ethnohistory sergei kan on orthodox brotherhoods

8/9/2019 Ethnohistory Sergei Kan on Orthodox Brotherhoods

1/29

ETHNOHISTORY 32(3): 196-223 KAN

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX BROTHERHOODS AMONG THETLINGIT: MISSIONARY GOALS AND NATIVE RESPONSESergei Kan University of Miciiigan

AbsiraciIn the 1890s-1900s, Russian Onhodox missionaries estabUshed religious brotherhoodsamong the Tlingit Indians of southeastern Alaska to Fight indigenous customs in-compatible with Christianity, and to promote abstinence and mutual aid. On the basisof archival and ethnograph ic research, the study dem onstrates the Tlingit success inutilizing these organizations to strengthen their position within the church and , therebyestahlish a more balanced relationship with the Russian deigy and parishioners, tomaintain th e power and prestige of the aristocracy, and to indigenize Orthodoxy ingeneral. T he analysis also suggests that, by joining the brotherhoods, the Tlingit managedto present themselves to the Americans and the Russians as "civilized Indians,"and thus were able to improve their standing within the larger sociopolitical systemthey did not control.

Despite the important role played by Christianity in transforming native NorthAmerican cultures, until recently few ethnohistorians have examined this subjectin any detail. Berkhofer's (1965) pioneering work on the activities of Protestantmissionaries among the Indians, followed by a number of historical studies andsurveys of Indian missions (e.g.. Ronda and Axtell 1978; Axteli 1981; Bowden1981), clearly demonstrated that the earlier view of missionization as an "exogenousforce unilaterally impinging upon passively recipient peoples" (Boutilier 1978:305)had to be abandoned. In the last decade, several scholars have been concernedin their analyses of missionization with "the specific, the contextual, the detailedprogress of social change in a historical framework" (McLoughlin 1984: 6; seealso Conkling 1974; Brenner 1980; Patterson 1982; Bragdon 1983; Brown 1982,1983).This growing body of ethnohistorical research shows that North American In-dians have often reinterpreted Christian ideas, rituals, and institutions, and thattheir approach to C hristianity has been selective, creative, and synthesizing. Chris-tianity, as a result, frequently became indigenized. Gualtieri (1980: 57) definesindigenization as a process of cultural adaptation, in which the fundamental mean-ings of a cultural system are retained, at least partially, but are expressed in thesymbolic forms of another, non-native cultu re.'O f course, exogenous ideologiesand social practices are rarely simply superimposed upon unchanging indigenoussociocultural systems. Instead, in the course of contact baw een Indians and Euro-peans (including missionaries), indigenous systems themselves are transformed.In many of the situations of dramatic sociocultural change, when Indian waysof life and patterns of thought have been seriously threatened by the dominantsociety, indigenized Christian rituals and institutions have mediated and interpreted


2/29

197 SERGEI KAN

lift, especially practices attacked by missionaries, while simultaneously taking ad-vantage of the missionaries' material and spiritual assistance. The degree to whichnatives succttd in their efforts depends heavily on tht balance of power betwttntht two groups, tht amount of changt missionaries wish to introduce into nativelife, and the susceptibility of tht sptciflc Christian symbolic forms to bting reinter-preted and indigtniztd.

This paper prestnts a detailed analysis of a successful attempt by the Tlingitof southeastern Alaska to takt advantage of the church brothtrhoods establishedin the late 1890s and the early 1900s by Russian Orthodox missionaries. Whilethe missionary goal was to Tight indigenous customs incompatible with Christianity,and to promote abstinence and mutual aid, tht Tlingit utilized thtst organiza-tions to strtngthtn their position within tht church and, thtrtby establish a morebalancedrelationshipwith tht Russian cltrgy and parishioners, to maintain thepowtr and prestigt of the aristocracy, and to indigtnize Orthodoxy in general.At tht same time, by joining tht brotherhoods, the Tlingit managed to presentthemstlves to non-natives (Russians and Americans) as '*civiliztd Indians," andthus were able to improve thtir standing within the larger sociopolitical systemthey did not control.These brothtrhoods, and the broader issue of Tiingit Orthodoxy, have not betndiscussed in anthropological studits aimtd at reconstructing and inttrpreting Tlingitculture history (de Laguna 1960,1972; Drucktr 1958; Tolltfson 1976,1978). Thisomission reflects, in large part, the fact that most of the primary sources areavailable only in Russian and have only recently been systematized and madeavailable to researchers. Much of the historical data for this study comes fromthe Alaska Church Collection (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress),' in whichthere is a variety of important documtnts, including offlcial missionary rtpons,travel journals, lttttrs, and minutts of brothtrhood mtttings. Additional mattrialwas examined in tht parish archives of the Sitka and Juntau Orthodox churchesand in Orthodox periodicals, particularly the Russian Orthodox AmericanMessenger.In addition to the documentary evidence, ethnographic data collected insoutheastern Alaska in 1979-1980 and 1984 havt bt tn used. Many of tht tkltrlyTlingit consultants inttrvitwtd wert tht children or other dost relatives of theoriginal brothtrhood mtmbtrs, and/or activtly participattd thtmseivts in thesenativt sodalities in tht l920s-1940s. Thdr testimony is of great value, since it of-fers a different ptrsptctive on the events described by the missionaries. Thebrotherhood activities remtmbtrtd most vividly and fondly by consultants wtrtnot necessarily those emphasized by the clergy. E thnographic data also shed lighton many aspects of the latt nineteenth and the early twentieth-century Tlingit lifenot described in missionary or government reports. This Ls particularly true with respectto the persistence of indigenous ctremonial activities, values, btlitfs, and sodal


3/29

Brotherhoods Among Tlingi t 198

interpretation of Christianity and attitudes towards and relationshipswith the non-Tlingit clergy. I believe that the best results in ethnohistorical studies of this kindcan be achieved through a combination of historical research and ethnographicfleldw ork (cf. Fowler 1982: XV II).

Massive Tlingit Conversion to OrtiiodoxyThe Tlingit reaction to, and interpretation of. Orthodox brotherhoods can be prop-erly understood only in the context of their massive conversion to Orthodoxythat occurred in the late nineteenth centry. During the decade preceding theestablishment in 1896 of the first Indian Society of Temperance and Mutual Aid,a large number of Tlingit living in Sitka, Juneau, Killisnoo, and several othervillages suddenly joined the Russian Church. To explain this significant newdevelopment in the native social life, one must examine briefly the history of theTlingit relationship with Europeans, both prior to and after the Russian sale ofAlaska to the United States.*The first Orthodox attempt to Christianize the Tlingit was made in 1834 by Fr.Ivan Veniaminov in NovoarkhangePsk (Sitka), the capital of Russian America.His proselytizing efforts among the Indians residing just outside the heavily-guardedRussian palisade did not yield significant results until a devastating smallpoxepidemic in 1835-1837 demonstrated the inability of the native shamans to com-bat the terrible new disease and displayed the impressive power of the Russianpriests, equipped with holy water as well as vaccine (Veniaminov 1886: 641-642).Although on the eve of the Russian sale of Alaska the Orthodox Church had over400 Tlingit members (about one half of Sitka's Indian population), most contem-porary missionary and secular observers agreed that the majority of the Tlingits'commitment to Orthodoxy was not strong (see e.g.. Bishop Pavel Popov's 1869report, quoted in the Docum ents Relative to the H istory of Alaska, 1936-1938,vol.1: 151; Fr. Nikolai Kovrigin, Journal of Missionary Activities, 1866, ACC,D316; Doklad 1863: 115).

There were several reasons for the lack of success of the Orthodox missionaryefforts in southeastern Alaska. Unlike some other native Alaskan peoples, theTlingit had retained total political independence from the Russian-American Com-pany. Their interest in trading with the Russian was stimulated by the recognitionof the superiority of some of the European tools, as well as by the traditionalTlingiL emphasis on the accumulation, display, and distribution of wealth as ameans of maintaining and raising status. At the same time, the Tlingit resistedthe Russian occupation of a portion of their ancestral territory , as well as attemptsto interfere in such native practices as warfare, slave sacrifices, and shamanism.It seems unlikely that Christian ideas and practices were well understood bythe Tlingit. W hile Veniaminov (1886: 643-647) and his colleagues reported some


4/29


5/29

Brotherhoods Among Ttingit

discriminated against by the non-native population of Sitka, many of whom werenot churchgoers. Within the Presbyterian Church itself, there was some anti-nativesentiment, which led to the creation of a separate American congregation thatmet at a different time, and eventually built its own church (The First PresbyterianChuch of Sitka, Archives, 1884-1935). Finally, in the 1880s and particularly the1890s, Presbyterian missionaries became dosdy allied with the Sitka dvilauthorities, so that American abuses began to be identified with that church (seeHinckley 1982: 139-142).In sum, by the late 1880s the Tlingit of Sitka, and to a lesser extent of othercommunities, were actively involved in the American economy, without abandoningmost of thdr traditional subsistence activities. At the same time, their sodalorganization and world view were only beginning to be influenced, with the ex-ception of those members of the younger generation who had been exposed toAmerican education (cf. Drucker 1958: 11-12). The Tlingit in Sitka were livingin two distinct, and incompatible, sets of institutions within a single politicalframework. They were anxious to be recognized and respected by theEuroamericans, did not shy away from contacts with them, but resentedbdngtreated as inferior.After 1867 the position of the Orthodox Church in Sitka, and of its Russian-Creole' membership, was weak. On the one hand, the Russian Church lacked thefinancial strength and manpower of the Presbyterians. On the other, some of thelocal U.S. authorities regarded it as an alien and suspidous institution. Most ofits members were persons of mixed Russian-Aleut ancestry, whose status was higherthan that of the Tlingit but lower than that of the Americans. While many of theCreoles disliked being classed with or just above the Indians, some of them, likesome of the more w dl-to-do Russian families, had ties with members of the Tlingitcommunity and mediated between the Americans and the Indians.' Both the Rus-sian dergy and their Russian-Creole parishioners appealed several times to theU.S. government and the Russian ambassador in Washington on behalf of theTlingit, defending them against abuses by the dvil authorities and Presbyterians. ^^

In its defense o f the Alaskan natives, the Orthodox Church was obviously pro-tecting its own interests as weil. Nevethdess, its ambivalence about the Americaniza-tion of the Creoles and the Indians, and a somewhat greater tolerance towardsIndian customs, encouraged Tlingit conversion to Orthodoxy, particularly at thetime when the Presbyterian missionaries and the U.S. authorities were waging avigorous joint campaign against the "old customs." The breaking of a spatialbarrier between the Russian Church and the Tlingit comm unity, and a variety ofother factors discussed b dow, contributed to a massive Tlingit conversion to Or-thodoxy in the 1880s (see also Kan 1983a). By that time. Orthodoxy had becomemore acceptable to the Indians, especially to the more conservative ones.This sudden upsurge in the natives' conversion was also stimulated by an in-


6/29

201 SERGEI KAN

communities. Once the task of conversion had been accomplished, the missionariesconcentrated th dr efforts on Christian education and the struggle against "p ag an "customs incom patible with O rthodoxy. This activity received a boost with the ar-rival in Sitka of a young and energetic missionary, hieromonk (later archiman-drite) Fr. Anatolii Kamenskii."

Tiie Indian Temperance and Mutuai Aid SodetyAfter a brief suy in Sitka, Kamenskii had become convinced that, despite Or-thodoxy's recent success, much more remained to be done to turn Indians intotrue Christians. He saw "intemperance" and the "dan-based mode of Ufe" as

the two greatest evils that had to be fought. While the missionary blamed theAmericans for the natives ' intemperance, he percdved the indigenous social systemas the source of various pagan practices incompatible with Christianity, includingmemodal feasts for the dead (potlatches), polygamy and the refusal to marry inthe church, blood revenge, shamanism, and witchcraft (Kamenskii 1906; TheAlaskan, 7/10/1897: 1; Kamenskii, Report to Bishop Nikolai, 2/1897, ACC,0. ^322). He argued that sermons, visits to native homes, and other standard formsof religious and moral instruction were insufficient to eradicate these evils andto improve the material and spiritual condition of the "children of nature." Thebest solution, to his mind, was the estabUshment of a native society of temperanceand mutuai aid.The model for such an organization was Orthodox brotherhoods, which pro-liferated among the Slavic immigrants in the U.S. in the late nineteenth century(Tarasar 1975). In the Sitka parish, several organizations of this kind existed amongthe Russian-Creole members, originating with a society created in 1878.'^ Theirmain goals were to combat the increasing intemperance among the parishioners,promote religious education and moral improvement, preserve the Russian language(especially among the younger, more Americanized population), help maintainpeace and goodwill in the Orthodox community, engage the laity in taking careof church property and, finally, to establish a fund for the poor, the sick, andthe survivors of the deceased members. Brotherhoods elected their own officers,with the parish priest serving as either the president or the "spiritual advisor."Special insignia and honorable ceremonial duties distinguished brotherhoodmembers from the rest of the parish. The success of Orthodox sodalities in Sitkawas modest, their m embership fluauating between 15 in 1885, 48 in 1892, 36 in1897, 77 in 1907, and 15 in 1915. It never exceeded 30


7/29

Brotherhoods Amon g Tlingit 202

in the funeral o f a ftUow-mem btr, standing with lighted candles during tht s tr-vice and accompanying tht body to tht cemetery. Brotherhood funds, made upof a monthly fee of 25 cents, were to bt ustd for burying tht poor m tmbtrs (upto S10.(X) per funeral) and assisting the sick as well as orphans and widows (SI .(X)to $3.00 ptr person per wttk). Failurt to obstrve tht rules, or to pay the duts,resulted in txpulsion. Tht adherence to tht statutes was to be monitored by themtmbtrs thtm seivts. W hilt thty tltctt d a prtsidtnt, a stcrttary, and a trtasurer(with marshalls addtd lattr), a pritst or anothtr local dtrgyman strvtd as th t chair-man or tht suptrvisor.Th t certmony of swearing in ntw members was soltmn and, according to mis-sionary accounts and my consultants' testimony, madt a strong impression ontht Tlingit. It took place aer the reading of th t G osp d, one of the highest pointsof tht Sunday liturgy. Each candidatt ascendtd th t ambo and then tum td aroundand faced tht congregation to publicly confess his sins and promise to abandontht old lift and follow all the statutes of tht organization. Having pronounceda standard oath,'^ he tum td around and kissed the cross and the Gospd , plactdon a sptdal tablt, and then addtd his namt to tht list of members.

Compartd to other Tlingit parishioners, brotherhood members had certain sacreddutits and tnjoytd som t privilegts. For txamplt, thty wert expected to stand withlighted candlts during the reading of the Gospd and wtre honored by bdng allowtdto wtar sptcial sashts and badges. Their names were invoked by tht pritst duringtht liturgy. Brotherhood marshalls wtrt in chargt of enforcing proper bdiaviorof nativt parishioners during rtgular services and Lent.

Early Ytars and Initial DiffieultitsThe formal swearing in of the flrst seventeen mtmbtrs of tht "Sodety ofTemperance and M utual Aid of St. Michael the Archangel" took place on January

1,1896. They wtre mainly young and middle-aged men and women, many of whomw trt marritd couplts. ' Whilt nothing is known about th t majority of this group,stvtral leadtrs of tht socitty wtrt idtntifitd as promintnt Sitka Indians whostbiographies wert reconstructtd on tht basis of missionary records and nativtttstimony. It apptars that, from the very beginning, three men played the leadingroles in tht brothtrhood.Tht flrst presidtnt of tht organization, who rtmaintd in offlce until his deathin 1908, was Iakov (Jacob) Kanagut (Kanagood?), a man of aristocraticbackground, and a member of the L'uknax.di dan. Born in the mid-1850s, heatttndtd tht Russian parish school, was literate in English, and kntw tht Biblequite well. Another younger leader was Semeon Kakwaeesh (Luke S tm tan), w hoalso could read, write, and speak Russian and English. He was knowltdgablt inreligous matters and taught in tht Russian school for Indians. In 1896 ht was about


8/29

203 SERGEI KAN

Initially, out of 800 local Orthodox Indians, only seventeen joined thebrotherhood. This suggests that the new organization was looked upon with adegree of suspidon. Its goals of eliminating the "old customs" must have keptmany Tlingit away. Kamenskii himself reported "violent hostility" toward thesodety by the majority of the Sitka natives (Repon to Bishop Nikolai, 2/1897,ACC, D 322). This attitude is understandable if the original members actuallytook the brotherhood statutes to hean. According to Kamenskii, they faced thestrongest opposition when some of them tried to bury fellow members at the socie-ty's expense, without using the services of thdr afflnes andrefusingto remuneratethem. They even had to appeal to the American court to defend theirrightto do so.However, it is difflcult to establish the degree to which the first brotherhoodmembers rejected indigenous beliefs and practices. One senior consultant afflrmed

that Kanagut preached against the "old ways," but added that he did not aban-don his position in the traditional clan hierarchy. Other members took part inmajor potlatches, ignoring the missionaries' admonitions (Kan 1979-1984). Untilnew information becomes available, it isreasonableto assume that those who joinedthe sodety in 1896 were willing to give up at least some of the traditional customs,but it is not clear how sincere they were or how far they were prepared to go.The expulsion of several members in 1897, for taking part in a memorial feast,suggests that complying with the brotherhood oath was not easy. Even Kanaguthimsef did not accept the legalized church marriage until 1902. Like other Tllnget,he was afraid that this would seriously undermine the traditional matrilineal systemof inheritance, since children of such a marriage could appeal to the Americancourt for support of their claims on their father's propeny, including lineage housesand clan regalia.In addition to this initial negative reaction from the native community, theTemperance and Mutual Aid Society was greeted without enthusiasm by some ofthe Russian-Creole parishioners, especially the members of the Brotherhood ofSt. Nicholas. In order to claim a higher status in the town's social hierarchy, theytried to maintain some distance between themselves and the Indians. The Rus-sians and the Creoles also did not want to give up their leadership and influencein the church, which they maintained despite the rise of the Indian membership,in the 1890s, when they were outnumbered by the Tlingit by at least three to one ,the clergy was already paying greater attention to the native members, causingresentment among the rest of the congregation.

Thus, in 1895, the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, which had just established a chapterin Juneau, refused to admit a woman who was half-Tlinget and half-white, hadbeen raised in a "civilized" family, spoke fluentE nglish, and knew the Bible well.Despite the priests' pleas and appeals from the Juneau R ussians and Creoles, thiswoman, needed by the church as an interpreter, was turned down, so as not toset a precedent for other Indians (St. Nicholas Brotherhood, Minutes, 1895, A CC,


9/29

Brotherhoods Among T lingit

ried with the Tlingit, maintained good relationships with them, adopted and raisednative children, and offered help and hospitality to their Tlingit godchiklren.After all, the sodoeconomic gap between the Indians and the majority of the Rus-sians and Creoles was narrower than that between the American and the TlingitPresbyterians. ' ' In sum, the tension between the Russian and Indian brotherhoodshad more to do with an internal parish dispute over leadership and power thanwith radal prejudice.^^

Between 1896 and 1902, the Indian Temperance Sodety experienced a varietyof difficulties due to internal confiicts, as well as actions by members unaccept-able to the dergy. Although membership rose to 40 by the end of 1896, it droppedto 20 in 1898, and plunged to its nadir in 1901 with only 17 members remaining.In 1902, however, membership suddenly jumped to 110. While we have onlyfragmented data on the events of that period, it is important, and possible, toreconstruct them in order to understand the type of problems that condnuouslyplagued the organization and the main causes of the sudden mass appeal of thebrotherhood.According to a missionary report (Russian Orthodox American Messenger, 1903,vol.7, no. 4: 56), one of the major difficulties in the period between 1896 and1901 was that "matters of protocol completely overshadowed the inner meaningand purpose of this useful church organization." This probably meant thatmembers were more interested in uniforms and ceremonies than in enforcing thestatutes aimed at eradicating intemperance and the "o ld customs." Other sourcesmendon discord within the brotherhood and the concentration of power in thehands of a few leaders. It seems that rhe native organization was experiencingthe difficuldesthat frequendy arise when members of a clan-based sodety createan institution rhat cuts across dan ties (cf.Drucker 1958).The strongest evidence supporting this hypothesis is the intensification of strifewithin the brotherhood in the early 1900s, which coincided with a bitter disputebetween the two leading Sitka clans, the Kiks.adi and the L'uknax,adi, over acrest both of them claimed.^'Despite optimistic statements to the contrary madeby Fr. Mefodii, the chairnuin of the organization, in his 19(X) report to Bishop

Nikolai (ACC, D 322), several documents in the missionary correspondence in-dicate that some brotherhood members became involved in what the priestscalled a "dispute over an idol" (Fr. Antonii, Reports to Bishop Nikolai, 1900-1901,ACC, D 322). In 1902-1903, at the height of this confiict, several letters were sentto the bishop by the brotherhood leaders, who accused each other of abusing power,financial misconduct, and intrigue. Most of the accusations were denied by Fr.Antonii in a follow-up letter (ibid.). Although it is not clear what prompted thoseletters, hostilities in the larger native community undoubtedly affected the at-mosphere within the society.This would explain why many members left the St. Michael Brotherhood in 1904and created a new society named after St. G abriel. An analysis of the clan identi-


10/29

205 SERGEI KAN

The above mentioned interclan dispute, and other events of the early 1900s,indicate that the missionaries failed to insulate brotherhood members from the"heathen"activities in thd r own sodety. On the contrary, by allowing and /or en-couraging membership growth. Orthodox clergymen unknowingly weakened theability of the native brotherhoods to fight the "clan-based mode of life" andfacilitated thdr transformation from organizations of themore "progressive" fewto large semi-independent Tlingit sodalities, with the majority of the members con-tinuing their active participation in potlatches and other traditional rites andceremonies.

The Rbe of the Membenhip and the Role of the AristocracyA few years after the establishment of the original St. Michael Brotherhood,

older men of aristocratic background began joining the organization, together withwives, children, and matrilineal kin. Among them were such influential clanas Pavel Katlian, Foma (Thomas) Kichkau Bennet and a convert fromPresbyterianism, Mikhail Kusetan. Russian missionaries rejoiced, knowing perfectlywell that these senior aristocrats would bring theirrelativesak>ng and would bolsterthe image of the brotherhood in the eyes of the native community. The clergyencouraged this process by obtaining certificates, medals, and other aw ards fromthdr superiors for the new high-ranking members.^^ In the process of attractingthe aristocracy, the missionaries inevitably had to sacrifice the "quality" of thebrotherhood mem bers. They coukl hardly expect Tlingit chiefs and dders to aban-don potlatching, which was still the basis of the aristocracy's special position inthe native sodal system.It appears that the senior aristocrats joined the sodety when they recognizedthe potential benefits. Here was an organization that could give them considerableleverage in the affairs of the parish, and establish what they perceived as morebalanced, reciprocal relationships with the Russian clergy and parishioners. Thesodality could also help elevate their status in the dominant, non-native sodety,whose American establishment was beginning to look more favorably on the In-dian bro therhood. Indians dressed in European clothing, decorated with Chris-tian regalia, and singing church hymns must have seemed less threatening to theAmericans than those wearing traditional costumes and performing ceremonialdances. (cf.Axtell 1981: 41-43). Beginning in the late 1890s, the local newspaper.The A laskan^ published reports generally sympathetic to the efforts of the Or-thodox missionaries in ''civilizing" the Tlingit. To attend the "m yste rious" holi-day services of the Russian Church and to watch the former "savages'* sing, pray,and take communion became a popular pastime of the "better class" of Sitka'sAmerican population (Russian Orthodox American Messenger, vol.7, no.4: 56-60).Aristocrats and clan leaders were clearly seen by their tribesmen as possessing


11/29

Brotherhoods Among Tlingit 206

dans, which means that they were expected be be generous, modest, dignified,honest, and careful, but eloquent, in their speech (Kan 1979-1984; see also Kan1982a: 98-115).

It should also be pointed out that many of these leaders spoke at least someRussian and/or English, were engaged in commercial activities introduced by theAmericans, and shared the younger generation's view on such issues as equalityfor Indians in Sitka's social and economic Ufe. Drucker (1958: 35-37) calls them"selectively conservative" and argues that it was the duty of a Tlingit chief tobecome involved in an activity that seemed to be attractive and beneficial to hisown people.^^ Without denying that an increased interest in Christianity couldhave encouraged some of the aristocracy to join the brotherhood, I argue thatthe traditional Tlingit values of rank and prestige played a greater role in thatprocess. The strongest evidence supporting this argument is the indigenous formof succession that operated within these Christian sodalities. Although brotherhoodofficers were supposed to be elected on the basis of religious devotion , aristocraticleaders occupied thdr positions for long periods (sometimes for life), resisted at-tempts by the clergy to replace them, and strongly encouraged thdr maternalnephews and other matrilineal kin to take over after their death or retirement (Kan1979-1984).An exam ination o f the specific duties assigned to brotherhood leaders, and thepresent-day native interpretation of them, demonstrates that the missionary andthe Tlingit understanding of the objeaives of these sodalities were rather different.The only role understood similarly was that of the interpreter or the religious in-structor. Here, rank could not play a dedsive role, since the prerequisites includ-ed a good knowledge of Russian, Church Slavonic, the Bible, and general Uteracy.Several younger men, former students of one of the parish schools in Sitka, oc-cupied those positions. Some of them were members of the aristocracy, but otherswere of a more modest background. A few even had Russian ancestry and/or wereraised by the Russiansa liability in the indigenous social hierarchy. Their specialknowledge and skills compensated for the lack of high rank or the limited exper-tise in traditional lore and ceremony, prerequisites for an aristocratic status. Allthe other tasks performed by brotherhood leaders did not require any spedalknowledge except the basics of Orthodoxy. This allowed unschooled natives tobecome the key officers in the Orthodox brotherhoods, something they could rarelyachieve in the Presbyterian Church, where the emphasis was primarily on thereading of the Bible, sermons, and other activities presupposing a more solidreligious education.

To understand the meaning attributed by the Tlingit to the various aaivitiescarried out by brotherhood leaders and ordinary members, one has to examinethdr view of the Orthodox ritual and, especiaUy, the sacred artifacts used in it.The basis for this view was the indigenous notion of power. In the pre-ChristianTlingit culture, supernatural or, rather, superhuman power was bdieved to be ob-


12/29

207 S E R G E I K A N

rived from their position in the soda l hitrarchy. The latter was maniftsttd in and,rdnforctd by, control ovtr tht ust and display of lintage and clan crests, tht rightto wtar special costumes decorated with ceremonialregaliartprestnting thdr kin-ship groups, and a leading role in all ctremonial events (Kan 1982a).It appears that th tst indigtnous beliefs about po wtr, prtstigt and laxeiti struc-tured tht Tlingit perctption of tht sacrtd spact insidt tht Orthodox church, aswell as attitudts towards, and treatmtnt of, its sacrtd artifaa s and substances(candles, holy wattr, communion wint and bread, and so forth). This helps toexplain why, during Ltnt, abstaining from secular tnttrtainmtnt and other restric-tions were so faithfully obstrved by most brothtrhood members, and why the mar-shalls (also calltd the "brothtrhood polict") wtre given tht task of overseeingand enforcing this bthavior. An individual found guilty of ignoring Lenten ruleswas barred from comm union, which has always b ttn percdvtd by the Tlingit asont of tht major sourcts of laxeiti availabte from tht Orthodox Church.^' Theoppositon bttwttn brothtrhood mtmbtrs standing ntar tht altar in tht back oftht church, dostr to tht priest, and tht rest of tht congregation located towardsthe front, mirrored tht allocation of spact to various social cattgorits inside theTlingit winter hou se. There, the aristocracy and their immediate kin occupied therear, dost to tht lintagt rtgalia and tht houst scrttn decorated with the majorlineage crtst (Kan 1978). Tht hokling of candlts by brotherhood mtmbtrs duringtht rtading of tht G ospel was also inttrprettd as a sign of thtir superiority.Mtmbtrs who broke church rules ptrtaining to physical and moral purity werenot allowtd to touch tht candles and could even be prohibited from standingtogether with tht othtrs. Brothtrhood marshalls sttm to havt aaed like indigtnousaristocrats, ovtrstting tht potiatch protocol, whtn they tnforced proper bthaviorof parish mtmbtrs during tht servicts; this included insuring that the people werequitt and did not walk in and out of the church, tsptcially during the readingof tht G ospel and com mun ion. Finally, during E aster, Christmas and otherholidays, brotherhood members carried various church paraphenalia, with the presi-dent and other officers assigned to hokl th t icons, banners, and other most sacredartifacts.

Thus, membership in the brotherhoods was ptrctived as a special honor andpriviltge granttd only to those who maintained high standards of moral andphysical purity. Tht sotemn ritual of swearing in new mtmbtrs reinforced thisview. According to my consultants, tach ntw member pltdging to be faithful totht church and the brothtrhood had to hold a largt candlt. The entire congrega-tion watchtd the fla m e. A steady flam e indicated the pltdger's sincerity, whilea weak ont was a bad sign, lllntss, loss of wealth, and other misfortunes sufferedby brotherhood mtmbtrs wtre frequently interpreted as a consequence of theirbreaking tht sacred oath, by such infraa ions as coming to church intoxicattd (Kan1979-1984). Finally, insignia given to brothtrhood mtmbtrs and the sptcial rtgaliadifferentiating tht offictrs from othtrs, undoubtedly made tht new sodalities more


13/29

Brotherhoods Amongintemperance. While Tlingit leaders must have been concemed with the increaseof drinking in thdr community and the crimes resulting from it, some of themwere not exempt from intoxication themsdves. Aid to the poor and the sick, tradi-tionally the prerogative of the leadership, may have been an additional, but prob-ably not a major factor in attracting them into the organization. Although thetradidonal system of mutual aid was already affected by the gradual decline ofthe unity of matrilineal groups, many lineage and dan leaders continued hdpingthdr less fortunate relatives.

Brotherhood ActivitiesOne of the major objectives of the missionaries in organizing nadve sodeties

was religious instmction. In addition to special Sunday sermons and weekly talksdelivered by the priest for the entire native congregation, brotherhood membersgathered once or twice a week for prayer meetings in the village. Atflrstthe housesof brotherhood leaders' lineages were used, but subsequently special bufldings wereerected for that purpose by each of the two Sitka societies. One hour before themeeting, the president or one of the marshalls walked through the village ringinga special bell to call members to attend. Non-members interested in religious in-struction and eager to join the singing and praying were welcome to attend as wdl.Today elderly Tlingit recall that such meetings were true communal affairs untilWorld War II. While the priest attended some of the meetings and spoke to thepeople through an interpreter, schooled brotherhood members frequently actedas religious instmctors. Hymns in C3hurch Slavonic English, and Tlingit weretaught; passages werereadfrom the Bible, translated into Tlingit,and explained;and instruction in church dogma and ritu al was provided.

It was primarily in the context of such meetings that the majority o f the Tlingitleamed the basics of Orthodoxy. However, according to several missionary ac-counts and native testimony (Kan 1979-1984), Christian ideas were often presentedin a "Tlingitized" form, encouraging a syncretism of Orthodoxy and indigenousbeliefs. Since Tlingit words and concepts had to be used to convey complex no-tions of an alien religion, Christianity reached the Indians through a screen oftraditional bdiefs. A similar phenomenon has been recently described byMcLoughlin (1984: 339) in a discussion of the nineteenth century native Cherokeepreachers.^^ An example of this process of "indigenization" was the manner inwhich one young Russian-educated native instmctor explained Christianeschatology to brotherhood members. According to his daughter he describedChristian afterlife by using a Tlingit image of the soul's journey to the land ofthe dead throLigh the interior forest over numerous obstacles. He also discouragedthe mourners from excessive crying, invoking an indigenous belief about tearscausing rain to fall on the soul during its journey into the village of the dead (Kan1979-1984)."


14/29

209 SERGEI KAN

The clergy's limited control over the brotherhoods and the leading role playedin them by native religious instructors are evidenced by the style of the meetingsa combinadon of singing and praying in an Orthodox manner with "testimonials,"strongly reminiscent of American Prostestant services, and especially those of theSalavation Army. The latter began proselytizing in several Tlingit communidesin the 1890s and had some success, especially in smaller communides, where nativemembers of a panicular denomination would attend services at orher churches,much more freely than in Sitka (Kan 1979-1984). According to the eyewitness ac-count of a Russian dergyman {Russian Orthodox American Messenger 1910, vol. 14,no.7: 108-109), such meetings, which were somewhat shocking to him, were referredto by the Tlingit as "gospel" or "testimonial."

Following opening prayers and the reading and discussion of a passage fromthe Bible, every participant stood up and decribed his or her understanding ofthe passage. A confession of sins and a promise to lead a Christian life followed.Missionaries reported thar such speeches were often quite long and very popularamong the Tlingit. Public oratory, of course, had been a major arena in Tlingitsociety for demonstrating one's knowlege of sacred traditions, and hence amechanism for maintaining and raising one's status (Kan 1983b).Although only a few fragments of such speeches were recorded by the Russianmissionaries, the eloquence and the emotional power of this new genre of nativeoratory are evident. My own observations of recent religious and secular meetingssupport the impressions of earlier Russian observers (Kan 1979-1984). An exam-ple of this type of oratory is a statement made by a Tlingit woman during a meetingof the Brotherhood of St. John the Baptist in the villge of Killisnoo in 1905, whenshe asked to be admitted into the organization (Juneau Parish Records, 1905).The speaker confessed her sins and described how, during a severe illness, oneof her female relatives recited Orthodox prayers near her bed, including a prayerto the Mother of God. The woman claimed that, despite her terrible conditon,she remembered the prayer and began reciting it too . This allegedly made her feelbetter and she promised herself to join the brotherhood and abandon all her "In-dian habits," to attend church services regularly, and to stand there with a lightedcandle. During the same meeting, another speaker openly confessed his sins and,explained that he used to drink a lot, but that it only harmed him, interferingwith his work and impoverishing him. He made a pledge to abstain from liquorand asked to be admitted to the organization.

Public confessions of violations of the moral order were not common in thepre-Christian period. They were made primarily by persons accused of practicingwitchcraft, who were forced to admit their guilt. Hence, brotherhood"testimonials" were a relatively new genre in the Tlingit cultural repertoire. Atthe same time, it is possible that temporary absdnence and submission to the otherbrotherhood rules were perceived in terms of the indigenous notion of acquiringpower and good fortune (iaxeiil) by increasing one's physical and moral purity


15/29

Brotherhoods Among 210

In addition, such regular gatherings of a large segment of the native communi-ty, at a time when kinship ties between members were beginning to weaken, pro-vided an important forum for sodal interaction and discussion of various mattersnot necessarily related to Christianity. In the course of one such meeting, a coup-le appealed to the priest and brotherhood leaders for protection against witchcraftaccusations made against them by another native, and for intercession with thecourt where thdr case was bdng reviewed. The priest promised to speak to thejudge and to ask him to drop the charges or at least dismiss the fine imposed uponthe couple (Records of St. Michael Indian Brotherhood, 1899, ACC, D 322).Brotherhood meetings were clearly a product of Tlingit creativitya process ofblending elements from the indigenous culture. Orthodoxy, and other Christiantraditions. Not surprisingly, a few existing accounts of the Tlingit Presbyterianreligious meetings describe a similar phenomenon (Briggs 1889: 58; Kan 1979-1984).As the core of the Tlingit Orthodox congregation, brotherhoods played theleading role duringreligiousholidays, organizing and leading processions, ban-quets, and other festivities. For example, when the houses of the Orthodox wereblessed by the priest during Epiphany, brotherhood members were invariably atthe head of the procession to and from the church. One year after the establish-ment of the St. Michael Brotherhood in Sitka, its members began sponsoring anannual Christmas banquet, to which non-members and even Prostestants wereinvited. This activity was welcomed by the missionaries as a means of preventingthe Orthodox natives from engaging in heavy holiday drinking (popular amongthe Russian-Creole population), as wdl as in their own "heathen festivities" thatalso took place during the winter. The clergymen were the honored guests at thesefestive meals, which to them seemed to lack any Tlingit elements. The dinnersopened and dosed with collective singing of hymns and prayers in Tlingit andChurch Slavonic, as well as a blessing of the food by the priest. No alcoholicbeverages were served, and the atmosphere was described by the missionaries as"totally peaceful and truly Christian.'* From the Tlingit point of view, the climaxof such dinners was an exchange of speeches between the guests and the hostsafter the meal. In typical Tlingit style the guests praised the hosts and thankedthem for the food and hospitality. In one such speech delivered by a Presbyterianduring the 1897 banquet, he praised the Russian Church for maintaining a doserelationship between the priest and the native parishioners, which, he said, waslackirig in his own church. Another speaker, an Orthodox, described the benefitsof the "white man's medidne," given to him by a Russian priest, as opposed toa shaman's cure (Russian Orthodox AmericanMessenger^ 1897-1898, vol.2 , no.l 1:347).^'Brotherhood membersrespondedby thanking the guests for coming andfor their kind words.Despite the Christian content of at least those speeches that were translated forthe missionaries andreportedby them,^^ the interaction between hosts and guests,and the leading role played by the aristocracy, who acted as chief hosts, resembled


16/29

211 SERGEI KA N

fredy with the clergy and the symp athetic Russians and Creoles , and to establishnew relationships w ith them , based on greater reciprocity and eq uality. A s in thepotlatch system of exchange, native hosts both honored thdr non-native guestsand, at the same time, symbolical ly stated that in some contexts they could besuperior to these representatives of the dominant sodety (Kan 1982a: 363-402).^^This persistence of certain fundamental struaural prindples and cultural vahiesin new symboUc forms is com m on in contemp orary TUngit rel igious and secularcerem onies. W he the Sitka parish today no longer organizes large-scale Christm asbanquets, an Easter breakfast foUowing the midnight Sunday service is annuallysponsored by a different clan or extended fam ily. In 1980 the sponsors-hosts an-nounced that they were doing it in m emory of thd r deceased relatives, particularlythose in the maternal l ine; this has obvious similarities to a memorial potlatch.Althou gh the speeches ddiver ed during the breakfast were focused largely on thedeath and resurrection of Christ, the speakers often mentioned their departedancestors, and traditional com pliments between the hosts and the guests were ex-chan ged. The image of a com bination of a traditional mem orial feast and churchba nq ua was reinforced when , at the end of the meal , the head of o ne of the dan sof the Raven m oiety announ ced th at, s ince the 1980 breakfast w as sponsored bymem bers of a d an of the Eagle m oiety , it was h is da n's tum to organize one nextyear (Kan 1979-1984).Among the most honored guests at brotherhood banquets were the b ishops ,w ho have always been treated w ith spe dal reverence by the r ank -con sdou s TUngit.^^The O rthodox press often reported that a bisho p's arrival in and departure froma Tlingit community was marked by impressive brotherhood processions, lavishbanq uets , and lengthy speeches by chief officers addressed to their guest. It ap-pears that by honoring the head of the Church, brotherhood leaders tried toestablish a special reciprocal relationship with him, expecting, in return, to bedistinguished by b dn g given icon s, m edals , certi ficates s igned by the bishop , andother valuable awards (Kan 1979-1984). This explains why, soon after the crea-tion of the St. Michael Brotherhood in Sitka, three of i ts officers wrote or dic-tated letters to the bishop of A laska, strongly proclaiming th dr love and respecttowards him as wdl as thdr dedication to the new organization and the Churchin general (ACC, D 322). The bishops' wil l ingness to satisfy the native leaders'requests hdp ed enhan ce the image of the latter in the eyes of thd r ow n tribesmenas weU as in the wider non-native community.

A nother im portant activity of the native brotherhoods w as the performance ofmortuary rituals. Despite the missionary hopes expressed in the 1896 statutes, thebrotherh ood's involvemen t in funerals and m em orial ceremo nies did not transformthe indigenous mortuary ritual, the core of the Tlingit sociocultural system (Kan1982a). Christian observances in volvir^ b rotherhoo ds w ere added to ex isting Tlingitpractices, just as the entire cycle of O rthod ox d eath rituals was gradually superim -


17/29

Brotherhoods Among Tlingit 212

Evidence of this can bt found in photographs taken in Sitka at th t tum o f thtctntury. Tht dectastd is invariably shown lying in th t coffin surrounded by lineageand dan regalia, brothtrhood insignia, and othtr Orthodox ritual objects (Mer-rill Photographic Collection, Sheldon Jackson College).Brotherhood leadtrs acted as masters of ctrem ony during tht banqutt follow-ing a sptcial memorial service, performed by tht Orthodox Church, on tht for-tieth day afttr a person's dtath . Conducttd mostly in Tlingit, these banquets wtreat least partially moddtd upon tht indigtnous mtmorial feast. These so-called"forty-day partits" rtmain today an tsstntial element of tht mortuary cydt andhave even spread to non-Orthodox natives, including those residing in villages thathavt ntvtr had a Russian church. Tht forty-day party speeches combint Chris-tian images of comforting the bereaved with traditional references to moietyreciprocity ("love") as tht major source of consolation for tht matrilintai kin

of tht dtctased (Kan 1982b).Tht inability of the Russian missionaries to rtplact indigtnous mortuary ritualswith thos t sponsortd by tht brotherhoods is dtmonstrattd by tht m trt fa a thattht funtrals of most brothtrhood mtmbtrs, even tht more "progressivt" onts,indudtd somt major Tlingit practicts. From tht nativt point of vitw, tht ftesstt by the brothtrhood statutts to pay for the members' funtrals wert too modtst.Brothtrhoods wtre simply added to the other institutions and individuals that actedas hdptrs and comforters of tht survivors, just as wtrt th t Orthodox Churdi itsdf,and in lattr times, tht Amtrican Legion, the Alaska Native Brotherhood, and otherorganizations with nadve membership (Kan 1979-1984).^'One of the significant functions of tht brothtrhoods, rarely mtntiontd in mis-sionary reports, was the mainttnanct of peace among tht nativt parishioners. Thisrolt probably devdoped from the above mtntiontd dutits of the brotherhood mar-shalls. According to stvtral consultants (ibid.), tht samt offictrs wtrt involvtdin mtdiating betwttn futding individuals and familits. In attempting to stttltdisputes, thty apparently combintd tht Christian rhetoric of peace and brotherlylove with an important indigtnous traditon of naa Jtra/i/brothtrs-in-law of thetwo feuding clans who acted as mediators in peace negotiations (de Laguna 1972:593). Brothtrhood marshalis and othtr offictrs also suptrvistd tht annual Or-thodox ritual of asking forgivtntss, performed by the entire congregation on oneof tht Sundays preceding Easter. Thdr rolt as mediators and ptacemaktrs wasimportant in an tra of social and economic changt, when tensions within tht nativecommunity wert increasing.

Brothtrhoods also playtd somt rolt in providing assistanct to the poor, the sick,and widows and orphans. It is not easy to measure the significance of that aid,but it seems that initially it was rather limited. Howtvtr , as tconomic differentia-tion increased and kinship tits wtaktntd, financial aid providtd by thtbrothtrhoods became mort important. According to brotherhood docum ents, theamounts of money givt or loantd to mtmbtrs in nted wtrt rtlativtly small and


18/29

213 SERGEI KANthey insisted only on receiving help. From the 1870s to the 1890s, Russian mis-sionaries frequently complained that the natives refused to give any money to thechurch, despite their substantial earnings. After 1900, however, the situation beganto change: as the RLissian-Creole membership declined, native parishioners becamethe main supporters of the Orthodox Church, particularly after flnan cial aid fromRussia was suspended following the 1917 Revolution. For example, in 1928 thetwo Sitka brotherhoods and the whole Tlingit congregation, contributed generouslyto the fund for the building of an Orthodox church in the village of Angoon and,took pan in the construction itself. The act of giving to the church was anotheraspect of establishing reciprocity in the Tlingit relationship with the clergy and,thus, enhanced native self-esteem.

The success of one chief objective of the missionariesthe struggle againstintemperanceis difficult to evaluate. Written sources mention it occasionally,as do Tlingit consultants. The major deterrent seems to have been the fear thatalcohol would pollute the body and cause harm to the individual who entered thechurch with an unclean substance inside him (Kan 1979-1984). Such a view cor-responded to the indigenous notion of the opposition between purity and pollu-tion, the supem atural sanctions against mixing pure and impure substances, andthe supernatural rewards for maintaining physical and moral purity (Kan 1982a:236-240). Thus, accepting communion or carrying icons while intoxicated, or aftera period of heavy drinking, have always been considered extremely dangerous (Kan1979-1984). The pledge made by brotherhood candidates in front of the entireparish must have encouraged their efforts to abstain from liquor. However, present-day Tlingit do not emphasize this aspect of b rotherhood activities and rarely referto the organizations as either "te m perance" or "m utua l a id " societies. This, andthe mere lack of any solid evidence of the decline of native drinking after 1896,suggest that the Tlingit and the missionary perceptions of the key objectives ofthe brotherhoods were somewhat different.

Reiationships with the Russian ClergyTo understand the causes of the discrepancy between missionary theory andthe native interpretation of the broth erhoods ' purpose, we must examine the rela-tionships between the Orthodox clergy and the members of the Tlingit sodalities.To begin with, there was a language barrier between them. Very few missionaries,even those who spent a long time in southeastern Alaska, could speak or evenunderstand Tlingit, a very difficult language for a Europ ean. Their reports to thediocese administration werefliledwith complaints about the tremendous difficul-ty of w orking without good interp reters. Although a number of Tlingit could per-

form that task, the usual lack of funds prevented the Church from hiring them.Along with this communication problem came a limited understanding of Tlingit


19/29

Brotherhoods Among Tiingit 214

The clergymen were realistic, knowing that rhey lacked the power to enforcethe strict rules of the brothe rhood statures. Th us, in the late 1890s, members wereoccasionally expelled for taking part in "heathen dances" and "pagan feasts."How ever, since the 19(X)s, when the societies' ranks swelled, such rules were rare-ly enforced. In fact, rhe statutes of rhe Juneau Brotherhood of St. Basil the G reat,established in 1902, did not even menrion fighting the "old custom s" as the mainobjective of the organization, and referred to it only as a "temperance sodety"(Fr. Alexander laroshevich. Report to Bishop Nikolai, 1902, Records of the St.Nicholas Church of Juneau).At rhe same dme, rhe missionaries were often skillfully manipulated bybrotherhood members and especially leaders. Native confessions, testimonies, andpromises to abandon the "old ways" seemed so sincere and emotional that theclergy tended to believe them, and proclaimed the good news of the Indian "socialand religious pro gress." A good example of such manipulation was the presenta-tion of clan regalia as gifts to missionaries made by brotherhood leaders who oc-cupied high-ranking posidons in their lineages and clans (Kamenskii 1901:208-210;1906:21-26). In their doquen t speeches, the aristocrats claimed that such acts wereperfprmed to demonstrate thdr giving up of the old ways and the commitmentto Christianity. However, the missionaries' own accounts of the circumstancessurrounding the transfer of native artifacts suggest o ther possible reasons for suchradical action; for exam ple, the absence of direct heirs who could inherit the crestobjects, and the custodians' fear that they would fall to anorher rival lineage withinthe same clan (ibid.)^'Such relationships with the clergy were much m ore difficult to sustain in thePresbyterian Church, where the missionaries and their Americanized Tlingit alliesmaintained greater control over nadve life. This explains why the majority of thePresbyterian missionaries were not impressed with the Orthodox nativebrotherhood s, and continued to criticize the Russian Church for tolerating Tlingitdrinking and the "old customs." Of course, they also refused to admit that theirbitter rivals were enjoying a greater popularity among the natives.^"

ConclusionTo evaluate the impact of O rthodox brotherhoods on Tlingit culture and socie-ty from the late nineteenth through the first half of the twentieth centuries, wemust retum to thereladonshipbetween the Russian m issionary goals and the nativerespon se. Church sodalities undoubtedly strengthened the TUnsit commitment toOrthodoxy (and Christianity in general) and broadened their knowledge of itsdogm a and ritual practice. This was of particular significance after 1917, when

the number of Orthodox priests in Alaska declined considerably.Within a decade after the creation of the first Indian brotherhood in Sitka, similar


20/29

215 SERGEI KAN

for years, and brotherhood meetings became the miyor Orthodoxreligiousactivity.Brotherhoods gave the Tlingit a much stronger voice in parish affairs, and paved

the way for the native takeover, when the Russian-Creole population becameassimilated into the American society and left the church. These organizationsalso helped strengthen social ties in native communities at a time of increasedsodocultural change. Native brotherhoods and the Russian Church, as a whole,served as a powerful conservative force that sbwed the pace of Tlingit Americaniza-tion. No wonder that many of the more traditionalist elders today are, or usedto be. Orthodox. At the same time, brotherhoods were respectable religiousorganizations that enabled the Indians to improve thdr status in communitiesdominated by Euroamericans, who perceived native sodalities as indicators ofTlingit "progress."In thdr relationship with non-natives, the Tlingit chose to adapt to the newpolitical and socioeconomic system and tried to benefit from it. One might argue,of course, that the American gunboats gave them no choice, but the absence ofnativistic movements in southeastern Alaska points to major differences betweenthe Tlingit and some other American Indian responses to Euroamerican domina-tion. In the sphere of religion, the Tlingit also chose the road of accomodation,rather than resistance, with the more traditionalist natives joining the RussianChurch and the more Americanized ones becoming Protestants (Kan 1983a).Despite this general division. Orthodox brotherhoods managed to bring togethersome of the younger, better-schooled Indians and the older aristocrats, each ofthe groups contributing its own expertise and drawing upon its own special statusin the native community.Brotherhoods were a failure as a missionary vehicle tor eliminating the "clan-based mode of life." Although they might have strengthened some Orthodox rules,the major traditional rituals and sodalrelationsremained largely unaffected. Thechanges that did take place in the twentieth century resulted from a variety ofother political, economic, and sodal factors. Thus, most of Fr. Kamenskii's statuteswere never put into practice. Paradoxically, an institution meant to become aninstrument of radical sodocultural change helped the Tlingit to accept Christiani-ty on their own terms and, consequently, contributed to the preservation of someof the important aspects of the traditional (pre-Christian) culture. For example,it increased the aristocracy's power and prestige that were beginning to decline,reinforced traditional beliefs about purity and pollution, and helped syncretizeindigenous and Christian mortuary practices. Finally, the success of the Orthodoxbrotherhoods, and the R ussian Church in general, depended on the rich symbolicforms they offered, which fadlitated the indigenization of Christianity. The Tlingitwho became Orthodox, and especally those involved in the brotherhoods, wereable to interpret innovations as cultural continuities, and cultural continuities asinnovations, "an accomplishment particularly adaptive when a group is forced


21/29

Brotherhoods Among Tlingii 216issue of the persistence and change in Native A m erican cultures in the po st-contactera and would , more broadly , ref ine our theodes o f cul tural reproduaion andtransformation.

Aci inowiedgementsThe ethnograph ic research on which this paper is based was conducted from August 1979through September 1980 and during brief periods in August and September 1984. It waspartially supported by a grant from the Melville and Elizabeth Jacobs Fund of the What-com M useum of History and Art and a travel grant from the Faculty Assistance Fund, Col-lege of Literature, Sdence , and the Arts, University of M ichigan. The arehival research wassupported by a Translation Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities anda travel grant from the Center for Russian and East European Studies, University of Michigan.I owe the greatest debt of g ratitude to the Tlingit people, who shared th dr lives and memorieswith m e. 1 would also like to thank the helpful staff of the Manuscript Division of the Libraryof Congress for the assistance in my work with the Alaska Church Collection, and m embersof the Alaska clergy of the Orthodox Church in America for allowing me to examine theparish archives of Sitka and Juneau. An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the1982 Annual Meeting of the American A nthropological A ssodation in Washington, D .C ,in a symposium organized by Judith Sh apiro and entitled 'Tra nsla tion s of C hristianity."I would Uke to thank Frank Salamone, one of the discussants, for helpful critical commentson that draft. I am also very grateful to the following scholars who read and commentedon the paper: Shepard Krech 111, Walter Edwards, Paul Dresch, and the two anonymousreviewers of E thnohistory. Finally, my special thanks to Lydia Black, the third Ethnohistoryreviewer, for a very careful and critical read ing of the entire manuscript and for numeroussuggestions, some of which have been incorporated in the final version of this paper.

N o t e s1. Of course, the opposite phenomenon of attributing new meanings to old symbolsis just as common in culture contact and culture change.2. Another reason for this neglect is a general lack of interest in Indian Christianitythat has been characteristic of Northwest Coast, and especially TUngit, anthropobgicalresearch until recently.3 . In this paper, references to the Alaska Church Collection are made as to "ACC"plus a file number.4 . For a more detailed discussion of these events, see Kan 1983a; additional historicaldata can be found in Afonsky 1977; HInckley 1972, 1982.5. In 1848, a special church was constructed for the TUngit on the border of the twocommunities. The fear of a Tlingit attack on the inhabitants of Novoarkhangel'skcontributed to the choice of its location . Orthodox missionaries hoped that by con-ducting services in the native language they would attract new members and strengthenthe faith of therecentlyconvened ones. The Holy Trinity Church undoubtedly m adea contribution to Tlingit Christianization. However, historical evidence (e.g., Fr.Kovrigin, Joumal of Missionary Activities, 1866, AC C, D 316) indicates that the In-dians, particulariy the aristocracy, resented having to attend a separate church andbeing only rarely adm itted to the services at St. Michael Cath edra l, where the Rus-sians worshipped. The Tlingit church was demolished in 1871.


22/29

217 SERGEI KAN

9 . For example, a prominent Sitka merchant, Sergei I. Kostromicinov, served for manyyears as a U.S. Government Russian and Tlingit interpreter.10. See Fr. Nikolai Mitropol'skii, Report to the Alaska Diocese, 9/21/1885, ACC, D432; Fr. Vladimir Donskoi, Report to the Alaska D iocese, 2/25/1 894, AC C. D 432;see also Russian Orthodox American Messenger (1897) I. 12: 242-246.11. A graduate of the St. Petersburg Theok>gical Academy, Fr., Kamenskii was interestedin comparative religion and ethnology. He collected information on Tlingit cultureand subsequently published a series of articles as wdl as two monographs on thatsubject (1899, 1906).12. Other Russian church sodalities in Sitka induded the Brotherhood of the Standard-bearers of the Archangel Michael, established in 1885, and the Brotherhood of St.Nicholas, organized in 1892.13. Two copies of these statutes, written in Tlingit and Russian, are located in the AlaskaChurch Collection, file D 322.14. The role of women in Tlingit brotherhoods is an important topic requiring furtherdata gathering and analysis. We know that husbands and wives joined the same sodalityand that only men became officers. Photographs of brotherhood members show thewomen standing behind the men and wearing only badges, whereas men's insigniaincluded sashes and caps. There is evidence, however, that while deferring to menin public ceremonies, female brotherhood members played an important role in theseorganizations (Kan 1979-1984).15. In the 1890s blankets remained the main units of value in the Tlingit society. Theywere used as potlatch gifts and as payment for various ritual services and injuries.Missionaries percdved them as a manifestation, and one of the causes, of the per-sistence of the "old customs."16. The oath went as follows: "1 promise and swear before the Holy Gospel and the Life-giving Cross that, upon joining the Sitka Brotherhood of St. Michael the Archangel,I will obey all the statutes of this society. May God help me in this with all His might.As a confirmation of my words I am kissing the Cross of my Lord God. Amen."(ACC, D 322).17. At least some of them were married according to native custom only and did nothave a church wedding until several years after joining the brotherhood. This wouldnot have been tolerated in a Presbyterian sodality.18. When asked to do so by Fr. Kamenskii and other clergymen, many of the Russiansthreatened to leave the St. Nicholas Brotherhood, stating flatly that they were "neitherfools nor Kok>sh [Tlingit] to wear the same badges," and that, if the Kolosh obtainedthe same insignia, being "very ambitious, they would start pushing the Russianpeople in the church" (St. Nicholas Brotherhood, Minutes, 1895, D 323).19. In 1897 several Russian members of the Sitka parish suggested building a partitioninside the St. Michael Cathedral to protect them selves, and especially their wives andchildren, from the Indians who "smelled of rotten herring." The proposal was re-jected as bdng contrary to Orthodoxy (St. Nicholas Brotherhood, Minutes, 1897,ACC, D 323).20. I am thankful to Lydia Black for suggesting this interpretation.21. For details on this case, see Kamenskii 1901, 1906: 33-37; de Laguna 1972: 288-291.22 . Iakov Kanagut became the president of the St. Michael Brotherhood and SemeonKakwaeesh, president of the St. Gabriel Brotherhood.23. This special treatment of the Tlingit aristocracy followed the tradition establishedin Sitka by the Russian-American Company, which bestowed g ifts, medals, and otherregalia on native leaders and arranged their baptism with great pomp.


23/29

Brotherhoods Am ong Tlingit 218

26 . Laxeitl gained by following Orthodox rules of purity and by taking communion wasbelieved to be manifested in good health as well as success in various activities, fromfishing to earning large amounts of money in the gold mines.27. According to M cLoughlin (1984:339), by delivering their sermons in the nativelanguage, Cherokee preachers "transfonned Biblical and Christian doctrine to fitCherokee speech and thought patterns. They made Christianity understandable ina way that no white minister could; but in doing so, they made subtle changes inemphasis and meaning."28. Some of the sermons given by the Russian priests might have contributed to this syn-cretism. For example, in his explanation of the benefits of wearing an Orthodox cross,Fr. Ivan Sobolev (Report to x. Vladimir Donskoi, 3/22/1 894, AC C, D 316) preached:"The cross was given to you as a proteaion against all enemies, visible and invisible.A person wearing a cross, and making the sign of the cross, is protected from allthe vile spirits, since they are afraid of him and flee from him, just like a personis afraid of a sharp knife or lightning."

29. This interpretation was suggested by Walter Edwards (personal communicationsto whom the author is thankful.30 . Orthodox Tlingit, today, especially in Lhe small villages, are still quite fond of takingpart in various "testimonial" and "gospel" meetings organized by fundamentalistchurches and traveling preachers. Confessions made during the meetings of AlcoholicsAnonymous also resemble the speeches discussed in this paper (Kan 1979-1984).31. The speaker was referring to Fr. Kamenskii, w ho had received some medical trainingand distributed medications among the Sitka Tlingit. He was competing with thePresbyterian mission, which had a full-time doctor and a hospital for the Indians.Both missions understood the importance of offering medical assistance to the In-dians as a means of gaining new members and keeping the old ones (see Wilbur1894-1901).32 . The speeches not translaLed into Russian undoubtedly dealt with some non-Christian,traditional subjects, as the oratory of church sponsored banquets and meetings stilldoes today (Kan 1979-1984).33 . Compare this with the Tlingit practice of adopLing whites (clergymen, politicians,anthropologists) and giving them native nam es. W hile honoring the adopted personand indicating that a closer relationship with him is being established, the adopLionalso implicitly suggests Lhat the Tlingit can give something to the whites that the laL-ter lack, and thus puts them in an inferior position vis-a-vis the Indians.34. The Right Reverend Gregory, Bishop of Sitka and Alaska (personal comm unication,1979).35 . There is some evidence that brotherhood leaders took an active part in all o f the Or-thodox TlingiL funerals.36 . The A laska Native BroLherhood also m ade an attempt to replace Lhe elaboraLe andexpensive traditional mortuary rituals wiLh a modest Christian funeral. A limit of%AO.QO per funeral was set (in the 1940s), but such efforcs largely failed. Instead, theANB memorial service, conducted in its hall, was added to a funeral that includedindigenous as well Christian elements (Drucker 1958; Kan 1979-1984).37 . Here are some of the examples o f such aid mentioned in the brotherhoods* journals:S4.00 given to a poor member to buy food , $7.00 loaned to a young member Lo coverhis wedding expenses, and S 1.75 spent on medicine for an ailing member. Direct aidwas also occasionally given, such as visiting poor members, helping them withhousehold chores, and bringing them frewood.38. The degree of Lolerance of native customs demonstraLed by individual missionariesdepended on a variety of factors, including their social and educational background


24/29

219 SERGEI KAN

Legion" operated among the Sitka Tlingit. These organizations never became a&popular a s the Orthodox brotherhoo ds, due largely t o the heavy-handed control ofthe Presbyterian mission over their aaivities.4 1. The two Stka brotherhoods i ayed an active role in prom oting the idea of establishingtempeianoe and mutual a id sociedes in smaller comm unities. They organized "gospel* *visits to neighboring villages, which ft well into the traditional pattern of mutualvisiting and feasting in the late fall and winter. Russian-educated brotherhood membersfrom Sitka spent time in the surrounding native villages teaching the basics of Or-thodoxy and performing those religious services that a lay member of the OrthodoxChurch was allowed to do.42. One cannot but agree with Stuart (1981: 47 ), who points out that the impact of In-dian churches on Indian communities "is yet dimly understood" and that, "by fail-ing to focus on the Chrisdan churches as Indian insdtutions, scholars have removedthemselves from a rich [aspect of American Indian] history.*'

ReferencesAfonsky, Gregory, Bishop1977 A History of e Orthod ox Church in Alaska. Kodiak, AK: St. Her-man's Theological Seminary.Axtell, James1981 Th e Euro pean and th e Indian. Essays in the Ethnohistory of ColonialNorth America. London: Oxford University Press.Berkhofer, Robert F., Jr.

1965 Salv ation and the Sa vag e. Le xing ton: University of KentuckyPress.Boutilier, James A. et al., eds.1978 Mission, Church, and Sect in Oceania. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.Bowden, Henry W.1981 American Indians and Chrisdan Missions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Bragdon, Kathleen J.1983 Native Christianity in 18th-ce ntury M assachusetts: Ritual as Cu lturalReaffirma tion. Pap er presented ar the Second Laurier Conference onNorth American Ethnohistory and Ethno logy, H uron College, Univer-sity of Western Ontairo. London, Ontario, Canada.Brenner, Elise M.1980 T o Pray or to Be Prey : Tha t is the Q ues tion. Strategies for Cu lturalAutonomy of Massachusetts Praying Town Indians. Ethnohistory 27:135-152.Briggs, Horace1889 Letters from Alaska and the Pacific. Buffalo: Press of E.H.Hutchinson.


25/29

Brotherhoods Amon g Tlingit 220Conkling, Robert1974 Legitimacy and Conversion in Sodal Change: The Case of FrenchMissionaries and the Northeastern Algonkian. Ethnohistory 2 1:1 -24 .Documents Relative to the History of Alaska1936-1938 University of Alaska.Doklad komiteta ob ustroistve Russkikh Amerikanskikh kiolonii.1863 [Report of theConunittee on the O rganization o f Russia's AmericanColonies]. 2 vols. St. Petersburg.Drucker, Philip1958 The Nadve Brotherhoods: Modern Intertribal Organizations on theNorthwest Coast. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 168.Washington, D .C : U .S. Government Printing O ffice.Emmons, George T.n.d. The Tlingit Indians. Unpublished Manuscript. Archives, AmericanMuseum of Natural History, N.Y.Fisher, Robin1977 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Colum -bia 1774-1890. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Fowler, Nancy

1982 Arapahoe Politics, 1851-1928. Symbols in Crises of Authority. Lin-coln: University of Nebraska Press.Glass, Henry1890 Naval Adm inistration in Alaska. U .S . Naval Institute, Proceedings16: 1-19. Annapolis.Gualtieri, Antonio R.1980 Indigenization of Christianity and Syncretism among the Indians andInuit of the Westem Artie. Canadian Ethnic Studies 12: 47-57.Hinckley, Ted C.1972 The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897. Palo Alto, Calif.: PacificBooks Publishers.

1982 Alaskan John G. Brady, Missionary, Businessman, Judge, and Govern-or, 1878-1918. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Kamenskii, Anatolii1899 Indianskoe Plemia Tlingit [The Tlingit Indians]. New York: AmericanOrthodox Messenger.1901 Liagushinyi Protsess [The Frog Case]. Russian Orthodox AmericanMessenger 5: 208-210, 233-234.1906 Indiane Aliaski [Indians of Alaska]. Odessa: Fesenko PublishingHouse.Kan, Sergei1978 The Winter House in the Tlingit Universe. Unpublished M.A. Thesis


26/29

221 SERGEI KAN

1982bThe "Forty-day Party": R ussian Orthodox Christianity and the DeathRituals of the Tlingit Indians. Paper presented at the 22nd AnnualMeeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association, Princeton,N.J.1983a R ussian Orthodox Missionaries and the TUngit Indians of Alaska,1880-1900. Paper presented at the Second Lauder Conference onNorth American E thnohistory and E thnok)gy, Huron CoOege, Univer-sity of Western Ontario. London, Ontario, Canada.1983b Words That Heal the S oul: Analysis of the TUngit Potlatch Oratory.Arctic Anthropology, 20: 47-59.de Laguna, Frederica1960 The Story of a Tiingit Community. Bureau of American E thnologyBulletin 172. Washington, D . C : U.S . Government Printing Office.1972 Under Mount S aint E Uas: The History and Culture of the YakutatTlingit. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 7 (I-HI).Washington, D .C : Sm ithsonian Institution Press.Lindsay, Aaron L., Rev.1965[18811Sketches of an Excursion of Southern Alaska. Seattle: The ShoreyBookstore.McLoughUn, WiUiam G.

1984 Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789-1839. New Haven: Yale Univ.Press.Olson, Ronald L.1967 Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit Indians of Alaska.University of Califomia Anthropological Records 26.Patterson, Palmer E.1982 KincoUth, B.C.: Leadership Continuity in a Native Christian Village,1867-1887. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 3: 45-55.Ronda, James P. and Axtell, James

1978 Indian Missions: A Critical Bibliography. Bloomington: IndianaUniv. Press.Simmons, William S.1983 Red Yankees: Narragansett Conversion in the Great Awakening.American Ethnologist 10: 253-271.Stuart, Paul1981 The Christian Church and Indian Community Life. Journal ofEthnic Studies 9: 47-55.Tarasar, C , ed.1975 Orthodox American, 1794-1976. Syosset, N .Y.: The OnhodoxChurch in America.


27/29

Brotherhoods Among 222

Vtniaminov, Ivan1886 Tvoreni ia ICoUected Works] . Vol . 3 . 1 . Barsukov, td . Moscow:Synodal Press . IRtprint of Zapiski ob ostrovakh Unalashkins-kog o O tdd a (N otts on the Is lands of th t Unalaska D istria) , original lypublished in 1840] .Wilbur, B .1894-

1901 Just Abou t M t. U npublished M anuscript in the pos stssion of tht SitkaHistorica l Soci t ty . S i tka , Alaska.

PeriodicalsThe A taskan, 1885-1907Russ ian Or thodox Amer ican Messenger , 1896-1939

Manuscript CoiiecdonsAichivts of St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church. Rtcords of the Juneau,Kil l isnoo, and Hoonah Parishes, 1894-1918. Juneau, Alaska.Aichivts of tht Dioctses of Alaska, Orthodox Churdi of America . Records of

the Sitka, Angoon, and Other Parishes, 1866-1980. Sitka, Alaska.Archives of the First Presbyterian Church of Sitka, 1884-1935. Sitka, Alaska.Archivts . Stratton Mtmorial Library. Sheldon Jackson College. Sitka, Alaksa.Tht Alaska Church CoUtction. Manuscript Divis ion. Library of Congress .Wash in gton , D .C.

Submitted 15 August 1984Accepted 13 Novem ber 1984Final revisions received 8 March 1985.


28/29


29/29

Copyright of Ethnohistory is the property of Duke University Press and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.