THE NATIVE AMERICAN COLLECTION
OF FRIDERIK BARAGA:
COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL ASPECTS'
Christian F. Feest
IZVLEČEK
Etnografski predmeti, ki jih je Friderik
Baraga leta 1837 podaril Kranjskemu dežel-
nemu muzeju v Ljubljani, so bistvenega po-
mena za krajevno in časovno opredelitev
regionalnih stilov indijanske umetnosti na
območju Velikih jezer v Severni Ameriki. Ker
so Baragovi stiki z Otavci in Očipvejci v
letih 1831-1836 dobro dokumentirani in ker
lahko izluščimo dodatne informacije iz raznih
seznamov teh predmetov, ki so jih sestavili v
času njihove pridobitve v muzeju, zbirka lahko
pomaga osvetliti drugo, slabše dokumentirano
gradivo.
Splošna obravnava problemov, ki so
lastni interpretaciji zgodovinsko zbranih
etnografskih primerkov in pomen teh
predmetov za zgodovinsko etnografijo sta v
tem äanku ponazorjena s primerjalno analizo
izbranih predmetov iz Baragove zbirke.
ABSTRACT
The ethnographic artifacts deposited by
Tather Friderik Baraga in 1837 in the Camio-
lian Provincial Museum of Ljubljana is of
substantial importance for the local and tem-
poral attribution of regional styles of the
Native arts in the Great Lakes region of North
America. Since Baraga's contacts with Ottawa
and Chippewa Indians between 1831 and
1836 are well documented, and since additio-
nal information can be derived from various
lists of the objects prepared at the time of
their accession, the collection can help to shed
light on other, less well documented materials.
A general discussion of the problems
inherent in the interpretation of historically
collected ethnographic specimens and their
importance for historical ethnography is illu-
strated by comparative perspectives on selected
artifacts from the Baraga collection.
1 An earlier versior\ of this paper was delivered at the symposium "Slovenski misijonar Irene) Friderik
Baraga (1797-1868) in njegov prispevek k etnologiji," Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, 16-20 June 1997.
I wish to express my gratitude to Ralf Čeplak, curator of the SEM - Museum of Non-European Cultures in
Coricane, for permitting me to study the North American material here discussed in December 1992.1 am also
indebted to the various other museums and their persoruiel, who over the years made available to me some of
the comparative material presented below. Special thanks also to Sylvia S. Kasprycki, with whom the problems
relating to the Baraga collection were thoroughly discussed, and to Professor Zmago Šmitek, who provided
hints to and copies of secondary literature on Baraga.
285
Christian F. Feest
Artifacts, collecting, and historical ethnography
In the study of cultures, artifacts provide a major, but all too often neglected
source of information. As man-made forms, artifacts reflect culturally specific
technical traditions, functional (and sometimes emotional) needs, and the
variation represented by their makers' abilities to conform to socially accepted
standards. As visual forms, they are not only an expression of cultural style, but
also potential signs to which culturally specific meanings may be attributed.
Created to help their users interact with the natural and social environment,
they play an enormously important role in production, exchange, and
consumption both in a primarily economic and a wider social sense.
In the history of European penetration and transformation of the cultures
of the world in the modem age, the collecting of artifacts as documents of cultural
difference represents a tradition predating the rise of ethnography and cultural
anthropology as disciplines of Western scholarship, which attempt to catalog
and explain the cultural variation of mankind. Since the sixteenth century, exotic
artifacts were preserved in public and private collections of artificial and natural
curiosities for a variety of reasons, including the value assigned to them because
of their remote origin, the unusual natiire of their shapes and materials, and
their reflection of a generalized cultural otherness. They were regarded as trophies
commemorating the subjection of faraway coimtries, as proof of the existence of
desirable natural resources, or as documents of the versatility and possible
usefulness of the inhabitants, but also of the need to convert them to Christianity
and to share with them the blessings of Western civilization. Very often, the
specific uses and meanings of such artifacts within their cultures of origin were
disregarded, and often even the exact provenance of exotic objects was not thought
of as essential for the esteem in which they were held by their European collectors.
With the appropriation of such artificial rarities by the Western culture of
collecting, the uses and meanings assigned by their ciilture of origin were replaced
by different uses and meanings more appropriate for their new owners.
During the Age of the Enlightenment, ethnography was established
according to a pattern originally conceived for natural history, and artifacts
became part of the descriptive inventory used to define the characteristics of
specific peoples or "races." Ideally, verbal and visual documents produced by
European observers were to supplement the collecting of material objects and to
supply the contextual information necessary for an imderstanding of their role
in their culture of origin. With this new goal in mind, separate ethnographic
collections were established since the late eighteenth century, often as part of
natural history museums. One of the problems of these collections, however,
was the absence of professional ethnographers who would be able to assemble
artifacts and the related documentary material according to the enlightened theory
of ethnographic collecting. Instead, museums were happy and content to receive
286
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
exotic artifacts from whoever had come into contact with faraway peoples for
professional or private reasons and had been curious enough to obtain specimens
of local manufacture. By and large, these collections assembled by travelers,
traders, missionaries, or government agents were lacking most of the essential
information needed to explain artifacts in terms of their culture of origin. In fact,
their collecting strategies did not significantly differ from those of the pre-
Enlightenment collectors. Such collections inspired by non-professional interests
indeed continued to be accepted and preserved in museums even after the
professionalization of anthropology in the late nineteenth century.
Given the fact that these early collections clearly do not meet the explanatory
needs of anthropology, the question must be faced whether such materials serve
any useful ethnographic purpose. As material documents, artifacts are
vinmediated sources of information on their culture of origin. But as merely
physical objects, they also only reflect purely physical properties of form, such
as shape, color, or mass, and the technological means involved in their production.
By analyzing these forms and their patterns of wear in conjunction with analogical
reasoning, certain conclusions may be reached about their use and function. In
the absence of an independently tiarismitted knowledge of the culturally specific
symbolic system, however, their original mearüng must ultimately remain
imknown. It should likewise be borne in mind that artifacts only represent
individual forms of cultural expression, and that without further evidence there
are severe problems in the assessment of their cultural representativity.
Despite these limitations, there are several good reasons for seriously and
critically studying artifacts in non-professionally assembled collections. One is
the fact that certain types of culturally relevant information are hardly ever (and
to some extent can even hardly be) documented in written or pictorial form, so
that a disregard for artifacts also implies a disregard for certain aspects of culture.
At the same time, historically collected artifacts must be seen as irreplaceable
docimients of historical cultures (and consequently important evidence in studies
of culture change). Since the early days of anthropology, when artifacts (and
other cultural forms) of "primitive" peoples were regarded as windows allowing
us to look at a primeval past, we have learned that cultures are continually
imdergoing change, even though some of their features may represent aspects
of continuity. Without adequate historical information, there is ultimately no
reliable method to predict the amoimt of continuity or the direction of changes.
Cultural changes also mean that it is problematic to interpret artifacts dating
from one period with contextual ethnographic information relating to another
time horizon. This is particularly true for regions like northeastern North America,
where inter\sive collecting began long before the arrival of the first professional
ethnographers. As it turns out, objects from periods significantly predating the
standard ethnographic accounts often make little sense when viewed in the
context of the latter. Wooden war clubs, such as the one collected by Friderik
2S7
Christian E Feest
Baraga in the early 1830s among the southwestern Chippewa/ were even then
largely reduced to a ceremonial or symbolic function and had to some extent
ceased to be used as fimctional weapons. Thus, Chippewa ethnography of the
twentieth century has little to offer that would explain the role of clubs in warfare.
Even where artifact types or design patterns have persisted over the centuries,
very often their functions and meanings have either gradually shifted or abruptly
changed by a process of substitution.
Artifacts, in other words, are potential sources for the historical ethnography
of a people that need to be looked at in the context of historical-ethnographic
data.
In order to make meaningful use of historically collected artifacts for the
purposes here described and to interpret them in an appropriate cultural frame
of reference, however, information on the time and the place of an object's
manufacture and/or use are of vital importance. Unfortimately, these data are
not always readily available, either because the collectors were not aware of
their significance, or because such information was lost in the history of transfers
from the original collector to the museum.
Dating poses the lesser problem, because it is often known when a tiaveler
made a trip (especially if it was to a faraway place), even if the exact place where
he may have obtained a specific object remains imknown. The accession date of
an artifact by the museum always provides at least a terminus ante quern, which
sometimes may be fairly close to the collecting date. Useful and reliable time
markers associated with the object itself are trade goods, such as silk ribbons or
specific types of glass beads. It should nevertheless be obvious that a documented
date is always preferable to one established by inference, and that every reliable
date improves our knowledge of the temporal distribution of artifact or
styles, which in turn may be used to date undocumented objects.
To firmly place an historically collected artifact in space is altogether a
much more difficult matter. Some early objects come with information hardly
more specific than, e.g., "North America," and even if they do, the question
remains what this designation actually means. Artifacts were often not acquired
from their makers or users, but through middlemen or tiaders, who may or may
not have been interested in conveying to the buyer even the information available
to them. Obviously, the market value of an object could be raised by associating
it (correctly or not) with the name of a famous previous owner or with a people
notorious in the imagination of potential collectors. As a result, artifacts of diverse
origins are often attributed by collectors to just a handful of better known peoples.
Far more commonly, however, historically collected ethnographic objects
are not at all associated with any cultural provenance, right or wrong. Attributions
2 This widely scattered indigenous population is today known under various names speUed in many
different ways (qj. Golob 1997:215-216). It is here referred to as "Chippewa" (and the language as "Ojibwa")
according to the standards established by the Handbook of North American Indians (Trigger 1978).
288
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
of origin foirnd in museum inventories and catalogs are habitually made by
curators, dealers, and private collectors alike on the basis of comparisons with
other, similar items. The reliability of such secondary attributions obviously
deaeases greatly if they are based on material that has no documented provenance
of its own.
The documentation of Friderik Baraga's ethnographic collection
What has so far been said highlights the importance of the small number
of reasonably well documented early collections and the artifacts they include.
Many of these ethnographic type specimens, however, have never been properly
identified, described, or published. Despite its modest size. Father Friderik
Baraga's collection, assembled between 1831 and 1836 in connection with his
missionary work among the Ottawa and particularly among the southwestern
Chippewa could possibly qualify as such a landmark collection. Before exploring
on the basis of a few selected examples the contributions of this material to the
historical ethnography of the western Great Lakes region of North America, we
need to look at the documentation of Baraga's ethnographic collection and its
problems.
Until now, the Baraga collection (as well as the artifacts collected by other
Slovenian missionaries in the Great Lakes region of North America) has attracted
little attention other than those of local scholars. Since the 1950s, a series of
increasingly sophisticated essays have been pubHshed by Orel (1954), Štrukelj
(1974, 1979), and Golob (1997), which have presented the objects and their
documentary background, and which have attempted to put the artifacts in a
wider comparative perspective. While the success of their comparative discussions
was severely limited by the availability of data on comparable artifacts, these
publications have laid an important basis for a critical evaluation of the Slovenian
missionary collections from North America.
It should be noted at the outset that Baraga was not an ethnographer, even
by the standards of his time. While his collection did serve, together with his
book, to satisfy the curiosity of his readers, his intended audience was not the
world of scholarship, but his compatriots in Slovenia, and more especially the
pious contributors to his missionary efforts. As Kasprycki (1998) has indicated,
Baraga's approach to material culture was decidedly informed by his missionary
outlook. The collection is strong in documenting useful things, especially
household utensils (such as birchbark containers, wooden bowls and ladles, mats),
transportation, bows and arrows, etc. It is relatively weak in dress and ornament,
with moccasins being the major exception, in ceremonial items (except for pipes,
which also had non-religious uses), and in leisure activities.^
Baraga's book on the history, character, customs and usages of the North-
3 Baraga 1837:60.
289
Christian F. Feest
American Indians (1837), published at the same time he deposited his collection
in Ljubljana, illustrates another problem that also affects the assessment of the
artifacts. In his book, the missionary freely combines his own observations among
the Ottawa and Chippewa with what he had taken from published sources on
other tribes,^ largely because for him (as for many of his contemporaries) "North
American Indians" was a meaningful category of cultural classification.'
Friderik Baraga's collection appears to be well documented. We know from
his own writings about the exact locations of his missionary work among the
Ottawa and Chippewa of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota between 1831
and 1836. In addition to scattered references to the artifacts in his History and a
printed list of the objects he donated to the Camiolian Provincial Museum which
appeared in 1837 in the Dl5TIsches Blatt, Golob has recently published two slightly
earlier manuscript lists, one of which was corrected and annotated by Baraga
himself.'' Golob also summarizes what is known about the collection before it
arrived in Ljubljana: When first approached in 1833 with a request to collect for
the newly established Provincial Museum, Baraga excused himself because of
his lack of time for strictly non-missionary activities; by February 1836, when he
had decided to return to Europe in order to raise money for the missions, Baraga
may have realized that such a collection could indeed raise the interest at home
for his transatlantic congregation. The collection must have been ready by the
time he left his station at La Pointe on the south shore of Lake Superior, although
it is first explicitly mentioned in a letter written from London on 3 December
4 Cp. Požar 1973.
5 To some extent ttiis is also true for Golob (1997), who often adduces comparative evidence from
indigenous peoples totally unrelated to the southwestern Chippewa, and whose uncritical use of unreUable
sources mars an otherwise valuable and useful publication.
6 Unfortunately, Golob (1997: 220-221) in publishing Freyer's list (illustrated in Golob's ill. 4) has
added the section lettering which appears only on Jerin's list (his ill. 3). Moreover, at least the English translation
of the German text includes several misleading enors. Thus, the introductory paragraph (taken from Freyer)
does not read: "Father Friderik Baraga, missionary of the highly honoured Bishop of Detroit in North America,
brought the following objects from the (Indian) tribe of the Ocipwe" (Golob 1997:220), but rather: "Mr. Friedrich
Baraga, missionary and vicar of the reverend Mr. Bishop of Detroit in North America, delivered the following
objects from Ocipwe." This indicates that Freyer refers to "Ocipwe" as a place, rather than a people. In Golob's
translation, the first entries read: "a) objects made of birch bark: one round vessel /MAKAK/ containing tree
sugar; - two little empty vessels; - round vessel filled with wild rice /MANOMIN/; - two httle round vessels /
ONAG AN/." A correct translation would read: "Industrial objects of the bark of the birch tree. One bark box /
¦Makak Indian: / with tree sugar from North America. Two empty bark boxes. One bark box with Indian rice /
¦Manomin:/. Two bark bowls / -.Onagan: /." UnforUmately, Golob does not offer a full transcript and translation
of the Jerin list, which not only has Baraga's annotations, but is in several respects more detailed and correct.
The two sections corresponding to those quoted from the Freyer list read in translation: "From the Reverend
Mr. Friedrich Baraga, missionary on the Lake Superior in the Northwest Territory in the United States of North
America, Diocese Detroit, Michigan: 12 pieces industrial objects from the bark of the North American birch tree
all of which produced by people from the American tribe of the Ocipwe on Lake Superior, namely, one Makak
(bark box) filled with tree sugar, (Sinsibakwat,) which is made from the sap of the North American sugar tree;
two other empty bark boxes of various sizes; - a 4th suchlike little box, filled with a kind of rice, which on Lake
Superior grows wild on wet ground, and which is called in the language of there Manomin; - two soup or drink
bowls (Onagan)." This also makes it clear that the list published in the lUyrisches Blatt (1837) was not based
upon Freyer's, but upon Jerin's list (Golob 1997:222-224, especially note 72). Golob's translation of the published
list is equally defective.
290
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
1836. Golob's conclusion, however, that all the artifacts (except for a few pieces
that show signs of wear) were collected and even made between 24 February
and 29 September 1836 by the Chippewa of La Pointe and/or Fond du Lac
(Mirmesota) cannot be imcriticaUy accepted.^
Although Baraga was stationed as a missionary among the Chippewa of
La Pointe in Wisconsin at the time he donated his collection (and the list published
in the lUyrisches Blatt in 1837 identifies him as such), the several accession
documents attribute only a few of the objects specifically to the Chippewa: The
"industrial objects of North American birchbark" are said to be from the
Chippewa of Lake Superior and both the netting of a pair of snowshoes and a
beaded bag are identified as the work of Chippewa women. But the missionary
had spent a much longer period of time among the Ottawa of Michigan, and
had also visited various Chippewa groups in this state. Since the first suggestion
to assemble a collection for the Provincial Museum had reached him when he
was still among the Ottawa, it cannot be precluded that some of the pieces in the
Baraga collection could in fact be of Ottawa origin.
A second problem is even more severe: Baraga was the first but not the
only Slovenian missionary to work among the Ottawa and Chippewa and the
Provincial Museum in Ljubljana is known to have received artifacts from at least
two others: Father Franc Pire is known to have donated one (or two) prehistoric
artifact(s) from the Ottawa village of Arbre Croche in 1836, while in 1873 Father
Ivan Čebul gave a small collection of Chippewa artifacts from Wisconsin or
Minnesota. The Pire items are easily identifiable, but for the Čebul material the
available documentation is slightly ambiguous; of the five items listed in the
year of acquisition, only three reappear in the 1888 catalog by Deschmann, but
three new ones are mentioned. In addition, there are several other artifacts from
the same general region without a documented collection history, which originally
may have been collected by either of the three or a number of other Slovenian
missionaries who had followed in the footsteps of Friderik Baraga,** and who
had worked among the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Menominee of the western Great
Lakes region. Father Pire is known to have sent several bark boxes decorated
with porcupine quills made by the Ottawa women of Arbre Croche and Lacroix
(Cross Village) (Illyrisches Blatt 1842), but others may also have shipped
ethnographic material to their home coimtry. Although there are no accession
records for these items, the imdocumented artifacts most likely came from this
general source.
Because the ethnographic specimens at the museum in Ljubljana were
renumbered several times, some doubts exist in the case of a few artifacts which
pieces were collected by whom. In addition, there are at least two artifacts that
certainly did not come from the Great Lakes region, but which were later cataloged
7 Golob 1997:21&-219,233.
8 Cp. Golob 1997:237-239,242-245.
291
Christian F. Feest
as Baraga objects instead of misplaced or lost objects which had appeared on the
original list. Since a few other items known to have been donated by Baraga are
also missing, there is room for speculation that such substitutions took place in
other cases as well.
Artifacts from the Baraga collection
In view of the importance of the Baraga collection, it would be useful to
offer a complete discussion of all of its artifacts in documentary, technical, cultural,
and comparative perspective. Limitations of space make it impossible at this
point to go beyond a brief and exemplary discussion of a few examples, which
illustrate the problems discussed above in general terms.
It has already been noted that two artifacts' attributed to the Baraga collec-
tion are not from the Great Lakes region and are most imlikely to have been
donated to the museum by the missionary. One is a club (cat. no. E. 2866) of
quadrangular cross-section with intricate incised designs, which Golob'" correctly
identifies as South American or Brazilian. A fairly large number of examples of
this general type are known from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century collections,
most of them without adequate documentation; attributions range from the
Antilles through the Guyanas to northern Brazil," with the best evidence for a
provenience from the Wapishana and their neighbors on the upper Rio Branco
River in Brazil and in southern Guyana.'^ The specimen in the Slovenski
etnografski muzej most likely dates from the second half of the eighteenth century
and must have been substituted before 1888" for the ball-headed club in the
Baraga collection (cat. no. E. 2829; Fig. 1), which in turn had been misplaced
among the musetim's African material." Golob correctly concluded that the South
American club should not be attributed to Friderik Baraga's collection.'^ How it
entered the museum, so far remains unknown.
9 A tilird artifact misattributed to Baraga is a European wooden horn (cat. no. E. 2901; Golob 1997;
295-297, no. 56), which Štrukelj (1974: 137) mistook for a sort of Chippewa courting flute. Golob (1997: 297)
suggests it may have been made for Čebul according to a Camiolian pattern to call his Native congregation to
mass. But Čebul actually used a Strombus shell for this purpose (which he donated to the museum in 1873), and
the instrument called a "shawm" by Deschmann (1888) is attributed by him to the Baraga collection. If there
ever was a Chippewa musical instrument in the collection (none is noted in the accession documents of 1837),
it was a flute. The horn never had anything to do with Baraga, Čebul, or the Chippewa.
The same is probably true for the basket (E. 2876; Golob 1997: 254-255, no. 11, attributed to the Čebul
collection). It does not look like a Native American splint basket; in addition, the description given by Štrukelj
(1974:130) is of a different basket, and it is quite possible that the two baskets have since been confused in the
collection.
1U Golob 1997:286-288, no. 50.
11 In addition to the evidence presented by Golob, cp. Feest 1985:241-242; Dietschy 1939:166-173, pi.
4, figs. 21a-e.
12 The proper identification of this object was made by the present author in December 1992.
13 Deschmann 1888:156, no. 40.
14 Identified in the African collection in December 1992 by Sylvia S. Kasprycki.
15 Golob 1997:286.
292
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 1: Ball-headed club ("pagamagan"), hickory. Length 65 cm. Southwestern Chippewa,
collected in 1835-1836. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, cat. no. E 2829 (Friderik Baraga
coll.) (photo F. Golob).¦ Slika 1: Bojni kij z okroglo glavo ("pagamagan"), hikori. Dolžina 65 cm.
Jugozahodni Očipvejci, zbran 1835-1836. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, kat. št. F 2829
(zbirka Friderika Barage) (foto F. Golob).
Figure 2: Ball-headed club, hawthorn (?), metal inlay, hot file marks. Length 57 cm. Southwestern
Chippewa, Minnesota, collected in 1823. Civico Museo E. Caffi, Bergamo, cat. no. Beltrami 26a
(G. Costantino Beltrami coll.) (photo C. F. Feest).* Slika 2: Bojni kij z okroglo glavo, glog,
kovinski vložek, vžgani znaki. Dolžina 57 cm. Jugozahodni Očipvejci, Minnesota, zbran 1823.
Civico Museo E. Caffi, Bergamo, kat. št. Beltrami 26a (zbirka G. Costantina Beltramija)
(foto C. F. Feest).
293
Christian F. Feest
The ball-headed club in the Baraga collection is described in the Illyrisches
Blatt as "a battle club (Pagamagan) made of a very firm tree root.""' In his book,
Baraga noted that "the North American Indians" before the arrival of the
Europeans had used "a short battle club ... which they used to crush the skulls of
their wounded enemies. ... Of all their old weapons, they only have preserved
the battle club, which they still make use of for the same purpose as their ancestors
had done."''' From this description alone, which mentions neither the weapon's
material, nor its form, it would be impossible to be sure which of the two types
of club used by the Chippewa the missionary had in mind. While the gunstock
club was used primarily in the western Great Lakes region and to its west, the
baU-headed club was widely distributed from the middle and northern Atiantic
coast to the western Great Lakes.'* Although there is substantial variation in the
shapes and decorative features of this type, no useful typology has ever been
attempted, and in many instances it is difficult to make a case for a plausible
attiibution.
Among the other documented southwestern Chippewa clubs, one in the
collection assembled in 1823 among the southwestern Chippewa in Mirmesota
by Giacomo Costantino Beltiami and now preserved in Bergamo" (Fig. 2) is
slightiy shorter but similarly shaped, and is decorated with hot file marks and
metal inlays. Similar fire decorations and pictographic incisions appear on another
item collected in the 1830s by Nathan Sturges Jarvis at Fort Snelling in Minnesota.^"
In the Peabody Essex Museum,^' there is a rather similar Chippewa example
collected in 1825, which has a metal blade set into the ball. Metal blades may
have replaced earlier horn or bone spikes, such as the one seen on a Plains Ojibwa
example collected before 1825,^^ which Golob uses as a comparison to Baraga's
club; the shaft of this piece is differently shaped (slightly ridged rather than flat,
and with an excrescence on the upper half of the shaft), but the lower end and
the curvature of the front end are indeed similar. Golob's second comparative
example,^' while also attiibuted to the "Ojibwa," is rather different from those
16 myrischesBlattl837:68,no.32.
17 Baraga 1837:148.
18 Cp. Dietschy 1939:122-134, pi. 2, figs. 12a-b, 13a-c.
15 Museo Civico E. Caffi, Bergamo (cat. no. 54; VigorelUi 1987:67,93, no. 54.; Feest and Kasprycki 1998:
fig. 47).
20 Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY (cat. no. 50.67.84; Feder 1964:58, #49, fig. 49).
21 Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA (cat. no. E 6642, George Cutler coll.).
22 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. no. 419, Joseph Klinger coll.; Feest 1968:68, no. 101, pi. 9c; Feest
and Kasprycki 1993:76-77; Golob 1997:170,286, ill. 59). For a spiked baU-headed club with a similar excrescence,
collected in 1832-1836 by Nathan Sturges Jarvis and attributed by him to the Menominee, see Feder (1964: 37,
54, fig. 19)
23 British Museum, London (cat. no. 1949 Am 22 146; King 1982: 83, 95; Golob 1997: ill. 58, caption
transposed with that for ill. 60). For another type of Chippewa ball-headed club, see Hodge et al. 1973: 103.
More closely related appear to be clubs without documented provenance in the Museum of Mankind, London,
no cat. no. (King 1982:85, fig. 90c) and in the Museum flir Völkerkunde, Berlin (cat. no. IV B177, F. Köhler coll.,
coUected prior to 1845; Krickeberg 1954: pi. 39a).
294
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 3: Ball-headed club ("pagamagan"), wood (old damage on the ball), incised decoration.
Ottawa, Arbre Croche or Cross Village, Michigan, collected in 1851-1853. Formerly in the
collection of the Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien, deaccessioned in 1964 (Martin Pitzer coll.)
(photo E. Mandl).* Slika 3; Bojni kij z okroglo glavo ("pagamagan"), les (stara poškodba na
glavi), vrezano okrasje. Otavci, Arbre Croche ali Cross Village, Michigan, zbran 1851-1853.
Prej v zbirki Etnološkega muzeja na Dunaju, odstopljen 1964 (zbirki Martina Pitzerja)
(foto E. Mandl).
Figure 4: Flat bag, wrapped twining, rush, maidenhair fern, bear grass. Width 18 cm. Attributed
to the Clatsop, lower Columbia River valley, ca. 1860. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana,
cat. no. E 2865 (misattributed to the Friderik Baraga coll.) (photo F. Golob).* SUka 4: Ploska
torba, pletena z ovijanjem, ločje, Venerini lasci, medvedja trava. Širina 18 cm. Pripisan Clatsopim
v spodnji doline reke Columbia, ca. 1860. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, kat. št. E 2865
(zmotno pripisan zbirki Friderika Barage) (foto F. Golob).
295
Christian F. Feest
noted above. On the other hand, the Ottawa clubs in the collection assembled in
1851-1853 in the mission settlements of Arbre Croche and Lacroix by Martin
Pitzer" (Fig. 3) illustrate the fact that the cultural differences between the
southwestern Chippewa and their Ottawa relatives were only gradual.
The second item attributed to the Baraga collection but definitely not
belonging to it, is a flat basketry bag (cat. no. E. 2865; Fig. 4) identified by Golob
with an entry on the list published in the lllyrisches Blatt: "a sack woven of grass
{machkimod), in small scale."^' While the description would seem to fit the artifact
in general terms, it is certainly not a "mashkimod" (the general Ojibwa term for
"bag"). There were several types of typical southwestern Chippewa (and Ottawa)
fiber bags, which were woven in a variety of characteristic twining (and rarely
also plaiting) techniques of native vegetal yams (apocynum, nettle fiber, basswood
bark, cedar bark, etc.) and/or imported woolen yams and were decorated with
the images of mythological beings or geometric patterns.^'' These types were
generally found in the western Great Lakes region, and it is presently impossible
to define specific tribal characteristics.
It is, however, possible to state that the bag E. 2865 is not a product of the
western Great Lakes region, but was produced in the lower Columbia River
valley on the southem Northwest Coast of North America. Avery similar, slightly
larger rush bag with wrapped twining in maidenhair fern and bear grass in
Rotterdam (Fig. 5)^' is attributed to the Wasco (of the middle Columbia), but was
apparently acquired without documentation in 1954. Wasco flat bags are very
rare, but those that exist have straight to tapering (rather than flaring) sides and
the style of their decorative designs is markedly different.^** Technically and
stylistically similar, on the other hand, are baskets of the Clatsop (Lower Chinook)
near the mouth of the Columbia River and of their Tillamook neighbors to the
south.^"* Designs include sawtooth bands and rows of quadrupeds, including
deer and apparently also dogs. The animals on the obverse of E. 2865 may indeed
be such dogs (and not "tinderwater panthers," as Golob suggests). Based on a
comparison with examples of Clatsop baskets collected in the 1830s and 1840s, it
is more likely that E. 2865 was made during the second half of the nineteenth
century.
The partial confusion between the Baraga and Čebul collections is illustrated
by the cradleboard wrapper decorated with silk ribbon appliqué (E. 2869), which
24 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. no. 131.731; Feest 1968:38, fig. 9c). Here illustrated is a second
club from the Pitzer collection, deaccessioned by the Vienna museum in an exchange with Arthur Speyer, Jr. For
another early 19th century Ottawa club, see Hodge et al. 1973:104.
25 Golob 1997: 256-257, no. 15; ülyrisches Blatt 1837: 68, no. 16.
26 Cp., e.g., Hodge et al. 1973:84-88; Brasser 1976: 64; Feest 1984:14-16,29-31,35-37; PhilHps 1986.
27 Museum voor Volkenkimde, Rotterdam (cat. no. 35.040).
28 Schlick 1994:68,167.
29 Marr 1984:49-51, figs. 11-17.
296
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 5: Flat bag, wrapped twining, rush, maidenhair fern, bear grass. Width 28 cm. Attributed
to the Clatsop, lower Columbia River valley, second half on the nineteenth century. Museum
voor Volkenkunde, Rotterdam, cat. no. 35.040 (accessioned in 1954, no documented collection
history) (photo C. F. Feest).* Slika 5: Ploska torba, pletena z ovijanjem, ločje, Venerini lasci,
medvedja trava. Širina 18 cm. Pripisan Clatsopim v spodnji dolini reke Columbie, druga
polovica 19. stoletja. Etnološki muzej, Rotterdam, kat. no. 35.040 (pridobljen 1954,
ni dokumentiranega historiata o pridobitvi) (foto C. F. Feest).
Figure 6: Cradle wrapper, cloth, silk ribbon applique. Length 134 cm, width 18 cm. Southwestern
Chippewa, Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin, mid-nineteenth century. Museum für Völkerkunde,
Beriin, cat. no. IV B 7611 (Walter Wyman coll.) (photo C. R Feest).* Shka 6: Preveza za zibelko,
blago, apUke iz svuenih trakov. Dolžina 134 cm, širina 18 cm. Jugozahodni Očipvejci,
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin, sredina 19. stoletja. Etnološki muzej, Berlin, kat. št. IV B 7611
(zbirka Walterja Wymana) (foto C. F. Feest).
297
Christian F. Feest
Golob attributes to the Čebul collection.'" While no such item is known to have
belonged to the ethnographic material donated by Čebul, the account of the
Baraga collection in the lUyrisches Blatt refers to a "wide wrapper of cloth, in
which a girl from there has artificially embroidered figures" as belonging to the
cradleboard.^' Deschmarm mentions it as number "22. Piece of cloth sewn with
silk ribbons of various colors." While assigning his numbers 17 through 21 to
the Čebul collection, 23 to Pire, and 24 through 40 to Baraga, 22 is not explicitly
identified, although it is listed at the end of the Čebul sequence.'^ There is, how-
ever, no reason whatsoever to assume the loss of Baraga's wrapper and the
appearance of an otherwise undocumented Čebul wrapper just to explain away
Deschmann's mistake. A similar piece coUected in 1905 by Walter Wyman among
the southwestern Chippewa of the Green Bay Agency in Wisconsin is now in
Berlin (Fig. 6).^' There are no historical or stylistic reasons why this piece could
not date to the 1830s, since ribbon appliqué was well established in the region
by the early nineteenth century
A slightly different problem is posed by the group of quUl-decorated
birchbark containers at the Slovenski etnografski muzej. The accession records
list four such maiaiks in the Baraga collection and one in the Čebul collection.
Deschmarm repeats this information, but does not specify the number of makaks
in the Baraga coUection.^^ Today, however, there is a total of eight such containers.
Of these, two (cat. nos. E. 2886,2890)'^ share the distinctive kind of quiU-wrapping
of the edges also found on the two birchbark bowls in the Baraga coUection (cat.
nos. E. 2826,2897)'^ and thus should have the same origin. E. 2894,'" whose edge
is wrapped with root splints (rather than brown quiUs, as Golob suggests), has
the same basic cut and careful sewing with root splints as the two makaks
previously mentioned, and thus may also safely be assigned to the Baraga
collection. AU these items have indeed consistently been identified as Baraga
pieces in the various inventories of the museum. The same is true as far as the
30 Golob 1997: 294-295, no. 55.
31 Golob 1997: 243; lUyrisches Blatt 1837:68.
32 Deschmann 1888:155.
33 Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin (cat. no. FV B 7611, Walter Wyman coll., Chippewa, Green Bay
Agency, Wisconsin). Other silk ribbon appliqué cradleboard wrappers from the western Great Lakes include
the following: Denver Art Museum, Denver, CO (cat. no. 1939.9, ex A. G. Heath coll., attributed to "Ottawa,
Ontario, 1810"; Conn 1980:13,22, fig. 15); State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (cat. no. 1954.1621,
Walter Wyman coll. 1901, ex Grignon coll., Menominee, Butte des Morts, probably before 1850); Neville Public
Museum, Green Bay, WI (Menominee).
34 Cp. Conn 1980:12-13.
35 Illyrisches Blatt 1837:67; Golob 1997:200,243; Deschmann 1888:155, no. 33.
36 Golob 1997: 249-251, nos. 1-2.
37 Golob 1997: 253-254, nos. 7-8. For these vessels, compare the more crudely made southwestern
Chippewa birchbark bowls collected in 1823 by Beltrami (VigorelU 1987: 55-56, 84-86). Even more similar,
including the quiU-wrapped rims, are two such bowls of undocumented provenance collected before 1835 in
the Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin (cat. nos. IV B 29, FV B 79, Nagler coll.).
38 Golob 1997:252-253, no. 6.
298
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Čebul attribution of box E. 289P' is concerned, which is characterized by the use
of thread both for the stiaight side seams and for the attachment of the wooden
reinforcement at the rim. Of the remaining four birchbark containers, two are
similar in size and shape to E. 2891: Of these two, however, E. 2893''° has the
same technical characteristics as E. 2891 with which it also shares certain stylistic
features of the quillwork, while E. 2892"" differs stiikingly in its basic cut and the
use of root splints for sewing and wrapping. Although Golob only "attiibutes"
(on the basis of an earlier inventory) E. 2892 to the Baraga collection, and has no
doubt that E. 2893 was part of it, it seems at least highly likely tiiat E. 2893 came
from the same source as E. 2891.
In all likelihood, E. 2892 can be attributed to the Baraga collection; in addition
to the differences to the two other boxes, there are marked similarities to a box
collected among the southwestern Chippewa in 1830 in the Peabody Essex
Museum,*^ which argue for this solution of the problem.
The collection of the Museum für Völkerkunde in Vienna contains a large
number of similar small makaks, which came from the same missions in which
the Slovenian missionaries were working. While most of the boxes similar to E.
2891 and 2893 from the Johann Georg Schwarz collection^'* are without
documented provenance, a similar set from the Martin Pitzer collection was
obtained in 1851-1853 at the Ottawa villages of Arbre Croche and Cross Village
(Lacroix).^ Whether the two boxes in Ljubljana were given to the museum by
Ivan Čebul must remain in doubt. Although Čebul is not known to have worked
in the Ottawa missions (and is said to have spent most of his time before 1873 in
Wisconsin), it would nevertheless not be inconceivable for him to have brought
these pieces to Europe. On the other hand, the style in which the two boxes are
made seems too early for a collection assembled in the early 1870s.
Of the remaining two birchbark vessels, E. 2945 is an eight-sided container
with a roimd lid,*^ whose edges are trimmed with silk and cotton ribbons in a
style that is weU documented (and even distinctive) for the Ottawa of the Arbre
Croche region. A nearly identical example is found in the Pitzer collection of
1851-1853 in Vienna.*'' E. 2895 is a rectangular lidded box on a low pedestal with
a short carrying stiap of plaited porcupine quills (Fig. 7)f Golob compares it to
a Menominee box in the Johann Georg Schwarz collection in Vienna, but similar
39 Golob 1997:251, no. 3.
40 Golob 1997: 252, no. 5.
41 Golob 1997:251-252, no. 4.
42 Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA (cat. no. 53456, ex Andover Newton Theological School coll.,
BoutwellcoU.).
43 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. nos. 12038-12041, Johann Georg Schwarz coll.).
44 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. nos. 131742-131746, Martin Pitzer coll.).
45 Golob 1997: 262-263, no. 21.
4* Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. no. 131765, M. Pitzer coll.; Graham 1983:35).
47 Golob 1997:261-262, no. 20.
299
Christian F. Feest
pieces are also documented for the Ottawa and Chippewa in the period around
1830 (Fig. 8)."'* A fairly imusual feature in this type of work is the addition of
representations of four women on the small sides of E. 2895 contrasting with the
predominantly floral designs. Perfectly identical female figures are shown on
one side of an undocumented makak attributed (for no apparent reason) to the
Menominee of Wisconsin in the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull.*'
Another unprovenanced birchbark box in the Linden-Museum in Stuttgart (Fig. 9)
showing representations of women (in a slightly different manner) in addition
to men in canoes, conical lodges, and various animals is from the collection of
Prince Maximilian of Wied, who traveled in the United States in 1832-1834.'°
While the date fits our ideas about the chronology of styles in western Great
Lakes quillwork on birchbark, Maximilian never came near the region where
such boxes were produced. We must therefore assume that he received it as a
present either during his trip or after his return to Europe. The possibility that
he obtained it when visiting Niagara Falls is much less likely, since the market
there was dominated by the local Native population.
Since those boxes decorated with other than floral or geometric designs
were obviously designed for the sale to Whites, the prime candidates for their
manufacture are those Native groups which had an easy access to the respective
markets: the Ottawa of the Arbre Croche region (with both Mackinac and Detroit
as their markets), the Menominee (with Green Bay), or the Chippewa living in
the area of Mackinac and Sault Ste. Marie. On the basis of this reasoning, the
Chippewa of La Pointe or Fond du Lac may virtually be excluded as producers
at the time the boxes were made in the 1830s.
It has already been noted that in 1841 Father Franc Pire sent quill-decorated
bark boxes made by the Ottawa women of Arbre Croche and Cross Village to his
faithful supporters in Slovenia. Theoretically, any of the four problematic boxes
just described could have been part of this 1841 shipment, although E. 2895 may
date a Uttle earlier, and E. 2945 was probably made somewhat later. Baraga cannot
be excluded as the source for E. 2895 and (less probably) for E. 2891 and 2893.
Čebul is the least likely candidate to have collected any of the birchbark boxes
now in the Slovenski etnografski muzej.
A similar problem exists with regard to the seven pairs and two single
moccasins presently at the Slovenski etnografski muzej. Two pairs, which were
48 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. nos. 11992, 11993, Ottawa, ca. 1830, Johann Georg Schwarz
coll.; Graham 1983:29,34); Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA (cat. no. 53440, Chippewa, collected in 1831 by
Miles Boutwell, ex Andover Newton Theological School coll.; Monroe et al. 1996: 22,33, fig. 13). Further such
boxes are found in the Milwaukee Public Museum (cat. no. 352, ex Wisconsin Natural History Society coll.,
"Chippewa") and in the Bemisches Historisches Museum (cat. no. Ca 22, collected before 1845 by H. Morlot,
"Canada").
49 Canadian Museum of Civilizafion, Hull, PQ (cat. no. Ill-N-37ab, ex Arthur Speyer coll.). The other
side depicts a Calumet dance.
50 Linden-Museum, Stiittgart (cat. no. 36054, Maximilian Prince of Wied coll.; Kussmaul 1982,1: 244).
There are at least three other quill-decorated birchbark items of a related style in the Maximilian collection.
300
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 7: Lidded birchbark box, porcupine quUI
embroidery. Height 19 cm. Western Great
Lakes, ca. 1830-1840. Slovenski etnografski
muzej, Ljubljana, cat. no. E 2895 (no
documented collection history) (photo
F. Golob).* Slika 7: Škatla iz brezovega lubja
s pokrovom, vezenje iz bodic ježevca.
Višina 19 cm. Zahodno območje Velikih jezer,
ca. 1830-1840. Slovenski etnografski muzej,
Ljubljana, kat. št. E 2895 (ni historiata
o pridobitvi) (foto F. Golob).
Figure 8; Lidded birchbark box, porcupine quill
embroidery, silk ribbon, paper. Height 11 cm.
Ottawa, Arbre Croche, Michigan, c. 1830. ''
Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien, cat. no. 11993
Qohann Georg Schwarz coU., probably ex
Friedrich Rése coll.) (photo C. F. Feest).* Slika i
8: Škatla iz brezovega lubja s pokrovom,     I
vezenje iz bodic ježevca, svilen trak, papir.
Višina 11 cm. Otavci, Arbre Croche, Michigan,
c. 1830. Etnološki muzej, Dunaj, kat. št. 11993 ^
(zbirka Johanna Georga Schwarza, verjetno iz
zbirke Friedricha Réséja) (foto C. F. Feest).
Figure 9: Lidded birchbark box, porcupine quill embroidery. Height 17 cm. Western Great Lakes,
probably 1832-1834. Linden-Museum, Stuttgart, cat. no. 36054 (Maximilian Prince of Wied coll.)
(photo U. Didoni).* SUka 9: Škatla iz brezovega lubja s pokrovom, vezenje iz bodic ježevca.
Višina 17 cm. Zahodno območje VeUkih jezer, verjetno 1832-1834. Muzej Linden, Stuttgart, kat.
št. 36054 (zbirka princa Maxinüliana von Wied.) (foto U. Didoni).
301
Christian F. Feest
only recently cataloged (E. 18155,18156),^' can instantly be left out of considera-
tion, because they combine quillwork with silk embroidery in a manner typical
for Métis or northern Athapaskan work. They are unlikely to be, as Golob
suggests, part of a donation by Franc Fire. On the other hand, the accession
records document only three pairs of Chippewa women's moccasins as received
from Friderik Baraga,'^ and (presumably one pair of) "sandals" (or moccasins)
from Čebul.^^ Deschmann'* repeats this information without further additions.
The remaining specimens were thus probably received only after 1888, although
they must have been collected at an earlier time.
One of the pairs donated by Baraga is described as "Indian bridal shoes of
deerskin decorated with green silk ribbons and embroidered with dyed split
bird quills."^' Although the green silk has now almost completely disappeared
and the quills are porcupine quills rather than bird quills, the description is clear
enough to allow the identification of E. 2917'*' as the pair in question. The Museum
für Völkerkunde in Vierma has a very similar pair from the collection of Johann
Georg Schwarz. The Schwarz material includes the former collection of Bishop
Rése of Detroit, in whose diocese Baraga's missions were located.'^ Although
the Schwarz moccasins are without documented provenance, the similarity with
the Baraga pair suggests that it was also obtained by the Slovenian missionary,
probably at La Pointe, and presented to his bishop.'*
Two other pairs (cat. nos. E. 2914,2916)'' have qmUwork of superior quality,
but lack the silk ribbon appliqué on cloth ankle flaps of the "bridal shoes"; one
of the pairs is imfittished. There is little doubt that these are the "half-embroidered
girl's shoes" and the "pair of ordinary woman's shoes" of the Baraga donation.*^"
The strong Métis influence in the quillwork may suggest a possible origin in
Fond du Lac, Minnesota. In his book, Baraga*"' notes that moccasins were being
51 Golob 1997:272-273, nos. 36-37.
52 lllyrisches Blatt 1837:68. The Freyer Ust mentions only two pairs of moccasins. Since only part of the
earUer Jerin list (upon which the pubUshed version is based) has been pubUshed, it is presently impossible to
ascertain whether the third pair represents an addition or whether its omission from the Freyer list was a
mistake.
53 Golob 1997:243.
54 Deschmann 1888:154-155.
55 lllyrisches Blatt 1837:68.
56 Golob 1997: 271, no. 33.
57 Feest and Kasprycki 1993:16-17.
58 Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. no. 12022, Johann Georg Schwarz coU.; Feest 1968: 59-60, no.
74, fig. v/74, misattributed to the Miami).
59 Golob 1997:269-271, nos. 30,32.
60 Beltrami (1828,2: pl. 11, figs. 1,3) illustrates two broadly similar pairs presumably collected in 1823 in
Minnesota. One of them is identified as "Sioux," the other as a pair of (southwestern) Chippewa women's
moccasins. Other comparable moccasins include: Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY (cat. no. 50.67.22ab, collected
by N. S. Jarvis, 1833-1836, attributed to the Chippewa; Feder 1964:49,51, fig. 31); Museo Luigi Pigorini, Rome
(cat. no. 3645, ex Museo Kircheriano coll., "Canada").
61 Baraga 1837:58,59,61.
302
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
made by the women from skins tanned by themselves, and that the moccasins of
the men were heavily decorated with beads and ribbons. Interestingly, all the
moccasins in his coUection are those of women, of which he also says that they
are decorated with a multitude of beads and ribbons. Quillwork, which is
represented by all three pairs, is not even mentioned in the text.
One simple and almost imdecorated pair (E. 2615)'^^ has consistently and
credibly been identified as the pair donated by Ivan Čebul.
This leaves for consideration one pair and two single moccasins without
information on their provenance. AU three of them are possibly Ottawa, although
they may date from different periods and may have entered the museum at
different times. E. lOSO*"' does not even have an inventory number of the old
National Museima, the present museum's precursor, and seems to date from the
1850s, when Father Mrak, another Slovenian missionary and Baraga's successor
as Bishop of Marquette, was stationed at Arbre Croche. If the two single moccasins
(E. 2918,2919)'^ are indeed Ottawa and date from the 1830s, both may have been
collected by Father Pire. E. 2918 (Fig. 10) is a particularly interesting piece which
combines stylized floral quillwork''^ with line appUqué beadwork over sUk ribbon
applique. The beadwork style, in which straight lines are outlined with zigzag
lines, is highly suggestive of Ottawa work. A beaded pair now in the Detroit
Institute of Arts (Fig. 11) nicely illustrates this technique.''*'
Unfortimately, the three animal skin tobacco pouches from the Baraga
collection (and one from the Čebul coUection) have not survived,*'^ but there is a
fingerwoven yam and glass bead pouch, described in the lUyrisches Blatt as a
"tobacco pouch woven from red wool threads with rows of glass beads; an artistic
product of the Otchipwe women" (cat. no. E. 2868; Fig. 12).** Fingerwoven yam
pouches with geometric designs in white glass beads dating from the late
62 Golob 1997: 270-271, no. 31.
63 Golob 1997:266-269, no. 29.
64 Golob 1997:271-272, no. 33-34.
65 A parr of moccasins (now fitted with hard leather soles) in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA (cat. no. 27-15-10/98245; Isaac 1990:32-33) has a similar plaited square quilled on the center of
the vamps. It is said to have been collected by Capt. William Phelps among the Chippewa in 1841, although the
museum thinks that the artifact is of Iroquoian/Huron style and should date to after 1865, because of the use of
an aniline dye. I believe that this argument is as invalid (because what appears to be an aniline dye may actually
be a natural dye) as Golob's suggestion (1997: 272) that the gilt thread outlining the quilled design indicates a
production of the artifact after 1850.
66 Detroit Institute of Arts (cat. no. 81.64ab; collected by Mary Shurtleff at Cross Village; Penney 1992:
96-97, no. 32). Although collected at an Ottawa village and done in an Ottawa style of beadwork, the pair has
been called "Chippewa" by Penney and by earlier authorities (Hodge et al. 1973:38-39, no. 143). The same style
appears on a beaded beaver skin in the Pitzer collection (Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien, cat. no. 131734,
collected in 1851-1853 among the Ottawa, probably at Cross ViUage; Feest 1968:47, pi. 5; 1984:40).
67 For descriptions, see lUyrisches Blatt (1837: 68) and (Golob 1997: 243). The fact that none of them
appears in Deschmann (1888) may indicate that they were no longer m the collection by 1888. The Čebul pouch
was apparentiy lost by 1876 (Golob 1997: 244).
68 lUyrisches Blatt 1837: 68; Golob 1997:258, no. 16.
303
Christian F. Feest
Figure 10: Moccasin, tarmeci buckskin, cloth, silk ribbon, porcupine quill, and glass bead
appHque. Length 26.5 cm. Ottawa, Michigan, ca. 1840. Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana,
cat. no. E 2918 (attributed to Friderik Baraga coll., but more likely Franc Fire coll.) (photo F.
Golob).* SUka 10: Mokasin, strojena jelenova koža, blago, svilen trak, vezenje z bodicami
ježevca, aplike iz steklenih biserov. Dolžina 26.5 cm. Otavci, Michigan, ca. 1840. Slovenski
etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, kat. št. E 2918 (pripisan zbirki Friderika Barage, vendar je bolj
verjetno, da je iz zbirke Franca Pirca) (foto F. Golob).
Figure 11: Moccasins, farmed buckskin, cotton fabric, silk ribbon and glass bead appliqué. Length
28 cm. Ottawa, Cross ViUage, Michigan, ca. 1850. Detroit Institute of Arts, cat. no. 81.64a-b
(Richard A. Pohrt coU., ex Mary B. Shurtleff coll.) (photo Founders Society Purchase).* SUka 11:
Mokasina, strojena jelenova koža, bombažna tkanina, svilen trak in apUke iz steklenih biserov.
Dolžina 28 cm. Otavci, Cross Village, Michigan, ca. 1850. Detroitski Inštitut za umetnosti,
kat. št. 81.64a-b (zbirka Richarda A. Pohrta, prej v zbirki Mary B. Shurtleffa)
(foto Founders Society Purchase).
304
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 12: Shoulder bag, red and green wool
yam, white glass beads. Width 22 cm.
Southwestern Chippewa, La Pointe,
Wisconsin, collected in 1835-1836. Slovenski
etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, cat. no. E 2868
(Friderik Baraga coll.) (photo F. Golob).*
Slika 12: Naranma torbica, rdeča in zelena
volnena preja; beh stekleni biseri. Širina 22
cm. Jugozahodni Očipvejci, La Pointe,
Wisconsin, zbrana 1835-1836. Slovenski
etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, kat. št. E 2868
(zbirka Friderika Barage) (foto F. Golob).
eighteenth century are sometimes attributed to the Chippewa/' although none
appears to be documented as such. The Baraga pouch, which technically and
stylistically differs somewhat from these older examples may be the earliest
such item to be definitely associated with the Chippewa. Its provenance from La
Pointe is supported by the existence of a very similar pouch in the Indian
Dormitory on Mackinaw Island, collected in La Pointe in 1854 (Fig. 13). Other
comparable Chippewa pouches collected about twenty years later among the
southwestern Chippewa of Minnesota^" have more complex beadwork designs
and woven beadwork straps. The strap of the Baraga pouch, by contrast, has a
design reminiscent of patterns commonly found on early nineteenth-century
Chippewa and Ottawa garters.^'
The extent to which individual pieces in single collections may add to our
understanding of stylistic distributions and relationships is also illustrated by
the knife case from the Baraga collection (cat. no. 2879; Fig. 14). In European and
M E.g., Benndorf and Speyer 1968:90-91, fig. 49.
70 SaiTunlung des Instituts für Ethnologie, Universität Göttingen (cat. no. Am 3138; collected between
1855 and 1862 by Hermann Domeier among the Chippewa near Chengwatana, Mirmesota; Feest and Kasprycki
1998: fig. 87); Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MI (cat. no. 37513; attributed to "Chippewa; c.
1860"; Olson et al. 1977: 70, #83); Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN (cat. no. A79:4:73; Bishop H. B.
Whipple collection, Chippewa; ca. 1860; Casagrande and Ringheim 1980: 77, #73); Chandler-Pohrt collection
("Chippewa, c. 1860"; Hodge et al. 1973:55. no. 206).
71 E.g., Museum für Völkerkunde, Wien (cat. no. 131790, collected in 1851-1853 by Martin Pitzer among
the Ottawa of Cross Village or Arbre Croche, MI; Feest 1968: 41, no. 11; 1984: 54); Deteoit histitute of Arts,
Detroit, MI (cat. no. 81.77a-b, collected among the Ottawa of Cross Village, MI; Penney 1992: 80-81, no. 14);
Detroit histitute of Arts (cat. no. 81.294a-b, "Chippewa or Ottawa, 1820-1840; collected by Müford Chandler on
Beaver Island, MI); Cranbrook Iiwtihite of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI (cat. no. 4078, attributed to "Ojibwa, c.
1820" and collected by Milford Chandler on Walpole Island, ON; Olson et al. 1977:60, no. 48). The same style is
found on a pair of leggings ath-ibuted to the southeastem Chippewa and collected on Walpole Island, Ontario
(Cranbrook hutihite of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI; cat. no. 4080; Penney 1992:92-93, no. 27), but note that the
Native population of Walpole Island is made up of Chippewas, Ottawas, and Potawatomis.
305
Christian F. Feest
Figure 13: Shoulder bag, red and green wool yam, white glass beads. Southwestern Chippewa, La
Pointe, Wisconsin, collected in 1854. Indian Dormitory, Mackinaw Island (photo C. F. Feest).* Slika
13: Naramna torbica, rdeča in zelena volnena preja; beli stekleni biseri. Jugozahodni Očipvejci, La
Pointe, Wiscor\sin, zbrana 1854. Indian Dormitory, Mackinaw Island (foto C. F. Feest).
306
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 14: Knife case, tanned buckskin,
porcupine quills. Length 21 cm. Southwestern
Chippewa, collected in 1835-1836. Slovenski
etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, cat. no. E 2879
(Friderik Baraga coU.) (photo F. Golob).* SUka ;
14: Nožnica, strojena jelenova koža, bodice
ježevca. Dolžina 21 cm. Jugozahodni Očipvejci, !
zbrana 1835-1836. Slovenski etnografski
muzej, Ljubljana, kat. št. E 2879 (zbirka
Friderika Barage) (foto F. Golob).
American collections, there are a few dozens of knife cases from the Great Lakes
region of North America made of leather and ornamented with dyed porcupine
quills. The use of knife cases in North America probably originated during the
late seventeenth or early eighteenth century as a result of the adoption of
European steel knives, which were much sharper than the older stone, bone, or
reed knives and therefore could not simply be carried without a sheath protecting
the wearer. Two tj^es of knife cases can be distinguished according to the manner
in which they were worn. One type was suspended around the neck, is
symmetrical in shape, and may be recognized by the strings or straps by which
it worn suspended in front of the breast. Belt-worn knife cases represent the
other and probably later type; they are asymmetrical and show different means
of attachment to the belt. If we had only written evidence to rely upon, we
would hardly know that knife cases were used at aU. The few descriptions that
survive, barely describe the manner of wearing, but there are no indications of
the many different shapes and decorative patterns which often are specific to
certain regions or cultural groups.''^
Father Baraga's Geschichte, Character, Sitten und Gebräuche der nord-
amerikanischen Indier is one of the few sources which actually notes that knife
cases were worn attached to the belt,^' and indeed the knife case in his own
collection is also of this t3^e. It is largely because only one published report of
belt-worn knife cases (which, moreover, was unknown to Baraga) exists prior to
''2 Cp. Feest in preparation.
73 "They also have a large knife always suspended from their belt in a sheath" (Baraga 1837:61).
307
Christian F. Feest
1837/* that we can infer that his description was based on personal observation.
It is because we know that the knife case in his collection is not an Ottawa type,
that we can safely assign his observation to the Chippewa. The only Ottawa
knife cases that we can document are neck-worn, although this does not preclude
the possibility that they had started to use belt-worn knife cases by the 1830s.
In some respects, the knife case from the Baraga collection is imique. It has
long, quill-wrapped fringes ending in loops hanging in three sections from the
top, center, and lower end of its curved side and from the lower border of a
small decorative panel of woven quillwork sewn to the upper end of the knife
case.^' The closest similarities are with four examples whose decorative panels
are of appliqué (rather than woven) quillwork. Three of them appear to come
from much further west,'''' have only two sections of long fringes at the top and
bottom of the curved side, and two of them have further appliqué quillwork
along the edge or in the lower portion of the sheath. The fourth knife case was
collected in 1823 by Beltrami and is attributed by him to the "Sioux."^^
Unfortunately, some of Beltrami's attributions are patently wrong, and it seems
unlikely that he obtained this knife case among the Dakota of Minnesota, but
either on the Red River or among the southwestern Chippewa of Minnesota.
The eight-pointed star on the Baraga case appears in woven quillwork on
other artifacts as well, such as, for example, a pouch from the Jarvis collection,'*
attributed at the Brooklyn Museum to the Red River (Métis), or on a cradleboard
collected by Mrs. William Boutwell in the 1850s among the southwestern
Chippewa .'^ It is, however, also a common motif in southwestern Chippewa
woven beadwork. There are indeed two possibly pre-1850 knife cases of the
same general type with the eight-pointed star in woven beadwork, both of which
may also be of southwestern Chippewa origin (Fig. 15).*"
74 Weld's account (1807: letter 35) is apparently based upon observations among the Iroquois. An earlier
reference to neck-, belt-, and leg-worn knife cases (B. 1978: 181), not published until recently, refers to the
Native peoples of French Canada in general.
75 Golob 1997:260-261, no. 19.
76 Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON (cat. no. 960.115.8; Best and McClelland 1977:10,18, no. 7) is athibuted
to the Crée or Blackfoot; Folkens Museum-etnografiska, Stockhohn, cat. no. 1854.2.14 (collected in 1842-1844 on the
Upper Missouri by Armand Fouché d'Otrante). John Painter collection, attributed to "Eastem Plains, c. 1840" (Painter
1992:35,37, no. 17); this has the same quUI appliqué pattern as the case in the Royal Ontario Museimi.
The type is related to a symmetrical type with asymmetrical looped fringes and quill and/or bead
apphque; cp. Painter (1992: 35-37, no. 16) for references to seven examples; also Batkin (1995: 70-71) for an
example with the quill-appUqué pattern of the Royal Ontario Museum and Painter cases noted above. These
cases are generally attributed to the Crée or Métis.
77 Beltrami coUecüon, FUothano (Lauiendch-MineUi 1990:246-247, figs. 11-12; cp. Belhami 1828,2: pi. H, fig. 5).
78 Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY (cat. no. 50.67.16; Feder 1964:49, no. 15); attribution on exhibition label, 1991.
79 Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA (cat. no. E 25409, ex Andover Newton Theological School coU.;
Monroe et al. 1996:160,174).
80 Neville Public Museum, Green Bay, WI, (cat. no. 11,214, athibuted to "Ojibwa, c. 1830"; Olson et al. 1977:68,
no. 75). National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (cat. no. EHc 122; collected before 1850, probably in Wisconsin). Cp.
also National Museum of Natimi History, Washington, DC (cat. no. T1085; "Chippewa, c. 1835"; Hodge et al. 1973:91).
308
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
Figure 15: Knife case, tanned buckskin, glass beads. Length 32 cm. Southwestern Chippewa,
collected before 1845. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, cat. no. E.H.c. 122
(photo C. F. Feest).* Slika 15: Nožnica, strojena jelenova koža, stekleni biseri. Dolžina 32 cm.
Jugozahodni Očipvejci, zbrana pred 1845. Narodni muzej Danske, Kopenhagen,
kat. št. E.H.C. 122 (foto C. F. Feest).
309
Christian F. Feest
In summary, it may be said that despite some minor problems with the
attribution of some of the objects, the Friderik Baraga collection provides
interesting evidence for styles of artifacts among the southwestern Chippewa of
La Pointe and Fond du Lac in the early 1830s, although it may include a few
objects Father Baraga had obtained elsewhere. Although it is only a small group
of highly selected items, it is one of a modest number of collections with
reasonably accurate documentation that date from the first half the nineteenth
century. It is therefore of substantial help in dating and placing other artifacts
from less well documented collections and in helping to piece together some of
the puzzles offered by the historical ethnography of material culture of Native
North America. _ ...      „
REFERENCES
B., J.-C: Voyage au Canada fait depuis l'an 1751 jusqu'en l'an 1761/ ed. C. Manceron. Paris:
Aubier Montaigne, 1978.
BARAGA, Friedrich: Geschichte, Character, Sitten und Gebräuche der nord -amerikanischen
Indier. Laibach: Joseph Blasnik, 1837.
BATKIN, Jonathan (ed.): Splendid Heritage. Masterpieces of Native American Art from the
Masco Collection. Santa Fe, NM: Wheelwright Museum of the American Indian, 1995.
BELTRAMI, Giacomo Costantino: A Pilgrimage in Europe and America. London: Hunt and
Clarke, 1828. [Vol. 2 reprinted as A Pilgrimage in America. Chicago: Quadrangle Books,
1962].
BENNDORF, Helga and Arthur Speyer: Indianer Nordamerikas 1760-1860. Aus der Sammlung
Speyer. Offenbach a.M.: Deutsches Ledermuseum, 1968.
BEST, Alexander and Alan McClelland: Quillwork by Native Peoples in Canada. Toronto, ON:
Royal Ontario Museum, 1977.
BRASSER, Ted J.: "Bo'jou Neejee!" Profiles of Canadian Indian Art. Ottawa, ON: National
Museum of Man, 1976.
CASAGRANDE, Louis B. and Melissa M. Ringheim: Straight Tongue. Minnesota Indian Art from
the Bishop Whipple Collection. St. Paul, MN: The Science Museum of Minnesota, 1980.
CONN, Richard: Native American Cloth Appliqué and Ribbonwork: Their Origin and Diffusion
in the Plains. In: George P. Horse Capture (ed.). Native American Ribbonwork: A
Rainbow Tradition (Cody, WY: Buffalo Bill Historical Center, 1980), 9-22.
DESCFLMANN, Karl: Führer durch das Krairüsche Landes-Musevun Rudolfinum in Laibach.
Laibach: Landes-Museum, 1888.
DIETSCiry, Hans: Die amerikanischen Keulen und Holzschwerter in ihrer Beziehung zur
Kulturgeschichte der Neuen Welt. In: Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie 37/1939,
87-205.
FEDER, Norman: Art of the Eastern Plains Indians. Brooklyn, NY: The Brooklyn Museum, 1964.
FEEST, Christian E: Indianer Nordamerikas. Wien: Museum für Völkerkunde, 1968.
FEEST, Christian F.: Ottawa Bags, Baskets and Beadwork. In: Beadwork and Textiles of the
Ottawa (Harbor Springs, MI: Harbor Springs Füstorical Commission, 1984), 12-28.
FEEST Christian F.: Mexico and South America in the European Wunderkanuner. In: A.
MacGregor, O. Impey (eds.), The Origins of Museums (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985),
237-244.
310
The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga
FEEST Christian F.: Quilled Knife Cases from Northeastern North America. In preparation. (To
be published in an as yet untitled festschrift volume.)
FEEST, Christian F. and Sylvia S. Kasprycki: Über Lebenskimst nordamerikanischer Indianer.
Wien: Museum für Völkerkunde, 1993.
FEEST, Christian F. and Sylvia S. Kasprycki: Peoples of the Twilight. European Views of Native
Minnesota, 1823-1862. Alton, MN: Afton Historical Society Press, 1998.
GOLOB, France: Misijonarji, darovalci indijanskih predmetov: zbirka Slovenskega etnografskega
muzeja. Ljubljana: Slovenski etnografski muzej, 1997.- (Knjižnica Slovenskega
etnografskega muzeja; 5)
GRAHAM, Stephen B.: Ottawa Quillwork on Birchbark. Harbor Springs, MI: Harbor Springs
Historical Commission, 1983.
HODGE, G. Stiaart et al.: Art of ti:ie Great Lakes tadians. FUnt, MI: Flint Instihite of Arts, 1973.
ILLYRISCHES Blatt
Verzeichnis der für das Landes-Museum eingegangenen Beiträge. In: lUyrisches Blatt (Ljubljana)
1837, 67-68.
Schreiben des Missionärs Franz Pierz aus Saut de St. Marie 1. Juh 1841, an Se. Hochwürden den
Herm Canonicus Georg Pauschek in Laibach. In: lUyrisches Blatt (Ljubljana) 1842, 83-84.
ISAAC, Barbara (ed.): HaU of the North American Indian. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum
Press, 1990.
KASPRYCKI, Sylvia S.: The Native American Collection of Friderik Baraga. The Missionary as
Ethnographic Collector, hi: Ehiolog (Ljubljana) 8/1998, 331-371.
KING, J. C. H.: Thunderbird and Lightning. Indian Life in Northeastern North America 1600-
1900. London: British Museum PubUcations, 1982.
KRICKEBERG, Walter: Ältere Ethnographica aus Nordamerika im Berliner Museum für
Völkerkunde. In: Baessler-Archiv, N.F. 2/1954,1-280.
KUSSMAUL, Friedrich (ed.): Feme Völker, Frühe Zeiten. Kunstwerke aus dem Lindenmuseum
Stuttgart. 2 vols. Recklinghausen: Aurel Bongers, 1982.
LAURENCICH-MinelU, Laura: G. C. Beltrami (1779-1855) and his Filottrano North American
Indian Collection (Filottrano, Ancona). In: Museologia Scientifica 6/1990, 237-254.
MARR, Carolyn J.: SaUsh Baskets from the Wilkes Expedition. In: American Indian Art Magazine
9/1984, 44-51, 71.
MONROE, Dan L. et al.: Gifts of the Spirit. Works by Nineteenth-Century & Contemporary
Native American Artists. Salem, MA: Peabody Essex Museum, 1996.
OLSON, Gordon L. et al.: Beads: Their Use By Upper Great Lakes Indians. Grand Rapids, MI:
Grand Rapids PubUc Museum, 1977.
OREL, Boris: O etnografskih zbirkah iz Afrike, Amerike, Azije v Etnografskem muzeju v
Ljubljani. In: Slovenski etiiograf 6-7/1954, 139-146.
PAINTER, John W.: American Indian Artifacts. The John Painter CoUection. Cincinnati, OH:
George Tassian, 1992.
PENNEY, David W.: Art of the American Indian Frontier: The Chandler-Pohrt CoUection.
Seattle, WA: University of Washmgton Press, 1992.
PHILLIPS, Ruth: Dreams and Designs: Iconographie Problems in Great Lakes Twined Bags. In:
Bulletin of the Deti-oit histitute of Arts 62(1)/1986, 27-36.
POŽAR, Breda: Frederick Baraga and his Book on the Manners of American Indians. In: Acta
neophUologica 6/1973, 29-71.
SCHLICK, Mary Dodds: Columbia River Basketay. Gift of the Ancestors, Gift of Üie EarÜi.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1994.
ŠTRUKELJ, Pavla: Etnološka zbirka sevemoameriških Indijancev Ojibwa iz 19. stoletja v
Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju - zbiralci Friderik Baraga, Franc Pire, Ivan Čebul. In:
Slovenski etiiograf 25-26/1974, 109-142.
ŠTRUKELJ, Pavla: Applied Art of the qibwa hidians (1830-1880). In: Justine M. CordweU (ed.).
The Visual Arts. Plastic and Graphic (World Anthropology, The Hague - Paris - New
York: Mouton PubUshers, 1979), 655-665.
311
Christian F. Feest
TRIGGER, Bruce (ed.): Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians (W. C. Sturtevant, gen.
ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978.
VIGORELLI, Leonardo: Gh Oggetti Indiani. Raccolti da G. Costantino Beltrami. Bergamo: Civico
Museo E. Caffi, 1987.
WELD, Isaac: Travels through the States of North America, and the Provinces of Upper and
Lower Canada, during the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797. 4th ed. London: J. Stockdale,
1807.
312
ZBIRKA INDIJANSKIH PREDMETOV
FRIDERIKA BARAGE:
PRIMERJALNI IN KONTEKSTU ALNI VIDIKP
Christian F. Feest
Predmeti, zbiranje in zgodovinska etnografi]a*
Pri študiju kultur so predmeti pomemben, vendar prepogosto zanemarjen
vir informacij. Predmeti kot človekovi izdelki zrcalijo tehnično izročilo in
funkcionalne (ter včasih čustvene) potrebe, ki so značilne za neko kulturo. Hkrati
poročajo o raznovrstnosti izdelovalcev in o njihovi sposobnosti, da se prilagodijo
družbeno sprejetim normam. Kot likovne oblike niso samo izraz kulturnega
stila, ampak tudi možni znaki, ki jim lahko pripisujemo svojstvene kulturne
vsebine. Ker so izdelani zato, da uporabnikom pomagajo pri interakciji z naravnim
in socialnim okoljem, igrajo tako v primarnem gospodarskem kot v širšem
socialnem smislu izredno pomembno vlogo pri proizvodnji, izmenjavi in porabi.
V zgodovini evropskega prodiranja v svetovne kulture in njihovega
preoblikovanja v moderni dobi je bilo zbiranje predmetov kot prič kulturnih
razlik tradicija, ki je cvetela pred vzponom etnografije in kulturne antropologije
kot zahodnih znanstvenih strok, ki skušata razvrstiti in pojasniti kulturno
raznolikost človeštva. Od 16. stoletja naprej so ekzotične predmete vključili v
javne in zasebne zbirke umetnih in naravnih čudes iz vrste razlogov. Med temi
razlogi je bila vrednost predmetov zaradi njihovega daljnjega izvora, nenavadnost
njihovih oblik in materiala in podoba, ki so jo posredovali o neki posplošeni
kulturni drugačnosti. Nanje so gledali kot na trofeje v spomin osvojitvi daljnih
dežel, kot na dokaze, da so tam koristna naravna bogastva ali kot na dokaze o
spretnostih domorodcev in o njihovem možnem izkoriščanju. Poleg tega so služili
* Termin zgodovinska etnografija je prevod besedne zveze historical ethnography, ki jo je uporabil avtor
sam v prispevku, poslanemu uredništvu Etnologa v angleškem jeziku. (Op.ur.)
1 Prejšnjo verzijo tega članka sem predstavil na simpoziju "Slovenski misijonar Irenej Friderik Baraga
(1797-1868) in njegov prispevek k etnologiji," Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, 16.-20. junij 1997. Rad bi
se zahvalil Ralfu Ceplaku, kustosu SEMa - Muzeja za neevropske kulture v Goričanah, ki mi je decembra 1992
dovolil, da sem preučil indijansko gradivo, ki ga tu obravnavam. Zahavljujem se tudi drugim muzejem in
njihovemu osebju, ki mi je dalo na razpolago razno primerjalno gradivo o obravnavani temi. Posebna zahvala
gre Sylvii S. Kasprycki, s katero sva problematiko Baragove zbirke temeljito predelala, in profesorju Zmagu
Šmitku, ki mi je dal napotke za sekundarno literaturo o Baragi in kopije te literatiwe.
313
Christian F. Feest
kot dokaz, da je treba ta daljnja ljudstva spreobrniti h krščanstvu in z njimi deliti
pridobitve zahodne civilizacije. Zbiralci so zelo pogosto zanemarjali posebno
uporabo in pomen teh predmetov v njihovi izvirni kulturi, evropskim zbiralcem
marsikdaj natančni izvor eksotičnih predmetov niti ni bil bistvenega pomena za
oceno njihove vrednosti. S tem, ko si je evropska kultura zbiranja prisvajala te
redkosti, so uporabe in vsebine, ki jim jih je dajala njihova izvirna kultura,
zamenjali drugačni pomeni in uporabe, ki so se novim lastnikom zdeli bolj
primerni.
V dobi razsvetljenstva se je etnografija oblikovala v skladu z vzorcem, ki
so ga prvotno vzpostavili za naravoslovne vede in predmeti so postali del
opisnega aparata, ki so ga uporabljali za opredeljevanje značilnosti določenih
ljudstev ali "ras". Besedno in likovno gradivo evropskih opazovalcev je v
najboljšem primeru dopolnjevalo zbiranje snovnih predmetov in nudilo
kontekstualno informacijo, potrebno za razumevanje vloge predmetov v njihovi
izvorni kulturi. Ob upoštevanju tega novega cilja so od poznega osemnajstega
stoletja naprej ustanovili posebne etnografske zbirke, pogosto v okviru
naravoslovnih muzejev. Eden izmed problemov teh zbirk pa je bilo pomanjkanje
strokovnjakov - etnografo v, ki bi bili sposobni povezovati predmete in
dokumentarno gradivo v skladu z razsvetljensko teorijo etnografskega zbiranja.
Namesto tega so se muzeji zadovoljevali s tem, da so eksotične predmete
sprejemali od kogarkoli, ki je iz poklicnih ali zasebnih razlogov prišel v stik z
oddaljerümi ljudstvi in ki je bil dovolj radoveden, da je zbiral primerke domačih
izdelkov. Zbirke, ki so jih zbrali popotniki, trgovci, misijonarji ali vladni
uslužbenci, so večinoma brez ključnih podatkov, ki bi omogočili interpretacijo
predmetov v smislu njihove izvirne kulture. Tako se je način zbiranja le neznatno
razlikoval od pristopa zbiralcev v predrazsvetljenski dobi. Take zbirke, ki so
nastale na osnovi neznanstvenih interesov, so muzeji namreč še najprej sprejemali
in hranili tudi po uveljavitvi znanstvene antropologije proti koncu devetnajstega
stoletja.
Zaradi dejstva, da te zgodnje zbirke očitno ne ustrezajo pojasnjevahiim
potrebam antropologije, se moramo soočati z vprašanjem, ali je gradivo te vrste
kakorkoli uporabno za etnografijo. Kot materialne priče so ti predmeti neposredni
viri informacij o posamezni izvorni kulturi. Vendar zgolj kot fizični predmeti so
samo izraz povsem fizičnih lastnosti, tj. oblike, barve, teže in tehnoloških sredstev,
uporabljenih za njihovo izdelavo. Z analizo obHk in vzorcev obrabe in z analognim
sklepanjem lahko pridemo do določenih sklepov o njihovi uporabi in funkciji.
Zaradi odsotnosti neposredno (samostojno) posredovanega znanja o sistemu
simbolov, ki je značilen za določeno kulturo, nam njihov prvotni pomen vendarle
ostane neznan. Poleg tega velja upoštevati, da predmeti predstavljajo samo
posamezne oblike kulturnega izražanja in da se brez dodatnih dokazov soočamo
s hudimi problemi pri ocenjevanju, kako značilen je določen predmet za neko
kulturo.
314
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
Kljub tem omejitvam nam vendar ostane vrsta dobrih razlogov za resno in
kritično preučevanje predmetov, zbranih v nestrokovno obUkovanih zbirkah.
Najprej je tu že samo dejstvo, da so kulturno pomembni podatki nekaterih vrst
le redko dokumentirani v pisni ali likovni obliki (in do neke mere nikoli ne
bodo), tako da bi zanemarjanje predmetov pomenilo tudi zanemarjanje določenih
vidikov neke kulture. Poleg tega moramo na zgodovinsko zbrane predmete
gledati kot na nenadomestljive dokumente zgodovinskih kultur (in posledično
kot na pomembne dokaze pri raziskavah kulturnih sprememb). Od začetka
antropologije, ko so na predmete (in na druge oblike kulture) "primitivnih"
ljudstev gledali kot na okna, ki nam omogočajo pogled v prapreteklost, smo
spoznali, da se kulture stalno spreminjajo, čeprav nekatere lastnosti lahko
pomenijo elemente kontinuitete. Brez primernih zgodovinskih podatkov nazadnje
ni zanesljive metode, s katero bi lahko napovedovali obsega kontinuitete ali
smeri sprememb. Kulturne spremembe tudi pomenijo, da je interpretacija
predmetov iz ene dobe v okviru etnografskih podatkov, vezanih na drug časovni
horizont, dokaj vprašljiva. To velja posebno za območje severovzhodne Severne
Amerike, kjer se je intenzivno zbiranje začelo dolgo pred prihodom prvih
poklicnih etnografov. Posledica tega je, da predmeti, ki datirajo iz obdobij dolgo
pred standardnimi etnografskimi poročili, pogosto nimajo posebnega pomena,
če jih preučujemo v kontekstu poznejših obdobij. Leseni bojni kiji, ki jih je Friderik
Baraga zbral med južnozahodnimi Očipvejci v zgodnjih tridesetih letih 19.
stoletja,^ so takrat imeli samo še obredno ali simbolično funkcijo in njihova
fimkcionalna uporaba kot orožje je skoraj povsem izginila. Etnografija Očipvejcev
dvajsetega stoletja nam ne more povedati veliko v smislu vloge kijev pri
vojskovanju. Celo kadar so tipski izdelki ali vzorci oblikovanja preživeli do
današnjega dne, so se njihove funkcije in vsebine bodisi postopno spreminjale
ali - zaradi procesa nadomeščanja - nenadoma spremenile.
Z drugimi besedami: predmeti so možni viri za zgodovinsko etnografijo
nekega ljudstva, na katere je treba gledati v kontekstu zgodovinskih in
etnografskih podatkov.
Za koristno uporabo v preteklosti zbranih predmetov v tu navedenem
smislu in za njihovo interpretacijo v ustieznem referenčnem kulturnem okviru
pa so vendar podatki o času in kraju izdelave nekega predmeta oziroma njegove
uporabe nadvse pomembni. Na žalost pa ne razpolagamo vedno s temi podatki,
bodisi zato, ker se zbiralci niso zavedali njihovega pomena ali zato, ker so se
podatki izgubili v toku historiata predmetov od prvotnega zbiralca do prihoda
v muzej.
Datiranje je pravzaprav manjši problem, ker je ponavadi znano, kdaj je
2 To zelo razpršeno prvotno prebivalstvo poznamo danes pod različnimi imeni v različnih pravopisnih
oblikah (glej Golob 1997:215-216). V tem članku v skladu z normami, ki jih določa Handbook of North American
Indians (Trigger 1978), uporabljam ime "Očipvejci" (za njihov jezik pa pojem "očipvejščina " ) (Op. prev.: v
angleškem izvirniku Chippewa za ljudstvo, Ojibwa za jezik).
315
Christian E Feest
nekdo potoval (zlasti če je šlo za daljnje kraje), tudi če ne vemo, kje je dobu
določen predmet. Datum pridobitve nekega predmeta v muzeju vedno pove
vsaj datum ante quem, ki je včasih lahko zelo bHzu dejanskemu datumu zbiranja.
Koristne in zanesljive časovne kazalce, povezane s samim predmetom, nudi
trgovsko (menjalno) blago, npr. svueni trakovi ali stekleni biseri določene vrste.
Kljub temu pa je vendar, jasno, da je dokumentiran datum boljši kot datum,
izračunan s sklepanjem, in da vsak zanesljiv datum prispeva k našemu znanju o
časovni razširjenosti tipov predmetov in stilov, ki ga nato lahko uprorabljamo
za datiranje nedokumentiranih predmetov.
Zanesljivo prostorsko lociranje zgodovinsko zbranih predmetov je znatno
težji problem. Nekaj zgodnjih predmetov spremljajo podatki o izvoru, ki se omeji
na "iz Severne Amerike", in tudi takrat, ko je vsaj to navedeno, se moramo
spraševati, kaj ta zemljepisna opredelitev pravzaprav pomeni. Predmeti so bili
pogosto pridobljeni ne pri izdelovalcih ali uporabnikih, ampak preko posrednikov
ali trgovcev, ki morda niso imeli interesa, da bi povedali prave podatke, če so jih
sploh imeU. Očibio se je tudi tižna vrednost nekega predmeta lahko povečala, če
so predmet povezovaU (pravilno ali ne) z imenom slovitega prešjnjega imetnika
ali z ljudstvom, ki ima v domišljiji možnih zbiralcev večjo veljavo. Zaradi tega
so zbiralci predmete različnega izvora pogosto pripisali zgolj peščici bolj znanih
ljudstev.
Še bolj običajna pa je bila praksa, da zgodovinsko zbranih predmetov sploh
niso povezovali z nobenim kulturnim izvorom, ne s pravim in ne z napačnim.
Podatki o pripisanem izvoru, ki jih najdemo v inventamih knjigah in katalogih,
so običajno delo kustosov, trgovcev in zasebnih zbiralcev in temeljijo na
primerjavah z drugimi, podobnimi predmeti. Zanesljivost takih sekundarnih
opredelitev je seveda močno okrnjena, če temeljijo na gradivu, ki nima lastnega
dokimientiranega izvora.
Dokumentiranost etnografske zbirke Friderika Barage
Vse, kar smo zgoraj povedali, samo še poudarja, kako pomembne so
maloštevilne relativno dobro dokumentirane zbirke in predmeti v njih. Mnogi
etnografski tipski predmeti pa vendar nikoU rüso biU ustiezno identificirani,
opisani ali objavljeni. Zbirko gospoda Friderika Barage, zbrano v letih 1831-1836
med misionarskim delom pri Otavcih in zlasti pri južnozahodnih Očipvejcih, bi
kljub skromnem obsegu lahko šteU med zbirke - mejnike. Preden se bomo s
pomočjo nekaj izbranih primerov lotili ocene prispevka tega gradiva k
zgodovinski etnografiji zahodnega območja Velikih jezer v Severni Ameriki, si
moramo najprej ogledati dokumentacijo Baragove etnografske zbirke in njene
probleme.
V preteklosti je Baragova zbirka (skupaj s predmeti, ki so jih zbrali drugi
slovenski misijonarji na območju VeUkih jezer v Severni Ameriki) pritegnila
zanimanje skoraj izključno domačih stiokovnjakov. Od petdesetih let naprej je
316
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
bila objavljena vrsta vse bolj temeljitih študij - Orel (1954), Štrukelj (1974,1979)
in Golob (1997) - ki so predstavile predmete in njihovo dokumentarno ozadje in
ki so skušale predmete umeščati v širšo primerjalno perspektivo. Čeprav je bü
domet teh primerjalnih razprav močno omejen zaradi pomanjkanja podatkov o
primerljivih predmetih, so te objave ustvarile pomembno izhodišče za kritično
vrednotenje zbirk slovenskih misijonarjev iz Severne Amerike.
Takoj na začetku naj pripomnimo, da Baraga tudi po normah svoje dobe ni
bü etnograf. Čeprav sta njegova zbirka in knjiga nedvomno ustrezali radovednosti
bralcev, Baragova ciljna publika vendarle niso bili znanstveni krogi, ampak
njegovi rojaki v Sloveniji in zlasti pobožni darovalci njegovim misijonarskim
prizadevanjem. Kot omenja Sylvia Kasprycki (1998), je bil Baragov pristop k
materialni kulturi odločilno pod vplivom njegovega misijonarskega nazora. V
zbirki so ustrezno, celo dobro dokumentirani uporabni predmeti, zlasti
gospodinjski pripomočki (posode iz brezovega lubja, lesene sklede in zajemalke,
rogoznice), prevozna sredstva, loki in puščice. Precej slabše so dokumentirani
oblačila in okraski (izjema so mokasini), obredni pripomočki (izjema so pipe, ki
so jih Indijanci uporabljali tudi v neobredne namene) in prostočasne aktivnosti.^
Baragova knjiga o zgodovini, značaju, ru'aveh in šegah severnoameriških
Indijancev (1837), objavljena v istem času, ko je v Ljubljani svojo zbirko izročil
muzeju, ponazarja drug problem, ki prav tako vpliva na oceno predmetov. Baraga
v knjigi prosto povezuje lastno opazovanje Otavcev in Očipvejcev z znanjem, ki
ga je jemal iz objavljenih virov o drugih plemenih,* v glavnem zaradi tega, ker je
bü pojem "severnoameriški Indijanci" zanj (m za mnoge njegove sodobnike)
smiselna kategorija kulturne razvrstitve.'
Za zbirko Friderika Barage bi lahko rekli, da je dobro dokumentirana. Iz
njegovih del in korespondence zvemo za natančne lokacije njegovega
misijonarskega dela med Otavci in Očipvejci v Michiganu, Wisconsinu in
Minnesoti od 1831 do 1836. Poleg raztresenih omemb predmetov v njegovi
Zgodovini in poleg tiskanega seznama predmetov, ki jut je podarü Kranjskemu
deželnemu muzeju, objavljenega 1837 v Ilirskem listu, je Golob nedavno objavü
dva nekoliko starejša rokopisna seznama, izmed katerih je Baraga enega popravü
in opremü z opombami.'^ Golob tudi povzame, kar je o zbirki znano, preden je
3 Baraga, 1837:60.
4 Cf. Požar 1973.
5 Do i\eke mere velja to tudi za Goloba (1997), ki pogosto navaja primerjalno gradivo domorodnih
ljudstev, ki rümajo nobene zveze z jugozahodrümi Oäpvejci; njegova nekritična uporaba nezanesljivih virov pa
nekoliko kvari sicer vredno in koristno knjigo.
6 Žal je Golob (1997: 220-221) pri objavi Freyerjevega seznama (Golob, slika 4) vključil označevanje s
črkami, ki se pojavi samo na Jerinovem seznamu (Golob, slika 3). Poleg tega je vsaj v angleškem prevodu
nemškega besedila več zavajajočih napak. Tako na primer v uvodnem odstavku (Freyerjevega seznama) ne
piše: " Gospod Friderik Baraga, misijonar od visokospoštovanega gospoda škofa iz Detroita v Severni Ameriki,
je prinesel od (Indijancev) rodu Otchipwe (pravilno Otchipwe) naslednje predmete " (Golob 1997:220), ampak:
"Gospod Friedrich Baraga, misijonar in vikar spoštovanega gospoda škofa Detroita v Severni Ameriki, je oddal
naslednje predmete iz Ocipwe." To kaže na to, da Freyer omenja "Ocipwe" kot kraj(evno ime), ne kot ljudstvo.^
317
Christian F. Feest
prišla V Ljubljano. Ko so Barago leta 1833 prvič prosili za zbiranje predmetov za
novoustanovljeni Deželni muzej, se je Baraga opravičeval, da nima časa za povsem
nemisijonarske dejavnosti. Do februarja 1836, ko se je odločil za vrnitev v Evropo
zaradi zbiranja sredstev za misijone, pa se mu je verjetno posvetilo, da bi taka
zbirka lahko dejansko povečala zanimanje doma za njegovo čezmorsko versko
skupnost. Zbirka je morala biti pripravljena, preden je zapustil postajo La Pointe
na južni obali Gornjega jezera, čeprav jo prvič omenja šele v pismu, napisanem
v Londonu dne 3. decembra 1836. Vendar Golobovega sklepa, da so bili vsi
predmeti (razen nekaj primerkov, na katerih so sledovi obrabe) zbrani in celo
izdelani med 24. februarjem in 29. septembrom 1836 pri Očipvejcih iz La Pointa
oz. Fond du Laca (Minnesota), ne moremo nekritično sprejeti.^
Čeprav je Baraga deloval kot misijonar med Očipvejci v La Pointu v
Wisconsinu v času, ko je zbirko podaril (seznam predmetov, objavljen v Ilirskem
listu iz 1837, ga navaja kot donatorja), več Ustin o pridobitvi samo nekaj predmetov
izrecno pripisuje Očipvejcem: "Industrijski predmeti iz severnoameriškega
brezovega lubja" so navedeni kot očipvejski (z Gornjega jezera) in tako mreža
krpelj kot torba okrašena s steklenimi biseri sta opredeljena kot delo očipvejskih
žensk. Vendar se je misijonar Baraga mudil precej dlje med Otavci v Michiganu,
obiskal pa je tudi razne skupine Očipvejcev v tej državi. Ker ga je prva prošnja
za sestavljanje zbirke za Dežekd muzej dosegla, ko je bil še med Otavci, ne
moremo izključiti možnosti, da so nekateri predmeti v Baragovi zbirki dejansko
otavskega izvora.
Obstaja pa še bolj delikaten problem: Baraga je bil sicer prvi, vendar ne
edini slovenski misijonar, ki je deloval med Otavci in Očipvejci in znano je, da je
Deželni muzej v Ljubljani prejel predmete najmanj dveh drugih misijonarjev: za
gospoda Franca Pirca vemo, da je 1836 podaril en (aU dva) prazgodovinska
predmeta iz otavske vasi Arbre Croche, 1873 pa je gospod Ivan Čebul podaril
majhno zbirko očipvejskih predmetov iz Wisconsina ali Minnesote. Pirčeva
donacija je zlahka prepoznavna, glede Čebulovega gradiva pa je razpoložljiva
^V prevodu v Golobovi knjigi so prvi vpisi: "Izdelki, narejeni iz brezove skorje: okrogla posoda /MAKAK/,
napolnjena z drevesnim sladkorjem; dve prazni okrogli posodici; okrogla posoda, napolnjena z divjim rižem /
MANOMIN/, dve okrogli posodici /ONAGAN//' Pravilno bi bilo: "Industrijski predmeti iz brezovega lubja. .
Ena škatla iz breze /'.Makak tndijarisko:/ z drevesnim sladkorjem iz Severne Amerike. E>ve prazni brezovi j
škatli. Brezova škatla z divjim rižem /-.Manomin:/. Dve brezovi skledi /:Omgan:/." Žal Golob ne navaja ¦
dobesednega prepisa in prevoda Jerinovega seznama, na katerem ni samo Baragovih opomb, ampak je seznam
z več vidikov bolj podroben in natančen. Odlomka, ki odgovorjata navedkoma iz Freyerjevega seznama, se v
prevodu glasita: "Od očeta gospoda Friedricha Barage, misijonarja na Gornjem jezeru na severozahodnem
območju Združenih držav Amerike, v detroitski škofiji, Michigan: 12 kosov industrijskih predmetov iz lubja
severnoameriške breze, ki so jih vse izdelali pripadniki ameriškega plemena Očipvve na Gornjem jezeru, namreč '
en Makak (brezova škatla) polnjen z drevesnim sladkorjem, (Sinsibakwat), ki ga delajo iz soka severnoameriškega ]
sladkornega drevesa; dve drugi prazni brezovi škatli razUčnih veHkosti; - četrta podobna majhna škatla, polnjena
z vrsto riža, ki raste divje na mokrih tleh ui ki se v tamkajšnjem jeziku imenujeManomrn; - dve jušiu aU pitni**
skledi {Onagan)." Iz tega je tudi jasno, da seznam, objavljen v Ilirskem listu (1837), ne temelji na Freyerjevem,
ampak na Jerinovem seznamu (Golob 1997:222-224, zlasti opomba 72). V Golobu je prevod seznama podobno
pomanjkljiv.
7 Golob 1997:218-219,233.
318
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
dokumentacijia nekoliko dvoumna; izmed petih predmetov, navedenih v letu
pridobitve, se samo trije ponovno pojavijo v Deschmannovem katalogu iz 1888,
omenjeni pa so tiije novi predmeti. Poleg tega je tu vrsta drugih predmetov iz
istega širšega območja brez dokumentiranega historiata zbirke; te predmete pa
je lahko kot prvi zbral kdorkoli izmed treh misijonarjev ali izmed drugih
slovenskih misijonarjev, ki so sledili Baragovim stopinjam* in delovali med Otavci,
Očipvejci in Menomini zahodnega območja Velikih jezer. Za Pirca vemo, da je
poslal več škatel iz lubja, okrašenih z bodicami ježevca, ki so jih izdelale Otavke
iz Arbre Croche in Lacroixa (Cross Village) (Ilirski list, 1842), vendar je mogoče,
da so tudi drugi misijonarji v domovino pošiljali etnografsko gradivo. Čeprav
za te predmete ni listin o pridobitvi in so torej nedokumentirani, so najverjetneje
istega širšega izvora.
Ker so etnografske predmete v muzeju v Ljubljani večkrat preštevilčiU,
obstaja glede peščice med njimi vprašanje, ali je določenega zbral ta aU oni
misijonar. Poleg tega vsaj dva predmeta gotovo nista z območja Velikih jezer, a
so ju pozneje opredelili kot Baragova v zamenjavo za založena ali izgubljena
predmeta, ki sta navedena na izvirnem seznamu. Ker manjka še nekaj drugih
predmetov, za katere vemo, da jih je podaril Baraga, ne moremo izključiti
možnosti, da je tudi v drugih primerih prišlo do podobnih zamenjav.
Predmeti v Baragovi zbirki
Glede na pomembnost Baragove zbirke bi bilo koristno, če bi vse predmete
v njej v celoti obravnavali z dokumentarnega, tehničnega, kulturnega in
primerjalnega vidika. Zaradi pomanjkanja prostora se moramo za zdaj omejiti
na kratko in ilustrativno obravnavo nekaterih predmetov v ponazoritev
problemov, ki smo jih zgoraj obravnavah na splošno.
Omenili smo že, da dva predmeta,' pripisana Baragovi zbirki, nista z
območja Velikih jezer in da je zelo malo verjetno, da ju je muzeju podaril misijonar
Baraga. Eden je kij (kat. št. E. 2866) pravokotnega prereza z umetelno vrezanimi
motivi, za katerega Golob" pravilno ugotavlja, da je južnoamerškega aH
brazilskega izvora. Dokaj veliko število primerkov tega splošnega tipa poznamo
iz zbirk sedemnajstega in osenmajstega stoletja, večinoma brez primerne
8 Cf. Golob 1997:237-239,242-245.
9 Tretji predmet, ki je zmotno pripisan Baragi, je evropski lesen rog (kat. št. E. 2901; Golob 1997: 295-
297, št. 56), ki ga je Štrukljeva (1974: 137) pomotoma imela za očipvejsko snubilno flavto. Golob (1997: 297)
meni, da je bil rog morda izdelan za Čebula po kranjskem vzorcu in da je z njim klical indijanske vernike k
maši. Čebul pa je dejansko v ta namen uporabljal školjko vrste Strombus (in jo je 1873 podaril muzeju), instrument,
ki ga Deschmann (1888) imenuje "šahnaj" in ga pripisuje Baragovi zbirki. Če je v zbirki kdaj bil kakšen oapvejski
glasbeni instrument (dokumenti o pridobitvi iz 1873 ne omenjajo nobenega instrumenta), je gotovo bila flavta.
Rog nikoh ni imel nobene zveze z Barago, s Čebulom au z Očipvejci.
Isto verjetiio velja za košaro (E. 2876; Golob 1997:254-255, št. 11, pripisana Čebulovi zbirki). Ta ne izgleda
kot indijar^ka košara, pletena iz viter; poleg tega gre pri opisu Štrukljeve za drugačno košaro (1974:130), zato
je povsem mogoče, da sta od takrat naprej dve košari v zbirki zamenjani.
10 Golob 1997:286-288, št.50.
319
Christian F. Feest
dokumentacije; pripisujejo jim zelo različne izvore - z Antilskih otokov, Gvajane
in severne Brazilije," najbolj zanesljivi dokazi pa obstajajo za izvor iz plemena
Wapishana in njihovih sosedov na zgomejm toku Rio Branco v Braziliji in v
južni Gvajani.'^ Primerek iz Slovenskega etnografskega muzeja verjetno datira
iz druge polovice osemnajstega stoletja in so ga pred letom 1888" zamenjali s
kijem z okroglo glavo iz Baragove zbirke (kat. št. E.2829; slika 1), ki so ga
pomotoma dodaU afriškemu fondu v muzeju." Golob pravilno sklepa, da
južnoameriškega kija ni mogoče pripisati zbirki Friderika Barage.'' Kako je kij
prišel v muzej, je za zdaj neznano.
Bojni kij z okroglo glavo iz Baragove zbirke je v Ilirskem listu opisan kot
"bojni kij {Pagamagan) iz zelo trde drevesne korenine."^'' Baraga v svoji knjigi
omenja, da so "severnoameriški Indijanci" pred prihodom Evropejcev uporabljali
"kratke bojne kije, s katerimi so ranjenim sovražnikom razbili lobanjo. Izmed
vsega starega orožaja so obdržali samo bojni kij in ga še vedno uporabljajo za
iste namene kot njihovi predniki."^' Iz samega opisa, ki ne navaja snovi, iz katere
je orožje izdelano, niti njegove oblike, je nemogoče z gotovostjo ugotoviti, kateri
tip kija izmed dveh, ki so ju poznali Očipvejci, je imel v mislih misijonar Baraga.
Medtem ko so ploski kij v glavnem uporabljali na zahodnem območju Velikih
jezer in zahodno od njega, je bil bojni kij z okroglo glavo zelo razširjen med
srednjo in severno obalo Atlantskega oceana in zahodom Velikih jezer.'* Čeprav
obstaja vrsta različno oblikovarüh in okrašenih kijev tega tipa, še rdhče ni naredil
ali skušal narediti uporabne tipologije, utemeljeno pripisovanje pa je pogosto
zelo težavna naloga.
Izmed drugih dokumentiranih kijev jugozahodnih Očipvejcev je eden v
zbirki, ki jo je 1823 med jugozahodnimi Očipvejci v Minnesoti zbral Giacomo
Costantino Beltrami in ga sedaj hranijo v Bergamu." (slika 2) Kij je nekoliko
krajši, vendar podobne oblike in je okrašen z vžganimi znaki in s kovinskimi
vložki. Podobni vžgani okraski in piktografski vrezi so na drugem predmetu, ki
ga je v 30-ih letih 18. stoletja zbral Nathan Sturges Jarvis v Fort Snellingu v
Minnesoti.^" V muzeju Peabody Essex,^' hranijo precej podoben očipvejski
primerek, pridobljen leta 1825, ki una v kroglo vsajeno kovinsko rezilo. Kovinska
" Poleg dokazov, kijih navaja Golob, glej Feest 1985:241-242; Dietschy 1939:166-173, pl. 4, slike 21a-e.
12 Pravilno je ta predmet opredelil avtor tega članka decembra 1992.
13 Deschmann 1888:156, št. 40.
14 Pripis Sylvie S. Kasprycki Afriški zbirki, decembra 1992.
15 Golob 1997: 286.
16 Ilirski list 1837:68, št. 32.
17 Baraga 1837:148.
18 Cf. Dietschy 1939:122-134, pl. 2, si. 12a-b, 13a-c.
15 Museo Civico E. Caffi, Bergamo (kat. št. 54; VigorellU 1987: 67,93, št. 54.; Feest in Kasprycki 1998:
slika 47).
20 BrookUnški muzej, Brooklyn (kat. št. 50.67.84; Feder 1964:58, št. 49, sMka 49).
21 Muzej Peabody Essex, Salem, Massachusetts (kat. št. E 6642, zbhka Georga Cutlerja).
320
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
rezila so lahko zamenjala starejše suUce iz rogovine ali kosti, kot jo lahko vidimo
na primerku prerijskih Očipvejcev, zbranem pred 1825,^ ki ga Golob uporablja
za primerjavo z Baragovim kijem; držaj primerka je drugačne oblike (je rahlo
grebenast, ne pa raven, in ima odebelino na zgornjem delu držaja), vendar sta
spodnji del in krivina prednjega dela dejansko podobna. Golobov drugi
primerjalni primerek,^^ ki je ravno tako pripisan Očipvejcem, pa se znatno
razlikuje od zgoraj omenjenih. Na drugi strani otavski kiji v zbirki, ki jo je v letih
1851-1853 v misijonskih naselbinah Arbre Croche in Lacroix zbral Martin Pitzer^^
(slika 3), ponazorujejo dejstvo, da so kulturne razlike med jugozahodnimi
Očipvejci in njihovimi otavskimi sorodniki bile skoraj neznatne.
Drugi predmet, pripisan Baragovi zbirki, ki gotovo ne sodi vanjo, je ploska
pletena torba (kat. št. E. 2865; slika 4), ki jo Golob opredeli z vpisom s seznama,
objavljenega v Ilirskem Hstu : "Ena vreča /MACHKIMOD/, narejena v pomanj-
šanem merilu iz trave."^^ Čeprav se zdi opis na splošno primeren za ta predmet,
gotovo ne gre za "mashkimod" (splošni očipvejski pojem za "torbo"). Jugozahodni
Očipvejci (in Otavci) so poznali več vrst tipičnih torb iz vlaken, izdelanih z razrumi
značilnimi tehnikami pletenja naravnih rastlinskih prej (trajnic, koprivrdh vlaken,
lubja ameriške lipe, cedrinega lubja itd.) oz. uvoženih volnenih prej, okrašene
pa so bile s podobami mitoloških bitij aH z geometričnimi motivi.^*" Torbe teh
vrst so bue splošno razširjene na zahodnem območju Velikih jezer, za sedaj pa je
nemogoče opredeliti plemenske značilnosti.
Kljub temu je mogoče trditi, da torba E. 2865 ni izdelek z zahodnega območja
Velikih jezer, ampak da je bila narejena v dolini spodnjega toka reke Columbie
na jugu severozahodne obale Severne Amerike. Zelo podobna ji je za malenkost
večja torba iz ločja, pletena z ovijanjem Venerinih lascev in medvedje trave v
Rotterdamu (sHka 5)^^ ki jo pripisujejo Indijancem plemena Wasco (iz srednje
Columbie), pridobljena pa je bila menda brez dokumentacije leta 1954. Ploske
torbe Indijancev Wasco so zelo redke, tiste, ki jih poznamo, pa imajo ravne do
prikonične (ne pa spodaj rahlo razširjene) stranice in stü okrasnih motivov je
precej drugačen.^* Tehnično in tudi stilsko podobne pa so na drugi strani torbe
22 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 419, zbirka Josepha Klingerja; Feest 1968: 68, št. 101, pl. 9c; Feest in
Kasprycki 1993:76-77; Golob 1997:170,286, si. 59). Za kij z okroglo glavo, s sulico in s podobno odebelino, ki ga
je 1832-1836 zbral Nathan Sturges Jarvis in ga pripisal Menominom, glej Federja (1964: 37,54, slika 19).
23 Britanski muzej, London (kat.št. 1949 Am 22 146; King 1982: 83,95; Golob 1997: si. 58, podnapis je
zamenjan s tistim za si. 60). Za drugi tip očipvejskega kija z okroglo glavo glej Hodge et al. 1973:103. Zdi se, da
so s tem tipom tesneje povezani kiji brez dokumentirane provenience v Muzeju človeštva, London, brez kat. št.
(King 1982:85, slika 90c) in v Etnološkem muzeju, BerUn (kat. št. FV B177, zbirka R Kohlerja, zbrani pred 1845;
Krickeberg 1954: pl.39a).
24 Etaološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 131.731; Feest 1968:38, slika 9c). Na tej sliki je drugi kij iz Pitzerjeve
zbirke, ki ga je dunajski muzej odstopil oz. zamenjal z Arthurjem Speyerjem, Jr. Za drugi otavski kij z začetka
19. stol. glej Hodge et al. 1973:104.
25 Golob 1997:256-257, št. 15; Ilirski list 1837:68, št. 16.
26 Cf. npr. Hodge et al. 1973:84-88; Brasser 1976:64; Feest 1984:14-16,29-31,35-37; Phillips 1986.
27 Etnološki muzej, Rotterdam (kat. št. 35.040).
28 Schuck 1994:68,167.
321
Christian F. Feest
Indijancev Ciastop (Spodnji Chinook) bHzu ustja reke Columbie in njihovih južnih
sosedov TiUamook?' Motivi vključujejo nazobčane pasove in razne štirinožce,
med drugim jelene in menda tudi pse. Živali na averzu predmeta E. 2865 so
morda res psi (in ne "podvodni panterji", kot meni Golob). Če torbo primerjamo
s primerki Clatsopovih košar, zbranih v 30-ih in 40-ih letih 19. stoletja, je bolj
verjetno, da je bila torba E. 2865 izdelana v drugi polovici 19. stoletja.
Dekio pomešanje Baragove in Čebulove zbirke je očitno tudi iz primera
preveze za zibelko, okrašene s svilerdmi aplikami (trakovi) (E. 2869), ki jo Golob
pripisuje Čebulovi zbirki.^" Za noben tak predmet ni znano, da bi pripadal
etnografskemu gradivu, ki ga je muzeju podaril Čebul, poročilo o Baragovi zbirki
v Ilirskem listu pa omenja "široko prevezo iz blaga, v katero je tamkajšnje dekle
imietekio uvezla podobe", ki da sodi k zibelki.^' Deschmann jo omenja kot številko
"22. Kos blaga, obšit s svilenimi trakovi raznih barv". Deschmann številke 17 do
vključno 21 pripisuje Čebulovi zbirki, št. 23 Pircu in številke 24 do vključno 40
Baragi, številka 22 pa ni izrecno opredeljena, čeprav je navedena na koncu tistega
dela seznama, v katerem so naštete Čebulove donacije.^^ Kljub temu ni nobene
osnove za domnevo, da se je Baragova preveza izgubila in da se je od nekod
pojavila sicer nedokumentirana Čebulova preveza samo zato, da bi pojasnili
Deschmannovo pomoto. Podobno prevezo je Walter Wyman 1905 pridobil med
jugozahodüni Očipvejci v Green Bay Agency (Wisconsin) in jo hranijo v Berlinu
(sHka 6).^ Ni zgodovinskih ne stilskih razlogov, zakaj ta primerek ne bi mogel
datirati iz 30-ih let 19. stoletja, ker so se aplike iz trakov na tem območju uveljavile
že na začetku 19. stoletja.^
Nekoliko drugačen problem pomeni skupina posod iz brezovega lubja,
okrašenih z bodicami, ki jih hranijo v Slovenskem etnografskem muzeju. Poročila
o pridobitvah navajajo za Baragovo zbirko štiri take makake in eno za Čebulovo.
Deschmann te podatke sicer povzame, ne da bi navedel števila makakov v Baragovi
zbirki.^' Danes pa imamo skupaj kar osem takih posod. Dve izmed njih (kat. št.
E. 2886, 2890)^ imata značilne z bodicami ovite robove, kot jih lahko vidimo
29 Man 1984:49-51, slike. 11-17.
30 Golob 1997:294-295, št. 55.
31 Golob 1997: 243; Ilirski list 1837: 68.
32 Deschmann 1888:155.
33 Etnološki muzej, Berlin (kat.št. IV B 7611, zbirka Walterja Wymana. Očipve, Green Bay Agency,
Wisconsin). Druge preveze za zibelke z aplikami iz svilenih trakov, ki izvirajo z zahodnega območja Velikih
jezer, so v naslednjih muzejih: Denverski muzej umetosti, Denver, Columbia (kat. št. 1939.9, prej v zbirki A. G.
Heatha, pripisana "Otavcem, Ontario, 1810"; Connecticut 1980: 13, 22, slika 15); State Historical Society of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin (kat. št. 1954.1621, zbirka Walterja Wymana. 1901, prej v Grignonovi zbirki,
Menomini, Butte des Morts, verjetno pred 1850); Neville Public Museum, Green Bay, Wisconsin (Menominee).
34 Cf. Conn 1980:12-13.
35 nirski list 1837: 67; Golob 1997:200,243; Deschmann 1888:155, št. 33.
36 Golob 1997:249-251, št. 1-2.
322
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
tudi na dveh skledah iz brezovega lubja v Baragovi zbirki (kat. št. E. 2826, W)7f,
in vse štiri naj bi torej bile istega izvora. E. 2894,'* na kateri je rob obvit s trskami
korenin (in ne z rjavimi bodicami, kot meni Golob), ima isti osnovni kroj ki
enako skrbno našite trske korenin kot oba makaka, ki smo ju zgoraj omenili, in jo
torej lahko mirno pripisujemo Baragovi zbirki. Vsi ti predmeti so bih v raznih
inventamih knjigah muzeja dosledno opredeljerü kot Baragove donacije. Enake
značikiosti pa ima tudi Čebulu pripisana škatla E. 289P'*, za katero je značilna
uporaba niti tako za ravne stranske šive kot za pritrditev lesene ojačitve na robu.
Izmed ostalih štirih posod iz brezovega lubja sta dve po veUkosti in po obUki
podobni kat. št. E. 2891. Prva izmed slednjih dveh, E. 2893*', kaže iste tehnične
značilnosti kot E. 2891 in ima nekatere podobne stilske lastnosti krašenja z
bodicami. Druga, E. 2892*', se od E. 2891 jasno razlikuje po osnovnem kroju in
po uporabi trsk korenin za šivanje in ovijanje. Čeprav Golob (na osnovi prejšnjega
inventamega seznama) Baragovi zbirki "pripisuje " samo E. 2892 in ne dvomi v
to, da tudi E. 2893 sodi vanjo, se zdi vsaj zelo verjetno, da sta E. 2893 in E. 2891
istega izvora.
Predmet E. 2892 se po vsej verjetnosti lahko pripisuje Baragovi zbirki; poleg
razlik v primerjavi z dvema drugima škatlama, je predmet izrazito podoben
škatU, ki je bila leta 1830 pridobljena pri jugozahodnih Očipvejcih in jo zdaj
hrani Muzej Peabody Essex.^ Ta podobnost pa govori v prid naši rešitvi problema.
Zbirka dimajskega Enološkega muzeja ima večje število podobnih majhnih
makakov, ki izvirajo iz misijonov, v katerih so delovah slovenski misijonarji. Čeprav
je večina škatel iz zbirke Johaima Georga Schwarza*^ ki so podobne E. 2891 in E.
2893, neznane provenience, je bil podoben komplet škatel v zbirki Martina Pitzerja
pridobljen v letih 1851-1853 v otavskih vaseh Arbre Croche in Cross Village
(Lacroix).** AH sta obe škatU v Ljubljani v resnici donaciji Ivana Čebula muzeju,
je vendar še dvomljivo. Čeprav za Čebula vemo, da ni deloval v otavskih misijonih
(pravijo, da je večino časa pred letom 1873 preživel v Wisconsinu), ni povem
izključeno, da je ta dva predmeta prinesel v Evropo. Na drugi strani pa se zdi,
da je stil izdelave teh škatel prezgoden za zbirko, ki naj bi bila zbrana na začetku
70-ih let devetnajstega stoletja.
Izmed ostalih dveh posod iz brezovega lubja je E. 2945 osmerokotna z
37 Golob 1997: 253-254, nos. 7-8. Za te posode glej bolj surovo izdelane sklede iz brezovega lubja
jugozahodnih Oapvejcev, ki jih je 1823 zbral Beltrami (Vigorelli 1987:55-56,84-86). Celo bolj podobrü, vključno
z robovi, ovitimi z bodicami, sta dve skledi nedokumentiranega izvora, zbrani pred 1835, ki sta v Etnološkem
muzeju v Berlinu (kat. št. IV B 29, IV B 79, Naglerjeva zbirka).
38 Golob 1997:252-253, št.6.
39 Golob 1997:251, št. 3.
« Golob 1997:252, št. 5.
« Golob 1997:251-252, št.4.
42 Muzej Peabody Essex, Salem, Massachusetts (kat. št. 53456, prej v zbirki Andover Newton Theological
School, Boutwellova zbirka).
43 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 12038-12041, zbirka Joharma Georga Schwarza).
44 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 31742-131746, zbirka Martina Pitzerja).
323
Christian F. Feest
okroglim pokrovom/' z robovi, ki so okrašeni s svilenimi in bombažnimi trakovi
v stilu, ki je dobro dokumentiran (in celo značilen) za Otavce na območju Arbre
Croche. Skorej enak primerek najdemo v Pitzerjevi zbirki iz 1851-1853 na
Dunaju.** E. 2895 je pravokotna škatla s pokrovom na nizkem podstavku, s
kratkim nosilnim trakom iz pletenih bodic ježevca (slika 7).*' Golob jo primerja
z menominsko škatlo iz zbirke Johanna Georga Schwarza na Dimaju, vendar so
podobni primerki dokumentirani tudi za Otavce in Očipvejce v obdobju okrog
1830 (slika 8). Dokaj nenavadna značilnost izdelkov te vrste so dodane podobe
štirih žensk na ožjih stranicah E. 2895, ki odstopajo od prevladujočih cvetličnih
motivov. Povsem identične ženske podobe so na eni strani nedokumentiranega
makaka, ki se (brez vidnega razloga) pripisuje Menominom iz Wisconsina in ki
ga hrani Kanadski muzej civilizacije v HuUu.*' Druga škatla iz brezovega lubja
neznane provenience je v muzeju Linden v Stuttgartu (sKka 9) in kaže (na nekoliko
dugačen način sicer) podobe žensk poleg podob moških v kanujih, koničastih
šotorov in raznih živali; škatla je iz zbirke princa Maximiiiana von Wied, ki je po
Združenih državah potoval v letih 1832-1834.™ Medtem ko časovna opredelitev
ustieza našim predstavam o kronologiji stilov krašenja z bodicami ježevca na
brezovem lubju na zahodnom območju VeUkih jezer, pa Maximilian vendar nikoli
rü bil blizu območju, kjer so take škatle izdelovali. Zato lahko domnevamo, da jo
je prejel kot daruo bodisi med potovanjem po ZDA ali po vmitivi v Evropo.
Možnost, da jo je dobil pri obisku Niagarskih slapov, je manj verjetna, ker je
tamkajšnji tig bil v rokah lokalnih plemen.
Ker so škatle okrašene z drugimi motivi kot s cvetličnimi ali z geometričnimi,
so bile očitno namenjene prodaji belcem in je torej najbolj verjetno, da so jih
izdelale tiste skupine Indijancev, ki so imele lahek dostop do ustreznih tigov: to
so Otavci z območja Arbre Croche (njihova glavna tiga sta bua Mackinac in
Detioit), Menomirü (tig: Green Bay) aH Očipvejci, ki so živeH okrog Macldnaca
in Sauita Ste. Marie. Po drugi stiani Očipvejce iz La Pointa aH Fond du Laca
takorekoč lahko izključimo kot izdelovalce škatel, ki so nastale v 30-ih letih 19.
stoletja.
Omenili smo že, da je gospod Franc Pire leta 1841 svojim zvestim
podpornikom v Sloveniji poslal škatle iz brezovega lubja, okrašene z bodicami.
« Golob 1997:262-263, št. 21.
46 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št.l31765, zbirka M. Pitzerja.; Graham 1983:35).
47 Golob 1997: 261-262, št. 20.
48 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 11992, 11993, Otavci, ca. 1830, zbirka Johanna Georga Schwarza;
Graham 1983:29,34); Muzej Peabody Essex, Salem, Massachusetts (kat. št. 53440, Očipvejci, 1831 zbral Miles
Boutwell, prej v zbirki Andover Newton Theological School; Moru-oe et al. 1996:22,33, shka 13). Druge podobne
škatle najdemo v Milwaukee Public Museum (kat. št. 352, prej v zbirki Wisconsin Natiual History Society,
"Očipvejci") in v Bemisches Historisches Museum (kat. št. Ca 22, pred letom 1845 zbral H. Morlot, "Kanada").
49 Kanadski muzej civiUzacije, Hull, PQ (kat. št. in-N-37ab, prej v zbirki Arthurja Speyerja). Na drugi
strani je podoba pipinega (kalumetovega) plesa.
50 Muzej Linden, Stuttgart (kat. št. 36054, zbhka princa Maximiiiana von Wied; Kussmaul 1982,1:244).
V Maximilianovi zbirki so vsaj trije drugi predmeti iz brezovega lubja, okrašeiu z bodicami podobnega stila.
324
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
izdelke Otavk iz Arbre Croche in Cross Village. Teoretično bi lahko bila vsaka
izmed štirih spornih škatel, ki smo jih zgoraj opisali, del te pošiljke iz 1841,
čeprav je škatla E. 2895 lahko starejšega izvora in čeprav je bila škatla E. 2945
verjetno izdelana nekoliko pozneje. Barage pa ne moremo izključiti kot vira za
E. 2895 in (manj verjetno) za E. 2891 ter 2893. Najmanj verjetni zbiralec katerekoH
izmed škatel iz brezovega lubja, ki jih sedaj hrani Slovenski etnografski muzej,
pa je Čebul.
S podobnim problemom se srečujemo v zvezi s sedmimi pari in z dvema
posameznima mokasinoma, ki ji hrani Slovenski etnografski muzej. Dva para,
ki so ju šele nedavno vpisaH v katalog (E. 18155,18156),^' lahko takoj izločimo,
ker gre pri njiju za kombinacijo krašenja z bodicami in vezenja s svilo na način,
ki je značilen za Métise ali za delo severnih Athapaskanov. Malo verjetno je, da
so, kot meni Golob, del donacije Franca Pirca. Na drugi strani listine o pridobitvi
dokumentirajo samo tri pare ženskih očipvejskih mokasinov kot donacijo
Friderika Barage" in (domnevno: par) "sandalov" (ali mokasinov) kot Čebulovo
donacijo.^' Deschmann^ te podatke povzame brez dodatnih informacij. Ostali
primerki so bUi torej verjetno pridobljeni šele po letu 1888, čeprav so jih morah
zbrati pred tem časom.
Eden izmed parov, ki jih je podaril Baraga, je opisan kot "en par indijanskih
nevestinih čevljev iz smje kože z zelenimi svilenimi trakovi, vezeni s pobarvanimi
razcepljenimi (ptičjimi?)hodicami ježevca."^^ Čeprav je zelena svila že skoraj
popolnoma izginila in čeprav gre za bodice ježevca ne pa za ptičje, je opis dovolj
jasen, da nam omogoča identificirati predmet E. 2917^'' kot zadevni par. Etnološki
muzej na Dunaju hrani zelo podoben par iz zbirke Joharma Georga Schwarza.
Schwarzov fond vključuje gradivo iz prejšnje zbirke detroitskega škofa Réséja,
poglavarja škofije, v kateri so bili Baragovi misijoni.^' Čeprav so Schwarzovi
mokasini brez dokumentirane provenience, njihova podobnost z Baragovim
parom nakazuje, da je ta par prav tako pridobil slovenski misijonar v La Pointu
in ga podaril škofu.'*
Dva druga para (kat. št. E. 2914 in E. 2916)^' imata bolj kakovostno izdelane
okraske iz bodic, vendar so brez svilene apUke na blagu manšet "nevestinih
51 Golob 1997:272-273, št. 36-37.
52 Ilirski list 1837: 68. Freyerjev seznam navaja samo dva para mokasinov. Ker je objavljen samo del
prejšnjega Jerinovega seznama (na katerem temelji sedaj objavljeni seznam), je za sedaj nemogoče ugotoviti, ali
gre pri tretjem paru za dodatek, oziroma ali je bila izpustitev s Freyerjevega seznama pomota.
53 Golob 1997:243,
54 Deschmann 1888:154-155.
55 lUrski Ust 1837: 68.
56 Golob 1997:271, št. 33.
57 Feest in Kasprycki 1993:16-17.
58 Etnološki muzej, Dunaj (kat. št. 12022, zbirka Johanna Georga Schwarza; Feest 1968: 59-60, št.74,
slika v/74, pomotoma pripisan Miamom).
59 Golob 1997: 269-271, št. 30,32.
325
Christian F. Feest
Čevljev"; en par pa je nedokončan. Skoraj ni dvoma, da so ti "polvezeni dekliški
čevlji" in "par navadnih ženskih čevljev" del Baragove donacije.^ Močan vpHv
Metisov na okraske iz bodic kaže na možen izvor iz Fond du Laca v Minnesoti.
Baraga v svoji knjigi" omenja, da so ženske te mokasine izdelale iz kož, ki so jih
same strojile ki da so mokasini moških bili izdatno okrašeni s steklenimi biseri
in s trakovi. Zanimivo je, da so vsi mokasini v njegovi zbirki ženski, za katere
tudi piše, da so okrašeni s številnimi steklenimi biseri in s trakovi. Vezenje z
bodicami, ki ga kažejo vsi trije pari, pa niti ni omenjeno v knjigi.
En par preprostih in skoraj povsem neokrašenih mokasinov (E. 2615)" je
bil dosledno in verodostojno identificiran kot par, ki ga je podaril Ivan Čebul.
Tako nam za obravnavo ostane en par ki dva posamezna mokasina, za
katere ni podatkov o njihovem izvoru. Vsi so verjetno delo Otavcev, čeprav lahko
izvkajo iz različnih obdobij in so lahko prišli v muzej ob različnih časih. E. 1030"
niti nima inventarne številke prejšnjega Narodnega muzeja, predhodnika
sedanjega muzeja, in zdi se, da izvira iz časa okrog 1850, ko je duhovnik Mrak,
slovenski misijonar in Baragov naslednik kot škof v Marquettu, deloval v Arbre
Croche. Če sta oba posamezna mokasina (E. 2918,2919)^ zares otavskega izvora
in če datirata izpred leta 1830, potem ju je lahko zbral duhovnik Pire. E. 2918
(slika 10) je posebno zanimiv primerek, ker združuje stiliziran cvetlični motiv
bodic''^ s črtasto apliko iz steklenih biserov čez apliko iz svilenih trakov. Pri
okrasnem vezenju iz bodic so ravne črte uokvirjene s cikcakastami črtami, kar
močno podpira sklep, da gre za delo Otavcev. Par mokasinov s steklenimi biseri,
ki ga hrani Detroitski Zavod za umetnost (slika 11), lepo ponazarja to tehniko."
Treh mošenj za tobak iz živalske kože v Baragovi zbkki (in ene v Čebulovi
6" Beltramijeva (1828,2: pl. H, sliki 13) zbirka ima dva v grobem podobna para, domnevno zbrana 1823
v Minnesoti. En par je opredeljen kot "Sioux," drugi kot par (jugozahodnih) očipvejskih ženskih mokasinov.
Druge podobne mokasine hranijo Brooklinski muzej, Brooklyn, (kat.št. 50.6722ab, zbral N. S. Jarvis, 1833-1836,
pripisan Očipvejcem; Feder 1964:49,51, slika 31, Muzej Luigija Pigorinija, Rim (kat. št. 3645, prej v zbirki Museo
Kircheriano., "Kanada").
61 Baraga 1837:58,59,61.
62 Golob 1997:270-271, št.31.
63 Golob 1997:266-269, št.29.
64 Golob 1997:271-272, št.33-34.
65 Par mokasinov (sedaj s podplati iz trdega usnja) v muzeju Peabody harvardske univerze, Cambridge,
Massachusetts (kat .št. 27-15-10/98245; Isaac 1990:32-33) ima podobno pleteno polje bodic v sredini oglava. Za
ta par pravijo, da ga je 1841 pri Očipvejcih zbral kapetan William Phelps, vendar v muzeju menijo, da je
irokeškega/huronskega stila in da zaradi uporabe anilinske barve najbrž datira iz časa po letu 1865. Menim, da
ta argument ne drži (kar izgleda kot anilinska barva, je lahko dejansko naravno barvilo), tako kot ne drži
Golobova navedba (1997:272), da zlata obroba motiva iz bodic govori v prid nastanku po letu 1850.
66 Detroitski Zavod za umetaost (kat. št. 81.64ab; zbrala Mary Shurtleff v Cross Village; Penney 1992:
96-97,št. 32). Čeprav je bil par zbran v otavski vasi in je izdelan v otavskem stilu vezenja s steklenimi biseri, so
ga tako Penney kot strokovnjaki pred njim imeh za "očipvejskega" (Hodge et al. 1973: 38-39, št. 143). Isti stil
vidimo na bobrovi koži, okrašeni s steklenimi biseri v Pitzerjevi zbirki (Etnološki muzej, Dunaj, kat. št. 131734,
zbrana 1851-1853 pri Otavcih, verjetno v Cross Village; Feest 1968: 47, pl. 5; 1984:40).
326
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
zbirki) žal lü več*"^, vendar je ohranjena mošnja, s prsti stkana iz preje in z
vpletenimi steklenimi biseri, opisana v Ilirskem listu kot "mošnja za tobak, tkana
iz rdečih volnenih niti z vrstami steklenih biserov; umetniški izdelek očipvejskih
žensk" (kat. no. E. 2868; sUka 12).^ Mošnje iz preje, tkane s prsti, z geometričnimi
motivi in z belimi steklenimi biseri iz poznega devetnajstega stoletja včasih
pripisujejo Očipvejcem*^', čeprav menda še nobena ni bila dokumentirana kot
taka. Baragova mošnja, ki se tehnično in stilsko nekoliko razlikuje od starejših
primerkov, je morda najstarejši tak primerek, ki ga lahko nesporno povezujemo
z Očipvejci. Za to, da izvira iz La Pointa, govori obstoj zelo podobne mošnje v
Indian Dormitory na otoku Mackinaw, zbrane v La Pointu leta 1854 (slika 13).
Druge primerljive očipvejske mošnje, zbrane približno dvajset let kasneje med
jugozahodnimi Očipvejci iz Minnesote™, imajo bolj zapletene vzorce iz steklenih
biserov in tkane obranmice, izvezene s steklenimi biseri. Obramnica Baragove
mošnje za razliko od njih kaže vzorce, ki spominjajo na tiste, ki so običajni za
očipvejske in otavske podveze iz zgodnjega devetnajstega stoletja.^'
Koliko posamezni predmeti iz posameznih zbirk lahko prispevajo k našemu
razumevanju razširjenosti in povezav med raznimi stili, ponazarja tudi nožruca
iz Baragove zbirke (kat. št. 2879; sUka 14). V evropskih in ameriških zbirkah je
ohranjenih nekaj ducatov nožnic z območja VeUkih jezer v Severni Ameriki, ki
so izdelane iz usnja in okrašene z barvanimi bodicami ježevca. Uporaba nožnic
v Severni Ameriki verjetno datira iz poznega sedemnajstega ali zgodnjega
osemnajstega stoletja in je sledila prevzemanju evropskih jeklenih nožev, ki so
biU mnogo ostrejši kot starejši kamniti, koščeni ali trsrü noži in jih že zaradi tega
preprosto ni bilo mogoče nositi brez nožnice, ki je ščitila nosilca. Ločujemo lahko
dva tipa nožnic glede na način, na katerega so jih nosiU. V prvega sodijo nožnice,
ki so jih nosili obešene okoU vratu; zanj je značilna simetrična oblika in ga lahko
67 Za opise glej Ilirski Ust (1837: 68) in Goloba (1997: 243). Dejstvo, da Deschmann (1888) ne navaja
nobene izmed njih, lahko pomerü, da jih že takrat ni bilo več v zbirki. Čebulova mošnja se je baje izgubila 1876
(Golob 1997:244).
68 lUrski Ust 1837:68; Golob 1997:258, Št.l6.
69 E.g., Benndorf in Speyer 1968:90-91, slika 49.
70 Zbirka Inštituta za etnologijo. Univerza v Göttingenu (kat. št. Am 3138; zbral Hermarm Domeier
med letoma 1855 in 1862 pri Očipvejcih blizu Chengwatane, Mkinesota; Feest in Kasprycki 1998: shka 87);
Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (kat. št. 37513; pripisana Očipvejcem; okrog 1860";
Olson et al. 1977:70, št 83); Minnesotski muzej znanosti. St. Paul, (kat. št. A79:4:73; zbirka škofa H. B. Whipple,
Očipvejci; ca. 1860; Casagrande in Ringheim 1980:77, št. 73); zbirka Chandler-Pohrta (Očipvejci, ca. 1860; Hodge
et ah 1973: 55, št. 206).
71 Npr. v Etnološkem muzeju na Dunaju (kat. št.l31790, zbral 1851-1853 Martin Pitzer pri Otavcih v
Cross Village aU Arbre Croche, Minnesota ; Feest 1968: 41, št.ll; 1984: 54); Detroitski inštiUit za umetnost,
Deü-oit, Minnesota (kat. št. 81.77a-b, zbran pri Otavcih v vasi Cross Village, MI; Penney 1992: 80-81,št. 14);
Detroitski inštitut za umetnost (kat. št. 81.294a-b, Očipvejci aU Otavci, 1820-1840; zbral Milford Chandler na
Beaver Islandu, Minnesota 1); Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Minnesota (kat. št. 4078, pripisan
"Očipvejcem ca. 1820" zbral Milford Chandler na Walpole Islandu; Olson et al, 1977:60, št. 48). Isti stil najdemo
na paru gamaš, ki ga pripisujejo jugovzhodnim Očipvejcem, zbran pa naj bi bil na Walpole Islandu, Ontario
(Cranbrook Uistitute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Ml; kat. št. 4080; Penney 1992:92-93, št. 27), vendar velja pri
tem upoštevati, da na Walpole Islandu živijo tako Očipvejci in Otavci kot Potawatomi.
527
Christian F. Feest
prepoznamo po vrvi ali jermenu, ki je segal na prsi. Nožnice, obešene za pasom,
predstavljajo drugi in verjetno poznejši tip; so asimetrične oblike in poznamo
več načinov pritrditve na pas. Če bi se zanašali zgolj na pisne dokaze, morda niti
ne bi vedeli, da so Indijanci uporabljali nožnice. Peščica opisov, ki se je ohranila,
kvečjemu opisuje način nošenja, ni pa podatkov o številnih različnih oblikah in
okrasnih motivih, ki so pogosto značilni za določeno območje ali kulturno
skupino.''^
Knjiga škofa Barage Geschichte, Character, Sitten imd Gebräuche der nord-
amerikanischen Indier je eden izmed redkih virov, ki dejansko omenjajo, da so
bile nožnice pritrjene na pas'^; nožnica v Baragovi zbirka pa je prav te vrste.
Predvsem zaradi dejstva, da je bilo o nožnicah, nošenih za pasom, objavljeno
samo eno poročilo pred 1837,'* (Baraga pa tega poročila ni poznal), lahko
sklepamo, da njegov opis temelji na lastnem opazovanju. Ker vemo, da nožnica
v Baragovi zbirki ne sodi v otavski tip, njegovo opazovanje lahko mirno
pripisujemo Očipvejcem. Edine otavske nožnice, ki jih lahko dokumentiramo,
sodijo v tip nožnic, ki so jih nosili okrog vratu, čeprav to samo po sebi ne izključuje
možnosti, da so nožnice za pasom začeli uporabljati pred 1830.
Z nekaterih vidikov je nožnica v Baragovi zbirki edinstvena. Ima dolge
rese, ovite z bodicami, ki se končujejo v zankah in ki visijo v treh ločenih delih z
vrha, s sredine in s spodnjega konca zavite strani nožnice ter s spodnjega roba
drobnega okrasnega polja iz tkanih bodic, ki je prišit na zgornji konec nožnice.''
Nožnica je najbolj podobna štirim primerkom z okrasnimi polji iz aplik iz bodic
(ne pa s tkanimi polji). Za tri izmed njih menijo, da izvirajo iz področij, ki so bolj
na zahodu'*"; imajo samo po dva okraska iz dolgih res na vrhu in na dnu zavite
strani nožnice, dve izmed njih imata aplike iz bodic ob robu ali v spodnjem
predelu nožnice. Četrto nožnico je proti koncu 1823 zbral Beltrami ki jo pripisal
"Siouxom"". Beltramijevi pripisi so žal pogosto očitno zmotni in malo verjetno
je, da je to nožnico dobil med Dakotami iz Mkmesote; bolj verjetno jo je pri reki
72 Cf. Feest, v pripravi.
73 "Imajo tudi velik nož, ki ga vedno nosijo v nožnici za pasom" (Baraga 1837:61).
7-* Weldovo poročilo (1807: letter 35) menda temelji na opozovanjih pri Irokezih. Starejše poročilo o
nožnicah, nošenih okoU vrahi, za pasom in na nogi (B. 1978: 181), ki je bilo objavljeno šele pred kratkim, se
nanaša na Indijance v Francoski Kanadi na splošno.
75 Golob 1997:260-261, št. 19.
76 Kraljevi Ontario Museum, Toronto (kat.št. 960.115.8; Best in McClelland 1977:10,18,št. 7) je pripisana
Creejem ah Blackfootom; Folkens Museum-etnografiska, Stockholm, kat. št. 1854.2.14 (zbral Armand Fouché
d'Otrante 1842-1844 na zgornjem Missouriju). Zbirka Johna Painterja, nožnica je pripisana "Vzhodnim prerijam,
ca. 1840" (Painter 1992:35,37, št. 17); ta nožnica ima isti vzorec aplik iz bodic kot tista v Kraljevem ontarijskem
muzeju.
Tip je povezan s simetričnim tipom z asimetričnimi zankami iz res in z apUkami iz bodic ah iz steklenih
biserov; gl. Painter (1992:35-37, št. 16) za opombe o sedmih primerkih; in Batkina (1995:70-71) za primerek, ki
ima isti motiv aplik iz bodic kot nožnice iz Kraljevega ontarijskega muzeja in Painterjeve nožnice. Te nožnice se
na splošno pripisujejo Creejem aU Métisom.
77 Belti-amijeva zbirka, Filottrano (Laurendch-Minelli 1990:246-247, sliki 11-12; cp. Belti^ 1828,2: pl. E,
slika 5).
328
Zbirka indijanskih predmetov Friderika Barage
Red River aH med jugozahodnimi Očipvejci iz Minnesote.
Osmerokraka zvezda na Baragovi nožnici se na vezenju iz bodic pojavlja
tudi na drugih predmetih, na primer na mošnji iz Jarvisove zbirke,'" ki jo v
brooklinškem muzeju pripisujejo območju Red Riverja (Métisom), aH na zibeUd,
ki jo je ga. WilHam Boutv^^eU v petdesetih letih 19. stoletja zbrala pri jugozahodnih
Očipvejdh.^ Vendar je ta motiv zelo razširjen tudi na tkanih okraskih iz steklenih
biserov pri jugozahodnih Očipvejcih. Obstajata nanu'ec dve nožnici, ki sta morda
iz prve polovice 19. stoletja in ki sta istega splošnega tipa z osmerokrako zvezdo,
tkano iz steklenih biserov, obe pa lahko izvirata od jugozahodnih Očipvejcev
(sHka IS).**"
Iz te razprave bi lahko povzeli, da zbirka Friderika Barage kljub nekaterim
manjšim problemom pri opredeHtvi izvora predmetov vsebuje zanimivo gradivo
o stilih predmetov jugozahodnih Očipvejcev iz La Pointa in Fond du Laca na
začetku tretjega desetletja 19. stoletja ne glede na to, da je med njimi morda
peščica predmetov, ki jih je škof Baraga dobil drugod. Kljub temu, da gre za
majhno skupino zelo izbranih predmetov, je Baragova zbirka ena izmed redkih
iz prve polovice devetnajstega stoletja, ki je dokaj natančno dokumentirana. Zato
je lahko pomemben pripomoček pri datiranju in lociranju drugih predmetov iz
slabše dokumentiranih zbirk in pripomoček pri sestavljanju koščkov, ki skupaj
tvorijo zgodovinsko etnografijo materialne kulture sevemoameriških Indijancev.
LITERATURA: glej sfi-. 310.
78 Brooklinški muzej, Brooklyn, New York (kat. št. 50.67.16; Feder 1964:49, št. 15); pripis je na razstavni
nalepki, 1991.
79 Muzej Peabody Essex, Salem, Massadiusetts (kat. št.E 25409, prej v zbirki Andover Newton Theological
School.; Monroe et al. 1996:160,174).
80 Neville PubUc Museum, Green Bay, Wisconsin, (kat. št. 11,214, pripisana "Oäpvejcem, ca. 1830";
Olson et al. 1977: 68, št. 75). Narodni muzej Danske, Kopenhagen (kat. št. EHc 122; zbrana pred 1850, verjetno
v Wisconsinu). Glej tudi: Narodni naravoslovrü muzej, Washington, DC (kat. št. T1085; "Očipvejci, ca. 1835";
Hodge et al. 1973:91).
329
Christian F. Feest
BESEDA O AVTORJU
Christian F. Feest je 1969 doktoriral iz
antropologije na dunajski univerzi. Preden je
1993 postal profesor antropologije na univerzi
v Frankurtu na Maini, je bü kustos Severno in
srednjeameriških zbirk v Etnološkem muzeju
na Dunaju od 1963 do 1993, na dunajski uni-
verzi pa je predaval od 1975. Feestove raziskave
so predvsem posvečene indijanski likovni
umetnosti in materialni kulturi, zgodovini etno-
grafskega zbiranja, etnozgodovini vzhodnega
dela Severne Amerike ter antropologiji in
likovnim upodobitvam. Izmed preko 170 objav
na tem področju velja posebno omeniti Das rote
Amerika (1976), Native Arts of North America
(1980, 1993), Indians in Europe (1987) in več
muzejskih katalogov. Dr. Feest je tudi iirednik
European Review of Native American Studies.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christian F. Feest received his Ph.D. in
anthropology from the University of Vienna in
1969. He was curator of the North and Middle
American collections of the Museum für
Völkerkunde in Vierma from 1963 to 1993 and
was teaching at the University of Vierma since
1975, before becoming Professor of Anthropo-
logy at the Uiüversity of Frankfurt am Main in
1993. His research interests focus on Native
American visual arts and material culture, the
history of ethnographic collecting, the ethno-
history of eastern North America, and the
anthropology of visual representation. Among
his more than 170 publications in this field are
Das rote AmeriQca (1976), Native Arts of North
America (1980, 1993), Indians and Europe
(1987), and various museum catalogs. He is also
editor of the European Review of Native
American Studies. i
330