Anthropology and Photography at the American Museum of Natural History

The general identity of the group can be ascertained to be indigenous. In hand written text, the reverse side of the photograph provides written confirmation with the geographic location. The tribal name of the group is written on the front, just out of frame of the image. A majority of the individuals are draped in Native attire. Men wearing cloaks stand at an angle and extend their arms, making sure that the details and imagery of the cloak are visible to the photographer. Piercings and facial paint are visible upon inspection of the faces in the crowd. As you become transfixed in the inspection of the people and their surroundings, small elements that seem out of place spring to the surface. A newsboy cap, lace up boots, muskets and the American flag shatter the viewer’s perception of viewing a “traditional” Native American tribe.

Various ideas as to the context of the initial creation of the image run through my mind. What most piques my interest is the juxtaposition of the “traditional” attire with “modern” elements. My preconceived notions automatically find it odd to include these two elements together in a picture. Early photographs of indigenous populations were usually done with the intention of presenting them in a pre-contact light before they disappeared forever (Griffiths 2002, 89). The other alternative for the creation of such an image was to demonstrate the colonial sovereignty over Native American populations where “Native people [were] photographed in suits of assimilation tailored to the correct perspective of a progressive new world” (Hulleah 2003, 42). While the attire may not suggest assimilation, the background may. Perhaps that white building in the background is an American school that is advocating assimilation at the cost of leaving behind their culture. At any rate, for me there must be an unequal relationship between those being photographed and the photographer.

The back of the photo lists the subject, the locality, photographer, date and publication information. The Native Americans are guests for a potlatch. From my prior knowledge, practices such as the potlatch were actively suppressed by the United States and Canada. This image must be portraying a tradition that was being documented prior to its disappearance. It seems also odd that the date of the photo was listed as “copy 1962” since I was fairly certain that the image was taken in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The image was also part of a book published in 1991 by G.T. Emmons.

All of these assumptions and conclusions are the results of my existing biases and ideas. It was my interaction that imbued the photograph with these elements and meanings, not something intrinsic that already existed in the object (Pinney 1992, 90). In this sense, photographs are active objects that are constantly engaging with the viewer. My engagement with the object resulted in the presumptions stated above. Further engagement with the photograph and the information that it lead me to, created a very different set of circumstances and explanations for the image.

Research into the author of the publication listed for the photograph showed that he was an active amateur anthropologist in Alaska during the late 1800s. G. T. Emmons was respected by the Tlingit, but also actively participated in grave robbing. His collecting and photographic interest led him to develop a very close relationship with E. W. Merrill, resident and commercial photographer in Sitka, Alaska. Emmons’ renowned collections of Tlingit material also led to the creation of connections with the AMNH and its staff. Emmons was regarded in a positive light at the museum, both as a collector and amateur anthropologist. He was an active contributor of journal articles on the subject of the Tlingit and had the intention of producing a monograph on all of the material that he had acquired. Various setbacks resulted in his inability to complete the monograph. It was not until 1991 that the fruition of Emmons research was compiled into The Tlingit Indians. According to the information provided by AMNH, the Tlingit potlatch guests image was published in this monograph on page 293. Was the selection made by Emmons or Frederica de Laguna, editor and contributor to The Tlingit Indians? Inspection of the photo at the AMNH archives reveals that it was actually a picture of a picture, probably taken during Frederica de Laguna’s research for The Tlingit Indians (de Laguna 1991, xi). Her preparation for the publication of the monograph began in 1955. At the British Columbia Provincial Archives in Victoria, de Laguna found herself within the same space that Emmons had utilized years before for his studies. Perhaps it was during this examination of the archives that de Laguna came across the image. Either way, the copy date of 1962 places the reproduction of the photograph squarely within her research time frame and suggests her intimate hand in its copying. What remains ambiguous is the initial selection decision and the positioning of the photograph within the book. Emmons’ early notes for The Tlingit Indians might have included specifications for the inclusion of particular illustratory images, but de Laguna did not strictly adhere to this organization. In the chapter entitled “Ceremonies” where the photograph is included, de Laguna notes that “this chapter corresponds somewhat to that originally envisaged by Emmons when he was collecting information in the 1890s, and which he called “Feasts, Dances and Amusements.” It was omitted, however, in the later manuscript that he had prepared, the contents scattered in other chapters. It seemed better to bring them together here” (de Laguna 1991, 293).

The circumstances of Merrill’s relationship to the subject was of particular interest to me. Alongside this interest was the depiction of an integral Native American ceremony such as potlatch and how Merrill gained access to the event.

E. W. Merrill took up photography at the age of 20 in Massachusetts. He was lured to Alaska by the prospect of gold and pristine wilderness (Gmelch 2008, 293). Merrill engaged in photography with a focus on the aesthetic qualities of taking pictures. He approached his subject matter with an artist’s eye that paid attention to lighting and composition. His subject matter encompassed everything from landscapes to community events. Today, he is most revered for his Tlingit photography which focused on all aspects of the community such as “subsistence activities, village life, ceremonial events, Native students at the boarding school, Tlingit organization and individuals, and their ingenious and highly symbolic material culture” (Gmelch 2008, 109). During the initial production of these images, they were consumed by tourists and community members alike.

Merrill’s photographic style varies sharply from the majority of indigenous images of the time. He adopted a realist stance to his photographs that omitted a romanticized vision of the Tlingit. The images did not conform to common stereotypes of noble savage or assimilated peoples. Merrill depicted the Tlingit in a contemporary context that was saturated with European influence and exposure. In the photos “the viewer never loses sight of the fact that the Tlingit [have] been influenced by the outside world” (Gmelch 2008, 148). He also chose not to embrace the common commercial photography practice that utilized studios and props (Griffiths 2002, 109). Whether it was the indigenous populations he was photographing or European settlers, “his choice of settling, clothing, general distance, and visual construction are fundamentally the same” (Gmelch 2008, 148).

The community, both Native and non-Native, embraced Merrill’s work. His relationship with the Tlingit community was generally a positive one for the time period. Sitka was a segregated community where racism and prejudice were prevalent. Merrill has a great deal of respect for the Tlingit people and their history. He was an avid collector that valued the aesthetic quality of Tlingit material that was evident in both tourist and utilitarian goods. While he did keep to himself, he had strong ties to both indigenous and non-Native community members. Merrill created close relationships with a few Tlingit craftsmen after they participated on the totem pole placement and repair project at what is currently called Sitka National Historical Park. Oral history in Sitka also suggests that Merrill taught photography to some Tlingit youth. Not only was his photography respected by the community, it was also actively acquired by them. Upon his death, E. W. Merrill was given the title of Sitka’s “Father of Pictures” (Gmelch 2008, 140).

While his photographs did function as tourist goods and entered into a wider pattern of circulation, they were also revered and used in Sitka. During his lifetime, Merrill’s images were a constant feature in local newspapers and books. After his death, his collection of glass plate negatives also stayed relatively close to the community that produced them. Seventy-three percent of the collection stayed within the confines of Sitka, Alaska, mostly housed in libraries, archives and private collections (Gmelch 2008, 130). Up until 2007, the largest collection of glass plate negatives and black and white prints were housed at the Strattton Library of Sheldon Jackson College in Sitka. In its first incarnation, the Sheldon Jackson College was called Sitka Industrial and Training School, an organization that Merrill actively photographed. After the school’s closure, the Merrill Collection was given to Sitka National Historical Park on temporary loan. At the park were already housed 203 other glass plate negatives that the Park received after Merrill’s death. In 1978 copy negatives were made by the Alaska State Library, Stratton Library and the Sitka National Historical Park. The copies allowed for greater access to the images along with the eventual digitization for other universities and institutions.

The image of the potlatch guests that the AMNH has in its archives is a photo of a photo. A print from the original glass plate negative is in the collection of the Alaska State Library. It is entitled “Tlingits in ceremonial regalia for the 1904 potlatch.” The most valuable piece of information provided by the ALS is the date when the photograph was taken (Alaska State Library Historical Collections). The potlatch that occurred in 1904 in Sitka, Alaska is commonly referred to as the “Last Potlatch” (Preucel and Williams 2005, 12). During this time period, various Native Americans were becoming involved with organizations that advocated for the abandonment of cultural traditions. In Sitka, the New Covenant League was one such organization. Members of the New Covenant League petitioned Governor John G. Brady of Alaska to ban the practice of potlatch. The Governor wanted to end Native traditions, but not to outright sanction them so he came up with a compromise that would appease both parties. A last potlatch was planned that would bring together clans from all across southeast Alaska. While the last potlatch did not put an end to the practice, it did serve to mark an event that attempted to eradicate a long held cultural practice.

This is the context from which Merrill’s photo arises. Numerous images depicting the Last Potlatch are in the scattered collections. The Alaska State Library has six other images and Sitka National Historical Park has numerous others. Most of the images consist of a large group of people standing in front of a building, adorned in the traditional attire. Merrill’s intimate relationship with the Tlingit community offered him the opportunity to document this potlatch. For the Tlingit, a photograph served as a document for a particular clan. The inclusion of the American flag “added to the social importance of the clan that possessed them” (Gmelch 2008, 164). It is very likely that the potlatch photos taken by Merrill were done at the request of the Tlingits represented. At the very least, those being photographed were active in deciding their positioning within the image. This allows for a very different reading of the image. The clans wanted to make note of their members, their crests and to mark the event of this potlatch that they recognized as being the last celebration on this kind of scale. My initial observations stemmed from a limited knowledge of the subject matter and my existing ideas. For me, the photograph became more about the intentions that went into creating it than the subjects being depicted. A thorough examination into the social biography of the object, created a new readings of the image that was based on the individuals depicted (Edwards 2001, 13).

In 2004, a Centennial Potlatch was held in Sitka, Alaska (Preucel and Williams 2005, 17.) It commemorated the potlatch of 1904 but it also served to connect the two events through space and time. Naming ceremonies drew upon the names of Tlingit members in 1904 and were given to current members. Objects used in the 1904 potlatch were loaned by museums and other cultural institutions. Merrill’s photographs served as another tangible link between the 1904 and the 2004 event. His images do not exist as a reference point in the distant past. They are actively engaging and reengaging with people and places. “While they may evoke a sad nostalgia in some viewers for the Tlingit’s lost sovereignty, their acquisition and use by community members today also expresses a new sense of empowerment as the Tlingit reclaim and use images from public archives for their own purposes” (Gmelch 2008, 148).

An image from an ethnographic monograph in the archives at the American Museum of Natural History had a “life” prior to its inclusion within an anthropological context. The photograph was not developed with the intention of serving as an example of cultural practices but gained this distinction as a result of selection and inclusion. By tracing that path of the image through space and time, alternative histories are being brought forth. From clan documentation, to anthropological evidence, to contemporary reclamation, the photograph exists as an active player in various narratives.

Joanna Salicki, NYU Museum Studies

Links:

http://www.nps.gov/sitk/historyculture/ew-merrill-photographs.htm

Bibliography

Alaska State Library Historical Collections. “Guide to Collection: Elbridge W. Merrill Photograph Collection, ca. 1897-1929.” Alaska State Library. http://google.state.ak.us/search?q=cache:EXmF3_fZcUYJ:www.library.state.ak.us/hist/hist_docs/finding_aids/PCA057.doc+e.w.+merrill&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=LIBRARY&site=LIBRARY&proxystylesheet=LIBRARY&oe=UTF-8 (accessed March 12, 2009).

de Laguna, Frederica. Preface to The Tlingit Indians, by G. T. Emmons. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1991.

_________. Editor’s Introduction to The Tlingit Indians, by G. T. Emmons. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1991.

Edwards, Elizabeth. “Introduction: Observations from the Coal-Face.” in Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums, 1-23. Oxford: Berg, 2001.

Gmelch, Sharon Bohn. The Tlingit Encounter with Photography. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2008.

Griffiths, Alison. “Knowledge and Visuality in Nineteenth-Century Anthropology.” in Wondrous Difference: Cinema, Anthropology, and Turn-of-the-Century Visual Culture, 86-124. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Pinney, Christopher. “The Parallel Histories of Anthropology and Photography.” in Anthropology and Photography: 1860-1920, 74-89. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992.

Preucel, Robert W. and Lucy F. Williams. “The Centennial Potlatch.” Expedition: The Magazine of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology 47, no. 2 (2005):9-19.

Sitka National Historical Park. “E.W. Merrill Photographs.” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, http://www.nps.gov/sitk/historyculture/ew-merrill- photographs.htm (accessed March 9, 2009).

Tsinhnahjinnie, Hulleah J. “When is a Photograph Worth a Thousand Words?” in Photograph’s Other Histories, edited by Christopher Pinney and Nicolas Peterson, 40-52. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003.