is all dueto seeing everything father had swept awayand knowing he was a powerful man com-pared with me showed me how helpless Iwas. And at the same time it made medependent on myself while before I had noknowledge of what that was. I think thisaccounts for some of my doings that seemstrange. (Smith to Boas, 16 September 1897,AMNH)

Smith continued to work over the next severalweeks as if walking on eggshells. He asked, in cau-tious notes to Boas, what other museum staff, includ-ing Jesup, thought of him. He looked for advice onwhether he should try to write newspaper articles forthe McClure Syndicate about the expedition and reas-sured Boas that he would address the research ques-tions at hand. "I think to get at questions we needdeeper shell heaps, but do not care to leave here untilwe have a more complete collection and hence knowl-edge of this place, unless you so desire. Kindly let meknow" (Smith to Boas, 23 September 1897, AMNH).

In addition to Smith's insecurities about being ableto produce satisfactory results for the AMNH, a moreimmediate concern was a looming situation that hadthe potential to impede his fieldwork. In his first weekat Port Hammond, Smith read in the local papers thattwo collectors from the Field Museum, George Dorseyand Edward Allen, had been arrested in Oregon forgrave robbing and subsequently released (Cole

BRIAN THOM

1 45

1985:1 75-6). Only a week later, the Indian agent fromNew Westminster visited Smith to discuss the sametopic. As Smith reported to Boas:

He said that every Indian Agent here hadreceived notice that there was a liability ofparties digging in Indian grave yards and tolook out for them as it was against the law.Also he had received a second circular givinghim direction to warn the Indians & tell themthe law on the subject. (Smith to Boas, 1 5September 1897, AMNH)

Smith contacted British Columbia's superintendentof Indian affairs, A. W. Vowell, to thank him for somecollections he had sent to the AMNH. Smith alsoinquired at this time about the Indian agent's warningagainst grave robbing. Vowell replied that the circularswere not directed toward Smith's work but, rather,were to inform local Native people about non-Nativeswho were digging up their graveyards so that the landcould be preempted for settlement. This reply easedSmith's concern about collecting human remains, sohe continued his work in the shell heaps at PortHammond (Smith to Boas, 3 October 1897, AMNH).

Smith also used this time, especially on rainy days,to make his own contacts in the Katzie and Musqueamcommunities near Port Hammond and Eburne in orderto photograph and make casts of the people thereand collect ethnographic objects. In contrast to hisexperiences with Teit and Le jeune (and, later, Hunt),Smith did not have prior contacts with these Nativecommunities. Nevertheless, members of the Katziecommunity near Port Hammond offered him the op-portunity to purchase a blanket of mountain goat wool,woven hats, a sxwayxwey mask, canoes, spindlewhorls, rush mats, and other utilitarian items (Smith toBoas, 1 5 September, 9 October, 30 October 1897,AMNH). Following his cautious program. Smith did notpurchase any of these objects, as he wished Boas togive him direction on such acquisitions first. Smith dideventually purchase one of the beautiful mountain goatwool blankets on November 4, on his way back toNew York, when he paid only $6 instead of the $10

for which it had been offered on September 1 5 (Smithto Boas, 10 November 1897, AMNH).

Smith was less cautious when it came to trying toobtain photographs and casts of the people livingalong the Fraser River. He initially tried to do somephotography and casting of Native people at the prisonin New Westminster, but his request was denied (Smithto Boas, 1 5 September 1 897, AMNH). Smith spent anumber of days during rainy October urging people inthe Katzie community to be photographed and cast.Although he offered $1.00 for each cast, only ArchilleJames, a 19-year-old youth from Katzie, agreed (Fig.48; AMNH 42886-42889). By the end of the 1897field season, Smith had not been able to get any otherperson from the Coast Salish communities in Victoriaor the lower Fraser River to agree to be either photo-graphed or cast:

I could not get a single Songish at Victoria,nor can I get any here [at Port Hammond] tosubmit to be cast ... All these lower Frazierpeople seem to object to casting—I must tryhere again next season when I work at theGreat Frazier Midden. (Smith to Boas, 11October 1897, AMNH)

Victoria

On October 22 Smith shipped crates of his work fromPort Hammond to New York and left the lower FraserRiver for Victoria. Upon his arrival in Victoria, he metOregon C. Hastings, a local resident who had workedwith Boas in Fort Rupert in the past and was keenlyinterested in the archaeological sites of the area. Thenext day. Smith and Hastings set out to examine someof the burial cairns at Cadboro Bay, four miles north-east of Victoria (Smith and Fowke 1901:58).'° In sevendays, he excavated 21 cairns. He was most disap-pointed to find that there was "only a speck of char-coal and a handful of bone dust" remaining in thesecairns, largely because of the highly acidic soil and theshallow depths at which the bodies had been interred(Smith to Boas, 30 October 1 897, AMNH). After thecairn excavations. Smith and Hastings set to work at"the deepest shell heap I have seen" in Victoria. But

1 46

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

here again, Smith was disappointed at the scarcity offinds (Smith to Putnam, 4 November 1897, AMNH).

To compensate for the poor excavation results.Smith followed up some leads he had on ethnologicalcollecting. He visited a small island in Esquimalt Harbour,where he was offered a drum used in winter dancingfor $1 and a house post for $12. Still an archaeologistat heart, Smith commented that he saw "shell heaps inthe process of formation" on the island (Smith to Boas,3 November 1 897, AMNH). Upon his return to Victoria,he met four men and three women, none of whom henamed, from Kaiuquot on Vancouver Island who agreedto be paid $1 to have casts made and photos taken(Smith to Boas, 10 November 1897, AMNH)."

On November 10, Smith boarded the train, stop-ping at Port Hammond before leaving for the East Coast.Despite Boas' advice, he was married to Helena Oakesin a small ceremony in Saginaw, Michigan, on Novem-ber 25. He then returned to New York to work onorganizing and writing up the 1897 material.

In the first AMNH memoir to come out of the JesupExpedition, Boas summarized Smith's first season ofwork and noted the archaeologist's important contri-bution in "clearing up interesting points in the historyof the Indians" through his examination of the shellmiddens of the lower Eraser River:

It seems that the physical appearance of theIndians during the period of deposit of theshell-mounds on the lower Eraser River hadundergone material changes. The results thatwere here obtained are so important, that itwill be necessary to continue the researchersduring the coming year. (Boas 1 898:11)

Smith's Fieldwork, 1898

During the next season in the field, from April to Sep-tember 1898, Smith continued investigating archaeo-logical sites, photographing and casting physical types,and collecting ethnological artifacts from the commu-nities where he worked. But he spent a great deal moretime and energy on the latter, and less time on photo-graphing and making casts for the study of physical

anthropology. Smith's new wife, Helena, joined him inthe field and drew a number of sketches for his corre-spondence to Boas. Perhaps because of his marriageto Helena, or because it was his second field seasonwith the Jesup Expedition, Smith showed a new confi-dence in his work and new enthusiasm for the research.His letters from this season generally discuss in moredetail his relations with local Native communities, andhis archaeological observations are much less tenta-tive. In spite of this new confidence, Boas still pro-vided firm direction for the research.

Kamloops

Smith left New York on April 1 3 by railroad via Ottawato British Columbia. In Ottawa he spent two days sketch-ing and making notes on the collections at the Geo-logical Survey of Canada, under the direction of GeorgeDawson (Smith n.d.). On April 21 he arrived in Kamloopsto examine and collect archaeological materials thathad been exposed by the wind over the past year.

At Kamloops Smith also had the opportunity totake some useful ethnographic photos, including oneof ayoung girl working on a hide with a stone scraper.'^

While at the village I saw a little girl scrapinga skin with a stone hafted in a handle about3 ft long similar to the one Teit collected.Closer inspection showed 3 of these haftedscrapers, the skin stretched on a frame. Icontemplate photographing her at worktomorrow and then buying the whole outfitfor you as I think you will want it for a group.Fr. La Jeune thinks I can get it for $1.50 i.e.the skin so I suppose I can get skin & sticksfrom frame and scrapers entire for less than$5.00. If so I feel you will be glad of them. Iknow this is hardly in my line to collectEthnology in this region but the thing seemstoo good to see go. (Smith to Boas, 21 April1898, AMNH)

Smith felt that this collection of photographs and deer-hide-scraping equipment would be useful for "the con-struction of an ethnic group; especially since we havethe physical material collected at this place in '97" (Smithn.d.). Smith also took photographs of a woman dig-ging roots and of a tepee-like structure.'^

BRIAN THOM

1 47

Spences Bridge

Smith left Kamloops after a week and moved toSpences Bridge, where he again met with James Teit.Teit and Smith spent several days photographing te-pees and sweat houses and excavating in pithousesnear Spences Bridge.During the previous winter, Smithhad sent a number of photographs he had taken toTeit, who was to distribute them to the people whowere pictured. After Teit had done so, those whosephotos had not been sent were understandably up-set, and Teit was under some pressure to give every-one a copy of what had been taken of them. Smithwrote to Boas asking him to send the remaining pho-tos to alleviate the situation. He also asked Boas tosend copies of the photographs taken of the picto-graphs at Lytton (Teit 1900; York et al. 1993), as Teithad agreed to ask local people for explanations (Smithto Boas, 2 May 1898, AMNH).

Eburne

After just over a week. Smith took his leave of Teit andSpences Bridge and headed down the Fraser River toVancouver, where he set out to explore the large shellheap at Eburne commonly known as the Great FraserMidden (Smith to Boas, 27 April 1898, AMNH). Smithbegan his archaeological excavations on May 2. Hehad three men working with him in the field; 0. C.Hastings, W. H. Hindshaw, and Roland B. Dixon, all ofVancouver (Smith to Boas, 2 May 1 898, AMNH). TheGreat Fraser Midden produced a large number of hu-man remains and artifacts from deeply stratified de-posits.'^ The finds from these excavations are well re-ported in Smith's monograph "Shell-Heaps of the LowerFraser River" (Smith 1903).

Smith was more determined than ever to discoverthe relationship between the long and broad skullsthat both he and Hill-Tout had found in previousseasons. Boas had clearly convinced him of the impor-tance of these skulls to the overall research questionsof the Jesup Expedition. Smith believed that byworking at the Great Fraser Midden, where Hill-Tout

had found his original long skull, he would be able toprovide answers to this question. Soon after Smithbegan his excavations, however, he became awarethat there may not have been only two types: "Every-thing is going well. We find two distinct types of skullsand it seems also that we find every conceivable inter-mediate form. In fact as Hastings well expresses it, weget no two alike" (Smith to Boas, 16 May 1 898, AMNH).In a later letter he reaffirmed this observation:

I wrote to you of the Hammond type of skulland the long type. By long type I meant thetype represented by the Hill-Tout skull. Idon't know how many I have of them but atleast 6 in good condition and some broken.There seem to be intermediate forms. I feelall mixed up about them as they are sodifferent. There may be 3 or 4 types so far asI can see hastily. . . . The two types seem tobe buried alike i.e. with equal care and someof each are deep down, others are high up.(Smith to Boas, 3 June 1898, AMNH)

In the publications of the Jesup Expedition, Smith's fieldsense of the different kinds of skulls represented wereoverridden by Boas' own interpretation of the humanremains. Neither Smith nor Boas mentioned the uncer-tainties Smith had in the field about the number ofdifferent types of skulls present in the shell heap.Instead, they both reported that there were two typesof skulls found in the shell heaps—one narrow and theother broad, both of which were cranially deformed(Boas 1903; Smith 1903). Boas' insights were obvi-ously a powerful force for the Jesup Expedition, and heconsidered this a highly significant interpretation,whether it was correct or not. Had Boas taken seri-ously Smith's field observations—that there were nottwo distinct types of skulls but, rather, many forms inbetween—he might have reconsidered his long-held,but misguided, interpretation that the Salish were rela-tively recent arrivals in the area.

Another important aspect of Smith's stay at Eburnewas his work among the Musqueam community atthe mouth of the Fraser River, which he visited on arainy May day, looking to purchase ethnological ma-terials for the museum. A man offered to sell him a

1 48

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

"whewhe" [sxwayxweyl mask for $10, a horn rattle[syiwmexwtses] for $10, and an entire shaman's outfitfor $100 (Smith to Boas, 19 IVlay 1898, AMNH). Theoutfit was far too expensive for him, and he decidedto wait before buying the mask, hoping the man wouldreduce the price.

I have not yet bought the mask for $10.00or the horn rattle for $ 1 0.00. I expect to getthe mask in the fall and hope to get itcheaper by delay. Do you want the rattle at$10.00? It seems to be fine, has goat woolfringe, carving of human head on handle, andthe rattle part is carved in their own art.There was at least 6 of the masks all thesame in the Delta. The shamans outfitconsists simply of mask & feather attach-ments. I do not think you would care for it at$ 100.00 and I think you would prefer the$10.00 mask & $10.00 horn rattle to it evenif they were equal in cost. I have worked mybest to get things from them. Hastings hasalso. I sent you a list of what we got. Yet Ihope to get more later. I have not all there isto get & want to bring you a complete lotfrom the Fraser Delta. What are shell rattlesworth? Several of this kind of shell [sketch ofa large Pacific scallop shell] are strung on ahoop. Will make every effort to get all kindsof baskets & uses. (Smith to Boas, 3 June1898, AMNH)

This was a difficult time for the Native people ofthe Northwest Coast. The Canadian government's lawsbanning the potlatch and winter dancing were in fulleffect. Missionaries and priests were collecting andburning ceremonial regalia, and Native children werebeing separated from their families and sent to resi-dential schools. Many of the spiritual activities had tobe conducted underground. A shaman's outfit like theone offered to Smith was clearly a powerful and im-portant ritual object at the time and was not going tobe parted with for a small sum of money.

Smith did obtain a house post from "ChiefNuxwhailak," who accepted only $10 for it and saidthat the pole was "part gift to museum" because themuseum was going to use it for "educational purposes"(Fig. 49). The AMNH received the post on the condi-tion that it was to be labeled "from house of Kaplanux,

grandfather of present Chief Nuxwhailak from whom itwas obtained" (Smith to Boas, 1 8 May 1 898, AMNH).The chief's condition about the label on his gift wasnot (and has not subsequently been) respected by theAMNH. Smith attempted to document the meaningsassociated with this post, "as well as they could givethem," but he was disappointed by the report givenby Chief Nuxwhailak. "The man figure they say is sim-ply an ornament or a carving made to be a carving &has no meaning. They don't seem to know as much ofthe old times as we wish they did" (Smith to Boas, 3June 1898, AMNH).

Had Smith learned to take down accounts in theHalkomelem language, or had he had the assistanceof someone like James Teit or George Hunt in theMusqueam community, he might not have been sodisappointed and might have found that people knewmore then they let on in English.

Smith tried to collect other posts that he photo-graphed at Musqueam during his stay at Eburne.'^ Heused his technique of showing community memberspictures of the AMNH's halls, explaining that if the poleswere moved there, they would be kept out of the rainand weather. However, he was not able to purchaseany of the others that he photographed, as the peoplefrom Musqueam "would not sell others at any priceexcept one for which they wanted $100.00 and itwas some broken" (Smith to Boas, 3 June 1 898, AMNH).

Fort Rupert

After spending a few days visiting sites in the Bound-ary Bay area of Vancouver, Smith traveled up the coastto Fort Rupert to work with George Hunt. With Hunt'sassistance. Smith was able to arrange the taking ofcasts and photographs of a number of men from thecommunity at Fort Rupert, although no women wouldtake part.'' In addition to the usual array of profiles andposes intended to capture the "physical type" of thepeople. Smith took photos of a Fort Rupert potlatch,gambling, a woman's potlatch, several house postsand totem poles, and coppers fastened to trees. These

BRIAN THOM

1 49

and a series of "unposed photos" of an old man "clothedin a blanket sharpening a stone adze" (Smith n.d.) forma significant contribution to the ethnological photosof the Fort Rupert area of this time.'*

Smith began his archaeological investigations byexcavating a number of shell heaps in the area.''' Hecontinued to be puzzled by the different excavationresults from middens in various areas of the coast. Inthe Fort Rupert middens he found very few artifactsand no human remains, which was very different fromthe numerous finds in the shell heaps on the lowerFraser River. In a letter that he intended to be kept asa portion of his field notes, Smith anticipated the needfor further careful and thorough investigations to makemeaningful interpretations of the archaeological record:

I learn of a new shell heap in every directionalmost daily and at best can only hope tosee a few of them this year, for were I to visitthem all I would have no time to dig in anyof them. I have to chose a few locations andwork in them to get an idea of the differentregions from the few typical representatives... . Some shell heaps but a short distance fromothers present such different characteristicsthat I feel they may belong to different peoplesor be summer residences fishing stations or thelike of the same people. To determine all thesematters will require considerable furtherinvestigation and if that produces as muchvariety it will again extend the investigation.(Smith to Boas, 6 July 1 898, AMNH)

Smith's concerns had progressed from collecting alarge quantity of samples to please AMNH patrons tocollecting adequate samples for careful interpretationsof each site. Just as Boas had taken issue with Smith'sobsession with large collections, these new difficultiesin interpretation were also a problem for Boas, whowas seeking to get a broad idea of the historical, cul-tural, and physical relationships of the Native peopleof the North Pacific Rim. If archaeology was to provideanswers to these questions during the Jesup Expedi-tion, investigations would have to be made over thewhole region. This broad goal conflicted with Smith'smethodological desire for thorough investigationsof single, deep sites. But careful interpretation of the

1 50

remains from each site would not allow excavationsat as many sites as Boas wished. Despite Smith's pref-erence, Boas' leadership in defining regional researchgoals pushed Smith on to other areas.

Although archaeological investigations in FortRupert did not reveal many human remains, Smith wassuccessful in collecting from more recent graves in treeburials and rock shelters. At the end of the first weekin Fort Rupert, he wrote to Boas:

We have secured five complete skeletonsand three skulls from tree and box burials.George Hunt got permission to take thesebones. We are doing it secretly however,leaving no traces behind us and will use thepermission to cover a possible detection.(Smith to Boas, 1 2 June 1 898, AMNH)

Smith later wrote to Boas that although he had per-mission from Hunt to take these skeletons, he "thoughtwhat the Indians did not know about it would nothurt them" (Smith to Boas, 6 July 1 898, AMNH). By theend of Smith's stay in Fort Rupert, 32 skulls had beenobtained from tree, box, and cave burials, in additionto several painted boards and boxes from thesegraves.-^"

While working in the Fort Rupert area, Harlan andHelena Smith camped on the shell heap near the homeof George Hunt's sisters, Sarah and Jane. Smith wasdelighted by the hospitality of the Hunt family, whooften visited, bringing fresh food and gifts, but theHunt family came to have very different feelings abouthim and Helena. In addition to several other grievances,the excavation of the burials was not well received bythe community in the winter, a few months after theSmiths had left, when community members discov-ered what they had done. George Hunt received thebrunt of enormous family and community resentmentabout the Smiths' stay in Fort Rupert. Hunt wrote (inhis particular style) about these problems to Boas:

Now there is one thing that I am sorry to letyou know what Mrs. H. I. Smith Done for meand I think for you to now the knight therearrived here. I went and Beged my twosisters Sarah and Jane to let them Have a

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Room for the night for Mr. Smith was myfriend, so they did give IVIr. and Mrs. Smithone of there Rooms in the House free ofcharges and after that, my sisters was kindenough to let them have Empty cases free ofcharges and Even Help me in sending theIndians to him to have there casts taken andafter Mr. Smith left Fort Rupert he left all histraps in the care of my sister and the thankmy sister got from her, or Mrs. Smith. Shewent to Victoria put something against mysisters, on the newspapers. The it wasenough to make Mr. Spencer and wife and allmy sisters would not speak to me Ever sincethey Read the paper of what Mrs. Smith sayabout them, and Even signed by her. It seemsto me that Mrs. Smith asked Sarah and Janeto let her have one each of these photo-graphs, so my sisters did have her that is toMrs. Smith one Each of these photos, and onthe second paper she let the reportersscratch the two pictures and put them intothe news paper and the names she calledthem there I am shame to talk about, so mysisters got that wild about things that theywent and Report to the Indians what Mr.Smith done to there Daid and that I washelping them, and the Indians, said that theywill never let Mr. Smith come to Fort Rupertagain to still there grave again. Now I let Mr.Smith have David Boat, that cost David$25.00 Dollars, and after it was returned, thekeel was all worn away, leeking like a basketfor the Bottom was nearly worn through. Yet Iam pleased for the things that I got from Mr.Smith. (Hunt to Boas, 10 Januan/ 1 899, APS)

Hunt's news about the Smiths was accompaniedby the further bad news that one of the Fort Rupertchiefs had heard that Boas was making speeches tell-ing of how the KwakiutI were still "living on the Daid[dead] people." Because of these two incidents. Huntwas told at a feast that neither he nor Boas could everattend ceremonials again. On hearing this news. Boasresponded in defense of Smith and the work of theJesup Expedition;

Now about the Smiths. I simply cannotunderstand the things you are talking about.All the letters that I received from Smith andMrs. Smith while they were in British Colum-bia were just full of praise of your sisters andyou mother, and every time they talk aboutBritish Columbia, they say how kindly all ofyou treated them; in fact, they are takingevery opportunity to express how much they

are indebted to all of you. I am quite certainthat neither he nor she would willingly hurtthe feelings of any of your people. I supposethe whole trouble lies with the meddlesomeand nasty newspaper writers. You do notknow how they are bothering us all the time,and how every thing they learn is twistedabout in the paper so as to make it lookexciting to the people. I suppose youremember the nasty figures and the horribledescription of the dance that was in one ofthe newspapers, said to be written by me,but which was simply made up, and stolenout of my book. You may be quite sure thatthe same thing happened to the Smiths.(Stocking 1974:126)"

Boas' response to the accusations by the chiefs isnow something of its own legend: he sent Hunt fundsto host a feast, and Hunt gave out copies of his previ-ously published KwakiutI work and made a speech toclear their names. While Boas cleaned up his reputationwith Hunt and the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI], Smithavoided further controversy by not returning to thatcommunity the next year. Such a response could onlyhave reinforced Smith's desire to keep his gravediggingarchaeological work quiet.

Nimpkish River, Alert Bay, and ComoxSmith continued to work on the northern end ofVancouver Island through the months of July and Au-gust in the area around the Nimpkish River, Alert Bay,and Comox. Much of his time was spent in archaeo-logical excavations of shell heaps. The results of thesearchaeological investigations are well reported in his"Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound"(Smith 1907:305-30). Smith's concern over method-ological bias in his interpretation of the archaeologicalmaterial continued:

I feel that our finds may not in all cases becorrelated with the real losses of thesepeople, but are more or less influenced by ourluck, consequently we have to do a great deal[of excavation] and get much in order toeliminate, as far as possible, the luck equation.(Smith to Boas, 1 August 1 898, AMNH)

Smith's "luck" in the shell heaps did not include find-ing many human remains. To compensate for this

BRIAN THOM

apparent lack, he and Hunt continued to collect morerecent burials from grave boxes found in trees. Smithand Hunt did consult with members of the Comoxcommunity about collecting from a grave site; onemember was willing to sell a grave post for $14."

Smith and Hunt were active in collecting additionalethnological specimens for the museum. While work-ing in the Nimpkish River area, Smith was given a large"grease pole" that served as a fountain for fish greaseat feasts (AMNH 43019). A human figure was carvedinto the pole, and fish oil poured into the back of thehead came out of its mouth (Smith to Boas, 1 August1898, AMNH). While in Comox, Smith and Hunt wereable to acquire a xoaexoe mask, a collection of bas-kets, and 11 carved posts. Smith reported that themask was one of two in the area and was purchasedfor $ 1 2.00 from a man from Comox. The carved postshe collected included several grave markers and somehouse posts that were standing inside an old long-house (Fig. 50). This was one of the largest ethnologi-cal purchases Smith made during his work with theJesup Expedition. It took up a substantial amount ofhis disposable budget, which curtailed further expen-ditures during the year. Smith made some detailed noteson these posts in his correspondence with Boas."

Before leaving Comox, Smith visited Denman Island,where he observed a shell midden in the process ofcreation. His photograph catalogue reads, 'The originof a shell heap, clam shell thrown away after ameal—the fire, the stones, and the sea weed to holdin steam—all left on beach by a travelling party ofIndians" (AMNH 42031).

Nanaimo and Duncan

During the last week of August, Smith made his waydown the east coast of Vancouver Island from Comoxto Victoria, stopping in the communities of Nanaimoand Duncan, where there were large Indian reserves.He located shell heaps in both areas but determinedthat "it would be best to devote our remaining timeand money elsewhere" (Smith to Boas, 31 August 1898,

AMNH). In Nanaimo, at the mouth of the Chase River,he visited a site containing many petroglyphs. He origi-nally wished to send the rock art to New York byquarrying the sandstone but thought the expense ofshipping would be prohibitive. He photographed thepetroglyphs and made a plaster cast of one of themfor the museum (Smith to Boas, 31 August 1898,AMNH).'^'' In Duncan, Smith located a shell heap on oneof the Indian reserves but was not permitted to doany excavation. He continued to look for house postsin all four Cowichan villages he visited but did not findany. Feeling pressed for both time and money, anddisappointed, he continued on to Victoria.

North Saanich, Victoria

Smith arrived in Victoria on August 30 and had a fortu-itous meeting with five Native people who were will-ing to be photographed and cast (AMNH 12074-12092). Significantly, these people were not of localCoast Salish ancestry but were Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka]from the west coast of Vancouver Island. Smith's fur-ther efforts in the local Salish villages around Victoriaturned up no one interested in taking part in photo-graphs or casts.

For the rest of the week, Smith and his crew didarchaeological work at several sites in the North Saanicharea. His main purpose was to explore the cairns thathe had heard about from local residents. He also vis-ited many local farmers who had collections of arti-facts, making sketches of them for his publications,and spent time drawing and making notes on the arti-facts at the Provincial Museum in Victoria." Smith leftone of his field assistants, Albert Argyle, to continueinvestigations in the area around North Saanich, whereseveral shell heaps and 12 cairns were excavated (Smithto Boas, 31 August 1898, AMNH; Smith n.d.).

Vancouver and Port HammondOn Smith's return to Vancouver on September 7, hediscovered that the rates for shipping materials toNew York had increased three times over those of the

1 52

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

previous year. He canceled his plans to explore PugetSound, Washington, and the Point Grey area inVancouver because funds had to be diverted to ship-ping (Smith to Boas, 7 September 1 898, AMNH). Hedecided to use the last of his funds in the Vancouverarea, visiting the Musqueam Reserve in order to col-lect the objects he had seen the past summer:

Musqueam Indians doubled the price on therattle making it $20.00 so I left it. Wanted$20.00 to be photographed at loom, as didalso Duncan Indians^will try it again at PortHammond. Offered $5.00 but thought$20.00 too much & need it for shell heapwork. Told me 10 disks game on plate notused & did not know it or have it. It was lostlong ago they said. Told me bear toothgame did not exist. Conclude the man withbear teeth meant by "he he" that he wasfixing bear teeth for fun. I thought he meantfor a game. I secured a blanket (Mt. Coat), Vzmade, $3.00. Cowitchin Indians would notsell loom but I saw how they were made.They would not show us how to weave as ittook so long & much work & they wanted$20.00 to do it. I have tried, & with Hastingshelp, to get the pictures of weaving at everyplace we have been and went twice toMusqueam, several times in May and onceyesterday. I conclude as I have spent somuch for ethnology ... [I] will use the moneyfor shell heap work. (Smith to Boas, 7 Sep-tember 1898, AMNH)

Smith's confusion over the "bear tooth" game camefrom a poor understanding of the MusqueamHalkomelem term xdxe (Smith's "he he"), which means"sacred," "taboo." As was typical for Smith's work inthe Coast Salish communities, he was able to collectnothing from Musqueam except a photograph of "cattails from mats" (AMNH 43032).

Smith's last money for the season was spent exca-vating for a few days at Port Hammond. He visited theKatzie Reserve, where he had previously seen anotherXoaexoe [sxwayxwey\ mask, but again, he was un-able to purchase it. In September, Smith ended his field-work and boarded the train for New York.

Smith's investigations over 1897 and 1898 gener-ated a number of specific research questions that hewished to address through further archaeological work

in shell heaps. He posed these questions to Boas in aletter written near the end of his field season:

Are the long skulls found elsewhere than atEburne? Are they found at Hammond? Arethe rich shell heaps, like those off Hammondand Eburne, which have a large proportion ofblack soil and specimens, uncommon to thesalt water places such as Boundary Bay,Victoria, Fort Rupert, Comox, etc, where theheaps consist mainly of shells and are barrenof specimens except in the much near thetop? What is the difference between thesetwo sorts of shell heaps? Is the former typepeculiar to rivers, or only to the Eraser, or is itcommon to a river where tribes could gatherto catch fish then go away, let the grassgrow to cover lost objects so they would notbe again found and where they would loose inmoving or discard before moving, wheremurders and lawlessness would be greater?(Smith to Boas, 31 August 1898, AMNH)

Smith's musings seem distant from the larger goals ofthe Jesup Expedition. The problems that concerned himwere those of understanding how the archaeologicalsites were formed and what the different functions ofthe sites were. His expenditures on ethnology and theincreased rates for shipping made it very difficult forhim to pursue Boas' broad vision at the end of 1898.Smith would get one more season under the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition to address these questions.

Smith's Last Fieldwork, 1899

During the summer and fall of 1899, Smith continuedhis investigations at Kamloops, Puget Sound, PortDouglas, Lillooet, Eburne, North Saanich, Spences Bridge,and Nicola Lake. His excavations in these areas arewell reported in his publications. However, the archi-val record for the early part of this last season is not ascomplete. The following account is therefore limitedto very brief summaries of Smith's published materialand what can be gleaned from the photograph record.

Kamloops

Smith left New York in early May and arrived inKamloops on May 1 6. He paid a brief visit to the sitesfrom which he had previously collected, finding that

BRIAN THOM

1 53

the wind had revealed additional features. Here hemade several more collections of artifacts and skel-etons from exposed deposits before moving on toPuget Sound (Smith to Boas, 1 7 May 1 899, AMNH).

Puget Sound

As in British Columbia, Smith conducted his researchprimarily by making surface collections at sites whereartifacts and human remains were exposed, by visitingand describing existing collections of artifacts in mu-seums and private collections, and by undertaking ex-cavations at selected sites that appeared to be prom-ising for collecting a great deal of material. Of the 25locations on which Smith reported in his 1907 publi-cation, he only excavated the five sites of Marietta,Stanwood, New Dungeness, Port Williams, and Burton.-^^W. H. Thacker, a resident of western Washington whoworked with Smith in the Puget Sound region, con-ducted several excavations of shell heaps and burialcairns in the San Juan Islands (Smith 1907:380-6).

Smith's photograph records show that he was ableto obtain only a few photographs in these Coast Salishcommunities.''^ This general lack of participation inphotography and casting is consistent with that ofother Coast Salish people whom Smith visited. Smithalso took a number of pictures of an old shed-roofhouse at Lummi (AMNH 12129-12133) but did notcollect any of the planks or any of the eight carvedhouse posts that were there. The meager results of theshell heap work in Washington prompted Smith to re-turn in late July to British Columbia, where he began hiswork in the Lillooet-Harrison Lake region.

Lillooet-Harrison Lake

From Smith's investigations in Lillooet-Harrison Lake,there are a few letters from Boas to Smith in thefield. It appears that the focus of his work was theacquisition of skeletons, specifically skulls. Boas feltthat this area might provide important historical in-formation about the link between Coastal and Inte-rior people:

I did not expect you to confine yourself toskulls, but should have been glad to havehad archaeological researches carried onalso. . . . You know the Lillooet region is oneof those inland districts by way of whichcoast culture entered the interior, and for thisreason it is particularly interesting from anhistoric point of view. It might be, forinstance, that in prehistoric times the cultureproved to be much purer interior culture thenlater on, or it might be that the culture wasmore closely affiliated to the coast culturethan it is now. The Lillooet have adopted thesocial organization of the coast tribes, andmany of their industries, as far north as thetown of Lillooet, on Fraser River. At the sametime they have many things in common withthe tribes stretching from Columbia Riverthrough the Cascade Range, up to theChilcotin Valley. It would be exceedinglyinteresting to obtain prehistoric skulls from thisarea. (Boas to Smith, 5 August 1 899, AMNH)

Smith was successful beyond his expectations incollecting skulls from the area, but he seems to havelowered his own ethical standards to do so:

When I began work in the Lillooet Valley Isaid "If I can only get two skulls I will besurprised and pleased" but in this regard Ihave succeeded beyond my hope. I have(16) sixteen more or less complete skel-etons—all of them are so old that the Indianssaid I might dig. But with nearly all, evi-dences of white contact were found. Somewere under rock piles but not well formedcairns. Nearly all the skulls are entire ... bytaking skeletons out on backs we got themout without Indians realizing the bulk & so freefrom objections. But when the Indians returnfrom fishing it would not be pleasant to behere. (Smith to Boas, 19 August 1899, AMNH)

Although he was pleased about being able to makesuch a large collection of material. Smith was con-cerned about "running some risks" for the expedition:

I consider that no trouble will arise from mywork up the Lillooet and yet as the workwas done while only a few Indians werethere, those who were absent and havesince returned might object. Those that werepresent did not confront me much and I feelthat I would rather let the matter be di-gested by them before taking up moreextensive archaeological studies, whichmust, of necessity to careful work andpreservation of specimens, be done more

154 THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

openly. The skeletons I collected there andat other places are evidence that I am nottrying to get out of running some risks onsmall insurance. (Smith to Boas, 16 Septem-ber 1899, AMNH)

Smith is surely making reference to the cautious atti-tude he had after his father's failed business.

Boas may have thought Smith too eager to inves-tigate areas sure to yield quantities of artifacts andhuman remains for the museum. While Smith was re-porting the quantities of human remains being collectedfrom Lillooet, Boas again became concerned as towhether Smith was pursuing the larger questions ofthe Jesup Expedition by obtaining material from theentire region being investigated rather than spendingtoo much time at any one site. Boas wrote to Smithsuggesting that he return to Stanwood, Washington,to further investigate the relationship between thePuget Sound shell heaps and those of the Fraser River:

It strikes me that you have spent very littletime at Stanwood, considering the impor-tance of getting information from a differentregion similar to Eburne. I wish you wouldconsider if it would not be advisable, on yourreturn from Nanaimo, to go back there oncemore, to continue your studies. I hope youare not too much influenced in your judge-ment by the number of specimens you find. Iconsider it of the very greatest importanceto do as much as we can towards thesolution of the problem of the distribution ofthe shell mounds of Eburne character andalso of the distribution of cairns on the eastand west sides of Puget Sound. Of course, Irely on your judgement in all these matters;but I wish to urge you not to feel too muchinfluenced by the consideration of thenumber of specimens that you are going tosend back. First of all, we want to under-stand the history and distribution of culturalforms. I hope you will consider this matterwhile you are working in the Lillooet region.(Boas to Smith, 29 July 1899, AMNH)

Although Boas was providing strong guidance on thedirection the fieldwork should take, he clearly felt moresecure in Smith's judgment than he had in previousseasons. Smith advised Boas that a return to Stanwoodwould not have been profitable for the expedition:

I fear I did not give you a clear idea ofStanwood. When the very 1st day I noticedthe blackness of the shell heap I wrote you itwas like Eburne. I referred to the blacknessand to the fact that it was a delta. I nowthink the blackness due to surrounding deltasoil instead of clean sand as in the sea beachshell heaps. There was nothing in the finds atStanwood to suggest it to be more likeEburne than other places except the skulls,several of which were found. If, after youexamine the skulls, we find that they re-semble Eburne types or differ from types ofwhich we have information; then by allmeans I think more data should be securedfrom Stanwood. If however the skulls are ofno particular interest, then there is nothingthat I know of to lead us to return toStanwood more than to many other places.(Smith to Boas, 19 August 1899, AMNH)

In spite of Boas' desire to get more material fromPuget Sound, Smith did not return to Stanwood tocontinue excavations there after he had completedhis work at Lillooet. Instead, he followed his plans toreturn to North Saanich, via Eburne, to continue thework on the cairns and shell heaps that he had startedin the previous season. Smith felt he could best ad-dress the questions of the expedition through thor-ough investigation of these previously explored sites.

Eburne

Toward the end of August, Smith traveled down theFraser River from the Lillooet-Harrison Lake area. Hestopped for a day in Vancouver and returned to theMusqueam Reserve in an attempt to collect some ofthe house posts and spindle whorls he had been un-willing to purchase the previous year, partly becausehe considered them too high in price. But Smith foundthe people at Musqueam no longer interested in sell-ing any of their objects for any price to someone whowas going to take the items out of the country. Smithwas not deterred:

At Eburne I got two carved posts for $1 5.00each. They would not sell them last year butI brought photos of them. I considered thatcarvings from the Lower Fraser are very muchto be desired. They would not sell them toNew York even this year, but they sold them

BRIAN THOM

to an Eburne friend who turned them over tome for cost. The Indians who had the finespindle whorl last year were not home so I hadthat trip for naught.... Indians near Eburne havebeen told not to sell specimens to people whoplan to take said specimens out of Canada.(Smith to Boas, 25 August 1899, AMNH)

Through this deception, Smith was finally able to makea collection from Musqueam. It is doubtful that thepeople from Musqueam who sold their posts to Smith'sEburne friend were ever informed of their being removedfrom the country.

North Saanich

The next day, Smith left Vancouver for North Saanichand set up his excavations there just before the end ofAugust. He was very interested in continuing the ex-cavation of the cairns that had been first explored theprevious year. He excavated 30 cairns at five differentlocations in the North Saanich area (Smith and Fowke1901:65-6; AMNH 43109-4311 2). He also continuedhis excavations of the previous year at one of the largeNorth Saanich shell heaps (Smith 1907:331). In Sep-tember he received word from Boas that his archaeo-logical fieldwork was to terminate so that the materialcould be worked up back at the museum:

My present idea is, that with all the materialthat you have in hand at the present time, itwould be best for you to stay here nextsummer and write out what you have. I donot believe that it is a good plan to accumu-late more material than we can actuallymanage. In that case, of course it would bebest either to do the Lillooet work this yearor to defer it until 1 901. I wish you would beentirely guided in these matters by yourjudgement, on which I rely. I do not wish tointerfere in any way with your plans, as Icannot judge from a distance what is best todo. (Boas to Smith, 5 August 1899, AMNH)

Smith agreed with Boas that the coming season wouldbe best spent in New York:

I am glad that you feel that I ought to writeup the material in hand. I am sure that I havemuch, to supplement notes, in my mindwhich will shrink and become confused withother matters if I delay writing it out too

long. It might be well to write out the matterin shape for publication and then lay it aside.Later after all the work on any certainproblem or place was done, changes couldbe made if the later works required that thefirst impressions written out be revised.(Smith to Boas, 16 September 1899, AMNH)

With the end of the season nearing, Smith concludedhis investigations in North Saanich and returned toSpences Bridge to meet with Teit and make a journeyinto the Nicola Valley.

Nicola Lake

In the last week of September, Smith became reac-quainted with Teit in Spences Bridge. Smith had broughtcopies of his newly printed "Archaeology of Lytton"(1 899b) to British Columbia so that he could show thedrawings of artifacts to knowledgeable elders: Baptisefrom Nicola Valley; Michel from Lytton; Salicte, James,and Charlie Tcilaxitca from Nicola Lake. These eldersprovided extensive, detailed information on the usesof the objects in Smith's book, which he included asan appendix in his next monograph, "Archaeology ofthe Thompson River Region" (Smith 1900d:440-2).

With a week to spare before Smith had to return toNew York, Smith and Teit set out on a hike into thesomewhat remote Nicola Valley. They wished to ob-serve and collect from a number of sites where Teithad heard about a particular burial practice. These buri-als were unusual in that the deceased was laid inside atent set up beside a steep bank, after which a rockslide was caused, covering the grave with boulders(Fig. 51)." The remains from these burials were verywell preserved and in some cases included impressivecopper grave goods (Smith to Boas, 30 September1899, AMNH). Smith and Teit also photographed theframe of a sweat house, a "kickulie house," and a groupof people they met near the mouth of Nicola Lake(AMNH 43100, 43101- 43102, and 43106, respec-tively). After a week of making collections and takingphotographs of the area, they returned to SpencesBridge. Smith packed up the last of his collections forshipping and returned to New York.

1 56

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Smith's Contributions to Archaeologyand the Jesup Expedition

Smith spent the next eight years working at the AlVlNHas assistant curator of archaeology, "receiving, unpacl<-ing, cataloguing, repairing, [taking care of] installationor storage, and the labelling of specimens, as well asanswering the questions of visitors and correspondents"(Smith to Putnam, 23 December 1902, AMNH). Theexhibits Smith set up at the AMNH had plainly writtenlabels intended for the lay public, but he also madeconcessions to serious scholars. He illustrated the mem-oirs of his explorations, which he worked on in addi-tion to his regular duties, with pieces that correspondedto the exhibits, thus giving the fullest possible accountof the materials to the scholar.

Smith did not make any more field trips to the coastof British Columbia under the auspices of the JesupExpedition. He did, however, conduct field researchfor the AMNH in Yakima Valley, Washington, in 1903(Smith 1905, 1906a, 1906b, 1910a, 1910b) and onthe coasts of northern British Columbia and southernAlaska in 1909 (Smith 1909a, 1910c, 1910d, 1910e,1910f, 1911). He continued on at the AMNH until 1911,when he moved to Ottawa to take up the importantposition of Dominion archaeologist for the NationalMuseum of Canada. Over the next two decades, hecontinued his field research off and on in British Colum-bia and also conducted pioneering research in Que-bec and Nova Scotia. He did not restrict himself toarchaeology; he also pursued ethnographic filmmak-ing and photography, ethnobotany, and the educa-tion of the public on Native history and culture. Hiscareer has left a lasting legacy in these areas.^°

Evaluating Smith's Jesup WorkBoas had determined that Smith's primary researchobjective was to investigate and report on the archaeo-logical remains of the North Pacific Coast of NorthAmerica, to shed some light on the relationshipsbetween people of the New and Old Worlds. Boashoped that this information would be able to support

linguistic and ethnological evidence that was collectedby other members of the Jesup Expedition (Boas 1902:3,1 903). Smith's additional work in photography, physi-cal anthropo.ogy, and ethnology also contributed tothe goals of the expedition but remain absent frommost of the publications relating to the JNPE.

Reviews of Smith's research by his peers indicatethat his work was considered important and well donein its day. Otis T. Mason gave Smith and other Jesupteam members "hearty praise" for their research (Ma-son 1 900:805); J. A. McCuire felt that Smith deserved"the thanks of all students of archaeology for the thor-ough manner in which he has performed his task"(McCuire 1903:552); and even Ceorge M. Dawson, whodid not like having artifacts and human remains leaveCanada, congratulated Smith for "illustrating the archae-ology of this interesting locality" (Dawson 1899:767).These reviewers all concurred that Smith had done wellin his first task, the description of the archaeology ofBritish Columbia and Washington.

How did this archaeological work address thequestions posed by the Jesup Expedition? Smith inter-preted his archaeological collections found in the inte-rior of British Columbia as reflecting cultures that were,by and large, the same as those of the present-dayinhabitants (Smith 1899b: 161, 1900d:432-3). For thecoastal regions, his published interpretations state thesame general point: that "the finds indicate that theprehistoric people whose remains are found in theseshell-heaps had a culture resembling in most of its fea-tures that of the present natives of the Eraser Delta"(Smith 1903:188). Smith found the artifacts and art-work of the lower levels of the shell heaps to be al-most identical to those of the upper levels.

Confusion about Smith's interpretation of thecoastal material persist. Smith, following Boas' hypoth-esis, makes a case for there having been at some pointin the past a replacement of the early coastal inhabit-ants by people from the interior (Smith 1903:190,1907:438-9). The main basis for this interpretation wasthe replacement of the long-skull people by the broad-

BRIAN THOM

1 57

skull people, as discussed by Boas (cited in Smith1903:189). Smith looked for further support for Boas'hypothesis by pointing out similarities in chipped points,tubular pipes, and geometric designs on objects foundon the coast and in the interior (Smith 1 903:190).

In his own publications, Boas also cites Smith's evi-dence as supporting his ideas about a Salish migrationfrom the interior. The disappearance of stone flaking,the two distinct types of skulls, and the change ofburial practices from cairns and mounds to tree burialsall indicated this migration of people into the region(Boas 1902, 1905:96). Boas asserted that the migra-tion came from the interior because longer skulls "aredecidedly more [common] with the people of the in-terior and of the Columbia River than with the presentinhabitants of the Coast of British Columbia" (Boas 1902,1940:528). The interior invasion group was "in latertimes assimilated by the northern coast tribes in bodilyform as well as culture." Making much out of little evi-dence, Boas cited Smith's brief work in the Puget Soundarea as showing "that there was a gradual merging ofthe ancient culture of this area into that of the Colum-bia Valley, thus agreeing with the ethnological resultsobtained by Professor Farrand" (Boas 1903:90).

Smith was clearly influenced by Boas in presentinghis model for the migration of people from the interiorto the coast (Robinson 1976). His interpretations werealways cautious and tended to defer to Boas, both inthe field and in his publications. This best example ofthis is that Smith's letters discuss the great many "in-termediate types" of skulls coming out of the shellheaps, but the official publications by both Smith andBoas characterize the skulls as falling into only twotypes (Smith to Boas, 16 May, 3 June 1898, AMNH).Beattie recently summarized the debate on long-skullsand broad-skulls, showing that there is little physicalevidence to support this kind of grouping (Beattie1985). Confusion about this issue might not have arisenhad Boas heeded Smith's intuition about the difficul-ties in creating two distinct "types" out of a great num-ber of intermediate specimens.

1 58

Smith's collections of skeletons, photographs, andplaster casts provided further information with whichto address the historical relationships between thepeoples of the North Pacific Rim. While the JesupExpedition was under way. Boas cited this material asevidence that the "types of man" living in each geo-graphic region of British Columbia were distinct, yethistorically connected (Boas 1903:74). Smith's collec-tions of skeletal remains were left unanalyzed for 20years until Bruno Oetteking undertook the project dur-ing and after World War I. Oetteking took careful mea-surements of the skulls and found several differentmethods of cranial deformation that corresponded gen-erally to different language groups of the NorthwestCoast (Oetteking 1930; see alsojantz 1995).

With a few exceptions—notably, a short album ofSmith's pictures showing typical profiles of people fromthe Thompson, Shuswap, and Lillooet communities(Boas 1900) and a plate published by Boas showingTsimshian, Haida, KwakiutI, Nootka, Thompson, andQuinault "Indian types" of the Northwest Coast (Boas1903:83)—Smith's photographs and his ethnologicalcollections were not included in the Jesup Expeditionmonographs.

Smith's few ethnological publications (Smith191 Od, 191 Of, 1911) do not discuss in detail the kindsof information he obtained and recorded in his lettersand notes. The few notes from his correspondencepresented here, and the lists of names and communi-ties in his photograph records, provide some limitedinsight into the communities in which he worked. Hisfield notes, now missing, would reveal more materialof this nature, if they were to be found.

Archaeologist as CollaboratorSmith's relationships with the Native communities hestudied had a profound influence on how his investi-gations proceeded and on his final descriptions andinterpretations of the archaeological remains. ThroughBoas, Smith had connections with James Teit in SpencesBridge, Father LeJeune in Kamloops, and George Hunt

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

in Fort Rupert. This network of people around Boasgave Smith a unique opportunity for research, whilelimiting him to the areas Boas was interested in.

In the Thompson River area, Smith was able to drawon the excellent community contacts of James Teitand Father Le Jeune. His reports from this area are par-ticularly rich in descriptions of the functions of objectsand the history of the sites he visited. Good relationswith the community produced better archaeologicalresults. In his work with George Hunt on the CentralCoast, Smith gained access to large ethnological pur-chases. However, the community's good will towardSmith was not always well repaid, particularly in thematter of grave digging.

This tenuous rapport can be contrasted with Smith'swork in the lower Fraser River and southeasternVancouver Island regions, where he had no such con-tacts. His descriptions of the archaeological materialsfrom these areas are based largely on his own knowl-edge of the finds and draw heavily on information ob-tained by Teit from people in the interior. He confinedhis archaeological investigations in these areas to off-reserve sites, where he could work on land owned bynon-Natives. When he did try to excavate on reserve inDuncan, he was unable to obtain permission from theNative leaders. As he could only communicate in En-glish or with his limited knowledge of Chinook, he hada difficult time explaining what he wanted to do orrecording what Native people tried to tell him abouttheir traditional way of life. The most extreme case ofSmith's lack of community contacts was in Lillooet,where he chose to excavate burials at night, knowingthat community members would not have approved.This later came back to haunt him, as he could notreturn to the area as Boas had wished.

Collaboration with people who had long-term re-lationships with the Native communities in which Smithwas interested also opened opportunities for takingphotographs and making plaster casts. Teit, Le Jeune,and Hunt all explained to community members whatSmith wanted to do and introduced him to people

who were willing to take part. They provided him withdetailed information on the families and backgroundsof the people he photographed and cast. Notes onmost of the pictures of people that Smith took on hisown tend not to include any details about the subjectother than linguistic affiliation. In the case of theCentral Coast Salish communities on the lower FraserRiver and southeastern Vancouver Island, Smith wasunable to take any pictures or make casts of people,regardless of the payment he offered. An opportunityto work with people in this area might have providedinsights into the problem of the historical relationshipbetween the Interior and Coast Salish groups.

Contemporary Reflections on Smith's JesupWorld

Long after the questions of the Jesup Expedition havebeen reexamined. Smith's work continues to be rel-evant. Native people today are concerned about therelationship of anthropologists to their communities,as research continues to raise issues such as repatria-tion, local control over cultural resources, and theauthority of non-Native scholars to interpret Nativeculture. The growing interest in the revival of traditionalcultural practices is another area in which modernanthropologists interact with local communities.

A particularly important lesson is the difference be-tween "access" to a field site and "acceptance" by thecommunity of the research being done. Gatekeeperslike Hunt may not always be spokespersons for thecommunity at large, but they ultimately have to bearthe consequences of the researchers' actions long af-ter the fieldwork is over. Whereas Smith could simplycontinue his research without returning to Fort Rupert,the trouble surrounding his visit had more serious re-percussions for Hunt and Boas, who wished to con-tinue living and working in that community. In the caseof Smith's work in Lillooet, the community memberswho did not protest his grave digging would havehad to answer to the rest of the community whenthose who had been absent returned.

BRIAN THOM

1 59

A second lesson has to do with the frustration Smithendured in trying to gain access to Coast Salish com-munities to excavate, take photographs, make casts,and purchase ritual objects. There is a striking absencein Smith's correspondence with Boas of any attemptto understand why people were unwilling to collabo-rate with him. Being able to engage in a dialogue, asboth Le Jeune and Hunt had done, may have movedhis work forward, or at least saved him time and effort.However, Smith's and Boas' research strategy of mak-ing general surveys of the broad region prevented Smithfrom building the kind of rapport that would make thiskind of dialogue possible. When the research ques-tions are as grand as those proposed by Boas for theJesup Expedition, a team approach, with specialists ineach community where work is being done, is clearlypreferable.

Finally, Smith's work on thejesup Expedition leavesthe current generation of anthropologists and archae-ologists with the dilemma of what to do about collec-tions made under questionable circumstances. Repa-triation of skeletal remains collected in secret or withinadequate permission may now be appropriate.Clearly, as regards the house post given by ChiefNuxwhailak, the AMNH must honor his request by prop-erly labeling it for the public. The house posts acquiredthrough Smith's Eburne friend pose a more difficult prob-lem. Should they have been collected even thoughSmith and Boas both knew that sending them overthe Canadian border was against the Musqueampeople's wishes? Would it have been better to haveleft them to rot or burn, like so many other Coast Salishartworks of that era?

The answers to these questions are not clear. I wouldsuggest that the answers lie in the ongoing relation-ship between the AMNH and the Native communitieswhose collections it holds. The Musqueam house postsare now among the very few photographed or pre-served from this region and have been highly instruc-tive for the current generation of carvers. A good ex-ample is Susan Point's interpretation of some of these

Musqueam posts for the artworks she created forthe Vancouver Airport. Access to and interpretationof these collections may ultimately be an end that canjustify the means. Thus, the legacy of Harlan I. Smith'ssometimes problematic work for the Jesup North Pa-cific Expedition can have continuing relevance for Na-tive communities and the public at large.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the American Museum of NaturalHistory for the Collections Study Grant I received in1993 to work on the Harlan I. Smith material. AnibalRodriguez was particularly helpful with obtaining thecorrespondence from the accession records. WilliamFitzhugh and Igor Krupnik at the Smithsonian Institu-tion offered much encouragement and valuable com-ments on the creation and the subsequent refinementof this paper. The late Douglas Cole also provided valu-able comments and suggestions on the final drafts.The University of British Columbia's Travel Bursary sub-sidized an early presentation of the paper at the 1994meetings of the American Society for Ethnohistory inTempe. Finally, I thank my friend Lynn Vanderwekken,who read endless drafts and who gave me so muchof her time while I was working on this paper.

Notes

1. The following publications were a directresult of Smith's fieldwork for the Jesup North Pa-cific Expedition: Boas 1897, 1900; Smith 1898a,1898b, 1899a, 1899b, 1899c, 1899d, 1900a,1900b, 1900c, 1900d, 1900e, 1901a, 1901b,1901c, 1902, 1903, 1904a, 1904b, 1904c,1 904d, 1 906c, 1 907, 1 909b, 1 91 Od, 1 91 1; Smithand Fowke 1 901. For a more complete bibliogra-phy of Smith's works, see Leechman 1 949.

2. Smith's correspondence is in AMNH, Acc.1897-27, 1898-41, 1899-3.

3. Smith's photograph catalogue at theAMNH records the profiles of people from SpencesBridge as AMNH 11646-11685 and 22634-22695.Smith also photographed sweat houses (AMNH42754-42755), rock paintings and story rocks

1 60

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

161

48/ House post collected by Smith at Musqueam, British Columbia, 1 898,given as "part gift" to the AMNH by Chief Nuxwhailak (AMNH 16/4652)

50/ Grave post called "Laxtot," at Comox, British Columbia, 1 898. Harlan I. Smith, photographer (AMNH 43022)

165

1 66

52/ Map of the Kwakwaka'wakw area in the early 19th century, with Turnour Island and Clio Channelshown as the enlarged area (adapted from Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 7, 1994)

fT

53/ Sketch of K'odi's copper by George Hunt, 1 921 (APS)

1 68

54/ Site plan of Fort Rupert (Tsaxis) as it was in ca. 1 865. Drawing by George Hunt, 1919 (APS)

169

1 70

55/ Fort Rupert (Tsaxis),probably 1 865 or earlier.Photographer unknown.HBCA, Provincial Ar-chives of Manitoba1 987/3 6 3-F-57/1(Nl 1778)

Each of the following images of Tsaxis shows the site from a different angle. This earliest image (Fig.55), wastaken from the east side of the stream mouth and the fort, near the front of House 1 8 (as numbered in Hunt's"1866" site plan). Next image (Fig.56) was painted looking north toward the ocean from the higher groundbehind the fort. Finally, the third image (Fig.57) was shot in 1 881 from the west end of Tsaxis, probably from thesite earlier occupied by Houses 16 and 1 7.

1 71

55/ Fort Rupert (Tsaxis),probably 1865 or earlier.Photographer unknown.HBCA, Provincial Ar-chives of Manitoba1 9 8 7/3 6 3-F-57/1(N11778)

Each of the following images of Tsaxis shows the site from a different angle. This earliest image (Fig.55), wasJsken from the east side of the stream mouth and the fort, near the front of House 18 (as numbered in Hunt's866 site plan). Next image (Fig.56) was painted looking north toward the ocean from the higher ground' ind the fort. Finally, the third image (Fig.57) was shot in 1881 from the west end of Tsaxis, probably from the^ite earlier occupied by Houses 16 and 1 7.

171

56/ Watercolor of Fort Rupert, May 8, 1 866. Artist unknown. HBCA, Provincial Archives of Manitoba,P-111(N5296)

1 72

1 73

58/ Killer whale mask. Reprinted from Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895(Boas 1897:628)

59/ Tlingit seal bowl, southern Alaska (SI 23409)

c R A c r; o ^ ^

JOHNSTONE

64. e'e'Bg'es sandy beaches

65. md'xmExas place of eating

killer whales

66. 'nu>£'tnii2«na'/i« round things

(islands) in front at beach

67. '♦n€'mfciif»to round things (is-

lands) in front at beach

68. ts.'ena'ts/' elderberry recep-

tacle

69. t'SkJwa stiff (oil, curdled

blood) on rock

70. d'gwdx'tEHoe' head of pass-

age

71. dozlud

72. 'ya' x'p.'SsdesEla bad smel)

coming up from beach

73. dzEq!uxad muddy through

(clam beach near qa'lo-qwia)

74. ki'nHoaas place of thunder-

bird on rock

75. qd'logwia bent beach

76. dBg-a'WeU iJe'sElag-i'la

mink's burial place

77. x'd'ta/a'dze'li's having great

ebb tide

78. q.'d'be'

79. ddap.'aviUeigeoi'tm'laskiod'-

g-iil

80. gu'mbEx

81. laif l^Elc'wa' burnt rocks

82. k-a'qoLi' canoes meeting on

water

83. q!6'gwadiUte' point having

shelter

84. nS'mae old man, i. e. sea

monster; name of manydangerous points

85. dwi'iJa'la rocky place

stretching inward

86. oxut'li's beach at hind end

87. g-aUtExijdHi'a long behind

end beach

88. 5'juoi'te^e'head of passage

89. aSx'sE'wak'' paddled

through

90. g-d' x^difma house site on

ground

91. hang'- hollow thing at rest

92. Le'qida canoe building place

on rock

93. t'd'z"<«.'d small, round open-ing inside

96. dEx sEma'la grave on sur-

face

97. d'LEgEmd'la facing inland

98. q/wa'ld'ixu place of hiding

the cedar bark beddingof cradles

99. 'mif x'stEwe' round thing

(island) in small hole oropening

100. dc'wiietwMplaceofrumbling

noise. Baronet Passage

101. td'mlElda trembling point

102. bsklua'd having man-of-

the-ground, (i. e. a fa-bulous people)

103. Ic-.'sq/iidzifm young cedars

on surface

104. k.'ive'dadV having barnacles

105. d' LEgEtnala facing inlcmd

106. ma'xds killer whale plsuie (?)

107. dzE'riibax'

108. nd'LEweg'a'laaf turn back

to back on rock

109. md'taleq stripe in hole

110. ts.'d'yade' having eelgrass

111. q/d'q.'Ux'Ld'Hu shallow

beaches at* head

112. le'dzadEx gwE'yt'm having

finding of whales

113. Hnsgwi'lbala island being

on point

114. k\'d'k\'E^ndlia young ce-

dars on side of beach

115. 6'x'stUesEla beach continu-

ing through

116. h!ok!wa put up on edge on

rock

117. vmxedaU!'

118. ^maE'mx'he' round things

(islands) at point

119. x d'Huap/Ex-dE^i's open

neck place on beach

120. tm'wUngEnol deep sides

121. 'nd'le wd^x'diad up river

iD<^x'dzad

122. tss'lx'mEdzes crabapple

trees on beach

123. Lld'dzis alder beach

124. lEml'alU trembling beach

60/ Map of Turnour Island, Clio Channel, and vicinity showing Kwakwaka'wakw historical villages ca. 1 840and a sample of the site names related to this area (from Boas 1 934)

1 76

(AMNH 42756-42766), a fire drill being used(AMNH 42769-42771), and a storage house(AMNH A2777).

4. Profiles of people from Kamloops are cata-logued as AMNH 42745-42755, 22696-22708,1 1691.

5. The photograph numbers for Baby Rosie(7 months old) are AMNH 42801-42805; for anunnamed baby, AMNH 42811-42814; for the"Kikulie house ruins," 4281 5-4281 6.

6. AMNH 42825-42826 and 11692-11805.Most of the people noted in the photograph cata-logue are listed by name and by where the indi-vidual is from.

7. These Heiltsuk people, also all named inthe catalogue, appear in AMNH 11 806-11817 and42828-42851. The house is shown in AMNH42852-42857.

8. People from Rivers Inlet are listed by namein AMNH 42862-42885.

9. These skull types are illustrated in Smith1903:189, 1904c:90.

1 0. Photographs of these cairns are listed asAMNH 42786-42800.

11. These people, some named and somenot, are listed in the photograph catalogue bythe community they were from and their age(AMNH 1 1818-1 1836).

1 2. An excellent photograph of this encoun-ter was published in the Ethnographical Album ofthe North Pacific Coasts of America and Asia {^oas1900). Photograph record numbers are AMNH42930, 42945, and 43001. See also Mathe andMiller, this volume; and Figs. 37-38, this volume.

13. The woman digging roots is shown inAMNH 42947 and 42957 (Fig. 36, this volume);the tepee structure is shown in AMNH 42931,42946, and 42948.

14. Pictures of tepees are listed in AMNH42932, 42938, and 42941; a picture of the sweathouse appears in AMNH 42943.

15. Pictures of these excavations includethose of human remains (AMNH 42928, 42929,and 42934) and general pictures of the archaeo-logical deposits (AMNH 42927, 42964, 42965,42975, 42976, and 42995).

16. The pictures of these posts are describedin the photograph catalogue at AMNH 42922,42923, 42924, 42933, 42936, 42937, 42939,42940, 42942, and 42944.

17. Smith lists the people photographed byname and community in AMNH 11853-11903.

1 8. Potlatch, AMNH 42967 and 42968; gam-bling, AMNH 42970 and 42999; women's pot-latch, AMNH 42992; totem poles and house posts,AMNH 11905-11907, 42969, and 42991; cop-pers, AMNH 42984; old man with adze, AMNH42986-42990 and 42994.

1 9. Pictures of the shell middens investigatedappear in AMNH 42949, 42950, 42952, 42955,42956, 42958, 42959, 42972-42974, 42979-42983, and 43000; a number of rock carvingswere also photographed (AMNH 42953, 42962,42971, 42978, and 43002).

20. Smith's photographs of these tree buri-als include AMNH 42951, 42960, 42961, and42993.

21. Stocking cites this letter as having beenwritten by Boas to Hunt, 3 February 1899.

22. Some of these burials are pictured inAMNH 43022-43026. Smith and Hunt recordedthe name of the first of these (AMNH 43022), agrave post, as "Laxktot" and noted that it was"used at potlatch probably as representative ofspeaker."

23. The posts were photographed by Smithand are listed as AMNH 43022, 43025, 43026,and 43027. Smith wrote to Boas (using letters thatrefer to a diagram not reproduced here):

I have tried to get posts that were made byComox people, but I fear northern artistswere employed and that northern art showsin some of them. You will be pleased to learnthat I secured a story of a flood as anexplanation of four of the posts. One post (A)represents a man who made a very longrope of cedar bark. At the time of the floodhe took his family, friends, and some animalsin his canoe, which he tied to the top of ahigh mountain by means of this rope. Onepost (C) represents his friends, another (D)(having a copper carved on it) his wealth,etc, a fourth (E) represents a beaver, perhapsa totem or perhaps simply a tame animal andanother friend who represents the carryingaboard of children, etc. . . . One post (F) thatwas gone represented a bird and other men.I hope to learn more about these and settle afew points, then I will have the full story togo with the poles which, as you say, makesthem ten times as valuable. . . .

B, now gone, was a figure of a person like A,but of lesser power. One of the posts from

BRIAN THOM

1 77

another house representing a dead man ofinfluence, has a hole in the mouth throughwhich a man spoke. I got all the information Icould regarding each pole, but often I findthe Indians do not know as well as I. Oneyoung woman told me the beaver was aman, but afterwards I found a more intelli-gent person. (1 August 1898, AMNH)

Of course, from the mythological point of view,animals were in a sense human, and could trans-form back and forth. Smith's arrogance may havecost him a finer understanding of the stories be-hind these poles.

24. See also the photographs and descrip-tions of this site in Smith 1 907:323-30 and AMNH43016-43018.

25. Photographs of objects from the museumare numbered AMNH 43033-43041 and 12063-12073.

26. Smith's correspondence from the end ofMay to the end of August is almost entirely un-available from the AMNH accession records. Thereare, however, two letters that Boas wrote to Smithin the field in the 1899 AMNH accession records.

27. Smith's archaeological findings are wellreported in Smith 1907:367-402 and are brieflyoutlined in Smith 1 900a.

28. The photographs show a Nisqually manand a woman sewing a mat in Stanwood: AMNH1211 7-12120 and 121 34.

29. Some of these burials are pictured inAMNH 43103-43105.

30. For a complete bibliography of Smith'swork, see Leechman 1 949. Wintemberg (1 940) pro-vides an excellent obituary and summary ofSmith's research.

ReferencesAmes, Kenneth

1994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gather-ers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Annual Review ofAnthropology 23:209-29.

Beattie, Owen

1985 A Note on Early Cranial Studies from the Gulf ofGeorgia Region: Long-Heads, Broad-Heads and theMyth of Migration. BC Studies 66 (summer):28-36.

Boas, Franz

1897 Thejesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast.

Science, n.s. 7(145):535-8.1 898 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In The Jesup

North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 1-12.

Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 2. New York.1 900 Ethnographical Album of the North Pacific Coastsof America and Asia: Jesup North Pacific Expedition.New York: American Museum of Natural History.

1902 Some Problems in North American Archaeol-ogy. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Se-ries 6:1-6. Reprinted in Boas 1940: 525-9.

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1905 Thejesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-tional Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:Eschenbach.

1940 Race, Language, and Culture. New York:

Macmillan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.Cole, Douglas

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NorthwestCoast Artifacts. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

Dawson, George

1899 Review of Archaeology of Lytton, British Colum-bia. American Anthropologist, n.s. 1:765-8.

Hill-Tout, Charles.

1978 The Salish People: The Local Contribution ofCharles Hill-Tout, vol. 4. The Sechelt and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island. Ralph Maud, ed.Vancouver: Talonbooks. Original edition, 1 899.

Jantz, Richard L

1995 Franz Boas and Native American Biological Vari-ability. Human Biology 67(3)345-53.Leechman, Douglas

1949 Bibliography of Harlan I. Smith. In National Mu-seum of Canada, Bulletin 112. Annual Report of theNational Museum, 1939-1940. Pp. 8-14. Ottawa.

Mason, J. Alden

1943 Franz Boas as an Archeologist. In Franz Boas,1858-1942. American Anthropological AssociationMemoirs, 61. Pp. 58-66.

Mason, Otis T.

1900 /?eweiv of Anthropological Publications of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, New York, in1900. Science 1 2(308):804-6.

Matson, R. G., and Gary Coupland

1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. New

York: Academic Press.McGuire, J. D.

1903 Review of Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River,British Columbia. American Anthropologist, n.s.5:552-3.

Moss, Madonna, and John Eriandson

1995 Reflections of North American Pacific Coast Pre-history. 7owr/i<3/ of World Prehistory9i] ):1 -45.Oetteking, Bruno

1930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 11, pt. 1, pp. 1-371.

1 78

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

Memoirs of the American Museum of American tiis-tory, 1 5. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York; C. E. Stechert.Robinson, Ellen W.

1976 Harlan I. Smith, Boas, and the Salish: UnweavingArchaeological Hypotheses. Northwest Anthropo-logical Research Notes 10(2): 185-96.

Rohner, Ronald P., ed.

1969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coastfrom 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Smith, Harlan I.

n.d. Report of Operations of Harlan I. Smith on theJesup North Pacific Coast Expedition, for the Year1898. Manuscript. American Museum of Natural His-tory, New York.

1898a The Jesup Expedition Collection. American An-tiquarian and Oriental Journal 20:101-4.

1898b The Natural History Museums of British Colum-bia. Science, n.s. 8(201 ):619-20.

1 899a Archaeological Investigations on the NorthPacific Coast of America. Science, n.s. 9(224):535-9.

1899b The Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia.In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 3,pp. 1 29-61. Memoirs of the American Museum ofNatural History, 2. New York.

1899c How to Take Life Masks. Popular Science News3:31.

1899d Stone Hammers or Pestles of the NorthwestCoast of America. American Anthropologist, n.s.1:363-8.

1900a Archaeological Investigations on the NorthPacific Coast in 1899. American Anthropologist, n.s.2(3):563-7.

1900b Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Monu-mental Records 1:76-88.

1900c Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Sci-entific American Supplement 50:20538-41.

1900d Archaeology of the Thompson River Region,British Columbia. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion, vol. 1, pt. 6, pp. 401 -42. Memoirs of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, 2. New York.

1900e The Cairns of British Columbia and Washington.In Proceedings of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Forty-ninth Meeting. Pp.313-5.

1901a The Archaeology of the Southern Interior ofBritish Columbia. American Antiquarian and Oriental7ot/rMo/23:25-31.

1901b Prehistoric British Columbia. Popular ScienceNews 25:14.

1901 c The Prehistoric Ethnology of the Thompson RiverRegion. In Report of the Michigan Academy of Sci-ences, 2. Pp. 8-10. Ann Arbor.

1902 Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Recordsof the Post 1:205-18.

1 903 Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, BritishColumbia. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol.2, pt. 4, pp. 1 33-91. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 4. New York.

1904a The Cairns or Stone Sepulchres of British Co-lumbia. Records of the Past 3:243-54.

1904b Shell Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, BritishCol u m bia. American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal26:235-6.

1904c Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, BritishColumbia. Records of the Past 3:79-90.

1 904d Shell Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, BritishColumbia. Scientific American Supplement58:24024-6.

1905 An Archaeological Expedition to the ColumbiaValley. Records of the Past 4:11 9-27.

1906a Noteworthy Archaeological Specimens fromLower Columbia Valley. American Anthropologist,n.s. 8:298-307.

1906b Preliminary Notes on the Archaeology of theYakima Valley, Washington. Science 23:551-5.

1906c A Remarkable Pipe from Northwestern America.American Anthropologist, n.s. 8:33-8.

1907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and PugetSound. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2,pt. 6, pp. 301-441. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York:G. E. Stechert.

1909a Archaeological Remains on the Coast of North-ern British Columbia and Southern Alaska. AmericanAnthropologist 1 1:595-600.

1 909b New Evidence of the Distribution of ChippedArtifacts and Interior Culture in British Columbia.American Anthropologist 11:359-61.

1910a Ancient Methods of Burial in the Yakima Val-ley, Washington. /4mer;ca/i Antiquarian and OrientalJournal 12{2)A 11-3.

191 Ob The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley. In An-thropological Papers of the American Museum ofNatural History, 6. Pp. 1-171. New York.

1910c British Columbia and Alaska. In Anthropologi-cal Papers of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 4. Pp. 298-9. New York.

1 91 Od Canoes of the Northern Pacific Coast Indians.American Museum Journal 10(8):243-5.

1 91 Oe A Visit to the Indian Tribes of the NorthwestCoast. American Museum Journal 10:31-42.

191 Of Wooden Monuments of the Northwest CoastIndians. Scientific American Supplement 69:248-9.

1911 Totem Poles of the North Pacific Coast. Ameri-can Museum Journal 1 1(3):77-82.

Smith, Harlan I., and Gerald Fowke

1901 Cairns of British Columbia and Washington. InThe Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp.55-75. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 4. New York.

I

BRIAN THOM

1 79

Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1 974 The Shaping of American Anthropology,1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Ba-sic Books.

Teit, James

1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. InThe Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp.163-392. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 2. New York.

Thorn, Brian

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the Jesup

North Pacific Expedition. European Review of Native

American Studies 14(2):3-10.Who Was Who in America,1942 Vol. 1. Chicago: A. N. Marquis.Wintemberg, W. J.

1940 Harlan Ingersoll Smith. American Antiquity6(l):63-4.

York, Annie, Richard Daly, and Chris Arnett

1993 They Write Their Dreams on the Rock Forever:Rock Writings in the Stein River Valley of British Co-lumbia. Vancouver: Talonbooks.

1 80

THE COLLECTORS/ HARLAN SMITH

(Jnpubiishec! fviaterials of j^ranz ^oasand (jj^orge Munt

/\ j^ecord of -^-^ Ljears of coliaborationJUDITH BERMAN

Franz Boas, head of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition,was an indefatigable collector of information on theNative peoples of the North Pacific Coast and pub-lished many thousands of pages containing a varietyof information on these peoples. Thousands morepages, however, remain in the archives, virtually un-known. These unpublished materials are of consider-able importance, filling gaps in Boas' published recordand inviting fundamental reassessments of some as-pects of his work and of the culture and history of theNative peoples he studied.

This chapter on Boas' unpublished North Pacificmaterials covers only ethnographic, linguistic, andethnohistorical documents and drawings. It does notdiscuss his material culture collections, photographs,and phonograph recordings or his physical-anthropol-ogy research. This tighter focus allows a more in-depthtreatment of materials produced not only during theperiod of the Jesup Expedition (1897-1902) but alsoduring the years 1894-1942, encompassing the greaterpart of Boas' professional life.

The greater part of the unpublished materials inBoas' papers was generated in the course of his 45-year collaboration (1888-1933) with George Hunt.Hunt, the son of a Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) em-ployee and a Tlingit noblewoman, married into theKwakwaka'wakw community at Fort Rupert, BritishColumbia, and lived most of his life there. Boas hiredand trained Hunt to undertake a wide variety of la-bors, including the assembly of substantial museum

collections. Hunt was responsible, for example, for allthe ethnographic material culture collections of theJesup Expedition for the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI]and Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] areas (Fig. 52). Of inter-est here, however, is the ethnographic, folkloric, andlinguistic research that Hunt performed for Boas. Theunpublished materials resulting from their collabora-tion number perhaps 10,000 manuscript pages. Onlythe most important of the manuscripts that have beenidentified are considered here.

With one exception—an important document inprivate hands—the manuscripts considered here are inthe three primary repositories for Boas' papers: theAmerican Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadelphia,where the bulk of his professional papers was placedafter his death; the Anthropology Archives of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York,which contain records from the years 1896-1905,when Boas was employed there (Cole 1985:140, 164);and the Columbia University Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary, where Boas himself deposited a number ofmanuscripts. (See Appendix A to this chapter for a listof the individual collections, with the abbreviations forthem used here.)

The Unpublished Volume "KwakiutITexts"

During his lifetime. Boas published 11 volumes filledlargely or exclusively with Kwak'wala language textswritten by Hunt (Boas 1909, 1910, 1921, 1925, 1930,

1 81

1935, 1943; Boas and Hunt 1905, 1906). Boas' pa-pers include an additional complete text volume thatexists in two forms: as a collection of Hunt manuscriptsat Columbia University (CU-Hunt xiv) and as a type-script prepared from those manuscripts, with Boas'added translations, at the American PhilosophicalSociety (APS-KTT, see Appendix A). Boas evidentlyintended to publish the volume but did not manageto do so before his death. Together with the texts inReligion of the Kwal<iutl (Boas 1 930) and anotherunpublished set of Hunt's manuscripts that will be ex-amined later in this chapter, this unpublished volumerepresents the bulk of Boas' and Hunt's ethnographiclabors in the final decade of their collaboration.

Boas' final typescript volume of KwakiutI texts isan important supplement to the published record onthe 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. It also provides amore complete picture of Boas' ethnographic goals,revealing that he was interested in a much wider rangeof topics than had been recognized.

The volume contains a variety of text materials,most of them produced after 1920. One portion con-sists of a series of speeches delivered on variouspublic occasions, including those given at feasts andat the Winter Ceremonial. A slightly larger section isdevoted to informal conversations, ranging frommarital quarrels to a discussion about plant roots be-tween two old basketmakers. Hunt transcribed theseconversations in response to Boas' request that hecollect some "ordinary, everyday conversations ... forinstance like anything you might say to your wife or toyour friends" (Boas to Hunt, 1 5 December 1927, APS-BPC; see also Boas to Hunt, 18 January 1928).

Boas apparently felt a need to add to the range ofspeech genres and subject matter represented in thetexts he had already edited and published. As he hadwritten earlier in regard to linguistic research in NorthAmerica, "Up to this time too little attention has beenpaid to the variety of expression.. .we have hardly anyrecords of daily occurrences, everyday conversa-tion. . .and the like" (Boas 1940a:200-l). Boas' neglect

1 82

of the "informal" culture of the Kwakwaka'wakw hasbeen commented on (Codere 1966:xvi; Ray 1980),but the problem was clearly not absent from his mind.

The volume also contains a number of explanatoryand narrative texts that are more typical of Hunt's workbut that cover specific topics not dealt with elsewhere.These include texts on medicines and on methods ofand customs relating to fishing, hunting, and food gath-ering. One of the lattertexts is a brief discussion of thetaboos observed in relation to the six kinds of fishthat the Kwakwaka'wakw "treated clean" (a'ikila):oolachan, halibut, and four species of salmon (sock-eye, king, coho, and dog).' As Hunt's interlinear English(in his own orthography) states,

they Dont let the . . . young women whohave the first monthly Eat any of these . . .fishes ... [if] have the monthly [the] wife ofthe salmon fisher...[,] the Husband ... gocarry the suck Eye in[to] the House of hisRelative for her to Roast it. and they Dont letthe wife of his Eat some of it whele she gotthe monthly, and as soon as she Done . . .then she wash herself . . . and . . . then sheEat the Roasted salmon ... if [the youngwoman] Eat the Roasted salmon . . then itwould Disappear. . . and her Father. . .would get into some trouble [ialawafid,"get into difficulties"] . . . and when they . . .finish Eating the six Defferent kind of fishes,then Right away then the woman go gatherup the skin not Eaten and the Bones and shego walk out to the salt water and she throwit into the water. . . [and also] the Entrailsand the Blood on the mat they cut thesalmon on . . . [to be] washed off. . . in saltwater, for it is not allowed the Dog to eat[anything] that came from the six Defferentkind of fishes when it is first caught for. . .[the fish] would Right away Desappear. (CU-Hunt xiv:4359-61)

This text is the only one in the Boas-Hunt cor-pus to discuss fish ceremonialism among the Kwak-waka'wakw in any comprehensive way. It omits, how-ever, topics that Hunt briefly touches on elsewhere—for example, the prayers addressed to the first salmonto arrive and to any salmon after it is caught, or theresuscitation of the salmon after its skin, bones, andentrails are placed in salt water (CU-Hunt xiv:3919-33;

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Boas 1921:246, 609-612; Boas and Hunt 1905:307,390-2). These short texts show that fish ceremonial-ism—that is, the ritual, prayer, and taboos surroundingthe catching, preparation, and eating of certain spe-cies offish and the disposal of the remains afterward—was pervasive in 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw life.Given that the ritual and taboos applied to fish thatwere caught and preserved in huge numbers in orderto provide year-round food staples, these texts sug-gest that fish ceremonialism was the most fundamen-tal form of ritual activity at this time, carried out dailyby women in every household. Because of this, thetexts cast light on other areas of religious expression,particularly on the far more spectacular Winter Ceremo-nial, which seems to use the spiritual ecology offish asits root metaphor (Berman 1991:659-702; 2000).

Other texts in the volume show that Boas and Huntwere interested in the margins of gender among the19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. One text tells ofwomen who have taken men's names and positions inthe potlatch system and who thereby "turn into men"("babEbagwExats!edaq"; CU-Huntxiv:41 35-6). Anotherrecounts a "sham marriage" in which a chief turned hisonly child, a son, into a "woman on one side" and thengave the "woman half of his son in marriage to an-other chief as a fictive daughter. Still another discussesKwakwaka'wakw transvestites.

The volume also contains unique texts on anassortment of other topics, including a rare descrip-tion of the great feast pipes of the Kwakwaka'wakw,which were smoked by as many as six men at once(see also Boas to Hunt, 10 March, 23 July 1920; Huntto Boas 9 July, 2 September 1920, APS-BPC), and textsthat Hunt wrote in response to Boas' request for ex-amples of how children were instructed (Boas to Hunt,22 May 1928, APS-BPQ—a reflection of Boas' interestin the socialization of children that emerged at theend of the 1920s.

Among the handful of valuable ethnohistorical textsin the volume is one about Hunt's trip to the westcoast of Vancouver Island in the fall of 1871, when he

was 1 7, to buy 20,000 tooth shells (dentalium) for theHudson's Bay Company (CU-Hunt xiv:2193-290; Huntto Boas, 20 October 1921, APS-BPC). This long manu-script, which Boas split for publication (APS-KTT:111-3, 1 50-69, 270-5), has several noteworthy aspects.Hunt's trip casts light on HBC operations on the coastduring this time, especially on the company's reachinto remote areas and the role of Native or part-Nativemiddlemen. The account also describes villages andpeoples that had all but disappeared by the time otherobservers reached the area. Moreover, Hunt's manu-script gives a detailed account of the methods of gath-ering and preparing dentalium, a valued aboriginal tradegood that was most abundant on the west coast ofVancouver Island. There is no other known accountof Kwakwaka'wakw dentalium harvesting. Hunt'saccount includes lengthy descriptions of two Kwak-waka'wakw weddings, one of them his own (para-phrased in Boas 1966:56-61). Finally, the text, alongwith several others in the volume, tells of incidents ofwar between Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka'wakwgroups and provides other accounts of conflict be-tween coastal groups.

Yet another text tells of missionizing activities inFort Rupert and the more northerly Kwakwaka'wakwvillage of Xwamdasbe', more widely known as Newiti,beginning in 1860 (CU-Hunt xiv:2978-3040; see alsoHunt to Boas, 31 May 1924, APS-BPC). Hunt describesa succession of missionaries who passed through thesecommunities with little apparent effect and records aseries of Chinookjargon prayers and hymns dating from1860. In one of the episodes, the Rev. A.J. Hall, a Churchof England missionary, and a Catholic bishop, "Bishoplemons," battled for souls in Newiti, while the HBC, rep-resented by Hunt, competed with an independentwhite trader for fur seal pelts.

Again, this text is the only known account to dealwith missionary activities in any detail. The relativelydetached viewpoint used in describing these activi-ties and their effects is important to note. It is interest-ing that the Kwakwaka'wakw response to missionary

JUDITH BERMAN

1 83

fervor in those early years seems about the same astheir reaction to a "sun dance" movement that Huntdescribes elsewhere, which came north from the"Victoria or american Indian" in the 1840s or 1850s(APS-KM ii;68-70). In both cases, the Kwakwaka'wakwseemed willing to try a new form of public ritual butdid not find the new ceremonies sufficiently compel-ling to sustain their interest.

Hunt personally observed most of the events inthese accounts, but perhaps the most importantethnohistorical text in the volume describes an inci-dent that occurred before his birth and that has beenthe subject of debate among historians of the NorthPacific Coast (Bancroft 1887:274-5; Fisher 1977:51-2: Cough 1984:32-49). This incident, which beganwhen hunters from theT'ta'lasikwala division of theKwakwaka'wakw killed three HBC deserters, escalatedinto a pitched gun battle between two divisions ofthe Kwakwaka'wakw and the British Navy. Boas askedHunt for "the Indian version of that affair" (Boas to Hunt,23 February 1928, APS-BPC). The resulting account,which Hunt pieced together from several sources, isthe only one that tells the story from the Native pointof view (APS-KTT;191-7; CU-Hunt xiv:3924-43).^

Hunt's version, given in English only, generally agreeswith those of white historians as to the nature andsequence of events. Both tell of the murders and theconcealment of the bodies, the dispatch from FortRupert of a Native mediator and fact-finder, the visit ofa British warship to the village of P'atlams on Nigei(Caliano) Island, and the refusal of the Indians to handover the perpetrators. Both versions describe the de-struction of P'atlams, a further search for the perpetra-tors, the destruction of a second Native village on BullHarbour on Hope Island, the death of an importantchief during the fighting, and the settlement of theaffair when the Natives handed over dead bodies thatwere supposed to be those of the murderers.^

Hunt's version differs from those of white histori-ans, however, in many details. The areas of greatestdisagreement are those of time frame and general

setting. HBC and colonial government records placethe events entirely within the summer and fall of 1850,in the first year of Fort Rupert's existence (Cough1984:32-49; Johnson 1972). The erroneous date of1 848 given by Hunt seems to have originated in theletter Boas wrote requesting the account (Boas to Hunt,23 February 1928, APS-BPC). Hunt's account also dif-fers in setting the British reprisals a full year after themurder, but this may be an error in translation fromhis Kwakwaka'wakw sources: the Kwakwaka'wakwcounted each season, summer and winter, as a year(Hunt to Boas, 19 November 1911, APS-BPC). Hunt alsostates that the murdered men were two whites whodeserted a whaling ship named "Bobalits" that hadanchored near the northern tip of Vancouver Island(CU-Hunt xiv:3934). Historical records, however, indi-cated that the deserters were three indentured sailorsfrom the HBC ship Norman Mohson (Cough 1 984:40-1). The reference to a whaling ship may have arisenfrom a memory of another incident.

The more important differences lie in the perspec-tive and in the nature of the story being told. Whitehistorians have been preoccupied with the questionof whether colonial and military authorities were justi-fied in punishing the entire tribe for the misdeeds of afew. In their accounts, the Natives appear as a volatile,dangerous, and not particularly comprehensible mass.Hunt, in sharp contrast, focuses on the character andactions of individual Indians, on ambivalence and con-flict within the Native community, and on the conse-quences of the Natives' unfamiliarity with the whitemen who would increasingly dominate their lives.

According to one historian, the white deserters hadbeen killed "for refusing to submit to some extrava-gant demands" (Cough 1984:41). Hunt says nothingof any such demands; he portrays the murderers, whowere out that morning hunting for seals, as shootingthe white deserters almost for sport, or perhaps toobtain their possessions:

[T]hey [the deserters] arrived among the littleIslands about one mile west of plELEtns

1 84

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

[P'atlams] in the morning and they werelaying Between two Islands in a narrowPassage must have thinking about to Haul uptheir Boat into the wood and Hide there thatDay. and as soon as one of the white menJump ashore . .. three Indian men . . . cameround a Point East of them not sixty yard[away] . . . and Right away tslagE yos andyEmgwas take there guns and ts!agE'yos toldtoyEmgwas. you shoot at the man standingat the left side . . . and I will shoot at theother, said he as they fired, and killed Both ofthe two white men. and the three Indianswent to the Place and took off all the clothsof the two Dead men. and after took Every-thing off them and then they carry the DeadBodys and Burry them in a Hollow tree. (CU-Hunt xiv:3934)

The murderers, who were said to be "the two greatwarriors" of their T'lat'tasikwala division (CU-Huntxiv:3936), told no one, not even their closest associ-ates, what had happened. Soon, other white men ar-rived, searching for the deserters, whom they believedto be still alive. A chief, Yakudtas (Hunt: YaqoLas), toldthe whites that no one at P'atlams had seen the menor their boat. Colonial authorities later judged the Newitito have been lying (Cough 1984:41), but according toHunt, Yakudtas began to suspect what had happenedonly when one of the murderers began wearing a whiteman's shirt and trousers, which he implausibly claimedto have purchased at Fort Rupert.

In Hunt's account, Yakudias' role is a crucial one; ina way, he is the hero. Hunt's story also centers onKwakwaka'wakw ambivalence about warriors. Boasstates, "Warriors [bafeaA:Va] were generally disliked andfeared by the rest of the people. They were taught tobe cruel and treacherous and to disregard all the rulesof decent social behavior" (Boas 1966:106)." At thesame time, in an age of intertribal warfare and slaveraiding, warriors were defenders of the community.

Yakudias feared the two warriors who had donethe killings and dared not confront them directly. Hetricked one of the murderers into confessing the deedto his lover, but nothing of substance occurred untilthe HBC dispatched to the scene a Fort Rupert chiefnamed Nenagwas (called "Old Wale" by the HBC men;

Cough 1984:41 ).Yakudtas confided in Nenagwas, whopromptly made a full report of all he had learned to thewhite authorities. The subsequent arrival of a Britishman-of-war, demanding that the murderers be handedover, precipitated a crisis. One old T'lat'Jasikwala chiefsaid, in some disgust, "[l]f I had Power over these twoBad men. I would send them off to the ... man-of-war.and let them Do as they like with them" (CU-Huntxiv:3939). But if the two warriors were unpopular, theywere still important members of the community. Thewarriors argued that they had only done their duty:"the Rules given to us By our forefather is to kill the firstforeigner or stranger we meet" in the territory controlledby their division. This argument was accepted by mostof the villagers.

lots of the men . . . cryed out we will fightagainst the white men. sooner than let themtake tslagE yos and yemgwas away, and turnour great warriors into slaves, and we knowwell that threat to Burn Down our Houses . . .has no meaning. (CU-Hunt xiv:3839)

Yakudias pondered what the best course of actionwould be.

"[W]hat can I say my tribes People [?]... it istrue we Dont know the ways of the whitePeople, about the murder and the only thing Isay [is] for you all to take good care in casethey carry out thier threat." (CU-Huntxiv:3840)

As it happened, the British made good their threatto burn the village to the ground, but the inhabitantshad already fled. Still trying to apprehend the murder-ers, the British man-of-war proceeded northward toanother village, at Bull Harbour, where they were metwith gunfire. The British assumed this to be a hostilegesture (Cough 1984:44), although, according to Hunt,the Indians were merely attempting to "frightens theBoats away." The sailors landed anyway.

still the Indians shooting at them and one ofthe Boats midshipman a Very young mansaw a Indian Runing along in Front of theHouses, and the midshipman toke his Rifle upand he fired at the Indian. (CU-Hunt xiv:3942)

JUDITH BERMAN

1 85

This act provoked the Natives to shoot to kill. Inresponse, the British boats bombarded the village withfield artillery, driving the residents into the woods. Thenthe sailors destroyed the second village, breaking upall the canoes and burning down the houses.

Hunt ends his story with a series of outcomes thatare made ironic by his treatment of character. Themurderers—the two men whose actions had renderedtheir fellow tribespeople homeless and impoverishedat the onset of winter—escaped arrest and punish-ment. They accomplished this by killing two more men,a pair of "innocent slaves," as Hunt says, and causingthe bodies to be delivered to Fort Rupert. "Of coursthe white men Believed these two Dead men are themurderer[s]," who had been killed bytheTlatlasikwalato end the trouble.

As for Yakudlas, the conscientious and percipientchief who had worked the hardest to discover thetruth and avert disaster—he was the only Native killedduring the entire affair.^ YakudJas was the Native seenrunning along the beach who was shot by the mid-shipman Hunt mentioned. His death was the reason"why the Indians Begin to shoot to kill."

The intermediary Nenagwas, whose role in the af-fair seems ambiguous at best, did not escape entirelyunscathed. As he watched while British sailors destroyeda second village of his friends and neighbors, he

was siting in one of the Boats. Dressed withButton Blanket, and he was wearing a geqBwior large chief Hat and he Had a Bone withabalone shell Decoration Ear Hanger. . . andwhile the sailors Breaking up the canoeswalas the chief told ts'.agEyos. you are agood shot you take a shot at nanagwas youshoot at his Head and then tslagEyos lake aRest on a stump of a tree, and he fired andthe Ball struck na nagwas Ear and cut thestring that go through his Ear to Hold up theBone Ear Hanger. (CU-Hunt xiv:3943)

Boas' "KwakiutI Dictionary"

A second volume that Boas was not able to see topublication was his typescript Kwak'wala dictionary(APS-KWD). This dictionary, located at the APS, is an

important linguistic document, and by far the mostcomprehensive dictionary of Kwak'wala in existenceat this writing.'^ It is based on a huge corpus of mate-rial, including over 2,000 printed pages of Hunt's text,many more pages of unpublished materials. Boas'own not insubstantial linguistic fieldwork, and 45 yearsof epistolary questions-and-answers between Boasand Hunt on many points about the language. Thedictionary was constructed in relation to the text cor-pus; almost every entry gives textual citations, oftennumerous ones, from the published text volumes.

This unpublished dictionary reflects a phonologi-cal and morphological understanding of Kwak'walathat is far more sophisticated then anything Boaspublished in his lifetime. Together with Boas' post-humously published grammar (1947), the dictionaryshows that Boas, while perhaps lacking the sheeranalytical brilliance of his student Edward Sapir, wasnevertheless one of the most talented linguists of thefirst half of the 20th century.

One sees in these works, however, a certain amountof inconsistency, even contradiction, in Boas' treat-ment of linguistic structure. Here, as almost nowhereelse in his corpus. Boas' analysis reveals simplicity ofpattern within the massive multiplicity of his data. Onecould cite his presentation of such topics as the pho-nological structure of roots or the morphophonemicchanges undergone by stems in various circumstances.

At the same time. Boas appears at first glance tobe unaware of or uninterested in systematic pattern-ing in other areas of the language—patterning that hisown data seem to reveal quite clearly. The issue ofcategories within the very numerous "stem-suffixes" (amorphological class) provides one example. "Stem-suf-fixes" can express, in Boas' words, "denominative,predicative or adverbial concepts" (Boas 1947:225).Boas rejected the efforts of Sapir and Swadesh(1939:236) to classify such suffixes in the Wakashanand Salishan languages. The criteria these men used,he argued, were "not based on internal evidence, butrather on our European classifications." Boas did not

1 86

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

see any "internal evidence" in Kwak'wala either, choos-ing instead a general semantic categorization for hisgrammar that, he said, "should be considered merelyas a convenience designed to give an impression ofthe range of ideas expressed" (Boas 1947:237).

There are, however, functional distinctions betweenvarious categories of Kwak'wala stem suffix. One suchfunctionally defined category is that of the numeralclassifiers (Berman 1990). When counting objects inKwak'wala, numbers and other quantifier stems nearlyalways appear with one of a strictly limited set of suf-fixes. The suffixes are divided between "sortal" and"mensural" classifiers, the first indicating the shape ofthe object being counted—bulky (round), long, flat,hollow, and so on—and the second indicating a mea-surement, such as number of days, armspans, or layers(Berman 1990:38; see Lyons 1977).^

Nearly all of this information can be found in Boas'grammar, but it is obscured by his presentation. Boasmentions five of the sortal classifiers in a list of "classi-fying suffixes" that he states are used in counting ob-jects (Boas 1947:279). His phrasing in that passage,though, suggests that these are the only classifyingsuffixes used with numbers. In a different part of hisgrammar he again lists the 5 suffixes, together with 14others, in one of his categories of "convenience" la-beled "limitations of form" (1947:240). He makes noexplicit statement about the use of these 19 suffixes.In nearly every example he gives, however, the suffixesare used with a numeral. Examination of quantifierphrases in the Kwak'wala texts reveals that all or nearlyall of the 19 are in fact numeral classifiers. This wouldseem to indicate that Boas understood the rule he didnot state: these 19 suffixes belong to a category thatis clearly and unambiguously defined in terms of func-tion—use with numbers.

Another example is provided by the locative suf-fixes. The stem suffixes of this category are numerousand highly productive in the 1 9th-centurY Kwak'walaof Hunt's texts. At least three factors define themas a class. First, the plural element (-am-) requires a

following locative suffix. Second, four suffixes express-ing various kinds of determinate and indeterminatemotion are always followed by locative suffixes. Fi-nally, there is a set of stems that require locative suf-fixes. As it happens, these stems also express the shapegender of the object to which they refer, i.e., whetherit is flat, long, hollow, and so on.

Again, this information is not lacking in Boas' gram-mar and dictionary; it is merely scattered, and difficultto find if one is looking for information on locativesuffixes. Boas does explicitly state the first two of thethree rules, but only in his remarks on other, nonlocativesuffixes (Boas 1947:302, 349-50). The third rule canbe gleaned from the entries for the stems in his unpub-lished dictionary. For instance, for the stem'niakw-,Boas has the gloss "a round thing is somewhere (sing.),"and he further gives numerous examples of wordsformed from these stems using locative suffixes, includ-ing'maxwrso (round things inside, i.e., seedsT, makola(round thing stationary on water, i.e., island),~/nagwap'e'(round thing in nape of neck, i.e., occiput) (APS-KWD: 145-6). Although Boas nowhere discusses loca-tive suffixes as a group—they are split among at leastfour of his categories of "convenience"—he definitelyunderstood the rules that defined them as a category.

Moreover, it seems clear from Boas' glosses thathe perceived the semantic patterning common to nu-meral classifiers, the shape-expressing stems just men-tioned, and a subset of the locative suffixes, the shapelocatives. The latter refer to the location of an objector activity in terms of a feature of its shape—for ex-ample, -ba, "end of long horizontal object." Amongother things. Boas uses a common vocabulary in gloss-ing classifiers, shape stems, and shape locatives:"round," "flat," "long," "human," and "hollow." Theseare also the five shape classes he lists in his briefcomments on the use of numeral classifiers (Boas1947:279). Other usage indicates that Boas per-ceived additional common features of the system;for example, the orientation of the object (horizon-tal, vertical, upside down, etc.).

JUDITH BERMAN

1 87

In contrast to Boas' presentation of these points inhis dictionary and grammar, his inquiry into the shape-expressing stems and suffixes, as revealed in miscella-neous linguistic materials in his papers, was system-atic and extensive. He sent Hunt numerous lists of formsin English to translate into Kwak'wala, or in Kwak'walato correct or translate into English (APS-KM i:4529,ii:l 358-60, iii:4810; APS-KEM iii:384-5; see also APS-KM iii: 1584-97; Boas to Hunt, 10 September 1918,20 February 1919, APS-BPC). Boas had clearly identi-fied the various categories and patterns. What he didnot do was make formal and explicit in his dictionaryor grammar what he had learned about the system.^

The Boas-Hunt Correspondence

In the context of the entire Boas-Hunt corpus of writ-ten records, the most important set of unpublisheddocuments is their correspondence. These letters spanthe years 1894 to 1933 and number over a thousandpages, split more or less evenly between those fromBoas' hand and those from Hunt's.

The correspondence is divided among several lo-cations. The bulk of it can be found in the Hunt file.Boas Professional Correspondence, American Philosophi-cal Society (APC-BPC). Quite a few individual letters arescattered through other document collections at theAPS (e.g., Boas-Hunt KwakiutI Materials, KM). The An-thropology Archives at the American Museum of Natu-ral History (AMNH) holds a significant body, dividedbetween the Hunt correspondence files and acces-sion records (designated, respectively, as AMNH-HCFand AMNH-HAR in this chapter). These letters are fromthe years 1894 to 1905, and most are connected withthe Jesup Expedition. Finally, a few letters are amongthe Hunt manuscripts at Columbia University (CU-Hunt).

The Boas-Hunt correspondence is important be-cause it documents the two men's published and un-published ethnographic record so minutely. The Boas-Hunt ethnography of the Kwakwaka'wakw was, as Ihave said elsewhere, an epistolary ethnography (Berman1996). Boas sent his requests for information by letter;

Hunt sent a letter in return with just about every ship-ment of texts, objects, or photographs. Both sides ofthe correspondence are of great interest.

Just as Boas' unpublished linguistic materials revealthat his thinking on several linguistic subjects was farmore organized and insightful than his publicationswould suggest, his letters reveal much about the na-ture of his ethnographic research that is invisible else-where. I have discussed this issue in some detail else-where (Berman 1996); here I would like just to men-tion the key points.

The correspondence shows that Boas' research pro-ceeded in a logical order that is not obscured by thenumerous digressions. In the 1890s Boas was mostconcerned with collecting material culture for muse-ums. In the first decade of the 20th century he movedto an examination of technology, foodways, ethno-zoology, and ethnobotany. By the latter part of thatdecade he had taken up social organization—a sub-ject he actively pursued until the 1920s, when he be-gan questioning Hunt about "the way the Indians thinkand feel" (Boas to Hunt, 19 September 1920, APS-BPC).By the late 1920s he had become interested in thesocialization of children (Boas to Hunt, 22 May 1928,APS-BPC).

The letters show that on any given topic. Boas pur-sued information in an orderly and systematic fashion.The kinds of questions he posed to Hunt were oftenno more than standard anthropological queries on suchsubjects as the use of a particular plant species or thepossibility of parallel-cousin marriage. But other textswere intended by Boas to be case studies to help himsort out areas of social organization or religion that hefound difficult to understand. Boas has been criticizedfor the endlessness, obscurity, and triviality of his texts,yet there is little that is obscure in the questions heposed to Hunt.

Hunt's letters are an equally rich source of informa-tion. First, they often provide considerable context forindividual Hunt texts. For instance, one narrative textappears in published form with a typically terse

1 88

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

annotation by Boas, "A Koskimo story, recorded byGeorge Hunt" (1943:202). When Hunt transmitted thistext, however, he sent along the following comment:

on the 1 9th I send you Page 2097-2111 thetrue whole story about nekweilagEine ornight-time Hunter, who was towed acrossthe ocean By the rotton wood Hair seal. Thisold man negatse told me this same story fewyear ago. . . . and now this time I made aspecial trip to gosgi mox to see this old mannEgatse. which told me this story again, andhe told the story just the way I write it Down. . . next I will try and find out as you sayabout the Birds of the upper world. (Hunt toBoas, 25 April 1 921, APS-BPC)

Hunt's letters also contain ethnographic andethnohistorical information not found elsewhere. Forinstance, they supply otherwise unavailable informa-tion on genres of oral literature (Hunt to Boas, 4 July1916, 28 February, 10 March 191 7, APS-BPS). Togetherwith comments Hunt made in texts and in other un-published materials, these statements allow recon-struction of the taxonomy of 19th-century Kwak-waka'wakw oral literature, despite Boas' near-totalsilence on the topic (APS-KM iii:4624; Berman 2000;see also Berman 1991 ;n 7-34).

A more extended example is to be found in Hunt'sdetailed comments on the history of "coppers," thehighly valued copper plaques of the North Pacific Coast.What started Hunt on this topic was Boas' requestthat he confirm a story regarding a copper recentlypurchased by the Peabody Museum in Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts. Hunt wrote to Boas,

I called the oldest men of Fort Rupert intomy House, and I Read the . . . storry to themabout the copper, and the 12 slaves andBlankets paid for it. all the old men laughedloud, and said ... in all the coppers whichwas Brought Down to Fort Rupert By theHaida and tsimshians and kelkatia . . . [thehighest number of] slaves Paid on thes[e]copper[s] ... is one slave a little saanich[Salish] girl, and the Highest Price Paid for acopper By these People [in those days] isfrom 40 to 86 blankets. (Hunt to Boas, 4December 1921, APS-BPC)

Hunt told Boas that the Peabody Museum's copper

had been left in Fort Rupert by a Nisga'a man who hadhoped to sell it there but had been called home by asudden illness in his family. The Fort Rupert acquain-tance with whom he had left his copper was unableto sell it because it

have to much Ring in it. what the Indians Dontwant to Buy. for it shows that it is white manssheet copper for the true native copper haveno Ringing sound in them for the face of Body .. . is all scale or Rough that shows where itsBeen Hammerd By Round stone. (Hunt to Boas,4 December 1921, APS-BPC)

Hunt went on to relate the history of another cop-per, a story that illustrates some of the changes occur-ring in Kwakwaka'wakw society during the secondhalf of the 19th century (Fig. 53). The main character inHunt's story is a man of a certain entrepreneurial bentnamedK'odi (Hunt'sKlade):

now this man K!ade is not a chief son. his oneof the first man who takes for his wife a Prettyyoung women, and take her Down to Victoria,and makes money from her. and By this kind ofBadness he cought up to what the true chiefswhere Doing in there Potlatches ... But whenhe Had a Row with them they soon let himknow that he was a common class man. (Huntto Boas, 4 December 1921, APS-BPC)

K'odi gave lavish potlatches from these dubious pro-ceeds in order to raise his status. Then he secretly hireda Haida man to manufacture a forgery:

and after the Haida man fineshed, he was toldBy K!ade. to Pretend and Put it up for sale, to allthe Defferent tribes who use to go to Victoria,so this Haida man show the copper to all thechiefs, in a feast that was given by K!ade and allof the Defferent tribes looked at the copper,and of cou[r]se they Each one of them wants toBuy it. But they Had no cash or Blankets withthem, so . .. K'ade asked the chiefs, now if I Buythis copper, who will Buy it from me. and giveme Double the Price I would give for it. and oneof the chiefs said I will Buy it from you ... soKlade. gived the Haida man one HundredDollers for the. copper.

K'odi told the chiefs that the copper was an oldone that had belonged to the Haida man's grandfa-ther. "[I]t was so well made," Hunt wrote, that "one of

JUDITH BERMAN

1 89

the chiefs Did take it and Paid K!ade two HundredDollers worth of Blankets for it."

But K'odi and his Haida accomplice had a fallingout when K'odi took back half of what he had paidin public to "purchase" the copper. In retaliation, theHaida man

told the chiefs that K!ade... Paid him the otherfifty Dollers for makeing the copper, and thatK!ade. paid three Dollers and fifty cents for thecopper sheet from a store ... in the year 1873.and this copper Been sold so meney times nowthe Price is twenty thousand ... Blankets. (Huntto Boas, 4 December 1921, APS-BPC)

Materials for the ethnography and ethnohistory ofother North Pacific groups occasionally surface inHunt's letters. One story concerns the fate of the com-panions of a Haida chief, "Cetqon" (or CsdExan as inBoas 1966:107), who in 1856 made the mistake ofvisiting Fort Rupert and was killed trying to escapethe wrath of the resident Kwakwaka'wakw (Hunt toBoas, 5 December 1921, APS-BPC; Boas 1966:107;Travis 1946:33). Hunt also sheds light on his Tlingitmother's home village of Tongass. For example, in oneletter Hunt describes an occasion on which he wit-nessed the construction and use of "the sweat Bath ofthe Alaska Indians" (Hunt to Boas, 28 September 1918,APS-BPC). The details Hunt supplies of Tongass Tlingitethnography and history, though few and farbetween, are valuable because Tongass is so poorlydocumented elsewhere.

Hunt's letters also document, sometimes in con-siderable detail, the Kwakwaka'wakw collections hemade for Boas. Examples can be seen in the captionsfor the exhibit catalogue Chiefly Feasts (e.g., Marcus1991). To a lesser degree, the letters document collec-tions that Hunt made for George Heye, but the infor-mation that would make the letters useful is still scat-tered among the Boas-Hunt correspondence, the Huntmyth texts associated with the objects, and the ac-cession records of the National Museum of the Ameri-can Indian. (See, for instance. Boas to Hunt, 5 June 1906,20 April 1909; Hunt to Boas 10 March, 20 November1 909, 29 April, 9 December 1 910, APS-BPC).

Census and Maps of Fort Rupert

In 1910, Boas wrote to Hunt asking for a

detailed statement about the relationshipbetween all the men and women, and thehouses they live in, in Fort Rupert, and . . .the nKinemut [descent group] they belongto, and to what riEmemut their wives andchildren belong. (Boas to Hunt, 28 February1910, APS-BPC)

Boas was to repeat this request in various forms overthe next nine years (e.g.. Boas to Hunt, 4 April 1 91 3,12 May 1919, APS-BPC). Finally, in late 1919, Huntcomplied, leaving out, however, some of the informa-tion Boas had asked for and providing instead twocensuses, one representing Fort Rupert in 1919 andone, remarkably, as the community had been in 1 866(Hunt to Boas, 18 July, 20 August, 4 October 1919,APS-BPC). Hunt also made two pencil drawings toshow the site plan of the community as it had been ineach of those years.

Unfortunately, this set of manuscripts does not seemto have survived intact, although the missing piecesmay eventually be located among Boas' papers.Enough of it remains in some form, however, to makediscussion of it possible. The two drawings are extant,and although both the finished censuses that Huntmailed to Boas are apparently missing, a draft of the1866 census has survived in a notebook of Hunt's in aprivate collection.^ A copy of this notebook was kindlymade available to me by Bill Holm. Two pages of thedraft 1866 census, and information about the note-book, are in Holm and Quimby 1980:48, 127-8.

The census, which covers 20 nonconsecutivepages in the notebook, lists every inhabitant of theNative community at Fort Rupert, known inKwak'wala as Tsaxis. This community was foundedin 1 850, when the four divisions (i.e., "tribes") of theKwakwaka'wakw then living along Clio Channelmoved to the recently established HBC fort (Boas1921:973-7, 1 966:46; Johnson 1972:8).'° Thesefour divisions came to be known collectively as theKwagut, from which name arose the "Kwakiutl" ofanthropological literature.

1 90

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Hunt's 1866 census is organized by the traditional"bighouses" and identifies each house by descent groupand divisional affiliation. The houses are numbered 1through 26, and correspond almost exactly to the 26houses on Hunt's 1866 site plan (Fig. 54).

Within the house, individuals are listed by name,descent group, and divisional affiliation and, often, bytheir relationships to others in the house. The individu-als are numbered; thus, the inhabitants of House 1 arenumbered 1 through 27 and those of House 14, 509through 558. There are gaps, irregularities, and manyalterations in the numbering in this rough draft of thecensus, and Hunt's total of 840 for the population ofTsaxis may not represent a completely accurate count.

Hunt's choice of 1866 for his census raises somequestions. In late December 1865 the British navalvessel Clio bombarded and burned Tsaxis, completelydestroying it, in retaliation for the refusal of the popu-lation to surrender three Kwagui suspected of murder(Cough 1984:82-4). According to Johan AdrianJacobsen, who visited Tsaxis in 1881, the Kwaguipartially abandoned the site thereafter, and only about250-300 people remained to rebuild the community(Woldt 1977:32).

Hunt's 1866 site plan of Tsaxis generally agreeswith an undated photograph (Fig. 55) that shows along row of Native houses with early house fronts ofbroad, horizontal, hand-hewn planks supported by up-right poles. This image was taken from the east side ofthe stream mouth and the fort. It is a composite oftwo photographs, and a section of the village con-taining parts of at least two houses is missing wherethe segments were joined imperfectly near the center.Otherwise, the visible houses correspond well with thewestern portion of Hunt's "1866" site plan.

In sharp contrast, a sketch of Fort Rupert made inMay 1 866 shows only a few houses standing on thewest side of the site (Fig. 56). These may be eitherruins or new construction. The rebuilt village, seen inan image from 1 881, shows a rather different distribu-tion of houses (Fig. 57). iVloreover, by 1881 upright

JUDITH BERMAN

planks had replaced the older-style fronts in all butone of the houses. The census and the "1866" siteplan, then, most likely represent Tsaxis before its bom-bardment by the Clio.

A further question about the census is that it isapparently based on Hunt's interrupted experience ofthe community as a teenager, recorded 50 years later.Hunt was born in Fort Rupert in February 1 854 andwould have been a few months shy of 12 in late 1865(Hunt to Boas, 7 April 1916, 6 January 1919, APS-BPC;Barbeau 1950:651). Further, his residence in Fort Rupertduring the 1860s was not continuous. According toHunt, in 1 863 his mother took him north to her homevillage in Tongass Tlingit territory (Hunt to Boas, 2 Au-gust 1920, APS-BPC)." It is not known how long theystayed there, but Hunt did witness the "1864" Tongasswinter dances (APS-KM v:5552), which could meanthose of 1863-64 or, more likely, of 1 864-65.Huntmay also have lived in the north during 1868-71, whilehis father was stationed there (HBCA, Robert Hunt Bi-ography:7-8; Barbeau 1950:651).'^ By 1872 he hadmarried and settled permanently at Fort Rupert (CU-Hunt xiv:2197, 2238).

Nevertheless, the census should not be dismissed.Hunt's writings demonstrate that he was a man withan extraordinary capacity for remembering detail, andhis mother's family, his wife, and most of his friendscame from cultures in which vast amounts of genea-logical, historical, and mythological information werestored and transmitted without benefit of the writtenword. It is likely, anyway, that Hunt did not rely solelyon his own memory to draw up this census. The Boas-Hunt correspondence makes it clear that Hunt fre-quently consulted Kwakwaka'wakw elders and friendsin his work for Boas.

As one measure of its reliability, the census corre-sponds at many points with other Hunt documents,such as his unpublished list of descent-group "seats"(ranked positions; APS-KM vi:3144-75) and variouspublished and unpublished family histories (Boas1921:891-938, 951-1002, 1093-1117, 1925:64-

1 91

357; APS-KEM iii:342, 391-403; CU-Hunt xiv:1598-1619, 1660-70). It also corresponds in some detailswith historical documents such as the 1851 landpurchase agreement between the Hudson's Bay Com-pany and the chiefs of Tsaxis (FRP; Curtis 191 5:1 50).Caution must be observed, however, as some Kwak-waka'wakw names occur widely, and some high-ranking Kwakwaka'wakw of the day changed theirnames frequently or had more than one name. Huntsometimes refers to an individual by one name, some-times by another.

Social Information in Hunt's CensusDespite questions that remain about the 1 866 cen-sus, it is an important document for the study of thefour Kwagui divisions, as well as for the Kwak-waka'wakw in general, and it has implications for theethnohistory of the larger region. Among other things,the 1866 census and site plan are a rich source ofinformation on 19th-century KwakiutI social organiza-tion and have the potential to clarify issues of descent,succession, residence, and marriage among the 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw that remain subjects of con-troversy to this day.

The census shows the houses as being groupedaccording to division, as another Tsaxis resident,Charley Nowell, also recalled (Ford 1941:1 3, 49). Thus,the nine houses of the K'umuyo'i division are clus-tered on the left (east) side of the HBC fort, while thenine houses of the Gwitala division orKwagut properextend along the right (west) side. Beyond them in aline extend the two houses of the K'umk'u'as divi-sion (marked "4" or "Y" in Hunt's drawing) and the sixbelonging to the" Walas Kwagut. The spatial arrange-ment of divisions recalls that of the old Kwagui vil-lages on Clio Channel (see Figs. 52, 60; Boas 1934,map 14). There, the K'umuyo'i town at K'abe' andthe Gwitala community at Kalugwis faced each otheracross a body of water; the ' Walas Kwagul andK'umk'ut'as dwelled together at Adap' on the farside of the Gwitala (Boas 1921:1 38-9, 1 966:46).

1 92

In contrast, the census reveals no obvious patternin the distribution of houses within each "quarter" ofthe village. The order of the houses does not reflectthe ranking of descent groups within the division asgiven by Boas (1966:39). When a single descent groupoccupies more than one house, the houses seem placedmore or less randomly. Thus, in theGwitala quarter thehouses occupied by the highest-ranking (Ma'amtagila)descent group are 1, 7, and 9. This is contrary to Boas'statement that each descent group "occupied its ownsection of the village" (Boas 1966:48).

The two houses closest to the beachside entranceto the HBC post, 1 and 18, belonged to the Ma'amtagi-la and Kwakwak'wam, the highest-ranking descentgroups of the Gwitala and Kumuyo'i, respectively.These two divisions, in turn, comprised the higher-rank-ing "side" in the dual organization of Tsaxis (Berman1991:97-102; Ford 1941:17, 70). House 1, interest-ingly, is identified in the census not by descent groupbut only as "awades House." Owadi, the first personlisted in House 1, was a powerful figure in Fort Rupertand is mentioned by Hunt in a number of contexts(e.g.. Boas 1966:190, 256). Owadi is the first chief inhis division listed in the 1851 land purchase agree-ment (where the name is spelled "Wawattie"), and hewas said to have been the head chief of Tsaxis in 1 865.

There is no information about the first man listed inHouse 18, but the man following him in the census, hisbrother "Nolis" (Nulis), seems to be mentioned in otherdocuments. Nulis is the second chief listed in the 1851agreement for the Kumuyo'i/Kwixa division (the nameis given there as "Noolish"), and by 1871 he was headchief of the descent group owning House 18 (CU-Huntxiv:2269). The placement of the two houses calls tomind Boas' observation that in Kwakwaka'wakwmyths the chiefs house is to be found in the center ofthe village (Boas 1966:301).

In most cases in the census, each house serves asthe residence for a single descent group, although sev-eral descent groups are large enough to require twoor more houses. The number of residents per house

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

averaged 31. The number of distinct households—ahousehold, generally speaking, consisting of a nuclearfamily (Berman 1991:66-8; Ford 1941:11; APS-KEM111:342, 391-403)—is also rather large. In House 1, forinstance, the 27 inhabitants consisted of 7 monoga-mously married couples and their children, 2 other menwith 2 wives each, and 1 slave couple. In House 7 the36 inhabitants included 8 couples and their children, 2sets of divorced or widowed women and their unmar-ried daughters, and a single man apparently living byhimself. These are far in excess of Ford's estimate thatthe traditional Kwagui house held an average of fourfamily units (Ford 1941:11; compare Boas 1897:369).

Rank, that pervasive feature of North Pacific socialorganization, is implicit in the order in which Hunt liststhe residents of a house. As noted above, the firstperson listed in House 1, Owadi, was the highest-rank-ing chief in Fort Rupert. In other cases, the rank of theindividual's name or "seat" (k'wayi) in the descentgroup can often be discovered by consulting anotherunpublished Hunt manuscript (APS-KM vi:3144-75). Incases in which at least three seats of house membersare known (19 of 26 houses), it can be seen that housemembers are listed generally in order of rank. Theirregularities in rank order probably arise from thefrequent practice of making a young heir the osten-sible rank holder (Ford 1941:1 77, 209). For example,in House 8 the first individual listed is a man whosename belongs to the third seat in theLa'alaxs 'andayudescent group; two of his sons have the first andsecond seats, while his daughter is in the fourth seat.Given that only two of the men listed first in their housesactually occupied the first official rank in their descentgroups (Houses 4 and 5), this situation may have beenquite common.

That the man listed first in a house is always headof the house regardless of ostensible rank is supportedby the distribution of polygyny in Tsaxis. Hunt wrote,

Everyone of the chiefs of the four tribes . . . Hadtwo wives Each they take their first wife who isa Daughter of a chief of one nememot [descent

group] then again he takes another chief['s]Daughter who is Belong to another nsmimot.(Hunt to Boas, 7 December 1926, APS-BPC)

To judge by the census, there is some exaggeration inthis statement, but 8 of the 11 cases of polygyny listedin the census do involve a house chief. Two of theremaining cases are a son and a brother of house chiefswho were also polygynous, and these men are listedsecond in their respective houses.

Another indication that the names given in the cen-sus can be a poor guide to the bearer's real position isdemonstrated by the ostensible rank of the house chiefsof the two houses built on either side of the entranceto the HBC post, Houses 1 and 18. These men, asdiscussed above, were the highest-ranking chiefs oftheir respective divisions. What is more, each had twowives, and each is followed in the census by a relative(son or brother) who also had two wives; these are theonly two houses in Tsaxis where there is more thanone plural marriage. Yet the names these men heldbelonged to seats 1 3 and 18 in their respective de-scent groups, and in each case someone else's childhad the name belonging to the first seat of the de-scent group.

Another point of interest in the census is the con-siderable evidence for the nonunilineal tendency ofKwakwaka'wakw social organization. Although Huntalways affiliates children with their father's descentgroup and there appears a definite tendency in thedirection of patrilocal residence, the houses frequentlycontain residents connected through women mem-bers of the descent group. The inhabitants of House 1included, among others, the house chief Owadi, histwo wives, his son, and the son's two wives, as well asOwadi's sister and her husband and the latter's nieceand nephew. In House 11 residents included the chiefand his two wives, the chief's son and three daugh-ters, and the husband of one of the daughters. An-other lower-ranking man dwelled in that house withhis wife, two daughters, the daughters' husbands, threegranddaughters and one grandson (each daughter

JUDITH BERMAN

1 93

having borne two children), the spouses of the fourgrandchildren, and, finally, five great-grandchildren, whowere all a daughter's daughter's daughter's children.

The census further tells us that only about 2 per-cent of the population of Tsaxis was slaves and thatthe slave population was divided more or less evenlyby sex.''' Only one chief, in House 26, owned as manyas 7 slaves (who are explicitly said to be his). Manyhouses had none, and most descent-group houseswith slave residents possessed only one.

The census also contributes to the understandingof demographic changes on the North Pacific Coastduring the 19th century. It is clear that severe depopu-lation took place, but there is little reliable data. Hunt'scensus and related documents supply figures for Tsaxisonly after demographic decline had probably been un-der way for at least half a century (Gibson 1992:272-7; Cough 1984:80). Hunt's numbers for the years fol-lowing 1865 are telling, however: according to him,his two censuses showed how the Native populationof Fort Rupert declined from a total of 840 people in"1866" to a community with only 45 adult men, oraround 200 people in all, by 1919 (Hunt to Boas, 18July, 20 August, 4 October 1 91 9, APS-BPC).

Although out-migration, including the partial aban-donment of Tsaxis following its destruction by the Clio,no doubt contributed to this decline, the census, to-gether with another unpublished Hunt document,shows that, as expected, increased mortality and lowfertility also played an important role. Hunt wrote atlength about the inhabitants of a single house namedGukustolis ("House That Came out of the Sea") asthey were in 1870 (Hunt to Boas, 27 April 1906, APS-BPC; APS-KEM iii:391-403). A comparison of namesshows that these are the people of House 8 on the"1866" census. In 1865 House 8, belonging to theLa'alaxs'andayu descent group, had 73 inhabitantsand 1 5 households and was the most populous dwell-ing in Tsaxis. By 1870 the number of households haddropped to 13, and Hunt mentions only 25 inhabit-ants (although those figures may include only rank

holders and close relatives of the chief, and we do notknow whether the former inhabitants had died, leftTsaxis, or split off to form a new house). After 1 870,however, misfortune and disease—chiefly tuberculo-sis—exacted a severe toll on those 25 inhabitants. In1906 Hunt wrote somberly, "[A]ll of thes People livedin that House . . . and now there is only one living in itwithout a wife" (APS-KEM iii:398).

Boas' Kinship Research

The census is a particularly good demonstration ofthe synergy of the Boas-Hunt collaboration. The ideawas Boas', and he had to ask Hunt several times. WhenHunt finally undertook the task, he did not do pre-cisely as Boas asked, as was often the case; he didnot, for example, list "the relationship between all themen and women ... in Fort Rupert" (Boas to Hunt, 28February 1910, APS-BPC). As was also often the case,he did other things that are of equal interest. He com-pleted a much longer census of Tsaxis as it was in1866, in addition to the census of the contemporarycommunity that Boas had asked him to make, and hefurther supplied the two site plans.'

The census and related documents, together withthe list of ranked positions, highlight the ratio betweenthe immense amount of information Boas gatheredon Kwakwaka'wakw social organization and therelatively small amount of his writing devoted to thatsubject—one article (Boas 1940b) and a chapter ineach of two different books (Boas 1897:328-41,1966:37-76). Boas has frequently been criticized forthe quantity of detail and the dearth of analysis in hispub-lications. Of course, one of his ethnographic goalswas to collect raw ethnographic and linguistic mate-rials for future generations (Berman 1996:218-9). Butit is increasingly clear that there was more insight andanalysis behind Boas' collection of data than might atfirst appear.

In the correspondence, Boas frequently refers tothe difficult nature of Kwakwaka'wakw descent, af-filiation, and succession—topics that have bedeviled

1 94

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

succeeding generations of anthropologists. Boas askedHunt to collect family histories, for example, to aid in"straightening the matter out." "[Y]ou cannot be toodetailed in getting information," he wrote (Boas to Hunt,6 March 1906, APS-BPC; compare Boas to Hunt, 20May 1911). In Boas' last comments on the Kwak-waka'wakw descent group, published post-humously,he offered what is probably the clearest insight intothe system to be found anywhere.

The structure of the numayma [descentgroup] is best understood if we disregard theliving individuals and rather consider thenumayma as consisting of a certain numberof positions to each of which belongs aname, a "seat" or "standing place" thatmeans rank, and privileges.... These namesand seats are the skeleton of the numayma,and individuals, in the course of their lives,may occupy various positions and with thesetake the names belonging to them . . . Thenumayma is neither strictly patrilineal normatrilineal, and within certain limits, a childmay be assigned to any one of the lines fromwhich he or she is descended, by bequesteven to unrelated lines. (Boas 1966:50-1)

It is easy to miss the fact that this short passage isthe summation of years of analysis of a vast body ofdata—Boas needed the vast body of data in order toarrive here. Comparison of this passage with Boas' ratherprimitive analysis in 1897, in which he argued that theKwakwaka'wakw descent group showed a patrilin-eal form of organization under the influence of the matri-lineal societies to the north (Boas 1897:334-5), showshow far he had traveled in the intervening years.

Another way to look at Boas' body of data onKwakwaka'wakw social organization is to focus onits unusual form. Although later generations of NorthAmerican anthropologists regarded Boas as having littleworthwhile to say about social organization, the un-published documents suggest that he might better beregarded as a pioneer. The lengthy family histories wereintended as case studies. The censuses of Fort Rupertare virtually unique for their era. (Gifford 1926 is anexception but was obtained somewhat later.) Boasalso obtained from Hunt lengthy biographical accounts,

including one that examined the potlatch and thechiefly role in terms of one man's life (Boas 1 925:1 1 2-357) and another, the socialization and education of aKwakwaka'wakw woman (CU-Hunt xiv:41 37-45,4198-205, 4250-3, 4327-35; APS-KM iii:41 45-83,4189-98,4206-50,4283-326). We have already notedthe unpublished texts examining the margins of gen-der among the 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw. Thesematerials are all the more impressive when we con-sider what is to be found in other ethnographic publi-cations of the time.

Boas did not stumble on these ethnographic no-tions blindly; they clearly arose out of a principled andcreative thought process. Of course, it was GeorgeHunt who made it possible for Boas to collect suchvast amounts of detailed information on such (for thetime) unusual topics. But it was Boas who thought ofcollecting this information, and who pursued it throughHunt in an organized and systematic fashion.

The Social Organization and the SecretSocieties of the Kwai<iutl Indians

Boas' 1897 monograph The Social Organization andthe Secret Societies of the Kwal<iutl Indians {designatedhere as SOSSKwt) is one of his few major analytical orsummarizing works on the Kwakwaka'wakw. The onlyother major publication covering similar ground is aposthumous volume, Kwakiutl Ethnography (1966),which was assembled by Helen Codere from a combi-nation of published sources and manuscripts in prepa-ration at the time of Boas' death in 1942.

The 1897 monograph remains Boas' most signifi-cant and primary statement on the Winter Ceremonialcomplex of the 19th-century Kwakwaka'wakw, andparticularly on the relation between the ceremonial andits material culture and mythology. Boas' only othersignificant discussion of the Winter Ceremonial is in thetwo chapters in KwakiutIEthnography{] 966:171 -298;see also pp. 400-22) that rely heavily on extracts fromand summaries of the 1897 volume (especially1897:544-605).

JUDITH BERMAN

1 95

George Hunt's Contribution to SOSSKwlThe unpublished materials in Boas' papers have steadilyexpanded our understanding of the magnitude ofGeorge Hunt's contribution to Boas' work (Berman 1994,1996, n.d.Jacknis 1991,1992). What they show abouthis labors in relation to Boas' first important mono-graph is no exception.

The title page of SOSSKwl states, "Based on Per-sonal Observations and on Notes Made by Mr. GeorgeHunt." In the preface to the volume. Boas goes further:

The great body of facts presented here wereobserved and recorded by Mr. George Hunt,of Fort Rupert, British Columbia, who takesdeep interest in everything pertaining to theethnology of the KwakiutI Indians and towhom I am under great obligations. I amindebted to him also for explanations ofceremonials witnessed by myself, but thepurport of which was difficult to understand,and for finding the Indians who were able togive explanations on certain points. (Boas1897:31 5)

These acknowledgments, while generous, do notsupply a complete picture of Hunt's contributions tothe volume. Hunt played an important role in at leastthree areas that Boas does not address directly. First,Hunt was a crucial figure in the acquisition of severalcollections of Kwakwaka'wakw ceremonial objectsthat are illustrated and discussed in the book, includ-ing the collection used most extensively—that of JohanAdrian Jacobsen. Jacobsen made the collection withHunt's assistance in 1881-82 for the Berlin Museumfur Volkerkunde, then the Royal Ethnological Museum(Berman n.d.; Cole 1985:60-7; Jacknis 1991:181)."^

Second, Hunt made possible in every way Boas'"personal observations" of the 1894-95 ceremonial(Berman n.d.; Rohner 1969:177-87). Hunt fed andhoused Boas during the ceremonial; he advised Boashow to go about his work; he searched out and pur-chased objects for the collections Boas was making;he took Boas to feasts that were occurring at all timesof the day and night; and he explained and interpretedfor Boas constantly.

The third area in which Hunt made a major un-acknowledged contribution to this volume is in itsactual writing, a role that goes far beyond what wewould today understand by the making of "notes" orthe recording of "facts." Hunt, for example, providedmuch if not all of the myth material that explains theorigin of the various dances and masks of the WinterCeremonial (APS-KM i:31-67, 100-10, 180-9,212-24;Hunt to Boas, 20 March, 23 April, 9 July, 21 Octo-ber, 15 January 1895, AMNH-HAR). This is not sur-prising, given Hunt's subsequent labors on behalf ofKwakwaka'wakw oral literature.

What is less expected is that Hunt's English-lan-guage manuscripts functioned as the first draft of thechapter of the book that purports to present Boas'personal observations of the 1894-95 Winter Ceremo-nial (Boas 1897:544-606). Boas, in fact, prefaces thischapter by saying, "I will describe the ceremonial as itactually took place and so far as I witnessed it"(1897:544-5)." Now, Boas did indeed witness theseevents, but the descriptions we have are largely fromHunt. Hunt made use of materials supplied to him byBoas, but he elaborated on and expanded them greatly;in one place he states that he wrote out 1 5 pages fora single page of Boas' notes (Hunt to Boas, 16 Febru-ary, 9 March 1 896, APS-BPC).

Hunt's first drafts of this chapter of SOSSKwl sur-vive only as fragments scattered through one of themanuscript collections under Boas' name at the APS(APS-KM i, xi). The pages, when brought together, con-sist of two sections of text. The first, 12 pages in length,bears Hunt's page numbers 1 8-29 (APS-KM i, vi). Thereis some difficulty with the page numbering of the sec-ond section, but it appears to consist of Hunt's pages35-56, minus pages 51-2, a total of 20 pages.

These materials are not to be found in any pub-lished or unpublished list of Hunt manuscripts (cf Boas1921:1469-73). The handwriting and transcriptionpractices clearly date them to the mid-1890s.TheBoas-Hunt correspondence provides more precise cluesto the date of the manuscripts. They are most likely

1 96

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

those referred to by Hunt in letters sent during 1896.Hunt writes, "now I am Writing out the Dances you;vseen While you was here" (Hunt to Boas, 4 January 1896,APS-KM vi; see also Hunt to Boas, 16 February, 9 March,30 April, 9 July 1 896, APS-BPC).

The first set (12 pages handwriten) correspondsclosely to pages 577-81 of SOSSKwI. The first 7 pagesof the second set correspond to pages 586-89 ofSOSSKwI.^^ The remainder includes a passage that wasnot reproduced in SOSSKwI but that appears in a latervolume (Boas and Hunt 1905:484-91). The passagedescribes an episode that is partially summed up inone sentence in the third paragraph on page 589: "Inthe evening a feast was given, the blankets were dis-tributed, and shortly after the beginning of the feastthehiimats 'a Yaqois came in and danced three times."

The gaps in page numbering indicate that pagesare missing from the Hunt manuscripts. Judging fromthe correspondence, several other sections of manu-script are missing as well. On the last page of extantmanuscript (p. 56), Hunt writes, "now after this I willwrite about what the Koskimo Done on the 25th ofNov" (KM vi). In Boas' published version those eventsare described in 12 pages of typeset prose (Boas1897:589-600). Together with another 6 publishedpages, describing the final events of the 1894-95 Win-ter Ceremonial, this would equal at least another 40handwritten pages of Hunt manuscript. All in all, about100 pages of Hunt's draft of this chapter are missing.

Comparison of an extended section of Hunt's manu-script with Boas' published version shows how closelyBoas followed Hunt's first draft. Hunt wrote:

all the time the new Hamadga [Hamats'a]Was Dancing. liigaxstaaq Halding a copper inhis Hand and a woman came out With a stripof calico about 40 yards in length thiswomen name is ayaga. she toked the calicoall Round the fire, and the Hamadga DancedBetween the fire and the calico, he Wore theBalsam Pine Branch and Danced the two firstsong with it on. and after the singers sangthe two songs, then he iii.abala came fowardand asked the singers to wait awhile and notto sing, and he asked tdgumalis to come and

make a speach and he tdgiimali's came andstand up at the Rear End of the House, andhe said, yes you my children yes I for I amyour Box your mind for I Keep all the oldsayings in my Head and I have seen thing inmy youngs Days that you young men neverhave Heard of and seen, and it is good tohave one old man to show you all thisthings, now I am going to this Hamadga andondress, the Dress that was Put on him Bythe Bax-baqalanoxsiwi for I am he, said he theold man. and he Walked up to the Hamadgaand toked the Head Ring off first and next hetake off the neck Ring off and the arms andlegs Ring, then he gived the Rings of BalsamPine Branch to Lamaia and he the old manasked nawiikala to Bring the Blanket and theRed cedar Bark, then he nawakala Went Backinto a Bed Room for about one minut and heBrought all that the old man asked for, andhe nawakala gived the Blue Blanket first tothe old man. and he Put the Blanket on to theHamadga and again the old man toked theneck Ring and put it on to the neck of theHamadga and again the old man toked theapron and Put that on and next the arms andlegs Ring all of Red Ceder Bark Rings thenlast of all he toked the Eagles Down and Putit on to the Red ceder Bark Dress of theHamadga. then the old man togiimalis step infront of the Hamadga and said it is all Done.(APS-KM i:24-5)

For this passage, Boas has:

After this song LoXuaxstaak" arose in the rearof the house, holding a copper, and awoman named Ayaqa, brought a strip ofcalico about 40 yards long, which wasunrolled and spread in a circle around thefire. . . . Then the singers began the secondsong: . . .The hamats'as were dancing be-tween the calico and the fire in a squattingposition. Their attendants tried to pacifythem with cries of "hoip," and the womendanced for them. Then ALabala steppedforward and asked the singers to wait beforebeginning the third song. He called hisspeaker, Toqoamalis, who took his positionin the rear of the house, and addressed thepeople as follows:

"Yes, my children, I am the storage boxof your thoughts, for I remember all the oldtales, and in my young days I have seenthings which you young people never heardof. It is good that there is one old man whocan show you all these things. Now I will goto this hiimatsa and take off the dress thatBaxbakualanuXsTwae put on him." He

JUDITH BERMAN

1 97

stepped up to the hamatsa, who wasstanding in the rear of the house, and tookoff his head ring first, then his neck ring. Hecut off the arm rings and anklets and gavethem to LamaLa. Then he asked Nauaqala tobring blankets and ornaments made of redcedar bark. Nauaqala went to fetch themfrom his bedroom, and when he had returned,Toqoamalis proceeded to dress the hiimats'a.He put the blue blanket over his back andcedar bark ornaments on his head, his neck,his arms, and around his ankles. He also tieda dancing apron around his waist andstrewed eagle down on his head. Then hesaid, "It is done." (Boas 1897:578-79)

There are, of courses, differences in the two pas-sages. Boas made revisions to Hunt's Kwak'walatranscription, and, as is obvious, he divided Hunt's draftinto paragraphs, corrected Hunt's spelling and gram-mar, and, in places, altered Hunt's wording. Boas alsochanged the sequence of some elements in his ver-sion. For example, while Hunt grouped the Hamats a'sfour songs in an earlier place in the text, Boas scat-tered the songs throughout, with one occurring in thisvery passage (omitted at ellipsis).

Finally, Boas omitted or misconstrued some infor-mation in Hunt's text. Hunt, for example, quotesTogiimalis as saying, "now I am going to thisHamadgaand ondress, the Dress that was Put on him By theBaxbaqalanoxsiwi for I am he." The old man, for thatmoment, is assuming the roleofBaxwbakwalanuxsiwe',theHamats'a's initiating spirit. Boas leaves this identifi-cation out. In another passage. Hunt writes about aman who angrily tears up a blanket, which he deemedan insulting gift, and throws it in the fire. The man says,"now you that set on the fire take that to Keep youwarm" (APS-KM i:28-9). The insulted man is referring toK'waxtJala, the "One-Sitting-on-the-Fire," a being towhom food and prayers were given at Kwak-waka'wakw feasts (Boas 1921:1 332). Boas alteredHunt's words to, "Now you who saw it in the fire takegood care to keep it warm" (Boas 1897:580), prob-ably because he did not yet know about this being.

Despite the numerous minor differences, the over-all similarity of these passages is clear. More of these

early manuscript pages may yet be found among Boas'papers. To determine the total portion of the volumedrafted by Hunt from Boas' notes may no longer bepossible at this date, but Hunt's role was clearly muchgreater than had been thought.

Hunt's Revisions and Corrections to SocialOrganization

Hunt's involvement with SOSSKwl6\6 not end withits publication or even with the appearance severalyears later of the corrected Kwak'wala texts of a num-ber of the Winter Ceremonial songs, and the Kwak'walaportion of several myth and historical narratives in thevolume (Boas and Hunt 1905:247-9, 271-8, 354-5,41 8-24, 447-84). Over 20 years later. Hunt wrote toBoas, saying, "now about the Book with the manyillustrations [i.e., SOSSKwf\, there are so many mistakes... that I think should Be Put to Rights Befor one of usDie" (Hunt to Boas, 7 June 1920, APS-BPC). Boas repliedthat he was "very anxious" to have the mistakes cor-rected and asked Hunt to begin (Boas to Hunt. 22 July1920, APS-BPC; see also Hunt to Boas, 4 February, 21May 1 920, APS-BPC; APS-RMC).

Hunt began to produce the corrections toSOSSKwl in August or September 1 920, consultingKwakwaka'wakw elders in order to do so (Hunt toBoas, 25 September, 14 October 1920, APS-BPC; APS-LKM:2-3). He generated two batches of revisions tothe volume, 109 pages during 1920-21 and another54 pages in 1924, and then laid the task aside forseven years (Hunt to Boas, 14 January, 25 April 1921,1 January, 31 May 1924, APS-BPC; APS-KM iii:1679;APS-LKM:3-5).

In early 1931, at Boas' request. Hunt took the taskup once again (Hunt to Boas, 1 7 February 1931, APS-BPC). From that point until his death in September 1933,Hunt was entirely occupied with the revisions (J-Cadwallader to Boas, 6 September 1933, APS-BPC).During this period, he produced over 670 pages ofadditional corrections and comments on the volume(Hunt to Boas, 17 February 1931, APS-BPC; Hunt to

1 98

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Boas, 27 July 1933, KM v;J. Hunt to Boas, 26 Septem-ber 1933, APS-BPC). Altogether, Hunt's revisions toSOSSKwl amount to over 800 pages of manuscript,which today are to be found in one of the unindexedmasses of Boas' Kwakwaka'wakw papers at the APS(APS-KM).

The method by which these revisions were pro-duced differed from what was typical of the Boas-Hunt collaboration. Here, Boas did not prompt Huntwith specific questions. Rather, he told Hunt to "sim-ply mark the page [of the published volume] and thensay what you want to say about it" (Boas to Hunt, 22July 1920, APS-BPC). Hunt corrected and added to thetext at his own initiative. As he stated, "I see that I gotto go all through the Book, to do it Rightly, some timesI got to write some other story that Belong to it, toExplain the meaning of it" (Hunt to Boas, 1 7 February1931, APS-BPC). In consequence. Boas' own researchagenda has less of an imprint here than elsewhere inHunt's work. This renders these materials more hetero-geneous, but perhaps even more interesting.

Many of the revisions are, in fact, corrections tothe Kwak'wala of SOSSKwl. As much as a third of themanuscript pages was copied from the original textwith the addition only of new transcriptions ofKwak'wala names and other words. Boas discardedthose pages, preserving a record of the corrections.

Hunt also revised songs and texts in the volumeaccording to the vastly improved standards that heand Boas had achieved by the later decades of theircollaboration. (Hunt produced two or more slightlydifferent corrected versions of some songs andtexts.) There remain, however, continuing problemswith Hunt's notation of glottalized versus non-glottalized sonorants (see Berman 1994:494). Boasgenerally corrected these as he compiled Hunt's newtranscriptions.

Most of Hunt's revisions, though, are to the ethno-graphic content of the volume. These revisions, largelyin English, include correction, expansion, and additionof numerous points of ethnographic and ethnohistorical

detail. The very first corrections Hunt transmitted wereto the identifications of the objects illustratingSOSSKwl. As Boas stated in an unpublished article.

The explanations of these specimens givenat that time [1894] were based uponinformation given to me by the Indians fromwhom I purchased the specimens, in partcorroborated by inquiries among others,although these were difficult on account ofsecrecy involved in the purchase of themasks. The specimens collected by Mr.Jacobsen were explained on the basis ofillustrations which Prof. Albert Crunwald ofBerlin had the kindness to make for me andwhich I showed to the Indians. I did notsucceed always in finding the owner of theobjects in question, so that there remainedsome uncertainty in regard to the rightinterpretation of the objects.... I requested[George Hunt] particularly to find the ownersof the specimens illustrated in my report andto obtain further information in regard to theobjects. In some cases his information differsfrom the explanation previously given, whilein other cases it is more specific than what Iwas able to present in my previous report.(APS-RMC:l-2)

Hunt made a kind of catalogue of the illustrationsof the volume giving "the right name of the masks onthe Book and who there Belong to," with the page andfigure number from SOSSKwl and a paragraph or moreof English description. The catalogue of nearly 50 manu-script pages covers most of the illustrations in the bookof Kwakwaka'wakw material (APS-KM iii: 1877-93,1 904-20,1927-39). "|T]his is all that I know," said Hunt,"and what I Dont Know I pass them" (APS-KM iii: 1239).

Hunt's later batches of revisions included more ex-tended commentary on some of the masks and danc-ers. One example is Hunt's statement about thenulamai, a type of dancer. In the original. Boas wrote.

The noonLHmala (pi. of nuiamaf) or "fooldancers" [a particular Winter Ceremonialdance] ... are initiated by a fabulous people,the Ai asimk-, who are believed to live near alake inland from i iXsTwae. Their village isbelieved to be on an island floating on thelake. In olden times a man went beaverhunting and fell in with these people. Hecame back exhausted and "crazy." . . . Fromhim the nooiiLFimala are said to derive theirorigin. (Boas 1 897:468)

JUDITH BERMAN

1 99

Hunt's comment on this passage was as follows:

the iiLlESEmk or Back of the woods living tribe .. . use to live eat [at] xwEtes which are calledxuyiilas. and xhe. gosgemox tribe use to live eat[at] gose on the south of cape scot, and thegosge^mox tribe went to war against thexuyiilas tribe, and the gosgemox on the secondwar Drove the xuyiilas in [to] the wood . . . andfrom that time the gosgemox tribe lived atxwEtcs. so the xuyiilas is not a spirit But acommon [secular] People who use to come andHalibut fishing at Place called qlbides or Patch onthe Beach . . . about one Mile and Half East ofilEx-sewe. and as soon as the ailESEmk Peoplesees a strangers canoe comeing then theyPaddle ashore and Run away to their Home at alarge lake long Ways back of ilEx-sewe. whichsupposed to Have floating Island with theirHouses Built on it. these what the Kwagut tribescalls HilESEink. are Really the xuyiiliis. and I wastold that they are the first People that thewolves give the nuniEm or ail turn craze Danceto [a Winter Ceremonial of some of the northernKwakwaka'wakw tribes] . . . and from thexuyiiliis tribe, the gosgemox got the Dance[ceremonial] and from the gosgemox thenEqamgElisEia got it. and from them theLlaUHseqwiilii got the nunlnm Dance [ceremo-nial], and from the [time of the] wolves thenunlm [ceremonial], and nulEmalH. or fool Dancewas always kept togather. (APS-KM v;5601-2)

There are a number of notable points in Hunt's com-mentary. Among other things, it both agrees with andadds to the scanty information available about theXuyalas division of the Kwakwaka'wakw, a group thatwas already extinct by the time of Boas' first fieldworkand is not even mentioned in his comprehensive list ofKwakwaka'wakw divisions and descent groups (Boas1966:38-41, 44). Hunt also gives a fuller account ofthe historical spread of the nunlam dance ceremonialthan is to be found elsewhere (Boas 1966:400-1).

Another point of interest is the nature of the dis-agreement between Boas' and Hunt's versions of theorigin of the nunlam dance. To assume that Hunt'sidentification of the"aL!ESEmk" as theXuyaias divisionis historically correct does not require that we rejectBoas' identification of the same as a population of spir-its. One of the characteristics of 19th-century Kwak-waka'wakw ceremonialism was the possession by

each descent group of an origin myth that, amongother things, specified the origin of the ceremoniesowned by that descent group's noble lines. These ori-gin myths, while distinct in many details of content,are formally quite similar, and Boas' brief synopsis ofthe origin of the fool dancers is in consonance withthe general pattern. The relationship between Hunt'saccount and Boas' version (which Boas may well haveobtained through Hunt) might also therefore count asevidence for how historical knowledge both coexistedwith and was assimilated into the formal patterns ofmyth and ceremony.

Another example of the type of information in theserevisions is Hunt's commentary on the mask illustratedon page 628 of SOSSKwl (Fig. 59). This mask was de-scribed by Boas as a "Laolaxa mask representing thekiller whale ... Collected by A.Jacobsen." Hunt statedthat the object was, rather, a killer whale mask be-longing to the more important t 'set 'seka (Winter Cer-emonial) dance complex, and he distinguished betweenihet'set'seka killer whale dance, thed/a 'walaxa killerwhale dance (the one to which Boas refers in the origi-nal), and the "Baxus Hamaxalal or summer time Kellerwhale Dance."

Hunt further asserts that the mask illustrated wasused at the initiation of his own wife ("Llalelelakw orspouter of the House, who Belong to the ya'ex-agnmedescent group"). This statement seems eminently be-lievable, given the extent of Hunt's involvement inJacobsen's collecting activities; Hunt could well havebeen the means by which the mask came intojacobsen's hands. Hunt goes on to supply an accountof the event in which this mask was used:

she [Hunt's wife] Desappeared on the Beachwhile she was Degging for clams, where theyfound all her cloths Piled up . . . and she stayaway one whole month. (APS-KM v:5613-4)

New songs were composed for Hunt's wife and re-hearsed. The people assembled,

and then the killer whale mask orhEmaxaliiEmi come out of the secret Room

200

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

and [went] spouting around the fire, with finon his Back untill he go up to the Door, thenthe user Pulled the string and the fin stand upRight, and it Divide apart and the face openout and the tail went up and Down, and itkeep that way untill it went into the secretRoom, then Llaleklakw came out of thesecret Room and Danced with her twoHands Hiden under her Blanket then after hersong Ended she went Back in the secretRoom again she wear all Pure Red loose[cedar bark] neck and head Ring. (APS-KMv:5614; see also APS-KM iii:1938)

Hunt's revisions to SOSS/Cw/contain not just addi-tions of detail to the ethnographic record but alsocommentary that, especially in conjunction with otherHunt materials, suggests broader reinterpretations ofthe Winter Ceremonial and other aspects of 19th-cen-tury Kwakwaka'wakw cosmology and culture. Forexample, on page 418 of SOSSKwl Boas discusses thedescent-group ancestors' acquisition of winter dancesin myth. Hunt's amplifications place those events withina larger framework of Kwakwaka'wakw cosmogony.

Hunt states that the very first winter dance, an eventof major cosmogonic implications, was held by Ravenand Mink and their party of the "myth People," who"were Birds and anamals yet they can talk to Eachother and understand Each other, these are called themyth People or nux'nemes" (APS-KM vi:4969). In orderto perform the ceremonial, the myth people (or "HistoricPeople," as Hunt more often called them) took off theiranimal shapes. Some of them dressed in their animalmasks afterward, while others remained in human form(Boas and Hunt 1905:489; also Boas 1966:258). Thisevent was the beginning of the separation betweenthe human realm and the spirit realm of the animals.

The first winter dances of humanity were based onthe animal natures of the primordial generation:

and what Ever kind of Bird a man Belongs tohis Dance will Be as he was Befor he wasturned into a man. and [for those who were]the animals [it is] the same. (APS-KM vi:4969)

Hunt lists some of the dances of "the myth people,"which include the Wolf Dancer, the Fool Dancer (for

Deer), the Grizzly Bear Dancer, the Raven Dancer, theThunderbird Dancer, and others. In his cosmology thesearchaic dances predate those acquired in the age ofmyth proper (nuyam), when the children and grand-children of the first generation of transformed, secular-ized beings grew to human adulthood, ventured intothe deep forest or out to sea, acquired spiritual wealth,and founded descent groups:

these spirits appears to the first man of eachone clan or nsmemot and tells him what toDo. what kind of Dances he will use. [But]that is after the myth People Past. (APS-KMvi:4969)

The Winter Ceremonial of his day, Hunt argues inthese pages, evolved through a series of accretions:beginning with the dances passed down from one'sancestor, based on his spirit nature, growing throughthe addition of dances such as the Tuxw'id andHamshamt'sas acquired from spirits by the early gen-erations of humanity; and ending in the historic periodwith acquisition of the Hamat'sa complex through mar-riage and war from the northern neighbors of theKwakwaka'wakw.^^ In Hunt's view, the dance acquisi-tion stories belong to a range of ethnoliterary genresthat correspond to these developmental stages of thecosmos. As Hunt states elsewhere, the eponymous"nux'nQmes" inuxwni'mis) are stories told about theprimordial beings; following this are "nuyEm", storiesconcerning the first generations after the first winterdance; then come "q!a'yul" (.k'ayuf), "tale[s] aboutthe forefathers" that occurred after the end of the mythage, within the historical memory of latter-day humans;and finally there are "q!a'yala" {k 'ayola), a person "tell-ing what he have seen and what he Heard his Friendstalking about" (APS-KM iii:4624).

In his discussions of myth and the Winter Ceremo-nial, Boas did not ignore the varieties of acquisitionstory. He treated them, though, as story types of equalsignificance, coexisting, as it were, in ethnoliterary timeand space. In these late unpublished manuscripts. Huntplaces not just the dances but also the stories about

JUDITH BERMAN

201

their origins within the framework of a developing, trans-forming universe.

Hunt's focus on the History People and their trans-formation suggests that the key to the underlying mean-ing of the Winter Ceremonial should be sought there, inthe story of its origin, and not just in the elaboration ofthe hereditary prerogatives that are the actual dances.(Boas published several versions of the story undervarious titles, the first being "Mink and the Wolves";Boas 1897:538-9; 1930 [l]:57-86, 86-92, 1943:22;Boas and Hunt 1906:103-1 3; see Berman 1991:698-702; 2000). It is hard to say whether the emergence ofthis cosmogonic framework is the result of Hunt'sgreater freedom to set his own agenda in these revi-sions or whether it is due in some measure to the timehe spent in the late 1920s learning what the WinterCeremonial's hereditary officers had previously kept"strickly secret" (Hunt to Boas 1 5 June 1926, APS-BPC).Either way, it offers a tantalizing glimpse of a Kwak-waka'wakw cosmological order, an order for whichanthropologists have hitherto been able to search onlyindirectly, through complicated interpretive operations(Berman 1991; Goldman 1975;Walens 1981).

As elsewhere in Boas' unpublished papers. Hunt'srevisions to SOSSKwl a\so contain rich nuggets of eth-nographic and ethnohistorical information about otherpeoples on the coast. In several places he discussesthe movement and transfer of dances and dance ele-ments from group to group. Hunt was not merely echo-ing Boas' interest in diffusion; he was clearly fascinatedby the topic on his own account. He himself had seenmuch change in the winter dances since his youth,when he danced for seven chiefs of the old-timeKwagui (Boas 1966:256). "[S]ince they got mixedin with the [dances of the] Heldzaqw [Heiltsuk] andthe eawek!enox [Oowekeeno] there lots of change inthe way they dance now" (APS-KM vi:4971-2).

In one manuscript, as a comment on Boas' discus-sion of Nuu-chah-nulth dances in SOSSKwl (Boas1897:632-5), Hunt relates his experience at a Nuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] wolf dance held around 1917:

202

about fifteen year ago. my son Johny and mewent to Nootka or motsludox or Deer tribe . .. and geting Dark that Evening I took noticethat all the young men walk togather. andlate in the night I Heard lots of wolvesHowling in the woods long ways off . . . andthe wolves Howl Every night, and on thefourth Evening the wolves Howled most. ... Idid not sleep much that night, and Early inthe morning I got up and Joh[n]ey and mewent out of the House . . . the wolves cameat the Right side of the House in a file,wearing wolfs mask as is show on Page 477Plate 36 [of SOSSKwl] and Holding theirHand with their thumbs as they Do on thePicture . . . (APS-KM v:5356-7)

In this manuscript Hunt also discusses the historyof that particular Wolf Dance, recounts the myth of itsorigin, and describes the ceremonial in some detail(APS-KM v:5356-74). He was surprised at some of theelements in the dance, including a song with Kwak'walawords that derived from the Hamat'sa ceremonial ofthe Kwakwaka'wakw. Hunt was told that the chiefswife, who came from the'Namgis division of theKwakwaka'wakw, had asked a visiting relative to makeher Nuu-chah-nulth husband aHamat'sa,

and [her relative] said to her jokeingly o youcan Have it. But my songs I cant give themaway . . . and the women said give me onesong if it is aBaxus [baxwas; i.e., profane orordinary] song for these People Dont knowts!ets!eqa from Baxus. and she Did not askefor a name for the Hamats!a and he sung thethanking song or molxeduyu song and shewas so Pleaced that she foget to say more.(APS-KM v:5359)

In several places in his revisions. Hunt commentson the acquisition of Winter Ceremonial dances throughwarfare (e.g., APS-KM vi:5051-9). This was one of themeans by which the dances spread north all the wayto the Tsimshian and Tlingit, as Hunt had witnessed inhis youth. His discussion of the topic also imparts de-tails about the indigenous slave trade on the NorthPacific Coast during the 19th century.

According to Hunt, it was common practice toquestion war captives in detail about the ceremonialsinto which they had been initiated when they werefree. "|T|he northern People learn about the winter dance

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

. . . from their slaves" (APS-KM v:5420). Hunt tells thefollowing story about "a'maxs the great warrior of thegedaxai [Kitkatia] tribe" (APS-KM v:5418-20; Hunt toBoas, 14 December 1921, APS-BPC). Some time duringthe 1850s, "a'maxs" (that is, the Coast Tsimshian per-son named Haymaas) killed a Kwagut chief and tookthe chiefs sisters prisoner. Seven or eight years later,one of the women who had been captured returnedto Fort Rupert, probably after having been bought andfreed by an HBC factor at Fort Simpson. She told theKwagul how she and her sisters had been interrogatedby their captors. First they were asked

if they were chiefs Daughters or sisters, andshe said yes I am sister of . . . the head chiefof the Kwakwak!um clan of the q!umoyEwe .said she. and then the man . . . ask what kindof Dance you have in the winter, and she saywe ts!ets!eqa [the major Kwakwaka'wakwWinter Ceremonial]... my Elder sister is meiaDancer. . . and . . . tamer Dancer, and lots ofother kind of other [dances], and the mansaid the slave we took Before you said thatalso you have the Hamatsle [a much higher-ranking dance] and the loiEin [Ghost] Dancealso, yes she said true about the Hamatsia . . .But the lotEm [or] . . . nonlEm . . . Dance DontBelong to the Kwaguh it Belongst to theLlatlaseqwala [and other northernKwakwaka'wakw divisions]. ... so By theslaves they try to learn all they can, aboutthe names and the . . . dances, and Even their. . . son[g]s. and a maxs never keep lot ofslaves, for he sells them, firther up north . .and when their sold, the new owner aske thesame Questions. (APS-KM v:5419-20)

The information from the Fort Rupert woman evidentlymotivated Haymaas to go to war against the north-ern divisions of the Kwakwaka'wakw. Once more, hetook prisoners and interrogated them about theirdances, and this time he learned all about the nuniamDance as well. He eventually sold these latter prison-ers to a Tongass Tlingit man, and as a boy Hunt metthem in his great-uncle's town of Daasaxakw.

Not all of Hunt's ethnohistorical commentary inthese revisions concerns dances and ceremonials. Forexample, he also discusses trade in mundane items:

while I stay with my grandfather [i.e., great-uncle] at tongas ... I use to aske him about

Defferent thing, where they came from, andhow he get them, then he alway say that thechelgat [Chilkat division of the Tlingit] PeopleBrought . . . fancy Braided mats and smallfancy Braided Baskets with Rattleing coverson them and carvings of wood and Ivory andthe copper breslets . . . and other copperimplements are Brought By the xo neya[Heinya division of the Tlingit] People to sellto us, said he. (APS-KM iv:4897)

One illustration of aTlingit oil dish carved like a seal(Boas 1897:393; see Fig. 59) sparked atrain of thoughtregarding which designs in North Pacific Coast art aremerely decorative and which represent the hereditaryprivileges used by the aristocracy—what in Kwak'walaHunt refers to as "k!eso'." Hunt writes,

I had two [Tongass Tlingit] uncles who weregood carvers, and lots of their People, andthe other tribes come and ask them to makea grease Dish for them, and my uncle . . . askthe man what well I carve on it. and the mansay to him. you carve on it anything you likeon it that will make it look Pretty, now thes Iseen for I use to Be [with] my uncles all thetime, and from that time. I thought thesekind of Dishes is not a k!eso . now anotherthing, a man come to my uncles, and say tothem I come to ask you to carve a totemPole for me. and now my uncle ask the manHow many figure you want me to Put on thePole . . . and [if| the man said I want seaRaven or nashak yai at the Bottom, andabove this will be yan tan or great Whale.and above it will be yai or Raven, and aboveit will Be lanekluxu or the mink, and abovewill Be woman and her. toad, or sawat.ganaow and on the top of the Pole will Be yaior Raven sitting now. the carver cant addEnything onto those figures. Because they aretrue k!eso's. and that is the way the othertotem Poles, are made, and also Big feastingDishes they have to Be made By the carveraccording to what the chief told him tocarve onto them or House Post, for these aretrue k!eso'. (APS-KM v:4896-7r'

What, if anything, did Boas do with these hundredsof pages of manuscript? In the early 1920s he put to-gether a short article ("Remarks on Masks . . .," APS-RMC) based closely on Hunt's first batch of revisionsto SOSSKwl, the list of corrections to the illustrations.Boas hoped that the National Museum of Natural

JUDITH BERMAN

203

History would publish this article as it had the original,but he was unable to excite any interest in that quar-ter (j. R. Swanton to Boas, 1 8 June 1924, APS-RMC).

Boas incorporated other revisions into the manu-script that was published posthumously as KwakiutIEthnography. The revisions appear primarily in the twochapters on the Winter Ceremonial (Boas 1966:171-98). The first of these chapters, as already noted, con-sists largely of material taken from the original SOSSKwl;the corrected Kwak'wala transcriptions are just aboutthe only additions. The second chapter is a compila-tion of English paraphrase from published Hunt texts(Boas 1930:57-131) that is interpolated with materialfrom both the original text of SOSSKwl and Hunt's latercommentary on that text. Some, but by no means all,of Hunt's revisions are credited to him.

The revisions that Boas saw to print are only a smallportion of the whole. Their scope is such that any evalu-ation of the original monograph, or any reinterpreta-tion of the Kwakwaka'wakw Winter Ceremonial, forthat matter, should not be made without them.

Nuu-chah-nulth Tales

One last set of Hunt documents needs to be men-tioned: a manuscript collection of Nuu-chah-nulthmyths, tales, and prayers in English, numbering over500 pages. George Hunt wrote these down duringthe Jesup Expedition period, and many of them maybe connected to the Nuu-chah-nulth objects that Huntpurchased for the AMNH (Boas to Hunt, 4 March 1904,AMNH-HCF; Boas to Hunt, 11 April 1 903, AMNH-HAR).One Nuu-chah-nulth myth collected by Hunt (and pub-lished by Boas as a Kwak'wala text) refers to a whal-ers' purification shrine now in the collections of theAMNH (Boas 1930 [l]:257-65).

Most of the written Nuu-chah-nulth materials wereapparently related to Hunt by a man named Lewiswho returned with Hunt to Fort Rupert after the latter's1903 collecting expedition on the west coast ofVancouver Island (Hunt to Boas, 25 November 1904,AMNH-HAR; Hunt to Boas, 22 January 1904, AMNH-

204

HCF). Lewis is perhaps the "alewes, a Kayoquath" men-tioned several times in the manuscript. Hunt's Nuu-chah-nulth manuscripts seem to have bounced backand forth between Boas and Edward Sapir over theyears; they are currently catalogued under Sapir's nameat the American Philosophical Society (APS-SHN)."

Conclusion

The manuscripts discussed here represent only the high-lights of the unpublished North Pacific materials in Boas'papers. One could also mention his files on Fort Rupertsocial organization; linguistic materials on Tsimshian,Aleut, and other North Pacific languages by his stu-dents and correspondents; and more Hunt writings oneverything from the history of certain Kwakwaka'wakwcoppers to Hunt's Tlingit mother's clan myths. Thisunpublished material, taken as a whole, could fill six ormore published volumes that would each add muchto our understanding of the Native peoples of theregion and of Boas' own work.

Although there is a great deal more to be said onthe latter subject, two points are striking. The first ishow much Boas' output on the Kwakwaka'wakw wasdependent on Hunt's vast knowledge and ceaselesslabor. Of the proverbial "five-foot shelf of Kwak-waka'wakw materials, all but a few inches turn out tooriginate with Hunt himself. Even those few seem tobe shrinking as we learn more.

The magnitude of Hunt's contribution is so greatthat it makes us uneasy to see Boas' name alone onthe cover of most of these volumes. True, Boas alwaysacknowledged Hunt's contribution: Hunt's name is evenon the title page of SOSSKwl and on the cover of thefirst two text volumes (Boas and Hunt 1905, 1906).Why Boas chose to relegate mention of Hunt to theprefaces of the later text volumes is unknown, but itwas not because Hunt's contribution was any less.The latter practice may have been more in line withscholarly etiquette of the time: Boas also used exten-sive notes of (white) whaling captains in his later Inuitmonographs and, again, acknowledged that fact on

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

title pages and in his prefaces but not on the covers(1901:4-5, 1907:374-5). Still, from a modern perspec-tive, the suggestion of sole authorship is misleading.

At the same time, Boas' contribution should notbe undervalued. Although the fact is often obscuredby the way in which Boas published Hunt's materials,Boas was largely responsible for the scope and focusof Hunt's work. With some exceptions, of which therevisions to SOSSKwl are the most significant, he setthe research agenda. He picked the topics to be in-vestigated, asked Hunt the specific questions, anddecided when further details were needed and whenit was time to move on to the next topic. And, ofcourse, he provided the money that enabled Hunt todevote so much of his life to ethnography.

The second important insight to emerge from theunpublished materials is how, while anthropologistshave underestimated Hunt's contribution to Boas'Kwakwaka'wakw publications, they may also haveunderestimated Boas. As we have seen, Boas was of-ten reluctant to formalize and make explicit the no-tions driving his research, and his thinking on a subjectcannot always be gauged by his published comments.Some of his most interesting anthropological thinkingseems to have taken place out of sight. These unpub-lished materials allow us glimpses of it.

Acknowledgments

1 am indebted to the staffs of the American Philosophi-cal Society, the Anthropology Archives of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, the Columbia Univer-sity Rare Book and Manuscript Library, and the Hudson'sBay Company Archives at the Provincial Archives ofManitoba for their aid in locating numerous manuscriptsand photographs. Igor Krupnik offered helpful com-ments on the final form of the paper, and Marie-LucieTarpent kindly dug up hard-to-find references. I wouldparticularly like to thank Bill Holm for making a copy ofHunt's memorandum book available to me, and BethCarroll-Horrocks, formerly the manuscript librarian atthe APS, for her endless patience and helpfulness.

Notes

1. Two orthographies are used here to tran-scribe Kwak'wala words. In quotations from Boasand Hunt, words are spelled as closely as pos-sible to the way they wrote them, within the con-straints of utilizing those characters representedin the First Nations Courier New Font and FirstNations StillMore Font. All other words are tran-scribed from Boas' or Hunt's original spellings intothe standardized orthography of the U'mista Cul-tural Centre of Alert Bay, B.C., produced with FirstNations Courier New font. Both fonts were cre-ated by Robert C. Hemphill of Port Hardy, B.C..

2. Hunt's sources included GeorgeBlenkinsop, the HBC officer in charge of FortRupert at the time, and an Indian man namedHemisilakw. The latter may be Hunt's friend TomHemaselakw, one of the Kwakwaka'wakw troupewho accompanied Hunt to the 1 893 World'sColumbian Exhibition in Chicago. Hemaselakw'sfather and perhaps mother were from theT'lat'lasikwala division of the Kwakwaka'wakw(APS-KM v:5420).

3. Hunt says the final confrontation occurredaf Nawidi itself, i.e., "Sutil Point," but'Nawidi iselsewhere said to be Cape Commerell, at the tipof Vancouver Island (Boas 1 934, maps 3, 20). Huntperhaps means "Newiti" in the sense used bywhites, i.e., both the village on Hope Island andthe two closely linked divisions that dwelledthere at the end of the 19th century, theT'lat'lasikwala and the Nakamgalisala.

4. In 1991 the word babaMwa was glossedto me as "vicious man" rather than "warrior."

5. Hunt states that a number of British sail-ors were killed during the gun battle at BullHarbour (CU-Hunt xiv:3942), but according to re-ports of the time, none of the injuries suffered bythe sailors were fatal (Cough 1984:45).

6. Neville Lincoln is currently preparing a com-prehensive analytical Kwak'wala dictionary.

7. A typical example of a sortal classifierwould be musgami migwat, "four harbor seals,"where mu- is a quantifer stem meaning "four,"-sgam is the classifier used for bulky objects, -i isa demonstrative suffix, and migwat is the termmeaning "harbor seal."

8. Indirect evidence that Boas understoodthe shape class system comes from Helen Codere,

JUDITH BERMAN

205

who noted that Boas' Kwak'wala was only criti-cized by the Kwakwaka'wakw for being too slow,while an assimilated Kwakwaka'wakw womanwas criticized because she could not correctlyuse shape locatives (Codere 1966:xxiv, xxvii).

9. One of the drawings is presumably the"plan of Fort Rupert as it appeared in 1 866" thatBoas refers to in the manuscript for the post-humous KwakiutI Ethnography but that could notbe found for publication (Boas 1966:48).

10. A fifth division, the Mamalilekala, movedwith the others but soon returned to its originallocation (Boas 1921:973-7).

11. It is uncertain whether Hunt and hismother stayed at Daasaxakw on Village and CatIslands or at Kadukguka on Tongass Island. Bothsites were occupied by Tongass people duringthe 1860s, and Hunt mentions being at both lo-cations (APS-KM v:5420; Hunt to Boas, 2 August1920, APS-BPC; HBCA, Fort Simpson Journal, 24February 1858; Olson 1967:94; Paul 1971:12).

12. Documents indicate that George Huntwas employed by the company in Fort Rupert inJanuary 1864 (HBCA, Robert Hunt Biography; W.Tolmie to P. Compton, 9 January 1864, HBCA,B.226/b/23:304).

1 3.The relevant HBCA material is as follows:Tolmie to W. Smith, 15 August 1868, B.226/b/34:346; J. Bissett to J. Grahame, 1 2 October 1 870,A.l 1/85:474; Grahame to R. Hunt 14 September1871, B.226/b/44:807; Grahame to W. Armit, 3October 1871, B.226/b/45:204, 206-7.

14. The number of slaves was between 16and 19; slave status is not clear in several cases.

15. Hunt's father was hired to conduct anofficial census of Fort Rupert and vicinity in 1 881(HBCA, Robert Hunt Biography: 12; William Charlesto R. Hunt, 29 March 1881, B.226/b/23 fo.l32,HBCA). Hunt may have aided his father in thiseffort, and the experience may have influencedthe form of the two censuses he carried out forBoas.

16. A second Kwakwaka'wakw collectionwas made by Jacobsen's younger brother in 1 884(Cole 1985:67), but Boas may not have used it.

17. Boas wrote that the Winter Ceremonialoccurred in 1895-96. His letters home from thefield (Rohner 1969), his subsequent correspon-dence with Hunt and others, and his own list of

206

field expenses (APS-BPC, AMNH-HAR) show thatthis date is erroneous.

1 8. The relatively unpracticed handwriting isclearly similar to that of Hunt's letters that dateto the mid-1 890s. By 1900, he developed veryregular penmanship. The features of Hunt's earli-est transcription practices include the following:"Q" or "q" as any back labialized stop or fricative;the combination "dg" as either the voiced affri-cate dz or the voiceless glottalized affricate ts';the character "L" as, interchangeably, the voiced,voiceless, or glottalized lateral affricate or, with abar above it, the lateral fricative; and the frequentuse of a length diacritic above every vowels. InHunt's post-1 897 manuscripts, he has abandonedthese features except the use of "L" for all lateralaffricates. For example, for the word t'tagakw, "red-dyed cedar bark [for the Winter Ceremonial]," Huntwrote Liigiiq in 1 895 but Laghkw by 1898 (Huntto Boas, 5 November 1 895, 25 May 1898). Boaswould have rendered this word as L!agEkw.

19. This set begins at page 41 but switchesseveral pages later to page 34 and runs from thereto page 56.

20. Hunt was aware of variation in and elabo-ration of this developmental sequence among theKwakwaka'wakw but was most concerned withthe four Kwagul divisions of Fort Rupert.

21. Hunt is describing a pole that was raisedto his maternal grandmother at Kadukguka onTongass Island and later removed to PioneerSquare in Seattle. While Hunt may have been withhis uncles at the time of his grandmother's deathin 1 870, the pole would not have been raised un-til some time afterward (Barbeau 1 950:651 -2; Paul1971:14). It also seems unlikely, though not im-possible, that his uncles would have carved theirown mother's memorial pole—a task properly car-ried out by their moiety opposites.

22. After Hunt's death in 1933, Boas beganto work with William Beynon, a part-Tsimshianman, much as he had with Hunt. From 1933 to1941 Beynon generated thousands of pages ofTsimshian manuscript for Boas, only some of whichhave been edited and published (Beynon to Boas,7 October 1935 et seq.. Boas to Beynon 14 April1 941; Tsimshian Chiefs 1 992; see also Andersonand Halpin 2000). The Beynon manuscripts are cur-rently in the Columbia University Archives.

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Appendix A

Location of Major Hunt/Boas Manuscript CollectionsThe American Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadel-phia is the major repository of Boas' papers. The hold-ings include a number of Hunt manuscripts and relatedmaterials, in English and Kwak'wala. There are twomajor collections of Boas papers at the APS: Boas Pro-fessional Correspondence (BPC) and the Boas Linguis-tic Collection. Each has a finding aid that is close tocomprehensive. The two volumes of the Cuide to theMicrofilm Collection of the Professional Papers of FranzBoas (1972) list all of Boas' correspondents alphabeti-cally and then by date. Nearly all the other Boas andHunt manuscripts at the APS are referenced in JohnFreeman, y4 Cuide to (Manuscripts Relating to the Ameri-can Indian in the Library of the American PhilosophicalSociety (APS, 1966). The Freeman catalogue numbers,given below, are a useful reference tool only; they arenot the APS manuscript accession numbers.

Unfortunately, the contents of the massive Huntmanuscript collections referenced in the APS FreemanCuide are not indexed. The "List of KwakiutI Manu-scripts by George Hunt in Columbia University Library"(APS-LKM), written by Boas some 50 years ago, is apartial catalogue of Hunt manuscripts, published andunpublished, that are today split between the Colum-bia University Libraries, the APS, and perhaps otherplaces as yet unknown. It seems likely that most ofthe still unlocated manuscripts mentioned in Boas' listwill eventually be found at the APS.

The Rare Book and Manuscript Library of ColumbiaUniversity holds 14 volumes of Hunt manuscripts (des-ignated here as CU-Hunt). Volumes i-xiii of CU-Huntconsist almost exclusively of the originals of the pub-lished Hunt texts; the final volume (xiv) contains theoriginal Hunt manuscripts for a text volume that is heldat the APS, "KwakiutI Ethnographic Texts and Transla-tion," which never went to press (APS-KTT).

Abbreviations used in the textFor internal consistency and ease of referencing, thefollowing abbreviations have been devised for thispaper; they may bear little resemblance to abbrevia-tions used within the holding institutions.

American Philosophical Society (APS)

APS-BPC Franz Boas Professional Correspondence

APS-KEM Franz Boas [and George Hunt], KwakiutI Eth-nographic Materials [1900-31 ]. 3 vols. Boas Linguis-tic Collection [Freeman 1927]

APS-KM Franz Boas [and George Hunt], :KwakiutlMaterials [1896-1933]. 6 vols. Boas Linguistic Col-lection [Freeman 1941]

APS-KTT KwakiutI Ethnographic Texts, and Transla-tion. 2 vols. [pt. I, Texts; pt. II, Translations]. BoasLinguistic Collection [Freeman 1938]

APS-KWD KwakiutI Dictionary. Edited by Helene BoasYampolsky. Boas Linguistic Collection [Freeman1948]

APS-LKM List of KwakiutI Manuscripts by George Huntin Columbia University Library. Boas Linguistic Col-lection [Freeman 1923]

APS-RMC Franz Boas, Remarks on Masks and Ceremo-nial Objects of the KwakiutI [Amplification and cor-rection of specimens in Boas 1 897, with informationon use]. Boas Linguistic Collection [Freeman 1926]

APS-SHN Edward Sapir and George Hunt, Nootka Tales.4 vols, [two, the original Hunt ms.; two, a revisedtypescript] [Freeman 2405]

Anthropology Archives, American Museum of

Natural History (AMNH)

AMNH-HAR George Hunt Accession Records

AMNH-HCF George Hunt Correspondence File

Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia

University Libraries (CU)

CU-Hunt George Hunt, Manuscript in the Language ofthe KwakiutI Indians of Vancouver Island. Preface byFranz Boas, reviser. 14 vols.

Hudson's Bay Company Archives (HBCA),

Provincial Archives of Manitoba

Fort Simpson Journal 1855-59

Robert Hunt Biography

Other Manuscript Sources

FRP Register of Fort Rupert Land Purchase, British Co-lumbia Archives, Victoria

Hunt Memorandum Book, Private Collection

JUDITH BERMAN

207

Appendix B

Table of Contents for the unpublished "KwakiutI Texts" volume[from the copy at the American Philosophical Society, APS-KTT]

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Conversations 1

Conversation between Husband and Wife 1

Conversation between Husband and Wife 1

Conversation between Husband and Wife 3

Convez>8ation between Husband and Wife 4

Conversation between Husband and Wife 5

Conversation between O'mx'eid and Ma Mother 6

Conversation between Me'led and her Mother 6

Quarrel of Husband and Wife 7

Husband and Wife 3

Conversation of Mother and Daughter.... 9

Conversation of Mother and Daughter.. 9

Conversation between Father and Son 10

Advice Given to Sea Hvinter 11

Conversation of Father and Daughter 11

Conversation between Two Brothers 12

A Young Man Goes Htintlng... 13

A YoTing Girl Returas to Fort Rupert after Fourteen

Years Absence 13

Conversation of Two Men 15

Conversation of Two Young Men 16

Conversation of Two Hunters 16

Conversation of Two Old Men... 17

Conversation of Two Friends 18

A Wreck 19

Conversation of Two Young Men 20

Conversation of Two Friends 21

Conversation of Two Men 22

Instruction Given by a Warrior 23

Conversation of Two Warriors 24

A Feast 24

Quarrel between a Chief and a Proud Man 25

Conversation between Two Young Women 27

Clam Digging 28

Conversation of 'iVo Women 28

Conversation of Women 29

A Quarrel 33

Borrowing a Canoe 35

Conversation of Two Men 35

Conversation of Two Men.. 36

208

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Father and Son 36

Conversation about O'mx'eid 37

The Name for White People 38

A Letter 38

A Letter 39

Biographical 40

Biographical Notes of a ena'klwax'daexu Woman 40

Food-Gathering and Sioknesa 42

Illegitimate Children 43

Hunting and Sap-Making. 45

Hunting... 46

Drying Salmon... 48

A Supernatural Experience 49

A Supernatural Experience, Told by g'l'qalas 51

Fuz^Seal Hunting 53

Speeches...... 54

Anno\mceioMat of Naming of a Child Born in Another Village 54

g'aeyAia Engageitient.«^..«i..... 55

Marriage . ••... • • • w *«• •, 60

Speech of Host in a Small Feast 65

Host's Speech at Beginning of Grease Feast*f•...»• 65

Speech for House Dishes 66

Speech by Ncg'a'dze 68

Speech of a g'l'g'eljjam Chief at a Great Potlatch 70

Awaxelag *elia*. • 70

Speech of Welcome (I^n Cranmer}« 72

Speech Delivered at a Sattill Feast 73

Speech of Chief in d^uarrel «rlth Bi^als* 74

Speech of a Porpoise fiuBter 77

SpaechAS Made during Winter Ceremonial 78

Assembly 78

A Feast during the Winter Ceremonial 79

Awaxclag'clis 80

Feast of Sparrow Society 81

laxslt 84

Historical 88

The Missionaries at Port Rupert and in Newetbee 88

War with the Southern Tribes 99

War between Oa'yoklwadEX and Mfi'tsladEX 103

The Murder of Qiwe'qlweqiwe Ill

The Splitting up of the Kwa'g'ui 113

JUDITH BERMAN 2 0 9

Social Organization 114

The Chief and the enecme'ina 114

Qla'qlasto 121

The Eagles 128

Woman as Manager of Property 128

Women Who Have Men's Seats 1.50

nS'gadesa aewaiLela 131

dzo'noqlwa 131

Descent and Frivileges 136

Descent 136

Endogamy 136

The Social Position of lounger Children 136

A Genealogy 139

Introduction of the LEwelaxa 145

ilwa'de 147

Ya'xLcn 149

Marriage 150

A Marriage among the Koskimo..... 150

A Marriage among the Kwaklutl 154

Qotex'a 170

Giving Advice to the Bride 177

Instructions Given to Bride and Groom 189

Xwe'sa 192

Irregular JViarriages 193

Illegitimate Children 199

Illegitiinate Children 199

Illegitimate Children 200

Treatment of a Deformed Child 203

Treatment of Infants. 206

Education 210

Education of a Girl 210

Suicide 216

Cenotaph 228

Judgment of Character , 234

Qualities of a Good Man 234

A Well-behaved Girl 234

A Bad Chief 235

Bad Teachings 241

Pipe s and Smoking 243

Feasts 245

qialqtt (Travestites ) 246

2 1 0

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

Medicine 247

Castorlum 247

Hemlock Roots 247

Black Bear Gall Used as Liver and Kidney Medicine 247

Customs Relating to Fishing, Himting and Food-Gathering 248

Olachen Fishing 248

Taboos of First Pish 249

First Fruits and First Olachen 250

Cormorants 252

Eagle Hunting 253

Bewitching an Eagle 253

Porcupine Hunter (Kwa'g'ui) 254

The same ( ena'klwax *da ex« ) 254

Hunting Customs « • 254

Deer 254

Shamanism 255

Shamanism 255

ha'daho 257

Witchcraft 257

e'qa 257

LEWE'laxa 260

Industries 270

Harpoon Line 270

Fishing Dentalia 270

Landotter Trap 275

Beaver Trap 277

Stretching a Beaver Skin 278

Deerskin , 279

Fishing, Hunting, Food-Gathering and Preparation of Jt-'ood..,. 281

Olachen 281

Dog-Salmon 282

Horse-Clams 285

Clams 288

Sea Hunting 289

JUDITH BERMAN

2 1 1

References

Anderson, Margaret, and Marjorie Halpin,eds.

2000 Potlatch at Citsegukia: William Beynon's 1945

Field Notebooks. Vancouver: UBC Press.Bancroft, Hubert Howe

1 887 History of British Columbia, 1792-1887. San Fran-cisco: History Company.Barbeau, Marius

1950 Totem Poles. 2 vols. Bulletin 119. National Mu-seum of Canada, Ottawa.Berman, Judith

1990 Notes on Shape Classification in Kwak'wala. InWorking Papers for the 25th International Conferenceon Salish and Neighboring Languages. Pp. 37-60.Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

1 991 The Seals' Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation ofBoas' Kwak'wala Texts. Ph.D. diss., University of Penn-sylvania, Dept. of Anthropology, Philadelphia.

1 994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-pological Linguistics 36(4):482-514.

1996 'The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-self: Boas, George Hunt and the Methods of Eth-nography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Es-says on Boasian Ethnography and the German An-thropological Tradition. George W. Stocking, ed. Pp.215-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison: Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press.

2000 Red Salmon and Red Cedar Bark: Another Lookat the Kwakwaka'wakw Winter Ceremonial. BCStudies 125/126:53-98.

n.d. Raven and Sunbeam, Pencil and Paper: GeorgeHunt of Fort Rupert, B.C. In American Indians as An-thropologists. Douglas Parks, ed. Norman: Univer-sity of Oklahoma Press.

Boas, Franz

1897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-ies of the KwakiutI Indians: Based on Personal Ob-servations and on Notes Made by Mr. George Hunt.Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Wash-ington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1901 The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bul-letin of the American Museum of Natural History 15(1).

1 907 Second Report on the Eskimo of Baffin Landand Hudson Bay. Bulletin of the American Museumof Natural History] 5(2).

1909 The KwakiutI of Vancouver Island. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 301-522.Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1910 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-tions to Anthropology, 2. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press.

1921 Ethnology of the KwakiutI. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Annual Report, 35, pts. 1 -2. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.1925 Contributions to the Ethnology of the KwakiutI.

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,

3. New York: Columbia University Press.1 930 Religion of the KwakiutI. Columbia University

Contributions to Anthropology, 10. Pts. 1-2. New

York: Columbia University Press.

1934 Geographical Names of the KwakiutI Indians.Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,20. New York: Columbia University Press.

1935 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-tions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 1: Texts. New York:Columbia University Press.

1 940a Introduction to International Journal of Ameri-can Linguistics. In Franz Boas, Race, Language andCu/twre, pp. 199-225. New York: Free Press. Origi-nally published 191 7.

1940b The Social Organization of the KwakiutI. InFranz Boas, Race, Language and Culture, pp. 356-69. New York: Free Press. Originally published 1920.

1943 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-tions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 2: Translations. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

1947 KwakiutI Grammar, with a Glossary of the Suf-fixes. New York: AMS Press.

1966 KwakiutI Ethnography. Helen Codere, ed. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Boas, Franz, and George Hunt

1905 KwakiutI Texts. The Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion, vol. 3. Memoirs of the American Museum ofNatural History, 5. Leiden: E.J .Brill; New York: G. E.Stechert.

1906 KwakiutI Texts (Second Series). The Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, vol. 10, pt. 1, pp. 1 -269. Memoirsof the American Museum of Natural History, 14.Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Codere, Helen

1 966 Introduction. In Franz Boas, KwakiutI Ethnogra-phy. Helen Codere, ed. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Cole, Douglas

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NorthwestCoast Artifacts. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

Curtis, Edward S.

1915 The KwakiutI. The North American Indian, vol.

10. Norwood, CN.Fisher, Robin

1977 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations

in British Columbia.yancouver. UBC Press.Ford, Clellan

1941 Smoke from Their Fires: The Life of a KwakiutI

Chief New Haven: Yale University Press.Gibson, James

1992 Otter Skins, Boston Ships and China Goods: TheMaritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast, 1785-

2 1 2

THE COLLECTORS/ HUNT AND BOAS

1841. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Gifford, Edward W.

1 926 Clear Lake Porno Society. University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology and Anthro-pology, 18(2). Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.

Goldman, Irving

1975 The Mouth of Heaven: An Introduction to

KwakiutI Religious Thought. New York: Wiley.Gough, Barry

1984 Gunboat Frontier: British Maritime Authority andNorthwest Coast Indians, 7846-90. Vancouver: UBCPress.

Holm, Bill, and George Irving Quimby

1980 Edward S. Curtis in the Land of the War Canoes:A Pioneer Cinematographer in the Pacific Northwest.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Jacknis, Ira

1991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. InChiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch.Aldona Jonaitis, ed. Pp.1 77-224. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press; New York: American Museumof Natural History.

1992 George Hunt, KwakiutI Photographer. In Anthro-pology and Photography 1860-1920. ElizabethEdwards, ed. Pp. 143-51. New Haven and London:Yale University Press in association with the RoyalAnthropological Institute.

Johnson, Patricia

1972 Fort Rupert. 7^76 6efli/er(spring):4-l 5.Lincoln, Neville, and John Rath

1980 North Wakashan Comparative Root List. Na-tional Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Eth-nology Service Paper, 68.

Lyons, John

1977 Semantics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Marcus, Stacy

1 991 Settee. In Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutIPotlatch. Aldona Jonaitis, ed. P. 214. Seattle: Univer-sity of Washington Press.

Olson, Ronald

1967 Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit inAlaska. Anthropological Records, 26. Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press.

Paul, William L.

1971 The Real Story of the Lincoln Po\e. Alaska Journal

1(3):2-16.Ray, Verne

1980 Boas and the Neglect of Commoners. In Indiansof the North Pacific Coast. Tom McFeat, ed. Seattle:University of Washington Press.

Rohner, Ronald, ed.

1 969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coastfrom 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Sapir, Edward, and Morris Swadesh

1 939 Nootka Texts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of

America.Travis, Ralph

1946 Reminiscences of Fort Rupert. The Beaver (De-

cember):32-4.Tsimshian Chiefs

1992 Suwilaay'msga Na Ca'niiyatgm: Teachings ofOur Grandfathers. 7 vols. Vancouver: British Colum-bia Ministry of Education.

Walens, Stanley

1981 Feasting with Cannibals: An Essay on KwakiutICosmology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Woldt, Adrian

1977 Alaskan Voyage 1881-1883: An Expedition tothe Northwest Coast of America. Erna Gunther, trans.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

JUDITH BERMAN

2 1 3

61/ Jesup Expedition Collections displayed at the American Museum of Natural History, 1905 (AMNH 386)

a rt

THE RESOURCES: CRITICAL VIEWS IN THE POST-JESUP ERA

i

Tl^e "Russian ^astian" and ^oas

VVl^y ^hternberg's " j he ^ociai O^'ga'^i'^ation of the (jiltjalc" {Njever/Appeared /\mong the Jesup j^xpedition f ubiications

SERGEI KAN

This paper, like the manuscript it deals with, has arather complicated history. It was originally written fora session devoted to the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion ONPE) at the 1993 meeting of the American An-thropological Association (see Fitzhugh and Krupnik,this volume; Kan 1993).' The aim of that original paperwas to establish why Shternberg's 'The Social Organi-zation of the Gilyak," which had been commissionedby Boas in 1904 for the JNPE series, never saw the lightof day. At that time, I had done but a limited amountof research on Shternberg's biography and scholarlyactivities, using his own and others' published worksas well as his correspondence with Boas, which is pre-served in the archives of the American PhilosophicalSociety (APS) and the Department of Anthropology,American Museum of Natural History (AMNH-DA). Ihad also utilized both the Russian- and English-languageversions of his Gilyak manuscript located at the AMNH.

Although my paper did provide a fairly accurateanswer to the question it asked, it did not utilize thelarge collection of Shternberg materials at the Archiveof the Russian Academy of Sciences (AAN), St. Peters-burg Branch, and consequently did not go far enoughin exploring the various intellectual, political, and per-sonal obstacles that prevented Shternberg from com-pleting the monograph.^ But the paper neverthelessserved an important purpose: at my suggestion, theAMNH decided to finally publish this manuscript, whichhad been lingering in its archive for over half a cen-tury. Bruce Grant, who has done archival research on

and ethnographic fieldwork among the Gilyak [Nivkh]and has published his own book (Grant 1995) on theircultural and sociopolitical history under Soviet rule,edited the AMNH manuscript and wrote the foreword.In preparing Shternberg's Gilyak study for publication.Grant examined many of the same source materials as Ihad, as well as my 1993 manuscript (Grant 1999:xliv)and, more important, a number of key documents fromthe Shternberg archive. The result of Grant's work-both his substantial foreword and his notes—is a majortour de force that answers many of the questions raiseda few years earlier (Shternberg 1999).

My own research on Shternberg's intellectualbiography, which has been going on since 1998, hasinvolved a thorough examination of most of the docu-ments from the Shternberg archive, as well as a carefulreview of his entire corpus of publications.^ In the courseof this work, I have discovered some important addi-tional information on the history of the Gilyak manu-script. I have also come to some conclusions about itscontent that do not fully agree with or that at leastsupplement those of Grant (1999). Consequently thefocus of the present piece is rather different from thatof its 1993 predecessor.

While Grant's critical evaluation of the contents ofthe Gilyak manuscript concentrates mainly onShternberg's deeply flawed evolutionist reconstruc-tion of Gilyak social organization, I pay more attentionto the monograph's last three chapters, which discuss,in a synchronic perspective, the functioning and the

2 1 7

religious symbolism of the clan—the key unit of theCilyak sociopolitical and ideational universe. I arguethat in this part of his work, in which Shternberg elo-quently demonstrates the interrelationship betweenthe Gilyak social structure and the Cilyak religiousworldview, he sounds more like Durkheim and Maussthan like Morgan and Tylor. My analysis also showsthat his fascination with and very positive evaluationof the role of the clan in Cilyak culture and society hadmuch to do with his own lifelong commitment to Rus-sian populism (narodnichestvo), a unique blend of west-ern socialist and home-grown ideas. In fact, I believethat this contradiction between Shternberg's progres-sivist 19th-century evolutionism and his somewhat ro-mantic admiration for the precapitalist social organi-zation and social life of Siberia's indigenous peopleswas central to his entire scholarly worldview and sethim somewhat apart from the classical evolutionists.

Boas' correspondence, not only with Shternberghimself but with Shternberg's closest Russian colleaguesand friends, Bogoras and Jochelson, sets the saga ofthe manuscript's preparation and its absence from theJesup publication series in the context of the largerstory of Boas' complex, four-decade-long relationshipwith his three Russian colleagues. Such contextual-ization of the Boas-Shternberg relationship gives us amuch better understanding of Boas' truly heroic effortsto foster a Russian "ethno-troika" and to encourage itsgreater concentration on scholarly work than on left-wing political activities and journalism (and inShternberg's case, on Jewish politics, as well).''

Boas first became acquainted with these scholarson the eve of the Russian Revolution of 1904-05, whenhe recruited them to take part in the JNPE project. Hiseffort to maintain close contact with them throughoutthe turbulent 191 Os, World War I, the February and Oc-tober Revolutions of 1917, the devastation of Russiain the early 1920s, and the rise of Stalinist totalitarian-ism in the late 1920s and early 1930s indicates theimportance of this relationship for him, both as a scholarand as a human being. Similarly, the relationship was

2 18

very important to the three Russian scholars, both pro-fessionally and personally. Boas, after all, had alwaysbeen one of their most important western professionalcontacts, the main publisher of their scholarly worksoutside Russia, a source of badly needed additionalincome, and a close friend. Although the space limita-tions of this paper do not allow me to explore Boas'relationship with Bogoras and Jochelson in as muchdetail as that between him and Shternberg, I believethat this topic is crucial for our understanding of theentire Jesup project and requires a great deal of furtherinvestigation (see Krupnik 1998). At this point, how-ever, I simply offer an examination of the relationshipbetween Boas and Shternberg, whom Boas once re-ferred to as the "Russian Bastian" (Boas 1934:xli), aswell as a preliminary review of Shternberg's scholarlycontributions and public life (see Kan 1993,1999,2000).The purpose of this paper is also to emphasize that, inmany ways, Shternberg was very much a part of theBoasian JNPE project, although the long delay in pub-lishing his contribution has obscured this fact.

Shternberg as a Jewish Populist

Since Shternberg's biography has been recently out-lined (Grant 1999), I offer only a brief overview of hispolitical and scholarly activities, focusing in particularon those aspects that either are directly related to hiswork on the Gilyak manuscript or are not discussed indetail by Grant.^ Lev Shternberg was part of a cohort ofRussian-Jewish revolutionary populists (narodnikijwhorose against the tsarist government in the late 1870s-mid-1880s and were sentenced to exile in Siberia. Hisfuture friends and colleagues, Jochelson and Bogoras,shared the same ethnic, social, and political backgroundand suffered the same punishment.

Born in 1861 in Zhitomir, a provincial Ukrainiantown. Lev (Khaim) lakovlevich Shternberg attendedthe local Jewish religious school, where he acquireda deep knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and, in thewords of his childhood friend, Moisei Krol' (1929:21 5),was inspired to begin asking "important questions of

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

a religious, juridical, and moral nature." Although laterin life Shternberg moved away from the traditionalJudaism of his childhood and became a member of theurban intelligentsia, he did retain a deep affection forhis people and a strong interest in their culture andhistorical experience. Like many other Jewish populistsof his era, he was particularly drawn to the ideology ofthe biblical prophets, with their emphasis on compas-sion and social Justice (see, for example, Shternberg1924; Haberer 1995). Unlike Bogoras and Jochelson,he eventually became very active in Jewish politicaland cultural activities, journalism, and ethnographicresearch.

Shternberg's life changed dramatically at the age of10, when his father sent him to a Russian high school.There, he entered a new world of secular culture. Hedevoured the classical novels by Russian and westernEuropean authors and then the works of Darwin andother materialist natural scientists and philosophers,which were extremely popular with young Russian in-tellectuals in the 1860s and 1870s (Vucinich 1988). Healso began studying the works of the Russian "revolu-tionary democrats" of the previous generation who at-tacked Russia's conservative political regime and back-ward socioeconomic system.

Soon, a biblical commandment "to love thy neigh-bor" became an inspiration for him to fight for socialjustice (Krol' 1929:218). In 1876-77 populist ideasspread quickly from the urban centers to the provincialtowns. Young people, many of them members of thelower middle class and the intelligentsia, organized amovement of "going to the people," that is, to the Rus-sian peasants, whom the narodnikihoped to radicalizethrough education and political propaganda. AlthoughShternberg was too young to join this movement, hehelped the radicals in various ways (Hardy 1987).

It is not surprising that in 1881, on graduating fromhigh school, Shternberg decided to enroll in St. Pe-tersburg University, one of the most intellectuallyand politically progressive institutions of higher learn-ing in Russia and a major center of populist activities.

Having chosen the natural sciences division, he at-tended lectures by the leading scientists of the day,who introduced him to the latest positivist, evolution-ist, and materialist theories. Along with Krol' andBogoras, Shternberg joined the student branch of thePeople's Will, the leading underground populist party(which by this time was in decline), and in 1882 heplayed an active role in organizing a large student dem-onstration against increased restrictions on the stu-dents' academic freedom (Naimark 1983). As a result,all three were expelled from the university and ban-ished from the capital (Krol' 1944:22-46).

Shternberg then became a student in the law divi-sion of Novorossiysk University in Odessa, where forfour years he studied subjects that were closely relatedto his future work in comparative ethnology: history,philosophy, sociology, and primitive law. In Odessa hebecame a leading member of the "Southern Group" ofthe People's Will. In 1886, during his graduation ex-aminations, Shternberg was arrested, along with otheractivists of the Southern Croup, including Bogoras. ThePeople's Will was finished (Naimark 1983; Haberer1995:242-51). After spending three years in solitaryconfinement in an Odessa prison, where he studiedseveral foreign languages as well as history, politicalscience, and other subjects (AAN, 282/1/120),Shternberg was exiled to Sakhalin Island, Russia's infa-mous penal colony (Grant 1995,1999).

Like other populists, Shternberg had a strong faithin the power of science (understood in positivist andmaterialist terms) and in sociopolitical and moralprogress. He subscribed to the theory of social evolu-tion and saw the evolution of ideas as the main causeof social progress—like most other late 19th centuryevolutionists, but unlike Marx, whom the narodniki didstudy and respect a great deal (Malinin 1991; see alsoStocking 1987). He shared the populists' strong inter-est in and romanticization of the Russian peasant com-mune, seen as the foundation of a more egalitarian,nonexploitative, and just society of the future that wasto be different from the capitalist West. In the 1870s

SERGEI KAN

219

through the 1890s, interest in rural social institutionsand the spiritual culture of the peasants—and, by ex-tension, the "precapitalist" Siberian natives {inorodts\d—stimulated a great deal of sociological, folkloristic, andethnographic research, carried out mainly by the ex-iled populists (Tokarev 1966; Slezkine 1994:11 3-29).

Shternberg as Ethnographer/Social Theorist

After arriving on Sakhalin in May 1889, Shternberg con-tinued reading voraciously and studying European lan-guages, philosophy, and history.'' He soon came acrossthe island's main indigenous people, the Cilyak [Nivkh],who occasionally visited Aleksandrovsk, the main Rus-sian community on Sakhalin, where he had initiallysettled.^ In the spring of 1890 Shternberg was punishedfor defending a fellow exile from administrative abuseand was sent from Aleksandrovsk to Vyakhtu, a remotemilitary outpost 100 kilometers to the north. There hewas able to get a much closer look at the natives wholived nearby and often came to Viakhtu to trade.

While some exiled revolutionaries might have beenpushed toward ethnographic research by the sheer bore-dom of their life (see Vahktin, this volume), this seemsnot to have been the case with Shternberg. As hewrote two decades later, "My previous scholarly stud-ies, predominantly in the domain of the humanities andthe social sciences, naturally pushed me . . . towardsthe study of the Cilyak social and spiritual culture. Myprimary interests included the family structure, the clan,and religion, followed by poetry [folklore] and language.At that time I was particularly interested in the first twoand with them I began" (Shternberg 1908:viii).

Shternberg's research methods included someparticipation in the Natives' daily activities, such ashunting and trapping (see AAN, 282/1/2, p. 10), aswell as working with an informant, an influential andwealthy man who often visited the post and tradedinformation on the Cilyak religion and other subjectsfor bread, sugar, and tobacco (AAN, 282/1/2, p. 10;Shternberg 1999:5). Even though many of the Cilyakvisitors to the post spoke some Russian, Shternberg

soon realized that without learning the Cilyak languageand using it to gather ethnographic data, any attemptto understand the Natives' "true [podlinnyi] life," andespecially its "psychological aspects," would fail(Shternberg 1908:viii-ix).8

In February 1891 the island's Russian administra-tion found out about Shternberg's studies, and he wasasked to undertake a census of the Cilyak populationin the northwestern part of the island. Eventually, hewas allowed to visit the rest of Sakhalin and the nearbylower Amur River region, where he continued his cen-sus work as well as his ethnographic observations ofthe Cilyak, Oroki [Uilta], Ainu, Orochi, and Col'dy[Nanay]. Except for his first ethnographic expedition,undertaken in the winter of 1891, Shternberg normallysurveyed the Native settlements in the summer andspent the winters analyzing his data, as well as collect-ing additional information from visiting Natives and afew young Cilyak who resided with him for substantialperiods of time.^

The fact that a significant part of Shternberg'sethnographic research was conducted in the contextof rather brief visits to Native settlements for the pur-pose of census taking had a definite effect on the kindof data he was able to collect.'° Although, like mostother ethnographers of his time, he tried to gatherinformation on every aspect of Native life and evenbought objects of material culture and undertook somearcheological excavations, much of his data had to dowith demography, kinship terminology, and theNatives' statements about their laws, customs, andbeliefs, ratherthan his own observations of theirevery-day and ceremonial life.

To Shternberg's credit, he was a tireless ethnogra-pher who used every opportunity to question his Cilyakhosts and guides about their culture. He even devel-oped a clever method of encouraging the Cilyak toshare information with him: he would often show theman illustrated book depicting the various peoples ofthe Russian Empire and ask them to compare thosepeoples' "exotic" customs with their own (Shternberg's

220

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

1 891 diary, AAN, 282/1 /3, p. 82; Shternberg to Krol",19 May 1891, AAN, 282/2/363, p. 30). This cast hisrelationship with them in a more reciprocal light. Healso used every opportunity to get at the deeper lay-ers of the Gilyak religious worldview and philosophy.For example, during one of his journeys through north-ern Sakhalin, Shternberg climbed a mountain that theGilyak considered very sacred. His Native guides wereterrified and were convinced that he would not comeback alive. When he did, they volunteered a great dealof valuable information on the mythology and religiousbeliefs surrounding the sacred site (Shternberg1908:30).

Shternberg's study of the Gilyak language and hismethod of recording the various genres of Gilyak folk-lore were on a par with the work of most other Russianand foreign ethnographers who had not had any previ-ous training in linguistics." At the same time, neitherhis published works nor his field notes contain manyreally detailed descriptions of Gilyak rituals, despitehis interest in "primitive" religion.

As his diaries and journals indicate, Shternberg stayedin a Gilyak village only long enough—usually only fora few days—to conduct an adequate census and recordkinship terms, along with some other data, but not longenough to make any systematic, detailed observationsof day-to-day activities, social interactions, or rituals. Infact, although he was happy about the research oppor-tunities census taking provided, he complained on oc-casion that his Native hosts would sometimes becomebored with the census-related questions and would givehim only perfunctory answers. Hence, while he eventu-ally became a strong advocate of what he called "the[long-term] stationary method" of field research (Bogoras1928; Ratner-Shternberg 1935), his own ethnographieslack the kind of rich and detailed data, derived fromfirst-hand observation, one finds in Malinowski's writ-ing on the Trobriand Islanders or in Bogoras' on theChukchi (Bogoras 1 904-09).

From the very beginning, Shternberg's ethnographicresearch had a definite focus on the Gilyak system of

kinship and marriage, which also accounts for a certainone-sidedness of his data. His interest in these topicsprobably resulted from his previous reading in primi-tive law and social organization, as well as his populistfascination with the workings of a rather egalitarian so-cial order in which exploitation of the poor by thewealthy was absent. As Shternberg wrote to Krol' onMay 19, 1891, just a few months after his first tripthrough northern and northwestern Sakhalin, the lifeof the Gilyak was "wholesome and full [tsel'naia ipolnaia], the individual and the group are linked to-gether by natural bonds ..." (AAN, 282/2/363, p. 34).The same letter indicates that by this time he had al-ready read Engels' book Der Ursprung der Familie (Theorigin of the family) and that through Engels he hadbecome familiar with Morgan's reconstruction of theevolution of marriage and the family.'^

Shternberg's letters and diary entries show that soonafter initiating his research on the Gilyak he becamefirmly convinced that he had discovered evidence ofgroup marriage among them. In the same letter to Krol',he wrote:

My main accomplishment is the study oftheir social organization and marriagesystem. I discovered among them a systemof kinship nomenclature and a system offamily and clan law [semeino-rodovoe pravo]which are identical to those which existamong the Iroquois ano in the case of thefamous Punulua. In other words, I found theremnants of that form of marriage uponwhich Morgan had built his theory and whichserves as the starting point of the brochureDer Ursprung der Familie.... At first I wasafraid to believe my discovery. However,during the census-taking, when I tried not tomiss a single family or a single dwelling, Iasked detailed questions about the terms ofaddress used by the various family and clanmembers and about their sexual rights andfinally became convinced that my discoveryhad been correct. Despite the fact that quitea few descriptions of the Gilyak exist, nonehas addressed this issue, at least in theworks known to me. I plan to publish areport about those aspects of the Gilyaksocial life, which I have studied, and hopethat it would [be] of interest not only to thespecialists. (AAN, 282/2/363, pp. 36-9)

SERGEI KAN

As Shternberg's first ethnographic report on theGilyak, written in 1891 and published two years later inone of Russia's two major ethnological journals, indi-cates, he was aware of the fact that by the 1 890s theGilyak had become basically monogamous and thatthe "sexual/marital rights" he had "discovered" amongthem were no longer exercised all the time. In fact,their occasional exercise could cause displeasure andeven violent protest from the woman's husband. How-ever, in Shternberg's words, "from the legal point ofview, so to speak, they [these rights] still exist and theirexercise is not considered adultery, is not penalized,and is often carried out with the permission of the man'sbrothers and his wife's sisters' husbands" (Shternberg1893:7, 15). As Grant (1999:xl-xlii) points out, whatShternberg found among the Gilyak was not a survivalof group marriage but "a loose kind of monogamy"characterized by "discreet but permissible affairs" be-tween certain categories of relatives, especially if oneof the participants in the affair was a visiting guest.Shternberg's firm adherence to Morganian evolution-ism—and, I believe, a certain feeling of "eureka"—pre-vented him from ever questioning his "discovery."

This fascination with Gilyak social organization isclearly reflected in Shternberg's first ethnographic pub-lication, two-thirds of which is devoted to discussionof the family, the clan, kinship and marriage, and indig-enous law. While this essay contained a fairly detailedaccount of the Gilyak system of kinship and marriage,as well as an interesting and laudatory description ofthe Gilyak agnatic clan, including a discussion of theclan's symbolism (see below), his comments on Nativereligion are fairly brief and are cast in evolutionist terms(Shternberg 1893:22). Another example of his lack ofunderstanding of the depth and complexity of the Gilyakreligion is his inadequate treatment of the bear festivalas a purely social institution that, in his view, func-tioned simply to strengthen intraclan bonds and hadno religious significance (Shternberg 1893:9). This viewof the most important Gilyak ceremony was eventuallychallenged by some of Shternberg's own published

data and, especially, by the work of later ethnogra-phers (e.g., Kreinovich 1973). Shternberg also arguedthat despite several centuries of Gilyak interaction withand subordination to the Manchurians, the Chinese,the Japanese, and, most recently, the Russians, theirculture had remained largely intact and could thus beused for a comparative study of primitive social orga-nization and religion.'^

Despite its obvious limitations, Shternberg's 1 893essay on the Gilyak generated considerable interestamong Russian ethnographers, both because of its de-scription of a relatively "unknown and exotic" cultureand on account of its "discovery" of an interesting formof "primitive marriage." Moreover, his "discovery," sum-marized briefly in a Russian newspaper, was noted byEngels himself, who praised it in an article in Die NeueZeit entitled "A Newly Discovered Case of Group Mar-riage" (see Engels 1933 [1892-93]). For Engels,Shternberg's "discovery" represented a powerful proofof the validity of Morgan's evolutionary scheme andhis own arguments in The Origin of the Family 972[1884]; see Grant 1995:55-8; 1999:xli). This recogni-tion by the scholarly community, including one of theleaders of the world socialist movement, was obviouslyvery important for Shternberg, who still occasionallyexpressed doubts about his research and especiallyabout his lack of training in ethnology and linguistics(see his letters to Krol', AAN, 282/2/363).

Having now become even more convinced of thevalidity of his evolutionist theorizing, Shternberg wenton to "discover" another example of Morgan's classifi-catory system of kinship relationship and group mar-riage, this time among the Orochi of the Tatar Strait, aTungus-speaking group of sedentary hunters and fish-ers living on the Pacific Coast across from SakhalinIsland. The results of his Orochi research appeared inan 1896 essay published in several installments in alocal newspaper (Shternberg 1 896). In it, Shternbergspoke with the greater authority of an ethnographerwho had already made an important discovery amonga neighboring people, as well as a comparativist who

222

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

had read a great deal of theoretical literature on theevolution of marriage and social organization.'"

Shternberg's Career in the Early 1900sIn May 1897 Shternberg's exile ended, and he returnedto his hometown. However, without a university di-ploma it was difficult for him to find a satisfying andadequately paying job. While doing some writing for alocal newspaper, he also busied himself with organiz-ing his Cilyak data and preparing it for publication. Hisfriends and fellow populists, Krol', Bogoras, andJochelson, who had finished their exile earlier, had al-ready begun publicizing their ethnographic and lin-guistics data among several prominent members of theRussian Academy of Sciences (RAS) in St. Petersburgand were looking for money to publish them. Theytried to help him follow their path (see Jochelson'sletters to Radloff, 24 February, 1 7 November 1898,AAN, 1 77/2/120, pp. 1 -4).

Of the three, it was Krol' who spoke about Shternbergwith Vasily V. Radloff, the head of the Museum of An-thropology and Ethnography (MAE) and a leading spe-cialist on the languages and folklore of the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia and southern Siberia.After describing in glowing terms Shternberg's Cilyakethnography and the ethnographic community's re-sponse to it, Krol' managed to convince Radloff thathis friend had to reside in St. Petersburg and work forthe MAE (Krol' 1944:274-6; letters from Krol' toShternberg, 1 899-1900, AAN, 282/2/1 57). Thanks toRadloff's intercession, the police gave Shternberg—who was required by law to reside within the "pale ofJewish settlement"—a three-month permit to live in thecapital. Bogoras also spoke to Radloff about his friend'sresearch and sent Shternberg instructions on how toprepare his linguistics work so as to make it more inter-esting to the MAE, especially to Karl Zaieman, a mem-ber of the Academy and a prominent specialist on Cen-tral Asian languages (Bogoras' letters to Shternberg, 1899,AAN, 282/2/34, pp. 15-17; Zaieman's letters toShternberg, 1900-01, AAN, 282/2/107). Shternberg's

friends' efforts paid off: in the spring of 1899 Zaiemanagreed to examine his "Obraztsy materialov poizucheniiu giliatskogo iazyka i fol'klora" (Samples ofmaterials for the study of the Cilyak language and folk-lore) and was very impressed with the work. Later thatyear, Zaieman and Radloff invited Shternberg to St.Petersburg, where he spent several months interactingwith them and several other prominent linguists andethnologists. With substantial help from Zaieman,Shternberg prepared his "Samples" manuscript for pub-lication, and in 1900 it appeared in the RAS publica-tion series (Shternberg 1900). By that time, Shternberg'spermit to reside in the capital had been extended, andhe could finally bring his wife, Sarra Ratner, there.

Through Krol', he also met a number of prominentliberal journalists, many of them populist sympathizersor "legal populists" (Malinin 1991), as well as futureleaders of the Constitutional Democrats (KD), Russia'sleading liberal political party. As a result, he beganwriting on political subjects for several well-known pro-gressive newspapers and submitted reviews of bookson ethnology, sociology, and related subjects toRusskoe bogatsvo, an influential literary and politicaljournal of the legal populists. From then on, journalis-tic writing remained an important avenue for express-ing his views on social and political issues, as well as asource of badly needed supplementary income. Mostimportant for Shternberg's scholarly career was an invi-tation to become the editor of the ethnology sectionof the remaining unpublished volumes of the famousEncyclopedic Dictionary of Brocl<haus and Efron, whichfeatured articles by the country's leading liberal intel-lectuals. In the course of writing a large number ofentries for it and editing those written by others,Shternberg familiarized himself with many of the latestRussian and western anthropological publications andreaffirmed his evolutionist position, as well as his viewof "ethnography" (anthropology) as a comparative andholistic discipline that had to become the cornerstoneof all the humanities and the social sciences. By 1904the project had been completed, but throughout the

SERGEI KAN

223

191 Os Shternberg wrote and edited entries on anthro-pological topics for several other Russian encyclope-dias and dictionaries. In 1901 Radloff invited him tojoin the staff of the MAE, where he stayed the rest ofhis life. By 1904 he had been appointed the museum'ssenior ethnographer—its second in command.

From Gilyak Ethnography to EvolutionistEthnology with a "Durkheimian" TwistIn the early-to-mid-1900s, Shternberg also preparedfor publication his only two major monograph-lengthworks: an annotated collection of Gilyak folklore(Shternberg 1908), and a rather extensive Gilyak eth-nography that elaborated on many topics only brieflymentioned in his 1893 essay and introduced a num-ber of new ones (Shternberg 1904). From the point ofview of this paper, his discussion of the Gilyak kinshipand marriage system and of the centrality of the clanin Gilyak social life is particularly important, since itformed the core of "Social Organization of the Gilyak."An analysis of the 1904 work also demonstrates thetheoretical maturity that Shternberg had achieved be-fore beginning his earnest correspondence with Boas.

Like his 1893 essay, Shternberg's 1904 Gilyak mono-graph was not a truly comprehensive one in the clas-sic Boasian style, although it was three times as longas the earlier piece. While it did cover a variety of top-ics, including the origin of the Gilyak and their naturalenvironment, subsistence, material culture, language,and religion, issues related to social organization were,once again, at its core. At the very beginning of hiswork, Shternberg justified his focus on this topic: "Noother aspect of the Gilyak social life differentiates themso sharply from the surrounding peoples as theirclassificatory system of relationships and the rules regu-lating sexual relations and marriage" (1933a [1904]:30).Although the new discussion of Gilyak kinship differedfrom the old one mainly in the amount of detail pre-sented and not in substance, it did contain importantnew information on "a triangulated system of maritalexchange, based on a tri-clan phratry or alliance group

. . . that underwrote a complex web of mutual socialand economic obligations" (Grant 1999:xl).

As a comparative ethnologist with a secure posi-tion rather than just an ethnographer, Shternbergcompared the Gilyak kinship and marriage system withthose of the Australian aborigines and other "primi-tive" peoples and concluded that the former was verysimilar to the "Punaluan" system documented byMorgan. In fact, he used his own Gilyak data to "solve"a number of puzzling questions raised by the work ofseveral western ethnographers in other parts of theworld. It is obvious that Shternberg's evolutionism hadbecome even stronger in the time between the publi-cation of his first and second Gilyak studies. Thus, the1904 publication omits a passage that appeared inthe 1 893 article about the displeasure often causedby theoretically permissible sexual liaisons among theGilyak. In fact, by the early 1900s, Shternberg appearsto have become so wedded to evolutionism that heignored his own data on a widespread Gilyak practiceof marrying outside the prescribed clan and even out-side the ethnic group (e.g., Shternberg 1933a:45). Forhim this phenomenon represented a more recent de-parture from the original "pure" practice that he triedso hard to reconstruct. As Grant (1999:xliii) correctlypoints out, the clan system that Shternberg so elegantlydescribed "was far less fixed than he first had per-ceived it. Given the swell of non-Gilyaks into the area,the increasing dislocations through travel and trade,and the demographic havoc wrought by disease," muchof what he had presented was only an ideal system.'^

To Shternberg's credit, it should be noted that whendescribing the "survivals of group marriage" among theGilyak, he repeatedly stated that the Gilyak were notpromiscuous and that they strictly followed their ownlaws of morality. Unlike most western evolutionists,who saw "primitive" forms of kinship and marriage assomething to be overcome by progress, this Russianpopulist was ambivalent about them. On the one hand,as a firm believer in humankind's inevitable progress,he did express hope that some day the best aspects

224

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

of European civilization would be accepted by theCilyak and other indigenous Siberians. On the otherhand, he admired many Gilyak customs, especially theirsocial solidarity and the support an individual found inhis or her primary kinship group, the agnatic clan.

In my view, it is Shternberg's detailed and sensitivediscussion of the socioeconomic and political func-tions and religious symbolism of the Cilyak clan, whichhe convincingly presented as their central institution"regulating all of the other aspects of their life"(1933a:81), that makes his writing on the Gilyak differ-ent from most other contemporary evolutionist accountsof the social life and culture of "primitive peoples."Paradoxically, while Shternberg never cites Durkheimand Mauss in his works, his discussion of the Cilyakclan, especially the interconnectedness between itssocial and ideological symbolic dimensions and theharmonious relationship between the individual andthe group in Gilyak society, is strongly reminiscent ofPrimitive Classification (Durkheim and Mauss 1963[1903]) and other works by these authors. This similar-ity should not surprise us. Like Shternberg, Durkheimand Mauss were socialists who sought in primitive so-cieties characterized by "simple economic relations andan integrated socioreligious world view" (Shternberg1933a: 113) an alternative to modern capitalist society's"organic solidarity" and anomie.'^ Also like Durkheim,Shternberg was fascinated by the fact that the Cilyakadhered to their laws "despite an almost total absenceof authority or compulsion" (Shternberg 1933a: 108).

In his concern with the freedom of the individual,Shternberg differed from Marx and Engels and their fol-lowers. While he occasionally describes Cilyak eco-nomic and social life as a kind of "primitive commu-nism," he also emphasizes that among the Cilyak, "com-munism and individualism coexist almost without ten-sion" (Shternberg 1933a:83). Like his fellow-populists'descriptions of the Russian peasant commune,Shternberg's account tended to overemphasize egali-tarianism and downplay economic and sociopoliticalinequality. He appears to have been correct, however,

in stating that in a society like that of the Gilyak, thewealthy leaders had to support their less fortunate clanrelatives, and that clan solidarity would thus ame-liorate the hierarchical tendencies. More important,unlike most of the classic evolutionists or the Marx-ists, but like Durkheim, Shternberg was interested inthe effect of a "clan-based social order" [rodovoi stroi\on an individual's personality. In his view, an averageGilyak had a "holistically developed personality withits integrated world view" (Shternberg 1933a:120).

Finally, like the Durkheimians and their followersamong the British structural-functionalists, Shternbergpaid a great deal of attention to the role of religioussanctions in encouraging the individual to adhere tothe rules and laws of his or her society. His approvingdiscussion of the Gilyak clan ends with a virtual hymnto an institution that he refers to as a "whole school ofsocial upbringing, a school of benevolence, hospital-ity, compassion, and ... proper social conduct [blago-vospitannost']. In this school those social habits andemotions are created, which eventually become toostrong to be limited to interclan ties and evolve intosympathy towards one's entire tribe [people] and even-tually towards human beings in general" (Shternberg1933a: 127). Here the voices of Shternberg the ethnog-rapher and Shternberg the populist merge into one.'^

Boas, Shternberg, and the Jesup ExpeditionPublications, 1900s-1917

Shternberg's career and theoretical development areimportant because of his considerable influence onRussian anthropology. This paper, however, focusesmainly on his relationship with Boas and Boas' effortsto persuade him to produce a monograph on theGilyak for the Jesup Expedition publication series. Thedevelopment of Boas' plan for a large-scale expedi-tion aimed at studying the cultural affinities betweenthe inhabitants of the coasts of eastern Siberia andnorthwestern North America, and his efforts to recruitBogoras and Jochelson to lead the Russian part of theexpedition and then transform their field data into

SERGEI KAN

22 5

detailed monographs, have been well documented byscholars and will not be repeated here.'*

Less known is the fact that Shternberg's three friendsmentioned above attempted to get him, too, involvedin the project. Thus, in a letter sent some time in 1899to Shternberg, who was still in Zhitomir, Krol' wrote,"Your trip to America did not materialize—they alreadyhave their own 'Gilyak'" (AAN, 282/2/1 57, p. 110). Thereference here is obviously to Berthold Laufer, a youngGerman linguist and sinologist whom Boas had recruitedin 1897 to undertake research among the Natives ofthe lower Amur River and Sakhalin Island and whospent 16 months there beginning in the summer of

1898. In another letter to his friend, dated January 31,

1899, Krol' urged Shternberg to waste no time and tosend at least one analyzed Gilyak text to the St. Peters-burg academicians as soon as possible in order "tobeat Laufer" (AAN, 282/2/1 57, pp. 274-6). Thus itappears that had Shternberg already been living in St.Petersburg when Boas was negotiating with his Rus-sian colleagues about the Siberian part of the expedi-tion, he would have been hired along with Bogorasand Jochelson. Instead, the field research in the RussianFar East was carried out by a much less experiencedethnographer who spoke neither Gilyak nor Russianand who worked only through interpreters, exceptwhen he could find a Native who knew Chinese.'^

It must not have been difficult for Boas to realizethat the data collected by Laufer were inferior to thoseof Bogoras and Jochelson, the two seasoned Siberianethnographers. While the Russians managed to pro-duce enough contributions to fill four volumes of theJNPE publications, including two very substantial androunded monographs (Bogoras 1904-09; Jochelson1908), Laufer's contribution to the same series was lim-ited to a slim essay on the decorative art of the AmurRiver tribes (Laufer 1902).^° During their stay in NewYork in 1902-04, Bogoras and Jochelson undoubtedlytold Boas about Shternberg's extensive research in thesame area where Laufer had labored with such limitedresults. Boas also must have heard a lot about Shternberg

in the course of his negotiations with Radloff aboutsending to the MAE duplicates of the objects collectedby the two Russians for the AMNH.

Shternberg and Boas MeetThe first evidence of Boas' interest in having Shternbergwrite something for the JNPE series is in Jochelson'sMarch 30,1903, letter to Shternberg (AAN 282/2/124,p. 4a). Boas had decided that Shternberg had to bebrought to New York by the end of the summer of thatyear to work with the AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin col-lection and write a monograph on the Gilyak. AsJochelson put it, "Boas wants you to work on the col-lection . . . but his real goal is to get acquainted withyour Amur and Sakhalin materials" (AAN 282/2/1 24,pp. 6-7). Boas wanted the MAE to send Shternberg onan official business trip to the United States and waswilling to commit AMNH funds to cover some of theexpenses involved (AAN 282/2/124, pp. 6-7). In aletter to AMNH Director [Hermon C.] Bumpus, Boasdescribed his reasons for bringing Shternberg to NewYork:

Dr. Sternberg has lived in the Amur River areaand on the Island of Sakhalin for ten yearsand has made very extended studies on theGilyak and Ainu. The results of his investiga-tions are being published now by thePetersburg Academy of Sciences. ProfessorRadloff thinks that it would be of advantageto Dr. Sternberg to familiarize himself withthe collections of our Museum, and I believethat it would be of very great advantage tous to have Dr. Sternberg go in detail over ourAinu and Gilyak material. I should also verygreatly value the opportunity to discuss withhim fully the tribes of the southeastern partof Siberia, which are of great importance inrelation to the Jesup Expedition. Dr.Sternberg's services would also be valuablein selecting the duplicates which Mr. Jesupintends to present to the Museum of the[Russian] Academy of Sciences. (Boas toBumpus, 26 October 1903, AMNH)

Unfortunately, because of some bureaucratic prob-lems at the AMNH, Boas was unable to carry out hisplan and decided to postpone Shternberg's visit to the

226

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

United States until 1905. In the meantime, on April 30,1904, he sent Shternberg an invitation to attend the14th International Congress of Americanists, to be heldin Stuttgart in August 1904 (AAN/282/2/29, p. 1; seeJochelson to Shternberg, 25 January 1904, AAN, 282/2/1 24, p. 8; Boas to Radloff, 23 January 1 904, AMNH). AsBoas wrote to Shternberg: "Your thorough knowledgeof the Ainu and Cilyak will be of great value to us, andI believe that the comparative points of view, whichthe other gentlemen [Bogoras, Jochelson, and Laufer],who partake in the conference, possess, will be of in-terest to you" (AMNH). On June 6, 1 904, Shternbergreplied, thanking Boas for his invitation and for "afford-ing" him "the possibility of taking part in the discus-sion of the great northeastern Siberia and northwesternAmerica problem," which he himself had already been"greatly interested in" (AMNH).

The congress was Boas' first opportunity to meetShternberg and discuss with him a variety of scholarlyissues of mutual interest in the company of Bogoras,Jochelson, and Laufer. While all three of the Russianparticipants made presentations at the congress, it wasJochelson's (1906) and Shternberg's (1906a) papers thatreflected most closely Boas' comparative JNPE agenda.For the purposes of this paper, Shternberg's presenta-tion is particularly important, since it demonstrates thathe had been interested in that agenda for some time.

In the wake of this meeting, on March 2, 1905,Boas sent Shternberg an official invitation to visit theAMNH "for the purpose of examining and re-arrangingour collections from the Amur River region and also towrite out such information on the ethnology of thosetribes as may seem best after an examination of ourmaterial, and after our discussion of your publications."He also expressed the hope that Shternberg would beable to share his knowledge of the region's ethnologywith Laufer, who at that time was working for theAMNH (AAN, 282/2/29: pp. 2-3).

A few weeks later, Shternberg sent Boas a letter.He accepted the invitation and mentioned his plans tostudy AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin collection, "writing

out all the necessaries for the literary work to be car-ried out at home" (AMNH). Although we do not knowexactly what sort of monograph Boas had askedShternberg to write for his series, one would suspectthat he was hoping for something as comprehensive asBogoras' and Jochelson's contributions. It is possible,however, that he was willing to make an exception forShternberg, whose research interests, as we have seen,had a definite focus. In a letter to Jochelson, datedApril 22,1905, Boas wrote, "I hope that he [Shternberg]will contribute to our series of Memoirs a descriptionof the religious life and sociology of the Cilyak" (AMNH).

Shternberg arrived in New York in late April-earlyMay 1905. Although his goal was to engage in mu-seum work, he must have been preoccupied with thedramatic events in his native country. By mid-spring of1905, Russia had already plunged into tremendous po-litical turmoil. A disastrous war with Japan, begun in1904, broke the patience of both the ordinary peopleand the liberal intelligentsia. For several years already,the latter had been gravitating toward the undergroundSoiuz osvobozhdenia (Union for Liberation), to whosenewspapers Shternberg occasionally contributed. In theirspeeches given at the famous "banquets" of late 1904,the liberals advocated political reform and the estab-lishment of basic freedoms. Shternberg must have beeninvolved in these meetings, since many of his friendsand fellow Journalists were.

Although undoubtedly encouraged by the risingtide of the liberal and radical opposition to the oldregime, Shternberg was deeply troubled by a simulta-neous increase in anti-Semitic propaganda and espe-cially by the anti-Jewish pogroms that began in theearly 1900s and continued throughout the decade.For him, the right-wing attacks on the intelligentsiaand the workers that accompanied the rise of the revo-lutionary movement were similar in essence to thepogroms. Having never lost his interest in the fate ofhis fellow Jews, and having been galvanized by thepogroms, Shternberg came to believe that the strugglefor political liberation and socioeconomic justice in

SERGEI KAN

227

Russia had to include a concerted effort to emanci-pate the Jews, who were still the subject of variousforms of legal discrimination. Hence, during the sameperiod he began taking part in the activities of thevarious organizations of the liberal Jewish intelligentsiaand wrote a number of eloquent and widely read piecesfor several major Russian-Jewish periodicals on the sub-ject of Jewish liberation in the context of the broaderrevolutionary movement (Cassenschmidt 1995).

For Boas, too, the spring and summer of 1 905 weredifficult. An increased teaching load at Columbia Uni-versity and constant disagreements with AMNH Direc-tor Bumpus and with President Jesup, the main patronof the expedition, finally led him to resign his position,on May 24, while retaining some of his salary for com-pleting the work on the JNPE publications and severalother projects (Cole 1999:242-60). This new develop-ment made Boas extremely anxious to complete theJNPE publication series as quickly as possible.

Despite these distractions, the two men quickly de-veloped a warm relationship, with Boas frequently in-viting Shternberg to his Columbia lectures and to din-ners at both his city and country residences. In thecourse of their conversations, the two scholars reaf-firmed their plans concerning Shternberg's contributionto the JNPE publication series (AAN, 282/5/64, passim).In fact, one of Shternberg's tasks was to select thoseobjects from the AMNH collection that he wished toserve as illustrations for his book. Although he didstudy the AMNH's Amur and Sakhalin materials anddiscussed them with Laufer, who had brought them there,Shternberg's written comments on them are extremelybrief (Roon 2000:141). Unless some of Shternberg'swritings on the subject have been lost, he clearly didnot have very much to say about the collection. In fact,one of his letters to his wife mentions his not havingvery much work to do at the museum (AAN, 282/5/64,p. 98a). Although this may have been partly becausehis knowledge of the material culture of the Sakhalin,and especially of the Amur River Natives, was still some-what limited, other factors were clearly involved.

As a Jewish socialist and a journalist, Shternbergwas fascinated with the United States. His letters to hiswife mention his wanting to be able to see more ofthe country, and even his entertaining a plan of travel-ing throughout the United States as a correspondentfor one of the liberal Russian newspapers and writing abook about the country (AAN, 282/5/64, p. 98a).During his relatively brief stay in the United States,Shternberg found time to attend meetings of variousleft-wing organizations (including a congress of whathe called "The American Workers' Party" in Chicago,which he visited to examine the Field Museum's Sibe-rian collection), as well as Jewish organizations (AAN,282/5/64, pp. 98-100a). He also socialized intenselywith Russian-Jewish emigres in New York.

A few weeks after Shternberg's arrival in New York,he learned of a terrible pogrom in his hometown,Zhitomir, that had occurred on May 9-10. Even thoughhe soon received a telegram from his parents assuringhim that they were all right, it was obviously difficultfor him to concentrate on museum work. After twomonths in the United States, he finally sailed for Eu-rope, where he visited ethnographic museums in Swit-zerland and Vienna. The large collections from the Rus-sian Far East in Vienna were of special interest to him.However, his stay in Austria was interrupted by the sadnews of his mother's death, caused by the emotionalsuffering she had endured during the pogrom(Shternberg to Boas, 28 August, 1 905, AMNH).

Political Upheaval Delays the Gilyak ManuscriptOn September 21, a few weeks after his return to St.Petersburg, Shternberg received a letter from Boasinquiring about the title he intended to give his contri-bution to the JNPE publications (AAN, 282/2/21, p. 5).The fact that Shternberg took an entire month to re-spond was probably attributable to the intensificationof turmoil in Russia. His response was dated October1 7, the very day on which Tsar Nicholas II issued hismanifesto granting limited freedoms to the country'spopulation and promising to proceed with elections

228

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

for its first parliament (Duma). Despite these develop-ments, Shternberg's letter sounded somber: "Our pub-lic affairs are going very heavily. The unrest is growingevery day, the intensity of public feeling is very high,and we are on the eve of terrible things" (AMNH).

Shternberg's mood must have given Boas reasonto worry about the future of the JNPE publications,especially since the work of his two other Russian con-tributors was also being negatively affected by theircountry's troubles (see Vahktin, this volume). EvenJochelson, the least politically engaged of the three,who lived abroad for long periods of time, was beingdistracted from his work by events back home (seeCole, this volume). As he wrote to Boas in one of his1905 letters, "You know, of course, that next to theresearcher stands in me a citizen" (AMNH, quoted inCole 1999:236). Most troublesome of the "ethno-troika"was Bogoras. After a period of silence, which worriedBoas a great deal, Bogoras wrote to Boas, on April 6,1905. He apologized for neglecting his scholarly writ-ing but stated that "an epoch like this happens onlyonce in many centuries for every state and nation andwe feel ourselves torn away with the current even againstour will." As a European-style progressive liberal. Boaswas sympathetic to his Russian colleagues' concernsand watched the unfolding events in Russia with greatinterest. Still, for him, science came first. As he lecturedBogoras in a letter of April 22, 1905, "If events like thepresent happen only once in a century, an investiga-tion by Mr. Bogoras of the Chukchee happens onlyonce in eternity, and I think you owe it to science togive us the results of your studies." A November 23,1905, letter from Bogoras contained more regretsabout his lack of progress but expressed the samesentiment: "my mind and soul have no free place to letin science" (all correspondence from AMNH).

The final blow came on November 27, whenBogoras was arrested because of his active involve-ment with the All-Russian Peasants Union, whichcame under government attack. He informed Boasof his misfortune in a cable, causing his friend to

contemplate appealing to both Radloff and Jesup forhelp in securing his release (see Boas' letter to Jochelson,4 December 1905; Boas' telegram to Radloff, 10December 1905, AMNH). While concerned aboutBogoras' safety (see Boas to Bogoras, 10 January 1906,letter, APS), Boas was also very worried about the fateof the scientific data Bogoras had collected in Siberia.This concern prompted an official letter to Shternbergon January 22, 1906, from the new head of the AMNH,Henry Osborn,

My dear Mr. Shternberg:

You have undoubtedly heard of the arrest ofMr. Bogoras, which we learn took place inMoscow on November 29, but the detailsconcerning which we know nothing.

I have written to The Honorable George vonL. Meyer, our Minister to Russia, asking if itwould not be possible for him to make aneffort to secure any notes, manuscripts, etc.,bearing upon the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion, that may have been in Mr. Bogoras'possession at the time of his arrest, and Iwould say that if Mr. Meyer should call uponyou, I hope that you will give him suchassistance as is within your power, for I feelthat it would be a distinct loss both to theMuseum and to science if the ethnologicalrecords in Mr. Bogoras's possession shouldbe destroyed. (AMNH)

Fortunately, Bogoras was out on bail two weeks later,and by the beginning of 1906 he was safe in Finland,where he resumed his scholarly work (Bogoras to Boas,10 January 1906, APS). Happy to hear the good news.Boas cautiously suggested to Bogoras that it might bebetter for him "under the present conditions" to devotehis time "to scientific work" (Boas to Bogoras, 24January 1906, APS).

While his Russian colleagues were causing Boas alot of grief, so did his AMNH superiors (Cole 1999:223-61). Throughout the spring of 1906, he shared his frus-trations with both Jochelson and Shternberg. Finally,on May 24, he sent both of them similar lettersexplaining the new arrangement he had worked outwith the AMNH's director and with Jesup concerningthe remaining JNPE publications. The one sent to

SERGEI KAN

229

Shternberg read:

Presumably I shall make a contract with Mr.Jesup for completing the Jesup Expeditionpublications. The only manner in which it hasbeen possible to make this arrangement isfor me to undertake the whole risk ofpublishing the material, to pay for contribu-tions and for assistance. . . . Since I am to bepaid after the completion of printing, it is ofcourse essential that the contributions comein as promptly as possible, and I rely uponyour assistance. In making the estimates, thebest I have been able to do is to set asidefor your manuscript the sum of $1250. (AAN,282/2/21, pp. 14-15; see also Boas toJochelson, 24 May 1906, APS)

As far as the exact contents of Shternberg's manu-script were concerned, Boas was still in the dark, ex-cept that it was supposed to deal with "the tribes ofboth the Amur River and Saghalin." In his June 8,1906,letter to Shternberg, he wrote.

Will you kindly let me know . . . the generalcontents of the paper that you would bewilling and ready to write for the amountthat I am able to offer you, and also whenyou will be ready to let me have the manu-script (AAN, 282/2/21, p. 16).

On August 24,1906, Shternberg finally responded,blaming his long silence on the "political situation inRussia," which had prevented him from doing muchserious work. Nonetheless, he promised to return tothe Gilyak monograph and complete it in 10 or 12months. By that time, it must have been easier for himto turn his attention back to scholarship: a month ear-lier the government had disbanded the First Duma,and the revolutionary movement was on the decline.This letter also contained the first of Shternberg's manyrequests for an advance payment, which he justifiedby noting that while working on the manuscript forBoas, he had to set his journalistic writing aside and,consequently, stood to lose a substantial amount ofmoney. It is ironic that while Boas' Russian colleagues(especially Bogoras and Shternberg) often failed todeliver their work to him on time, they also dependedon the money he paid them for it and often remindedhim of that.

By 1907, Boas was becoming increasingly anxiousabout the delay in receiving the Gilyak manuscript,especially since the first part of Bogoras' Chukchi mono-graph had already been typeset and Jochelson's Koryakmanuscript was about to go to press (Boas to Shternberg,15 February 1907, 5 March 1908, APS; Boas toBogoras, 16 August 1907, 4 May 1908, APS). In an-other letter, (27 September 1907, APS), Boas suggestedthat to speed up the process, Shternberg should writein Russian and Boas would arrange to have the worktranslated into English. We do know that in 1907Shternberg was spending a fair amount of time work-ing on his monograph. However, various old and newdistractions, such as the political upheaval in Russia,his heavy workload at the MAE and at the recentlyestablished Russian Division of the International Com-mittee for the Study of Central and Southern Asia, somepart-time teaching, his heavy involvement in variousJewish political and cultural activities, and the need toearn money by writing popular articles, continued tointerrupt his work.'" Except for a short essay on theinau cult of the Ainu for a Boas Festschrift {Shternberg1906b) and an important work on Gilyak folklore(Shternberg 1908), he published little during this pe-riod. Hence, in his letters to Boas he repeatedly ex-tended the deadline for the manuscript's completion(see Shternberg to Boas, 28 March, 10 September1907, APS). He was also finding that the preliminarywork of extracting the data from his field notebooksand rewriting it for the monograph was taking muchlonger than he had expected (Shternberg to Boas, 23December 1907, APS). His letters show that he beganhis writing by dealing with those topics which were ofmost interest to him, that is, "social organization and[social] life," including kinship and marriage (Shternbergto Boas, 10 September 1907, APS).

Boas' frustration with his Russian contributors' foot-dragging is very palpable in a letter of March 12,1908,to Jochelson:

I should like to say once more that I had totake considerable financial obligations in

230

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

order to insure the completion of the Publica-tions of the Jesup Expedition and that I canmeet these obligations only when the contribu-tors furnish me promptly with material, for thereason that I am paid always after the comple-tion of printed signatures. This is one of thereasons why I am constantly urging you andMr. Bogoras and Mr. Shternberg to send mematerial. Otherwise I should be only too glad tobe relieved of the necessity of pushing theeditorial work so much that I hardly get timefor anything else. (APS)

The Manuscript Begins to Come InIn mid-September 1908, on the eve of his departurefor the Congress of Americanists in Vienna, Shternbergfinally sent Boas the first section of the manuscript(Shternberg to Boas, 30 July, 19 September 1908, APS).Its title, "The Cilyaks and Their Neighbors," suggeststhat he had finally been persuaded by Boas to com-pose a more rounded ethnography that extended be-yond the one ethnic group he knew best (Shternbergto Boas, 20 October 1908, APS). On his return to Rus-sia, Shternberg became seriously ill and did not recoveruntil the next spring (see Boas to Shternberg, 6 March1909; Shternberg to Boas, 10 April 1909, APS). Thiswas unfortunate for Shternberg but helped him pro-ceed with the Cilyak manuscript. On October 16, Boasinformed Shternberg that he had just received pages84 through 225 (Boas to Shternberg, APS). Throughoutthat year, checks from the AMNH were sent toShternberg regularly. A new problem that arose in 1909was a cutback in AMNH funding for the JNPE publica-tions, which forced Boas to undertake some "conden-sation" of the contributors' manuscripts (see letters fromBoas to Bogoras and to Shternberg, 5 May 1909, APS)."

In 1910 Shternberg's work on the manuscript wasonce again interrupted: an MAE-sponsored expeditionto the Russian Far East took him away from his desk forabout five months. Shternberg hoped the new data onthe Cilyak and other indigenous inhabitants of the lowerAmur River and Sakhalin Island, especially the Nanay(Col'd), that he was planning to collect would enrichhis contribution to Boas' series (Shternberg to Boas, 27May 1910, APS). This did not really occur; because of

SERGEI KAN

the limitations imposed on his work by the demandsof the MAE and the limited funding, he spent only shortperiods of time in each Native community and wasrarely able to gather information thoroughly and sys-tematically (see his report on the expedition in AAN,282/113; see also Shternberg 1933a).

The end of 1910 and the beginning of 1911 broughtnew distractions and troubles to both Bogoras andShternberg. Bogoras, who had apparently remained outon bail since his 1905 arrest, was finally given a jailsentence and was suffering from various old ailments.^^Responding to appeals by Bogoras and Mrs. Bogoras ,Boas had the American Anthropological Associationpass a resolution on October 12,1910, requesting thatthe Russian minister of justice allow Bogoras to haveaccess to all the materials he needed to continue hisscholarly work and to correspond freely with his col-leagues abroad, as well as his publisher (APS).'^" Thanksto Boas' efforts and those of several members of theRussian Academy of Sciences, Bogoras' sentence wasreduced, and he was finally released in April 1911.

In the meantime, Shternberg spent much of 1911fighting accusations, leveled against him and Radloffby one of the MAE's collectors, that they had misappro-priated the museum's funds and had secretly sold partof his collection to a foreign dealer (AAN, 282/1/1 79-180)." Shternberg was eventually exonerated, but, be-ing a very sensitive and emotional person, he sufferedgreatly during the investigation and could hardly con-centrate on his work. In addition, in the early 1 91 Os hewas doing a great deal of writing for a leading Russian-language Jewish newspaper, as well as other periodi-cals. Finally, he played a major role in advising Semeon(Shiomo) An-sky (Rappaport), the head of the famousJewish ethnographic expedition of 1912-1 5 (An-sky'sletters to Shternberg, AAN, 282/2/1 75; Shternberg, ed.1914), and he participated actively in the work of aspecial bureau that advised the Duma on Jewish affairs.

Despite these setbacks, in late 1911 -early 1912 theRussian scholar returned to his Cilyak writing, and inthe winter of 1912 he was able to send Boas "the

23 1

continuation of tlie manuscript containing the lastchapters of the construction of the Cilyal< marriage"(Shternberg to Boas, 29 February 1912, APS). As headmitted in the same letter, this part of the mono-graph was the most difficult for him to complete be-cause it required a "great deal of comparatory [com-parative] and preparatory work" and rewriting. The newsection of the manuscript mailed to Boas containedan ambitious comparative chapter that placed theGilyak system of kinship and marriage in the contextof the various North Asian and North American sys-tems. Shternberg was planning to devote the next fewchapters to a discussion of Gilyak daily life and mar-riage customs and of the clan.

This comparative segment of the manuscript be-came the subject of the paper Shternberg delivered inLondon at the 1 8th Congress of Americanists in June1912, in which he used his Siberian data to supportMorgan's ideas about the "Turano-Ganowanian" kin-ship system (Shternberg 1912).^'' According to lettershome, his work was well received by prominent Britishanthropologists Haddon and Rivers, even though bythis time evolutionism was rapidly losing ground inwestern anthropology (AAN, 282/2/361, pp. 95-103).

While in London, Shternberg and Boas had a longdiscussion about his manuscript and worked out a planfor the entire publication, which was to be a roundedethnography akin to the works of Bogoras andJochelson, rather than Shternberg's topical monograph.Thus, in addition to the discussion of the social organi-zation of the Gilyak, which had been pretty much com-pleted, Shternberg promised to provide information ontheir natural environment, physical anthropology anddemography, archaeology, history, material culture, lan-guage, folklore, art, and religion (see Shternberg to Boas,28 February 191 7, APS).

Between the end of 1912 and the beginning ofWorld War I, there was a steady exchange of lettersbetween Shternberg and Boas indicating that the workon the monograph and its preparation for publicationwere progressing steadily. In fact. Boas' letter to

Shternberg of October 26, 1 91 2 (APS), stated that hewas about to send the Gilyak manuscript to the printerbut was having some difficulty with the terms used forthe various levels of the Gilyak social order. To clarifymatters. Boas proposed a series of English terms thatto him seemed to be adequate equivalents of the Gilyakones. On December 1, 1912, Shternberg sent Boas aresponse in which he accepted many of his sugges-tions and answered most of his queries (AMNH). Vol-ume 8 of thejesup Expedition series, published in 1913,carried an announcement that a monograph by LeoSternberg, Tribes of the Amur River, would appear involume 4, part 2, of the series—presumably replacingLaufer's monograph, which had been advertised in anearlier volume but never written.

Swept Up in World EventsStill, the work had not been fully completed, and thatbothered Boas considerably, since the AMNH wasclearly getting tired of his JNPE publication project.Shternberg, always a perfectionist, continued to tinkerwith his manuscript and complained about some inac-curacies in the English translation (Shternberg to Boas,23 June 1913, APS). To make matters worse, in thespring of 191 3 he had experienced another set of pro-fessional and political troubles, and he and his wifehad suffered a major personal loss, the nature of whichI have not been able to establish (see Boas to Shternberg,29 April 1913, AAN, 282/2/29, p. 51). On October 2,1913, Boas sent an exasperated letter to his Russiancontributor, saying:

Last time you wrote to me you said you weregoing to send me your manuscript very soon. Iam exceedingly anxious to get your material. IfI do not finish my work by the last of Decem-ber 191 5, the whole matter will be at an end,and I am simply held up by you. Can you notplease finish your part of the work, so that wecan at least go ahead with that part that hasbeen translated? (AAM, 282/2/29, p. 54)

On November 18, 1913, Boas acknowledged hav-ing just received the ill-fated manuscript and wrotethat he was planning to send it to the printer very

232

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

soon. He begged Shternberg to read the proofs assoon they reached him. One difficulty remained, how-ever; Boas could not print the table of contents, sincehe did not know exactly what Shternberg's further planswere. He also continued to press his colleague to "keepup the work, because, as I told you several times, thetime is drawing very near when the work must beclosed. The whole labor after I receive your manu-script—translation, revision, etc.—means a great dealand consumes much time" (APS).

Unfortunately, in 1914 it was Boas' turn to delaythe publication of the Cilyak monograph. As he com-plained to Shternberg in an April 1 7 letter of that year:

The delay in printing is due to the very greatpressure of work here. It so happens that somuch has accumulated this winter, that,although I made a start with your materialseveral times, it had to be put aside again.My present plan is to take it up seriously inMay, and it will then go to the printer atonce. I do hope that you will go right onwith your writing, so that we can get thewhole matter under way before my contractexpires. Even after I receive your manuscript,it will still take quite a little time before wecan get it published. (AAN, 282/29, p. 57)

With the onset of fighting in Europe, the work onthe JNPE publications slowed even more. In a letter toClark Wissler of the AMNH Department of Anthropol-ogy (10 October 191 5, AMNH), Boas mentioned thathe had in hand a "paper" by Shternberg on the Cilyak,"although the actual printing will probably have to waituntil the end of the war." On September 28, 1916, hesent a similar message to Shternberg, saying that eventhough he now had the entire manuscript, he was "quiteunable to send it to the printer. I do not receive theproofs that are sent to me from Leiden, and all printinghas probably stopped" (AAN, 282/2/29, p. 62).

Both Shternberg and Boas were deeply disturbedby the war in Europe, though for somewhat differentreasons. As was the case with many other moderateformer populists (who either joined or at least sympa-thized with the Socialist Revolutionaries, or SRs) andwith liberals further to the right, Shternberg, like Bogoras,

became a "defensist" (oboronets) patriot during thewar and was very upset about Russia's losses(Melancon 1990). In addition, he was deeply troubledby the anti-Jewish propaganda and violence commit-ted by the Russian army in those parts of the countrywhere the fighting took place (Cassenschmidt 1995)."Boas was upset about the war because it pitted hisnative country against his adopted one and its alliesand demonstrated how brutal the most "civilized" Eu-ropeans could become. Along with some other liberaland leftist American intellectuals, he took a pacifistposition that made him quite unpopular among hismore conservative colleagues (Stocking, ed. 1974:331-5; Stocking 1992: 102-6). Boas' state of mindduring this time is well captured in his September 28,1916, letter to Shternberg: "I hope that at a later timeI may write to you more fully. At present it is hardlypossible to write about anything serious" (AAN, 282/2/29, p. 62).

Despite their preoccupation with the war, both schol-ars continued their administrative and scholarly workthroughout this period, with Boas publishing his monu-mental Tsimshian Myths (Boas 1916) and Shternbergdelivering several key lectures at the meetings of theEthnography Division of the Russian Ceographic Soci-ety and publishing an important essay on comparativereligion (Shternberg 1916). Finally, during the war, afteryears of giving various small and unofficial ethno-graphic and museological seminars and lectures withinthe MAE walls, Shternberg received an opportunity togive regular lecture courses in "ethnography" (anthro-pology) at the "Higher Ceography Courses."

The Fate of the Cilyak Manuscript afterthe Bolshevik Coup

It is surprising that Shternberg's letter to Boas (prior toa six-year-long silence), written during the height ofthe revolution of February 1917, does not mentionthat event. After all, like the majority of Russia'sintelligentsia, he enthusiastically welcomed the over-throw of the monarchy and the establishment of the

SERGEI KAN

233

Provisional Government, dominated by the liberals andthe moderate socialists. From the time of the FebruaryRevolution until the beginning of 1918, he plungedinto political activities, including those that would havebeen illegal before the fall of the emperor. As always,his most important political activity was journalism.He joined the staff of Volia naroda (People's Will), anewspaper reflecting the views of the most moderatewing of the SR party, which fully supported the poli-cies of the Provisional Government and was highlycritical of the Bolsheviks. Following the October 191 7Bolshevik coup, the Volia naroda office was raidedseveral times by the government and was finally closeddown in February 1918.

After that, Shternberg must have curtailed his SRactivities, since he did not leave St. Petersburg (thencalled Petrograd) during the Civil War or go underground.Moreover, since he never placed his political involve-ment above his work at the MAE, he must have feltcompelled to devote most of his energy to serving asits chief administrator after RadlofFs death in the springof 1918. The years between 191 8 and the early 1920swere the most difficult in his life and in the lives ofother Russian intellectuals. This was especially so inthe capital, which was located very close to the frontlines and where severe food and fuel shortages con-tributed to a general deterioration of economic andsocial life. In addition to these physical privations,Shternberg, Bogoras, and Jochelson suffered greatly froma travel and communication blockade that for severalyears cut them off from any contacts with their col-leagues abroad and from receipt of scholarly publica-tions (see Jochelson to Boas, 10 October 1921; Bogorasto Boas, 1 7 February 1923, APS).

During this period, Petrograd experienced one ofthe worst manifestations of Bolshevik dictatorship andRed Terror. Many of Shternberg's colleagues andfriends, who tended to be affiliated with the KD andSR parties, emigrated or were arrested. Shternberg andJochelson, who had also been involved in Volia naroda,themselves fell victim to this terror on February 25,

1 921, when they were placed in the infamous "Houseof Preliminary Confinement" as part of a large-scale cam-paign of arrests conducted by the Bolshevik secretpolice in the city during the "Kronstadt Mutiny."^* For-tunately for the two ethnographers, a prominent Rus-sian writer, Maxim Gorky, intervened on behalf of someof the arrested intellectuals, and this led to their re-lease on March 2 (AAN, 282/1/102, p. 41).

Although by the time of this brief arrest Shternberghad completely withdrawn from any anti-Soviet activ-ity, he remained dedicated to the populist ideology ofhis youth and to supporting his fellow populists. In thesummer of 1922, this courageous man composed anappeal to the Soviet government, which was signed bya number of veteran populists, asking the governmentto be lenient toward and not shed the blood of the"right-wing SRs," on trial in Moscow at the time (AAN,282/1 /102, p. 42-3;Jansen 1982).

One might ask why Shternberg, who never becamean ardent supporter of the Soviet regime, did not leaveSoviet Russia, as Jochelson and a number of his othercolleagues did.^^ My guess is that his dedication to theMAE, whose de facto director he was between 1918and 1922, was a major reason for his decision to stay.In addition, it was under the new regime that he finallywas given an opportunity to establish the teaching ofanthropology at the university level, first in the Eth-nography Division of the Geography Institute and, be-ginning in the mid-1920s, in the Ethnography Depart-ment of the Geography Division of Petrograd (later,Leningrad) University. Not only did he teach a varietyof courses in those institutions; he served as well asthe dean of the Ethnography Division and later of theEthnography Department. He also brought Bogoras intothese institutions, and the latter became his closest allyin the work of establishing what became known as theLeningrad ethnographic school (Ratner-Shternberg 1935;Gagen-Torn 1971; Staniukovich 1971; AAN, 282/1/135and 179).

With the death and departure of a number of promi-nent Russian ethnographers, Shternberg became one

234

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

of the remaining leaders of the discipline, especially inLeningrad. Thanks to his and Bogoras' tireless efforts,the new regime came to recognize the importance ofethnography as a field of knowledge with practical ap-plications and as a major component of the higher-education curriculum and began supporting it finan-cially (Solovei 1 998). Shternberg must have understoodthat his departure would be a major blow to the youngdiscipline to which he had devoted much of his life.

After Dubnov, the long-time president of the JewishHistorical-Ethnographic Society, emigrated, Shternbergtook on that job in 1923 and also became the editor ofthe society's journal, Evreiskaia Star'ma, which he triedto make more anthropology-oriented (Shternberg 1924,1928). It also appears that, like many other Russianintellectuals, he welcomed the degree of liberalizationthat occurred in the early-to-mid-1920s, when the NewEconomic Policy reintroduced some private enterprise,censorship eased a bit, and travel abroad again becamepossible. Shternberg might have been hoping that thenew regime would eventually become softer and morehumane. In addition, until the late 1920s old populistrevolutionaries who, like him and Bogoras, remainedin the country and did not oppose the regime weretreated by the regime with considerable respect.

The resumption of scholarly contacts with the westin the early 1920s allowed Boas to renew his ties withShternberg and his other Russian colleagues. In Sep-tember 1921 he managed to send his first letter tojochelson; the latter shared it with Bogoras andShternberg (see Jochelson to Boas, 10 October 1921).As far as the "ethno-troika" was concerned. Boas hadtwo major worries: their physical survival, and the con-tinuation of their scholarly contributions to the variousseries of which he was the editor.3°To help support hisRussian colleagues. Boas managed to get the AMNHpresident to commit museum funds to remunerate themfor their writing. As Boas' identical letters to Bogorasand Shternberg, dated December 9,1921, stated.

President Osborn of the American Museum ofNatural History has asked me to inquire what

material connected with your research inSiberia you have on hand for immediatepublication, the amount of time needed forthis work and the financial remunerationexpected. When he has received this data, hewill consider what plan for publication canbe adopted. (APS)

Boas' primary goal was clearly to help his Russian friends,since this time he did not specify which projects hewould like them to work on. Even in Shternberg's case,he did not name the Gilyak monograph but only men-tioned "some subject on the Amur River tribes" (Boasto Shternberg, 17 May 1922, AAN, 282/2/29, p. 66).The remuneration proposed by Osborn was quite gen-erous, especially for the starving Russian scholars:"$300 to be divided into equal monthly installmentsfor the rest of the current year from the moment thatthe agreement goes in effect" (AAM, 282/2/29, p. 66).^'While Boas was rather vague about the workShternberg was expected to do in return for this assis-tance, Shternberg himself was quite specific. In hisjune20, 1922, letter to Osborn, in which he accepted themuseum's offer, he wrote about "preparing for you apart of my monograph on the Ciljaks, The Family andthe Cens [Clan]" (AMNH). This suggests that he wasplanning to continue working on his Gilyak monograph.At the same time, it appears that after some 18 yearsof working on this book, he was beginning to gettired of it and that new research interests were occu-pying his mind at that time. Thus, in February 1923, hewrote to Boas that he had recently prepared:

a ready paper on the genesis of the idea ofelection in primitive religion, especially in theSiberian shamanism, developing entirely newand important facts of the psychology of theshamans, from my own observations andunknown manuscripts and from my corre-spondents. It is written in Russian and [is]now in the process of translation. It is notexactly the subject proposed by you, but fortwo reasons I prefer to send it as my firstling,1) because it concerns the religious ideas ofall Siberian tribes including the North-Easternones, 2) I am till now uncertain about thefate of my first chapters on the Giljak; undersuch circumstances I am not sure if the

SERGEI KAN

235

continuation will not have the same fate asthe preceding ones. Please let me knowabout it. In any case I do not cease toprepare my Giljak materials in attending youranswer. (21 February 1923, APS)

It is not clear why Shternberg was uncertain of thefate of the portion of the Cilyak manuscript that hehad delivered to Boas 10 years earlier, but for somereason he felt that it was not ready for publication.Boas did not respond to this letter for over a year, butwe do know from Jochelson's letter to Shternberg,written in March 1923 from New York (AAN, 282/2/124, pp. 37-40), that he was not pleased withShternberg's change of plans and was expecting himto "continue working on the materials for the JesupExpedition .. . and not to send any theoretical articlesto him." Jochelson also informed Shternberg that hisAmerican colleague was not going to help publish his"Divine Election" essay in an American journal. The factthat Boas was clearly losing patience with Shternbergis reflected in his May 1, 1924, letter to him:

"I wonder what you have been doing inregard to the manuscript for the Museum.There has been such a delay in publishingyour Cilyak material that I do not know justwhat to do. I should like to know particularlywhether the manuscript which I have may beprinted as it stands or whether you want torevise it" (AAN, 282/2/129, p. 72).

In August 1924, a reunion of Boas, Bogoras, andShternberg took place at the 21st Congress ofAmericanists in the Hague and Coteborg. In additionto attending the congress, the two Russian scholarsspent over two months in Europe buying books forthe MAE and other Academy of Sciences institutionsand libraries, reading the latest anthropological works,and conversing with foreign scholars. For both of them,this first trip abroad since the start of World War I wasan exciting experience. They not only met many oftheir old colleagues and friends but also made impor-tant new contacts with prominent scholars fromScandinavia, England, France, Cermany, the UnitedStates, and other countries. For Shternberg, themost important links of this kind were the collegiate

236

relationships he established with Eriand Nordenskiold,Charles Seligman, Paul Rivet, and Marcel Mauss (seeAAN, 282/2/203 and 162). Conversations with them,combined with a great deal of reading, familiarizedhim with the new developments in western ethnologyfrom which he had been cut off for almost a decade.Shternberg's essay (1926) reviewing these develop-ments demonstrated that while he was enthusiasticabout some of them, such as Malinowski's Trobriandwork, the extensive field research by Boas' studentsamong American Indians, and the increased attentionto psychological issues demonstrated by Seligman,W. H. Rivers, and others, he remained strongly commit-ted to evolutionism and was unhappy about theantievolutionist position most of his western colleagueshad taken.

As always, Shternberg used his foreign trip not onlyto visit museums and learn about new work in his fieldbut also to observe local political and social life, in-cluding left-wing and Jewish activities. His letters to hiswife written on this trip (AAN, 282/2/361) indicate that,despite his and Bogoras' ongoing disagreements withSoviet government policies, they thought of themselvesand were treated as the official representatives not onlyof the Academy of Sciences but also of their new state.While the majority of the scholars they met were cour-teous toward them, Shternberg felt that those with moreliberal and leftist views were particularly friendly. Amongthem were Mauss and Rivet (both socialists) and Boashimself. Shternberg wrote home about his old Ameri-can colleague,

"Boas spent most of his time with us and didit as a demonstration to others, even thoughhe was the central figure at the congress. Ourinteraction with him was not only scholarlybut personal and political. As far as his soc.[socialist?] views are concerned . . . they arevery similar to ours; I might even say he ismore radical than I am" (AAN, 282/2/361,pp. 202-3a).

The last sentence suggests that Boas, who in the1920s became quite sympathetic toward the new So-viet regime, might have been more idealistic about life

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

in the USSR, which he observed from a distance, thanhis Russian colleagues, who experienced it first hand(see Jochelson to Shternberg, 12 March 1923, AAN,282/2/1 24, p. 24). Although toward the end of the1920s and in the 1930s, Boas became more critical ofthe political and ideological climate in the USSR (APS),he remained a strong advocate of Soviet-Americanscholarly cooperation. In the 1930s, using his ties withBogoras, he helped several young American ethnolo-gists go to Leningrad to study and do research at theMAE and brought one Soviet ethnography student,Juliia Averkieva, to study with him in New York andaccompany him to the field (see Krupnik 1 998).^-^

As Shternberg wrote to Boas prior to his departurefor western Europe, he was anticipating being scoldedby him for taking so long to complete the Cilyak manu-script (Shternberg to Boas, 5 July 1924, APS). His ex-pectations proved correct, as his letters to his wife andespecially Boas' October 29, 1924, letter to him indi-cate. Since this was Boas' last detailed communicationto Shternberg on the subject, it is worth quoting a largesection of it here.

My dear Dr. Sternberg:

Allow me to very briefly repeat the variouspoints that we discussed and partly agreedupon at our meeting this summer. First of all,you agreed to send me the chapter on thesocial organization, history, and statistics ofthe Cilyak, which is to be covered by thepayment of $300 that was made to youabout two years ago by the Museum. I amretaining one part of your manuscript whichforms part of this chapter. Furthermore youmade the following proposal: to finish byAugust 1925 the chapter on mythology andfolk-lore of the Cilyak; by March 1926 thechapter on religion and history; by August1 926 the chapter on material culture. Youasked that if you were to undertake this, thesum of $2,000 a year be paid to you for theyears 1925 and 1926. Furthermore youestimated that the sum of $500 would berequired for illustrations, translations, and soon. Furthermore you were going to includematerial on the Col'd and Ainu in yourmanuscript, which you were going to deliverin English. (APS)

It appears that by this time Boas had realized thatto get his Russian friend to complete this work, hesimply had to make him commit to a definite sched-ule. It is worth noting, however, that Boas left the dooropen for the possibility that, after 20 years of waitingfor the Shternberg manuscript, the AMNH administra-tion might refuse to continue paying him. As Boas putit, "I have, of course, not been in a position to makeany arrangements, and it remains to be seen what Ican do" (APS)." Shternberg's December 24, 1 924, re-sponse to this letter shows that he was well aware ofBoas' impatience. In it, he informed his friend that hewas working on the "continuation of the social cul-ture," which was to be "not of a small size." Clearlydissatisfied with Alexander Coldenweiser's translationof his manuscript, he was going to have it translated inRussia. He also wrote about a new obstacle he had toovercome in order to complete the Cilyak book: verypoor health (APS).

That was not the only factor hindering his Cilyakwork. On their return to Russia, he and Bogoras wereforced to engage in a major battle with zealous Marx-ist education officials to save the curriculum they haddeveloped for the Ethnology Division of the Ceogra-phy Institute from the introduction of new ideologi-cally driven courses and the reduction of fundamentalacademic ones (Ratner-Shternberg 1935). Althoughthey did win a partial victory, the ideological climatein the country was clearly beginning to change, and,consequently, the higher education curriculum was be-coming increasingly politicized (Solovei 1 998; Konecny1999). In addition, in 1924-25 Shternberg's work atthe MAE kept him very busy. On the one hand, he hadto deal with periodic confrontations between his ownfaction and that of the museum director, AcademicianKarskii (Ratner-Shternberg 1928; Reshetov 1996; AAN,282/4/9, pp. 1 65-72).^'' On the other hand, in the mid-1920s he was able to use increased governmentsupport for the MAE to finally begin work on his petproject—the department for the "evolution and typol-ogy of culture" (Staniukovich 1978).

SERGEI KAN

237

Consequently, by April 1925, Boas still had not re-ceived any new installments of the Cilyak manuscript(see Boas to Wissler, 5 April 1926, AMNH; Boas toShternberg, 9 April 1925, APS). By the end of that year,he finally heard from Shternberg, who hinted at thedifficulties he had to deal with "during this trouble-some year." That letter also contained a puzzling post-script saying that he had not received a copy of hismanuscript and was anxious to get it. Does this suggestthat Shternberg wished to see the material he had sentto Boas before World War I, to make changes in it?

By the end of summer 1 926, Boas was clearly fedup with his two Russian colleagues, and on August 14he sent them rather stern letters which seemed to sug-gest that he was giving them one last chance to com-plete their work. His letter to Bogoras said:

I have been hoping for all these many months,or years, to get the promised material fromyourself and from Sternberg. I made myselfresponsible for it at that time to the Museumand I feel in a very awkward position becausenothing comes. Can you not find your Eskimomaterial that you promised me and let me haveit? (APS)

The one to Shternberg was similar in tone and evenwent so far as to remind the addressee that he hadfailed to repay Boas for the help offered to him in theearly 1920s:

May I not hope that you will send me some-time, the material on the Amur tribes that youpromised me? I am, of course, in a very awk-ward position because at the time when I gotthe Museum to help you out I undertook topromise that you would furnish a certainamount of work, so that the responsibility in away rests with me. (APS)

Despite its severity, the letter ended on a more ami-cable note: "But setting aside the point, I should like,of course, very much to have the valuable informationon these tribes for publication."

Little did Boas know that this would be his lastletter to Shternberg. The latter took over half a year torespond, prevented from doing so by poor health, hisvarious duties at the university and the museum, and a

long and arduous trip to Japan to attend the ThirdPacific Scientific Congress in November 1926. In hisown last communication with Boas, dated September1 5, 1926 (APS), Shternberg mentioned that he wasabout to embark on this trip and complained thathe would much rather have attended the 22ndAmericanist Congress, to be held in Rome during thesame month, where he had hoped to see his old friend.However, he did have some good news for Boas con-cerning the Gilyak manuscript: "a great deal is done, itwaits now only to be translated and after my return itwill be finished." The letter indicates that Shternbergfelt guilty about his having received money for workthat took so long to complete: "I am happy to be able. . . not only to send the Museum my work, but also topay my debt by cash what I hope to make either fromJapan or after my return."

Unfortunately, afterthejapanese trip, which includeda visit to the Hokkaido Ainu, Shternberg came homeexhausted and unwell. He never fully recovered, andhe passed away on August 24, 1927. From his wife'sNovember 4, 1927, letter to Boas (APS), we learn thatonly a few days before his death he was still workingon the Gilyak manuscript.

Unaware of Shternberg's illness, and still frustratedwith his colleague's constant promises. Boas no longerwrote to him. Instead, he sent a letter to Bogoras, withwhom he was about equally frustrated but who hadalways been his closest friend in the "ethno-troika":

Jochelson tells me that you wrote to him thatyou hoped to send me the Eskimo material thisspring. I devoutly hope that this may be thecase. I believe you know how embarrassing it isto me that this matter is still hanging; both inyour case and that of Mr. Sternberg. It is notthe question that Mr. Sternberg has to furnishan enormous amount of material, but if hewould only send a little of his Gilyak work;whatever may seem most convenient to him.(Boas to Bogoras, 25 February 1927, APS)

This letter shows that by 1927 Boas had become sofrustrated with Shternberg, and so uncomfortablevis-a-vis the AMNH, that he was willing to publish anyGilyak manuscript of his, regardless of its content.

238

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

The Saga of the Gilyak Manuscript afterShternberg's Death

Shternberg's death was a major blow to Boas. Asidefrom the stop it put to his decades-long efforts toprocure a substantial monograph on the peoples ofthe Russian Far East, it took away a dear old friend andcolleague (see Boas to Bogoras, 31 October 1927,APS). At the 23rd Americanist Congress, held in Sep-tember 1928, Boas memorialized Shternberg as "theleader of the Russian ethnologists" who was an out-standing specialist on the peoples of the Amur Riverand Sakhalin Island and whose "influence over the studyof ethnology extended over the whole world." He alsodescribed him as "a dear, personal friend" whose lossBoas was "feeling keenly" (Boas 1930:xxviii-xxix).

Two years later, at the next congress, Boas offereda more detailed assessment of his friend's scholarlycontributions (Boas 1934:xl-xli). Since this was a con-gress of Americanists, he stressed the importance ofShternberg's ethnographic research for the establish-ment of cultural links between America and the OldWorld. He also referred to him as someone who since1900 "had been our colleague and participant in thepublications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition,whose work represented a major element of thatproject." As far as Shternberg's theoretical position wasconcerned. Boas did express his reservations about it.He stated that his colleague had observed "uniqueforms of group marriage and kinship system which heinterpreted in terms of Morgan's theory" and that madehim "one of the most zealous recent defenders of theentire Morganian scheme and the general evolution-ary theory." He went on to say that "no matter whatour attitude towards these theories might be, hisimportant observations must be taken into seriousconsideration." He also stressed the importance ofShternberg's work on the religion of the Amur Riverpeoples, which he had used as data for his generaltheory of religion. Finally, Boas praised the decedent'swork at the MAE and Leningrad University and con-cluded that those who called him "the Russian Bastian"

SERGEI KAN

were not incorrect. Closing his remarks on a personalnote, he called Shternberg one of his "most modestand amiable comrades whose friendship I consider tobe one of the most valuable memories of my life."

After nearly giving up on ever being able to pub-lish his friend's manuscript. Boas must have been pleas-antly surprised to receive a letter from Shternberg'swidow a couple of months after his death informinghim that she had found a manuscript on the "Gilyakfamily and clan" among her late husband's papers (seeGrant 1999:xlvii-liv). Sarra (Ratner-)Shternberg askedwhether she should send it to Boas and whether Boashad any unpublished parts of the same work in hispossession (S. Shternberg to Boas, 4 November 1927,APS). Two weeks later. Boas replied that he was happyto learn about her discovery, did have "the first part" ofShternberg's work, and was still interested in publish-ing it after all those years (Boas to S. Shternberg, 19November 1927, APS). On January 26, 1928, Ratner-Shternberg replied that she was trying to verify her latehusband's transliteration of Native words with the helpof the Gilyak students from the Northern Section ofLeningrad's Oriental Institute but that such work took awhile to complete (APS). On March 19-20, 1928, sheinformed Boas that she had recently mailed him theentire manuscript except for the sections dealing withGilyak language and folklore, which she wrongly as-sumed to have been copies of the materials that hadbeen sent to him long ago. Boas did receive the manu-script, but, as he informed Mrs. Shternberg, who wasbecoming increasingly impatient about the delays inprinting it (see S. Shternberg to Boas, 25 October 1928,APS), "we are going to publish the manuscript of Pro-fessor Sternberg but conditions here are such that pub-lication always very slow" (Boas to S. Shternberg, 1 7January 1929, APS).

Having begun to doubt whether her late husband'smonograph would ever be printed in the United States,Sarra Shternberg put her energy into trying to get itpublished in her own country. Several of her husband'sstudents, particularly E. A. Kreinovich, who had already

239

undertaken extensive field research among the Sak-halin Gilyak (Kreinovich 1973) and was fluent in theirlanguage, were recruited to help in this work. Herefforts finally paid off when large portions of the Gilyakmonograph appeared in two collections of Shtern-berg's published and unpublished works (Shternberg1933a, 1933b; see also Grant 1 999;xlvii-liv). Still,Ratner-Shternberg refused to give up on the English-language publication of her husband's monograph andrecruited Averkieva, who had come back to Leningradafter studying and conducting research in the UnitedStates, to work on (re)translating it into English (seeGrant 1999:xlix).

During the early 1930s, Boas, too, was still hopingto publish the Gilyak monograph. He mentioned thatin his speech about Shternberg at the 1930 AmericanistCongress in Germany, and he promised Ratner-Shternberg in his September 8, 1931, letter (quoted inGrant 1999:240) that her husband's manuscript was nextin line after the JNPE volume dealing with physicalanthropology, which had just been published (Oetteking1930). By this time, Boas' declining health was a newfactor in the slowing down of the publication process(see Boas to Bogoras, 2 June 1932, APS). Nevertheless,work continued. Even as late as 1933, an exchange ofportions of the manuscript between Boas and Mrs.Shternberg was still taking place and in his last letter toher, dated March 17,1933 (APS), Boas wrote that he hadfinally received it from her and was going "to try to getthe printing started just as soon as possible." Threedays later, he sent a similar letter to Wissler at the AMNH(20 March 1933, AMNH). The latter responded the nextday, informing Boas that although the museum's bud-get was "somewhat disorganized at present," he hadasked for an appropriation to cover the printing of thepaper. By late May of that year, the entire matter seemsto have been settled, and the Brill company was readyto proceed with the publication of Shternberg's workas part 2 of volume 4 in the JNPE series (Wissler toBoas, 27 April 1933; Brill to Boas, 24 May 1933; Boasto Wissler, 25 May 1 933, AMNH).

240

Final Collapse

The manuscript's saga, however, was not to have ahappy ending. Having given up on Boas, Ratner-Shternberg sent him her last two angry letters on Feb-ruary 2 and June 10, 1934 (APS). Between that yearand 1 939, no correspondence related to the Gilyakmanuscript seems to have been generated (or, at least,could be found by Grant or myself). We do not knowexactly what caused the delays in publishing the un-fortunate manuscript, but most likely it was a combi-nation of the financial difficulties Brill was having, dueto a worldwide economic depression, and Boas' ad-vancing old age, which prevented him from taking careof his editorial duties promptly. The latter factor seemsto have been the main reason for the sad fate of theGilyak manuscript. A June 1939 letter from the pub-lisher to Boas sheds light on the situation: "A shorttime ago, I . . . received the request whether a furthervolume of the publication of the American Museum ofNatural History might be expected. I see in the previ-ous letters that you wrote me about 5 years ago, thatyou had not been able to finish the editorial work ofvolume IV, part 2 of the Jesup Expedition as the Mem-oirs of the Museum" (17 June 1939, AMNH). Despitethis setback, the publisher was still willing to proceedwith the publication and was awaiting Boas' quick re-sponse. Boas' letter to Brill, written on June 30, 1939(AMNH), blamed the enormous delay on his having beentoo busy with other projects in the past few years andon Shternberg's death, which made the final editingdifficult. He also mentioned the need to obtain theAMNH's consent for the continuation of the publica-tion. My guess is that Boas had not anticipated theamount of editorial work the manuscript still required.With its author deceased and Boas' communicationswith Soviet ethnographers having come to an end bythe mid-1930s (see Krupnik 1998:208-9), it must havebeen very difficult for him to deal with the various mi-nor questions and problems, particularly terminologi-cal ones, that arose during the publication process.What Boas' letter to Brill did not mention was that,

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

since his retirement from Columbia University in 1937,he had become increasingly involved in writing essaysfor nonacademic publications on such burning issuesof the day as the Nazi threat and intellectual freedomin the United States (Stocking 1992:106-10). His de-clining health was also slowing down this energeticand prolific scholar.

Boas' interest in the remaining unpublished manu-scripts of the JNPE revived two years later, with thearrival in New York of the great Russian linguist Ro-man Jakobson. Boas asked Jakobson to compare theEnglish-language version of the Shternberg manuscriptwith the 1933 Soviet publications on the same subject(Boas to Wissler, 31 July 1941, AMNH). Jakobson musthave convinced Boas that the Russian-language publi-cations were essentially the same as or very similar tothe manuscript in his possession. Since Wissler's Octo-ber 1941 letter (AMNH) had informed Boas that themuseum's publication budget was at that time "hope-lessly deficient," Jakobson's argument must have pro-vided Boas with an excuse to end his four decades ofefforts to try to publish the Cilyak manuscript. WithWorld War II raging in Europe and the Pacific, nobodyhad the energy or the resources to commit to this mat-ter. Boas' last letter to Wissler on the subject, writteneight months before his death, sums up his thoughts:

As you remember the report by Sternberg onthe Cilyak has been hanging for a long time. Ihave the whole manuscript ready, but owingto financial conditions of the world and thedeath of Dr. Sternberg, nothing could bedone. I have had the Russian publications bySternberg relating to the Cilyak investigatedand I find that all the material has beenpublished in Russian, so it seems to me thereis no sense in trying to publish it now inEnglish. ... I think it would be best to usethis translation as a book in your library. (1 6April 1942, AMNH)

After 1942, the Cilyak manuscript remained inthe AMNH library, where it was consulted by such lu-minaries of anthropology as Claude Levi-Strauss, whoreferred to it as "a work of exceptional value and in-sight" (1969:292) and who relied heavily on it in his

SERGEI KAN

discussion of "generalized exchange" systems. On sev-eral occasions, the AMNH entertained the idea of pub-lishing it. Thus, in 1950 Harry Shapiro of the AMNHAnthropology Department sent the manuscript for re-view to Kroeber, who praised the work's data but notits theoretical framework. Encouraged by this review,Shapiro attempted to recruit Shimkin, a Russian-bornethnologist trained in the United States, to undertakethe editing needed to get the manuscript published.Despite his interest in the project, Shimkin eventuallywithdrew because of lack of time (see his correspon-dence with Shapiro, AMNH).

The next attempt to publish the monograph wasmade in 1958-62 by Needham (1 962, 1 971) whose in-terest in its account of the Cilyak marriage system hadbeen stimulated by Levi-Strauss's work. Once again,nothing happened. But 40 years later, the saga of theCilyak manuscript finally ended on a happy note.

Comparison of the ManuscriptsI would like to briefly compare the content of "SocialOrganization of the Cilyak" with that of Shternberg's1904 Cilyak monograph. My purpose is to establishwhat exactly Shternberg had been able to write for Boasbetween their first encounter and the time of his death.I will also compare "Social Organization of the Cilyak"with the other two major Russian contributions to theJNPE publications, Bogoras' Chukchi and Jochelson'sKoryak monographs.

As far as the ethnographic data is concerned,Shternberg did not add a great deal to the materialthat had already appeared in his 1904 monograph.Having reviewed his field notes, I have concluded thathe actually did not have much to add to what he hadincluded in that earlier work. In fact, some portions of"Social Organization of the Cilyak" repeat almost ver-batim long passages from "Ciliaki" (e.g., the discussionof the clan). However, from the point of view of inter-preting that data and theorizing, "Social Organization"is a very different kind of work. For example, whereasthe 1 904 essay presents a tri-clan model of Cilyak

241

marriage, the monograph written for Boas describes amore complex one, consisting minimally of four clansand ideally of five (Shternberg 1999:79-83). Most im-portant, in "Social Organization," Shternberg examinesthe Gilyak system of kinship and marriage not in isola-tion but in the context of a number of other indig-enous Siberian and even northern North American formsof social organization (Shternberg 1999:31-8). Thisdiscussion allows the author to show both the similari-ties and the differences between the Gilyak cases andthe others. "Social Organization" also utilizes the Gilyak,as well as other Siberian data, to demonstrate the fun-damental validity of Morgan's hypothesis while point-ing out its shortcomings.

Thus, unlike Bogoras and Jochelson, who workedunder Boas' close supervision and produced the de-tailed, comprehensive, and largely descriptive mono-graphs that he favored, Shternberg wrote a more mod-ern-style topical and theory-driven work. It was, in thissense, not unlike the monographs that began to appearin the 1920s and 1930s, particularly in England, where,during that time, interest in social organization tendedto be stronger than in the United States. In some ways"Social Organization" reads as a much more modernwork than The Chukchee or The Koryak or, for thatmatter, Swanton's Contributions to the Ethnologyof the Haida (1 905). However, if we consider thesemonographs' lasting significance as rich sources ofimportant ethnographic data for subsequent genera-tions of scholars (and the Native people themselves),the works of Bogoras, Jochelson, Swanton, and Boashimself (e.g., Boas 1909) are more reliable and valuablethan Shternberg's Gilyak monograph. Nonetheless, onecannot dismiss the entire monograph out of hand: thosesections that were based on the author's careful first-hand observations continue to be used and appreci-ated by scholars (e.g., Black 1973; Kreinovich 1973;Smoliak 1975; Taksami 1975; Ostrovskii 1997). Wedan only regret that Shternberg did not have the timeto include in his monograph other Gilyak materials hehad collected. For example, his portrayal of Gilyak

culture would have been much more comprehensivehad he included his rich and interesting data on Gilyakreligion, language, and folklore or had he tried moresystematically to demonstrate the interrelationship be-tween the Gilyak social and ideational orders, as hedid in the last three chapters of "Social Organization,"dealing with the clan."

In closing I would like to sum up the main reasonsfor Shtern berg's inability to complete his Gilyak mono-graph and Boas' failure to get it published. While muchof the blame for the former must be laid on the variousdistractions that kept Shternberg from completing hiswork, his own personality also played a role. UnlikeBoas, who was extremely thorough and systematic inhis work and did his best to complete the research hehad started, Shternberg preferred to write only on thosetopics that really interested him and, consequently, lefta number of unfinished projects. Several of his col-leagues and students (e.g., Bogoras 1928:16) pointedout that Shternberg found the research involved in theinitial preparation of a lecture or a paper more interest-ing than completing an article, let alone a monograph,for publication. In fact, toward the end of his life hewould often say that his students were going to be theones to finish the various projects he had initiated (AAN,282/l/136,pp.47-50a).

Furthermore, Shternberg set very high standards forhimself and refused to publish an article or a mono-graph that he did not consider to have been thoroughlyresearched and flawlessly written. That is why, I be-lieve, he kept tinkering endlessly with "Social Organi-zation." In that respect, he was closer to Boas than toBogoras, who sometimes published works which hadnot been thoroughly researched or thought out.

At the same time, although Shternberg was ex-tremely dedicated to his scholarly work, he was justas passionate about his participation in the Russianand Jewish liberation movements as he was aboutanthropology. In this respect, he differed from Boas,who, while being a conscientious public intellectualwho spoke and wrote more about many of the

2 42 THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

burning political issues than most of his fellow anthro-pologists in the United States, still tended to placescholarship above political involvement (Stocking1992). Finally, we should not forget that except forthe last decade of his life, when he became the headof the Ethnography Division of the Geography Instituteand later of the Ethnography Department of the Geog-raphy Division of Leningrad University, and also a mem-ber of the Academy of Sciences, Shternberg was al-ways struggling to survive on his modest MAE salaryand was forced to spend a good deal of time doingjournalistic work. Had this not been the case, he wouldlikely have left behind a more substantial body of pub-lished scholarly works.

Thus, one cannot blame Boas for failing to obtain acompleted monograph from "the Russian Bastian." Onthe contrary, Boas' relentless efforts to make Shternbergand the rest of the Russian "ethno-troika" finish theirvarious scholarly projects are worthy of admiration. Iam sure that Boas did not like constantly badgering hisRussian friends. In the end, instead of criticizing Boasfor failing to complete the editorial work on "SocialOrganization of the Gilyak," we should give him creditfor encouraging Shternberg to work on the manuscriptand for procuring a number of important monographsand essays from Bogoras and Jochelson. Those of uswho have ever been engaged in any editorial workourselves cannot but appreciate what Boas managedto accomplish in this area, despite the odds.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Igor Krupnik for thoughtful andstimulating comments on an earlier version of this pa-per and Bruce Grant for sharing with me several perti-nent Russian publications, as well as a number of ma-terials he had found in the Shternberg archive. I mustexpress special gratitude to Mikhail Fainshtein, associ-ate director of the St. Petersburg Branch of the RussianAcademy of Sciences Archive, for all the help and ad-vice he has been generously giving me since 1 998.

Notes

1. The 1 993 paper was recently published asKan 2000.

2. Throughout this paper, documents from theAAN archive are cited in the following manner:282 [fond/collection] (Shternberg archive)/![opis'/section]/! 00 [delo/file], p. 1 [list/page].

3. My research was supported by a fellowshipfrom the National Endowment for the Humanitiesand by a Dartmouth College Claire Garber GoodmanGrant and a Rockefeller Social Science Grant.

4. The expression "ethno-troika" was coinedby Bogoras (1927:269).

5. For the main Russian-language publicationsdetailing Shternberg's life and scholarly contribu-tions, see Bogoras 1 927, 1 928, 1 930; Krol' 1 929,1 944; Ratner-Shternberg 1 928, 1 935; Ol'denburgand Samoilovich 1930; Gagen-Torn 1971, 1975;Staniukovich 1 971, 1 986. Sarra Ratner-Shternberg'sunpublished biography of her late husband (AAN,282/4/9) is the most detailed source of informa-tion on this subject.

6. See Shternberg's extensive correspondencewith Krol' (AAN, 282/2/363). Krol' was himself ar-rested, in 1 887, and in 1 890 he was exiled for fiveyears to Irkutsk Province, where he conducted eth-nographic research among the Buryat (Krol' 1 944).

7. Although the standard modern term forthis ethnic group is Nivkh (pi. Nivkhi), I use thepre-revolutionary "Gilyak," which was used byShternberg himself and was retained by Grant inthe title of Shternberg's monograph (Shternberg1999).

8. Shternberg's evolving views on the rela-tionship between language and the "inner" or "psy-chological" aspects of a people's culture and theneed for the ethnographer to use the local Nativelanguage in field research may be compared withthose developed by Boas at about the same time(see Stocking, ed. 1 974).

9. In the summers of 1 892, 1 893, and 1 894Shternberg visited the various Native settlementson Sakhalin, and in the summers of 1 895 and 1 896he conducted ethnographic work along the AmurRiver (see Shternberg 1 900:387-8). During the restof the year he made only occasional brief visitsto the nearby Gilyak settlements.

1 0. The limitations of Shternberg's ethnogra-

s-

SERCEI KAN

243

phy did not stem from any lack of rapport withthe Natives. Most of them—especially those whoeventually became his "key informants" andfriends—trusted and liked the kind man who theyconsidered to be a "big Russian official" and towhom they brought their complaints against thelocal administration and even turned for assistancein settling their internal disputes (Shternberg's1891 diary, AAN, 282/1/3, p. 100). Students ofhis who, 30 years later, worked in some of thesame places that he had visited reported thatmany of the older people still remembered himfondly (Kreinovich 1973).

11. One should keep in mind that on Sakhalin,Shternberg had no access to Gilyak dictionariesor to linguistic studies of that language (Shternberg1900:389). Most scholars of the Gilyak languageagree that although he never became fluent, hiscommand of the language was good and his analy-sis of its structure quite adequate, especially con-sidering the fact that he was a true pioneer in thisfield (Kreinovich's 1 968 manuscript, AAN, 282/1 /205; Ekaterina Gruzdeva, personal communication,2000).

1 2. Although for obvious ideological reasonsSoviet scholars asserted that Shternberg had readEngels' book before his exile (Grant 1999:xxiv), Ifound no evidence of that. According toShternberg's letters to Krol', he was reading thebook on Sakhalin in 1889. Two years later, heasked his friend to send him a copy of "Morgan'sbook," which I assume was Ancient Society {Mor-gan 1877) (AAN, 282/2/1 57, p. 61).

13. Although Shternberg was well aware ofthe impact—much of which he characterized asnegative—of Chinese, Japanese, and Russian cul-tures on Gilyak culture, he chose not to concen-trate on this topic in his ethnographic writing. Infact, his discourse on this issue sounds veryBoasian, as, for example, in the following passage:

Despite a long period of submission to theManchurians and a destructive influence ofthe vagabond [Russian] population of theAmur region, the Gilyak moral order hasretained many virtues of the primitive/prehistoric [pervobytnyi] peoples. However,their way of life is totally doomed. In one ormaximum two generations, the Gilyaks of themainland will become completely Russified

and along with the benefits of civilization[kul'tura] they will also acquire all of its vices.(Shternberg 1893: 19)

14. Shternberg used his Gilyak and Orochidata to defend Morgan and Lubbock against at-tacks by such scholars as Starcke and Kautsky.

1 5. Later ethnographers, particularly Smoliak(1 975), who combined extensive ethnographic re-search among the Gilyak and other Native peoplesof the lower Amur River region with systematicarchival research, argued that Gilyak intermarriagewith other indigenous and exogenous ethnicgroups influenced the character of many of theirsettlements, making close adherence to the mar-riage rules described by Shternberg very difficult(seeTaksami 1 975).

1 6. See Shternberg's description of the Gilyakclan as being "a striking combination of collec-tive solidarity and individual freedom" (1 933a:59).

17. Despite its focus on social organization,the 1 904 monograph gives considerable attentionto religion. This is a major difference between itand the 1 893 piece. With over 30 pages devotedto the discussion of this topic, Shternberg demon-strates his considerable knowledge of Gilyak be-liefs and, to a somewhat lesser extent, religiouspractices. Although he uses evolutionist terminol-ogy (especially Tylor's), Shternberg no longer char-acterizes the Gilyak religion as very primitive, dem-onstrating that his evolutionism was far from con-sistent (see Shternberg 1 933a:51).

18. See Freed et al. 1988; Kuz'mina 1994;Krupnik and Vakhtin 1997; Krupnik 1998; Cole1 999:1 85-260, as well as Vakhtin's and Cole's con-tributions to this volume.

1 9. See Pilsudskii's November 4, 1 898, letterto Shternberg, describing Laufer's field researchon Sakhalin (Latyshev 1996:161-2); Laufer's May1 0, 1 899, letter to Boas (AMNH); and Boas' reporton the JNPE (1903:93-8), which includes Laufer'saccount of his adventures on Sakhalin.

20. Laufer also published a 30-page essay ofmiscellaneous ethnographic data (Laufer 1 900).

21. In 1 907 Shternberg became one of thefounders and chief ideologues of the JewishPeople's Group {Evreiskaia narodnaia gruppa),and in 1 908 he got actively involved in the workof the newly established Jewish Historical andEthnographic Society (Gassenschmidt 1995).

244

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

22. Boas was planning to publish the "over-flow" JNPE materials in a new Columbia Univer-sity series (see Boas to Bogoras, 22 May 1909,APS).

23. See, for example, Bogoras' letters to Boassent between October 7, 1910, and April 6, 1911,and Boas' letters to Bogoras, dated October 12,1910 (APS).

24. Boas was also responsible forthe AMNH'sdirector's appeal to the same minister on behalfof Bogoras (see Osborn to Shcheglovitov, 28 Febru-ary 1911, AMNH).

25. To make matters worse, these accusationshad an anti-Semitic tone that prompted Shternbergto refer to the entire case in a letter to Boas as"The Dreifuss Affair" (Shternberg to Boas, 1 2 March1911, APS).

26. Shternberg's presentation at the congressactually mentioned that his monograph "The Gilyakand Their Neighbors" was "about to appear in thepublications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition"(Shternberg 1912:319).

27. In the summer of 1 91 5 Shternberg learnedabout these army activities first-hand when he wassent by the Committee for Assisting the JewishRefugees to the front lines to investigate them(seeAAN, 282/2/176).

28. The Kronstadt Mutiny was an uprising bythe left-leaning, but anti-Bolshevik, sailors at anaval base near Petrograd. Although most of theformer SRs arrested during the unrest had noth-ing to do with the rebellion, the government usedthe mutiny as an excuse to isolate and terrorizethose members of the city's intelligentsia whowere not sympathetic to the regime.

29. In fall 1921, when communication be-tween Boas and his Russian colleagues was re-stored, Jochelson began his efforts to leave Rus-sia. Like some of the other Russian intellectualswho had chosen a "wait and see" attitude towardthe Soviet regime, he described his plan not asemigration but as an extended "business trip" tothe United States on behalf of the Academy ofSciences, for the purpose of "describing compara-tively some of the anthropological and ethno-graphical specimens of the American Museum ofNatural History collected by . . . Jesup North Pa-cific Expedition" (Jochelson to the U.S. ambassa-dor in Berlin, 21 November 1921, APS). On

Jochelson's request, Boas helped him obtain a visafor Germany, which he had to pass through on hisway to the United States (Jochelson to Boas, 23November 1 921, APS).

30. In 1 91 7-1 8 Boas managed to publish twoimportant works by Bogoras that had been sentto him a few years earlier: Koryak Texts (1917)and Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and RussianizedNatives of Eastern Siberia (1 91 8).

31. Since the United States did not have dip-lomatic relations with Russia at that time, therewas no way for the AMNH to send money to Rus-sia. As a solution to the problem, Boas proposedto send food packages to Bogoras andShternberg (see Boas to Shternberg, 1 9 July 1 922,AAN, 282/2/29, p. 70). In addition to food andmoney. Boas arranged for American institutions,such as the Smithsonian Institution, to send schol-arly books and periodicals to Shternberg and otheremployees of the Academy of Sciences Gochelsonto Shternberg, 20 March 1 923, AAN, 282/2/124,pp. 37-9a).

32. Several of Boas' letters to Bogoras, writ-ten in the second half of the 1 920s, indicate thathe himself almost made a trip to Russia (APS).

33. The same letter indicates that Boas wasalso trying to get Shternberg to write a summaryentry on the Gilyak language for some sort of avolume on Eastern Siberian languages, which Boaswas going to edit. Unlike Shternberg's work onthe Gilyak manuscript, this essay was to be pro-vided free of charge (APS).

34. To Shternberg's disappointment, afterRadloff's death he could not be appointed direc-tor of the MAE because the position had alwaysbeen occupied by a member of the Academy ofSciences (Reshetov 1995, 1996). Shternberg wasfinally made a corresponding member of the Acad-emy of Sciences in 1924, but he was either toobusy or too unpopular with some of the MAE'sstaff members to be made director.

35. Shternberg's 1908 monograph does notcontain any of the material on Gilyak folklore thathe had collected himself or had received fromPilsudskii, his friend and fellow ethnographer ofthe Sakhalin Natives (Latyshev 1996). These valu-able data are still in his archive and have onlyrecently begun to be published and used by schol-ars (Ostrovskii 1 997).

SERGEI KAN

245

ReferencesBlack, Lydia

1973 The Nivkh (Cilyak) of Sakhalin and the Lower

Amur. Arctic Anthropology 10(1): 1 -110.Boas, Franz

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3{5)■.73-^^ 1 9.

1 909 The KwakiutI of Vancouver Island. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 301-522.Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

1916 Tsimshian Mythology: Based on Texts Recordedby Henry W. Tate. In Bureau of American EthnologyAnnual Report for the Years 1909- / 9 / 0, 31. Pp. 29-1037. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1930 President's Address. In 23rd International Con-gress of Americanists, 1928. New York. Pp. xxviii-xxix. Lancaster, PA: Science Press.

1 934 [Address to the Congress.] In Proceedings ofthe 24th International Congress of Americanists,1930. Hamburg. Pp. xl-xli.

Bogoras, Waldemar [Bogoraz, Vladimir]

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 11. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert.

1917 Koryak Texts. American Ethnological SocietyPublications, 5. Leiden and New York.

1918 Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized Na-tives of Eastern Siberia. Anthropological Papers ofthe American Museum of Natural History, 20(1). Pp.3-148. New York.

192 7 L. la. Shternberg kak chelovek i uchionyi (L. la.

Shternberg: The man and the scholar). Etnografiia

4(2):269-82. Leningrad.1928 L. la. Shternberg kaketnograf (L. la. Shternberg

as an ethnographer). Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i

etnografii7:4-28. Leningrad.1930 L. la. Shternberg kak fol'klorist (L. la. Shternberg

as a folklorist). In Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-

1927) (In memory of L. la. Shternberg). Sergei F.

Ol'denburg and A. N. Samoilovich, eds. Pp. 85-96.

Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.Cole, Douglas

1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: Universityof Washington Press.

Durkheim, Emile, and Marcel Mauss

1 963 [1 903] Primitive Classification. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Engels, Friedrich

1933 [1892-93] Vnov' otkrytyi sluchai gruppovogobraka (A newly discovered case of group marriage).In Lev Shternberg, Sem'ia i rod u narodov severo-

vostochnoi Azii {VAmWy and clan among the peoples

of Northeastern Asia). Ian P. Al'kor (Koshkin), ed.

Leningrad: Institut narodov Severa.1 972 [1 884] The Origin of the Family, Private Property

and the State. New York: International Publishers.Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and LailaWilliamson

1988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1 897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(l):7-24.

Gagen-Torn, Nina I.

1971 Leningradskaia etnograficheskaia shkola vdvatsatye gody (The Leningrad ethnographic schoolin the 1920s). Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:1 34-45.Leningrad.

1975 Lev Yakovlevich Shternberg (Leo Ya. Shternberg).

Moscow: Nauka.Gassenschmidt, Christoph1995 Jewish Liberal Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1900-

1914. New York: New York University Press.Grant, Bruce

1995 In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century ofPerestroikas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1 999 Foreword. In Lev Shternberg, The Social Organi-zation of the Cilyak. Bruce Grant, ed.; foreword andafterword by Bruce Grant. Pp. xxiii-lvi. Anthropologi-cal Papers of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 82. New York.

Haberer, Erich

1995 Jews and the Revolution in Nineteenth-CenturyRussia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Hardy, Deborah

1987 Land and Freedom: The Origin of Russian Terror-ism, 1876-1879. New York: Greenwood.Jansen, Marc

1982 A Show Trial under Lenin. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff.

Jochelson, Waldemar [lochel'son, Vladimir]

1906 Uber asiatische und amerikanische Elemente inden Mythen der Koriaken. In InternationalerAmerikanisten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904.Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 119-27. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G.E. Stechert.

1 910-26 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus.The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3.Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory. 13. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Kan, Sergei

1 993 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph, or WhyBoas Did Not Include Shternberg's "The SocialOrganization of the Gilyak" in the Jesup ExpeditionPublications. Paper presented at the meeting of the

246

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

American Anthropological Association, Washington,DC.

1999 Historical Particularism and Evolutionism at theSt. Petersburg Museum of Anthropology and Eth-nography. Paper presented at the 1999 meeting ofthe American Society for Ethnohistory, MashantucketPequot Museum and Research Center, Ledyard, Con-necticut.

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, WhyShternberg's "The Social Organization of the Gilyak"Never Appeared among thejesup Expedition Publi-cations. European Review of Native American Stud-ies : 4(2):] 9-38.

Konecny, Peter

1999 Builders and Deserters: Students, State, and Com-munity in Leningrad, 1917-1941. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Kreinovich, E. A.

1973 Nivkhgu. Moscow: Nauka.

Krol', Moisei

1929 Vospominaniia o L. la. Shternberge (Reminis-cences about L. la. Shternberg). Katorga iSsylkaSl-58:214-36.

1944 Stranitsy moei zhizni {Pages from my life), vol. 1.

New York: Union of the Russian Jews in New York.Krupnik, Igor

1998 "Jesup Genealogy": Intellectual Partnership andRussian-American Cooperation in Arctic/North Pa-cific Anthropology (from thejesup Expedition to theCold War, 1897-1948). Arctic Anthropology35(2):199-226.

Krupnik, Igor, and Nikolai Vakhtin

1997 "The Aim of the Expedition . . . Has in the MainBeen Accomplished": Words, Deeds, and Legaciesof the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Paper presentedat the Jesup Centenary Conference, American Mu-seum of Natural History, New York.

Kuz'mina, Lyudmila P.

1994 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: A History ofRussian-American Cooperation. In Anthropology ofthe North Pacific Rim. William W. Fitzhugh and ValerieChaussonnet, eds. Pp. 63-77. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Latyshev, Vladislav M.

1996 Dorogoi Lev lakovlevich. (Dear Lev lakovlevich).

luzhno-Sakhalinsk: Sakhalinskii Oblastnoi

Kraevedcheskii Muzei.Laufer, Berthold

1900 Preliminary Notes on Explorations among thefKmoorJnbes. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2(2):297-338.

1902 The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 4, pt. 1, pp. 1 -79. Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 6.New York.

Levi-Strauss, Claude

1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston:

Beacon Press. First published 1949.Malinin, Victor A.

1991 Istoriia russkogo utopicheskogo sotsializma (Rus-sian Utopian socialism). Moscow: Nauka.Melancon, Michael

1990 The Socialist Revolutionaries and the RussianAnti-War Movement, 1914-1917. Columbus: OhioState University Press.

Morgan, Lewis H.

1877 Ancient Society. New York: Henry Holt.Naimark, Norman M.

1 983 Terrorists and Social Democrats. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Needham, Rodney

1962 Structure and Sentiment. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.1971 Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. London:

Tavistock Publications.Oetteking, Bruno

1930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 11, pt. 1. Memoirs ofthe American Museum of Natural History,] 5. Leiden:E.J. Brill; New York: C. E. Stechert.

Ol'denburg, Sergei P., and A. N. Samoilovich,

eds.

1930 Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-1927) (Inmemory of L. la. Shternberg). Leningrad: AkademiiaNauk SSSR.

Ostrovskii, Aleksandr B.

1997 Mifologiia i verovaniia nivkhov (Nivkh mythol-ogy and religious beliefs). St. Petersburg:Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.

Ratner-Shternberg, Sarra A.

1928 Lev lakovlevich Shternberg i Muzei Antropologiii Etnografii Akademii Nauk (Lev lakovlevich Shternbergand the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnographyof the Academy of Sciences). Sbornik Muzeiaantropologii i etnografii 7:31-67.

1935 L. la. Shternberg i leningradskaiaetnograficheskaiashkola (L. la. Shternberg and the Leningrad ethno-graphic school). Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:134-54.Leningrad.

Reshetov, A. M.

1995 Vasilii Vladimirovich Bartol'd. Kur'er PetrovskoiKunstkamery 2-3:37-54.

1996 Efimii Feodorovich Karskii. Kur'er PetrovskoiKunstkamery 4-5:24-47.

Roon, Tatyana P.

2000 Kollektsii narodovAmuro-Sakhalinskogo regionaV muzeiakh SShA (Ethnology collections on thepeoples of the Amur and Sakhalin region in Ameri-can museums). Izvestiia Instituta naslediia BronislavaPilsudskogo 4:139-57. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

SERGEI KAN

247

Shternberg, Lev la.

1893 Sakhalinskie giliaki (The Cilyak of Sakhalin).Etnogmficheskoe Obozrenie, 2:1-46.

1896 Orochi Tatarskogo proliva (The Orochi of theTatar Strait). Vladivostok nos. 47, 48, 50, 51.

1900 Obraztsy materialov po izucheniiu giliatskogoiazyka i fol'klora (Samples of materials for the studyof the Cilyak language and folklore). IzvestiiaAkademii Nauk 1 3(4):387-434.

1904 Giliaki (The Cilyak). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie60:1-42; 61:19-55; 63:66-119.

1906a Bemerkungen uber Beziehungen zwischen derMorphologie der giljakischen und amerikanischenSprachen. In IntemationalerAmehkanisten-Kongress,14. Jagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 137-40. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1906b The Inau Cult of the Ainu. In Boas AnniversaryVolume: Anthropological Papers Written in Honor ofFranz Boas... Presented to Him on the Twenty-fifthAnniversary of His Doctorate. Berthold Laufer, ed.Pp. 425-37. New York: C. E. Stechert.

1908 Materialy po izucheniiu giliatskogo iazyka ifol'klora (Materials for the study of the Cilyak lan-guage and folklore), vol. 1. St. Petersburg: AkademiiaNauk.

1912 The Turano-Ganowanian System and the Na-tions of North-East Asia. In International Congress ofAmericanists, Proceedings of the 18th Session, Lon-don, 1912. Pp. 319-33. London: Harrison and Sons.

1916 Antichnyi kul't bliznetsov v svete etnografii (TheCreek and Roman twin cult in light of ethnography).Sbornik MAE 3:133-89.

1924 Problemy evreiskoi natsional'noi psikhologii(Jewish national psychology). Evreiskaia Starina 11:177-9.

1925 Divine Election in Primitive Religion (IncludingMaterial on Different Tribes of N.E. Asia and America).In Congres Internationaldes Amerlcanistes, Compte-Rendu de la 21e Session. Deuxieme Partie. Tenue aCoteborgen 1924. Pp. 472-51 2. Coteborg Museum.

1926 Sovremennaia Etnologiia (Contemporary eth-nology). Etnografiia 1 -2:1 5-43. Leningrad.

1928 Problema evreiskoi etnografii (Issues in Jewishethnography). Evreiskaia Starina 12:11-6.

1933a Giliaki, orochi, gol'dy, negidal'tsy, ainy (Jh&Cilyak, Orochi, Negidal, and Ainu), Ian. P. Al'kor(Koshkin), ed. Khabarovsk: Dal'giz.

1933b Sem'ia i rod u narodov severo-vostochnoi Azii(Family and clan among the peoples of Northeast-ern Asia). Ian P. Al'kor (Koshkin), ed. Leningrad: Institutnarodov Severa.

1999 The Social Organization of the Cilyak. Bruce Grant,ed.; foreword and afterword by Bruce Grant. Anthro-pological Papers of the American Museum of

Natural History, 82. New York.Shternberg, Lev la., ed.

1914 Evreiskaia etnograficheskaia programma. Chast'I. Chelovek. (Jewish ethnographic program. Pt. I. Thehuman being). Prepared by S. A. An-skii. Petrograd: I.Lur'e.

Slezkine, Yuri

1994 Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of

the North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Smoliak, A. V.

1975 Etnicheskie protsessy u narodov Nizhnego Amurai Sakhalina (Ethnic processes among the peoples ofthe lower Amur and Sakhalin). Moscow: Nauka.

Solovei, T. D.

1998 Or "burzhuaznoi" etnologii k "sovetskoi"etnografii (From "bourgeois" ethnology to "Soviet"ethnography). Moscow: Russian Academy of Sci-ences.

Staniukovich, T. V.

1971 Iz istorii etnograficheskogo obrazovaniia (Onthe history of ethnographic education). Trudy InstitutaEtnografii 95:121-38.

1 978 Etnograficheskaia nauka i muzei (The science ofethnography and museums). Leningrad: Nauka.

1986 L. la. Shternberg i Muzei Antropologii i Etnografii(L. la. Shternberg and the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography). Sovetskaia etnografiia 5:81-91.Leningrad.

Stocking, George W., Jr.

1987 Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.1992 Anthropology as Kulturkampf: Science

and Politics in the Career of Franz Boas. In TheEthnographer's Magic and Other Essays in theHistory of Anthropology. George W. Stocking,Jr., ed. Pp. 92-1 1 3. Madison: University of Wis-consin Press.Stocking, George W., Jr., ed.

1974 The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

Swanton, John R.

1905 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida.The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp.1 -300. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natu-ral History, 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: C. E. Stechert.

Taksami, Ch. M.

1975 Osnovnye problemy etnografii i istorii Nivkhov(The main issues of Nivkh ethnography and history).Leningrad: Nauka.

Tokarev, Sergei A.

1 966 Istoriia russkoi etnografii [The history of Russian

ethnography]. Moscow: Nauka.Vucinich, Alexander

1988 Darwin in Russian Thought. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.

248

THE RESOURCES/ MANUSCRIPTS

62/ Lev Shternberg conducting a census among the Sakhalin Island Nivkh (Cilyak),ca.l895(AAN/f. 282/0.1/d. 162/1.118)

63/ Staff of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (MAE)in St. Petersburg, Russia, 1914. Lev Shternberg (first row, fifth from left); MAEdirector Vasily Radloff (first row, sixth from left); Sarra Ratner-Shternberg (firstrow, third from left); Waldemar Jochelson (first raw, first from right). Reprintedfrom Staniukovich 1 978:1 37.

249

64/ Lev Shternberg and Sarra Ratner-Shternberg, ca. 1 91 5(AAN f. 282/0.1/d.l 94/1.1 2)

250

65/ Portrait of Lev Shternberg taken just prior to his departure for the 1924 InternationalCongress of Americanists (AAN f. 282/o.l/d. 194/1.22)

251

[Mnmlier e«cb reco(4 in o(4«r oMd aad write yaw atMiv fficr BVMbar^

No. "30^

I. Place of observation. M^"ipw

a. Date of dteervation. -i\A,„,A-^ ^

3. Name pf {dividual recorded.

4. Age Eatiiaated. rr

6. Place ^tnrth.

7. Tribe of father.

8. TrSbe erf mother.

9. Fatha- of No. 3 f ^S<H>ofNo.Brother of No.

10. Mode of life.

11. Beard; cokM".

12.

13.

14-

«5-16.

18.19

Beard oo upper {Mut of cheeks: full, medium,scaotjr; short, long, none.

Beard on lower part of cheeks: full, medium.^ scanty; short, long. none.

Beard on chin; full, medium, scanty;short, long, waxt.

Mustache; full, medium, scan^;^ort, long. ncme.

Hair: black, brown, light brown, blonde,golden, red, gray;.

Hair: straight, wavy, curly, frizzly.

Eyes: bU»:k. dark brown, light brown, gray,

Wue. ^TVw.^ ,.-.^-f^^^Eyes: i. 2. 3. 4, 5.

Nose: form of line drawn between eyes:high, medium, low.

Outline of union of forehead and nose: i. 2.3- 4-

20. Profile <rf nose: i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9.9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14.

Point of nose: shwt, lot^ thm. thick.

N<»trils: i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Upper lip: projecting, siij^tly inclined for-ward, vertical.

Nose and lip paraUel. omverging upward,converging downward.

Lips: thin, medium, thick.

Ear: round, point«l.Standing off, close to head.

First section xA helix: rolled inward, flat,rolled back; thick, thm.

Second section of helix: rolled inward, flairrolled back; thick, thin.

Aniihelix: flat, high; wide, narrow^

Crura: ridges flat. high.

Lobe: large, small; inched. defac6ed;>round, triang^ar, square, divided:

Color (A skin: covered parts

oncovered parts^|Alns of hands^

2r2223

24.25-

26.

27.

28.29.30.

66/ Front side of the NPE North American anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Boas, 1 897 (AMNH)

252

^ 1

1 1

.

I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[Repeat nnaber from oilier aide.]

No, ^ ?

1 ,/,

MEASUREMENTS.

MALE.

I.

Height standing. /L ^ /~

7- Length of head. / ^ V

2.

Height of shoulder. / S >r 3

8. Breadt)] qt head. f

3-

Height of point of second finger.

o 9. Height of face, f ^

4-

Fingerreach. / ^ ^

lo. &«adth (tf face, f *^

S-

Height sitting.

\\. Height of nose. 'JT-j

6.•

Width of shoulders. S 1 3

12. Bre»ithcrf nose. ^ ft

V

[No aiiention to be paid to lines bdow this role.]

INDICES.

I.

Arm.

I. Length—breadth.

2.

Fingerreach.

2. Length—height.

3-

Height sitting.

3. Face.

4-

Width of shoulders.

4. Nose.

[Hiw recnn) when filled to be returned to Fbanz BnAf, Worcester, Mau.]

67/ Back side of the NPE North American anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Boas, 1 897 (AMNH)

25

2. Date of observation. y/J~

3. Name of individual recorded,

[Number each record in order oaed, and write your name after number.]

a MALE

I. Place of observation. ^'^ I—c<_-«--<

4. Age Estimated.

5. Tribe. ^

6. Place of birth. Kyf/C-tZ^^ .S£.^?^-0<^

7. Tribe of father. ^-dry-t^^ Ort-yy/ k!L.<nrct^*».

8. Tribe of mother.

9. Father of No.Son of No.Brother of No.

10. Mode of Life. C^^t-sz-e-'/^^-/

11. Beard; color.

12. Beard on upper part of cheeks: full, medium,

scanty ; short, long, none.

Beard on lower part of cheeks: full, medium,scanty; short, long, none.

Beard on chin : full, medium, scanty ;Short, long, none.

13. Mustache: full, medium, scanty;

short, long, none.

14. Hair: black, brown, light brown, blonde, golden,

red, gray.

15. Hair: straight, wavy, curly, frizzly.

16. Eyes: black, dark brown, light brown, gray,

blue.

17. Color of Skin: covered parts. (Lc^-^M^ -^-Tt^-*^

uncovered parts, /^- j/^^t-*-'^palms of hands, /tve^

American Museum of Naturai. Hisxoky.

68/ Front side of the JNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet, filled in by Jochelson, 1901 (AMNH)

254

No. W i

lR«pe«t Domber from otiisr Bide.]

MEASUREMENTS.

1. H^ibt standing. /Ca ^*

2. Height of shoulder. / 3 ^ / ^

3. He^t of point of secmid finger, s/ Co

4. Finger-reach. / , ^

5. Height sitting. ^ , /

6. Width 0* shoulders. 2^ /, V

7. Breadth of r^bt band. <^, Q

8. Les^tb of second finger.

9. Lei^h of forearm. J to / *—10. Length of foot. , 3

ri. Length of head. ^ ^ '

12. Breadth of head. ^ ^ t ^

13- Breadth of face. / yj^*"^

14. Height of ear. /^J~d

IS- Height of face.

I. —Hair-line—chin.

16. Height of face. / /

II.—Nasion—chin. i.

2 JJ'^

17. Height of nose. i. ^ /■

2- 6.9'

18. Breadth of nose. ^ ^ J

19. Length of right ear. Ca ' ^

20. Distance between inner comers of eyes. >^• ^

21. Distance between outer comers of eyes. ^

22. Vertical circumference. -^S ^ , \/

23. Horizontal circumference.

24. Sagittal circumference.

,. Am. l^j^

2. Finger-reach, IQ^ ^'Z

3. Height sitting.^

4. Width of shoulders, 2f ^. ZV

(^.4! , I6.H-

INDICES.

I. Length—breadth. X ' ^

3. Nose. f^y, 11

69/ Back side of theJNPE Siberian anthropometric data sheet, filled in byjochelson, 1901

(AMNH)

255

^OO Year Old Questions, i OO Y^ar Qld]3)ata, ^rand f\Jew (Computers

STEPHEN OUSLEYAND RICHARD JANTZ

In the early 1890s, the prominent anthropologist DanielGarrison Brinton forcefully and repeatedly claimed thatAmerican Indian culture and morphology arose in theNew World after a migration over a land bridge fromEurope (Brinton 1890:38^1, 1891:17-32; 1894). Hefurther stated, "it is time to dismiss as trivial all attemptsto connect the American race genealogically with anyother, or to trace the typical culture of this continentto the historic forms of the Old World" (Brinton 1890:18).

In many ways, the entire Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition ONPE) could be thought of as a direct challengeto Brinton's ideas. Franz Boas' overarching goal for theJNPE was to prove the connections across the NorthPacific and the superiority of conclusions based onfieldwork and induction rather than the "armchair" de-ductive approach of Brinton and other contemporaryscientists (Ousley 2000).' For Boas, "the study of thephysical types of the coast of the North Pacific Oceanmust form one of the most important subjects of in-vestigation of the Jesup Expedition" (Boas 1897b:537).

While collecting ethnographies, linguistic data, anditems of material culture, members of the Jesup Expe-dition gathered skulls from graves and abandonedvillages, made plaster facial casts, and collectedanthropometrics (head, face, and body measurements)and morphological observations from over 2,000 Si-berian and Northwest Coast Natives on data sheets.The ease of data collection and the sheer numbersmade anthropometrics the best biological data avail-able to Boas for assessing population relationships.

and by extension, population histories. He recognizedthat JNPE data could add to the large database ofNorth American Indian measurements already collectedunder his direction (Boas 1903).

Boas acknowledged that biological data might notlead to the same conclusion regarding the relation-ships between these groups as data from ethnologyand language (Boas 1899b). Nevertheless, he maintainedthat anthropometric results supported his conclusionsfrom the extensive ethnographic data collected, whichsuggested that people from North America had re-crossed the land bridge to Siberia (Ousley 2000). Thistheory for the peopling of the North Pacific and theNew World through migrations not only eastward fromSiberia but also westward from America becameknown as the "Americanoid" theory.

The anthropometric data from the JNPE and frommany other American Indian groups were recentlyrediscovered at the American Museum of NaturalHistory (AMNH) in New York. These have been inven-toried and computerized and now constitute the mostcomprehensive database of American Indian andSiberian biological information available Cantz 1995;Jantz et al. 1992). A modern statistical analysis of theanthropometric data refutes the biological basis of theAmericanoid theory.

Franz Boas and Anthropometrics

Boas valued anthropometrics highly, having overseenlarge-scale collection of anthropometric data for the

British Association for the Advancement of Science(BAAS) and for the World's Columbian Exposition (Boas1891a, 1895b, 1899c). Whereas museums housedskulls that could be measured at any time, anthropo-metrics salvaged information from rapidly disappear-ing peoples (Boas 1891a). While at the AMNH, Boasalso oversaw the collection of anthropometric data inLabrador, Ontario, Colombia, and nine U.S. states.

Boas was ahead of his time in believing that mea-surements were superior to descriptions of physicaltypes. The differences between peoples could be as-sessed much more reliably if the data were recorded"in exact terms," using numbers rather than subjectivecategories such as describing the breadth of a person'snose as narrow, medium, or wide (Boas 1894a:313,1896). Boas believed that groups living close to eachother were often too similar to be compared usingonly observational data. Most contemporary anthro-pologists of the day, such as Brinton, believed that thecephalic index (head breadth divided by head length)was the only numerical information necessary for pars-ing humanity into races and types (Brinton 1890).

For Boas, merely using a few measurements or oneindex was not enough. More measurements ensuredmore reliable classification (Boas 1899a). A moderatenumber of measurements from many members of apopulation was more valuable than many measure-ments from a few "representative" members of a popu-lation (Boas 1894a, 1895b, 1899b, 1912a). Boas wasalso one of the first to see the potential of measure-ments in studies of human growth and to apply corre-lations and other statistics to human biological data(Boas 1892, 1894b, 1895a, 1896, 1897a;Jantz 1995).

By the beginning of the JNPE, however. Boas reacheda turning point in his career as a physical anthropolo-gist. He briefly adhered to the contemporary physical-anthropological principle that human "types"—alsocalled characteristic phenotypes, varieties of mankind,or races—were mostly fixed. Admixture between twodifferent human types (as defined by different meansfor craniometric or anthropometric measurements) was

2 58

thought to consistently produce intermediate values;thus, virtually all subpopulations were explained asmixtures of larger populations or races. Metric infor-mation, continuous in nature, was to be used to parcelpopulations more objectively into discrete categoriesor types (Boas 1899b)

In one of Boas' earliest analyses of anthropometricmeasurements from the Northwest Coast tribes (andhis last using measurement means alone), he remarkedon the great number of types (Boas 1891a). Just twomonths later, in a review of the work of another an-thropologist, he published a very different view of theanthropometric results of interactions between popu-lations, based on his own data (Boas 1891b). "Mixed"populations did not show "blending" effects but, in-stead, tended to show a bimodal distribution of somevariables, reflecting elements of both parental types.Boas argued that mixed individuals may show a mea-surement near the mean of one parent population andanother measurement near the mean of the other par-ent population. Vastly different types could be foundwithin one family. These results were discernible onlywhen one analyzed the distribution of values in a mixedpopulation rather than just the mean values.

In 1895 Boas analyzed massive amounts of datafrom over 60 North American tribes and summarizeddata on stature, head length, and head breadth usingplots of over 80 measurement distributions. By now,his sample sizes had increased enough for a more thor-ough investigation of the mixing of types. For facebreadth. Boas found evidence for a bimodal distribu-tion in white-admixed individuals—now referred to asa major gene effect in quantitative genetics and re-cently confirmed by population studies in Nepal (Will-iams-Blangero and Blangero 1989). Boas also foundthat the effect did not hold true for all variables; someshowed apparent blending or other unpredictablephenomena (Boas 1893, 1895b).

Thus, by 1895 Boas had rejected the assumptionsunderlying the use of anthropometric data for estimat-ing population relationships. Anthropometrics would

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

still be the focus of his scientific investigations, butmore for empirically testing physical anthropology'sassumptions than for inductive investigations of popu-lation relationships (Stocking 1968). He continued tocollect and publish descriptive summaries of North-west Coast anthropometric data until 1899, as part ofhis obligation to the BAAS. In an obituary he wrote onhis early mentor Rudolf Virchow, Boas revealed his fu-ture course, based on his training as a scientist and hisreliance on

the general scientific principle that it isdangerous to classify data that are imper-fectly known under the point of view ofgeneral theories, and that the sound progressof science requires us to be clear at everymoment, what elements in the system ofscience are hypothetical and what are thelimits of that knowledge which is obtainedby exact observation. (Boas 1902a:443)

Nearly all of Boas' later work in physical anthropol-ogy consisted of empirical tests of the effects ofadmixture and the environment on anthropometricsusing data from families. Boas' interests moved fromclassification and description to the dynamic causesof human variation (Herskovits 1943) and from studiesof variation among populations to studies of variationwithin subpopulations, groups, or families (Howells1959). Boas collected family-based samples from WestIndian Natives, Spaniards, and Mestizos in Puerto Ricoto investigate empirically the effects of mixing popu-lations (Boas 1920). His analyses of data collected fromEuropean immigrants to the New World led him to thewidely contested conclusion that environmental fac-tors could greatly affect supposedly stable types (Boas1912a, 1916; Stocking 1968). Boas discovered thatthe American-born children of recent immigrantsshowed changes in several head and face measure-ments and that the longer the children had been in theUnited States, the greater the effect. In other words,Boas had very strong evidence that human races didnot have definite and unchanging traits. This findingcalled into question the very definitions of biologicalraces and their relationships to each other: A person's

measurements and type could be the result of differ-ent environmental and biological factors (Boas 1912a,1913, 1916). Although Boas had clear evidence thatanthropometrics did not always reflect the genetic his-tory of populations, as other anthropologists had as-sumed, he still believed in the value of anthropometrics:

It seems to me . . . that our investigations,like many other previous ones, have merelydemonstrated that results of great value canbe obtained by anthropometrical studies,and that the anthropometric method is amost important means of elucidating theearly history of mankind and the effect ofsocial and geographical environment uponman. . . . Every result obtained by the use ofanthropometric methods should strengthenour confidence in the possibility of puttingthem to good use for the advancement ofanthropological science. (Boas 1912a:562)

Boas also recognized how high correlations (theclose relationship of measurements to each other) canconfound attempts to distinguish real differences be-tween peoples. For example, taller people generallytend to have wider shoulders and larger heads. Inunivariate (one variable at a time) analyses, these cor-relations would not be obvious, and a comparison ofmean values between two populations would makethe differences appear far greater merely because ofsize differences. (In multivariate analyses, unavailablein Boas' time, all variables are analyzed simultaneously,and correlations are taken into account, allowing theresearcher to investigate differences in both size andshape.) Boas did have hope for future analyses, how-ever. After briefly reviewing these problems and allud-ing to a need for more comprehensive statistical pro-cedures, he went so far as to write:

I have tried to point out in these remarks afew directions in which it would seem thatour anthropometrical material may be mademore useful and significant than it is at thepresent time. ... I am fully aware of thedifficulties and of the vast amount of laborinvolved in carrying out any of the sugges-tions here outlined, but I fully believe thatany labor devoted to this matter will berepaid by results interesting from a scientif-ic point of view . . . and I hope that our

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

259

deliberations may lead to a way of makingthe vast amount of anthropometric workthat we are doing more useful in scientificand practical lines. (Boas ) 902b: 180)

If the multivariate statistical procedures and electroniccomputers that enable quantitative genetic analyseshad been available during Boas' lifetime, he might havereturned to assess American Indian population rela-tionships using anthropometrics.^ Only very recently,however, have the quantitative genetics of anthropo-metrics been revalidated, justifying Boas' initial faith inanthropometric data. Using 12 anthropometric mea-surements from Boas' data for American Indian fami-lies, Konigsberg and Ousley (1995) showed that thephenotypic distances among family members are pro-portional to their genetic distances. By extension, an-thropometric data can be expected to reflect larger-scale genetic relationships among populations, mini-mally in the same general environment.

Description of Materials

When Boas resigned from the AMNH in 1905 to teachat Columbia University, he took the American Indiananthropometric data sheets with him. They were keptin his office until 1942, when, shortly before his death,he wrote to Harry Shapiro at the AMNH and asked himto take them (Boas to Shapiro, 16 September 1942,AMNH-DA). Thereafter, these data sheets remained un-touched at the AMNH for over 40 years. The neglectof the anthropometric data was lamented by Stewart(1973), alerting one of us Qantz) to their existence. Aletterof inquiry to David Thomas, then chairman of theDepartment of Anthropology at the AMNH, revealedthat not only were the JNPE anthropometric sheets there,but so too were nearly all of the other anthropometricdata collected for Boas between 1890 and 1911. Theserecords were loaned to the University of Tennessee in1984. All data from the sheets except the nonmetric

71/ Location of the Croups Measured during the Jesup Expedition, 1897-1902.

The JNPE groups in the analysis are (1) Bella Coola; (2) Carrier; (3) Chilcotin; (4) Chuvan; (5) Maritime Chukchi; (6)Reindeer Chukchi; (7) Siberian Eskimo; (8) Even; (9) Evenk; (10) Haida; (11) Koryak; (1 2) Reindeer Koryak; (1 3)KwakiutI; (14) Lillooet; (1 5) Makah; (16) Okanagan; (1 7) Quileute; (18) Tahltan; (1 9) Tenino; (20) Thompson; (21)Tsimshian; (22) Yukagir. Croups measured at other times are (23) Nivkh; (24) Aleut; (25) MacKenzie DeltaEskimo. Not shown: Labrador Eskimo.

260

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Table 1

Anthropometric Measurements in the Boas Database

Body measurements

Head measurements

Standing height

Head length (maximum)

Shoulder height (acromial height)

Head breadth (maximum)

Sitting height

Face breadth (bizygomatic breadth)

Finger reach (span of arms)

Nose height (nasion-base of nose)

Finger height (height at end of second finger)

Nose breadth (maximum)

Shoulder breadth (biacromial breadth)

Face height (nasion-menton)

observations were entered into a computer databasebetween 1987 and 1990, a task that required roughly4,000 man-hours (see Jantz 1995 for details).

The anthropometric data sheets, which chroniclethe field movements of the various JNPE teams, includethe observer, observation place, and date. The demo-graphic information from measured individuals includestribe, age, sex, occupation, birthplace, tribes of themother and father, and number of children; many ofthe children were also measured. Admixture in a sub-ject can be quantified thanks to the meticulous re-cording of the tribe or admixture of each parent.Anthroposcopics were collected, including hair color,form, and distribution; presence of beard and/or mus-tache; form of eyes, nose, lips, and ears; and skin colorbased on color charts. The anthropometric data sheetused by Boas in North America listed demographicinformation and anthroposcopics on the front (fig. 66)and anthropometrics on the back (fig. 67). Figures 68and 69 show a Siberian sheet, which has fewer obser-vational data and more anthropometric measurementsthan the North American sheets.

Twelve basic measurements, chosen because theydid not require removal of clothes, were collected fromover 18,000 Amerindians and Siberians between 1890and 1912. Measurements were recorded to the near-est millimeter. Six body and six face measurements(Table 1) were common to all data sheets and havebeen entered into the database.

JNPE anthropometric data collection began in lateMay 1897 in southern British Columbia, where Boaspersonally measured 79 percent (458 out of a total of582) of the subjects measured in North America. Boas

focused JNPE North American data collection on thesouthern Northwest Coast to supplement his earlierdata from those areas. Two other JNPE team memberscollected measurements on the Northwest Coastthrough 1898. Table 2 shows the number of NorthAmerican individuals measured during the JNPE, by sexand age group. The locations of all groups measuredare shown in Figure 71.

Table 2

North American Populations Measured forJNPE

Tribe

Sex

Children

Adults

Carrier

M

0

3

Chilcotin

M

12

27

F

5

21

Haida

M

3

6

F

2

4

Hoh

M

0

1

Klamath

M

3

0

F

6

0

KwakiutI

M

2

20

F

2

1 1

Lillooet

M

16

66

F

10

52

Okanagan

M

3

0

F

1

0

Queets

M

0

3

F

0

2

Quileute

M

0

24

F

0

6

Quinault

M

0

6

F

0

2

Shuswap

M

45

60

F

51

36

Stalo

M

0

6

Tahltan

M

3

21

F

7

6

Thompson

M

1

1

F

1

7

Tsimshian

M

0

15

F

0

3

Total

1 73

409

Total Amerindians measured forJNPE is 582.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

Table 3

Native Siberian Populations Measured during the JNPE

Tribe

Sex

Children

Adults

Locations

M;iritimp Phiikrhi

M

1 5

48

M^riin<ik\/Pn<;t ("hprhpn

IVICllllMjIxy rWDL, \„MC\_lldl

7

74

Reindeer Chukchi

12

97

Mariinsky Post, Yeropol

r

Chuvantsy

5

38

Yeropol, Markovo

7

9

Sihprian Fsl<imn

M

43

62

Indian Point fMv<; Chanlinn^ Cherhpn

p

25

78

Even

0

20

Yeropol, Markovo, Nelemnoye

1

17

Reindeer Even

Mp

1

0

151

Yeropol, Markovo, Kamenskoye

Evenk

16

64

Nayakhan, Cizhiga

r a

13

73

1 Ul lUI <X L-VCI ll\

0

21

M;^ n i ;i k ht ;^ k h

IVICII lldlxl ILClixl 1

k^mrh^H;? 1

p

1

3

87

rAi \zo. KJi ixi iciyi yu£-\jv\jj _}tucii iivci, cii i\j

Napana

26

77

Mpiritimp Knrvak

ivicii iLii 1 It yd fx

M

84

193

Ppn7hinpi R;^\/ Nnrthprn K^mrh^^tka

Itll^lllllCl Uay ^ iNUILIIdll INCll 1 Itl ICLL l\Cl

P

■54

1 4fi

Pp n i n ^ 111 ^id III 1 jUid

Rpindppr Korvak

2

24

KupI Kamen^kove

1NwV, 1, i xcil 1 It 1 u ixw y v_

p

0

6

Russians

01

64

Mariinsky Post, Tigil

Yakut

0

4

Yakutsk, Verkhne Kolymsk

F

12

55

Yukagir

4

34

Nelemnoye, Omolon, Maniakhtakh

7

21

Total

362

1,252

Note: Total number of JNPE Siberians measured: 1,614.

a. Includes 30 Evenk females published in Jochelson-Brodsky 1906.

b. Includes 65 Yakut females published in Jochelson-Brodsky 1906.

On the Siberian side of the North Pacific, BertholdLaufer began work in 1898 along the Amur River andon Sakhalin Island and continued through 1899. Datacollection among more northerly Siberian groups be-gan in the late summer of 1900, with Waldemar Bogorasleading one team and Waldemar Jochelson another.JNPE members in Siberia reported collecting data fromalmost 1,900 subjects (Boas 1903), and we have re-covered data sheets from 1,614. About 150 recordsseem to be missing from the Jochelson and Bogorasteams, but there are large samples for most groups.Alexander Axelrod apparently collected the bulk ofanthropometric data in Siberia, measuring over 1,1 50people while traveling with Jochelson's and Bogoras'

teams. Table 3 shows the Siberian groups measuredand the most common locations. Most of the Koryakare from the region surrounding Penzhina Bay, but thereare also 46 from Palana and Karaga—villages on thenorthern Kamchatka Peninsula. Data from 65 Yakut[Sakha] and 30 Evenk females published by Jochelson-Brodsky (1906) were not recovered from the AMNHbut have been added to the database and are notedin Table 3.

The location of Laufer's data sheets—if he actuallydid measure any Siberians—remains a mystery. Theyare not among his papers at the AMNH or the FieldMuseum. In the 1903 summary of the JNPE, Boas quotedfrom a March 4,1899, letter from Laufer in which Laufer

2 62 THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

said that the Ainu refused to be measured, in contrastto Laufer's letter of September 18, 1898, in which heclaimed to have measured over 100 individuals. Laufer's(1902) Jesup volume concerned only interpretations ofAmur River people's art, and there is no later mentionof his data in Boas' letters. In a July 1, 1906, letter toBoas, however, Laufer wrote of his forthcoming bookon the Amur River peoples and informed Boas that itwould contain sections on physical anthropology, lin-guistics, and ethnography. This manuscript was ap-parently never completed or published and has notbeen found in Boas' or Laufer's papers (see Krupnik,this volume). We believe that Laufer did not measure asignificant number of subjects, if any, and that his let-ter of September 18 was referring to Natives he in-tended to measure but did not.^

Boas' team also collected skulls and made facialcasts, but the sample size is very small. Bogoras re-ported that he collected 75 skulls, and at least 55 arein the AMNH, although many of them are incomplete(Boas 1903). The North American teams also collectedmany skulls, which are especially valuable in combina-tion with data from skulls at other museums. Bogorasmade 33 plaster facial casts and Jochelson made 41,according to their reports (Boas 1903). At least 42casts from Siberia are in the AMNH (Jaymie Brauer,AMNH, personal communication). Unfortunately, thefacial casts from Siberia were not cross-referenced tothe anthropometric sheets but merely to ethnic group.Apparently, the North American teams also made fa-cial casts; at least 20 anthropometric data sheets fromNorth America make reference to cast numbers.

Despite some limitations, the anthropometric datasheets have the greatest potential of all the JNPE bio-logical information collected because they include asufficient number of standardized measurements, de-mographic data, and measurement locations and be-cause of the large number of individuals measured.

The "Americanoid" Theory

The JNPE anthropometrics clearly provided Boas with

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

enough biological data to assess relationships in theNorth Pacific area. At the conclusion of the JNPE, Boasstated strongly in several publications that there wasoverwhelming evidence for strong biological ties acrossthe North Pacific:

It seems clear, however, even at this time,that the isolated tribes of eastern Siberia andthose of the northwest coast of Americaform one race, similar in type, and with manyelements of culture in common. (Boas1903:1 1 5)

and

Comparisons of type, language and culturemake it at once evident that the NortheastSiberian people are much more closely akinto the Americans than to other Asiatics.(Boas 1905:99)

According to Boas, the "Americanoids" of Siberia andAmerica were also different from the Eskimo, who hadmigrated from their original home in central Canada(Boas 1910:534-35).

Boas' work in British Columbia before the JesupExpedition had given him first-hand experience of thegreat morphological and linguistic variation inAmerindians, which undoubtedly influenced his theoryof the peopling of the New World. But even beforethat time. Boas' view of Northwest Coast Indians wasprobably influenced by an encounter with a group ofBella Coola [Nuxalk] who were "exhibited" at the Mu-seum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin and measured byVirchow. The general public, as well as Virchow, be-lieved that the Bella Coola resembled Asians, espe-cially Japanese, more than "typical" Indians (Cole1985:71-2; Herskovits 1943). In fact, two years be-fore the Siberian data were collected, Boas concluded:

The types of man which we find on the NorthPacific coast of America, while distinctlyAmerican, show a great affinity to NorthAsiatic forms; and the question arises,whether this affinity is due to mixture, tomigration, or to gradual differentiation. (Boas1898:6)

Coincidentally, Jochelson also "became convinced thatthere were cultural and somatological connections

263

between the Palae-asiatics and the Indians of NorthAmerica" Oochelson 1925:2). Boas and Jochelson hadtherefore come to the same conclusion, probably fromgeneral impressions, before encountering peoples orcollecting data from the other continent.

Later, the JNPE data suggested to Boas that therewere close cultural and physical relationships acrossthe North Pacific. Boas felt that the greater variability inAmerica meant that the peoples of the New Worldhad to have been there longer (Boas 1898, 1903). Thispattern was confirmed by Torroni et al. (1993), whofound greater diversity in the mitochondrial DNA ofAmerican Indian tribes than in Eastern Siberian groups,and by Ousley (1993, 1995), who found greater an-thropometric variation in Northwest Coast Indians thanin Siberians measured during the JNPE. But Boas alsohad to account for the culturally and morphologicallydistinct Eskimo, who separated his "Americanoids" oneach side of the North Pacific.

Boas' "Americanoid" theory neatly explained all ofhis JNPE findings through a series of population move-ments. First, Asians migrated across a land bridge fromNortheast Siberia to North America, where they werelater isolated by glaciers, resulting in the greater diver-sification of Amerindians. When the glaciers retreated,the land bridge was reopened, and some Americanoidsmigrated back to Northeast Asia, forming an arc ofrelated tribes across the North Pacific coasts of bothcontinents. The arc was later broken by Eskimo, whopresumably migrated to the Bering Strait area fromHudson Bay, forming a "wedge" that divided theAmericanoids on each side of the Bering Strait. A meritof Boas' theory (outlined in greater detail in Ousley2000:13-4) was that it explained why the NortheastSiberians were different from typical "Mongoloids" andEskimo yet similar to Northwest Coast Indians in biol-ogy and culture (Boas 1905,1907, 1910, 1912b, 1929).

The term "Americanoid" actually originated withBrinton, who used it in his Essays of an Americanist(1890) to ridicule anthropologists who believed thatAmerican Indians were part of the "Mongoloid" race.

Brinton believed that if American Indians were consid-ered Mongoloids, then Asian Mongoloids should beconsidered a branch of the "Americanoid" race, sinceAmerican Indians are the "purer" race, their hair be-ing closer to a perfect circle in cross-section (Brinton1890:62). Boas evidently revived the term in 1904 atthe 14th International Congress of Americanists, heldin Stuttgart, most likely as a sarcastic allusion to Brinton,who had died in 1899 (Ousley 2000:14).

After the conclusion of the JNPE, Boas had enoughdata to disprove Brinton's repeated assertion thatAmerican Indian culture was autochthonous to the NewWorld, showing no connection to any cultures of theOld World (Boas 1903:73; Brinton 1886, 1890, 1891,1894). Boas never presented specific anthropometricdata that showed similarities between Siberians andAmerican Indians, but much later he referred obscurelyto cranial similarities between the Siberians and Am-erican Indians found by Jochelson-Brodsky (Boas1929:112). This is perhaps not surprising: Boas wasattempting to use statistics at a time when one hadto compute them with pencil and paper. A thoroughanalysis required many weeks of calculation that wouldbe unappreciated in the typological environment ofthe day, as was the case with Boas' later studies ofheredity (Herskovits 1953). Jochelson-Brodsky alludesto this obstacle: "In spite of the critical attitude of thepresent days' anthropologists to averages they stillform the chief base for somatological considerations"(Jochelson-Brodsky n.d.:104). Also, by this time. Boaswas unsure about the use of anthropometrics for as-sessing population relationships, but for quite differentreasons. Thus, Boas used JNPE ethnographic data toprove his theory. Waldemar Jochelson did mention spe-cific resemblances in 1926, citing the cephalic indexand nose, eye, lip, and cheek form, but without a refer-ence or data Oochelson 1926a:93).

DinaJochelson-Brodsky's (n.d.) manuscript, an analy-sis of JNPE and Aleutian anthropometric data, wasrecently rediscovered among the Jesup Expeditionmaterials at the AMNH (Ousley 2000). Her manuscript

264

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

conflicts with Boas' and Jochelson's vague referencesto it. In this unpublished 120-page study, she presentedover 60 tables summarizing the means, standard de-viations, and distributions of 25 anthropometric mea-surements and 9 indices from Siberian and AmericanIndian populations. As in all univariate analyses, somegroups are more similar in some measurements anddifferent in others, and the choice of which measure-ments to use is largely subjective. But even her limitedconclusions, based on standing height and the cepha-lic index, clearly show that Boas' "Americanoid" groupswere not similar to each other and that the Eskimowere not outliers, but displayed intermediate values.Jochelson-Brodsky avoided an explicit statement thatthese results contradicted Boas' thesis, but it is likelythat Boas recognized that her analysis undermined thebiological basis for the Americanoid theory. Jochelson-Brodsky's study was never published by Boas as partof the Jesup Expedition proceedings.

Instead, the only JNPE volume dealing with biologi-cal data from the expedition was written by BrunoOetteking, and it was published in 1930 as the lastvolume of the JNPE series.'' Despite samples too smallfor reliable results, Oetteking concluded that the North-west Coast Amerindians were of the "Mongol" stockand were probably mixed with racially "progressive"and "superior" early Caucasoids (Oetteking 1930:376).Although Boas had progressive views on race and didnot believe in racial superiority, he appears to havepreferred publishing questionable results rather thandirectly contradict his Americanoid theory.

Analyses

Boas' Americanoid theory never took hold in physicalanthropology, but the perception of an Eskimo "wedge"has remained (Freed et al. 1988; Szathmary andOssenberg 1978). Debets, a Russian physical anthro-pologist, noted that the Koryak and Chukchi weredescribed by Soviet scholars, who compared themwith more typical "Mongoloids" like the Evenk andYakut [Sakha], while the North American Eskimo were

described by Americans, who were used to compar-ing them with American Indians. Thus, for Russians,Paleoasiatics (the Chukchi, Chuvan, Koryak, and Yukagir)would seem to have more American Indian featuresthan other Asians, and to Americans, the Eskimo wouldseem to have more "Mongoloid" features than otherAmerican Indians (Debets 1951, cited in Levin 1958[1963]). This unfortunate tradition has continued (e.g.,Laughlin and Harper 1988; Spuhler 1979), illustrating apersistent need for objective data. One exception wasChard (1951, 1954), who recognized that the Ameri-canoid theory was based primarily on cultural dataand concluded, along with Russian physical anthro-pologists, that there was no Eskimo "wedge." Chard'sconclusions, however, were based on comparisons ofonly a few measurements and observations. Until therediscovery of the JNPE anthropometric data, a reliabletest of Boas' Eskimo wedge and Americanoid theorieswas not possible with the available biological data(Szathmary 1979, 1993).

The debate about the origins of American Indianscontinues, although it now centers on the timing andnumber of migrations from Asia and whether thesecan be delineated (Crawford 1998; Greenberg et al.1986; Merriwetheretal. 1995; Ousley 1995; Szathmary1993; Szathmary and Ossenberg 1978; Torroni et al.1992, 1993). Genetic analyses have illustrated somegeneral patterns of ancestral relationships, but manyquestions remain. Traditional blood markers are of lim-ited use because data from at least 20 marker loci, theminimum number necessary for consistent estimationsof population relationships, are still scarce for NorthPacific groups (Szathmary 1993). Other methods forfurther analyzing nuclear DNA show some promise butare limited by small sample sizes at present.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been extensivelyutilized recently for assessing ancestral population re-lationships across the North Pacific. Different mtDNAanalyses have been used to establish one, two, three,four, and more migratory "waves" into the New World.Based on mtDNA diversity, these waves are estimated

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

265

to have arrived in the New World between 5,000 and40,000 years ago. However, the conclusions of manyearly mtDNA researchers overreached what was sup-ported by the sample sizes. With larger sample sizes,more mtDNA types and subtypes are being discov-ered, and more complicated patterns of populationcomposition, interactions, and migrations into the NewWorld become evident (IVIerriwether et al. 1995, 1996;Schurr et al. 1999; Ward et al. 1993). Some groupsprobably migrated to the New World with a great dealof mtDNA diversity already present, confounding at-tempts to count or date the "waves" of migration. Onestudy found tremendous mtDNA diversity within theNuu-chah-nulth [Nootka] that was estimated to havetaken 60,000 years to produce (Ward et al. 1991). Infact, the mtDNA sequence diversity of this one tribehad 62 percent of the diversity present in numeroussampled groups from Sub-Saharan Africa. On the otherhand. Northwest Coast groups are known to haveengaged in raids on distant villages, sometimes hun-dreds of miles away, for wife and slave capture (Drucker1955; Suttles 1987). The incorporation of mtDNA lin-eages from other tribes would increase the mtDNAdiversity and estimated time depth within a tribe (Ousley1993). In addition, mtDNA sites that show apparentgreat time depth can be the result of higher mutationrates for certain sites (Curven 2000). There is also con-siderable debate about whether American Indians wentthrough a population bottleneck and which AmericanIndian mtDNA lineages originated in the Americas asopposed to Asia. As has been pointed out, however,mtDNA data represent the genetic history of only onematernally inherited locus and may not reflect the his-tory of populations (Szathmary 1993). The mtDNA datamay be better suited for detecting and discriminatingancient and recent contributions to genetic variationwithin populations than for assessing overall popula-tion relationships.

The genetic relationships between American Indi-ans and Siberians are not well defined, either, with someresearch pointing to Mongolian, Central Siberian, and

even early European ancestors who may have migratedto the New World before the peopling of northeasternSiberia (Brown et al. 1 998; Crawford 1998; Merriwetheret al. 1 996; Santos et al. 1 999). Investigations of the Ychromosome will provide additional data for research-ing population origins, but some mtDNA and Y-chro-mosome results conflict with each other, perhaps re-flecting different migration patterns for each sex (Karafetet al. 1997, 1999).

Because of the lack of comprehensive biologicaldata from the North Pacific, many researchers haveonly presented general physical and cultural impres-sions, and physical anthropologists have merely cho-sen the analysis closest to their own results for sup-port (e.g., Harper and Laughlin 1982; Laughlin andHarper 1988; see Levin 1958 [1963] for many moreexamples). Recent statistical developments allow moreinformative and objective comparisons among popu-lations based on metric data, which enable reconstruc-tions of population histories (Konigsberg and Blangero1993; Konigsberg and Ousley 1995; Relethford andBlangero 1990; Williams-Blangero et al. 1992). For ex-ample, Relethford and Crawford (1995) analyzed Irishanthropometrics collected in the 1930s and discov-ered evidence for Viking invasions and gene flow thathad occurred over 1,000 years earlier.

The JNPE data therefore offer a unique resource foraddressing some of these questions. The first analysisof all JNPE anthropometric data was carried out onlyrecently, almost 100 years after the JNPE (Ousley1993)—fortunately, at a time when electronic com-puters are available to perform statistical procedures.Ousley combined JNPE data with data from many othergroups measured under Boas and also produced thefirst multivariate analysis of Siberian anthropometricdata in English. Table 4 shows the mean cranial index(CI) values for North Pacific samples, with sexes com-bined. The Eskimo CIs are generally low but are closeto those of many Siberians. A few Northwest Coastgroups are near Siberian values, but generally they havethe highest CIs. Very similar CIs are found in Jochelson-

266

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Table 4

Cephalic Index (CI) of JNPE Samples'

Tribe

Number

Mean CI

EskMak

25

76.6

Evenk-SW

78

79.1

Chuvantsy

27

79.4

EskLab

30

79.4

NPBKory

70

79.5

WPBKory

1 23

80.0

Yukagir

40

80.0

EskSib

88

80.0

Eve-NE

25

80.1

ReinKory

26

80.8

Okanagan

40

80.9

KwakiutI

69

81.1

Eve-NW

36

81.1

MariChuk

53

81.5

Tahltan

1 7

81.7

Yakut

30

81.9

Haida

42

82.1

ReinChuk

89

82.1

Nivkh

1 6

82.5

Thompson

142

82.7

Tsimshian

57

83.0

Carrier

23

83.3

Bella Coola

19

84.0

Navajo

60

84.4

Aleut

26

85.2

Chilcotin

41

85.8

Lillooet

97

86.1

Makah

47

86.3

Tenino

21

89.5

Quileute

26

90.4

Note: See endnote 5 for abbreviations

Brodsky's work (1906, n.d.). Clearly, Boas andjochelsonoverstated similarities in the cephalic index and ignoredthe position of Eskimo samples (Ousley 2000).

Multivariate Analysis of SiberiansMore reliable population comparisons involve all vari-ables. Multivariate statistical methods, not practicedin Boas' time, enable comparisons between popula-tions using all available measurements simultaneously;they also express overall similarity between any twogroups by one number and permit the graphic repre-sentation of overall relationships. These overall rela-tionships can be used to objectively assess the gen-eral impressions of a researcher. For example. Hall and

MacNair (1972), in a multivariate analysis of Boas' pub-lished Northwest Coast anthropometric data, confirmedBoas' impressions of greater similarity of the Thomp-son [NIaka'pamux], Lillooet [Stl'atrimx], Chilcotin[Tsilhart'in], and Shuswap [Secwepemc] tribes to eachother than to other groups (Boas 1899c). Likewise,Boas's impression of three biological types of North-west Coast Amerindians (Boas 1899c) was supportedby an analysis of additional groups (Ousley 1993).

A computer capable of running statistical softwaresuch as SAS (SAS Institute 1985) that performs canoni-cal discriminant analysis (CDA) would have also servedBoas well. CDA converts the information expressed bymany quantitative variables into fewer uncorrelatedvariables, called the canonical axis scores, which maxi-mize among-group variation and take into accountthe correlations among variables. Relationships amonggroups can be illustrated by plotting the group meansfor two or three canonical axes, with some loss ofinformation.

Anthropometric data from Siberian and Aleutianmales and females between ages 20 and 60 werestandardized by sex and pooled by ethnic group andlocation. The results of canonical discriminant analysisof this sample are shown in Figure 72. Groups thatscore high on the first canonical axis have relativelylonger legs, shorter arms, larger faces, larger noses, andwider heads than those on the left of Figure 72. On thesecond canonical axis, groups in the upper half areshorter, with narrower shoulders, longer heads, and nar-rower noses than those below. In this case, the twoaxes represent 52 percent of all information from themeasurements. The relationships among groups usingall available information are expressed as distancesfrom each group to all others and can be illustrated asa dendrogram, or "tree" diagram. A dendrogram dis-playing all the information from Siberians was con-structed via this method (Fig. 73).

The anthropometric variation among the Siberiangroups shows very strong geographic patterning, in-dependent of language and ethnicity as assessed by

S, OUSLEY AND R, JANTZ

267

Jochelson and Bogoras. TheChukchi groups and the Sibe-rian Eskimo [Yupik] who liveon the Chukchi Peninsula clus-ter at the bottom right of Fig-ure 72. All three trade witheach other and intermarry,and Maritime Chukchi andYupik (Siberian Eskimo) oftenlive adjacently. According tohistorical accounts, the Mari-time Chukchi have beenslowly assimilating the Sibe-rian Eskimo (Menovshchikov1964), a fact well illustratedby the anthropometrics. Whenall variation is taken into ac-count, using all distances, theMaritime Chukchi are slightlyclosertothe Reindeer Chukchithan to the Siberian Eskimo,as shown in Figure 73.

The cluster at the bottomleft of Figure 72 is from theKamchatka Peninsula, which

15

1

0,5

c

fljO

-0.5

-1

-1.5

EVENK-SW

▲

YUKAGHIR▲

CHUVANTSevenK-NE

EVENK-NW

EVEN -NW ^

EVEN -NE REINKORY

^ YAKUT

▲

VvrDr\Ui\T i^rurwrvi

NIVKH

▲

▲

KAMKORY

▲

^ RUSSIAN

REINCHUKA

KAWICHADAL

▲

ESKSIBMARICHUK

ALEUT

▲

CREOLE A

-1.5

-0.5 0Can 1 (43%)

0.5

1.5

72/ Canonical Discriminant Analysis of all JNPE Siberians measured and 27 Aleutsand 16 "Creoles" (Aleut mixtures) measued byJochelson-Brodsky on the RibushinskiExpedition. Abbreviations are: EskSib, Siberian Eskimo; Even-NE, Even fromYeropol, Markovo; Evenk-NE, Evenk from Kamenskoye, Markovo; Even-NW,Even from the lower Kolyma River and Nelemnoye; Evenk-NW, Evenk from thelower Kolyma and Nelemnoye; Evenk-SW, Evenk from Nayakhan and Gizhiga;KamKory, Koryak from Kamchatka (Palana and Sedanka); MariChuk, MaritimeChukchi; NPBKory, Koryak from northern Penzhina Bay (Kamenskoye andTalovka); ReinChuk, Reindeer Chukchi; ReinKory, Reindeer Koryak; WPBKory,Koryak from the west coast of Penzhina Bay (Kuel, Itkana, Paren River).

is also separated from other

Siberians in Figure 73. The Kamchatka cluster includesthe Koryak from Kamchatka (Palantsy and Karagintsy),the Kamchadal [Itelmen] who are mixed with Russians,and the Kamchatkan Russians. This cluster reflects docu-mented gene flow between all three. In the 18th cen-tury, the Kamchadal were distributed more northward,overlapping with the Koryak (Antropova 1964). At thetime of the JNPE, the Kamchadal and Koryak of theKamchatka Peninsula had been intermarrying with theRussians for nearly 200 years (Jochelson 1908). Nearlyall Kamchatkan natives measured had Russian names.The Koryak from other areas are very different from theKamchatka Koryak, clustering in the upper right of Fig-ure 72. The Aleut and the "Creoles" (Aleut mixed withEuropeans, especially Russians) plot near the Kamchatka

cluster, but Figure 73 confirms that they, along withthe Nivkh, are very different from other Siberians.

The groups measured in the northwestern area ofthe JNPE in Siberia similarly cluster with each other inthe top left of Figure 72, along with the Evenk mea-sured in the Nayakhan and Korkodon River area. This isprobably the result of gene flow between all groups.The Even, believed to stem from the relatively recentassimilation of Yukagir, Koryak, and other elements bynortheastern Evenk (Arutiunov 1988a), can be sepa-rated into eastern and western subdivisions, each show-ing affinity to the groups geographically near them.The Even of the northwest area cluster with the Yukagir,Yakut [Sakha], and Evenk in the same area, while theEven of the Markovo area are similar to the Chuvantsy

2 68 THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

[Chuvan], Koryak, and Evenk in that area. The two divi-sions of the Even are also widely separated in the den-drogram (Fig. 73).

The cluster at the top right of Figure 72 representsgroups from the Yeropol-Markovo area, as well as allKoryak from the vicinity of Penzhina Bay. The Koryaknorth of Kamchatka show greater biological cohesive-ness than other Siberians. This probably represents alarger range of movement and interaction amongKoryak groups north of Kamchatka. As shown in Fig-ure 73, the Penzhina Bay Koryak are most similar to thenorthern Koryak, followed by the Reindeer Koryak. TheChuvantsy [Chuvan] were described as a Yukagir-speak-ing tribe (Bogoras 1904-09), but Jochelson remarkedthat the Chuvantsy in Siberia were either Russianizedor were influenced by the Koryak or Chukchi (Jochelson1926b). At the time of the JNPE, the Chuvantsy weresurrounded by Reindeer Chukchi to the north and Re-indeer Koryak to the south. The documented ethno-graphic relationships of the Chuvantsy are reflectedanthropometrically, for the Chuvantsy are most similarto the northeastern Even, Evenk, and Koryak groups.

The Siberian anthropometric relationships largelyreflect a recurrent pattern seen in Siberia and otherparts of the world: groups located close to each other

exchange genes, whether the admixture results fromtrade, warfare, or migration (Arutiunov 1988a; Bogoras1904-09; Dikov 1965; Dolgikh 1965; Harding andSokal 1988; Jochelson 1908; Moss 1992; Townsend1979). Linguistic barriers are rarely genetic barriers.Geographic barriers are often more formidable, but thestrong geographic patterning of the Siberian anthro-pometric data may also be a product of strong envi-ronmental influences. Northern populations, however,have come up with clever cultural adaptations to asevere environment, and gene flow likely affectsgroups far more than does natural selection in therelatively short term, barring mass extinction. Indeed,all types of biological data (anthropometrics, der-matoglyphics, blood markers, mtDNA, Y chromosome,etc.) should be subjected to Boasian skepticism, andthe strengths and weaknesses of each should be ac-knowledged. This, however, is rarely done. For example,in a recent test of assumptions, Ousley (1997) foundthat unlike the case with anthropometrics, the pheno-typic distances among family members using der-matoglyphic ridge counts are not proportional to thegenetic distances, meaning that population relation-ships estimated directly from dermatoglyphic ridgecounts will be inaccurate.

12

6

-cz

Aleut

Creole

Nivkh

Chuvants

Evenk-NE

Even-NE

WPBKoryak

NPBKoryak

ReinKory

MariChuk

RelnChuk

EskSib

Evenk

Evenk-NW

Yukaghir

Even-NW

Yakut

Itelman

KamKory

Russian

73/ Dendrogram of Siberian and Aleut Samples. For abbreviations, see Fig. 72.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

269

Multivariate Analysis of North Pacific CroupsFigure 74 is a canonical plot of relationships amongNorth Pacific groups for which Boas had data. The re-sults are similar to those from other studies with moregroups (Ousley 1993, 1995). Most groups in the lefthalf of Figure 74 are Siberians, with the exception ofthe Eskimo samples. The upper-left quadrant of thefigure shows a clustering of northeasternmost Siberiangroups—the Koryak, Chukchi, and Siberian Eskimo—as well as Eskimo from Labrador and the MacKenzieRiver Delta in northern Canada. The bottom-left quad-rant contains the other Siberian groups. American Indi-ans and the Aleut are on the right, as are the Nivkh.This separation of Old and New World populations isalso shown in Figure 75, a dendrogram that uses thesame population samples as in Figure 74. Most North-west Coast Amerindians are clustered in the upper halfof Figure 74, while the KwakiutI, Aleut, and Bella Coolaare nearer the bottom. The groups are also separatedin Figure 75, in which the Tahltan are close to theKwakiutI, Aleut, and Bella Coola. The division of coastalNorth Pacific groups into these clusters is supported,as well, when other statisti-cal methods and groups areused (Boas 1899c; Ousley1993, 1995).

These results call Boas'theories into question, giventhe absence of American-oids and the close anthro-pometric relationship of theEskimo to other North Pa-cific populations. Only theNivkh sample, which Boasapparently never analyzed,shows great affinity toNorthwest Coast Amer-indians. Both North Ameri-can Eskimo groups showunquestionable Siberian af-finities; in particular, the

Labrador Eskimo sample is most similar to the Mari-time Koryak. Thus, there is no Eskimo "wedge." Theanthropometric affinities of the Eskimo samples sug-gest an Asian origin, as have more recent archaeologi-cal and ethnographic studies (summarized in Ousley1995), rather than one in central Canada, as Boas hadsupposed. Another analysis (Yokota et al. n.d.), usingseveral sets of biological data, finds that most of theSiberian groups from the JNPE are more similar to theEskimo than to other Asian populations, including theChinese. On the whole, the data are in agreement withChard's (1960) suggestion that Eskimo populations,which at one time stretched from Kamchatka to theBering Strait or beyond, may have been the carriers ofAsiatic cultural elements into the New World.

Not all of Boas's impressions were incorrect. Ousley(1993), in a larger-scale analysis, found that NorthwestCoast tribes are more similar to Siberians than are otherAmerindian tribes. The Eskimo show unquestionableAsian affinities, while the Aleut show strong New Worldaffinities, reflecting ethnohistorical data rather thanlinguistic relationships. This illustrates Boas' (1911)

15

0.5

c

o

-0 5

-15

CARRIER

MARICHUK

▲

NAVAJO

▲

A

ESKSIB

▲ REINCHUK

TENINO

▲

CHILCOTIN ^

REINKORY

A

A ESKMAK

NPBKORY

THOMPSON

EVEN-NE WPBKORY

A ▲

TAHLTAN

^ LILLOOET

A A

ESKLAB

A

OKANAGAN

▲

aTSIMSHIAN

CHUVANTS▲

KWAKIUTL

HAIDA MAKAH

A

NIVKH

A

quileute a

EVENK-SW

A

^ EVE-NW

ALEUT

▲

YUKAGHIR A

YAKUT BELLA COOLA

▲

A

-2 5

0

Can 1 (42%)

2.5

74/ North Pacific Canonical Plot. Except for Evenk-SW, the Even and Evenksamples were pooled according to region (Eve-NW, Eve-NE). For other abbre-viations, see Fig. 72

270

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

12

Aleut

KwakiutI

Bella Coola

Tahltan

Chllcotin

Lillooet

Thompson

Tenino

Makah

Quileute

Haida

Tsimshian

Okanagan

Nivkh

Navajo

Carrier

Chuvants

Evenk-SW

Even-NW

Yukaghir

Yakut

EskLab

Even-NE

WPBKoryak

NPBKoryak

ReinKoryak

EskSib

MariChuk

ReinChuk

EskMak

75/ Dendrogram of North Pacific Populations. For abbreviations, see Figs. 74 and 72.

assertion that anthropological results based on biol-ogy, culture, and language need not agree. Boas'(1912a, 1916) results from immigrants indicating mor-phological changes in head shape after migration tothe New World may temper the results of inter-continental population comparisons. The extent ofmorphological changes after migration and theireffect on estimated population relationships areuncertain. A reanalysis of Boas'immigrant data, how-ever, indicates that age-related variability is a muchmore significant influence on the morphologicalchanges that Boas observed than is the environment(Corey Sparks, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, per-sonal communication).

In addition, anthropometric data, like other biologi-cal data gathered from modern individuals, may re-flect historically recent rather than ancient populationevents. There are major drawbacks in examining mod-ern populations to ascertain what happened 5,000-1 5,000 years ago. Modern native populations are the

result not only of ancient migrations but also of subse-quent and continuous gene drift, gene flow, foundereffects, ethnogenesis, in- and out-migrations, warfare,epidemics, extinctions, admixture, assimilation, andperhaps natural selection. The addition of ancient DNAanalyses may help in providing data at various pointsin time, but technical challenges, limited samples, highcosts, and repatriation concerns remain formidable.

There are many ways of utilizing the JNPE anthro-pometric data, some of which do not involve estimat-ing ancestral population relationships. Of course, thesimilarities among groups from opposite sides of theNorth Pacific can be explored in greater detail, and thespatial patterning seen in Siberia can be investigatedfurther using more sophisticated methods and addi-tional measurements collected only in Siberia. The stat-ure of Siberian adults and the growth of Siberian chil-dren at the time of the JNPE can be compared withthese data for modern Siberians. Furthermore, morpho-logical changes among Siberian adults since the JNPE

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 7 1

can be investigated using modern data sets. For ex-ample, Comuzzie et al. (1995) reported dramatic re-ductions in Evenk facial measurements since the JNPE.

Summary

JNPE biological data, collected under Boas' direction,reflected his faith in the analytical value ofanthropometrics as part of holistic anthropological field-work, in contrast to Brinton's "armchair" anthropology.In geographic range, quality, and extent of data, theJNPE produced an unsurpassed amount of biologicalinformation about North Pacific peoples. Initial studiesof the data contradicted Boas' Americanoid theory,which was based almost entirely on cultural similari-ties. Until recently, however, the JNPE anthropometricdata had never been adequately analyzed to explorethe biological relationships of peoples on both sidesof the Bering Strait, as Boas had intended. Paradoxi-cally, although Boas never analyzed the biological datafrom the JNPE, a rejection of his Americanoid theory ispossible only because he insisted that such metric databe collected.

Boas' foresight in amassing quantitative biologicaldata (despite doubts of their immediate utility) has givenus extremely valuable biological records. These enableus to perform analyses that shed light on ancient andrecent relationships, growth, and morphologicalchanges over time. We should acknowledge the con-tributions of Franz Boas as we would an expert pho-tographer who captured a moment in time. Under hisdirection, over 18,000 American Indians and Siberianswere measured. He was indeed prescient: many of thepopulations measured by his teams have disappearedthrough dispersion and assimilation.

The rediscovery of Boas's anthropometric data hascoincided with the availability of much greater statisti-cal and computational capabilities for analyzing them.Much more reliable biological information can begleaned from all types of biological data, especially inthe North Pacific, where important questions linger asto ancient migrations and more recent gene flow. While

there are fewer computational limitations on analysestoday, there are greater challenges for data collection.The authors hope that all varieties of biological datawill be collected as part of any North Pacific researchproject in order to assess modern population relation-ships, to compare the new data with other informa-tion collected over the last 100 years, and to investi-gate changes in growth and body form since the JNPE.

Acknowledgments

The late Douglas Cole commented on sections of thispaper and provided important references. Regna Darnellprovided information about D. G. Brinton and his rela-tionship to Boas. Both Regna Darnell and George Stock-ing, Jr., commented on earlier versions of this paperand a similar publication. Jaymie Brauer, Belinda Kaye,Barbara Mathe, and Thomas Miller at the AMNH werevery helpful in assembling the Boas records and find-ing additional Jesup Expedition materials. At theSmithsonian Institution, Igor Krupnik provided valuableeditorial comments and assistance in locating Siberianethnic names and Russian place names. Daniel Meyerat the Regenstein Library Archives of the University ofChicago provided much-needed assistance.

Notes

1. The contrast between inductive and de-ductive logic and reasoning does not adequatelydescribe the differences between Boas' andBrinton's research methods. The conclusion of adeductive argument is claimed to follow neces-sarily from the premises. If the premises of a de-ductive argument are true and the argument isvalid (the conclusion follows from the premises),then the conclusion must be true no matter whatother information is added (Copi 1982). Brintonconstructed deductive arguments by assemblingpublished observations that supported a foregoneconclusion, such as the psychic unity of mankindor the unique nature of American Indian culture,and ignoring any observations and explanationsto the contrary. This deductive approach limitedwhat data were relevant, for they were being gath-ered for a specific purpose.

272

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

By contrast, Boas' approach was inductivebecause he was concerned with gathering asmany data as possible; the data were not par-ticularly constrained by conclusions or theory. In-ductive reasoning involves probabilistic state-ments, and the probabilities can change as newinformation is added. Inductive reasoning gener-ally involves analogies, generalizations, and causalconnections (Copi 1982).

As a result of their different approaches. Boasmade more numerous and far greater enduring con-tributions to anthropology. Brinton's legacy is oneof pompous and flowery writing, full of conclu-sions that sound well founded but have over-whelmingly proved false, untestable, or irrelevant.Boas, by contrast, generally avoided theorizing(with the notable exception of the "Americanoid"theory), and some have interpreted this as a weak-ness. Boas, however, left behind cautious explo-rations of data in his publications, numerous col-lected items of material culture, and mountainsof archived data that others can use even todayto test theories. The JNPE is a microcosm of Boas'career in that great amounts of data were col-lected but no comprehensive results and conclu-sions were published.

2. An invoice was found among Boas' pro-fessional correspondence for "computers"—of thehuman variety—to calculate statistics from his bio-logical data.

3. This was Boas' second setback for anthro-pometric data collection in the Amur River area.In 1893, he had sent D. Scott Moncrieff, an expe-rienced measurer who had worked in British Co-lumbia, to the Amur River to gather data for anexhibit at the World's Columbian Exposition.Shortly after his arrival, Moncrieff drowned whiletesting a native boat Qohnson 1897).

4. Dina Jochelson-Brodsky's study was ad-vertised on the cover page of the Oetteking vol-ume as Part 2 of that volume, although her contri-bution was never published—ed.

5. For data in Table 4, order is from lowestto highest SI. Males and females were combined.Except for Evenk-SW, the Even and Evenk sampleswere pooled according to region. Abbreviations:EskLab, Labrador Eskimo; EskMak, MacKenzieDelta Eskimo; EskSib, Siberian Eskimo; Eve-NE, Evenand Evenk from the northeastern area of the JNPE;

Eve-NW, Even and Evenk from the northwesternarea of the JNPE; Evenk-SW, Evenk from Nayakhanand Gizhiga; MariChuk, Maritime Chukchi; NPBKory,Koryak from northern Penzhina Bay (Kamenskoyeand Talovka); ReinChuk, Reindeer Chukchi; Rein-Kory, Reindeer Koryak; WPBKory, Koryak fromwestern Penzhina Bay (Kuel, Itkana, Paren River).

6. Although language is not necessarily a bar-rier to gene flow, dialects can reflect social inter-actions. The Koryak of northeastern Kamchatkaspeak Aliutor, a distinctive dialect of Koryak, ifnot a separate language (Krauss 1988). TheKamchadal samples are from the western linguis-tic branch, which includes dialects greatly influ-enced by Koryak and Russian (Antropova 1964a;Arutiunov 1 988b).

ReferencesAntropova, Valentina V.

1964 The Itelmen. In The Peoples of Siberia. M. C.

Levin and L. P. Potapov, eds. Pp. 876-83. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Arutiunov, Sergei A.

1988a Even: Reindeer Herders of Eastern Siberia. InCrossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. William Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp.35-8. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1988b Koryak and Itelman: Dwellers of the SmokingCoast. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Sibe-ria and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds. Pp. 31-5. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.

Boas, Franz

1891a Physical Characteristics of the Indians of theNorth Pacific Coast. American Anthropologist 4:25-32.

1891b Mixed Races. Science 17:179.

1892 The Growth of Children. Sc/e^ce 19:256-7, 281-2; 20:351-2.

1893 Remarks on the Theory of Anthropometry. Quar-terly Publications of the American Statistical Asso-ciation 3:569-75.

1894a The Correlation of Anatomical or PhysiologicalMeasurements. American Anthropologist 7:31 3-24.

1894b The Half-Blood Indian: An AnthropometricStudy. Popular Science Monthly 45:761-70.

1895a The Growth of First-Born Children. Science, n.s.1:402-4.

1895b Zur Antropologie der nordamerikanischenIndianern. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 27:366-41 1.

1 896 Form of the Head as Influenced by Growth.Science, n.s. 4:50-1.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 73

1897a The Growth of Children. Science, n.s. 5:570-3.

1897b The Jesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast.Science, n.s. 6:535-8.

1898 Facial Paintings of the Indians of Northern BritishColumbia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1,pt. 1, pp. 1 3-24. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 2. New York.

1899a The Cephalic Index. American Anthropologist,n.s. 1:448-61.

1899b Some Recent Criticisms of Physical Anthropol-ogy. American Anthropologist 1:98-106.

1899c Summary of the Work of the Committee inBritish Columbia. 68th Report of the British Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science. Pp. 667-88.

1902a Rudolf Virchow's Anthropological Work. Sci-ence 16:441-5.

1902b Statistical Study of Anthropometry. AmericanPhysical Education Review 6:174-80.

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3(5):73-l 19.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-tional Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:Eschenbach.

1907 Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bulletinof the American Museum of Natural History 15, pts.1-2.

1910 Ethnological Problems in Canada. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain andIreland 40:529-39.

1911 Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin40(1): 1-83. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

1912a Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants ofImmigrants. American Anthropologist 14(3):530-62.

1912b The History of the American Race. Annals ofthe American Academy of Sciences 21:1 77-83.

1913 Die Analyse anthropometrischer Serien, nebstBemerkungen iiber die Deutung der Instabilitatmenschlicher Typen. Archiv fur Rassen- undCesellschafts-Biologie 10(3):290-302.

1916 New Evidence in Regard to the Instability ofHuman Types. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences 2(1 2):71 3-8.

1920 Anthropometry of Puerto Rico. American Jour-nal of Physical Anthropology 3:247-53.

1929 Migrations of Asiatic Races and Cultures to NorthAmerica. Scientific Monthly 29:110-21.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 11. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert.

Brinton, Daniel C.

1886 Anthropology and Ethnology. Philadelphia:Sonographic Publishing.

1890 Essays of an Americanist. Philadelphia: Porterand Coates.

1891 The American Race. New York: Hodges.

1894 On Various Supposed Relations between theAmerican and Asian races. In Memoirs of the Interna-tional Congress of Anthropology. C. Staniland Wake,ed. Pp. 145-51. Chicago: Schulte.

1895 The Character and Aims of a Scientific investiga-tion. Science, n.s. 1:3-4.

Brown, M. D., S. H. Hosseini, A. Torroni, H.

Bandelt, J. C. Allen, T. C. Schurr, R. Scozzari,

F. Cruciani, and D. C. Wallace

1998 mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link betweenEurope/Western Asia and North America? AmericanJournal of Human Genetics 63:1852-61.

Chard, Chester S.

1951 New Light on the Racial Composition of North-eastern Siberia. Kroeber Anthropological SocietyPapers 5:26^7.

1954 Racial Types in Northeastern Asia. Kroeber An-thropological Society Papers 10:1-4.

1960 Northwest Coast-Northeast Asiatic Similarities:A New Hypothesis. In Men and Cultures: SelectedPapers of the Fifth International Congress of An-thropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956. An-thony F. C. Wallace, ed. Pp. 235^0. Philadelphia:University of Philadelphia Press.

Cole, Douglas L.

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for NorthwestCoast Artifacts. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

Comuzzie, A. C, R. Duggirala, W. R. Leonard,and M. H. Crawford

1995 Population Relationships among Historicaland Modern Indigenous Siberians based on An-thropometric Characters. Human Biology67(3):459-79.

Copi, Irving M.

1982 Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.Crawford, Michael H.

1998 The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence fromAnthropological Genetics. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Debets, Georgii F.

1951 Antropologicheskie issledovaniia na Kamchatke(Anthropological research in Kamchatka). TrudyInstituta etnografii AN SSSR, 1 7. Moscow.

Dikov, Nikolai N.

1965 The Stone Age of Kamchatka and the ChukchiPeninsula in the Light of New Archaeological Data.Arctic Anthropology 3:10-25.

274

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

Dolgikh, Boris O.

1 965Problems in the Ethnography and Physical Anthro-pology of the Arctic. Arctic Anthropology. 3(1): 1-9.Drucker, Philip

1955 Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Freed, Stanley A., Ruth S. Freed, and LailaWilliamson

1988 Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: Thejesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(1):7-24.

Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner, and

Stephen L. Zegura

1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparisonof the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence. Cur-rent Anthropology 27{S)A77-97.

Gurven, M.

2000 How Can We Distinguish between Mutational"Hot Spots" and "Old Sites" in Human mtDNASamples? Human Biology 72:455-71.

Hall, Roberta, and P. MacNair

1972 Multivariate Analysis of Anthropometric Dataand Classification of British Columbia Natives. Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthropology 37:401-10.

Harding, R. M., and R. R. Sokal

1988 Classification of the European Language Fami-lies by Genetic Distance. Science 85:9370-2.

Harper, Albert B., and William S. Laughlin

1982 Inquiries into the Peopling of the New World:Development of Ideas and Recent Advances. In AHistory of American Physical Anthropology 1930-1980. F. Spencer, ed. Pp. 281-304. New York: Aca-demic Press.

Herskovits, Melville J.

1943 Franz Boas as Physical Anthropologist. Memoirsof the American Anthropological Association, 61.Pp. 39-51.

1953 Franz Boas: The Science of Man in the Making.

New York: Scribner.Howells, W. W.

1959 Boas as Statistician. Memoirs of the American

Anthropological Association, 89. Pp. 112-6.Jantz, Richard L.

1995 Franz Boas and Native American Biological Vari-ability. Human Biology 67{3y.34S-53.Jantz, Richard L., David R. Hunt, Anthony B.Falsetti, and Patrick J. Key

1992 Variation among North Amerindians: Analysisof Boas's Anthropometric Data. Human Biology64(3):435-61.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G.

E. Stechert.

1925 Archaeological Investigations in the AleutianIslands. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publica-tion, 367. Washington, DC.

1926a The Ethnological Problems of Bering Sea. Natu-ral History 26{]y.90-S.

1 926b The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3. Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 1 3.Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina

1906 Zur Topographie des weiblichen Korpers nord-ostsibirisher Volker. Archiv fur Anthropologie 33:1-58.

1907 K antropologii zhenshchin plemion krainegosevero-vostoka Sibiri (Contribution to the anthropol-ogy of the women of the tribes of northeastern Si-beria). Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 1-2:1-87.Moscow.

n.d. [On the Anthropometry of the Peoples of North-east Siberia.] On file at the Department of Anthro-pology, American Museum of Natural History, NewYork.

Johnson, Rossiter

1897 A History of the World's Columbian ExpositionHeld in Chicago in 1893. New York: Appleton.

Karafet, Tatiana, Stephen L. Zegura, Jennifer

Vuturo-Brady, Olga Posukh, Ludmila Osipova,

Victor Wiebe, Francine Romero, Jeffrey C.

Long, Shinji Harihara, Feng Jin, Bumbein

Dashnyam, Tudevdagva Gerelsaikhan, Keiichi

Omoto, and Michael F. Hammer

1997 Y Chromosome Markers and Trans-Bering StraitDispersals. American Journal of Physical Anthropol-ogy 102(3):301-14.

Karafet, T. M., S. L. Zegura, O. Posukh, L.

Osipova, A. Bergen, J. Long, D. Goldman, W.

Klitz, S. Harihara, P. de Knijff, V. Wiebe, R. C.

Griffiths, A. R. Templeton, and M. F. Hammer

1999 Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chro-mosome Founder Haplotypes. American Journal ofHuman Genetics 64(3, March):81 7-31.

Konigsberg, L. W., and J. Blangero

1993 Multivariate Quantitative Genetic Simulations inAnthropology with an Example from the South Pa-cific. Human Biology 65:897-91 5.

Konigsberg, L. W., and Stephen D. Ousley

1 995 Multivariate Quantitative Genetics of Anthropo-metrics from the Boas Data. Human Biology 67:48]-98.

Krauss, Michael E.

1988 Many Tongues—Ancient Tales. In Crossroads ofContinents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. WilliamW. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp. 145-50.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 75

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Lauter, Berthold

1 902 The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 4, pt. 1, pp. 1 -79. Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 6.New York.

Laughlin, William S., and Albert B. Harper

1988 Peopling of the Continents: Australia and America.In Biological Aspects of Human Migration. C. C. N.Mascie-Taylor and G. W. Lasker, eds. Pp. 14-40. Cam-bridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, Maxim C.

1958 [1963] Etnicheskaia antropologiia i problemyetnogeneza narodov Dal'nego Vostoka (Physicalanthropology and ethnogenetic problems of thepeoples of the Far East). Trudy Instituta etnografiiAN SSSR, 36. Moscow. Trans. H. Michael, Ethnic Ori-gins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia, Arctic Insti-tute of North America, Anthropology of the North,Translations from Russian Sources, 3 (Toronto: Uni-versity of Toronto Press).

Menovshchikov, Georgii A.

1964 The Eskimos. In The Peoples of Siberia. M. G.Levin and L P. Potapov, eds. Pp. 836-50. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Merriwether, D., F. Rothammer, and R. E.

Ferret I

1995 Distribution of the Four Founding LineageHaplotypes in Native Americans Suggests a SingleWave of Migration for the New World. American Jour-nal of Physical Anthropology 98:411-30.

Merriwether, D. Andrew, William W. Hall,Anders Vahlne, and Robert E. Ferrell

1996 mtDNA Variation Indicates Mongolia May HaveBeen the Source for the Founding Populations forthe New World. American Journal of Human Genet-ics 59(1):204-12.

Moss, Madonna L.

1992 Relationships between Maritime Cultures ofSouthern Alaska: Rethinking Culture Area Boundaries.Arctic Anthropology 29(2):5-l 7.

Oetteking, Bruno

1930 Craniology of the North Pacific Coast. The JesupNorth Pacific Expedition, vol. 11, pt. 1. Memoirs ofthe American Museum of Natural History, 1 5. Leiden:E.J. Brill; New York: G. E. Stechert.

Ousley, Stephen D.

1993 Drops, Trickles, Waves, and Tides: North PacificAnthropometrics and the Peopling of North America.M.A. thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

1995 Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians,and Aleuts: Old Data, New Perspectives. Human Bi-ology 67(3):427-58.

1997 The Quantitative Genetics of Epidermal RidgesUsing Multivariate Maximum Likelihood Estimation.

Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

2000 Boas, Brinton, and the Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition: The Return of the Americanoids. EuropeanReview of Native American Studies 14(2): 11-1 7.

Relethford, J. H., and J. Blangero

1990 Detection of Differential Gene Flow from Pat-terns of Quantitative Variation. Human Biology b2:S-25.

Relethford, J. H., and M. C. Crawford

1995 Anthropometric Variation and the PopulationHistory of Ireland. American Journal of Physical An-thropology 96:25-38.

Santos, F. R., A. Pandya, C. Tyler-Smith, S. D.

J. Pena, M. S. Schanfield, W. R. Leonard, L.

Osipova, M. H. Crawford, and R. J. Mitchell

1 999 The Central Siberian Origin for Native AmericanY Chromosomes. American Journal of Human Genet-ics 64:619-28.

SAS Institute, Inc.

1 985 SAS User's Guide: 1985 Edition. Gary, NC.Schurr, T. C, R. I. Sukernik, Y. B. Starikov-skaya, and D. C. Wallace

1999 Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Koryaks andItel'men: Population Replacement in the OkhotskSea-Bering Region during the Neolithic. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 108:1 -39.

Spuhler, James N.

1979 Genetic Distances, Trees, and Maps of NorthAmerican Indians. In The First Americans: Origins,Affinities, and Adaptations. W. S. Laughlin and AlbertB. Harper, eds. Pp. 135-83. New York: Gustav Fischer.

Stewart, Thomas D.

1973 The People of America. New York: Scribner.Stocking, George W., Jr.

1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the His-tory of Anthropology. New York: Free Press.Suttles, Wayne

1987 Coast Salish Essays. Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.Szathmary, E.

1979 Eskimo and Indian Contact: Examination of Crani-ometric. Anthropometric and Genetic Evidence. ArcticAnthropology 16:23-48.

1993 Genetics of Aboriginal North Americans. Evolu-tionary Anthropology 1:202-20.

Szathmary, E., and N. Ossenberg

1978 Are the Biological Differences between NorthAmerican Indians and Eskimos Truly Profound? Cur-rent Anthropology 1 9:673-701.

Torroni, A., T. C. Schurr, C. Yang, E.

Szathmary, R. C. Williams, M. S. Schanfield, G.

A. Troup, W. C. Knowler, D. N. Lawrence, K.

M. Weiss, and D. C. Wallace

1992 Native American Mitochondrial DNA AnalysisIndicates That the Amerind and the NaDene Popula-

276

THE RESOURCES/ ANTHROPOMETRICS

tions Were Founded by Two Independent Migrations.

Genetics 1 30:1 53-62.Torroni, A., T. G. Schurr, M. F. Cabell, M. D.Brown, J. N. Neel, M. Larsen, D. Smith, C. M.Vullo, and D. C. Wallace

1993 Asian Affinities and Continental Radiation of theFour Founding Native American Mitochondrial DNAs.American Journal of Human Genetics 53:563-90.

Townsend, J. B.

1979 Indian or Eskimo? Interaction and Identity inSouthern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 16:160-83.Ward, R. H., B. L. Frazier, K. Dew-Jager, and S.Paabo

1991 Extensive Mitochondrial Diversity within a SingleAmerindian Tribe. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences 88:8720-4.

Ward, R. H., A. Redd, D. Valencia, B. Frazier,and S. Paabo

1993 Genetic and Linguistic Differentiation in the Ameri-cas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences 90:10663-7.

Williams-Blangero, S., and J. Blangero

1989 Anthropometric Variation and the Genetic Struc-ture of the Jirels of Nepal./-/wmi^n S/o/o^y 61(1): 1-1 2.

Williams-Blangero, S., J. Blangero, and M. C.

Mahaney

1992 Segregation Analysis of Craniometric Traits In-corporating Genotypic-Specific Growth Patterns.American Journal of Human Genetics 51 :A163.Yokota, M., S. D. Ousley, and H. Ishidan.d. Quantitative Traits and Ainu Origins. Manuscript inpreparation.

S. OUSLEY AND R. JANTZ

2 77

Voices from Liberia

^thnomusicologtj of the ^Jesup Expedition

RICHARD KEELING

The stories, folklore texts, and other spoken narrativescollected during the Jesup North Pacific Expedition(1897-1902) are fairly well known and are generallyavailable in published editions. By contrast, the musi-cal sound recordings are much less accessible, andtheir place or purpose in the original expedition designis not adequately understood. The recordings includeNorthwest Coast and Arctic Siberian collections thathave never been reviewed or subjected to compara-tive analysis in any published study. I come to thissubject through my previous research related prima-rily to North American Indian music of northern Califor-nia (Keeling 1992a, 1992b). Ideas about music as avehicle for cultural analysis or historical interpretationshave changed immensely over the past 100 years.What intrigued me was the opportunity to subject Boas'data to the light of modern theories.

There is a vast amount of recorded evidence andpublished research to build on. In order to help otherslocate some of the more important early recordingsand the related writings, I have prepared an inventoryand bibliography, which follow (Appendixes A and B).While many of these early collections have been docu-mented quite carefully, the jesup Expedition musicalrecordings remain poorly understood , despite theirkey importance for future research.

Boas' Early Musicological Research

Music was important to Boas. He addressed the sub-ject in more than 20 publications; he corresponded

with virtually all the major figures in Native Americanmusic research throughout his career; and his studentsincluded not only such distinguished musicologists asGeorge Herzog and Helen Roberts but also AlfredKroeber and Edward Sapir, whose accomplishmentsin the area of native music research are less well known.'

Boas was among the first to recognize that vari-ous aspects of culture—"religion and science; music,poetry, and dance; myth and history; fashion and eth-ics"—were all "intrinsically interwoven" (Boas 1904:243).This concept not only revolutionized current thinkingwith respect to the nature of culture but also offeredthe fascinating possibility that music and the arts couldbe vehicles for comparative research.

In fact. Boas was an early pioneer in ethnomus-icology. Systematic research on what was then called"primitive music" began in 1886 when Carl Stumpf pub-lished a paper describing songs performed by a groupof Bella Coola Indians who visited Germany in 1885.(Myron Eels had published a pioneering paper on Ameri-can Indian music six years earlier; see Eels 1879.) Boasjoined the new field almost immediately by publishingsimilar, although less detailed, descriptions of music inhis classic ethnography of the Central Eskimo (Boas1888). The musical notations in these and all earlierstudies were done by ear. A major advance occurredwith the invention of the Edison phonograph, patentedin the United States in 1877, which made it easier tocollect musical data and also made the process oftranscription and analysis much more efficient.

279

The Edison-type phonograph was first used for eth-nographic research in 1890, when Jesse Walter Fewkescreated 31 cylinders of songs and spoken texts fromthe Passamaquoddy Indians of Maine. Here again, Boaswas not far behind. In 1893 and 1895 he made al-most 1 50 cylinder recordings among the KwakiutI[Kwakwaka'wakw] on Vancouver Island and alsoamong various tribes of the Thompson River area inBritish Columbia (see Appendix A). The Thompson Riverrecordings have particular significance because theylater became the subject of an important paper byOtto Abraham and Erich von Hornbostel of the BerlinPhonogram Archive.

With this publication (Abraham and von Hornbostel1906), the German musicologists Stumpf, Abraham,and von Hornbostel had taken the lead in compara-tive music theory. Using fairly detailed transcriptionsand statistical methods, they developed a style ofanalysis that basically extended the concept of cul-tural relativism to music. Previously, it had been thoughtthat "primitive" peoples were incapable of singing intune. Abraham and von Hornbostel showed, however,that the style of the Thompson River singers was per-fectly regular and consistent but was simply guidedby different principles of composition.

So when the Jesup Expedition began in 1897, Boasprobably had high expectations for musicology as amajor component of the project, perhaps hoping tojustify his own long-standing commitment to musicas a central element in culture. The outlook for com-parative musicology as a historical method had neverseemed more promising, armed as it was with a newadvanced technology for field collection and docu-mentation, the Edison phonograph, and with excitingnew developments in theory.

This optimistic spirit lasted well into the 1930s,when comparative research on Native American mu-sic reached a peak of sorts in the work of GeorgeHerzog (1935a, 1935b, 1936) and Helen Roberts (seeAppendix B). There followed a leveling of interest thatlasted through the 1950s. Since then, comparative

280

musicology has continuously declined as a focus withinthe discipline of ethnomusicology. Indeed, it seemsironic that the recent resurgence of interest in the fieldis gravitating to such a degree around the same NorthPacific region and many of the same comparative is-sues that had first stimulated Boas' interest a hundredyears earlier.

Musical Sound Recordings of the JNPE

Boas commissioned four or five separate musical col-lections during the Jesup Expedition. This paper focusesmainly on two sets of recordings that WaldemarJochelson and Waldemar Bogoras collected in Siberia(Fig.70). Other music-related investigations commis-sioned as part of the Jesup Expedition research wereconducted by Livingston Farrand among the Quile-ute and Quinault in 1898 and by John Reed Swantonamong the Haida in 1900-01 (see Appendix A). Inaddition. Boas' 1905 report on Jesup Expedition activi-ties includes passages from letters in which BertholdLaufer described making sound recordings among theNivkh [Cilyak] of Sakhalin Island in 1898-99. These cyl-inders, however, do not seem to have been depositedat the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) inNew York, and I have not been able to locate them inother American collections. Thus Bogoras' and Jochel-son's recordings of songs and texts during 1 900-02represent the only cylinder collection from northernSiberia. They are an important component in any dis-cussion of the music of the Native people of the NorthPacific region. The ethnic groups represented includethe Koryak, Tungus [Even], Yukagir, Yakut [Sakha], Chuk-chi, and Siberian Eskimo [Yupik]. In all, there are 1 30documented Jesup Expedition Siberian cylinders, origi-nally deposited at the AMNH. Today, duplicates of therecordings on tape are most readily available from theArchives of Traditional Music at Indiana University,grouped under catalogue number 54-149-F.^

One type of singing that is described in the pub-lished literature but was evidently not recorded (or isnot identified properly in the available documentation)

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

(drumming continues throughout)

/ 1=3 1

1 ^ 1,.... 1=^

—'-

- J

1-4—

_ 1 3_j

76/ Notation of song performed by Koryak female shaman, recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900.

is that connected with a Circle Dance performedamong several Arctic Siberian groups. Jochelson hasthis to say about the dance, its distribution, and theanimal symbolism in the songs:

The circle dance is accompanied withsinging, which consists of four notes corre-sponding to the four steps. The wordssung—ho'yoi-he'yui or he'ke-ha'ka—areTungus. The Yukaghir do not know theirmeaning, and hold them to be pure interjec-tions. It seems pretty obvious to me that thisdance has been borrowed from the Tungus.Possibly the Yakut have also borrowed itfrom the latter; but among the Yukaghir thisdance is at times accompanied by singingand motions which are absent in the circledance of the Tungus but have becomefamiliar to us in dances of the Chukchi andKoryak. The Tungus singing referred to abovewas from time to time interrupted by aguttural rattle and by other sounds inimitation of the cries of various animals.Some of the dancers, generally girls, producevery skillfully a guttural rattle resembling thegrunting of seals, while the others answerwith higher guttural sounds. Qochelson1910-26:130)

Jochelson made four recordings of a Yakut [Sakha]woman performing what seem to be epic songs butare not identified as such in the documentation pro-vided with the recordings (ATM cylinders 4569^562).Epic songs called yukara are also an important genreamong the Ainu of northern Japan. Thus, the lack ofepic songs in other Jesup Expedition collections raisesthe question of the extent to which the Jesup record-ings provide a complete picture of Native Siberianmusical activities.

Shaman Songs

What is certainly a strength of Jesup Siberian record-ings is the significant number of shaman songs. Disre-garding the cylinders containing spoken narratives andRussian material, there are 92 songs or other musicalitems, of which 37 are clearly identified as being sha-manistic in character.^ The recordings contain manydifferent types of shamanistic vocalizing, which sug-gests a possible distinction between Koryak, Chukchi,and Tungus singing. Their importance for research isenhanced by the fact that they correspond to activi-ties that are extensively documented in the publishedethnographies by Jochelson (1908, 1910-26) andBogoras (1904-09).

One very prominent style among the musical re-cordings is illustrated in a song performed by a femaleKoryak shaman. It was recorded by Jochelson at theKoryak village of Kuel, on the coast of the Sea ofOkhotsk in Northeast Siberia (Fig. 76).'' This is a fairlyrepetitive two-phrase melody {a and b), and in fact thea section has a variant that makes it nearly identicalwith section b. The range is quite narrow, as the scaleconsists basically of Just two tones only a minor thirdapart. For a woman, the vocal quality is raspy, nasal-ized, and strongly accentuated. The metrical structureis basically simple, but the rhythm is very complex indetail because it follows the changing syllables of atext and is highly flexible or irregular in character.

A more exaggerated version of the same basicstyle was performed for Jochelson by a male Koryakshaman from the same village. It has an even more

RICHARD KEELING

J « 1 J ] ^ J I ] I J (drumming cont inues throughout)

i

=7

77/ Notation of song performed by Koryak male shaman, recorded by Waldemar Jochelson, 1900.

repetitive melody and is narrower in range, a majorsecond. In Boas' transcription the same melodic pat-tern is reiterated seven times, with slight variations,but on the recording itself it is repeated as few as fiveand as many as eight times between breaks, and thereis also variation in the vocable patterns, as shown in atypical rendition (Fig. 77). The tones are not clearlyfocused in pitch, and there is much glottalization andpulsation (indicated by the parenthesized noteheads).The singing is loud and strongly accentuated. Thedrumming is mainly in triplets but does not seem to beprecisely coordinated with the vocal part. On bal-ance, the Koryak songs notated in Figures 76 and 77represent the most predominant vocal pattern docu-mented in the Jesup Expedition recordings, since thecollection also includes Yukagir and Chukchi songs ina similar style.

A distinctly different style is heard in three songsperformed by a Tungus [Even] shaman at Najakhan[Nayakhan], Siberia. In one of them (Fig. 78), what seemsto be a lexically meaningful text is intoned to a two-beat melodic pattern that is repeated for as few asfive repetitions and as many as nine between breaks.The phrase "bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo," not shown in the

± too

J-

m

78/ Notation of a song performed by a Tungus male shaman, recorded by WaldemarJochelson, 1901.

notation, is interjected twice in a higher register. As inthe previous examples, the melody is quite repetitive,but this is clearly a text-driven form, and the speechlikevocal delivery is also much more relaxed than in theprevious examples. I have noticed a softer vocal deliv-ery and similar three-tone scales in other, more recentrecordings of Tungus singing collected by the Russianethnomusicologist Yuri Sheikin.^

Several of the Jesup Expedition recordings containsounds that were made by shamans while conjuringspirits or actually being possessed. These "animal spirit"sounds are virtually impossible to notate, and therecordings must truly be heard to appreciate thevariety of phonetics and vocal techniques involved. Inhis description of the performance of a Yukagirshaman named Tretyakov, Jochelson employedphonetic spellings to indicate the voices the shamanused in conjuring nine different animals, includingvarious types of birds, a wolf, and a bear Gochelson1910-26:206).

Bogoras also provided several vivid descriptionsof shamanic seances and demonstrations, includingthis account of what happens when a kele (a mon-strous evil spirit) enters the body of a Chukchi shaman:

The shamanshakes his headviolently, produc-ing with his lips apeculiar chatteringnoise not unlike aman who isshivering withcold. He shoutshysterically, and ina changed voiceutters strange,prolonged shrieks

m

-1

-r

282

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

such as "O to to to," or "I pi, pi, pi, pi"—all ofwhich are supposed to characterize the voiceof the kelet. He often imitates the cries ofvarious animals and birds which are supposedto be his particular assistants. If the shaman isonly a "single-bodied" one—that is, has noventriloquistic power, the kelet will proceed tosing and beat the drum by means of his body.The only difference will be in the timbre of thevoice, which will sound harsh and unnatural, asbecomes supernatural beings. . .. With othershamans the kelet appear all at once as"separate voices". . . from all sides of the room,changing their place to the complete illusion oftheir listeners. Some voices are at first faint, as ifcoming from afar; as they gradually approachthey increase in volume, and at last they rushinto the room, pass through it and out, de-creasing, and dying away in the remotedistance. Other voices come fromabove, pass through the room andseem to go underground, where theyare heard as if from the depths of theearth. Tricks of this kind are played alsowith the voices of animals and birds,and even with the howling of thetempest, producing a most weirdeffect. (Bogoras 1904-09:435)

Yupik Songs

The Jesup Expedition recordings clearly docu-ment a different style of vocal music beingperformed among the Yupik [Siberian Eskimo].Beyond the obvious differences in vocal qual-ity, the style of a Yupik song is clearly distin-guished from those of the other Siberiangroups by its wider melodic range, relativelycomplex strophic form, and six-tone scale.On the recordings by Bogoras, one song issung three times, first in vocables (as notated)and then twice with words. The text of thissong could not be transcribed effectively. Itis notated a minor second lower than itsounds on the recording (Fig. 79).

Bogoras theorized that several of theMaritime Chukchi songs he recorded in 1901were largely imitations of Eskimo songs(Bogoras 1904-09:138). Influences of themore complex Eskimo style are also appar-ent in unpublished notations of Chukchi songs

by George Herzog.'' Bogoras' Chukchi recordings alsoinclude "vocal games" or "throat games" much likethose performed by Eskimo women all across the Arc-tic region, thus providing a highly significant basis forcomparison. According to Bogoras (1904-09:268-9)these sounds imitate animal spirits such as Raven, Fox,and Bear, suggesting that although the songs are os-tensibly games, they may have shamanistic implica-tions as well. Similar vocal games are documentedamong the Ainu of northern Japan and the Amur RiverNanay (who belong to the Tungusic language stock),but they are not present among other Siberian record-ings in the Jesup Expedition collection.'

(o)

W£-

A:

'ok ya 'a. [a] (a.) (a) ya ba. yo. -

ya yo. ""a (o) (a) bey yd n^a. ya

3 . > . r 1 14

\ (x) no. ya. 'a (3) ya. ya (a.) nja ya 'o.

ey

ya. 'a me y£ ya m£(£.) \ (a.) yl yo. yt ya.

J J ;

m

'£ yo.

r-3-l

ya yo.

he 0) ya.

he yo. - ''a hey ya.

r

i

^£ ya. ya ya

ya

\ \l 1

1 J ll

79/ Notation of a song preformed by a Yupik Eskimo man,recorded by Waldemar Bogoras, 1901.

RICHARD KEELING

283

Comparative Perspectives on ArcticSiberian Singing

Given these general divisions, Tungus [Even], Yakut[Sakha], and Siberian Eskimo [Yupik] songs are clearlyrelated to, but also distinguishable from, a core ArcticSiberian vocal style that could be summarized as fol-lows:^

1. Shamans' songs tend to predominate.

2. The singing is loud and raspy, with muchglottalization, vocal pulsation, and nasality.

3. Most texts consist of vocables or combinationsof words and vocables; the texts are highly repetitive,and vocable patterns seem to be varied rather freely.

4. All of the songs are soloistic (except for vocalgames), though this may be because certain genreswere not recorded.

5. Simple one- or two-phrase melodies are the rule,and phrases are short.

6. The melodic range is narrow.

7. The melodic contour is flat or undulating.

8. Simple two- or three-note scales predominate,and the intonation is diffuse or imprecise.

9. Tempos are quick; simple meters and one-beatrhythms predominate.

10. There seems to be a great deal of emphasis onvocal "sound effects," some of which require consider-able virtuosity, while melodic and rhythmic patternsare highly repetitive.

In comparing this music with New World styles,the differences between Arctic Siberian singing andthe more "complex" styles generally associated withEskimo (Inuit) singing or the Indian music of the North-west Coast are striking. Utilizing standard methodol-ogy, a musical overview of the North Pacific region asa whole would have to include at least six distinctsubareas: Ainu, Arctic Siberia, Eskimo-Aleut, Athabasc-an, Northwest Coast, and Northwestern California.Describing song types and general profiles for the vo-cal music of these groups would undoubtedly pro-duce interesting evidence of historical contacts andlocal elaborations. There is a fundamental consistency

through which the shamanistic functions of vocal mu-sic are expressed throughout the North Pacific region,despite the variations or differences between musicalsystems. These patterns of musical symbolism are clearlydistinct from those documented elsewhere in NorthAmerica during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

New Directions in Comparative MusicResearch

In order to understand the musical traditions of theNorth Pacific region as a whole, or to appreciate thatArctic Siberian recordings have significance for NativeAmerican music, knowledge of advances in musictheory over the past 1 00 years is helpful.

The standard approach for analyzing musical sys-tems, as employed by NettI (1954), focuses mainly onthe stylistic characteristics of the music itself. This ap-proach, however, has several drawbacks. The predomi-nant characteristics are always difficult to identify withcertainty in repertories that are seldom homogeneous,and this way of thinking does not place enough em-phasis on the relationships between style and culturalfunction or significance. Nettl's approach is alsosynchronic in that it allows no means of documentingchange over time. This is a problem that has limitedthe success of comparative research on Native Ameri-can music since its beginnings. NettI basically tries toidentif/ the predominant styles of Indian and Eskimomusic in six different culture areas and finds no corre-spondence with the Siberian style.

A more integrated concept would focus more onthe social and ritual contexts of music-making and onmusical semiotics or symbolism. Specifically, I believethat connections can be found between the musicitself and other elements of what I have called "thenorthern hunting complex" or the "northern hunting re-ligion" (Keeling 1992b:36-9). This concept basicallyfollows the interpretations in Fitzhugh and Crowell(1988) and in earlier works such as Hallowell's (1926)study of bear ceremonialism. It includes such featuresas animal understanding of human intentions, refleshing

284

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

of animals after the kill, and generalized shamanism.Songs and dances that imitate or evoke animal deitiesare central to this complex.

As George Herzog pointed out in 1935 (Herzog1935b), most Indian repertories also contain simplersongs—older songs, evidently—in which the singerimitates the speech of animals or spirit-persons. Liter-ally hundreds of these "animal-speech songs" were col-lected among North American Indian tribes between1890 and 1930. These do correspond to the ArcticSiberian style, and their wide distribution throughoutNorth America strongly suggests that the style is veryancient indeed. This highlights the importance of ac-counting for the historical dimension in any compara-tive study, not only across the North Pacific region butall over North America. This type of song is quite pos-sibly the very type of singing that Paleo-lndian peoplesbrought with them when they first populated theAmericas, a type from which other styles of singinggradually developed. In other words, the significanceof the Siberian recordings is perhaps best revealed bytaking a historical approach to the field of NativeAmerican music as a whole.

Although this "musical archaeology" has some sci-entific value, it has other implications as well. Mostimportant, it tends to validate the songs and dancesof modern Native peoples. The older viewpoint im-plies that modern styles and functions of music aresomehow less authentic than those of the 18th and19th centuries. By contrast, a historical orientation un-derlines the fact that Native American culture has beenchanging and adapting to new circumstances for thou-sands of years.

Future research on the music of the North Pacificregion therefore also needs to focus on contemporarymusical activities. This is important for promoting cul-tural survival and increasing public awareness that Na-tive cultures are by no means becoming "extinct." Butit is also necessary because this modern Native musichas social, psychological, and even political functionsthat are historically significant in their own right.

RICHARD KEELING

I mentioned toward the beginning how ironic itseems that a recent interest in comparative studies ofmusic has centered on the same region and some ofthe same questions that first absorbed Boas and hiscoworkers a century ago. But perhaps even more poi-gnant is the extent to which the prospects for futureresearch depend on documenting and building on whatthe Jesup team accomplished. Without a doubt, thepathway to future investigations can only begin wherethe trail of the Jesup Expedition came to an end.

Appendix A

A Preliminary Inventory of Phonographic CylinderCollections, 1893 to 1933

This appendix provides an overview of early musicalrecordings, listed in roughly chronological order. Manyof the collections listed here also include spoken texts.The following types of information are provided, asavailable: (a) collector's name, (b) tribes or ethnic groupsrepresented, (c) approximate dates of the recordings,(d) number of cylinders recorded, (e) area where therecordings were made and name of the institution orprogram sponsoring the research, (f) the current loca-tions of tape duplicate recordings in (American) archivesor libraries, and (g) published sources that provide mu-sical transcriptions, translations of song texts, or otheruseful information on the recordings. The citations re-fer to Appendix B, which presents a selected anno-tated bibliography of these and other relevant sources.

As for cultural and geographic coverage, I haveincluded recordings spanning an arc from the Ainu ofnorthern Japan to the Yurok and other tribes of north-western California. Eastern Arctic Inuit groups such asthe Caribou, Labrador, and Greenland Eskimo are notlisted, although I have included materials identified asMcKenzie Delta Eskimo, Copper Eskimo, and CentralEskimo. The lack of early cylinder collections from Alas-kan Eskimo groups was unexpected, considering thatmore recent types of recordings are fairly numerous.

In preparing the inventory and bibliography, I re-lied on several reference works rather than personally

285

consulting every source or collection. The list is in-tended to be comprehensive, but there are sure to beomissions and inaccuracies, particularly because I havesummarized information that other sources generallyprovide in more detailed form. This appendix repre-sents a preliminary phase of my own research in theregion. The formidable task of listing more recent re-cordings will have to be addressed later, at which timeit may also be possible to provide additions and cor-rections to the present inventory.

Abbreviations

The institutions and programs that store originalrecordings or duplicates are as follows:AFC: American Folklife Center, Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C.AMNH: American Museum of Natural History, New YorkATM: Archives for Traditional Music, Indiana University,

Bloomington

MJC: Melville Jacobs Collection, University of Washing-ton, Seattle

1987:25; see also Roberts and Swadesh 1955.

Collector

Ethnic Group

Year(s) Number ofCylinders

CollectionInformation

StorageLocation

References

Benjamin 1.

KwakiutI

1893 18 cylinders

Collected at the

Tape

Cray 1988:

Gilman

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

World's Columbian

duplicates:

51.

Exposition, with

AFC.

support from the

Mary Hemenway

Expedition.

Franz Boas

KwakiutI

1 893 or 37 cylinders

Recorded at Fort

Tape

Problems c

and/or John

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

1895

Rupert, Vancouver

duplicates:

identificati'

Comfort

Island, British

ATM (54-1 21-

discussed i

Fillmore

Columbia, with

F).

Seeger and

support from the

1987:24.

AMNH.

Franz Boas

KwakiutI

1 895 91 cylinders

Collected by Boas

Tape

Problems c

and George

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

and Hunt for the

duplicates:

identificatii

Hunt

AMNH.

ATM (54-035-

discussed i

F).

Seeger and

1987:24.

Franz Boas

Thompson River

1895 42 cylinders

Recorded among

Tape

Seeger and

Indians

various tribes of

duplicates:

1987:65; s

the Thompson

ATM (54-1 39-

the notatio

River area, British

F).

other infor

Columbia, for the

in Abrahan

AMNH.

von Hornb(

1906.

Livingston

Quileute and

1898 44 cylinders

Collected from the

Tape

Seeger and

Farrand

Quinault

Quileute (10

duplicates:

1987:58-9

cylinders) and

ATM (54-1 27-F,

Quinault (34

54-1 28-F).

cylinders) of

Washington State

for the JNPE.

286

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

Collector

Ethnic Croup

Year(s)

Number ofCylinders

CollectionInformation

StorageLocation

References

John Reed

Haida

1900-01

?: May have Research

No collection

Swanton 1912

Swanton

involved

sponsored by

has been

contains 1 06

cylinder

the JNPE

located

song texts and

recording

translations.

See also Swanto

1905

Waldemar

Northeast Siberia

1900-02

130

Collected for

Tape duplicates:

Bogoras 1904-09

Jochelson and

cylinders

the JNPE.

ATM (54-1 49-F).

1910, 191 3;

Waldemar

Jochelson 1 908,

Bogoras

1924.

George A.

KwakiutI

Ca. 1902

7 cylinders

Collected for

Dorsey

[Kwakwaka'wakw]

the Field

Museum,

Chicago.

Alfred Kroeber Yurok, Hupa,

1902-27

495

Collected as

Originals and

Keeling 1991;

and others

Wiyot, Whilkut,

rvlindprs

nart of an

tape duplicates:

1992.

Chilula, Karok,

ethnological

Phoebe Hearst

and Tolowa

survey of the

Museum of

(northwestern

Department

Anthropology,

California)

and Museum

University of

of

California,

Anthropology

Berkeley.

at University

of California.

Contains

spoken

narratives and

musical items.

Bronislaw

Ainu (Sakhalin

1903

62

National

Description and

Pilsudski

Island)

cylinders

Museum of

notations for eaci

Ethnology

recording are

listed in National

Museum of

Ethnology 1 987.

See also Tanimot

1985.

John Reed

Tlingit

1903-04

32

Collected for

Tape duplicates.

Gray 1988:259-

Swanton

cylinders

the BAE.

AFC.

74; also see

Swanton 1908,

1 909.

Frank Speck

Northern

1908

1 cylinder

Tape duplicate.

Seeger and Spear

Athapaskan

ATM

1987.

Edward S.

Yakima

1909

14

Tape duplicates:

Seeger and Spear

Curtis

(Washington State)

cylinders

ATM.

1987.

RICHARD KEELING

287

Collector Ethnic Croup Year(s)

Number ofCylinders

CollectionInformation

StorageLocation

References

Waldemar AleutJochelson

Edward S.Curtis

Varioustrives ofBritishColumbia

Edward Sapir Nootka,

Tlingit, andTsimshian

DiamondJenness

CopperEskimo[Inuit]

Leo Joaquim KaiapuyaFrachtenberg Indian

(Oregon)

Herman Puget SoundHaeberlin Salish

Leo JoaquimFrachtenberg

MariusBarbeau

Quileute

Varioustribes ofNass andSkeena Riverareas

HisaoTanabe Ainu ofSakhalinIsland

1909-1910

910

1910,1913,1914

1914-16

1916

1916

1916-17

1920-29

1923

97

cylinders

mainly

spoken

narratives,

but also 1 8

songs

25

cylinders

101

cylinders

Number ofcylindersunknown,1 37 songs.

9 4-inchcylinders

1 1

cylinders

82 4-inchcylinders

?: Numberunknown,300 songs

?: Numberunknown

Collected as partof the Riabush-inski (Aleut-Kamchatka)Expedition of theImperial RussianGeographicalSociety

Collected from theClayoquot (11),Cowichan (3),Hisquiat (3),KwakiutI (6) andMakah (2).

From the Nottka[Nuu-chah-nulth](99), Tlingit (1)and Tsimshian (1).

Originals storedin St. Peters-burg, Russia.Copies: AlaskaNativeLanguageCenter; ATM(80-226-F).

Tape

duplicates: ATM(57-01 4-F).

Seeger andSpear 1 987; seealso Bergslundand Dirks 1 990

Seeger andSpear 1987:80-3; see alsoCurtis 1907-30.

Seeger and

Tape

duplicates: ATM Spear 1987:25;(57-041-F). see also Roberts

and Swadesh

1955

Whereaboutunknown.

Recorded at Grand

Ronde

Reservation.

Identified asSnohomish (1 0)and Snoqualmie(1).

Tape

Songs aretranscribed byHelen Roberts inRoberts andJenness 1925

Cray 1988:140-

duplicates: AFC. 4.

Noted andanalyzed byHelen Roberts inRoberts andHaeberlin 1918.

Tape Gray 1988:223-

duplicates: AFC. 54

National BarbeauMuseum of Man 1 933:1 01,Archives 1934.(Ottawa).

Tanimoto1985:78.

288

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

Collector

Ethnic Group

YeaKs)

Number of

Collection

Storage

References

Cylinders

Information

Location

Ftances

Makah,

1923 and

212

From the Makah

Tape

Cray 1988:101

Densmore

Clayoquot, and

1926

cylinders

(1 53), Clayoquot

duplicates:

19, 120-6, 152

Quileute

(48), and Quileute

AFC.

206.

(11).

Frances

Various tribes

1926

88

From the

Tape

Gray 1988:120

Densmore

near Chilliwack

cylinders

Halkomelem Coast duplicates:

128-38, 207-1

(British

Salish (21), Nitinat

AFC.

255-8.

Columbia)

(33), Mainland

Comox (24), and

Squamish (10).

Helen

Karok

1926

377 items,

Tape

For information

Roberts

(Northwestern

mostly

duplicates:

the recordings.

California)

songs,

AFC.

see Gray and

some

Schupman

spoken

1990:1 1 7-63.

narratives.

Songs are also

-

notated and

discussed in

Keeling 1992.

Melville

Klikitat Sahaptin

1929

19

Recorded at

Tape

Seaburg 1982:-

Jacobs

and others

cylinders

Husum,

duplicates:

4.

(Washington

Washington.

MJC.

State)

Mainly Klikitat

Sahaptin. Includes

items identified as

Molale, Klamath,

and "Siletz

Reservation."

Melville

Clackamas

1929-30

27

Duplicate

Gray 1988:85-

Jacobs

Chinook

cylinders

tapes: AFC;

100; Seaburg

(Oregon)

containing

MJC.

1982:45-50.

songs and

spoken

texts

Takeshi

Ainu of

1931

?: 22

Part of a

Asakura and

Kitasato

Hokkaido (Saru

examples

larger

Tsuchida 1988

River area)

of Ainu

collection

music.

Arthur C.

Lushootseed

1932

9

Recorded at

Tape

Seaburg 1982:'

Ballard

Snoqualmie

cylinders,

Auburn,

duplicates:

2.

(Washington

each with

Washington.

MJC.

State)

many short

items.

RICHARD KEELING

289

Collector Ethnic Croup

Year(s)

Number ofCylinders

CollectionInformation

StorageLocation

References

VictoriaGarfield

MelvilleJacobs

Tsimshian

(British

Columbia)

Coos (Oregon)

Morris Nootka [Nuu-Swadesh chah-nulth]

932

1933

933

18

cylinders1 1

cylinderscontainingmany shortitems oneach

1 cylindercontaininga storywith anembedded

J2ns ,

Recorded at PortSimpson, BritishColumbia.

Recorded atFlorence (Oregon)and Empire(Oregon). MainlyCoos of Hanis andMiluk dialects.

Tape

duplicates:MJC.

Tape

duplicates:MJC.

Tape

duplicate:AFC.

Seaburg 1982:53-6.

Seaburg 1982:56-9.

Cray 1988:21 7-8.

Appendix B: Selected Annotated Bibliog-raphy of Pub-lications on North PacificMusical Sound Recordings and ExistingPhonographic Collections

Abraham, Otto, and Erich M. von Hornbostel

1 906 Phonographierte Indianermelodien aus Britisch-Columbia. In Boas Anniversary Volume: Anthropo-logical Papers Written in Honor of Franz Boas . . .Presented to Him on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary ofHis Doctorate. Pp. 447-74. New York: C. E. Stechert.Trans, by Bruno NettI in Hornbostel Opera Omnia, 1,Klaus Wachsmann et al., eds. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff, 1975.

Contains analyses and transcriptions of 43Thompson River Indian songs collected by FranzBoas and sent by him to Erich M. von Hornbostel ofthe Phonogramm Archiv of the University of Berlin.The fine transcriptions, quantitative analyses, andrelatively slight information on the cultural contextsof the music make this a prime example of com-parative methodology as practiced by the so-calledBerlin school.

Asakura, Toshimitsu, and Shigeru Tsuchida

1988 Kan Shinai-kai/Nihon-kai Shominzoku noOnsei/Eizo Shiryo no Saisei/Kaiseki (Recreation andanalysis of sound and visual sources on Nativepeoples of the Chinese and Japanese oceanic area).Sapporo: University of Hokkaido, Institute of AppliedEngineering.

The recordings were made by Takeshi Kitasato(1870-1960), who sought to explore the origins ofthe Japanese language through a comparative studyof several languages of the Pacific area. He collected240 recordings in all, many containing songs andother musical items. Kitasato's recordings, including22 items of Saru Ainu music collected in 1931, arecatalogued in Appendix A.

Barbeau, C. Marius

1933 Songs of the Northwest. Musical Quarterly19:101-11.

Contains 8 musical notations and translationsof songs from a total collection of 300 songs re-corded by Barbeau in 1920 and the years following.The transcriptions (by Barbeau and Ernest MacMillan)seem faithful, but tribal and linguistic identificationsare not always clear. The songs were collected alongthe Nass and Skeena Rivers in British Columbia, andtribal groups are identified as Tahltan [Athapascan],Carrier [Athapascan], Citskan [Penutian], andTsimshian [Penutian]. An Asiatic origin for the songsis asserted but is not systematically demonstrated.

1 934 Asiatic Survivals in Indian Songs. Musical Quar-terly 20:107-16.

A continuation of topics touched on inBarbeau (1933), this includes five musical examplesfrom the Nass River and Skeena River regions in north-ern British Columbia. The relationship of these songsto the musical traditions of Siberia, Japan, and Chinais argued mainly on the subjective impressions sharedby Barbeau and a Chinese scholar.

290

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

1951 Tsimshian Songs. In The Tsimshian: Their Artsand Music. Viola E. Garfield, Paul S. Wingert, and MariusBarbeau, eds. Pp. 94-280. Publications of the Ameri-can Ethnological Society, 18. New ed.: University ofWashington Press, Seattle, 1966.

Contains musical transcriptions, analyses,texts, and translations for 75 songs collected byJames Teit in 1915 and by Barbeau, ca. 1920-29.The transcriptions are by Barbeau and ErnestMacMillan; the musical analyses are by MargueriteBeclard d'Harcourt. The analysis and musical ex-amples are edited by George Herzog.

Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks, eds.

1990 Unangam Ungiikangin kayux Tunusangin/Unangam Uniikangis ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Talesand Narratives, Collected 1909-10 by WaldemarJochelson. Alaska Native Language Center. Fairbanks:University of Alaska.

Mainly contains translations of spoken narra-tives but also includes a song text ("Blanket-TossingSong," pp. 486-7) and translations of 12 Eastern Aleutsongs first published in Russian by loann Veniaminovin 1840 and 1846. Cylinder recordings of 18 songscollected by Jochelson are among the holdings atthe Archives of Traditional Music, Indiana University(catalogue no. 80-226-F).

Boas, Franz

1 887 Poetry and Music of Some American Tribes.Science 9:383-5.

Contains three musical examples (with textsand translations) collected by Boas among the Eski-mos of Baffin Island and another song (music, text,and translation) collected among Indians of BritishColumbia. Also includes general descriptions of themusic in these areas.

1888a The Central Eskimo. In Annual Report of theBureau of American Ethnology (1884-1885), 6. Pp.399-669. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Contains musical transcriptions and analysesfor 25 melodies collected by Boas in 1883-84 and4 notations reprinted from the Journal of CaptainParry (1824) and other early sources. Also includesgeneral comments on poetry and music (pp. 648-58) and descriptions of dance houses, drum con-struction, and drum-playing techniques. The researchwas done at Cumberland Sound and Davis Strait.

1888a On Certain Songs and Dances of the KwakiutIof British Columbia. Journal of American Folk-Lorel(l):49-64.

Includes four musical notations (with texts andtranslations) collected by Boas in 1886 and 1887.Two other song texts are given in translation.

1888b Chinook Songs. Journal of American Folk-Lore1(3):220-6.

Contains 39 song texts and translations, in-cluding a Tlingit example. Also includes musical tran-scriptions for three of the songs. The research wasconducted in 1886.

1 891 Second General Report of the Indians of Brit-ish Columbia. In Report of the Meeting of the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Science (in1890), 90. Pp. 562-715.

Includes 1 melody and text identified asLku'ngen Songish (p. 581), 15 Nootka [Nuu-chah-nulth] melodies and texts, with translations (pp. 588-603), and 20 KwakiutI song texts and translations(pp. 625-32). All of the material was collected byBoas in 1889.

1894a Chinook Texts. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 20.

Contains 12 song texts (and translations) withrhythmic notations for each (pp. 116-8, 144, 146,150-1, 192, 234-5).1894b Eskimo Tales and Songs. Journal of AmericanFolk-Lore 7:45-50.

Includes song texts and translations for sixsongs, five of which are also included in Boas 1888b.Lists and explains certain shamanic words in thesongs.

1 896 Songs of the KwakiutI Indians. InternationalesArchiv fur Ethnographie, 9 (suppl.):l-9. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

Contains notations of five melodies and texts(with translations) of songs that Boas transcribed byear and from phonographic recordings collected byJohn C. Fillmore. Six other song texts are given with-out notations.1897 The Social Organization and the Secret Societ-ies of the KwakiutI Indians. In Report of the UnitedStates National Museum for 1895. Pp. 562-715.Reprint: Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York,1975.

Contains texts and translations for 12 songs(pp. 355 ff.). Provides verbal descriptions of songsand dances used in various ceremonies (pp. 431 ff.).Also includes transcriptions of 36 songs and texts,and texts only for 109 songs (pp. 665 ff.).1 898 The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 25-1 27. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. New York. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975.

Includes notations of four songs, three withtexts (pp. 71, 82, 93, 94). Many other song textsand translations are also given (passim).

RICHARD KEELING

1 901 Kathlamet Texts. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 26.

Contains texts and translations of four songs,one also transcribed in staff notation and two withrhythmic notation only (pp. 21, 24, 65, 1 54).

1 902 Tsimshian Texts. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 27. Washington, DC.

Contains texts and translations of eight songs,three also transcribed in staff notation and two withrhythmic notation only (pp. 11, 63, 222, 224, 228,231, 232, 233).

Boas, Franz, and George Hunt

1 905 KwakiutI Texts. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 3. Memoirs of the American Museum ofNatural History, 5. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: C. E.Stechert.

Includes a section on "Songs" (pp. 475-91).

Boas, Franz, and Henry Rink

1 889 Eskimo Tales and Songs. Journal of AmericanFolk Lore 2:123-31.

Provides musical notations, song texts, andtranslations for two songs. Also includes translationsof origin myths and discusses language dialect rela-tionships. Based on fieldwork done at CumberlandSound in 1885.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 1 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975.

Contains detailed descriptions of shamanis-tic practices (passim). Of particular interest is the ac-count of how Chukchi shamans were able to throwtheir spirit-voices like ventriloquists in shamanseances that Bogoras witnessed (pp. 435-9). Bogorasstates that he captured these effects in cylinder re-cordings he made (p. 436).1910 Chukchi Mythology. The Jesup North PacificExpedition, vol. 8, pt. 1. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 1 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975.

The section on "Songs" (pp. 1 38^5) containsinterlinear and free translations for 16 song texts.Two (pp. 142-4) are identified as shaman songs andare described in greater detail than others.1913 The Eskimo of Siberia. The Jesup North PacificExpedition, vol. 8, pt. 3. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 12. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: G. E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975.

292

The section on "Songs' (pp. 437-52) containsinterlinear and free translations for 43 song texts.Various types of songs are represented, but sha-manistic texts are particularly numerous (12 ex-amples). One set of six shamans' songs (pp. 445-7)presents incantations connected with the walrushunt; the other six are sung at Winter Ceremonials.

Burlin, Natalie (Curtis)

1 907 The Indians' Book: An Offering by the Ameri-can Indians of Indian Lore, Musical and Narrative, toForm a Record of the Songs and Legends of TheirRace. New York: Harper. Expanded 2d ed., 1923;reprints of 2d ed.: Dover, New York, 1950, 1968.

Contains 149 melodies and texts from vari-ous tribes, mostly with translations or brief explana-tions of content. The author notated the songs byear, without use of a recording device. Includes twoKwakiutI [Kwakwaka'wakw] examples.

Curtis, Edward S.

1907-30 The North American Indian, Being A Series ofVolumes Picturing and Describing the Indians of theUnited States and Alaska. Frederick Webb Hodge,ed. 20 vols. Cambridge, MA: University Press. Re-print: Landmarks in Anthropology series, JohnsonReprint Corporation, New York, 1970.

A vast storehouse of information with nota-tions of songs from various tribes or cultures. Vol. 8contains two Chinook melodies (pp. 96-98, 100).Vol. 9 contains five Cowichan melodies, one withtext and translation, one with English translation only(pp. 73, 1 76-8); two Twana melodies (pp. 98, 111);and four Clallam melodies (pp. 1 79-80). Vol. 10 con-tains 23 KwakiutI melodies, 22 with texts and trans-lations, 1 with translation only (pp. 187-91, 195-6,200, 223-4, 244-5, 311-26). Vol. 11 contains 9Nootka melodies, 3 with texts and translations, 5with translations only (pp. 1 3, 37-8, 41, 48, 52-3,61, 66-7, 81-2, 92-3), and 5 Haida melodies, 1 withtext and translation, 4 with translations only (pp.123-4, 140-1, 147, 191-3). The songs were col-lected by Curtis and later transcribed by various otherpersons.

Densmore, Frances

1939 Nootka and Quileute Music. Bureau of Ameri-can Ethnology Bulletin 74.

Contains musical notations for 211 songs col-lected by Densmore in 1923 and 1926. Some textsare given in English, but native texts are lacking. Thefollowing groups are identified: Makah (138 songs),Clayoquot (52), Quileute (11), unspecified ofVancouver Island (7), Nootka (1), Quinault (1), andYakima (1).

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

1 943 Music of the Indians of British Columbia. Bu-reau of American Ethnology Bulletin 1 36, Anthropo-logical Papers, 2 7.

Contains musical notations of 98 songs fromvarious tribes. Each song is analyzed and described.The collection is compared with others the authorhas made using a (statistical) tabular approach.

Eels, Myron

1 879 Indian Music. American Antiquarian 1:249-53.Describes music and instruments observed bythe author in 1 875. Includes 24 melodies transcribedby ear and identified as follows: Clallam (10), Twana(12), and unspecified (2).

Gillis, Frank J.

1984 The Incunabula of Instantaneous Ethno-musicological Sound Recordings, 1890-1910: A Pre-liminary List. In Problems and Solutions: OccasionalEssays in Ethnomusicology Presented to Alice M.Moyle. J. Kassler and J. Stubbington, eds. Pp. 323-55. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

A useful guide to the location of early cylin-der recordings in archives. The focus is worldwide,but American Indian recordings predominate and arelisted by area and tribe (pp. 327-39).

Cray, Judith A., ed.

1 988 Northwest Coast/Arctic Indian Catalog. In TheFederal Cylinder Project: A Guide to Field CylinderCollections in Federal Agencies, vol. 3. Great Basin/Plateau Indian Catalog and Northwest Coast/ArcticIndian Catalog. Pp. 79-288. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Folklife Center, Library of Congress.

Lists and describes contents of cylinder re-cordings in 20 collections. The annotated listing foreach is preceded by an introduction providing back-ground information on the recordings themselvesand on sources of transcriptions, translations, andother documentation. Tribes represented are identi-fied as Carrier Indian, Clackamas Chinook, Clayoquot,Comox (Mainland), Eskimo (Polar), Halkomelen, IngalikIndian, Kalapuya, KwakiutI, Makah, Nitinat, Nootka,Quileute, Shasta, Squamish, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Tututni,and Upper Umpqua.

Gray, Judith, and Edwin Schupman, eds.

1 990 California Indian Catalogue. In The FederalCylinder Project, vol. 5. California Indian Catalogue,Middle and South American Catalogue, Southwest-ern Catalogue. Pp. 1-328. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Folklife Center, Library of Congress.

Lists and describes the contents of earlycylinder recordings in 34 collections, most nota-bly those of John Peabody Harrington and HelenHeffron Roberts.

Herzog, George

1933 The Collections of Phonograph Records inNorth America and Hawaii. Zeitschrift fvir verg-leichende Musikwissenschaft 1:58-62.

Indicates the locations of about 12,428 cyl-inder recordings in collections in the 1930s. For de-cades, this was the only such guide in existence,and it still remains useful because of its organization(by culture area and tribe) and its bibliography.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1 908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion, vol. 6, pts. 1-2. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: C. E. Stechert.

1 924 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus.The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pt. 2 [Reli-gion, Folklore, Language]. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 1 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill; NewYork: C. E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975.

Contains detailed discussions of beliefs andpractices related to shamanism (pp. 162-95, 196-218, 234-8). Also includes a section on "Songs"(pp. 310-3), with interlinear translations of fivesong texts.

Keehng, Richard

1991 A Guide to Early Field Recordings (1900-1949)at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology. Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press.

An annotated catalogue of recordings col-lected on 2,71 3 cylinders between 1900 and 1938.The collection focuses primarily on tribes of Califor-nia and includes recordings of northwestern tribes(Yurok, Hupa, Karok, Tolowa, Wiyot) that clearly be-long to the North Pacific culture area.

1992 Cry for Luck: Sacred Song and Speech amongthe Yurok, Hupa, and Karok Indians of NorthwesternCalifornia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.

Contains notations, analyses, and ethnographicinformation relating to early cylinder recordings col-lected by Kroeber and others circa 1901-08.

Kroeber, Alfred

1 92 5 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureauof American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, DC.Reprint: Dover Publications, New York, 1976.

A comprehensive overview of California Indiancultures, mainly in their precontact forms. Does notcontain notations, but provides much informationon the ritual contexts and cultural background ofmusic-making. Also includes translations of song textscollected among many groups.

RICHARD KEELING

293

National Museum of Ethnology

1987 B. Piusuzuki Rokan no Rokuon Naiyo (Cata-logue of recordings by B. Pilsudski). Kokuhtsu MinzokuHakubutsukan Kenkyu Hokoku Bessatsu, 5 (ResearchReport of the National Museum of Ethnology, 5).Osaka, Japan.

A detailed documentation, in Japanese, of cyl-inder recordings collected by Pilsudski among theAinu in 1903. Includes musical notations, translations,and other information on each item recorded. Themusical notations are by Kazuyuki Tanimoto.

Nelson, Edward William

1 899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Annual Reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology (1896-1897),18, pt. 1. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Contains descriptions of songs, dances, andinstruments (pp. 347-57). Includes one musical ex-ample (notated by Bishop Seghers in 1879) and threesong texts and translations.

Pilsudski, Bronislaw

1912 Materials for the Study of Ainu Language andFolklore. J. Rozwadowksi, ed. Krakow.

Pilsudski (1866-1918) was sentenced to 15years of hard labor and exile on Sakhalin Island forhis political activities. While there, he became involvedin ethnographic research on the Ainu and otherNortheast Asian groups. A museum ethnographerby orientation, he not only collected artifacts butalso gathered an enormous amount of folkloric data,including recordings on wax cylinders.

Roberts, Helen Heffron, and Herman K.Haeberlin

1918 Some Songs of the Puget Sound Salish. Jour-nal of American Folklore 331:496-520.

Contains notations, texts, translations, andanalyses for 11 songs collected by Haeberlin in 1916;10 are from the Snohomish and 1 from theSnoqualmu [Snoqualmie]. The transcriptions andanalyses are by Roberts, who also discusses generalcharacteristics of the music.

Roberts, Helen Heffron, and Diamond Jenness

1 925 Songs of the Copper Eskimo. Report of theCanadian Arctic Expedition (1913-1918),}A. Ottawa:F. A. Ackland.

Contains musical notations, texts, translations,and detailed analyses for 1 37 songs collected oncylinders by Jenness between 1914 and 1916.Croups represented are Copper Eskimo (113 songs),Mackenzie River Eskimo (12), Inland Hudson Bay Es-kimo (7), and Inupiat Eskimo of Point Hope, Alaska(5). Each song is analyzed separately, and various

types of songs are described or defined. The firstchapter contains a musical comparison of dancesong styles and compares the style of dance songswith that of weather incantations.

Roberts, Helen Heffron, and Morris Swadesh

1955 Songs of the Nootka Indians of WesternVancouver Island. Transactions of the American Philo-sophical Society 45(3): 1 99-327.

Contains notations and detailed analyses.1912 Haida Songs. Publications of the American Eth-nological Society, 3. Pp. 1-63.

Contains 106 song texts and translations col-lected by Swanton in 1900 and 1901.

Tanimoto, Kazuyuki

1985 A Study on the Process of ChronologicalChanges in the Music of the Sakhalin Ainu Recordedby B. Pilsudski. In International Symposium on B.Pilsudski's Phonographic Records and the Ainu Cul-ture. Pp. 78-85. Sapporo: Hokkaido University ofEducation.

Discusses transformations in Ainu music andthe difficulty of identifying certain items among thePilsudski recordings.

Teit, James Alexander

1 900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. TheJesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 163-392. Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2.New York. Reprint: AMS Press, New York,1975).

Chapter 4, "Art, by Franz Boas, contains a sec-tion on "Music" (pp. 383-5) that discusses types ofsongs and instruments.

Notes

1. George Herzog (1901-84) and Helen Rob-erts (1888-1985) established themselves as lead-ing theorists in comparative research on NorthAmerican Indian music through several importantpublications in the 1 930s. Herzog entered the fieldas a student of Erich von Hornbostel in Berlin butlater completed his doctorate under Boas in 1931.Roberts claimed that she entered the field of"primitive music" at the suggestion of Boas in 1918(Frisbie I 989:99). The contributions of Kroeber andSapir to ethnomusicology are less well understood.Kroeber initiated the study of music among theIndians of California and assembled a vast collec-tion of wax-cylinder recordings from all over theregion between 1900 and 1938. His "Handbookof the Indians of California" (1 925) provides trans-

294

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

lations of many song texts and much informationon the cultural contexts of the music (although itdoes not include musical notations or analysesas such). He also mapped the musical areas ofCalifornia in his publication on the distribution ofculture elements (Kroeber 1936). Sapir's technicalabilities as a musicologist are clearly demon-strated by his skilled notations in the essay "SongRecitative in Paiute Mythology" (Sapir 1910). Thispaper—only one of several articles in which Sapirdealt with songs or song texts—was vastly aheadof its time as a study in musical semiotics or sym-bolism.

2. The documentation that is currently avail-able from the Archives of Traditional Music, Indi-ana University, provides a listing of the record-ings but does not include other types of informa-tion that would greatly enhance their value as eth-nological documents. What we urgently need nowis a published guide to the Jesup Expedition musi-cal collection that would not only list the record-ings but would also provide references to trans-lations and descriptions of related activities inpublished writings and manuscripts. The excellenttranscriptions by Herzog should also be included,and there should be introductory essays discuss-ing the history of the research and providing gen-eral information on Native cultures of the NorthPacific region.

3. The Russian recordings seem to have beencollected by Waldemar Bogoras [or his wife, SofiaBogoras—ed.] in the village of Markovo on theAnadyr River and at Mariinsky Post, at the mouthof the river, near the Gulf of Anadyr. They includevarious genres such as epic songs, Christmas car-ols, love songs, and instrumental pieces.

4. ATM cylinder 4540. The text (which seemsto be at least partially composed of vocables) isnot transcribed because it contains many slightchanges. The melody is simplified for clarity, al-though one major variant is indicated in paren-theses and other variations by the use of smallernote heads. The melody is written a major sixthhigher than what is heard on the recording. Therapid drum accompaniment does not seem to beprecisely coordinated with the vocal part.

5. Professor Sheikin presented a paper en-titled "Sound Culture of the Tungusic Croups" atthe International Symposium on Comparative

Studies of the Music, Dance, and Games of North-ern Peoples, Sapporo, Japan, January 20-25, 1 992.He kindly shared with me a tape containing 1 7items that he had recorded among various Tungusgroups in Siberia since the 1970s.

6. There are 52 pages of notations in thisimportant manuscript. They mainly focus on theChukchi recordings, but Herzog also transcribedsome songs of other ethnic groups. The manu-script is available at the Department of Anthro-pology, AMNH.

7. The Ainu vocal games (rekukkara) are am-ply documented in many sources (Fitzhugh andDubreuil 1999). An example from the Nanay ofthe Amur River area was given in the lecture byYuri Sheikin in 1992 (see note 5).

8. This profile follows an outline that I havefound useful in previous comparative research. Thefollowing aspects are considered: (1) genre, func-tion, or symbolism; (2) vocal quality or timbre, in-cluding loudness; (3) presence of words orvocables, text-setting, and repetition of text; (4)musical organization or texture; (5) musical formor structure, including phrase length; (6) melodicrange; (7) melodic contour or direction; (8) scale,particularly number of tones in scale; (9) rhythm,especially meter and tempo; and (10) other no-table tendencies.

References

Abraham, Otto, and Erich M. von Hornbostel

1906 Phonographierte Indianermelodien aus Britisch-Columbia. In Boas Anniversary Volume: Anthropo-logical Papers written in Honor of Franz Boas . . .Presented to Him on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary ofHis Doctorate. Pp. 447-74. New York: G. E. Stechert.Trans. Bruno NettI in Hornbostel Opera Omnia, 1, KlausWachsmann et al., eds. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1975).

Boas, Franz

1888 The Central Eskimo. In Sixth Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology, 1884-1885. Pp.399-669. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-tional Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:Eschenbach.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific

RICHARD KEELING

295

Expedition, vol. 7, pts. 1-3. Memoirs of the Ameri-can Music of Natural History, 11. Leiden: E. J. Brill;New York: C. E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, NewYork, 1975.Eels, Myron

1879 Indian Music. American Antiquarian 1:249-53.Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.

1 988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberiaand Alaska. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress

Fitzhugh, William W., and Chisato O. Dubreuil,eds.

1999 Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People. Washington,DC: National Museum of Natural History; Seattle: Uni-versity of Washington Press.

Frisbie, Charlotte

1989 In Memorium: Helen Heffron Roberts (1888-

1985). Ethnomusicology 33(1 ):97-l 1 2.Hallowell, A. Irving

1926 Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere.

American Anthropologist 28(1):2-1 73.Herzog, George

1935a The Present State of Research in the Fields of

Primitive Music and Folksong in the United States. A

Survey Made for the American Council of Learned

Societies. Washington, DC.1935b Special Song Types in North American Indian

Music. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Musik-

wissenschaft 3:22-33.1936 Research in Primitive and Folk Music in the United

States: A Survey. Washington, DC: American Council

of Learned Societies.Jochelson, Waldemar

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition,vol. 6, pts. 1-2.. Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: C.E. Stechert. Reprint: AMS Press, New York, 1975.

1910-26 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus.The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vol. 9, pts. 1-3.

Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 1 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: C. E. Stechert.Reprint: AMS Press, New York, 1975.Keeling, Richard

1 991 A Guide to Early Field Recordings (1900-1949)at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology. Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press.

1992a Cry for Luck: Sacred Song and Speech amongthe Yurok, Hupa, and Karok Indians of NorthwesternCalifornia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.

1992b Music and Culture History among the Yurokand Neighboring Tribes of Northwestern California.Journal of Anthropological Research 48(1 ):2 5-48.

Kroeber, Alfred

192 5 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, DC.Reprint: Dover Publications, New York, 1976.

1936 Culture Element Distributions III: Area and Cli-max. University of California Publications in Ameri-can Archeology and Ethnology 37(3):101-16.

NettI, Bruno

1954 North American Indian Musical Styles. Memoirs

of the American Folklore Society, 45. Philadelphia.Sapir, Edward

1910 Song Recitative in Paiute Mythology. Journal of

American Folk-Lore 23(89):455-72.Seeger, Anthony, and Louise S. Spear

1987 Early Field Recordings: A Catalogue of CylinderCollections at the Indiana University Archives ofTraditional Music. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.

Stumpf, Carl

1886 LiederderBellakula-lndianer. Vierteljahrs- schriftfiJir Musikwissenschaft 2:405-26. Reprint:Sdmmelbande fur Vergleichende Musik-wissenschaft,vol. 1, Abhandlungen zur Verg-leichendenMusikwissenschaft, Carl Stumpf and Erich M. vonHornbostel, eds., pp. 87-103 (Munich, 1922).

296

THE RESOURCES/ ETHNOMUSIC

A Jesup E)ib!iograpinL)

"{"raclcing the f ubiished and /\rchivai [_egacLj of the Jesup {Expedition

IGOR KRUPNIK

This Jesup Bibliography was started in 1992 as a spe-cial component of the Jesup 2 activities at the ArcticStudies Center, Smithsonian Institution (see Fitzhughand Krupnik, this volume). Originally, it was wantedmerely as a technical resource, a shared database forlisting and checking references for the various Jesup 2statements, flyers, memos, symposium papers, and pub-lications. As its size expanded through years of edit-ing and library research, the bibliography eventuallytook on a special value of its own. It emerged as avaluable chronicle of the many efforts related to theJesup North Pacific Expedition (JNPE), as well as of thenumerous later publications. We accordingly decidedto add the bibliography to this review of the diverselegacies of the monumental JNPE project.

The initial practical purpose of the bibliography isstill very much reflected in its present structure. Insteadof being a single alphabetically or chronologically ar-ranged list of publications and documentary sourcesrelated to Jesup Expedition activities, the bibliographyis organized into 1 3 thematic sections:

1. Original volumes in the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion series, 1-11 {Memoirs of the American Museumof Natural History, 2-1 5), 1898-1930

2. Translations or modified versions of the originalJNPE volumes

3. Manuscripts submitted to the JNPE series but notpublished within that series

4. Contributions to the JNPE series advertised butnever produced

5. Contemporary accounts and reports of JNPE ac-tivities

6. Reports on and reviews of JNPE publications andcollections

7. JNPE-based or JNPE-related publications other thanthose published in the main JNPE series, 1897 topresent

8. Major post-JNPE publications that were regardedas "extensions" of the main JNPE venture, 1897-1902

9. Selected comparative publications by JNPE mem-bers based on data collected during and outside theJNPE surveys

10. Unpublished manuscripts related to the JNPE

11. Bibliographies; reviews of manuscript, museum,and archival collections related to JNPE activities

12. Selected post-1960 publications related to theJNPE and its participants

13. Biographies, obituaries, and major personal es-says on JNPE participants.

My work in compiling the Jesup Bibliography wasgreatly facilitated by the availability of several exten-sive bibliographical guides focused on the Arctic, Si-beria, or the Northwest Coast. Among them are MarieTremaine, ed., Arctic Bibliography, vols. 1-12,1953-65;Jakobson et al., Paleosiberian Peoples and Languages,1957; and Wayne Suttles, ed.. Handbook of North Ameri-can Indians, vol. 7: Northwest Coast, 1990. Personalbibliographies are also available for most of the JNPEmembers (see, in section 11, Vinnikov 1935 onWaldemar Bogoras and, in section 1 3, Andrews et al.1943 on Boas, Leechman 1949 on Harlan I. Smith, andNichols 1 940 on John R. Swanton). Still, many of theearly contributions on JNPE activities are rather hard totrace. Some were published anonymously, and manyothers were written (or at least signed) by people who

297

were not directly involved in the JNPE project. This groupof references will obviously expand with further searches.

A special aim of this Jesup Bibliography was tocompile, as a single common legacy, the many contri-butions derived from or based on the JNPE's NorthAmerican and Siberian surveys. This pattern was pio-neered by the original JNPE series, but the format ofshared Siberian-North American contributions was nei-ther extended nor reproduced in further publicationsunder the JNPE agenda, and no common bibliographyof JNPE-based printed contributions was ever as-sembled. In fact, the format of shared publications wasreestablished only 70 years after the expedition ended,through several fairly recent Soviet-North Americansymposia and through exhibit projects in the Arctic-North Pacific field. Examples (listed in section 12) in-clude Fitzhugh and Chaussonnet 1994; Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988; Gurvich 1981; Michael 1979; andMichael and VanStone 1983; see also Krupnik 1998.

It comes as no surprise that several relevant Rus-sian papers from about 1910 through the 1930s, scat-tered through various Russian periodicals, remain un-known to or unused by the many American studentsof Boasian ethnography. The same is even truer withregard to the numerous unpublished or archival JNPEresources. North American and Russian alike. The fewrecent historical reviews of JNPE efforts, whether bywestern or by Russian scholars, still tell basically onlyone side of the trans-Pacific story and rely on eitherNorth American or Russian resources.

Despite years of effort, the Jesup Bibliography in itscurrent version is neither a complete nor a finished prod-uct. At present, its Siberian material is far more com-prehensive than that for North America. I believe thatthis "Siberian bias" is a short-lived phenomenon, but itmay be an additional asset for North American read-ers, who usually have better knowledge of and easieraccess to the North American JNPE resources than tothe Siberian materials.

Certain gaps in the present format of the Jesup Bib-liography were deliberately left to avoid interfering with

individual research in progress. This is particularly truefor the many manuscript collections of Franz Boas andhis local North American collaborators (Hunt, Teit, Tate,Edenshaw, etc.). The Boas-Hunt archival legacy is a sub-ject of special study by Judith Berman, and it is cov-ered extensively in her paper in this volume. In thesame category is Sergei Kan's ongoing project on theintellectual biography of Leo Shternberg, including in-teractions with Boas and with Shternberg's Russianfriends, Bogoras and Jochelson (see Kan, this volume).As a result, section 10, Unpublished Manuscripts, isbasically limited to the archival collections of the JNPERussian participants, Waldemar Bogoras, WaldemarJochelson, and Dina Jochelson-Brodsky. It will have tobe expanded substantially, to include the unpublishedrecords of several other JNPE team members, includingFranz Boas himself.

I also made a deliberate effort to keep section 12,Selected Post-1960 Publications Related to the JNPEand Its Participants, under a very tight limit. This sec-tion could be easily expanded into a much larger bib-liographical summary of its own. It is also a major workin progress that is currently being advanced by manyindividual researchers, both under and outside the mainJesup 2 effort. As time goes on, more old and newreferences will be added to the current list. The resultmay be an expanded and updated version of the JesupBibliography, but never a "final" one. Eventually, it willserve as an appropriate summary of the }esup 2 ef-forts for a new generation of 'jesup" researchers.

1. The. jesup North Pacific Expedition (JNPE)Series/Memoirs of the American Museum ofNatural History (AMm), 1898-1930

The JNPE proceedings were initially produced as sepa-rate issues ("parts") organized into "volumes." They werelater bound into numbered volumes, preserved intoday's major library collections. Some of the originalvolume covers still show the series structure, as wellas prices for individual issues. All of the original JNPEvolumes were reprinted by AMS Press in 1975.

298

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

JNPE, VOL. 1: 1 898-1 900 {AMNH MEMOIRS. 2)

Boas, Franz. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Pt. 1(1898), pp. 1-12.

Boas, Franz. Facial Paintings of the Indians of NorthernBritish Columbia. Pt. 1 (1898), pp. 1 3-24.

Boas, Franz. The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians.Pt. 2 (1898), pp. 25-127.

Smith, Harlan I. The Archaeology of Lytton, British Co-lumbia. Pt. 3 (1899), pp. 129-61.

Teit, James A. The Thompson Indians of British Colum-bia. Pt. 4 (1900), pp. 163-392; with conclusions byFranz Boas.

Farrand, Livingston. Basketry Design of the Salish Indi-ans. Pt. 5 (1900), pp. 393-9.

Smith, Harlan I. Archaeology of the Thompson RiverRegion, British Columbia. Pt. 6 (1900), pp. 401-42.

JNPE, VOL. 2: 1900-07 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 4)

Farrand, Livingston. Traditions of the Chilcotin Indians.Pt. 1 (1900), pp. 1-54.

Smith, Harlan I., and Gerard Fowke. Cairns of BritishColumbia and Washington. Pt. 2 (1901), pp. 55-75.

Farrand, Livingston, and W. S. Kahnweiler. Traditions ofthe Quinault Indians. Pt. 3 (1902), pp. 77-1 32.

Smith, Harlan I. Shell-Heaps of the Lower Fraser River,British Columbia. Pt. 4 (1903), pp. 133-91; with acontribution by Franz Boas, On Crania of Lower FraserRiver Indians (pp. 188-90).

Teit, James A. The Lillooet Indians. Pt. 5 (1906), pp. 192-300; with a contribution by Franz Boas, Notes onthe Lillooet Indians (pp. 292-300).

Smith, Harlan I. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia andPuget Sound. Pt. 6 (1907), pp. 301^41; with contri-butions by Franz Boas, On Petroglyphs of British Co-lumbia (pp. 324-6, 329, 330); Clubs Made of Boneof Whale, from Washington and British Columbia (pp.403-12).

Teit, James A. The Shuswapp. Pt. 7 (1909), pp. 443-813; with contributions by Franz Boas, On the Bas-ketry of the Shuswap Indians (pp. 477-88); On theBasketry of the Chilkotin Indians (pp. 767-73).

JNPE, VOL. 3; 1905 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 5)

Boas, Franz, and George Hunt. KwakiutI Texts. 532 pp.

JNPE, VOL. 4: 1 902 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 6)Laufer, Berthold. The Decorative Art of the AmurTribes.Pt. 1 (1902), pp. 1-79.

JNPE, VOL. 5: 1905-09 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 8)

Swanton, John R. Contributions to the Ethnology of

the Haida. Pt. 1 (1905), pp. 1-300.Boas, Franz. The KwakiutI of Vancouver Island. Pt. 2

(1909), pp. 301-522.

JNPE, VOL. 6: 1 908 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 1 0)

Jochelson, Waldemar. The Koryak (1908). Pt. 1: Reli-gion and Myths, pp. 13-382; pt. 2: Material Cultureand Social Organization, pp. 383-842; with a con-tribution by Franz Boas [not acknowledged in thetext]. Ornamentation of Dress, Bags and Baskets, Rugs,Drawings and Writing (pp. 679-723).

JNPE, VOL. 7: 1 904-09 {AMNH MEMOIRS. 1 1)Bogoras Waldemar. The Chukchee. Pt. 1 (1904): Mate-rial Culture, pp. 1-276; pt. 2 (1907): Religion, pp.277-536; pt. 3 (1909): Social Organization, pp. 537-733.

JNPE VOL. 8: 1910-13 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 1 2)Bogoras, Waldemar. Chukchee Mythology. Pt. 1 (1910),pp. 1-197.

Teit, James A. Mythology of the Thompson Indians. Pt.

2 (1912), pp. 199^16.Bogoras, Waldemar. The Eskimo of Siberia. Pt. 3 (191 3),

pp. 417-56.

JNPE, VOL. 9: 1910-26 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 13)Jochelson, Waldemar. The Yukaghirand the YukaghirizedTungus. Pts. 1 -3 (untitled): pt. 1 [The Land, the Tribe,and Social Life] (1910), pp. 1-133; pt. 2 [Religion,Folklore, Language] (1924), pp. 135-342; pt. 3 [Ma-terial Culture] (1926), pp. 343^69.

JNPE, VOL. 10: 1906-€8 {AMNH MEMOIRS, 14)

Boas, Franz, and George Hunt. KwakiutI Texts (Second

Series). Pt. 1 (1906), pp. 1-269.Swanton, John R. Haida Texts, Masset Dialect. Pt. 2

(1908), pp. 273-812.JNPE, VOL. 11: 1 930 {AMNH MEMOIRS 1 5)

Oetteking, Bruno. Craniology of the North Pacific Coast.Pt. 1 (1930). 391 pp. text, 93 pp. tables, xii pp. plates.

2. Translations or Modified Versions of theOriginal JA/PEVolumes

BOCORAZ-TAN, VLADIMIR C. [BOGORAS, WALDEMAR]

1934 ChukchKJhe Chukchee). Pt. 1. Leningrad: Institutnarodov Severa [Russian trans, of JNPE, vol. 7, Intro-duction and pt. 3, 1 909; rev.].

1939 Chukchi. Religiia (The Chukchee. Religion).Leningrad: Institut narodov Severa [Russian trans, ofJNPE, vol. 7, pt. 2, 1907; rev.].

1991 Material'naia kui'tura chukchei (The Chukchee.Material culture). Moscow: Nauka [Russian trans, ofJNPE, vol. 7, pt. 1, 1904; rev.].

lOCHEL'SON, VLADIMIR I. [JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR]1997 Kohaki. Material'naia kui'tura i sotsial'naiaorganizatsiia(The Koryak. Material culture and social

IGOR KRUPNIK

299

organization). St. Petersburg: Nauka [Russian trans,of JNPE, vol. 6, pt. 2, 1908].In press lukagiry i iukaginzirovannye tungusy (TheYukaghir and the yukaghirized Tungus). Vladimir Kh.Ivanov-Unarov and Zinaida Ivanova, eds. Yakutsk:Sapipolis [Russian trans, of JNPE, vol. 9, pts. 1-3,1910-26].

3. Manuscripts Submitted to the J/VPESeriesbut Not Published within That Series

JOCHELSON-BRODSKY, DINA

n.d. [On the Anthropometry of the Peoples of North-east Siberia] (s.a.). 118 pp., with tables. English manu-script prepared for publication as JNPE, vol. 11, pt.2; on file at the Department of Anthropology, AMNH;copies at the Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian In-stitution; Department of Anthropology, University ofTennessee, Knoxville. See announcement: jNPE, vol.11, pt. 1, cover page (listed as Dina B. Jochelson.Anthropometry of Sibena); Waldemar Jochelson. Ameri-can Anthropologist 32(2): 377 (1 930).

SHTERNBERC, LEO

n.d. The Social Organization of the Cilyak. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication as JNPE, vol. 4, pt. 2. 343pp. Original copy on file at the Department of An-thropology, AMNH; Russian version published in in-dividual chapters in Lev Shternberg. Ciliaki, orochi,gol'dy, negidal'tsy, ainy (The Cilyak, Oroch, Col'd,Negidal, and Ainu). Ian P. Al'kor (Koshkin), ed.Khabarovsk: Dal'giz, 1933. First advertised as: LeoSternberg, Tribes of the Amur River, JNPE, vol.4, pt.

I, 1913 (cover announcement for vol. 4, pt.2 pub-lished in JNPE, vol. 8, 191 3). Recent publication: LevShternberg, The Social Organization of the Cilyak,Bruce Crant, ed.. Anthropological Papers of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, 82 (New York, 1999)(see Kan, this volume).

4. Contributions to the J^PE Series Adver-tised but Never Produced

BOAS, FRANZ

n.d. Summary and Final Results [of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition]. Advertised as JNPE, vol. 12 (seeBoas 1905:94. section 5, this chapter; JNPE, vol. 5,pt. 1, cover), or as JNPE, vol. 11, pt. 3 (see JNPE, vol.

II, pt. 1).

BOCORAS, WALDEMAR

n.d. The Kamchadal. Advertised as JNPE, vol. 6, pt. 3(see Boas 1905:94; JNPE, vol. 5, pt. 1, cover).

LAUFER, BERTHOLD

n.d. The Cold. Advertised as JNPE, vol. 4, pt. 2 (seeBoas 1905:94; JNPE vol. 5, pt. 1, cover).

5. Contemporary Accounts and Reports ofJNPE activities

AMNH (AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY)

1900 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Departure ofTwo of Its Members for Northeastern Asia. AmericanMuseum Journal 1 (2): 30-1.

1901 Recent Work of the Department of Anthropol-ogy. American Museum Journal 1(1 2): 164-6.

[BOAS, FRANZ]

1897 Proposed Explorations on the Coasts of theNorth Pacific Ocean. Science, n.s. 5(116):455-7 [anony-mous; presumably written by Boas].

1902 Recent Ethnological Work of the Museum. Ameri-can Museum Journal 2(7):63-8 [presumably writtenby Boas; pp. 66-8 on the JNPE].

BOAS, FRANZ

1897 The Jesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast.Sc/ence, n.s. 6(145):535-8.

1897 Die Jesup-Boas-Expedition nach Nordwest-Amerika. Globus 21: 342.

1898 Jesup Expedition nach der nordpazifischen Kuste[letter, May 27]. In Verhandlungen der BerlinerCesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie undUrgeschichte, 30. Pp. 257-8.

1900 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. InVerhandlungen des 7. Internationalen Ceographen-Kongresses in Berlin, 1899. Pp. 678-85.

1900 Ethnographical Album of the North Pacific Coastsof America and Asia. Jesup North Pacific Expedition,pt. 1. 5 pp., 28 plates. New York: American Museumof Natural History.

1900 Progress of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition.American Museum Journal 1 (4):60-2.

1901 Die Jesup Nordpacifische Expedition. InVerhandlungen der Cesellschaft fur die Erdkunde zuBerlin, 28. Pp. 356-9.

1902 [The Development of the American Museum ofNatural History]. Department of Anthropology. Ameri-can Museum JournalliSyAV-SS UNPEactivities, 1897-1902, p. 52].

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 3(5):73-l 1 9.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Interna-tional Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Held inNew York in 1902. Pp. 91-100. Easton, PA:Eschenbach.

1908 Die Nordpacifische Jesup-Expedition. Inter-

300

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

nationale Wochenschhft fur Wissenschaft, Kunst andTechnik 2(41): 1291-306.1910 Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. In Inter-nationalerAmehkanisten-Kongress, 16. Tagung, Wien1908. Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 3-18. Vienna and Leipzig: A.Hartleben's Verlag [for translation, see the appendixto Fitzhugh and Krupnik, this volume].

BOGORAZ, V. C, AND V. I. JOCHELSON

1900 O Sibirskom Poliarnom Otdele Severo-Tikhookeanskoi Ekspeditsii (On the Siberian polarsection of the North Pacific Expedition). Zhivaia starina10(l-2):295-6 [letter from San Francisco, April 16/3, 1900]. St. Petersburg.

CHAMBERLAIN, A. F.

1897 Anthropology at the Toronto Meeting of theBritish Association (for the Advancement of Science).A Brief Summary of Prof. F. W. Putnam's Paper "TheJesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast." Science,n.s.6(146):580.

FARRAND, LIVINGSTON

1899 The Indians of Western Washington. Science, n.s.

9(224):533-5.FOWKE, GERARD

1899 Archaeological Investigations on the AmoorRiver. Science, n.s. 9(224):539^1.

1906 Exploration of the Lower Amur Valley. AmericanAnthropologist, n.s. 8(2):276-97.

GREGORY, W. K.

1900 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. AmericanMuseum Journal 1(1):9-10.

UESUP, MORRIS K.]

1898 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1897.The American Museum of Natural History, New York[JNPE activities, pp. 1 5-16, with a map of "Field ofProposed Operations"; see Fig. 3, this volume].

1899 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1898[JNPE activities, pp. 1 5-16].

1900 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1899UNPE activities, p. 1 3].

1901 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1900UNPE activities, p. 1 3].

1902 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1901UNPE activities, pp. 19-20].

1903 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1902UNPE activities: pp. 19-20].

LAUFER, BERTHOLD

1899 Petroglyphs on the Amoor. American Anthro-pologist, n.s. 1 (October):746-50.

1899 Ethnological Work on the Island of Saghalin.Science, n.s. 9(230):732^.

1900 Preliminary Notes on Explorations among the

Amoor Tribes. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2 (2):297-338.

1900 Die angeblichen Urvolker von Jezo und Sachalin.Centralblatt fUr Anthropologie, Ethnologie undUrgeschichte 5(6) Uena].

NEW YORK TIMES

1897 [Report on the Expedition] (March 13):2:5.PUTNAM, FREDERIC W.

1905 Synopsis of Peabody and American Museum ofNatural History Anthropology Departments. In Inter-national Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, Heldin New York in 1902. P. xliii. Easton, PA: Eschenbach.

SCIENCE

1897 Scientific Notes and News [On the Departure ofBoas and Other Members of the Expedition Team tothe Northwest Coast]. Science, n.s. 5(127):874.

1 899 Field-Work of the Jesup North Pacific Expeditionin 1898. Science, n.s. 9(224):532-41 [includesintroduction and thematic sections written byFarrand, Fowke, and Smith; see entries in thissection].

1900 Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Science

12(293):235-6.SMITH, HARLAN I.

1898 The Jesup Expedition Collection. American Anti-quarian and Oriental journal 20:101^.

1899 Archaeological investigations on the North Pa-cific Coast of America [in 1898]. Science, n.s.9(224):535-9.

1900 Archaeological Investigations on the North Pa-cific Coast in 1899. American Anthropologist, n.s. 2(3):563-7.

6. Reports on and Reviews of JNPE Publica-tions and Collections

AMNH (AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY)

1900 Customs of the Ancient Thompson River ValleyTribes. American Museum journal 1 (3):46.

1903 The Forthcoming Report on the Siberian Mam-mals Collected by the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion. American Museum journal 3(3):35.

1904 A General Guide to the American Museum ofNatural History. American Museum journal, Supple-ment to Vol. 4(1) [pp. 41-5, Northwest Coast; pp.50-4, Siberia].

1904 Primitive Art. A Guide Leaflet to Collections inthe American Museum of Natural History. AmericanMuseum journal. Supplement to Vol. 4(3) [pp. 7-1 7,Hall 108, Northwest Coast; pp. 29-31, Tribes of theAmur River].

IGOR KRUPNIK

1906 Scientific Publications of tine Jesup North PacificExpedition. American Museum Journal 6(2):58-61.

BOAS, FRANZ

1900 Ethnological Collections from the North PacificCoast of America: Being a Guide to Hall 108 in theAmerican Museum of Natural History. New Yorl<:American Museum of Natural History. 1 3 pp., withmap.

1 906 Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion. Science 23:102-7 [resume of Boas' and Hunt'sKwakiutI Texts; Swanton's Haida Ethnology;Jochelson's Koryak; Bogoras' Chukchee].

1908 Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion. Science 28(71 0):1 76-8 [resume of Teit's TheLillooet Indians; Smith's Archaeology of the Gulf ofGeorgia; Boas and Hunt's KwakiutI Texts].

GREGORY, W. K.

1900 Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 1. Anthropological Series. American MuseumJournal 1 (7-8): 11 5-25.

1901 Memoirs of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 2. Anthropological Series. American MuseumJournal 1(9-10): 145-52.

UESUP, MORRIS K.]

1904 Annual Report of the President for the Year 1903.New York. 23 pp.

MASON, OTIS T.

1900 Anthropological Publications of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, New York, in 1900. Sci-ence 12(308):804-6 [reviews of J/VPf vols. 1 and 2].

SHTERNBERG, LEV YA.

1901 Novye izdaniia Akademii Nauk v oblasti fol'klorai lingvistiki, po izucheniiu chukotskogo i koriakskogoiazykov i fol'klora, sobrannye V. G. Bogorazom i V. I.lokhelsonom (New publications of the Academy ofSciences in the field of folklore and linguistics: Stud-ies of the Chukchi and Koryak languages and folk-lore collected by W. Bogoras and W. Jochelson).Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia4:189-202. St. Petersburg.

1905 The Chukchee, by W. Bogoras. American Anthro-pologist, n.s. 7(2):320-4.

7. JNPE-Based or JNPE-Related PublicationsOther than Those Published in the Main JNPESeries, 1897 to Present

Three JNPE members—Boas, Bogoras, and Jochelson—had conducted studies and collected extensive data

302

in the areas they later visited during the JNPE years.Boas' JNPE fieldwork was focused on four NorthwestCoast nations: the Kwakwaka'wakw [KwakiutI],Coastal Salish, Nuxalk [Bella Coola], and Tsimshian. Thissection lists Boas' main post-Jesup publications, andhis publications and articles outside the Jesup series,on these groups only, whether based exclusively onthe JNPE field data or on his pre-1897 research. Thesame rule applies to Bogoras' post-JNPE publicationson the Chukchi, the Even (Lamut), the Yupik (SiberianEskimo) and the local Siberian Creoles and to Jochelson'scontributions on the Yukagir.AMNH (AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY)

1904 The Exhibit of Chukchee Clothing. American Mu-seum Journal 4(1 ):22^.

1904 The House-Life of the Chukchee in Siberia. Ameri-can Museum Journal 4{2y3S-7.

BOAS, FRANZ

1900 Sketch of the KwakiutI Language. American An-thropologist, n.s. 2:708-21.

1902 Tsimshian Texts [Nass River Dialect]. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 27. Washington, DC.

1906 Der Einfluss der sozialen Cliederung der KwakiutIauf deren Kultur. In Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Hdlfte.Pp. 141-8. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1906 The Salish Tribes of the Interior of British Colum-bia. In Canada. Report of the Ministry of Education.Appendix—Annual Archaeological Report. Pp. 219-25.Ontario.

1906 The Tribes of the North Pacific Coast. In Canada.Report of the Ministry of Education. Appendix—An-nual Archaeological Report. Pp. 235-49. Ontario.

1908 Eine Sonnesage der Tsimschian. Zeitschrift furEthnologie 5:776-97.

1910 KwakiutI Tales. Columbia University Contribu-tions to Anthropology, 2. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press. 495 pp.

1911 Tsimshian. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. Franz Boas, ed. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 40i]):283-422. Washington, DC.

1911 KwakiutI. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. Franz Boas, ed. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 40(1 ):423-558. Washington, DC.

1912 Tsimshian Texts (New Series). Publications of theAmerican Ethnological Society, 3. Pp. 65-284. NewYork.

1916 Tsimshian Mythology: Based on Texts Recorded

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

by Henry W. Tate. In Bureau of American EthnologyAnnual Report for the Years 1909-19 / 0, 31. Pp. 29-1037. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1920 The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl. Ameri-can Anthropologist 22( 1): 111 -26.

1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Annual Report, 35, pts. 1-2. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.

1925 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl.Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,3. New York: Columbia University Press.

1930 Religion of the Kwakiutl. Columbia UniversityContributions to Anthropology, 10, pts. 1-2. New York:Columbia University Press.

1931 Notes on the Kwakiutl Vocabulary. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 4(3-4): 163-78.

1932 Current Beliefs of the Kwakiutl Indians. Journalof American Folk-Lore 45(1 76): 1 77-260.

1934 Geographical Names of the Kwakiutl Indians.Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology,20. New York: Columbia University Press [includes22 maps].

1935 Kwakiutl Culture as Reflected in Mythology. Mem-oirs of the American Folk-Lore Society, 28. New York.

1935 Kwakiutl Tales (New Series). Columbia UniversityContributions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 1, Texts. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

1943 Kwakiutl Tales (New Series). Columbia UniversityContributions to Anthropology, 26. Pt. 2, Translations.New York: Columbia University Press.

1947 Kwakiutl Grammar, with a Glossary of the Suf-fixes. Transactions of the American Philosophical So-ciety 37(3):201-377.

1966 Kwakiutl Ethnography. Helen Codere, ed. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

BOAS, FRANZ, AND LIVINGSTON FARRAND

1899 Physical Characteristics of the Tribes of BritishColumbia. In 68th Report for the British Associationfor the Advancement of Science for 1898. Pp. 628-44. London.

BOCORAS, WALDEMAR

1901 The Chukchi of Northeastern Asia. American An-thropologist, n.s. 3(1):80-108.

1902 The Folklore of Northeastern Asia, as Comparedwith That of Northwestern America. American An-thropologist, n.s. 4(4):577-683.

1904 Idees religieuses des Tchouktchis. Bulletins etMemoires de la Societe dAnthropologie de Paris, 5(VSerie): 129-35.

1906 Religious Ideas of Primitive Man, from ChukcheeMaterial. In Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress,

14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erste Hdlfte. Pp. 129-

35. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.1909 Materialy dlia izucheniia iazyka aziatskikh

eskimosov (Data for a study of the Asiatic Eskimo

language). Zhivaiastarina2-3:] 78-90. St. Petersburg.191 3 Chukotskie risunki (Chukchi drawings). In Sbor-

nik V chest' 70-letiia D. N. Anuchina. Pp. 397^20.

Moscow.

1917 Koryak Texts. American Ethnological Society Pub-lications, 5. Leiden and New York. 153 pp.

1918 Tales of Yukaghir, Lamut, and Russianized Na-tives of Eastern Siberia. Anthropological Papers of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, 20(1). Pp. 3-148. New York.

1922 Chukchee. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages, pt. 2. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin40, pt. 2:631-903. Washington, DC.

1928 Chukchee Tales. Journal of American Folk-Lore41(160:297-452.

1930 Chukotskii obshchestvennyi stroi po dannymfol'klora (Chukchi social structure as seen from thefolklore data). Sovetskii sever 6:63-79. Moscow.

1931 Klassovoe rassloenie u chukoch-olenevodov(Class stratification among the Reindeer Chukchi).Sovetskaia etnografiia 1-2:93-116. Leningrad.

1931 Materialy po lamutskomu iazyku (Materials re-lating to the Lamut [Even] language). In Tungusskiisbornik, 1. V. G. Bogoraz-Tan, ed. Pp. 1-106.Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1934 Luoravetlanskii (chukotskii) iazyk (The Luoravtlan[Chukchee] language). In lazyki ipis'mennost'narodovSevera, 3. Pp. 5^6. Leningrad: Institut narodov Severa.

1934 Yuitskii (aziatsko-eskimosskii) iazyk (The Yuit [Asi-atic Eskimo] language). In lazyki ipis'mennost'narodovSevera. Pp. 105-28. Leningrad: Institut narodovSevera.

1934 Chukchi. (The Chukchi). Pt. 1. Leningrad: Institutnarodov Severa [trans, of JNPE, vol. 7, Introductionand pt. 3; rev.].

1937 Luoravetlansko-russkii(chukotsko-russkii) slovar'(Chukchi-Russian dictionary). Leningrad: Institutnarodov Severa. 164 -i- xlvi pp.

1 939 Chukchi. Religiia (The Chukchee. Religion).Leningrad: Institut narodov Severa [trans, of JNPE,vol. 7, pt. 2, 1907; rev.].

1949 Materialy po iazyku aziatskikh eskimosov (Mate-rials relating to the language of the Asiatic Eskimo).Leningrad: Gosuchpedgiz. 255 pp.

JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR

1904 The Mythology of the Koryak. American Anthro-pologist, n.s. 6(4):41 3-25.

IGOR KRUPNIK

303

1 905 Essay on the Grammar of the Yukaghir Language.Supplement to the American Anthropologist, n.s.7{2):369^24.

1907 Etnologicheskie problemy na severnykh beregakhTikhogo okeana (Ethnological problems on the north-ern shores of the Pacific). Izvestiia RusskogoCeograficheskogo obshchestva 43:63-92. St. Peters-burg.

1933 The Yakut. Anthropological Papers of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural IHistory, 32(2). New York.

1934 Odul'skii (yukagirskii) iazyk (The Odul [Yukagir]language). In lazyki i pis'mennost' narodov Severa,vol. 3. Yazyki ipis'mennost'paleoaziatskikh narodov.E. A. Kreinovich, ed. Pp. 149-80. Leningrad: Institutnarodov Severa.

JOCHELSON-BRODSKY, DINA

1906 ZurTopographie des weiblichen Korpers nordost-sibirischer Volker. Archiv fur Anthropologie 33:1-58.

1907 K antropologii zhenshchin plemion krainegosevero-vostoka Sibiri (Contribution to the anthropol-ogy of the women of the tribes of northeastern Si-beria). Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 1-2:1-87.Moscow.

OETTEKINC, BRUNO

1917 Preliminary Remarks on the Skeletal Material Col-lected by the Jesup Expedition. In Proceedings of the19th International Congress of Americanists, Wash-ington, D.C., 1915. Pp. 621-4. Washington, DC.

1928 Craniology of the Northwest Coast of NorthAmerica. In Attidel 22. Congresso Internazionale degliAmericanisti, Roma—Settembre 1926, vol. 1. Pp. 421 -5. Rome: Riccardo Carroni.

SMITH, HARITVN I.

1900 Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Monu-mental Records 1:76-88.

1901 The Prehistoric Ethnology of the Thompson RiverRegion. In Report of the Michigan Academy of Sci-ences, 2. Pp. 8-10. Ann Arbor.

1901 The Archaeology of the Southern Interior of Brit-ish Columbia. American Antiquarian and Oriental Jour-nal 23:25-31.

1902 Archaeology of Lytton, British Columbia. Recordsof the Past 1:205-l 8.

1903 Shell-Heaps of the Lower Eraser River, BritishColumbia. Records of the Past 3:79-90.

1904 The Cairns or Stone Sepulchres of British Colum-bia. Records of the Past 3: 243-54.

SWANTON, JOHN R.

1902 Notes on the Haida Language. American An-thropologist, n.s. (3):392-403.

1903 The Haida Calendar. American Anthropologist,n.s. 5:331-5.

1 905 Social Organization of the Haida. In InternationalCongress of Americanists, 13th Session, Held in NewYork in 1902. Pp. 327-34. Easton, PA: Eschenbach.

1 905 Haida Texts and Myths: Skidegate Dialect. Bu-reau of American Ethnology Bulletin 29. Washington,DC. 450 pp.

1905 Types of Haida and Tlingit Myths. American An-thropologist, n.s. 7(1 ):94-l 03.

1907 Haida. In Handbook of American Indians Northof Mexico. F. W. Hodge, ed. Bureau of American Eth-nology Bulletin 30(1 ):520-3. Washington, DC.

1911 Haida. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. F. Boas, ed. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 40{]y.205-82. Washington, DC.

1912 Haida Songs. Publications of the American Eth-nological Society, 3. Pp. 1-63. New York.

1913 A Haida Food Plant. American Anthropologist1 5:543-4.

TEIT, JAMES

1898 Traditions of the Thompson River Indians ofBritish Columbia. Memoirs of the American Folk-LoreSociety, 6. New York.

1928 The Middle Columbia Salish. Franz Boas, ed. InUniversity of Washington Publications in Anthropol-ogy, 2(4). Pp. 83-1 28. Seattle.

1930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau. InAnnual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnologyfor the Years 1927-1928. Franz Boas, ed. Pp. 23-396. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

8. Major Post-Jesup Extensions

By 1900-02, most Jesup team members (except for"locals" such as George Hunt and James Teit) had com-pleted their JNPE field research. Several later trips, how-ever, were explicitly acknowledged by former JNPEparticipants as "extensions" of their work under theJNPE agenda. In this category were John Swanton's tripto the Tlingit (1904), Farrand's and Dixon's research inOregon and California with the Huntington Expedition(1899 and 1900), Harlan Smith's archaeological sur-vey in the Columbia River Valley (1903), and the Jochel-sons' trip to the Aleutian Islands and the KamchatkaPeninsula with the Riabushinski Expedition (1909-11).Publications resulting from these surveys are thereforeincluded in this comprehensive JNPE bibliography.

304

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

BOAS, FRANZ, ED.

191 7 Folktales of Salishan and Sahaptin Tribes, Col-lected by James Teit and Others. Memoirs of theAmerican Foll<-Lore Society, 11. New York.

DIXON, ROLAND B.

1911 Maidu. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. Franz Boas, ed. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 40(1 ):679-734. Washington, DC,

1911 Shasta Myths. Journal of American Folk-Lore33(88):3-37, 363-70.

FARRAND, LIVINGSTON

1901 Notes on the Alsea Indians of Oregon. American

Anthropologist, n.s. 3(2):239-47.1915 Shasta and Athabascan Myths from Oregon.

Leo J. Frachtenberg, ed. journal of American Folk-

Lore 28(109):207^2.

JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR

1913 The Aleut Language and Its Relation to the Es-kimo Dialects. In International Congress ofAmericanists, Proceedings of the 18th Session, Lon-don, 1912. Part / .Pp. 96-104. London: Harrison andSons.

1912 Scientific Results of the Ethnological Section ofthe Riabouschinsky Expedition of the Imperial Rus-sian Geographical Society to the Aleutian Islands andKamchatka. In International Congress of Americanists,Proceedings of the 18th Session, London, 1912. Part2. Pp. 334-^3. London: Harrison and Sons.

1919 Aleutskii iazyk v osveshchenii grammatikiVeniaminova (The Aleut language in the light ofVeniaminov's grammar). Izvestiia Akademii Nauk13:133-54, 287-315. St. Petersburg.

192 3 Materialy dlia izucheniia aleutskogo iazyka i folk-lora (Data for the study of Aleut language and folk-lore), vol. 1. Petrograd.

1925 Archaeological Investigations in the AleutianIslands. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publica-tion, 367. Washington, DC. 145 pp.

1927 The Instrumental and the Comitative in the AleutLanguage. Language 3:9-12.

1928 Archaeological Investigations in Kamchatka.Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication, 388.Washington, DC. viii -i- 88 pp.

1930 Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na Kamchatke(Archaeological surveys in Kamchatka). IzvestiiaRusskogo Ceograficheskogo obshchestva 63(3): 199-242; (4):351-85. Leningrad.

1933 History, Ethnology and Anthropology of theAleuts. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication,432. Washington, DC.

1 961 Kamchadal Texts Collected by WaldemarJochelson. The Hague: Mouton.

1 990 Unangam Ungiikangin kayux Tunusangin.Unangam Uniikangis ama Tunuzangis. Aleut Tales andNarratives Collected 1909-1910 by WaldemarJochelson. Knud Bergsland and Moses L. Dirks, eds.Alaska Native Language Center. Fairbanks: Univer-sity of Alaska.

SMITH. HARLAN I.

1905 An Archaeological Expedition to the ColumbiaValley. Records of the Past 4:119-27.

1906 Preliminary Notes on the Archaeology of theYakima Valley, Washington. Science 23(558):551-5.

1909 Archaeological Remains on the Coast of North-ern British Columbia and Southern Alaska. AmericanAnthropologist 11:595-600.

1910 The Archaeology of the Yakima Valley. Anthro-pological Papers of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, 6. Pp. 1-171. New York.

1910 Canoes of the Northern Pacific Coast Indians.American Museum Journal 10(8):243-5.

1911 Totem Poles of the North Pacific Coast. Ameri-can Museum Journal 11(3):77-82.

SWANTON, JOHN R.

1905a Types of Haida and Tlingit Myths. American

Anthropologist, n.s. 7(1 ):94-l 03.1905b Tlingit Method of Collecting Herring-Eggs.

American Anthropologist, n.s. 7(1): 1 72.

1908 Social Conditions, Beliefs, and Linguistic Rela-tionships of the Tlingit Indians. In 26th Annual Reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology. Pp. 391-485.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1909 Tlingit Myths and Texts. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Bulletin 39. Washington, DC.

1911 Tlingit. In Handbook of American Indian Lan-guages. Franz Boas, ed. Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bulletin 40(1 ):283-422. Washington, DC: Gov-ernment Printing Office.

9. Selected Post-Jesup Comparative Pub-lications

BOAS, FRANZ

1902 Some Problems in North American Archaeol-ogy. American Journal of Archaeology, Second Se-ries, 6: 1-6. Reprinted in Boas 1940:525-9.

1904 The Folk-Lore of the Eskimo. Journal of Ameri-can Folk-Lore 17(64): 1-1 3. Reprinted in Boas1940:503-16.

1907 Ethnological Problems in Canada. In Congres In-ternational des Americanistes, 15e Session, Tenue a

IGOR KRUPNIK

305

Quebec en 1906. Tome / .Pp. 1 51-60. Quebec: Dus-sault & Proulx. Reprinted in Boas 1940:331^3.

1910 Ethnological Problems in Canada. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain andIreland 40:529-39. Reprinted in Boas 1940:331-43.

1912 The History of the American Race. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences 2]-.] 77-83. Reprintedin Boas 1940:324-30.

1924 The Social Organization of the Tribes of theNorth Pacific Coast. American Anthropologist26(3):323-32. Reprinted in Boas 1940:370-8.

1925 America and the Old World. In Congres Interna-tional des Americanistes, Compte Rendue de la 21 eSession, Deuxieme Partie. Tenue a Coteborg en 1924.Pp. 21-8. Coteborg Museum.

1928 Migrations of Asiatic Races and Cultures to NorthAmerica. Scientific Monthly 28:110-7.

1933 Relationships between North-West America andNorth-EastAsia. In TheAmerican Aborigines: Their Ori-gin and Antiquity. D.Jenness, ed. Pp. 357-70. Toronto:University of Toronto Press. Reprinted in Boas1940:344-55.

1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York: Mac-millan. Reprint: Free Press, 1966.

BOGORAS, WALDEMAR

1902 The Folklore of Northeastern Asia, as Comparedwith That of Northwestern America. American An-thropologist, n.s. 4(4):577-683.

1906 Religious Ideas of Primitive Man, from ChukcheeMaterial. In Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress,14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Zweite Hdlfte. Pp. 129-35. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1908 Religioznye idei pervobytnogo cheloveka (Pomaterialam, sobrannym sredi piemen severo-vostochnoi Azii, glavnym obrazom sredi chukoch)(Religious ideas of primitive man [based upon datacollected among the Native groups of Northeast Asia,primarily among the Chukchi]). Zemlevedenie 15(1 ):60-80. Moscow.

1919 O tak nazyvaemom iazyke dukhov (shaman-skom) u raznykh vetvei eskimosskogo plemeni (Onthe so-called "spirit" [shaman] language among vari-ous branches of the Eskimo tribe). Izvestiia AkademiiA/aw/c:489-95. Petrograd.

1924 New Problems of Ethnographical Research inPolar Countries. In Proceedings of the 21st Interna-tional Congress of Americanists, First Part. Held atThe Hague, August 12-16, 1924. Pp. 226-46. Leiden:E.J. Brill.

1925 Early Migrations of the Eskimo between Asia and

America. In Congres International des Americanistes,Compte Rendue de la 2le Session, Deuxieme Partie.Tenue a Coteborg en 1924. Pp. 216-35. CoteborgMuseum.

1925 Ideas of Space and Time in the Conception ofPrimitive Religion. AmericanAnthropologist27{2):20S-66.

1927 Drevnie pereseleniia narodov v Severnoi Azii i vAmerike (Ancient human migrations in Northern Asiaand in America). Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i etno-grafii6:37-62. Leningrad.

1928 Ethnographic Problems of the Eurasian Arctic. InProblems of Polar Research. American GeographicalSociety Special Publication 7. Pp. 189-207. New York.

1929 Elements of the Culture of the Circumpolar Zone.American Anthropologist 31 (4):5 79-601.

1935 Drevneishie elementyv iazyke aziatskikh eskimo-sov (The most ancient elements in the Asiatic Es-kimo language). In AN SSSR akademiku N. la. Marru.Pp. 353-66. Leningrad.

1936 Osnovnye tipy fol'klora severnoi Evrazii i sever-noi Ameriki (Major types of folklore of Northern Asiaand North America). Sovetskii fol'klor (4-5):29-50.Moscow.

DIXON, ROLAND B.

1933 Tobacco Chewing on the Northwest Coast.American Anthropologist 35(]): 146-50.

JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR

1904 Ob aziatskikh i amerikanskikh elementakh v mif-akh koriakov (On Asiatic and American elements inKoryak myths). Zemlevedenie 11(3):33-41. Moscow.

1906 Uber asiatische and amerikanische Elemente inden Mythen der Koriaken. In Internationaler Amerikan-isten-Kongress, 14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. ErsteHdlfte. Pp. 119-27. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer. First pub-lished in 1904 in Russian, Zem/ei/e<^eM;'e 11(3):33-41.

1907 Past and Present Subterranean Dwellings of theTribes of North Eastern Asia and North WesternAmerica. In Congres International des Americanistes,15e Session, Tenue d Quebec en 1906. Tome 2. Pp.11 5-28. Quebec: Dussault & Proulx.

1908 Drevnie i sovremennye podzemnye zhilishchapiemen Severo-Vostochnoi Azii i Severo-ZapadnoiAmeriki (Past and present subterranean dwellings ofthe tribes of northeastern Asia and northwesternAmerica). Ezhegodnik Russkogo Antropologicheskogoobshchestva, 2. St. Petersburg.

1926 The Ethnological Problems of Bering Sea. Natu-ral History 26{\):9Q-5.

1928 Peoples of Asiatic Russia. New York: American

306

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

Museum of Natural History [see especially ch. 2, TheAmericanoids of Siberia, Introduction, pp. 43-5].

1930 The Ancient and Present Kamchadal and theSimilarity of Their Culture to That of the Northwest-ern American Indians. In International Congress ofAmericanists, 33rdSession, New York, 1928. Pp. 451 -4. New York.

LAUFER, BERTHOLD

191 7 Reindeer and Its Domestication. In Memoirs oftheAmerican Anthropological Association, 4(2). Pp. 91-147. Lancaster, PA.

SMITH, HARLAN L

1899 Stone Hammers or Pestles of the NorthwestCoast of America. American Anthropologist, n.s.1:363-8.

STERNBERG, LEO

1906 Bemerkungen uber Beziehungen zwischen derMorphologie der giljakischen und amerikanischenSprachen. In InternationalerAmerikanisten-Kongress,14. Tagung, Stuttgart 1904. Erster Hdlfte. Pp. 137-40. Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.

1913 The Turano-Canowanian System and the Na-tions of North-East Asia. In International Congress ofAmericanists, Proceedings of the 18th Session, Lon-don, 1912. Part I. Pp. 319-33. London: Harrison andSons.

1925 Divine Election in Primitive Religion (IncludingMaterial on Different Tribes of N.E. Asia and America).In Cong res International des Americanistes, Compte-Rendu de la 21 e Session, Deuxieme Partie. Tenue aCoteborg en 1924. Pp. 472-512. Goteborg Museum.

SWANTON, JOHN R.

1904 The Development of the Clan System and ofSecret Societies among the Northwestern Tribes.American Anthropologist, n.s. 6:477-85.

1905 The Social Organization of American Tribes.American Anthropologist, n.s. 7:663-73.

1 906 A Reconstruction of the Theory of Social Or-ganization. In Boas Anniversary Volume: Anthropo-logical Papers Written in Honor of Franz Boas... Pre-sented to Him on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of HisDoctorate. Pp. 166-78. New York: C. E. Stechert.

10. Unpublished Manuscripts Related totheJNPE

As noted in the introduction to this bibliography, thissection is currently confined to unpublished work ofWaldemar Bogoras, Waldemar Jochelson, and DinaJochelson-Brodsky.

Bogoras, Waldemar

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (PHILADELPHIA, BOASCOLLECTION), APS-BC

n.d. Chukchee Lexicon. APS-BC. Ms. 366. 2,000 cardswith Chukchee words and English equivalents.

n.d. Chukchee Suffix List. APS-BC. Ms. 26.66 pp. (hand-written).

n.d. Chukchee Word List. APS-BC. Ms. 29.267 pp. (hand-written).

n.d. Chukchee Word List and Interlinear Texts withNotes. APS-BC. Ms. 28. 50 pp. (handwritten).

n.d. Comparative Word List of Alaskan Eskimo, Sibe-rian Eskimo, and Chukchee. APS-BC. Ms. 135.31 pp.(handwritten).

ARCHIVES OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (ST.PETERSBURG, BOGORAS COLLECTION/FOND 250), RAS-B1901 Dnevnik vo vremia puteshestviia i prebyvaniia v

Unyine (Diary during the trip and stay at Unyin). RAS-

B. Fond 250, op. 1, no. 116.n.d. Diary 1900-1901. RAS-B. Fond 250, no. 119.n.d. Materialy o chukchakh (Chukchee materials: The

kinship system). RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no 122.

250 pp.

n.d. Materialy po chukotskomy folkloru (Chukchee folk-lore materials). RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no. 124-5.

n.d. Koriakskii slovar'. Kamenskii dialect. (Koryak dic-tionary. The dialect of Kamenskoe). RAS-B. Fond 250,op. 1, no. 130, 199 pp.

n.d. Zapisi po grammatike koriakskogo iazyka (Noteson Koryak grammar). RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no.132.

n.d. Kamchadal'skii iazyk (The Kamchadal language).RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no. 134. 4 notebooks, 84pp. (grammar and vocabulary).

n.d. List of Chukchee Roots. RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 5,no. 11.25 pp.

1900 Koriakso-kamchadal'skie teksty, 1900-1901(Koryak and Kamchadal texts, 1900-1901). RAS-B.Fond 250, op. 1, no. 133.

1900 Materialy po eskimosskomy iazyku (Data onthe Eskimo/Siberian Yupik language). RAS-B. Fond250, op. 1, no. 134.

n.d. [Sketch of the Grammar of the Asiatic EskimoLanguage/Ocherk grammatiki iazyka aziatskikheskimosov]. Unfinished English translation of the origi-nal Russian manuscript. RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no.52. 97 pp.

n.d. [Folklore texts]. RAS-B. Fond 250, op. 1, no. 124.n.d. [Folklore texts] (in Russian). RAS-B. Fond 250, op.1, no. 125.

IGOR KRUPNIK

307

INSTITUT VOSTOKOVEDENIIA (ST. PETERSBURG, INSTI-TUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES, OTDEL VOSTOCHNYKHRUKOPISEI/ DEPARTMENT OF ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS,FOND 23—W. JOCHELSON COLLECTION), INV-J

n.d. Chukotskie teksty i pereskazy na russkom iazyke(Chukchee texts with Russian paraphrases). InV-J. Fond23, no. 7.

n.d. Chukotskaia grammatika (A Chukchee grammar).InV-J. Fond 23, no. 8

n.d. Materialy po chukotskoi grammatike (Materialson Chukchee grammar). InV-J. Fond 23, no. 9.

n.d. Russko-chukotskii slovar' (Russian-Chukchee dic-tionary). InV-J. Fond 23, no. 10.

n.d. Materialy po koriakskomu iazyku (Koryak materi-als). InV-J. Fond 23, no 1 1.

NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY (MANUSCRIPT DIVISION)

See Yarmolinsky 1947 in section 11 below.

n.d. Yupik (Asiatic Eskimo) Language and Folklore Ma-terials. (1) Manuscript with ethnographic introduc-tion by Ernest W. Hawkes and preface by Bogoras;(2) outlines of Yupik grammar, with the thematic wordlist, 98 handwritten pages; (3) short glossary of theshaman "spirit language"; (4) 1 7 folklore tales—Yupikoriginal with Chukchi, Russian, and English (?) transla-tion; see Bogoraz 1 949 (section 7)—all completedin 1918, with some later updates.

Jochelson, Waldemar

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (PHILADELPHIA,BOAS COLLECTION), APS-BC

n.d. Chukchee Life History. APS-BC. Ms. 27. 9 pp. (hand-written).

n.d. The Study of Paleoasiatic and Tungus Languagesin the USSR. 1918-1928. Manuscript. APS-BC. Ms.33. 16 pp. (handwritten).

[?] Concordance to Koryak Mythology. Motifs, Char-acters, and Material Culture Items. APS-BC. Ms. 330.400 cards.

NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY (MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, NEWYORK), NYPL;

See Yarmolinsky 1947 and Jakobson et al. 1957 insection 11 below.

n.d. The Kamchadal. Manuscript on Kamchadal his-tory, ethnography, material culture, and geographyof the area. 129 pp. (in English), with 50 photographsfrom the Riabushinski Expedition of 1910-11.

n.d. Kamchadal linguistic materials: observations onthe Russian dialect spoken by the natives; list ofItelmen terms of kinship; paradigms of Itelmen nouns,

pronouns, and verbs; and a sketch of the phonol-ogy of Itelmen language. .

n.d. The Kamchadal texts (see Jochelson 1961, sec-tion 8). 41 texts in the original Kamchadal withJochelson's literal and abridged English translation.

n.d. Kamchadal-Russian and Russian-Kamchadal Dic-tionary (on cards).

INSTITUT VOSTOKOVEDENIIA (ST. PETERSBURG, INSTI-TUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES, OTDEL VOSTOCHNYKHRUKOPISEI/ DEPARTMENT OF ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS,FOND 23—W. JOCHELSON COLLECTION), INV-JI;See Jochelson 1919 in section 8 above,n.d. Zapisi skazok na yukagirskom iazyke, poverii, atakzheslova, vstrechaiushchiesiavskazkakh (Recordsof fairy tales in Yukaghir, of traditional beliefs; andalso words occurring in the fairy tales). InV-J. Fond23, no. 2.

n.d. Slovar' russko-koriakskii (na dialekte koriakov-olenevodov) (Russian-Koryak dictionary [in the Rein-deer Koryak dialect]). InV-J. Fond 23, no. 6.

n.d. Khangaiskii slovar'(TundraYukagirdictionary). InV-J. Fond 23, nos. 13-16.

n.d. Yukagirsko-russkii slovar'(Yukaghir-Russian dictio-nary). On cards. InV-J. Fond 23, nos. 1 7-22.

n.d. Itelmen Linguistic notebooks, 1910-11. InV-J. Fond631, nos. 30-32, 34.

n.d. Notes for the grammar of the Aleut Language.InV-J. 6 notebooks.

n.d. Aleut Mythology (texts and translations).InV-J.

n.d. Grammar of the Kamchadal Language.

ARCHIVES OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (ST.PETERSBURG). FONOTEKA (PHONOGRAPHIC COLLECTION),RAS-F

n.d. Songs, Tales, and Speeches of the Kamchadalsand Aleuts. Recorded in 1908(-1910). 142 cylinders.

Jochelson, Waldemar, and Waldemar Bogoras

n.d. Kamchatskii krai [Kamchatka Province]. Archive ofthe Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology andEthnography, St. Petersburg. Fond K-ll, no. 164.

n.d. Catalog of Phonograph Records of PaleosiberianLanguages. APS-BC. Ms. 60. 7 pp. (handwritten).

Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina

1900 Diary Kept during thejesup North Pacific Expe-dition. InV-J. Fond 23 (W. Jochelson File), no. 18, pp.1-23.

1901 Diaries Kept during thejesup North Pacific Expe-dition (1901-1902). InV. Fond 631, nos. 127, 128,129, 130, 131, 132. Notebooks in Russian.

308

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

11. Bibliographies; Reviews of Manuscript,Museum, and Archival Collections Related toJNPE Activities

BERMAN, JUDITH

1993 Unpublished North Pacific Coast Materials inthe Papers of Franz Boas. Paper prepared for the ses-sion "Gateways to Jesup II: Examining the Unpub-lished Resources of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi-tion, 1897-1902." William W. Fitzhugh and IgorKrupnik, organizers. American Anthropological As-sociation meetings, November 19, Washington, DC.

GURVICH, IL'IA S.

1963 Polevye dnevniki V. I. Jochelsona i D. L. Jochelson-Brodskoi (Field diaries of Waldemar Jochelson andDina Jochelson-Brodsky). Trudy Institute! etnografii85:248-58. Moscow.

JAKOBSON, ROMAN, CERTA HUTTL-WORTH, AND JOHNFRED BEEBE, COMPS.

1957 Paleosibehan Peoples and Languages: A Biblio-graphical Cuide. New Haven: HRAF Press.

JANTZ, RICHARD L.

1995 Franz Boas and Native American Biological Vari-ability. Human B/o/o^/67(3):345-5 3.

JOCHELSON, WALDEMAR

1915 Zapiska V. I. Jochelsona ob okazanii emusodeistviia v obrabotke i izdanii sobrannykh immaterialov po iazykam, narodnomu tvorchestvu ietnografii aleutov i piemen krainego severo-vostokaSibiri (W. Jochelson's memo requesting assistance inthe preparation and publication of materials collectedby him on the languages, folklore and ethnographyof the Aleut and tribes of Northeast Siberia). Bulleten'Akademii Nauk, Seriia 6, vol. 9, pp. 1697-707.Petrograd.

1919 Opis' folklornykh i lingvisticheskikh materialovV. I. lochel'sona, khraniashchikhsiav Aziatskom muzeeRossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (Inventory of the folkloreand linguistic materials collected by WaldemarJochelson on file at the Asiatic Museum of the Rus-sian Academy of Sciences). Izvestiia Akademii Nauk1918, Seriia 6, vol. 12, pp. 1980-2003. Petrograd.

MILLER, THOMAS R., AND BARBARA MATHE

1997 Drawing Shadows to Stone. In Drawing Shad-ows to Stone. The Photography of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition, 1897-1902. Laurel Kendall, Bar-bara Mathe, and Thomas Ross Miller, eds. Pp. 18-102. New York: American Museum of Natural His-tory; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

ROON, TATYANA P.

2000 Kollektsii narodov Amuro-Sakhalinskogo regionaV muzeiakh SShA (Ethnology collections on thepeoples of the Amur and Sakhalin region in Ameri-can museums). Izvestiia Instituta naslediia BronislavaPilsudskogo 4:1 39-57. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

SHPRINTSIN, N. C.

1947 Rukopisnoe nasledie V. C. Bogorasa (Manuscriptlegacy of Waldemar Bogoras). Kratkie soobshcheniiaInstituta etnografii 3:62-3. Moscow.

VINNIKOV, I. N.

1935 Bibliografiia etnograficheskikh i lingvisticheskikhrabot V. C. Bogorasa (Bibliography of ethnographicand linguistic works by Waldemar Bogoras).Sovetskaia etnografiia 4-5:235-41. Leningrad.

YAKOBSON, ROMAN

1 947 A List of Works Relating to the Kamchadal Lan-guage and to the Language of RussianizedKamchadals. New York Public Library Bulletin51(1 l):667-9.

YARMOLINSKY, AVRAM

1947 Kamchadal and Asiatic Eskimo Manuscript Col-lection. New York Public Library Bulletin 51(11 ):660-6 [review of the Jochelson archive at the New YorkPublic Library].

12. Selected PosM 960 Publications Relatedto the JNPE and Its Participants

AAA (AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION)

1993 Gateways to Jesup II: Evaluating Archival Re-sources of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902. In American Anthropohgical Association AnnualMeeting, 92. Abstracts. Pp. 40-1. Washington, DC.

AAAS (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENTOF SCIENCE)

1992 Arctic Research Repeats History. Science256:163.

ARTEM'EV, A. R., ED.

1 998 Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdu korennymnaseleniem tikhookeanskogo poberezhiia Severo-Zapadnoi Ameriki iSevero-VostochnoiAzii. K lOO-letiiuJesupovskoi Severo-Tikhookeanskoi ekspeditsiiii-Wsiori-cal-cultural contacts between aborigines of the Pa-cific Coast of northwestern America and northeast-ern Asia: For the centenary of the Jesup North PacificExpedition). Proceedings of international conference.Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology, andEthnography of the Peoples of the Far East.

IGOR KRUPNIK

309

BEATTIE, OWEN B.

1985 A Note on Early Cranial Studies from the Gulf ofGeorgia Region: Long-Heads, Broad-Heads, and theMyth of Migration. BC Studies 66 (summer);28-36.

BERMAN, JUDITH

1991 The Production of the Boas-Hunt Kwak'walaTexts. In Working Papers for the 26th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages. Pp.1-36. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

1992 Oolanchan-Woman's Robe: Fish, Blankets, Masks,and Meaning in Boas's Kwak'wala Texts. In On theTranslation of Native American Literature. B. Swann,ed. Pp. 125-62. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press.

1994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-pological Linguistics 36(4):482-514.

1996 "The Culture as It Appears to the Indian Him-self: Boas, George Hunt and the Methods of Eth-nography. In Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essayson Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropo-logical Tradition. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 21 5-56. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press.

BUNZL, MATTI

1996 Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: FromVolksgeist and Nationalcharakterto an Anthropologi-cal Concept of Culture. In Volksgeist as Method andEthic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the Ger-man Anthropological Tradition. George W. Stocking,Jr., ed. Pp. 1 7-78. History of Anthropology, 8. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin Press.

CHARD, CHESTER S.

1960 Northwest Coast-Northeast Asiatic Similarities:A New Hypothesis. In Men and Cultures: SelectedPapers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthro-pological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956. AnthonyF. C. Wallace, ed. Pp. 235-40. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.

COLE, DOUGLAS

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest

Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington

Press [pp. 147-64].1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.

COLE, DOUGLAS, AND ALEX LONG

1999 The Boasian Anthropological Survey Tradition:The Role of Franz Boas in North American Anthropo-logical Surveys. In Surveying the Record: North Ameri-can Scientific Exploration to 1930. E. C. Carter, ed. Pp.

225-49. Philadelphia: American PhilosophicalSociety.

DARNELL, RECNA D.

1970 The Development of American Anthropology1879-1920: From the Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy to Franz Boas. Ph. D. diss.. University of Pennsyl-vania, Philadelphia. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms,Inc.

1982 Franz Boas and the Development of PhysicalAnthropology in North America. Canadian Journal ofAnthropology 3:101-12.

1992 The Boasian Text Tradition and the History ofCanadian Anthropology. Culture 17(l):39-48.

1998 And Along Came Boas. Continuity and Revolutionin Americanist Anthropology. Amsterdam Studies inthe Theory and History of Linguistic Science. SeriesIII, Studies in the History of the Language Sciences,86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

DEMIDOVA, E. G.

1984 Svedeniia ob orokakh v trudakh Bertol'da Laufera(Data about the Orok in Bertold Laufer's publications).In Kul'tura narodov Dal'nego Vostoka. Traditsii isovremennost'. Pp. 193-7. Vladivostok.

1992 Issledovaniia Jesupovskoi ekspeditsii in Severo-Vostoke Sibiri Cesup Expedition surveys in the Sibe-rian Northeast). Voprosy istorii Dal'nego Vostoka RossiiV otechestvennoii i zarubezhnoi istoriografii.Vladivostok.

1998 Rossiiskie uchastnikijesupovskoi ekspeditsii (Rus-sian participants in the Jesup Expedition). In Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdu korennym naseleniemtikhookeanskogo poberezhiia Severo-Zapadnoi Amerikii Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. K WO-letiiu JesupovskoiSevero-Tikhookeanskoi ekspeditsii (Historical-culturalcontacts between aborigines of the Pacific Coast ofnorthwestern America and northeastern Asia. For thecentenary of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition). A.R. Artem'ev, ed. Pp. 111-4. Proceedings of interna-tional conference. Vladivostok: Institute of History,Archaeology, and Ethnography of the Peoples of theFar East.

DEXTER, RALPH W.

1976 The Role of F. W. Putnam in Developing Anthro-pology at the American Museum of Natural History.Curator 19:303-10.

DURR, MICHAEL, ERICH KASTEN, AND ECON RENNER, EDS.

1 992 Franz Boas: Ethnologe, Anthropologe undSprachwissenschaftler: Ein Wegbereiter dermodernen Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Berlin:Staatsbibliothek.

3 1 0

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

FITZHUCH, WILLIAM W.

1994 Crossroads of Continents: Review and Prospects.In Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. William W.Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonnet, eds. Pp. 27-52.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1996 Jesup II: Anthropology of the North Pacific. North-ern Notes 4:41-62. Hanover, NH.

FITZHUCH, WILLIAM W., AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET, EDS.1994 Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

FITZHUCH, WILLIAM W., AND ARON CROWELL

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Beringian Oecumene.In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds.Pp. 9-16. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress

FITZHUCH, WILLIAM W., AND ICOR KRUPNIK

1992 "Jesup-2": New Interdisciplinary Perspective onthe Anthropology of the Beringia/North Pacific Area.Manuscript. Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Insti-tution, Washington, DC.

1994 The Jesup II Research Initiative: AnthropologicalStudies in the North Pacific. Arctic Studies CenterNewsletter (jesup II Newsbrief). Washington, DC: Arc-tic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution.

FREED, STANLEY A., RUTH S. FREED, AND LMIAWILLIAMSON

1988a The American Museum's Jesup North PacificExpedition. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofSiberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds. Pp. 97-103. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

1988b Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolution-aries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902).American Anthropologist 90(1 ):7-24.

1988c Scholars amid Squalor. Natural History97(3):60-8.

CRABURN, NELSON H. H.

1998 Constructing Cultures Then and Now. AmericanAnthropologist 100(4): 1009-1 3.

CURVICH, IL'IA S., ED.

1981 Traditsionnye Kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi/Awer/'/c/(Traditional cultures of North Siberia and NorthAmerica). Papers from the Soviet-American Sympo-sium, 1979. Moscow: Nauka.

CURVICH, IL'IA S., AND LYUDMIL^ P. KUZ'MINA

1985 W. Bogoras et W. Jochelson: Deux eminent

representants de I'ethnographie Russe. Inter-Nord

17:145-51. Paris.

HARKIN, MICHAEL

1997 The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and Historyon the Northwest Coast. Lincoln: University of Ne-braska Press.

HATCH, ELVIN

1973 Theories of Man and Culture. New York: Colum-bia University Press [on Boas, pp. 37-70].

HINSLEY, CURTIS, AND BILL HOLM

1976 A Cannibal in the National Museum: The EarlyCareer of Franz Boas in America. American Anthro-pologist 78(2): 306-16.

HOLLOWAY, MARCUERITE

1997 The Paradoxical Legacy of Franz Boas. NaturalHistory 106(10):86-9.

JACKNIS, IRA

1996 The Ethnographic Object and the Object of Eth-nology in the Early Career of Franz Boas. In Volksgeistas Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnographyand the German Anthropological Tradition. George W.Stocking, Jr., ed. Pp. 185-214. History of Anthropol-ogy, 8. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

JANTZ, RICHARD L., ED.

1995 The Population Biology of Late Nineteenth-Cen-tury Native North Americans and Siberians: Analysisof Boas' Data. Special issue. Human Biology 67(3).

JANTZ, RICHARD L., DAVID R. HUNT, ANTHONY B.FALSETTI, AND PATRICK J. KEY

1992 Variation among North Amerindians: Analysisof Boas' Anthropometric Data. Human Biology64(3):435-61.

JONAITIS, ALDONA

1988 From the Land of the Totem Poles: The North-west Coast Indian Art Collection at the American Mu-seum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press [pp. 154-211].

1991 Chiefly Feasts: The Creation of an Exhibit. InChiefly Feasts. The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch. AldonaJonaitis, ed. Pp. 21-70. Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press; New York: American Museum of Natu-ral History.

1992 Franz Boas, John Swanton, and the New HaidaSculpture at the American Museum of Natural His-tory. In The Early Years of Native American Art His-tory: The Politics of Scholarship and Collecting.] .C.Berlo, ed. Pp. 22-61. Seattle: University of Washing-ton Press; Vancouver: UBC Press.

1999 The Yuquot Whalers' Shrine. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press.

ICOR KRUPNIK

KAN, SERGEI

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, WhyShternberg's "The Social Organization of the Cilyak"Never Appeared among the Jesup Expedition Publi-cations. European Review of Native American Stud-ies 14(2): 19-38.

KASTEN, ERICH

1992 Masken, Mythen und Indianer: Franz Boas'Ethnographic und Museumsmethode. In Franz Boas:Ethnologe, Anthropologe und Sprachwissenschaftler:Ein Wegbereiter der modernen Wissenscliaft vomMenschen. Michael Diirr, Erich Kasten, and EgonRenner, eds. Berlin: Staatsbibliothek.

1996 Politische Organisation bei nordpazifischenKustenvolkern. In Kulturen und Innovationen.Festschrift fCir Wolfgang Rudolph. C. Elwert, J. Jensen,and I. Kortt, eds. Pp. 293-320. Berlin: Duncker undHumblot.

KENDALL, LAUREL, BARBARA MATHE, AND THOMAS R.MILLER, EDS.

1997 Drawing Shadows to Stone: The Photography ofthe Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902. NewYork: American Museum of Natural History; Seattle:University of Washington Press.

KRUPNIK, IGOR

1996 The "Bogoras Enigma": Bounds of Culture andFormats of Anthropologists. In Grasping the Chang-ing World. Anthropological Concepts in the PostmodernEra. Vaclav Hubinger, ed. Pp. 35-52. London:Routledge.

1998 "Jesup Genealogy": Intellectual Partnership andRussian-American Cooperation in Arctic/North Pa-cific Anthropology (from the Jesup Expedition to theCold War, 1897-1948). Arctic Anthropology35(2): 199-226.

2000 Jesup-2: The Precious Legacy and a CentennialPerspective. European Review of Native AmericanStudies 14(2): 1-2.

KUZ'MINA, LYUDMILA P.

1981 Fol'klor eskimosov (po materialam V. G.Bogorasa) (Folklore of the Eskimos [according to datacollected by Waldemar Bogoras]). In TraditsionnyeKul'turySevernoiSibiriiSevernoiAmeriki. I. S. Curvich,ed. Pp. 200-12. Moscow: Nauka. Reprinted in En-glish in Cultures of the Bering Sea Region, Henry N.Michael and James VanStone, eds. (New York: Inter-national Research and Exchange Board, 1983).

1989 Iz istorii russko-amerikanskogo sotrudnichest-va (Jesupovskaia Severo-Tikhookeanskaia eksped-itsiia 1900-1902 gg.) (On the history of Russian-

3 1 2

American cooperation [The Jesup North Pacific Ex-pedition, 1900-1902]). Sovetskaia etnografiia 6:90-9. Moscow.

1994 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: A History ofRussian American Cooperation. In Anthropology ofthe North Pacific Rim. William W. Fitzhugh and ValerieChaussonnet, eds. Pp. 63-77. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

LEE, MOLLY

1998 Exhibition review: Drawing Shadows to Stone.American Anthropologist 100(4, Sept.): 1005-9.

MANDELSTAM BALZER, MARJORIE

1996 Introduction. In "Classics" (Stars) of Russian An-thropology. Special issue. Anthropology and Archeol-ogy of Eurasia 35(3):6-l 1.

MARK, JOAN

1980 Four Anthropologists: An American Science in ItsEarly Years. New York: Science History Publications[see, in particular, ch. 2, "Frederic Ward Putnam," pp.39-41].

MAUD, RALPH

1982 A Guide to B.C. Indian Myth and Legend: A ShortHistory of Myth Collecting and a Survey of PublishedTexts. Vancouver: Talonbooks [pp. 47-62 on Boas;pp. 63-77 on James Teit; pp. 81-96 on the JesupExpedition].

1 989 The Henry Tate-Franz Boas Collaboration onTsimshian Mythology. American Ethnologist16(0:158-62.

MICHAEL, HENRY N., ED.

1979 A US-USSR Symposium on the Peopling of theNew World. Special issue. Arctic Anthropology 16(1).

MICHAEL, HENRY N., AND JAMES VANSTONE, EDS.

1983 Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers froman International Symposium. New York: InternationalResearch and Exchange Board.

MITHUN, MARIANNE

1996 The Description of the Native Languages ofNorth America: Boas and After. In Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, vol. 1 7. Languages. Ives Coddard,ed. Pp. 43-63. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institu-tion.

OUSLEY, STEPHEN P.

1995 Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians,and Aleuts: Old Data, New Perspectives. Human 6/-o/o^k67(3):427-58.

2000 Boas, Brinton, and the Jesup North Pacific Expe-dition: The Return of the Americanoids. EuropeanReview of Native American Studies 14(2): 11-17.

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

PERKINS, JOHN

1981 To the Ends of the Earth: Four Expeditions to theArctic, the Congo, the Gobi, and Siberia. New York:Pantheon Books [pp. 1 36-75].

ROBINSON, ELLEN W.

1976 Harlan I. Smith, Boas, and the Salish: UnweavingArcheological Hypotheses. Northwest Anthropologi-cal Research Notes 10(2): 185-96.

ROHNER, RONALD P.

1966a Franz Boas: Ethnographer on the NorthwestCoast. In Pioneers of Anthropology. J. Helm, ed. Pp.149-212. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1966b Franz Boas among the KwakiutI: Interviewwith Mrs. Tom Johnson, in Pioneers of Anthropol-ogy. J. Helm, ed. Pp. 21 3-45. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

ROHNER, RONALD P., ED.

1969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Dia-ries of Franz Boas Written on the Northwest Coastfrom 1886 to 1931. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress [pt. 3, Research for the Jesup Expedition (1897-1901), letters of 1897 and 1900, pp. 201-70].

SLOBODIN, SERGEI B.

1998 Deiatel'nost'Jesupovskoi expeditsii naOkhotskom poberezh'e, Kolyme i Chukotke v1900-1902 gg. Gesup Expedition activities alongthe Sea of Okhotsk coast, in the Kolyma andChukotka regions, 1900-1902). In Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdu korennym naseleniemtikhookeanskogo poberezhiia Severo-ZapadnoiAmeriki i Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. K lOO-letiiuJesupovskoi Severo-Tikhookeanskoi ekspeditsii (His-torical-cultural contacts between aborigines of thePacific Coast of northwestern America and north-eastern Asia. For the centenary of the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition). A. R. Artem'ev, ed. Proceed-ings of international conference. Vladivostok: In-stitute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnographyof the Peoples of the Far East.

SLOBODIN, SERGEI B., AND N. S. SLOBODINA

1998 Nekotorye problemy izucheniia materialovekspeditsii Jesupa 1900-1902 gg. na krainem Severo-Vostoke (Some problems in studying the Jesup Ex-pedition materials of 1900-1902 from the Far North-east [of Russia]). In Istoriko-kul'turnye sviazi mezhdukorennym naseleniem tikhookeanskogo poberezhiiaSevero-Zapadnoi Ameriki i Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. KlOO-letiiu Jesupovskoi Severo-Tikhookeanskoiekspeditsii (Historical-cultural contacts between

aborigines of the Pacific Coast of northwesternAmerica and northeastern Asia. For the centenary ofthe Jesup North Pacific Expedition). A. R. Artem'ev,ed. Pp. 106-9. Proceedings of international confer-ence. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology,and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East.

STOCKING, GEORGE W., JR., ED.

1996 Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on BoasianEthnography and the German Anthropological Tradi-tion. History of Anthropology, 8. Madison: Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press.

SUTTLES, WAYNE, AND ALDONA JONAITIS

1990 History of Research in Ethnology. In Handbookof North American Indians, vol. 7. Northwest Coast.Wayne Suttles, ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian In-stitution [pp. 75-7 on Boas/JNPE contribution].

THOM, BRIAN

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition. European Review of NativeAmerican Studies 14(2):3-l 0.

VAKHTIN, NIKOLAI B.

1993 JESUP-2: Novaia programma sotsial'no-antropologicheskikh issledovanii na Severe (JESUP-2:A new program of social and anthropological re-search in the North). Kunstkamera. Ethnograficheskietetradi 1:211-3. St. Petersburg.

WARDWELL, ALLEN

1988 Objects of Bright Pride: Northwest Coast IndianArt from the American Museum of Natural History.Seattle: University of Washington Press; New York:American Federation of Art [pp. 29-33].

WHITE, LESLIE

1963 The Ethnography and Ethnology of Franz Boas.Texas Memorial Museum Bulletin, 6. Austin.

13. Biographies, Obituaries, and MajorPersonal Essays on JNPE Participants

Aldona Jonaitis' From the Land of the Totem Poles (] 988)offers extensive and fairly complete personal entrieson several members of the North American JesupExpedition field team, including Franz Boas (pp. 122-53), George Hunt (pp. 1 71-86), James Teit (pp. 186-90), Livingston Farrand (pp. 190-1), Harlan Smith (pp.193-7), and John Swanton (pp. 197-201), as well asreviews of their contributions to the Jesup Expeditionactivities.

IGOR KRUPNIK

3 1 3

Franz Boas, 1852-1942

ANDREWS H. A., ETAL.

1943 Bibliography of Franz Boas. American Anthro-pologist 4S{3), pt. 2:67-109.BERMAN, JUDITH

1991 The Seals' Sleeping Cave: The Interpretation ofBoas' Kwak'wala Texts. Ph.D. diss., University of Penn-sylvania, Department of Anthropology, Philadelphia.

1992 Native Ethnographers: Franz Boas, GeorgeHunt and the Native Point of View. Paper presentedat the symposium "Fifty Years Later: The Legacyof Franz Boas," Barnard College, New York, Octo-ber.

CODERE, HELEN

1966 Introduction. In Franz Boas. KwakiutI Ethnogra-phy. Helen Codere. ed. Pp. xi-xxxii. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

COLE, DOUGLAS

1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest

Coast Artifacts. Seattle: University of Washington

Press [pp. 102-64].1999 Franz Boas: The Early Years, 1858-1906.

Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre; Seattle: University

of Washington Press.

GOLDSCHMIDT, W., ED.

1959 The Anthropology of Franz Boas: Essays on theCentennial of His Birth. Memoirs of the American An-thropological Association, 89.

JACKNIS, IRA

1984 Franz Boas and Photography. Studies in VisualCommunication 10(l):2-60.

KROEBER, ALFRED L.

1943 Franz Boas: The Man. American Anthropologist45(3), pt. 2:5-26.

LA.UFER, BERTHOLD

1906 Prefatory. In Boas Anniversary Volume: An-thropological Papers Written in Honor of FranzBoas . . . Presented to Him on the Twenty-fifthAnniversary of His Doctorate. Pp. vii-xiv. NewYork: G. E. Stechert.

LESSER, ALEXANDER

1968 Boas, Franz. In International Encyclopedia of theSocial Sciences, vol. 2. D. Sills, ed. Pp. 99-110. NewYork: Macmillan and Free Press.

LOWIE, ROBERT H.

1947 Franz Boas, 1858-1942. In National Academy ofSciences, Biographical Memoirs, 24(3). Pp. 303-20.Washington, DC.

ROHNER, RONALD P., ED.

1969 The Ethnography of Franz Boas. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press [see, in particular, pp. 308-13].

3 1 4

STOCKING, GEORGE W., JR.

1973 Boas, Franz. In Dictionary of American Biography,supp. 3. E. T.James, ed. Pp. 81-6. New York: Scribner.

1974 Introduction. In The Shaping of American An-thropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader.George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. New York: Basic Books.

Waldemar Bogoras, 1865-1936

ALKOR, IAN P.

1935 V. G. Bogoraz-Tan. Sovetskaia etnografiia 4-5:5-31. Leningrad. Translated \r\ Anthropology andArcheology of Eurasia 35(3):43-72 (1996-97).

BOAS, FRANZ

1937 Waldemar Bogoras. American Anthropologist39(2):314-5.

KRADER, UWVRENCE

1 968 Bogoraz, Vladimir G.; Sternberg, Lev Y.; andJochelson, Vladimir. In International Encyclope-dia of the Social Sciences, vol. 2. D. L. Sills, ed.Pp. 116-9. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

VDOVIN, INNOKENTII S.

1 949 Predislovie redaktora (Editor's preface). InV. G. Bogoraz, Materialy po iazyku aziatskikheskimosov. Pp. 3-24. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.

1991 a Posleslovie (Afterword). In V. G. Bogoras, Mater-ial'naia kul'tura chukchei. Pp. 211-22. Moscow:Nauka.

1991b V. C. Bogoraz-Tan—uchenyi, pisatel',obshchestvennyi deiatel' (W. G. Bogoras-Tan—sci-entist, novelist, and public figure). Sovetskaiaetnografiia 2:82-92. Moscow.

ZELENIN, DMITRII K.

1937 V. G. Bogoraz—etnograf i fol'klorist (W. G. Bog-oras: ethnographer and folklorist). In Pamiati V. C.Bogoraza (1865-1936). 1.1. Meshchaninov, ed. Pp. v-xviii. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Roland B. Dixon, 1875-1934

MURRAY, STEPHEN O.

1991 Dixon, Roland B. In International Dictionary ofAnthropologists. C. Winters, ed. Pp. 149-50. New York:Garland.

TOZZER, ALFRED M., AND ALFRED L. KROEBER

1936 Roland Burrage Dixon. American Anthro-pologist 3,d>{2):29\-3,00 [with full bibliography].

Livingston Farrand, 1867-1939

GATES, PAUL W.

1958 Farrand, Livingston. In Dictionary of AmericanBiography, 22, supp. 2. E. T. James, ed. Pp. 1 76-8.New York: Scribner.

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

MAUD, RALPH

1982 A Guide to B.C. Indian Myth and Legend: A ShortHistory of Myth-Collecting and a Survey of PublishedTexts. Vancouver: Talonbooks [pp. 84-6].

Gerard Fowke, J 855-1933

OHIO ARCHEOLOCICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

1929 Gerard Fowke. Ohio Archeological and HistoricalQuarterly 38:200-18.

SHETRONE, H. C.

1944 Fowke, Gerard. In Dictionary of American Biogra-phy, 21, supp. 1. H. E. Starr, ed. Pp. 31 5-6. New York:Scribner.

George Hunt, 1854-] 933

BERMAN, JUDITH

1994 George Hunt and the Kwak'wala Texts. Anthro-pological Linguistics 36(4):482-514.

CANNIZZO, JEANNE

1983 George Hunt and the Invention of KwakiutI Cul-ture. Canadian Reviewof Sociology and Anthropology20(l):44-58.

JACKNIS, IRA

1991 George Hunt, Collector of Indian Specimens. InChiefly Feasts: The Enduring KwakiutI Potlatch. AldonaJonaitis, ed. Pp. 1 77-224. Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press; New York: American Museum of Natu-ral History.

1992 George Hunt, KwakiutI Photographer. In Anthro-pology and Photography, 1860-1920. ElizabethEdwards, ed. Pp. 143-51. New Haven and London:Yale University Press in association with the RoyalAnthropological Institute.

Waldemar Jochelson, 1855-1937

DR. WALDEMAR JOCHELSON

1930 American Anthropologist 32(2):375-7.KOCHESHKOV, N. V.

1994 Zabytoe imia: Zhizn' i trudy Vladimira lochelsona(A forgotten name: Life and deeds of Wal-demarJochelson). Rossia i ATR 2. Vladivostok.

SHAVROV K. B.

1935 V. I. Jochelson. Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:3-13.Leningrad.

Dina L. Jocheison-Brodsky, 1864-/ 94 /

CURVICH, IL'IA S.

1963 Polevye dnevniki V. I. Jochelsona i D. L.Jochelson-Brodskoi (Field diaries of WaldemarJochelson and Dina Jocheison-Brodsky). TrudyInstituta etnografii 85:248-58. Moscow.

KALASHNIKOFF, NICHOLAS

1943 Dr. D. L. Jochelson. Novoe RusskoeSlovo (Sur\& 9).New York.

Berthold Laufer, 1874-1934

DEMIDOVA E. G.

1978 Issledovaniia Bertolda Laufera na Sakhaline(Berthold Laufer's research on Sakhalin Island). InKul'tura narodov Dal'nego Vostoka Sibiri (XIX-XX w.).V. V. Podmaskin, ed. Pp. 116-22. Vladivostok:Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

KENDALL, LAUREL

1 988 Young Laufer on the Amur. In Crossroads of

Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W.

Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. P. 104. Washington,

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.1991 Laufer, Berthold. In International Dictionary of

Anthropologists. C. Winters, ed. Pp. 383^. New York:

Garland.

LATOURETTE, K. S.

1936 Berthold Laufer, 1874-1934. In National Acad-emy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs, 18. Pp. 43-68. Washington, DC.

LeoShternberg, 1861-1927

AL'KOR (KOSHKIN), IAN P.

1933 L. la. Shternberg kak issledovatel' narodovDal'nego Vostoka (L. Ya. Shternberg as a scholar ofthe peoples of the [Russian] Far East). In L. Ya.Shternberg, Ciliaki, orochi, goi'dy, negidal'tsy, ainy.Pp. xi-xl. Khabarovsk: Dalgiz.

ANONYMOUS

1930 Lev Yakovlevich Shternberg: vazhneishiebiograficheskie daty (Leo Ya. Shternberg: major bio-graphic dates). Ocherki po istorii znanii 7:7-19.Leningrad.

BOCORAZ-TAN, VLADIMIR G. (BOCORAS, WALDEMAR)

1927 L. la. Shternberg kak chelovek i uchionyi (L. Ya.Shternberg: The man and the scholar). Etnografiia4(2):271-82. Leningrad.

1928 L. la. Shternberg kak etnograf (L. Ya. Shternbergas an ethnographer). Sbornik Muzeia Antropologii iEtnografii 7:4-28. Leningrad. Translated in Anthro-pology and Archeology of Eurasia 3 5(3): 1 7^2 (1996-97).

GAGEN-TORN, NINA I.

1975 Lev Yakovlevich Shternberg (Leo Ya. Shternberg).Moscow: Nauka.

GRANT, BRUCE

1 999 Foreword. In Lev Shternberg, The Social Organi-zation of the Gilyak. Bruce Grant, ed. Pp. xxiii-lvi.

IGOR KRUPNIK

3 1 5

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum ofNatural History, 82. New York.

KAGAROFF, EUGENE

1929 Leo Sternberg. American Anthropologist31(2):568-71.

KAN, SERGEI

2000 The Mystery of the Missing Monograph: Or, WhyShternberg's "The Social Organization of the Gilyak"Never Appeared among the Jesup Expedition Publi-cations. European Review of Native American Stud-ies 14(2): 19-38.

OLDENBURG, SERGEI F., AND A. N. SAMOILOVICH, EDS.

1930 Pamiati L. la. Shternberga (1861-1927) (Inmemory of L. Ya. Shternberg). Leningrad: AcademiiaNauk SSSR [list of publications, pp. 7-19].

VINNIKOV, I.

1928 Leo Shternberg. Anthropos 23:1 35^0.Harlan I. Smith, 1872-1940

LEECHMAN, DOUGLAS

1 949 Bibliography of Harlan I. Smith. National Mu-seum of Canada Bulletin 112. Annual Report ofthe National Museum, 1939-1940. Pp. 8-14. Ot-tawa.

THOM, BRIAN

2000 Precarious Rapport: Harlan I. Smith and the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition. European Review of NativeAmerican Studies 14(2):3-l 0.

WINTEMBERG, W.J.

1940 Harlan Ingersoll Smith. American Antiquity6(l):63-4.

John R.Swanton, 1873-1958

COLLINS, HENRY B.

1968 Swanton.John Reed. In International Encyclope-dia of the Social Sciences, vol. 2. D. L. Sills, ed. Pp.439-41. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

FENTON, WILLIAM N.

1959 John Reed Swanton. American Anthropologist

61(4):663-8.

KROEBER, ALFRED L.

1940 The Work of John Swanton. In Smithsonian Mis-cellaneous Collection, 1 00 (Essays in Historical An-thropology of North America Published in Honor ofJohn R. Swanton). Pp. 1-10. Washington, DC.

MURRAY, STEPHEN O.

1991 Swanton, John Reed. In International Dictionaryof Anthropologists. C. Winters, ed. P. 680. New York:Garland.

NICHOLS, FRANCES S.

1940 Bibliography of Anthropological Papers by JohnR. Swanton. In Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection,100 (Essays in Historical Anthropology of NorthAmerica Published in Honor of John R. Swanton). Pp.593-600. Washington, DC.

James A.Teit, 1864-1922

BOAS, FRANZ

1922 James A. Teit. American Anthropologist24(4):490-2.

CAMPBELL, PETER

1 994 "Not as a White Man, Not as a Sojourner": JamesA. Teit and the Fight for Native Rights in British Co-lumbia, 1884-1922. Left History 237-S7.

MAUD, RALPH

1982 A Guide to B.C. Indian Myth and Legend: A ShortHistory of Myth-Collecting and a Survey of PublishedTexts. Ch. 4, pp. '61-11. Vancouver: Talonbooks.

WICKWIRE, WENDY C.

1988 James A. Teit: His Contribution to CanadianEthnomusicology. Canadian Journal of Native Stud-ies 8(2): 183-204.

1 993 Women in Ethnography: The Research of JamesA. Teit. £f/ino/i/5forK40(4):539-62.

3 1 6

THE RESOURCES/ PUBLICATIONS

photographic Records of theJesup Expedition

A Review of the AMNM Thoto CoHection

PAULA WILLEY

with afterword by Barbara Mathe

About 3,414 photographs taken by members of theJesup North Pacific Expedition GNPE) during the years1897 to 1902 exist as prints or negatives on file at theAmerican Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in NewYork. The following photographers are associated withthe AMNH Jesup Expedition Collection:

[Axelrod, Alexander][Bogoras, Sophia]Bogoras, Waldemar, 1865-1936Buxton, N. G.

Dixon, Roland Burrage, 1875-1934Fowke, Gerard, 1855-1933French of Tacoma (?)Hastings, Oregon ColumbusHunt, George, 1854-1933Jochelson, Waldemar, 1855-1937Uochelson-Brodsky, Dina, 1864-1941]Laufer, Berthold, 1874-1934Ninaud, EmileOrchard (?)Savannah (?)

Smith, Harlan Ingersoll, 1872-1940

Names in square brackets are not directly noted onthe photographic documentation; their inclusion isbased on references in letters or field notes.

Photographs credited to "Bogoras" may have beentaken by either Waldemar Bogoras or his wife, SophiaBogoras [or by Alexander Axelrod, Bogoras' field assis-tant, particularly in the case of photos depicting Bogorashimself—ed.]. Similarly, it is documented that DinaJochelson-Brodsky, Waldemar Jochelson's wife, tookmany of the photographs credited to "Jochelson."

Emile Ninaud was hired by Berthold Laufer to takephotographs of the Native people in the Amur Rivervalley. One of his images has been identified in theAMNH collection; others can be found in the Louis MarinCollection at the Musee National des Arts asiatiques-Guimet in Paris.' "French of Tacoma" and "Savannah"were the names or nicknames of the local photogra-phers in British Columbia hired to make photos on be-half of JNPE members. Oregon C. Hastings, a resident ofVictoria, B.C., worked with Boas on the NorthwestCoast prior to the Jesup Expedition.^ In 1897 and 1898he was contracted by Harlan Smith to assist with siteexcavations, and he also did some photography atthat time (see Thom, this volume). Orchard was anAMNH employee, either a photographer or an Anthro-pology Department technician. Images credited to himare either copy negatives of field photographs or pic-tures of objects taken at the AMNH in New York. [Hedid not participate first-hand in fieldwork—ed.]

Of the approximately 100 Jesup Expedition photo-graphs that depict aspects of the expedition itself,most are credited to Bogoras or Jochelson. Those pri-marily depict camp life or expedition transport. TheJNPE collection contains confirmed field photographsof Sophia and Waldemar Bogoras, N. C. Buxton, R. B.Dixon, O. C. Hastings, George Hunt and his family, DinaJochelson-Brodsky, Waldemar Jochelson, Harlan Smith,James Teit and his wife, and a few local officials andinterpreters. The number of such "personal" images fromthe field is remarkably small (about 30) in comparison

3 1 7

with the overall JNPE photo file of more than 3,000images, but the absence of images of JNPE members inthe field is typical of the time.^

Negatives from the Field

After a negative was exposed, it was sometimes givena number (referred to as the field number) and whenpossible was actually processed in the field. Negativeswere then sent to the Department of Anthropology atthe AMNH.

On arrival in New York, the negatives were pro-cessed (if this had not already been done) and printed.The images were given a unique sequential num-ber in the Anthropology Department files, referred toas the Anthro number. Negative and print numberscorrespond. The images were listed in a four-volumehandwritten catalogue, "The Catalogue of Photo-graphs, Negatives and Memoranda of Prints from Them,"with notations of the original field number and theAnthro number. The field number, negative size, date,photographer's name, subject, and location (site atwhich the photograph was taken or, for studio photo-graphs, where the object was found) were routinelyrecorded in the Anthropology Department logs. Someportions of these logs appear to have been recordedin the field; an example is the notes made for the pho-tographs taken on the 5.5. Danube on the Skeena Riverin 1897. In a letter from that period. Boas complainsthat the choppiness of the river made it difficult towrite, and indeed, the handwriting in the portion ofthe negative list that records the photographs takenon that trip is barely legible.

In many cases the AMNH image number still usedtoday was added to the margin of the catalogue."In addition, marginal references were made to Anth-ropology Department accession numbers. Cataloguenumbers for objects and plaster casts were addedto the list, creating a somewhat complicated butvaluable record of all related information. The nega-tive envelopes were handwritten, with the AMNHnumber prominent, indicating that the negatives

were probably placed in the envelopes some time af-ter their entry into the logbook. To add to the labor ofcomprehensive capture of all the data for each image,the information on the negative envelopes does notalways match that found in the log, with one sourceor the other containing more complete information.

Overall, the four Anthropology catalogues include7,369 images. Of these, about 2,720 are from the JesupExpedition, although only the first 432 are identified assuch in the lists. Occasionally, the accession records inthe AMNH Department of Anthropology hold imagesthat are not duplicated anywhere else in the museum,but can be found in the accession files. Another 694Jesup Expedition photos that were not recorded onthe negative lists can be found as prints in scrapbooksand in files now at the AMNH Library's Special Collec-tions.

Scrapbooks and Prints in the AMNH

As prints were made at the AMNH, many of them werepasted into scrapbooks—large bound volumes—or-ganized in the Department of Anthropology. There arenow six scrapbooks (nos. 2, 3, 20, 30, 31, and 32) andfour boxes of conserved pages from scrapbooks (JNPEnos. 2, 3, 4, and 5) that include vintage prints of pho-tographs taken on the Jesup Expedition. The captionsin the scrapbooks range from a mere identifying num-ber to, in the case of some of Harlan Smith's later pho-tos, page-long typed notes.

Images pasted into the scrapbooks were not ar-ranged in any particular order. Although the order isnot completely random, images photographed at dif-ferent times were arranged in the books, without anysubstantial identification. For example, Hastings' pho-tographs taken on Boas's 1894 trip to the NorthwestCoast begin scrapbook 30, which then continuesseamlessly with the 1897 images made by Smith forthe Jesup Expedition. Smith's later work through 1909is also included in the same volume. While some tem-poral organization can be discerned, only by match-ing the images with the data in the catalogue can one

3 1 8

THE RESOURCES/ PHOTOGRAPHS

distinguish the different provenances of the images.On the whole, the scrapbooks seem to have beenviewed as a storage medium for prints rather than as ameans of organizing collections by categories.

In addition to the images in the large bound vol-umes, many of the photographs in the AnthropologyDepartment, including some prints from the Jesup Ex-pedition, were transferred to the AMNH Departmentof Education, where they were merged with other pho-tographic collections. Photographs were mounted on10"xl4" cards that were originally placed in peg bind-ers. Ultimately, the cards were removed from the bind-ers and filed in drawers. Each image was marked withthe AMNH number. Since the pictures were used forsubject-based educational purposes, they were notarranged according to the archival principles of prov-enance and original order. As a result, the Jesup photo-graphs were dispersed throughout the collections. Forexample, many of Harlan Smith's images of shell heapsfound their way into a file drawer marked "Archaeol-ogy." George Hunt's photograph of a woman cleaningfish was filed in the "Ichthyology" drawer, under theheading "Halibut—Hippoglossus Linneaus."

Again, copies of photographs that Franz Boas tookon his trip to the Northwest Coast in 1894 wereinterfiled with the Jesup Expedition materials, as weresome later photographs from the same area. Pre-Jesupimages taken by Waldemar Bogoras and WaldemarJochelson in Siberia [in 1895-98; later donated to theAMNH—ed.] were also mixed with the material cre-ated with JNPE funding. In the end, the source of fund-ing and the year of the work become meaninglesswhen one is analyzing the information collected in theimages—a fact tacitly acknowledged by the originalarrangement of the images in the collection.

For purposes of historical research, however—fordetermining whether a photograph was, in fact, takenon the Jesup Expedition—it is necessary to cross-refer-ence the name of the photographer, the place wherethe photograph was taken, and the date, since few ofthe images are labeled as being from the JNPE. Further-

more, because a great deal of documentation waseither lost or never recorded, the researcher often mustextrapolate missing data, using whatever informationis available to fill the gaps. Corrections, additions, andannotations by AMNH staff members and visiting re-searchers have been noted on the versos of many ofthe cards. Visitors to the collection who have personalor family memories of the people or objects in thephotographs may also make amendments to the in-formation. Comments are always signed and dated.

Lydia Dohmerr Collection

In addition to the Jesup Expedition photographs sentback to the AMNH from the field, the AMNH possessesanother small collection of images relating to WaldemarJochelson and Dina Jochelson-Brodsky. In the early1990s, Brodsky's niece, Lydia Dohmerr, donated tothe AMNH a collection of artifacts, correspondence,and personal photographs. The inventory of the col-lection includes 86 photographs: personal photos,snapshots, portraits, and copies of images from thefield. Some of the field photographs appear to be uniqueto this personal collection and cannot be located withinthe other AMNH Jesup material. Dohmerr's donation ofthe Jochelsons' personal photographs to the AMNHwas made possible thanks to Cynthia Wilder, presentlywith the Department of Ancient Near East at the Met-ropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Computer Database

Today, most of the AMNH photographic collections(including the JNPE files) are preserved in the AMNHLibrary's Special Collections. An ongoing effort is be-ing made to reconstruct the provenance of thesematerials in order to facilitate historical research andto restore the integrity of the collection according toclassic archival principles.

All the information about each of the recorded JNPEphotos was recently transcribed into a computer da-tabase. Information from the AMNH Anthropology De-partment negative lists, photo scrapbooks, and file card

PAULA WILLEY

3 1 9

captions are collated, giving a clearer picture of theJNPE collection as a whole. Negative number, field num-ber, date, photographer, content theme, description,source of information, and site of photograph wererecorded for each image. The database also includesseveral photographs that Jochelson and Bogoras tookin Siberia prior to their work with the Jesup Expedition.

The site of each photograph is recorded in the da-tabase in LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings)format, e.g., Russia (Federation)—Siberia—KamenskayoVillage. Several place names, such as the "KamenskayoVillage" cited above are spelled in a variety of ways inthe source materials.'^ Although the original spellingsrecorded with each photo or negative have been pre-served in the database's Subject field, the GeographicArea field has been populated with normalized data.This consistency gives more accurate results whensearching or analyzing data. In some instances, thesite of the photograph was not recorded, or the spell-ing of a place name was so garbled that no matchcould be found. In that case, the narrowest geographicplace that could be established with certainty wasrecorded in the Geographic Area field. For this reason,there are many records in the database with placenames as nonspecific as "Russia," "Siberia," or "BritishColumbia."

Similarly, data in the Culture field has been normal-ized and is recorded in LCSH format. For example,Chukchi is often spelled "Chukchee" in the source ma-terials. The original spelling was transcribed verbatimin the Subject field but appears only as "Chukchi" inthe Culture field.

Each image was assigned one of six content themesby the database compiler, primarily for statistical pur-poses. The categories are as follows:

Archaeology, photographs of excavations, survey

photographs of excavation sites, photographs of

shell heaps and petroglyphs

Architecture: photographs of dwellings, villages,

camps, storehouses, etc.

Ethnography, photographs of activities, objects

Landscape: photographs of terrain

320

Expedition: photographs documenting some aspectof the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, such as trans-port of collections, expedition campsites, portraitsof expedition personnel

Physical type: portrait-like photographs of individu-als, often taken from multiple angles. Northwest Coastphysical-type photographs tend to be from the waistor chest up; the physical-type photos taken in Sibe-ria are more frequently full length.

It should be noted that in most cases these photo-graphs could be assigned to more than one of thesesix themes. For example, many Siberian photographsclassified as "physical type" are full-length portraits ofpeople in traditional dress taken from the front andfrom the rear. Not only do these photographs docu-ment the proportions of the human beings depicted;they also fully document their clothing. For the pur-poses of the AMNH computer database, themes wereassigned on the basis of the photographer's apparentintent when taking the photograph. Quite often, thiscan be difficult to define, as in the case of a physical-type photograph, with the subject holding his shirtopen to reveal a tattoo, suggesting "ethnography" asa theme.

This database allows the image records to besorted, counted, and tabulated in infinite ways. Thefollowing tables in this chapter (Tables 1-5) analyzeeach photographer's work by date, subject theme,ethnic group or tribe, and location. Unfortunately, evenafter extensive research, 332 images (300 of whichare from Siberia) could not be attributed to a particularphotographer, although all but four could be identifiedas having been taken in Siberia or on the NorthwestCoast. These unaccredited photographs are listed as"Unknown, Siberia," "Unknown, NW," and "Unknown,no location."

Any errors in the source information have been in-herited by the database, and the same caveats apply.Information was transcribed verbatim—preservingspelling errors—and, since most of the informationsources are handwritten and sometimes difficult toread, transcription errors do occur. These and other

THE RESOURCES/ PHOTOGRAPHS

shortcomings notwithstanding, the computerized da-tabase of the AMNH photo collection offers an invalu-able new resource for any research on the Jesup Expe-dition fieldwork, outcomes, and history.

Notes

1. The single known image of the Nanay peoplefrom the Amur River area in the JPNE files (nega-tive 41614) is reproduced in Kendall et al. 1997(no. 34) [and in Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:25—ed.]. On other images from the same collections,see White 1 993.

2. For example, Hastings was with Boas in1894. Several of Hastings' excellent photographsof the Kwakwaka'wakw from the Fort Rupert areaare reproduced in Jonaitis 1988:134-74.

3. Largely lacking the self-reflexive instincts oftoday's ethnographers, the members of the JesupExpedition spent more time, energy, and film docu-menting their research subjects than themselves.This is particularly understandable when one con-siders the relative difficulty of creating photo-graphs in the field with large-format cameras, us-ing glass plates (see Mathe and Miller, this vol-ume).

4. The first position in the negative numberindicates the size of the negative:

Prefix Size

1 5" X 7"

2 4" X 5"

3 8"xl0"

4 6" X 8"

5. All Jesup Expedition photographs in theAMNH collection are identified according to thespellings or names of the sites as they existedduring the Jesup Expedition years. In addition,there are some misspellings, particularly for theSiberian names (see Table 5). "Markova" is themodern town of Markovo on the Anadyr River;"Indian Point" is the former Yupik village ofUngaziq, or Chaplino, at Cape Chaplin; and"Mariinski Post" is today's city of Anadyr, at themouth of the Anadyr River. "Kamenskayo" is theKoryak village at Penzhina Bay, now known as thetown of Kamenskoye; "Khodarindsha River" can-not be identified—ed.

Afterword by Barbara Mathe

Paula Willey compiled the Jesup database while work-ing as an intern for the Department of Anthropology in

1996 and refined it during her tenure as Special Collec-tions manager, 1998-99. The database proved invalu-able in the preparation of the Jesup Centenary Exhibi-tion, Drawing Shadows to Stone. Photographing NorthPacific Peoples, 1897-1902, shown at the AMNH in1997, and for the exhibit catalog (Kendall et al. 1997)—the first extensive presentation of JNPE photography in100 years. The database continues to be a useful re-source for researching the unique JNPE photo collec-tion. The information in the database will be reviewedand will soon be integrated into the AMNH Digital Li-brary as part of a larger overall effort to make bothdata and images from the AMNH's photographic col-lections available online. The technology now existsto raise the possibility of a future collaborative effortto combine all the resources pertaining to the JesupExpedition, along with the ongoing work of the Jesup2 scientists, in an integrated Web-based resource. Infact, we see our mission now as being to re-collect Xhecollections, according to the standards of the presenttime and for a much broader audience of potentialusers than Boas and his partners ever envisioned.

References

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell, eds.

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberiaand Alaska. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.

Jonaitis, Aldona

1988 From the Land of the Totem Poles: The North-west Coast Indian Art Collection at the American Mu-seum of Natural History. New York: American Mu-seum of Natural History; Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.

Kendall, Laurel, Barbara Mathe, and Thomas R.Miller, eds.

1997 Drawing Shadows to Stone: The Photography ofthe jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897-1902. NewYork: American Museum of Natural History; Seattle:University of Washington Press.

White, Kenneth.

1 993 Frontieres dAsie. Paris: Imprimerie nationaleeditions.

PAULA WILLEY

32 1

Table 1 / Jesup Expedition Photographs by Photographer and Year

Photographer

1 ooo

1888

1895 1 89d

1897

1898

1899

1900

1900-2

1901

1902

None

Unknown, NWCoast

Unknown, Si-beria

Unknown, Nolocation

1

1

5

222994

Bogoras

184

3

105

115

605

11

Dixon

178

11

Fowke

45

49

4

French

7

Hastings

71

1

Hunt

7

Jochelson

3 1

1

138

634

246

31

Laufer

18

Ninaud

1

Orchard

8

3

Smith

401

113

38

7

Savannah

24

0

Hastings andSmith

19

Total

1

188 1

426

437

56

292

115

1244

246

408

322

THE RESOURCES/ PHOTOGRAPHS

i

Table 2/ Jesup Expedition Photographs by Photographer and Theme

Photographer

Archaeology

Landscape

Ethnography Architecture

Expedition

Physical type

Misc.

Total

Unknown,

Siberia

0

41

97

37

13

104

8

300

Fowke

0

23

2

10

0

0

7

42

Laufer

0

0

0

0

0

18

0

18

Jochelson

0

67

'>'7^

"itit

46

611

22

1,054

M i 1 iH

0

0

11

U

0

n\j

1

n

77

4UD

C5D<1

1Q

1 n?^

Total'

Siberia

0

203

777

14A

78

1,164

70

2/438

Unknown,

NW Coast

1

2

12

0

2

6

5

28

Savannah

0

0

0

0

0

24

0

24

Dixon

3

0

6

2

0

178

0

189

Hastings

and Smith

0

0

0

0

0

19

0

19

Smith

87

24

58

29

9

352

0

559

Fowke

45

0

0

0

0

0

0

45

Hastings

13

0

34

0

1

23

1

72

Ml int

nu

nu

3

1

3

u

AU

71

French

u

U

0

0

U

(J

-J1

Orchard

3

0

5

0

0

3

0

1 1

Total: NWCoast

152

26

118

32

15

612

6

961

Unknown, nolocation

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

4

Fowke,

no location

0

7

1

3

0

0

0

1 1

Totahnolocation

0

7

2

3

0

3

0

15

Grand total

152

236

897

181

93

1,779

76

3,414

PAULA WILLEY

323

Table 3/ Jesup Expedition Photographs by Photographer and Location, Asia

Location

Bogoras

Buxton

Fowke

Hunt

Jochelson

Laufer

Ninaud

Smith

Unlcnown

Total

Northeast,Pacific

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

10

20

34

Russia,(unspecified)

24

0

0

0

894

0

0

1

6

925

Siberia (Sib)

53

17

23

0

129

16

1

0

131

370

Indian Point, Sib

489

11

18

0

129

0

0

0

34

681

KamenskayaVillage, Sib

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

4

KhodarindshaRiver, Sib

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

5

Mariinsky Post,Sib

220

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

222

Markova, Sib

230

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

230

St. LawrenceIsland, Sib

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

StanovoiMountain, Sib

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

4

UnspecifiedJapan Gp)

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

Nugata City, Jp

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

Composite orunknown

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

Total

1,034

28

112

14

1,167

16

1

558

199

3,447

Note: This table includes photographs taken by Bogoras and Jochelson prior to their involvement with the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition.

324

THE RESOURCES/ PHOTOGRAPHS

Table 4/ Jesup Expedition Photographs by Photographer and Location, North America

Location Dixon Fowke French Hastings Hunt Orchard Savannah Smith Unknown Total

Unspecified, BritishColumbia (BC)

6

6

7

1

1

8

0

28

0

57

Alert Bay, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

Bella Bella, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

42

1

43

Comox, BC

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

16

0

19

Douglas, BC

47

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

52

Eburne, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

1 1

Fort Rupert, BC

0

0

0

44

0

0

0

53

4

101

Hammond, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

26

0

26

Harrison River, BC

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

Kamloops, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

42

0

42

Lillooet River, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

Lytton, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

0

25

Musquiam Reserve,BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

Nicola Lake, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

7

River Inlet, BC

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

32

0

33

Skeena River, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

114

0

114

Spences Bridge, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

128

0

128

Steve ston, BC

68

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

69

Thompson River, BC

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

Vancouver Island, BC

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

3

Victoria, BC

0

60

0

39

0

0

25

9

0

133

Unspecified,Washington State(WA)

, 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

4

Granville, WA

61

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

61

Grays Harbor, WA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

PAULA WILLEY

325

Table 5/ Jesup Expedition Photographs by Photographer and Culture

Hast- Jochel- Or- Savan- Un-

CulturG

Bogoras Buxton Dixon

Fowke

French

jugs

Hunt

son

Laufer Ninaud chard

nsh

Smith

known

Total

Chukchi(Chukchee)

287

0

0

nU

nU

U

U

1 L

0

0

0

u

AU

/

Chuvan(Chuvantzy)

27

0

0

nu

A

u

nu

nU

U

0

0

0

nu

u

U

Clayoquot

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

11

Composite orunidentified

41 1

1 7

21

1 Uo

u

JO

c

J

1 Q71 C5 /

0

0

8

nu

J jU

1

Cossack

16

3

0

KJ

0

n

J

0

0

0

u

nu

Yupik (SiberianEskimo)

114

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

117

Even (Lamut)

76

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

78

Evenk(Tung us)

6

1

0

0

0

0

0

144

0

0

0

0

0

8

159

INIVKn (,LiliyaKj

0

0

0

nU

nu

u

u

nu

16

0

0

nu

AU

nu

1 A

l-J^iHanalUa

0

0

0

nu

nu

u

A

u

0

0

3

n

Hi.

Helltsuk (Bella

Rolt3^Deita^

0

0

0

nu

nu

u

nu

0

0

0

nu

7

n

7

1 ti!^ 1 m n

iici rricn(Kamchadal)

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

27

IxOr ydK

16

1

0

nu

nu

nu

n

JO J

0

0

0

A

AU

Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwaklutl)

0

0

0

nu

nu

1 7

1 z

11

nu

0

0

0

A

u

Z 3

cJ

ui

H 1

Nanay (Gold)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Nesquaille(NisQuallie)

0

0

0

U

71

u

u

nu

0

0

0

nu

u

nu

7

NuU"Chah-Nulth (Nootka)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

25

0

1

27

Ntlakyapamuk(Thompson)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

107

0

107

Quileute

0

0

81

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

81

Quinault

0

0

44

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

44

"Russianizednatives"

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Russian

40

6

0

4

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

3

63

Salish

0

0

42

0

0

1 7

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

89

Shuswap

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

Tlingit

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Tsimshian

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

8

Sakha (Yakut)

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

174

0

0

0

0

0

34

212

Yukagir(Yukaghir)

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

253

0

0

0

0

0

60

320

Total

1^34

28

188

112

7

68

7

1,168

16

1

11

25

553

200 3/137

Note: This table includes photographs taken by Bogoras and Jochelson prior to their involvement with the Jesup NorthPacific Expedition. The nineteen photographs credited to Hastings and Smith are listed under Hastings.

326 THE RESOURCES/ PHOTOGRAPHS

index

A

AAA. See American Anthropological AssociationAAAS. See American Association for the Advance-ment of ScienceAAN. See Archive of the Russian Academy ofSciences

Abbreviations used in manuscript, xi, 207, 286Abraham, Otto, 280, 290Acknowledgments, 11-12Ainu, 283, 287-289Alaskan Eskimocomparison of harpoons with Paleolithic types, 21-22

omission from research, 44-45Alaskan Indians, 44, 284Alert Bay, British Columbia, 100, 1 51Aleut

musical recordings, 287-288

omission from research, 44

statistical analysis of anthropometric data, 267-271All-Russian Peasants Union, 229Allen, Edward, 146

American Anthropological Association, 7, 9, 217,231, 309

American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 7, 309

American Indiananthropometric data, 257, 260-261, 270debate concerning origins, 265symbolic representation in art, 1 33

American Museum of Natural HistoryAnthropology Archives, 181, 188Boas' employment, 72-73Department of Anthropology, 21 7exhibits based on the Expedition, 6-7, 1 32funding for Expedition publications, 231, 235, 237Jesup as president, 2Jesup Expedition Collections, 214Jesup North Pacific Expedition Series, 299offer of employment to Jochelson, 81photographic collections, 319-321, 323, 325publications from the Expedition, 300, 302

Smith's employment, 139-140, 157American Philosophical Society, 181-182, 188, 207,217

Americanoid theory, 47, 257, 263-265

Americanoids. See Paleoasiatic groups

AMNH. See American Museum of Natural History

Amur River region, 220, 226-228

Animal-speech songs, 285

Animal spirits, 201, 282-283

Anthropometrics

analysis of North Pacific groups, 270-272

analysis of Siberians, 267-269

assimilation of Northeast Siberian tribes, 22

blending effects of mixed populations, 258-260

Boas' analysis of data, 257-263

computerization of data, 257, 260

data sheets, 252-255, 261

description of materials, 260-263

Mongolian features, 22

multivariate statistical analysis, 266-271

populations measured, 261-262

use of data, 271-272Antko, Lucy, 35, 60, 109APS. See American Philosophical SocietyArchive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 21 7Arctic Studies Center, 7, 297Art

coppers, 120, 130, 168, 189-190

house posts, 149, 155-156, 160, 163

split representation, 1 33

symbolic representation, 133

Tlingit oil dish, 174-175, 203Asakura, Toshimitsu, 290Asiatic Eskimo, 38Athapaskans, 44-45, 287Axelrod, Alexander, 85, 87, 109, 263, 317

5

BAAS. See British Association for the Advancement

of ScienceBAE. See Bureau of American EthnologyBaily, V., 75Ballard, Arthur C, 289

327

Barbeau, Marius, 288, 290Bear festival, 222Bella Bella, 93-94, 143

Bella Coola, 33-35, 45, 93, 96-97, 101, 263, 270Bergsland, Knut, 290Bering Strait

as entryway from Old into New World, 1-2Beringia, 2

Beringia International Park, 6

Berman,Judith, vii, 298

Bibliographies, 309

Biographies, 31 3-316

Biological data. See Anthropometrics

Boas, FranzAmericanoid theory, 47, 257, 263-265anthropometrics, 257-263as associate curator at the AMNH, 29-33attempts to publish Cilyak manuscript after

Shternberg's death, 239-241background information, 29-30, 72-73Central Northwest Coast ethnology, 93-103characteristics of fieldwork, 95-102correspondence with Hunt, 188-190correspondence with von Zach, 75-76delay of Cilyak manuscript completion, 232-233design of thejesup North Pacific Expedition, 2-3ethnographic failures, 94-95evaluation of the Expedition, 44-48fieldwork with Smith, 141-144first meeting with Shternberg, 226-228formation of idea for the Expedition, 73-74funding difficulties, 39-41

kinship research from Fort Rupert census, 194-195

KwakiutI dictionary, 186-188

location of manuscript collections, 207

musicological research, 279-295

North Pacific region fieldwork, 33-36

opposition to missionary activities, 94

personnel for the fieldwork in Siberia, 36-39, 75-82

as photographer on Expedition, 319

photographs of, 49-50, 52

photography instructions, 107

professorship at Columbia University, 4, 9

projects as curator at the AMNH, 29

proposals for expeditions, 65-67

publications from the Expedition, 39-43, 290-291,

300-303, 305-306reaction to publication delays, 229-232, 235-239relationship with Jesup, 40-42, 48relationship with Shternberg, 225-226, 228relationship with the Russian scholars, 21 8, 235resignation from AMNH, 42, 228review of the Expedition, 9, 1 7-24The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of

the KwakiutI Indians, 195, 204-205

the unpublished KwakiutI texts, 1 81 -1 86, 208-211

vision for exhibits, 1 32-1 34Boas, Marie Krackowitzer, 30, 38Boas Linguistic Collection, 207Boas Professional Correspondence, 207Bogoras, Sofia, 38, 55, 85, 31 7Bogoras, Waldemar

anthropometric data collection, 262

arrangements with Boas, 37-38, 77, 82-86

arrest of, 41-42, 78, 219, 229

assistance to Shternberg, 223

background information, 78

beginning of the Siberian expedition, 87

conclusions from research, 46-47

continued research, 48

early anthropological interests, 79-80

establishment of the Leningrad ethnographic school,235

expeditions, 38

funding of expeditions, 40

impact of Russian political upheaval on delay of

publications, 229jailing of, 231

letters from the Russian government, 86musical sound recordings, 280, 282-283, 287as photographer on the Expedition, 109, 317, 319,

322-324, 326photographs of, 54-55, 58-59as political exile, 38, 78

publications from expeditions, 41,43,45, 226, 229-230, 238, 242, 291-292, 300-301, 303-304, 306

relationship with Boas, 218

unpublished manuscripts, 307-308Boyd-Dawkins theory, 21-22BPC. See Boas Professional Correspondence"Bridges of Science" conference, 7Brinton, Daniel Garrison, 258, 265British Association for the Advancement of Science,

30, 33, 66, 107, 112British Columbia. See also specific areas

fieldwork in, 33-36British Navy

gun battle with Kwakwaka'wakw, 184-186, 191Brock, W.F., 75Brotchie, William, 35Bruce, Captain Minor, 44Bumpus, Hermon C, 39, 42, 226Bureau of American Ethnology, 72Burial cairns, 146, 1 56Burial excavations, 150-151, 162Burial grounds, 166Burials

in Nicola Lake region, 1 56Burlin, Natalie, 292

Buxton, N.C., 50, 62, 85, 317, 324, 326

328

INDEX

c

Canadian Museum of Civilization, 140Cannibal dance, 100

Canonical discriminant analysis, 267, 270

Captured Heritage, 25

Casting, 141-142, 146-147, 263

CDA. See Canonical discriminant analysis

Cedar spinning, 90

Census

of Fort Rupert, 190-195

of the Cilyak, 220-221, 249Central Northwest Coast

fieldwork, 93-95

framing, 95-98

Kwakiutlism, 100-102

as a limit case of Boasian anthropology, 102-103

textualism, 98-100Central Student Circle, 79Cephalic index, 258, 266-267Chamberlain, A.F., 301Chicago Fair, 35

Chief Nuxwhailak, 149, 160, 163Chiefly Feasts, 6Chilcotin, 33-34, 44-45Children

socialization of, 183Chilliwack, British Columbia, 288-289Chilula,287Chukchee, 45

Chukchi, 38, 43, 46, 83-84, 268-270, 280-283

Chuvantsy, 268-269

Circle Dance, 281

Clackamas Chinook, 289

Clayoquot, 288

Clayton, John, 34

Clio Channel, 176, 192

Clothing, traditional, 121-122, 131

Codere, Helen, 195

Cole, Douglas, vii, 25, 310

Columbia University

Hunt manuscripts, 188, 207

Rare Book and Manuscript Library, 181, 207Comer, George, 44

Comox, British Columbia, 151-152, 165Computer databases

anthropometric data, 257, 261

photographic collections, 319-321Constantine, Grand Duke, 36, 78Constitutional Democrats, 223Contributors, vii-viiiCoos, 289Copper Eskimo, 288Coppers, 120, 130, 168, 189-190Counter-Enlightenment, 101-102

Cowichan, 288

Cranial index values, 258, 266-267

Creoles, 268-269

Crest dances, 100

Crossroads Alasl<a/Siberia, 6

Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and

Alaska, 5Cultural issues

explaining cultural similarities, 1 7-19

research targets, 8-9Curtis, Edward S., 287-288, 292Cyrillic transliteration, xv

D

Dall,W.H.,44

Dance ceremonial, 199-202Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes, 45Deer-hide tanning, 122-123, 131Deerskin clothing, 121, 131Dendrograms, 267, 269, 271Densmore, Frances, 288-289, 292Dentalium, 183Dirks, Moses L, 290

Dixon, Roland, 66, 109, 148, 305-306, 317-318,

322-323, 325-326DIeda, 100

DNA analysis, 265-266"Dog-offering" ceremony, 124-125Dohmerr, Lydia, 319Dorsey, George, 145-146, 287Drawing Shadows to Stone, 7,131Duncan, British Columbia, 1 52Durkheimians, 225

L

East Asia

domestication of reindeer, 23-24East Siberia

mythology of, 21Eastern Canadian Inuit, 44Eburne, British Columbia, 148-149, 1 55-1 56Edenshaw, Charles, 34, 127, 129Edison phonograph, 256, 279-280Editors' notes, 11Eels, Myron, 292E.J. Brill, 40, 42-43, 240Emmons, C.T., 45

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, 223Engels, 221-222Epic songs, 281

Eskimo. See o/so Alaskan Eskimo; Siberian Eskimoanthropometric data, 267-271Boas' theory of origin, 47, 264"Mongoloid" features, 265

INDEX

329

Ethnographic present, 96Ethnological Survey of Canada, 11 2Ethnomusicology, 279-295Even, 267-269, 280, 282, 284Evenk, 267-269

r

Facial casting, 141-142, 146-147, 263

Facial paintings, 34, 45, 118, 1 29

Farrand, Livingston, 33-34, 45, 93, 141-143, 280,

287, 301-305Feast pipes, 183Fish ceremonialism, 182-183Fool dancers, 199-200Fort Rupert, British Columbia

Boas' fieldwork, 100-101

census, 190-195

grave marker, 120

Hunt's fieldwork, 35

maps of, 190

photographs of, 116-117, 170-171, 173potlatch ceremony, 116-117site plan, 169, 190-191Smith's fieldwork, 143, 149-151watercolor, 1 72Fowke, Gerard, 36-37, 77-78, 109, 301, 317, 322-326

Frachtenberg, Leo Joaquim, 288Framing, 95-98

Franz Boas. The Early Years, 1858-1906, 2 5Eraser River, British Columbia, 143-145, 147Freeman, John, 207

French of Tacoma, 317, 322-323, 325-326From the Land of the Totem Poles, 313

G

Garfield, Victoria, 289

Gender margins, 183

GermanyCounter-Enlightenment, 101-102social theories, 102Volksgeist method, 96, 99

Gillis,FrankJ.,292

Gilyak, 79-80, 220-225

Gilyak manuscriptcomparison with other manuscripts, 241-243completion of first section, 231-232preparation of study for publication, 21 7-218publication delays, 228-239, 242-243publication of portions after Shternberg's death, 239-240

Gondatti, Nikolay, 83Goremykin, Ivan, 36, 77Gorky, Maxim, 234Grant, Bruce, 217

Grave markers, 120, 130, 165

Grave robbing, 146

Gray, Judith A., 292

Grease pole, 1 52

Great Eraser Midden, 148

Gregory, W.K., 301-302

Group marriage, 221-222, 224

M

Haeberlin, Herman, 288, 293Haida, 34, 36, 44, 127, 129, 287Hamatsa, 100

Hastings, O.C., 109, 146-148, 317-318, 322-326

Heiltsuk, 93-94, 97, 100-102, 143

Herder, J.G., 96, 101

Herzog, George, 283, 285, 292-293

Hill-Tout, Charles, 1 31, 141 -142, 144

Hindshaw, W.H., 148

Hisquiat, 288

History People, 201-202

Hitchcock, Ethan A., 36

House posts, 149, 1 55-1 56, 160, 163

Hovey, E.O., 76

Hudson's Bay Company, 183-185

Hunt, Georgebackground information, 35census of Fort Rupert, 190-195collaboration with Boas, 34-36, 38, 93contribution toThe Social Organization and the Secret

Societies of the KwakiutI Indians,] 96-205correspondence with Boas, 188-190fieldwork with Smith, 149-151, 159influence on photographic work from the Expedi-tion, 109KwakiutI dictionary, 186-188location of manuscript collections, 207Nuu-chah-nulth tales, 204participation in the Expedition, 6photograph of, 61

as photographer on the Expedition, 317-319, 322-326

publications from the Expedition, 291site plan, 190-191

the unpublished KwakiutI texts, 181-186, 208-211Hupa, 287

lASSA. See International Arctic Social Sciences

AssociationIgnace, Marianne Boelscher, 1 31Imperial Academy of Sciences, 86Imperial Geographic Society, 80In Boas' Footsteps: One Hundred Years oflnuit

Anthropology, 6IndianischeSagen, 32

330

INDEX

Indians. See o/so Alaskan Indians

similarities between Northwest Coast Indians andPaleoasiatic groups in Siberia, 47International Arctic Social Sciences Association, xiii-

xiv, 7

International Congress of Americanists, 9, 1 7International Research and Exchanges Board, 5Inuit, 44, 284, 288

IREX. See International Research and ExchangesBoard

Itelmen, 38, 46, 268-269

J

Jacobs, Melville, 289Jacobsen, Johan Adrian, 196, 200Jakobson, Roman, 241James, Archille, 164Jenness, Diamond, 288, 293Jesup, Morris K.

Boas' proposal for expedition, 65-66

death of, 1 7, 43

funding of the Expedition, 3, 17, 31, 39-42, 74

photograph of, 49

as president of AMNH, 30

publications from the Expedition, 301-302

relationship with Boas, 40-42, 48Jesup Bibliography, 297-316Jesup centennial activities, 7-8Jesup Expedition Collections, 214Jesup North Pacific Expedition

accomplishments of, 3

anthropology studies, 22

area covered, 20

background information, 29-33

beginnings of Jesup 2, 7-8

bibliography, 297-316

ethnomusicology of, 279-295

evaluation of, 44-48

field of proposed operations, xvi

formation of idea for, 73-74

funding for, 74-75

gateways to Jesup 2, 5-7

goals of, 17, 74, 258

historical significance of, 93

language families, 20, 22

location of groups in anthropometric analysis, 260North Pacific region fieldwork, 33-36photographers, 108-109, 317photography, 106-136, 31 7-319, 322-326planning for the Siberia fieldwork, 71 -88post-Expedition research, 4-5publications from, 39-43, 299-316purpose of, 2results of, 1 7-24

Siberia fieldwork, 36-39, 261-262

Jesup North Pacific Expedition Seriesbibliographies, 309biographies, 31 3-316

contemporary reports of activities, 300-301

contributions advertised but never produced, 300

manuscripts submitted but not published, 300

memoirs of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, 299

obituaries, 313-316

personal essays, 313-316

post-1960 publications, 309-313

post-Jesup comparative publications, 306-307

post-Jesup extensions, 305-306

related publications, 302-304

reports on and reviews of, 302

translations or modified versions of the original, 300

unpublished manuscripts, 307-309JNPE. See Jesup North Pacific ExpeditionJochelson, Waldemar

anthropometric data collection, 262

arrangements with Boas, 37-38, 77, 80-86

arrest of, 234

background information, 78

beginning of the Siberian expedition, 87

conclusions from research, 46-47

continued research, 48

early anthropological interests, 79-80

expeditions, 38-39

funding of expeditions, 40

impact of Russian political upheaval on delay of

publications, 229letters from the Russian government, 86musical sound recordings, 280-282, 287as photographer on the Expedition, 109, 317-319,

322-324, 326photographs of, 50-51, 53, 56, 249as political exile, 38, 78

publications from expeditions, 41 -43,45, 226, 229-230, 242, 293, 300-301, 304-307, 309

relationship with Boas, 218

unpublished manuscripts, 308Jochelson-Brodsky, Dina

anthropometric work, 43, 109, 265-266

diaries, 308 309

Expedition travel, 38, 85

manuscripts, 265-266, 300, 304

as photographer on the Expedition, 31 7-318

photographs of, 51, 56-57, 64Jonaitis, Aldona, 31 3

K

Kalapuya Indian, 288Kamchadal, 38, 46, 268-269Kamtoops, British Columbia, 142, 147-148, 153-154, 162

INDEX

331

Kamloops Indian Band, 132Kan, Sergei, 298Karok, 287, 289

Katzie community, 146, 153, 164

Keeling, Richard, 293

Killer whale mask, 174, 200-201

Kitasato, Takeshi, 289

Klikitat Sahaptin, 289

K'odi's copper, 168

Koryak

Boas' conclusions concerning race, 46Borgoras' fieldwork, 38

multivariate analysis of anthropometric data, 268-269

musical sound recordings, 280-282

photographs of, 124-125, 131-132

plan for fieldwork by Jochelson and Bogoras, 84-85Koryak, 45Krause, Aurel, 45

Kroeber, Alfred, 95, 97, 100, 287, 293Krol', Moisei, 218-220, 223Kronstadt Mutiny, 234

KwakiutI, 94, 151, 191-192, 195-204, 271, 286-288

KwakiutI dictionary, 186-188KwakiutI Ethnography, 1 95, 204KwakiutI texts, 181-186, 208-211Kwakiutlism, 100-102Kwakwaka'wakw

Boas' fieldwork, 45, 100

census of Fort Rupert, 190-195

descent group, 194-195

founding of Fort Rupert, 190

Hunt's fieldwork, 35-36

maps, 1 67, 1 76

photographs of, 90, 11 6-11 7

potlatch, 116-117

secret societies, 195-204

Smith's fieldwork, 1 51

social organization, 1 92-204

unpublished texts, 182-186, 208-211Kwak'wala, 35, 186-188Kwazi'nik, 106, 109

L,

Labrador Eskimo, 271Languages

categorizing Northeast Asian and American lan-guages, 22

significance to cultural boundaries, 101Large, R.W., 94Laufer, Berthold

Chinese expedition, 45

fieldwork in Siberia, 36-37, 76-78, 226

lack of anthropometric data, 262-263

as photographer on the Expedition, 317, 322-324326

publications, 300-301, 307sound recordings, 280Laxtot, 165

LC. See Library of CongressLejeune, Jean-Marie Raphael, 142Leningrad ethnographic school, 235Levi-Strauss, Claude, 97, 99, 241Library of Congress, xv

Lillooet-Harrison Lake, British Columbia, 1 54-1 55Louis, Chief Petit, 126, 1 32Lushootseed Snoqualmie, 289Lydia Dohmerr Collection, 319Lytton, British Columbia, 142-143

M

MAE. See Museum of Anthropology and Ethnogra-phy

"Magic flight" theme, 21, 46Makah, 288

Maritime Koryak, 38, 124, 132Marriage

group marriage, 221-222, 224

polygyny, 193Masks, 174, 200-201Mason, Otis T., 302Methodism, 93-94Migrations

impact on homogeneity of coastal people, 46Missionary activities, 94, 183Mitochondrial DNA analysis, 265-266Mongolian features, 22Mongoloid race, 264-265Mooney, James, 97Morganian evolutionism, 222, 224Murdoch, John, 44

Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, 5, 80-82, 223-226, 231, 234, 237-238, 249

Musicological research, 279-295

Musqueam Reserve, 149, 1 53, 1 55-1 56, 160, 163

Mutch, James S., 44

Myth People, 201

Mythologyanimal spirit realm, 201importance in anthropology studies, 99-100similarities between East Siberian and North PacificCoast peoples, 21

The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians, 96

N

Nanaimo, British Columbia, 152Nanay, 283Narodnaia volia, 38Mass River tribes, 288

332

INDEX

National Image and Mapping Agency, xv

National Museum of Ethnology, 293

National Museum of Natural History, 5

Nelson, E.W., 44, 293

NettI, Bruno, 284

Newcombe, C.F., 36

Nicholas II, Tsar, 36, 78, 229

Nicola Lake, British Columbia, 1 56-1 57

Nikola Valley, British Columbia, 166

NIMA. See National Image and Mapping Agency

Nimpkish River, British Columbia, 151-152

Ninaud, Emile, 317, 322-324, 326

Nivkh, 270

NIaka'pamux, 122-123

Nootka, 44, 202, 204, 266, 288-289

North Pacific Coast

fieldwork in region, 33-36

mythology of, 21

statistical analysis of anthropometric data, 270-272North Saanich, Victoria, 1 52, 1 56Northeast Siberian tribes

assimilation of, 22

musical recordings, 287Northern hunting complex, 284-285Northwest Coast groups

Americanoid theory, 47, 257, 263-265

similarities with Paleoasiatic groups in Siberia, 47Northwestern California tribes, 287, 289Nuu-chah-nulth, 44, 202, 204, 266, 288-289

O

Oakes, Helena, 147, 1 50Oakes,John, 142Obituaries, 313-316Oetteking, Bruno, 1 58, 265, 304Oil dish, 174-175, 203Oowekeeno, 93, 100-102Orchard, 31 7, 322-323, 325-326Oregon tribes, 288-289Orochi, 222Osborn, Henry, 229

r

Paleoasiatic groupsorigination of, 5

similarities with Northwest Coast Indians, 47, 265People's Freedom party, 78-79Peoples of Asiatic Russia, 43People's Will, 219, 234Personal essays, 313-316Petroglyphs, 1 52Phonographs, 256, 279-280Photography

AMNH scrapbooks and prints, 318-321

Boasian visions, 132-134

categories of photographs, 320, 323collecting images, 107-108computer database, 319-321exchanging images, 131-132exchanging vision, 112, 129Expedition photographs, 317-326Jesup photographers, 108-109, 317limitations of, 110-112Lydia Dohmerr Collection, 319negatives from the field, 31 8"physical type" photographs, 107, 114-115, 142,323

representing the past, 1 30-1 31

view camera technology, 109-110

visualizing cultures, 1 29-1 30Physical anthropography. See also Anthropometrics

casting, 141-142, 146-147, 263

"types" of people, 110-111, 140-142, 258"Physical type" photographs, 107, 114-115, 141-

142, 323Pilsudski, Bronislaw, 287, 293Political issues

Cold War, 4

impact on scholarly cooperation, 1Polygyny, 1 93Populists, 218-219

Port Hammond, British Columbia, 144-146, 152-153Potlatch ceremony, 116-117Powell, J.W., 72

Prince Rupert, British Columbia, 143Provisional Government, 234Puget Sound, 1 54Punaluan system, 224

Putnam, Frederic W., 7, 30, 66-67, 72-74, 301

Q

Quileute, 34, 44, 287-288Quinault, 34, 44-45, 287

R

Radloff, Vasily V., 36-38, 76-80, 83-84, 86, 223,249

Rare Book and Manuscript Library, 181, 207RAS. See Russian Academy of SciencesRasmussen, Knud, 4Ravens

importance in mythology, 21, 46Reality effect, 96Reindeer domestication, 23-24Reindeer Koryak, 26, 38, 269Rink, Henry, 291Roberts, Helen, 289, 293-294Russia

Bolshevik coup, 234

relations between expedition organizers and

INDEX

333

government authorities, 76, 86Russian Academy of Sciences, 7, 76, 80, 217, 223Russian Revolution, 43Ryabushinski Expedition, 39

5

Sakha, 280-281, 284

Sakhalin Island, 220-221, 226-228, 287-288

Salish-speaking groups, 39, 45, 1 31, 1 66

Sapir, Edward, 288, 294

Savannah, 317, 322-323, 325-326

Schlegel, Custav, 75

Schupman, Edwin, 292

Science, 30, 301

Seaburg, William R., 294

Seal bawl, 174-175, 203

Secwepemc, 122, 126, 130, 1 32, 142

Seeger, Anthony, 294

Shaman songs, 281-283

Shamanic dances, 100

Shamans, 119, 129-130

Shapiro, Harry, 241

Shared Beringian Heritage Program, 6

Sheikin, Yuri, 282

Shell middens, 145-148, 1 50-1 52Shternberg, Lev

activities following the Bolshevik coup, 233-236

arrangements with Boas, 77

arrest of, 219, 234

background information, 78-79

career in the early 1900s, 223-225

census of the Gilyak, 220-221, 249

completion of first section of Gilyak manuscript, 231 -232

death of, 238-239

delay of manuscript completion, 232-239early anthropological interests, 79-80establishment of the Leningrad ethnographic school,235

ethnographic research, 220-225

exile of, 219-220

first meeting with Boas, 226-228

impact of Russian political upheaval on delay of

Gilyak manuscript, 228-231as a Jewish populist, 218-220photographs of, 249-251as political exile, 79

preparation of Gilyak study for publication, 21 7-218

publications from expeditions, 43, 48, 231-232,239-240, 300, 302

relationship with Boas, 218, 225-226, 228

as social theorist, 221-225Shternberg, Sarra Ratner, 223, 239-240, 249-250Siberia

Americanoid theory, 47, 263-265

anthropometric data, 262developing the research project, 71-88ethnomusicology, 279-295fieldwork in, 36-39mythology of, 21

similarities between Paleoasiatic groups and North-west Coast Indians, 47statistical analysis of anthropometric data, 267-270Siberian Eskimo, 38, 44, 128, 268-270, 280, 283-284

Sibiryakov Expedition, 78-79Simon, Emma Basil, 1 31Skeena River tribes, 288Skullscollections, 263

from Lillooet-Harrison Lake area, 1 54-1 55

long and broad types, 144, 148, 157-158Slaves, 194Smith, Harlan

contributions to archaeology, 157-160

early life, 140-141

financial security concerns, 139, 143-144locations visited during the Expedition, 161marriage, 147

North Pacific region fieldwork, 33-34, 93, 141-1 56photograph of, 62-63

as photographer on the Expedition, 1 08-110, 113,116-1 17, 120-121, 130, 317-319, 322-326

publications from the Expedition, 301, 304-305, 307Smith Oakes, Helena, 147, 150Smithsonian Institution

Arctic Studies Center, 7, 297

National Museum of Natural History, 5Social order

clan-based, 225

information from Fort Rupert census, 192-194The Social Organization and tine Secret Societies of

the KwakiutI Indians, 45, 195-205Song recordings, 279-295Sound recordings, 256, 279-295Southern Athapaskan, 44Spear, Louise S., 294Speck, Frank, 287Spencer, S.A., 35

Spences Bridge, British Columbia, 141-142, 148

Split representation, 1 33

Stejneger, Leonhard, 73

Stem-suffixes, 186-187

Sternberg, Leo, 307

Stumpf, Carl, 279

Swadesh, Morris, 289, 292-294

Swanton.John R., 36, 280, 287, 294, 304-307

T

Tahltan, 270

334

INDEX

Tanabe, Hisao, 288Tanimoto, Kazuyuki, 294Tanning hides, 122-123, 131Tate, CM., 94Taylor, Nellie, 131Teit, James

collection of traditional Indian costumes, 130contributions to photography from the Expedition,109

North Pacific region fieldwork, 33-35,141,148,1 56participation in the Expedition, 6photograph of, 60

publications from the Expedition, 294, 304

Siberia fieldwork, 38Textualism, 98-100Thacker,W.H., 154

Thompson River Indians, 122-123, 130, 280, 286-287

Throat games, 283

T'lat'lasikwala, 184-186

T'tat'tatawidzamga, 61

Tlingit, 45, 174-175, 190, 203, 287-288

Tolowa, 287

Tooth shells, 183

Tsai'qa, 100

Tsar Nicholas II, 36, 78, 229

Tsimshian, 44, 288-289

Tsuchida, Shigeru, 290

Tungus, 269-270, 280, 282, 284

Turano-Ganowanian kinship system, 232

U

U.S. Board of Geographic Names. See National Image

and Mapping AgencyU.S. National Museum, 72U.S. National Park Service, 6

V

Vancouver, British Columbia, 1 52-1 53Victoria, British Columbia, 146-147Villard, Henry, 30

Virchow, Rudolf, 259, 263Vocal games, 283Volia Naroda,2]9,234Volksgeist method, 96, 99von Hornbostel, Erich, 280, 290von Humboldt, Wilhelm, 98von Zach, Edwin, 75-76von Zach, Freiherr Erwin, 37Vowell, A.W., 146

W

Waitz, Theodor, 99Warburg, Felix, 43Warfare

interrogation of captives concerning ceremonials,202-203Washington State tribes, 287, 289Whilkut, 287White, Andrew, 36Wilder, Cynthia, 321Willey, Paula, 325Winser,John H., 72, 74Winter Ceremonial, 99-100, 183, 195-204Wiyot, 287Wolf Dance, 202World War I, 43

X

Xuyalas, 200

Y

Yakima, 287Yakut, 280-281, 284Yukagir, 38, 83, 119, 280, 282Yukara, 281

Yupik, 38, 44, 128, 268-269, 280, 283-284Yurok, 287

Z

Zaieman, Karl, 223

I

I

INDEX

335

3 9088 01007 5174

For information and ordering regarding this or any other volume in the series(Contributions to (Circumsolar/\nt]nropo\oi

please contact:Arctic Studies CenterDepartment of AnthropologyNational Museum of Natural History10th and Constitution N.W.Washington D.C. 20013-7012

(202) 357-2682 phone(202) 357-2684 faxhttp://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic