Tlingit war helmet recently rediscovered in Springfield Science Museum. Source: SSM.
This is the kind of cool story that makes me want to poke around in all the community museums I see. A fantastic Tlingit war helmet has been recently rediscovered in the backroom of a museum in Springfield, Massachussests. The helmet was accessioned in 1899 as an “Aleutian hat” and the designation was never questioned until now. The news article about it suggests only 95 of these helmets are known, with the largest collections found in Russia. They are part of an elaborate system of armour known from the contact and early historic period in Tlingit territory (Southeast Alaska – Alaska Panhandle).
Tlingit war helmet from Springfield Science Museum. Source: SSM.
They are carved from a single piece of wood, in this case with an eagle crest or motif. Way back when, we had a couple of posts here on Tlingit armour. This post starts with some (highly collectible) plastic figurine Tlingit warriors and goes from there, while this one looks at some replica armour made by Tlingit artist Tommy Joseph. The museum news release notes,
Today, a few helmets are still brought out at ceremonial gatherings, such as potlatches, to commemorate prominent events and honor past clan elders. Because they are associated with combat, the helmets are not actually worn on the head during such peaceful gatherings, but are instead held in hand or perhaps held over the head of someone needing spiritual support.
I’m glad this one survived, though clearly its true home is in the community. It seems that if it managed to spend over a century un-noticed in the museum maybe they might not miss it for the next century too? On the other hand, neglect is one of the great preservatives in the world.
Actually, this whole post is just an excuse to link to the image below, a detail of Ketchikan artist Ray Troll’s “The Battle of Sitka, June 1802“, an event noted in passing once before on this blog. The armour and helmets (and neck guards, or gorgets) are pretty accurate so far as I can tell. Note how the helmet and gorget together make just a little slit for the eyes, not to mention a fearsome appearance.
You might know Troll’s work from some iconic NW t-shirts (pun warning): data in the strata (want); dies for love; octopi wall street; spawn of the dead; and the immortal ying yang, which I wore every day for about a million years.
Detail from “The Battle of Old Sitka, JUne 1802” by Ray Troll. Click for full image at Troll website.
Troll writes, and my knowledgeable readers can discuss, the following:
This drawing was inspired by reading historical accounts of Russian and Tlingit conflicts in Southeast Alaska in the late 1700’s and early 1800s. It intended primarily as a study of the incredible carved wooden war helmets and intricate body armor that Tlingit warriors of high status wore into battle.
Sometime near the summer solstice in 1802 hundreds of Tlingit warriors attacked the Russian/Aleut settlement of St. Michael’s, near present day Sitka, Alaska, slaughtering most of the inhabitants. In a carefully planned assault half of the attacking force came by immense war canoes and the other half descended on the fort from the surrounding forest.
A Russian historian named Khlebnikov wrote this passage about the attack:
The Tlingits “suddenly emerged noiselessly from the shelter of the impenetrable forests, armed with guns, spears and daggers. Their faces were covered with masks* representing the heads of animals, and smeared with red and other paint; their hair was tied up and powdered with eagle down. Some of the masks were shaped in imitation of ferocious animals with gleaming teeth and of monstrous beings. They were not observed until they were close to the barracks; and the people lounging about the door had barely enough time to rally and run into the building when the (Tlingits), surrounding them in a moment with wild and savage yells, opened a heavy fire from their guns at the windows. A terrific uproar was continued in imitation of the cries of the animals represented by their masks, with the object of inspiring greater terror.”
If you’re in Springfield, then the helmet goes on display on Boxing Day. The AAA has a backup to the news release, without the good pictures.
Detail of Ray Troll “Washington State Fossils Clickable Map” from Burke Museum. Apparently I’m blogging from under Crab Nodules. Click map to view.
Northwest Coast Archaeology 
want is likely covered, I’ve heard that you might have contributed to a temporary crash of Ray Troll’s website…
LikeLike
The helmet took my breath away. It is a masterpiece.
LikeLike
Hi Constance,
Yes it really is. Must be one of the most beautiful of its genre. Notice how there is a little flourished carved in at the base of the lower beak, and the added expression it produces.
It’s also worth noting the remaining white paint around the neck and crest of the head above the eye, which suggests this had a painted white head – normal for a bald eagle of course but not that common in NW coast representations of eagles. In fact, if you look into the far background of the Ray Troll painting you can see such a bald eagle helmet bobbing along.
Such naturalism is known from other helmets, the most famous of which is probably the one below, which some say represents an individual with Bell’s Palsy, a partial unilateral facial paralysis, and is thus interpreted as a portrait of a specific person suffering from that condition.
LikeLike
Love the mask. Neglect or loss can preserve things – digging around in these kinds of collections can actually be a bit like archaeology. For instance, there is a lot of interest in the Hitty doll and Rachel Field’s story in my house (you have no idea what it is like to live with numerous 6″ wooden dolls http://wp.me/1VTqd). The original doll with associated belongings is in the Stockbridge MA Library which does not have a catalogue of these objects on line, but a Hitty afficionado has a picture of what is apparently catalogued as a ‘sweetgrass’ basket that is part of the doll’s belongings in the collection. It is very likely a Makah or Nuu-chah-nulth basket: http://bit.ly/1doROyd. A small example, but probably a pretty common one.
Love Troll’s website too. There are a few ‘wants’ in that store as far as I am concerned.
LikeLike
twoeyes – my proudest moment in blogging.
ehpehm – mention armour and the Hittytes come charging, I see.
(Cool example though)
LikeLike
Conversely, here’s an obviously Aleut Hat (visor) mislabelled as a Nuu-chah-nulth piece, from the British Museum, no less:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=537977&partId=1
LikeLike
That is strange for an institution with a NWC expert in it (is J. King still working?). I had forgotten Cook travelled to the Bering Strait, but on looking it up, that is where he went after Nootka Sound. Seems very unlikely he collected it in Nootka Sound!
LikeLike
Quite often objects are catalogged into the museum collection with the information that came with it taken at face value, and over time, as various experts examine it and have other opionions, their comments are added to the record. Curators rarely have the opportunity to keep the catalog totally up to date with all the new information and opinions, and also to make sure that the information put online about the artifacts is the best and most current. When our museum got the capability to put collections info online, we debated whether we should post it, warts and all, or spend the next 20 years making sure everything was up to date and 100% as accurate as possible…we decided to get it out there, and to continually work to improve the information as we could….a process that is, unfortunately, very slow. But over time it will be corrected. It is a well-known fact at the British Museum that this is an Aleut hunting hat, even though the original inventories of Cook, Vancouver, etc., may have originally stated the place of collection was Nootka Sound. Misattribution to Nootka Sound is something that I’ve seen quite a bit in the records of many older museum collections….based on early inventories, or based on the fact that illustrations (and misattributions) of pieces collected by early Euro expeditions are quite often the earliest images of objects published, and the misattributions are copied by museum people who see similar pieces in their collections.
LikeLike
Hi Steve, thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog.
I do think putting the ‘warts and all’ catalogue out there is the right way to go. Long ago there was a post here on the Peabody collection and the original ledger books were online allowing some knowledgeably people her to draw some interesting inferences. So there is a real benefit, especially for people who may not have the wherewithal to travel to institutions in person. Now, that has to be set aside some of the digital repatriation issues around proper display of certain kinds of material.
Peabody link: https://qmackie.com/2010/04/11/peabody-museum-ethnographic-collection/ Unfortunately a lot of the search links have been broken (my pet peeve is museums with link rot).
Anyway, I think in the case at hand, it is mentioned the Springfield Science museum was looking through 200,000 pieces to create their exhibition and I imagine that people don’t always realize the huge volumes of material behind the scenes at most museums which (usually overworked, underpaid) curators have to stay on top with. Locally at the RBCM this is indeed a struggle, to say the least – they do a great job but are not as well resourced as they should be. But at Springfield it would not surprise me if if people had scanned over the helmet, thought huh, that’s not quite right, but had to carry on with their more pressing tasks of the day.
LikeLike
The RRN (Reciprocal Research Network: http://www.rrncommunity.org/) out of UBC is a pretty nifty online resource for just these sorts of issues (mis-identified objects, and interesting items buried in museum collections). Users can browse through tens of thousands of objects from a variety of museums, and comment/discuss the objects in linked forums. Their search/filter system is especially cool, as it allows the user to refine (or broaden) the search very quickly and easily. Two or three clicks revealed 21 Tlingit helmets, including the ‘Bell’s Palsy’ one mentioned above (http://www.rrncommunity.org/items#?search_stack=items_tab&filters=culture%20Tlingit%2C%20type%20helmet&tab=what_tab&page=2).
It looks like 135,000+ items are visible to the public (no log-in ID required), and a bunch more if you request a researcher account.
LikeLike
Thanks Nick, it is a great resource.
Amusingly, or not, the search link you posted doesn’t work despite being identical to what is generated when you enter the “Tlingit” “helmet” search. I don’t get computers but little stuff like this just pisses me off no end. It is so much easier to discuss things when stable search results are generated.
Maybe you were logged in?
LikeLike
Alyssa London links to a comment from Sealaska Heritage Institute Presidnet Rosita Worl:
“This hat is Tlingit clan at.óowu–an object that was owned by a clan and holds the Spirit of the Eagle. It embodies the spirits of our ancestors who used the hat. From other events we’ve experienced, I will say that its emergence signifies that the ancestral spirits want an…d need to come home. Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, it is an “object of cultural patrimony” and a “sacred object,” and subject to repatriation. I would trust the Springfield Museum will understand that the sacred value of this hat lies in its return to its home.
In one of the articles I read about the helmet, it said that women were not allowed to touch military armor. I’m not certain where this came from, but women had significant power in traditional Southeast Alaska Native societies. Wealth flowed through the maternal line, and women approved of major economic transactions. The historical records are replete with accounts of women voiding trading transactions and goods. If they did not approve, the trade was negated. They were great orators and warriors as well although they served as clan leaders only in the absence of eligible males. The subservience of women came with Western society, and Native women moved from a state of equality to inequality. Unfortunately, today we have those who erroneously advance the notion that the subservience of women is ‘traditional’. Let us debunk this myth.”
http://alyssalondon.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/repatriation-of-tlingit-warrior-helmet/
There’s some more good information about traditional use and customary law around Tlingit helmets in this piece:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131218/rare-tlingit-war-helmet-discovered-massachusetts-museum-archives
One of these helmets sold in 2008 for 2 million dollars:
http://www.sealaskaheritage.org/news/news_article_Tlingit_warrior_helmet_auctioned_2008.htm
LikeLike
Here’s an update on this helmet, it’s a good article for detail and context but the bottom line is the process has started to repatriate this helmet to Alaska:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140107/emergence-rare-tlingit-war-helmet-come-calls-bring-artifact-home
“The Springfield Science Museum has begun the repatriation notification process, sending letters to thirty Alaska tribal organizations notifying them of the helmet’s existence. The museum is also including a list of all items in their archives identified as being from Southeast Alaska, in case tribes want to make further repatriation claims — a step beyond the federal mandate, Longhi said.
The Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska has already started the repatriation process on the helmet, President Edward Thomas confirmed on Tuesday. Founded in 1935, the Tlingit Haida Central Council is a federally recognized regional tribe in Southeast Alaska. Folks who are aware of the object’s existence are excited about it, Thomas said.
However, the uniqueness of this object may present an additional challenge for the council.
Most objects are associated with a clan, not a moiety (either the Eagle or Raven moiety, in Tlingit-Haida lineage). Since the helmet appears to belongs to the Eagle moiety, “we want to be careful” not to offend any involved parties, and will take some broad discussions to determine where the helmet will end up if brought back to Alaska.
Henrikson said Tuesday that while the bird appears to depict a bald eagle, it could be some other bird or even a supernatural creature — which would also affect the question of ownership.
For now, though, the Tlingit Haida Central Council is moving forward with the idea that the helmet belongs to the Eagle moiety and not an individual clan. No clans have yet come forward to claim the helmet as their own, Thomas said.
……
You are here
Emergence of rare Tlingit war helmet raises a chorus for homecoming
Laurel Andrews
January 7, 2014
Share on emailEmail Print
Text Size -A +A
The discovery of a rare Tlingit war helmet that sat misidentified in the archives of a western Massachusetts museum has Tlingit tribal leaders calling for the artifact to be returned to Southeast Alaska. Courtesy Springfield Science Museum
Tribal leaders are hoping a rare Tlingit war helmet that sat mislabeled in museum archives in western Massachusetts for more than 100 years will be returned to Southeast Alaska now that the artifact, considered a sacred object, has been brought to light.
The helmet, uncovered this autumn in the Springfield Science Museum archives, was put on display in late December. Records show that the object was accepted into the museum’s collections around the turn of the 20th century, spokesperson Matt Longhi said. The helmet was logged into museum archives simply, and incorrectly, as “Aleutian hat.”
Related:
Rare Tlingit war helmet discovered in Massachusetts museum archives
Alaska Tlingit code talkers honored with Congressional Gold Medals for wartime work
But after scrutiny by curator of anthropology Dr. Ellen Savulis, and with coordination with the Alaska State Museum, the helmet was quickly identified as a rare Tlingit war helmet.
The helmet is one of less than 100 known in existence today, said Alaska State Museum curator of collections Steve Henrikson. It’s likely from the early to mid-1800s, and was intended for use in battle by Tlingit warriors. Only three or four of those helmets remain in Alaska today, Henrikson said.
In 2008, a similar helmet sold at auction for more than $2 million. But its monetary value is of little matter to either the museum or the Tlingit people.
Sealaska Heritage Institute vice chair Rosita Worl described the war helmet as an at.óowu — meaning “an object that was owned by a clan and holds the Spirit of the Eagle. It embodies the spirit of our ancestors” who created and used the hat. Worl wrote in an email that “its emergence signifies that the ancestral spirits want and need to come home.”
“I would trust the Springfield Museum will understand that the sacred value of this hat lies in its return to its home,” Worl wrote.
The belief that the object is calling to be returned home is shared by other Tlingit people, as well. Leona Santiago, admiral for the yaanwhasshaans (women of the Kaagwaantaan clan), said she feels “it’s a really positive change in terms of our ancestors letting us know that they’re still here.”
“People are excited about the re-emergence of this one,” Santiago said.
Uniqueness complicates the process
The Springfield Science Museum has begun the repatriation notification process, sending letters to thirty Alaska tribal organizations notifying them of the helmet’s existence. The museum is also including a list of all items in their archives identified as being from Southeast Alaska, in case tribes want to make further repatriation claims — a step beyond the federal mandate, Longhi said.
The Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska has already started the repatriation process on the helmet, President Edward Thomas confirmed on Tuesday. Founded in 1935, the Tlingit Haida Central Council is a federally recognized regional tribe in Southeast Alaska. Folks who are aware of the object’s existence are excited about it, Thomas said.
However, the uniqueness of this object may present an additional challenge for the council.
Most objects are associated with a clan, not a moiety (either the Eagle or Raven moiety, in Tlingit-Haida lineage). Since the helmet appears to belongs to the Eagle moiety, “we want to be careful” not to offend any involved parties, and will take some broad discussions to determine where the helmet will end up if brought back to Alaska.
Henrikson said Tuesday that while the bird appears to depict a bald eagle, it could be some other bird or even a supernatural creature — which would also affect the question of ownership.
For now, though, the Tlingit Haida Central Council is moving forward with the idea that the helmet belongs to the Eagle moiety and not an individual clan. No clans have yet come forward to claim the helmet as their own, Thomas said.
The council is also working with the Southeast Alaska Native Veterans Association to gather input on the future of the object, as it was once intended for battle.
“I would like to see it be used ceremoniously with the veterans group,” Thomas said, whose members are “so very interested and active” in advocating on behalf of veterans.
Thomas said he is confident that the object will be brought back to Alaska. He hopes it will be stored in the new Sealaska Heritage Institute building slated for construction in Juneau because it will offer climate-controlled conditions for the priceless artifact.
[………..]
NAGPRA process: ‘Intense’
The object would be brought home under the auspices of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a federal law passed in 1990 which provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain cultural items.
The process can be daunting, however, especially for folks living in remote areas, short on time and resources.
The repatriation process is “intense,” said Dr. Bambi Krauss, president of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit organization of tribal government officials who implement federal and tribal preservation laws. Cases average around three years, but can take longer, she said.
“A lot of villages don’t have the resources to hire someone to go through the process, so it’s very frustrating,” Krauss said. And grant money is limited — museums and tribes must compete for the same federal grants from the National Park Service.
Federal agencies have also come under scrutiny for not fully implementing NAGPRA. Two reports issued by the Government Accountability Office, one in 2010 and the other in 2011, outlined shortcomings by both the Smithsonian Institute and Federal agencies in complying with the act.
However, at least the initial steps are relatively straightforward, said John F. C. Johnson, vice president of cultural resources for the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Johnson has helped to repatriate objects to Chugach tribes for more than 20 years. A federally recognized tribe sends a letter to a museum, stating in broad terms what its purpose is, and what it is searching for. Under NAGPRA, museums are mandated to send back an inventory of all items in their collection that hail from a particular region.
Then the longer process begins. A tribe will make its case to the museum, providing evidence that a certain object belongs to them. The museum makes the final call on whether to return the object. After that, an appeals process through the National Park Service is available if disputes remain.
Johnson urged tribes to designate a tribal liaison to take charge of repatriation, who can take the lead in the process.
Repatriation law falls only within the borders of the United States — There’s no law to provide for the return of objects that are bought and sold across international lines. Sometimes objects are returned with the help of organizations. Such was the case in December 2013, when the Annenberg Foundation purchased more than $500,000 worth of Hopi and Apache artifacts at a Paris auction.
Part of the bigger picture
Repatriation is seen as part of a larger movement of cultural preservation to bring traditional Alaska Native culture to the forefront of people’s minds.
“If some big part of the puzzle was broken, it’s your obligation to make it whole again,” Johnson said.
Ancestral objects are “your identity, your heritage,” Johnson said. Bringing these sacred objects back to Alaska helps to unite a tribe, and bring younger generations closer to their ancestral history, Johnson said. He pointed to other measures, such as the Nuuciq Spirit Camp in Prince William Sound, a 3-week camp where elders and youth come together to explore language, traditional arts and culture. It’s a way to unite the young and old, he said.
One of the Chugach tribes’ top priorities are the return of human remains and funerary objects, many of which were excavated by archeologists around the turn of the 20th century. Native Alaskans want those remains to come home. “Reverence for human remains is embedded in everyone,” Johnson said.
In the early 1900s, both grave robbers and members of the scientific community pulled up hundreds of thousands of Native American graves. Today, in museums across the country, more than 120,000 Native American human remains are still sitting in collections — the vast majority of which are listed as “culturally unidentifiable.”
The attitude of the scientific community has changed immensely since the early 1900s, and now there’s far more cooperation between tribes and museums. Today, these parties “work together for the betterment of everyone,” Johnson said.”
LikeLike
Another brief news piece on this helmet:
http://juneauempire.com/art/2014-01-16/long-way-home
After surviving a 1792 attack by a Tlingit war party in Prince William Sound, future Governor of Russian Alaska Alexander Baranov described the Tlingit warriors as wearing “thick helmets with figures of monsters on them.” While the figures on the helmets must have been terrifying indeed to Baranov, they were anything but monstrous to the wearers. They were their clan crests, vital elements of Tlingit social and personal identity. A Russian account of the 1802 raid on Saint Michael also mentions Tlingit war helmets, and documentation of the 1804 Battle of Sitka describes Chief K’alyáan’s Raven helmet, which now resides at the Sheldon Jackson Museum near the site of the battle.
Use of the helmets in the context of warfare ceased soon after the 1804 battle, as did their creation. K’alyáan’s is one of the fewer than 100 known to still be in existence, and this rarity contributes to the high regard which museum professionals hold for Tlingit war helmets. Forty-one are held at the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg, Russia, and 10 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
In addition to their scarcity, the helmets are rare in being equally at home in both ethnographic and fine arts exhibitions. The unmistakably Northwest Coast design feature known as formline, combined with the quality of their workmanship make them particularly aesthetically striking.
One might imagine, then, the excitement of Springfield Science Museum Curator of Anthropology Dr. Ellen Savulis last fall when she pieced together that a splendid Tlingit helmet had been hiding in storage at her institution for more than a century. Savulis’ discovery began as she reviewed the museum’s collections last fall in the course of putting together an exhibition titled “People of the Northwest Coast” when she came upon a holding cataloged as an “Aleutian hat.” Shortly after the exhibition’s opening, Savulis related that the museum’s catalog records lacked provenience (i.e., birthplace) information for the item. For that reason, University of Alaska Museum of the North Director Dr. Aldona Jonaitis said the helmet probably didn’t arrive in Springfield via an ethnographer.
“It’s unlikely that the helmet was collected by a professional ethnographer, who would have been sure to document when and where the helmet was acquired, as well as recording native language texts related to it,” Jonaitis said in a phone interview.
Savulis, interviewed at the museum in Springfield, noted that she was able to glean some facts about the item’s provenance from its catalog records. Namely, it had originally been assigned a cataloging number of 1901-04, indicating that it was part of the museum’s permanent collection within two of years of the 1899 relocation to the current building in downtown Springfield. The item’s catalog records also showed, surprisingly, that it had not left storage to be exhibited during its 100-plus years there.
Despite the lack of detailed records, the fact that the item was carved from a large block of wood gave Savulis reason to doubt that its origin lay in the Aleutian Islands, which are almost barren of trees. Savulis contacted Alaska State Museum Curator of Collections Steve Henrikson, who was able to identify the “Aleutian hat” as a mislabeled Tlingit war helmet. Few, if any, are in a better position to make that evaluation than Henrikson, who has examined the majority of existing Tlingit war helmets firsthand in the course of writing his master’s thesis about Tlingit body armor.
Another expert, Sealaska Heritage Institute President Dr. Rosita Worl, who wrote her doctoral dissertation on Tlingit concepts of property, said in an interview that she recognized the helmet’s clan crest as Eagle, expressing some surprise that it might be identified otherwise.
Tlingit war helmets are highly valued as objets d’art by private collectors. In those rare instances when one becomes available for purchase it is guaranteed to fetch top dollar. In May of 2008, one sold for $2,185,000 at the Fairfield Auction in Newton, Conn. Worl related that war helmets are also highly valued by the Tlingit, but not in a monetary sense. While “some people might call them ‘art,’” Worl said, to the Tlingit, war helmets are at.óow, sacred items owned cooperatively and vital to Tlingit ceremonial life. Because they endure through time while remaining associated with a group, at.óow relate to cultural history and identity in a way that words like “object” and “artifact” strain to convey. Underlining this, Dartmouth College Professor of Anthropology and Native American Studies Dr. Sergei Kan stated that war helmets are quite possibly “the highest level of ceremonial regalia” in contemporary Tlingit social life.
The provenance of the war helmet prior to its 1901 cataloging as part of the Springfield Science Museum’s (then known as the Museum of Natural History) permanent collection may remain a mystery indefinitely. Jonaitis did suggest one possibility, that it may have been acquired by an East Coast resident visiting Southeast Alaska as part of the thriving 19th century tourist industry.
“Tourists would disembark during their upriver steamboat journeys to pick up items to take back East with them,” she said. “It may have been that the helmet returned with a trustee or someone else associated with the museum in Springfield and was eventually donated into the permanent collection there.”
Regardless of how it found its way to the museum in Springfield, the helmet is currently being well cared for there in an environmentally controlled case as part of the “People of the Northwest Coast” exhibition. The ultimate disposition of the helmet depends upon the outcome of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) process, which will determine whether the helmet remains a part of the museum’s permanent collection or is repatriated to the Tlingit. Worl expressed hope for the latter.
“There have been times before … Oh, how to say it? Items have just appeared like this, and it was like they wanted to come home,” she said.
Additional reading
• Dauenhauer, Nora, Richard Dauenhauer, and Lydia Black, eds. Anóshi Lingít Aaní Ká – Russians in Tlingit America. The Battles of Sitka, 1802 and 1804. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Institute, 2008.
• Harkin, Michael E. “Object Lessons: The Question of Cultural Property in the Age of Repatriation.” Journal De La Société Des Américanistes 91, no. 91–2 (2005): 9–29. http://jsa.revues.org/2932.
• Kan, Sergei. A Russian American Photographer in Tlingit country: Vincent Soboleff in Alaska. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013.
• Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Way of the Masks. Translated by Sylvia Modeski. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982.
• Preucel, Robert W., Lucy F. Williams, Stacey O. Espenlaub, and Janet Monge. “Out of Heaviness, Enlightenment: NAGPRA and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.” Expedition 45, no. 3 (2003): 21–27. http://bit.ly/KOWzJy.
• Thornton, Thomas F. Being and Place Among the Tlingit. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Institute, 2008.
• Matthew Timothy Bradley is a native of the Eastern Cherokee Indian Reservation in Western North Carolina. He studied anthropology at Indiana University and is currently based in Berkshire County, Massachusetts.
LikeLike
Pingback: Tlingit Eagle War Helmet: Repatriation begun » Coastal Art Beat