This is a girl’s union suit made from sewn pieces of caribou skin and hyde. It was made by the Siberian Yup’ik who often used multiple elements of animal parts for clothing in the cold living conditions. This suit was collected by San Francisco furrier Arnold Libes in 1923, the name of the maker of the suit and when it was made is unknown.
Making this label ended up being more difficult than I thought it would be. Because of the way that indigenous items have been accessioned throughout history. I have a lot of what is probably very accurate information about the non-indigenous people who bought and collected the items, but little information about the actual indigenous people who made and used them. There is no information about the person that wore the suit, the people that made it, or when it was made. There is a photo of the library bureau card that came with the suit that has different terms describing it than the official metadata. The metadata has more updated information such as the proper name of the people that made it and a different name for the animal fur (I actually had to look up whether reindeer and caribou were the same thing… they are apparently). I really wanted to make the description for this item as much about the indigenous people as possible without giving too much spotlight to the collectors that found it. I first made sure to include the name of the people and what the item is used for. I am still curious why the bureau label and the metadata specifically label this as a girls suit, there may be a reason for different genders to wear different types of clothes but I could not know that for sure unless it was specifically said so by the Yup’ik and I can’t confirm that just based off the information I have. I felt that if I had to mention the collectors, it would be to use their presence to explain why they may have their names credited where the indigenous people do not.
Lua– One of my favorite aspects about this assignment is that it sounds easy, but it’s actually very challenging to write a short label! I didn’t have the chance to discuss the reasoning in class, but there is an entire science behind having a concise object label — there’s an awesome book by Beverly Serrell called “Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach” (https://www.amazon.com/Exhibit-Labels-Interpretive-Beverly-Serrell/dp/144224903X) that explains best practices in exhibit/object labels in museum/archival settings… it’s so fascinating and you should check it out!
This source is a great example of a material culture that has very typical metadata information (and a lack thereof). It is also extremely problematic, as we know more about the collector than we do about the child who probably wore this suit. I think museums and archives have done a (slightly) better job at trying to identify specific communities in recent years, but it is impossible to ignore the amount of historical and cultural erasure happening in this process. I really like how your label incorporates some of this missing information and places it at the forefront of the label, rather than emphasizing the role of the collector. Your question about gender is a good one, and I’m not sure why this was coined as a “girls” suit, unless the original collector happened to know that it belonged to a young girl and decided to leave out her name and other identifying information… Either way, this piece raises more questions than provides answers, but I learned so much through your analysis!