"If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What Is It?": Toward the Definition of an Alutiiq Twined Spruce...

"If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What Is It?": Toward the Definition of an Alutiiq TwinedSpruce Root Basket TypeAuthor(s): Molly LeeSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 43, No. 2 (2006), pp. 164-171Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316677 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 21:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:32:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316677?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


"If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What is It?": Toward The Definition of an Alutiiq

Twined Spruce Root Basket Type

Molly Lee

Abstract In this article I describe a twined spruce root basket type formerly attributed to the

Tlingit Indians but now accepted as made by the Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimo or Chugach Eskimo) populations of Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, although a few were also collected in Sitka because of the frequent relocation of Alutiiqs during the Russian occupation of Alaska. The research was carried out in several European museums having early Alaskan collections. For the research, I compared documented Tlingit baskets with those collected from the Alu-

tiiqs as early as the 1778 voyage of Capt. James Cook and as late as the 1950s. The two have been found to differ in several ways, most notably in design motifs and their placement on the baskets. The research owes much to ethnographic data from Frederica de Laguna's long-term research in Prince William Sound.

Introduction This publication in honor of Frederica de Laguna is a welcome chance to revisit an article I published in 1981 1 about a hitherto unknown basket type from Prince William Sound, an area in which de Laguna conducted archaeological as well as ethnographic fieldwork. Along with Kaj Birket- Smith's The Chugach Eskimo (Birket-Smith 1953), de Laguna's Chugach Prehistory (1956) and her monumental Under Mount Saint Elias (de Laguna 1972) were pivotal to the unraveling of a mystery related to a particular basket that preoccupied me for several years. In this paper, I recount the cir- cumstances leading to the emergence of the Alu- tiiq (formerly Pacific Eskimo) spruce-root basket type. Further, I synthesize and update the basis for designating this type a "new species."

Genesis of the Alutiiq Basket Research In 1977, shortly after I arrived in Juneau, I began a three-year stint as a volunteer, student intern, and paid tour guide at the Alaska State Museum. For most of that time I occupied a desk in the collections laboratory, where I carried out routine duties under the supervision of Laura (Larrie) Bracken, the assistant collections manager. My desk faced a wall of shelves that housed the Museum's impres- sive collection of several hundred Tlingit baskets. Before moving to Juneau, I had become interested in Native American basketry so was superficially familiar with the types from different geographical areas including Alaska. After my arrival in Ju- neau, I built on this foundation by devouring ev- erything I could find on Alaskan basketry. I delved into George T. Emmons's The Basketry of the Tlin-

MollyLee, University of Alaska Museum, P.O. Box 6860 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-6960

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 164-171, 2006 ISSN 0066-6939; E-ISSN 1933-8139 © 2006 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System



Lee: "If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What is It?" 265

Figure 1. Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimo) Basket. Collected by Judge James Wickersham on Knight Island, Prince William Sound, 1900-1908. Spruce root and grass. 28.5 cm high; base radius, 28 cm. This example is typical of Alutiiq baskets in its use of the " tern-tail /shark's tooth" combination of designs. It also has a lower design field filled with dots, another Alutiiq basket characteristic. Courtesy of the Alaska State Museum. Formerly Cat. No. II-B-370, now Cat. No. II-A-6857. Photograph by Steve Henrikson.

git (Emmons 1903) and Frances Paul's Spruce Root Basketry of the Alaska Tlingit (Paul 1991 [1944]) and learned to recognize the name and design elements of the Tlingit baskets on the shelves oppo- site my desk. Gradually, I was able to distinguish "Half-the-head of a Salmon berry" from "Shark's Tooth," and "Shark's Tooth" from "Backbone," and "Backbone" from "Stickleback Spawn," and so on (Paul 1991 [1944]):49-63.)

One day, for no particular reason, my eye settled on a basket whose decorative motifs did not fit within standard Tlingit basket parameters (Fig. 1). On most, the decorative rows of designs are formed of alternating patterns of the compen- dium illustrated in Paul's useful design taxonomy (Paul 1991 [1944]), but the mystery basket's decorative bands alternated "Shark's tooth" with solid

blocks of contrasting color, a combination I had never seen before. Furthermore, the one or two decorative rows on most Tlingit baskets normally occupy less than half the vertical area of the basket walls. This basket, however, sported three wide decorative bands that took up far more than half the vertical space. Moreover, the section below the bands, which is normally undecorated or has drop-down panels of the same or contrasting design as in the decorative bands, was scattered with polka dots in a most un-Tlingit like way.

Even though the mystery basket's unfamil- iar appearance continued to trouble me, it was several months before I took myself over to the shelf, wrote down its catalogue number (II-B-370), and flipped through the drawers of museum catalogue cards that preceded the computerized data bases



1 66 Arctic Anthropology 43:2

of today. The documentation I found there further intrigued me. The mystery basket, though classi- fied as Tlingit, had been collected between 1900 and 1908 on Knight Island, Prince William Sound by Judge James Wickersham (1860-1939), a prom- inent figure in early 20th century Alaska history. I knew that Prince William Sound was Chugach Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimo), not Tlingit, territory and, as far as I knew, Eskimos did not make spruce root baskets.

Putting the mystery basket's place of collection together with its non-standard style diagnos- tics, however, I began to wonder if I was wrong. Like the dutiful art history graduate student I was, I began a literature search. Almost immedi- ately, I saw that I was indeed mistaken. Kaj Birket- Smith's Chugach Ethnography (1953) illustrated several Prince William Sound baskets similar to the one before me. Further research revealed that the Kodiak Island Alutiiqs, closely related to the Chugach, had also made twined spruce root bas- kets2 (Gunther 1972:186). I also discovered that a number of twined spruce root baskets had been collected in Prince William Sound by early explorers such as Captain James Cook in 1778 (Gunther 1972:Fig. 42), but because de Laguna's Chugach Prehistory (de Laguna 1956) listed no spruce root basketry fragments in her archaeological finds there was a distinct possibility that spruce root basketry had been introduced fairly recently.

Altogether, I turned up in the literature six to eight twined spruce root baskets solidly documented to Prince William Sound. Without ex- amining them, though, it was impossible to tell whether they shared enough similarities as to con- stitute a definable group. Inquiries about Chugach baskets to North American museums proved fruit- less; those I knew about were almost all collected on eighteenth and nineteenth century explorer voyages and were housed in European museums (e.g., Kaeppler 1978:269). Clearly, resolving the ques- tion would require a research trip to Europe. And this, in fact, is what I did. In 1978, long before such trips were a rite of passage for those interested in Native Alaskan material culture (and thanks to a modest traveling grant from the University of Cali- fornia, Santa Barbara, where I was a student) I vis- ited the British Museum and examined Cook and Vancouver collections from 1778 and 1794 respec- tively and also the Museum fiir Volkerkunde, Vi- enna, which also had Cook materials, and the Mu- seum fiir Volkerkunde, Munich (which has some material possibly from the Cook collection) and the Berlin Ethnologisches Museum, which houses the Jacobsen collection (Jacobsen 1977 [1884]; Fienup- Riordan 2005). I measured and photographed baskets in these institutions and began analyzing their designs. The description of the Alutiiq basket type that follows is drawn from research carried out on

this trip and from the article about it that I sub- sequently published (Lee 1981). One of the high- lights of my subsequent career was learning that the Alaska State Museum changed the tribal desig- nation of the Wickersham basket that started it all from Tlingit to Pacific Eskimo (Alutiiq).

What Is an Alutiiq Basket? The twined spruce root baskets of the Tlingit In- dians are extensively reported in the ethnographic record. Less well-known are the similar spruce-root weaving traditions of the Alutiiq people, formerly known as Pacific Eskimo. The Alu- tiiqs, southernmost of the Alaskan Eskimo populations, live in Prince William Sound, at the tip of the Kenai Peninsula, on Kodiak Island, and on the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Their baskets stand as a distinctive type, no lon- ger made and previously unrecognized by west- erners. The few known remaining eighteenth and nineteenth century specimens, most of them de- posited in European museums, show similarities in materials, techniques, and designs that differen- tiate them from Tlingit spruce root baskets of the same time frame. The earliest historic reference to the spruce root basketry of any Alaskan population was a reference to the woven containers of the Alutiiqs of Prince William Sound. In 1778, Captain James Cook, while exploring this area, wrote that the Chugach "brought many. . . baskets so closely wrought as to hold water" (Cook and King 1784:372). Cook was soon followed by Brit- ish Trader John Meares, who wintered in Prince William Sound in 1788-1789. Meares noted that the Alutiiqs had: "a kind of basket made of a sub- stance which holds water, into which a quan- tity of stones is put to make it boil" (Meares 1790: xxxv). At the beginning of the nineteenth century Gavril I. Davydov (1977:165) and Urey Lisian- sky (1814:181) mentioned Koniag (Kodiak Alutiiq) spruce-root twined ware as did Johan H. Holm- berg between 1850-1852, who observed that "in braiding baskets, hats etc. from roots, the Koniag women are like the Tlingits"(1974 [1856] :383).

Fortunately, at least one spruce root basket collected from the Alutiiqs by the 1778 Cook expedition survives (Fig. 2a). The basket is stylistically similar to the two 1794 Vancouver expedition baskets and the one at the Alaska State Museum. Fur- ther, on the basis of style and technical traits, nine other baskets with less secure documentation and dating from 1778 to about 1900, can nonetheless be attributed to the Alutiiq. They form a distinctive style group, therefore suggesting the existence of a heretofore undescribed basket type and one that can be divided regionally into two sub-groups.

Alutiiq baskets3 are usually incorrectly attributed to the Tlingit Indians, whose basketry is very



Lee: "If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What is It?" 1 67

Figure 2. Comparison of Tlingit I) and Alutiiq r) baskets from approximately the same time period (1800- 1850). Tlingit, I): collected by Commander Edward Belcher, probably at Yakutat or Sitka, 1837. Spruce root, grass, and maidenhair fern stem(?). 27.5 cm high; base radius, 24 cm. Courtesy of the British Museum. Alutiiq, r): possibly collected by the Cook Expedition at Prince William Sound, 1778. Spruce root, grass, maidenhair fern stem(?). 23.5 high, base radius, 20 cm. See Gunther 1972:186, 212. Courtesy of the British Museum, Cat. No. NWC 23.

similar, much more widespread, and widely recognized (Fig. 2b). The baskets of both peoples are woven of spruce root {Picea sitchensis) in the two- strand, or plain, twining technique. Decoration oc- curs by a method known as false embroidery, a variation of three-strand twining in which a third strand (usually of another plant fiber of contrasting color, such as grass or maidenhair fern) is in- corporated into the weaving and positioned so as to show on the exterior surface of the basket.4 The similarities between Alutiiq and Tlingit baskets undoubtedly reflect the close geographical proximity of the two peoples as well as the contact through trade and warfare known to have oc- curred between them at least since the early historic period (Davydov 1977:176; de Laguna 1956:9-10).

The study I undertook sought to distinguish between Alutiiq and Tlingit baskets by comparing the documented Alutiiq baskets - and those that are stylistically similar to them - with a sample of Tlingit baskets of approximately the same size and age.5 Five attributes were found to differ between the two basket groups.

First, all of the Alutiiq baskets have concen- tric rings of three-strand twining on the base.6 This feature, while found very occasionally on old Tlin- git baskets, was absent on the Tlingit baskets in the sample. However, basal reinforcing rings, when found in conjunction with the other features dis-

cussed below, may be considered diagnostic of the Alutiiq basket type.

The two groups of baskets differ also in the selection of weft-strand material. In preparation for basket making, spruce roots are first split lon- gitudinally into halves and then the bark is re- moved from the root and discarded. Each half- section is composed of three grades of material: the outer root layer with a glossy surface where it was originally in contact with the bark; a second layer with an unpolished surface; and finally, a pithy inner core, discarded because of its unsuit- ability for weaving. The first layer was usually selected and split into finer strands for the weft of Tlingit baskets, resulting in the smooth, shiny appearance characteristic of Tlingit baskets (Em- mons 1903:235). The second layer of split root has "a fibrous, uneven surface but is of good color and strength, and constitutes the warp or body of most Tlingit baskets" (Emmons 1903:235). Unlike the baskets in the Tlingit sample, most of the Alu- tiiq baskets in the study use the second, unpolished grade of spruce root for weft as well as warp strands, giving the exterior surface of the Alutiiq baskets a matte appearance when compared to the baskets in the Tlingit sample. It is unclear why they chose the materials having a matte texture.

Further distinctions between the Alutiiq and Tlingit baskets can be made on the basis of design layout. The space occupied by design on the Alu-




tiiq baskets is subdivided into primary and secondary design fields. The primary design field, composed oí three of four principal pattern rows, occupies approximately one-half to two-thirds of the upper basket walls. The secondary design field, which may or may not be completely filled in with encircling rows of decoration, is found on the remaining wall space below the primary design field.

On Tlingit baskets, secondary design fields are absent. Instead, a single design field of one or more rows is located at the middle of the basket, or is evenly distributed over the basket walls or high up on the walls. Sometimes the design field of the Tlingit baskets is balanced by auxiliary pattern zones above and/or below the design field and not encircling the radius of the basket. Auxiliary pattern zones are uncommon7 on the Alutiiq baskets.

Perhaps the greatest differences between the two basket samples are in the design-element vo- cabularies. The number of design elements used on the Alutiiq baskets is far more restricted than that used on the Tlingit sample. The Alutiiq baskets show a marked preference for a combination of two design elements known as "Tern Tail" and "Shark's Tooth," a combination found in various interpretations on nine of the thirteen baskets (see Figs. 1 and 2a)8 Although recorded for Tlin- git baskets (Emmons 1903:265; 266), this combination appeared on none of the Tlingit baskets in the study. Another design, a horizontal zigzag known as "Mouth Track of the Woodworm" (Emmons 1903:263) is also used repeatedly, in six of the thirteen Alutiiq baskets. By contrast, there is very lit- tle repetition of design elements among the baskets in the Tlingit sample. Zoomorphic designs, found on two of the Alutiiq baskets, are also reported, although uncommon, for Tlingit baskets (Emmons 1903:Plate 14, Fig. 2; de Laguna 1972:Plate 130).

The Alutiiq baskets studied all use some design elements unknown or unrecorded for Tlingit baskets. These include dots, crosses, parallel and diagonal bars, Xs, and vertical chains. Sometimes these appear in the primary design field in combination with designs also used by the Tlingit, but more often they appear individually in the secondary design fields, as exemplified by the polka dots on the Wickersham basket. As a group, these ex- otic designs are reminiscent of Aleut basket designs. Contact between the Aleut, inhabitants of the neighboring Aleutian Islands, and the Alutiiqs has been documented at least since the late eighteenth century (de Laguna 1972:112).

The original study revealed considerable variation among the Alutiiq baskets I had located. Unfortunately, however, conflicting and incon- clusive documentation made it impossible to determine whether all Alutiiq subgroups made the same varieties.

While the population of Prince William Sound was approximately 1,600 in 1825, in 1933 there were fewer than 100 people in the area (Birket-Smith 1953:18-22). This decimation of the indigenous Alutiiq populations through disease, relocation, and intermarriage left no informants to help determine the proveniences of the baskets. I concluded that a more explicit attribution for the Alutiiq basket type described here would have to wait until additional baskets with secure documentation were found. Nevertheless, on the basis of available documentation and stylistic similarities, it seemed likely that this distinctive Alu- tiiq basket type was woven at least as early as the time of historic contact and as late as the end of the nineteenth century. Finally, using the same evidence, these Alutiiq baskets could be distin- guished from Tlingit baskets of approximately the same time period.

Afterword In conclusion, there are two points I would like to make. First, in the 25 years since the original publication of this research, a substantial number of additional Alutiiq baskets have come to light, many of them in North American collections. Though I canvassed many of these same museums when I began my research, the wording of my in- quiry was responsible for the negative responses I received. I asked about "Pacific Eskimo" baskets - which no one had heard of - rather than inquir- ing about odd-looking Tlingit baskets, which many museums had in their collections. In the years since the article was published a number of pub- lic institutions have contacted me and sent photographs for identification. In other instances, I have recognized Alutiiq baskets when visiting or revis- iting museum collections while involved in other research. Perhaps the most striking basket to come to light was one in the collection of the Ameri- can Museum of Natural History, where I worked as a post-doctoral fellow for several years (Fig. 3) (see also Crowell 2001:140). The basket is unusual for its fineness and evenness of weave and the so- phistication of its Alutiiq designs (both horizontal and vertical bars) as well as the unusual diagonal design around the rim, which resembles twisted rope. Other examples have surfaced at the Shel- don Jackson Museum in Sitka, at the University of Alaska Museum in Fairbanks, and in some private collections.

Second, I had hoped that uncovering more Alutiiq baskets would have allowed me to de- lineate subtypes from different locations. If any- thing, however, these are less clear than when I sat down to write in 1980. For the most part, this is at- tributable to the absence of good documentation. Although the baskets appear to fall into two or




Figure 3. Alutiiq Basket. Collected at Kodiak on an unknown date. 26.5 cm high, base radius 20 cm. Courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History. Cat. No. 16.1/1602.

more subgroups, it is simply impossible to know whether the variations result from changes in a single type through time, or if they vary from location to location during the same time period. An added problem is that, as mentioned in the ear- lier article, the Russians often moved Alaska Na- tives around to take advantage of fur hunting in one location or another. For example, at least two of the Alutiiq baskets in the study were collected at Sitka, traditionally a Tlingit Indian stronghold. This can be explained by the ethnically unstable population of the settlement from the turn of the nineteenth century onwards. After the relocation of the Russian- American capital to Sitka in 1804,

Sitka had, in addition to the Russians, a large mixed population of Alutiiqs and Aleuts. Davy- dov (1977:190) notes that there were Koniag Alu- tiiq women at Sitka as early as 1801, and Langs- dorff (1968 [1817]:90-91) makes direct reference to their importation in 1805. Given the abundance of Sitka spruce trees in the area, it is quite proba- ble that Alutiiq women continued to make baskets in Sitka during this period (e.g., Varjola, Averki- eva, and Liapunova 1990:94). Under these cir- cumstances, many of the fine points of the Alutiiq basket's history may never be known. It is clear, though, that their decorative motifs distinguish them from their Tlingit counterparts.




In some senses, the story of the Alutiiq basket discovery is a cautionary tale. It would have been impossible to carry out this research without access to the baskets themselves. In this age of computerized collections and museum policies that encourage researchers to study selected photographs and not whole collections "in the flesh," familiarity with a broad range of collections and evaluation of documentation remain impor- tant. There is still much to be discovered in collections, however this can only happen if researchers continue to be able to surround themselves with objects.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Roanne Gold- fein and Mary Hamilton, editor and publisher of American Indian Art Magazine. I also thank Marvin Cohodas, Christian F. Feest, J. C. H. King, Jean-Loup Rousselot, and Mary L. Weber for their assistance at various stages of this research.

Endnotes 1. This article was originally published as Pacmc Eskimo Spruce Root Baskets." American Indian Art 6(2): 66-73. Parts are reproduced here with permission from the magazine.

2. At least one other twined spruce-root object type was made on Kodiak Island. At the Phoebe Hearst Museum, U.C. Berkeley is a twined spruce- root quiver (PHMA 2-6594a,b). Although different in shape from regular basketry containers, the quiver nonetheless exhibits some of the same characteristics as other Alutiiq spruce root baskets. Most particularly, it is made out of the second, unpolished layer of the root and has as decorative elements in common with other Alutiiq baskets as well as scattered polka dots resembling those found on the lower part of many Alutiiq baskets. The quiver is illustrated in Crowell 2001:149, Fig. 143.

3. Because of the limited number of known Alu- tiiq baskets, no statistical analyses of the population were undertaken. Therefore, type is used here to mean a recurring combination of the five attributes found to differ between the Alutiiq baskets and a sample of Tlingit baskets. In addition to the baskets illustrated here, the 13 Alutiiq baskets studied include Munich State Ethnology Museum, Cat. No. 141; National Museum of Finland, Cat. No. VK-53, and Oldenburg State Museum of Natu- ral History and Prehistory, Cat. No. 2575.

4. In regular three-strand twining, all three weft strands are passed behind the three corresponding warp strands. False embroidery differs in that the third decorative strand is twisted around the weft strand at the front of the work. Consequently, the decorative pattern only shows on the front of the basket.

5. The Tlingit basket sample examined for this study was drawn from the following museum collections: Berlin Ethnology Museum, Cat. Nos. IV-A-2231, 2232, 8805; the British Mu- seum, Cat. No. 42-12-10.78; Peabody Museum of Salem, Cat. Nos. E-3504 through 3507, 5303, 5626; Sheldon Jackson Museum, Cat. Nos. I-A-120, 128, 293, 365. All were collected between 1821 and 1900.

6. Reinforcing rings of three-strand twining on the lower walls occur in both basket groups and therefore cannot be used to distinguish between them.

7. When auxiliary pattern zones occur on Alu- tiiq baskets they are usually confined to blocks of three-strand twining the same color as the basket walls (see Fig. 2a).

8. Emmons' translations of Tlingit names for the design elements are used for the Alutiiq as well as Tlingit designs because nothing is known of Alu- tiiq nomenclatures (Birket-Smith 1953:79).

References Cited Birket-Smith, Kaj 1953 The Chugach Eskimo. Copenhagen: National-

museets Skrifter, Etnografísk Raekke.

Crowell, Aron 2001 Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the

Alutiiq People. Fairbanks, University of Alaska Press.

Cook, James and James King 1784 A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean Undertaken by

Command of His Majesty, for Making Discov- eries in the Northern Hemisphere, Performed under the Direction of Captains Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in the years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, and 1780. London: Printed for J. Stockdaaled, Scratcherd and Whitaker, J. Fielding, and J. Hardy.

Davydov, Gavril Ivanovich 1977 Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802-1807.

Richard A. Pierce, ed. Colin A. Bearne, trans. Kingston: Limestone Press.

de Laguna, Frederica 1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince

William Sound, Alaska. University of Wash- ington Publications in Anthropology, vol. 13. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1972 Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Cul- ture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Anthropology, 7. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Emmons, George T. 1903 The Basketry of the Tlingit. American Museum

of Natural History Memoir, 3. New York: Ameri- can Museum of Natural History.




Fienup-Riordan, Ann 2005 Yup'ik Elders at the Ethnologisches Museum

Berlin: Fieldwork Turned On its Head. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gunther, Erna 1972 Indian Life on the Northwest Coast of North

America as Seen by the Early Explorers and Fur Traders during the Last Decades of the Eigh- teenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holmberg, Johann Heinrich 1974 Ethnographic Sketches of the Peoples of Russian [1856] America, by Johann Heinrich Holmberg. Rich-

ard A. Pierce, trans. Prepared for Alaska Divi- sion of State Libraries. Alaska. Division of State Libraries Translation project, 3. [Ethno- graphische Skizzen Uber die Volker des Rus- sischen Amerika Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 4289-354. Finska vetenskaps- societeten, Helsingfors. Acta, v. 4, v. 7.]

Jacobsen, Johan Adrian 1977 Alaskan Voyage 1881-1883: An Expedition [1884] to the Northwest Coast of America. Abridged

translation by Erna Gunther, from the German text. Adrian Woldt, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1978 "Artificial Curiosities," Being an Exposition of

Native Manufactures Collected on the Three

Voyages of Captain James Cook. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Langsdorff, George H. von 1968 Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the [1817] World, vol. 2. New York: Da Capo Press.

Lee, Molly 1981 Pacific Eskimo Spruce Root Baskets. American

Indian Art 6(2):66-73.

Lisiansky, Urey 1814 A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1803,

1804, 1805, and 1806. London: John Booth.

Meares, John 1967 Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789, [1790] vols. 1 and 2. New York: Da Capo Press.

Paul, Frances 1991 Spruce Root Basketry of the Alaska Tlingit. [1944] Sitka: Friends of the Sheldon Jackson

Museum.

Varjola, Pirjo, Iuliia Pavlovna Averkieva, and R. G. Liapunova 1990 The Etholén Collection: The Ethnographic

Alaskan Collection of Adolf Etholén and His Contemporaries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities.



"If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What Is It?": Toward the Definition of an Alutiiq Twined Spruce...

Documents

Transcript of "If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What Is It?": Toward the Definition of an Alutiiq Twined Spruce...