October 24-26, 2007
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Paper: Searching For Our Heritage

Sarah Charlie and Ed Krahn, Museums Unit, Cultural Services Branch, Government of Yukon, Canada



The monumental 1986 Yukon Museums Policy and System Plan Report, commonly referred to as the Lord Report, stated – “…over half of the known artifacts and specimens of Yukon’s heritage in Canadian public collections are outside of the Territory.” The report went on to comment about the lack of information on collections held in Yukon museums as the information provided was “educated guesses.” The report called for the adoption of a Collection Management Policy, standardization of documentation, and cooperation with the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) and the need for further research to document collections. During the 1980s and 1990s the department of Tourism and Culture implemented these recommendations and developed the Collection Registration Coordinator position to further the goals and objectives of the 1986 Lord Report. The Cultural Services Branch of the Yukon Government has been tracking the whereabouts of artifacts originating in Yukon for the past 20 years. These diverse collections speak of both the resources and of the people and lifestyles that were found when the artifacts/specimens were acquired. More than 155 institutions worldwide have been identified as having Yukon collections.

Keywords: repatriation, First Nations, artifacts, museums, database, Yukon, information retrieval, community informatics


The Searching For Our Heritage (SFOH) project locates artifacts and natural history collections housed in institutions around the world that originated from Yukon. This project helps track and find these collections that were removed from Yukon. Tracking and finding these artifacts brings a lost legacy home to those eager to rediscover a cultural identity that is invaluable to their holistic well-being. First Nation artifacts reconnect individuals with their environment, attesting to the meaning of the artifact which then can then be incorporated into the contemporary world.

There is a legal obligation and responsibility to help Yukon First Nations find their lost legacy. Chapter 13.4.3 of the Yukon First Nations’ Umbrella Final Agreement states that:

Government, where practicable, shall assist Yukon First Nations to develop programs, staff and facilities to enable the repatriation of Moveable and Documentary Heritage Resources relating to the culture and history of Yukon Indian People which have been removed from the Yukon, or are retained at present in the Yukon, where this is consistent with the maintenance of the integrity of national or territorial collections (Umbrella Final Agreement, 1993).

The purpose of the project has been to identify the location of Yukon artifacts and collections, and to provide intellectual access to these items. Researchers and museums have a new source of research material at their disposal. Museum specialists are able to improve their ability to identify the provenance of Yukon artifacts in Yukon collections or those held elsewhere.

Figure 1
Figure 1: Mat made from 140 lynx skin ears and bordered with lynx fur. Inland Tlingit,  Canadian Museum of Civilization, Accession number: VI-J-47, Collected 1900

It has been the intent of this project to stimulate further research so that in the future when Yukon has a designated institution capable of providing appropriate care and management of artifacts, it will be in a position to acquire these artifacts should they be deaccessioned by an institution currently holding them or purchase them on the open market. This would be accomplished in part through the provisions of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act (1983-1984), the mandate of which is “to preserve in Canada the best examples of Canadian heritage in movable cultural property.”

This is accomplished through a system of export controls, tax incentives for private individuals who donate or sell cultural objects to public institutions and grants to assist institutions in purchasing cultural objects under certain circumstances (Cultural and Property Export and Import Act, 1983-1984).


The first people to arrive in the Yukon were hunter/gatherer ancestors of the indigenous groups present in Yukon today which is comprised of fourteen separate First Nations and makes up one quarter of the 32,335 population (Yukon Bureau of Statistics, 2006). The First Nations are separated into language groups: Gwich’in (Old Crow), Han (Dawson City), Kaska (Ross River, Watson Lake, Liard), Northern Tutchone (Mayo, Pelly Crossing, Carmacks), Southern Tutchone (Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Champagne, Burwash Landing), Tagish (Tagish), Upper Tanana (Beaver Creek) and Tlingit (Teslin, Carcross). The variations of the groups are believed to have been the result of several movements across the Bering Land Bridge during the last great Ice Age, as well as the post-glacial period (McClellan, 1987). Archaeological evidence indicates that the first of these migratory people may have been in the Yukon as early as 30,000 years ago. Bone tools and stone artifacts that were unearthed at the Bluefish Caves south of Old Crow have been dated to within a 12,000 -17,000 year old time frame. As data is compiled new information may shed even more light on the arrival and culture of the first peoples to inhabit the Yukon. Yukon First Nations are well known for their artistic abilities, working in various disciplines such as: carving, painting, beadwork, singing, dancing, drumming, and story telling.

Long before the non-First Nation fur traders and prospectors appeared, First Nations had evolved an intricate system of trade and commerce with band, tribal and other First Nation trading partners (Coates, 1982). Within bands, which were actually small family units, trading would take place at traditional gathering places during seasonal rounds (McClellan, 1987).

Trading was extensive and occurred between the different First Nations of the various regions of the Yukon. Resources not available in one area would be obtained through trade for items found only in another. Caribou, salmon, sheep and goat skins, ochre, flint, obsidian, and raw copper were some of the traditional items of trade (Coates, 1982). This type of trade became more complex with the entry of the third party Tlingit traders from the coast. A very active and jealously guarded trade flourished between the coastal and inland First Nations long before European arrival.

Long before Indian people came into direct contact with white men, trade was carried on between coastal Tlingit Indians living on the Pacific Coast…and the Athapaskan-speaking people living on the interior plateau…the Tlingit Indians wanted products from the interior such as furs, skins and the “native copper” from the White River…the Interior Indians valued the fish oils, shells, seaweed and tobacco (made from crushed clamshells and coastal plants) brought from the coast (Jackson, 1988).

In turn, First Nations such as the Tutchone and Han acted as intermediaries for trade with others further away from trading routes. The Tlingits maintained their monopoly by acting as middlemen for the white fur traders and inland First Nations up until the arrival of the prospectors when the territory was inundated with European goods, villages and trading posts to accommodate the new arrivals (Jackson, 1988).

Figure 2
Figure 2: Gauntlet, Han, Burke Museum, Accession number: 1.5E41, Collected 1906

All Athapaskan groups patterned their lives on the seasonal round, which meant moving to sites of available resources. Most of their material possessions were considered disposable and if an item was no longer useful, worn out or badly damaged, it was discarded.

The ability to live off the land enabled First Nations to harvest materials from the resources in their environment and replace discarded items regularly. Because of their pattern of subsistence it was impractical to accumulate and pack around items, which were easy to replace once the next camp was set up. Only those items which held ceremonial or cultural significance such as copper tools and weapons, medicine pouches, and amulets of the shamans were kept and handed down to succeeding generations. Because of the subsistence pattern of living, Yukon First Nations have a rich oral preservation of their heritage and traditions rather than accumulating a material one.

Because most of the early tools, weapons, and clothing were made from natural materials such as skin, bone and wood – organic compounds which disintegrate with the passage of time – very few artifacts remain today for archaeological examination. Bone and stone tools, or residual remains are often all that are being unearthed for archaeologists to draw their hypotheses and theories from.

These early artifact collections which we are now finding in museums around the world provide us with new insights into the past.

How the Project Started

In 1986 while attending the Northern Heritage Conference in Yellowknife, NWT, Nancy Fuller (Smithsonian Institution) challenged the Yukon’s Museums Advisor to look for collections outside of North America. In her work at the Smithsonian Institution she had encountered Yukon collections held in museums around the world.

Starting in 1987 with a list of leads provided by Fuller, and using summer students employed for the project, work was undertaken to try and identify and to document this heritage. This early work resulted in several boxes of research material which was made available to both First Nations and museum researchers to conduct follow-up research. These diverse collections speak of both the resources and of the people and lives that existed when the artifacts/specimens were acquired.

In the following year, the Yukon Heritage Branch (now part of the Cultural Services Branch), again hired university students to undertake the role of further identifying, documenting and researching material based on leads from the Smithsonian Institution and the initial letters which began to trickle in. Museums were contacted and artifacts were identified. Information that was gathered was then entered onto a database using FileMaker Pro. Much of the information provided had been recorded by hand and few records were computerized. Records had to be standardized using uniform fields of information. As technology advanced digital cameras and scanners were used to provide a visual record of the collections. Funding was received from the federal Museums Assistance Program to develop this digital database.

How Artifacts left the Yukon

In the early days of exploration in the North, traders, missionaries, whalers and scientists collected items manufactured by First Nations, along with natural history specimens.

The non-First Nations that were first to arrive in the Alaska/Yukon region were the Russians who began pushing north in 1819 from the Pacific Coast trading posts with the intention of extending their territory. In 1833 they established Fort St. Michael which became the first trading post and supply depot that was known as the Yukon District (Mercier, 1986). Their trading influence is evident in some of the artifacts currently held by the MacBride Museum (tea chests) in Whitehorse, Yukon and the glass beadwork seen on First Nation clothing held by the Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC). Alexander Murray makes several excited entries into his journal in reference to the beads with which the Russians were trading furs.

Without beads and plenty of them you could do little or no good here…all these fancy beads are traded from the Russians…not an Indian here but wear fancy beads, that is, red and blue of various sizes, they cost the Indians nearly double what they pay for the common white beads (Murray, 1947-48).

Evidence of the value placed on these beads can be seen in the beauty of the decorative work which adorns the medicine pouch in the Herschel Island exhibit at the Old Log Church Museum in Whitehorse, Yukon and clothing in the Athapaskan collection at CMC.

Figure 3
Figure 3: Moccasin, Inland Tlingit, Bata Shoe Museum, Accession number: P89.0281 A, B, Collected circa 1900-1920

After the Russians came the Americans and the Euro-Canadians hoping to establish a western monopoly on the fur trade. Like the Russians before them, the various companies vying for a foothold in the northern territories traded rifles, ammunition, metal implements and glass beads. Lesser items such as blankets and cloth were all but impossible to trade as Murray notes in his journal, “…cloth and capot (shirts)…can only be disposed of when there’s nothing else, cloth not even then…” (Murray, 1947-48). Because these men lived in the country they regularly had contact with native goods and often adopted the local manner of dress which was superior to their own wool and cotton (Bockstoce, 1986). Some of these articles of clothing may have been kept by the very men who no longer wore them upon their return to “civilization”.

During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1896 – 1899, tens of thousands of gold-seekers came to the Yukon where they obtained locally made objects of clothing and other items that they took home with them when they left. These items have made their way into collections of many small museums across North America. As early as the 1920s, anthropologists were studying the First Nations of Yukon, and from this time on a large number of collections document this era of scientific study. Ethnographer, Catharine McClellan’s work in the 1940s and 50s, documenting the Yukon’s First People, included the collecting of 62 objects and thousands of photographs.

The Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) helped the Smithsonian Institution, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Department of the Interior, and the museum and office of the Geological and Natural History Survey gather items for their collection. By the end of the 1860s, the HBC was tired of collecting for everyone else, so with the assistance of the Smithsonian Institution, the HBC established the “Institute of Prince Rupert’s Land” at Red River.

Missionaries such as Bishop Isaac O. Stringer and whaling captains and other adventurers such as George T. Emmons collected artifacts in the remote locations they visited before 1900. These items were often collected for rich patrons (seeking the curios of the world) or by museums and scientific organizations. Many of the collections predate significant contact with European culture and often represent the best extant examples of traditional skills.

Others, such as anthropologists, teachers, religious orders, government agents, North West Mounted Police and military from the building of the Alaska Highway onward also collected artifacts and specimens now found in institutions around the world. To date we have identified 155 institutions around the world as holding Yukon collections.

Were it not for the fur traders, whalers, missionaries and scientists of the 1800s, collections of Yukon artifacts would not exist today. Early specimens of life in Yukon were most often collected in trade, purchased, inherited or given as gifts by First Nations hoping to strike bargains with the non-First Nations. Items obtained by the non-First Nations in this type of trade/barter system were often sent off to other parts of the world to be displayed in the showcases of the rich and elite who regarded such objects as exotic relics or curios from an unknown land and culture, supporting their ethnocentric vision of the “Noble Savage.”

As well, instructions were issued straight from the head offices of these companies ordering employees to assist independent individuals such as geologists and surveyors in their work. George Simpson, Governor of the HBC addressed a letter to the outlying posts:

…and it is the wish of the Company to be useful in advancing works of natural or scientific interest, I have requested the favour of your collecting such articles (HBC archives, 1856).

Company employees were also expected to escort scientists, missionaries, adventure seekers and explorers on their travels through the territory. This often meant that the work of fur trading would be set aside or that goods intended for trade would be shunted aside in favour of transporting the visitor and his entourage around the country (Dall, 1869).

It was not until 1869 that the United States/Canada border was clearly defined and established along Alaska and Yukon. Prior to this date, trading, trapping, hunting and prospecting were carried out without regard to boundaries. There were numerous artifacts collected for institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution, Royal Scottish Museum and the Geological Survey of Canada by the HBC. In the Canadian Northwest, the HBC played a major role in collecting of specimens and artifacts for museum societies and other agencies in North America and Europe.

The Industrial Museum of Scotland requested HBC Governor, George Simpson to secure –

  • “Raw Materials – ore, building stone rocks, glass and coal, wood, oils, etc., animal materials.
  • Manufactured goods.
  • Instruments, Implements.
  • Special Examples of Industrial Acts.”

The museum also had a special request for “Indian manufactured goods.” Eventually, in 1858, four packets of goods were sent off to Edinburgh, Scotland. Following many similar requests for assistance, in 1862, the Hudson’s Bay Company went so far as to establishing a collecting policy in regards to assisting scientific societies’ requests.

While most of the artifacts collected by the fur traders and others were, for the most part, collected in mutually beneficial trade, the arrival of missionaries heralded the advent of a new and certainly more detrimental effect on traditional native culture. The missionaries also managed to procure a significant number of artifacts, but their goal was motivated by the desire to:

…change the Indians’ way of thinking and behaving. In fact they came to the Yukon precisely for that reason….all had as their main goal the substitution of their own beliefs (McClellan,1987) for the traditional beliefs of the Yukon Indians (Mercier, 1986).

In their efforts to convert the “pagan savages” ceremonial and religious paraphernalia were outlawed and often confiscated; skin clothing was replaced with cloth; and natives anxious to please the “god” of the missionaries offered gifts to the missionaries much as they did in their traditional way of appeasing the spirits by making offerings to the shamans (McClellan, 1987).

Missionaries often sent these items back to their supporting churches as evidence of their success and to encourage continued support. These items would be displayed to congregations as relics of a “savage people” in a strange land. The Herschel Island Exhibit at the Old Log Church Museum contains items, which were originally obtained by Bishop Stringer during his work with the Inuit of Herschel Island between 1893 and 1896 (interview D. Lattin-Pelletier, 1989.)

Figure 4
Figure 4: Moccasin-trousers, Vuntut Gwich'in, Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. Accession number VI-I-63 Collected 1961

With the exception of men such as Dawson, Campbell, Murray and Simpson who kept meticulous accounts of their travels in the Yukon, little or no effort was taken to preserve the historical context of the artifacts that were collected. Such was the case with the whaling settlement at Herschel Island in 1890. At the time, a thriving Inuit population existed, yet very little remains to tell the story of their culture and heritage. The whalers, in trade with the inhabitants of the island, purchased warm Inuit clothing and almost certainly obtained many decorative, but, functional tools (Bockstoce, 1986). The whalers came from Russia, Finland, Norway, Denmark and the United States, among other countries, and it is likely that many Herschel Island Inuit artifacts found their way into private collections of those willing to pay the price these men asked, upon return to their respective countries.

It is worth noting that the studies of the sciences such as biology and archaeology were in their infancy, so there was no academic discipline in place during this early period to provide guidelines for the collection of specimens or artifacts. It is to the credit of early collectors that there are artifacts in existence today, even though many of these are held in collections outside Yukon and scattered throughout the world.

In light of the distribution of Yukon artifacts around the globe, a question that could be asked is why was the Canadian government apparently so negligent and apathetic in allowing this to happen? One must remember that Canada did not become a country until 1867. The border to the west only extended as far as Central Canada and Pacific British Columbia. The largely unexplored frontier across the prairies was controlled for the most part by the HBC with its many outlying trading posts.

Except for its inland community at Red River…the Company was dead set against settlers…The company pushed westward not to plant colonies but to control competing trappers. By thus exhibiting a highly visible presence west of the Lakehead (Superior), it prevented American farmers and mountain men from pushing north, and after amalgamation with the Nor’Westers in 1821, stretched it’s own version of the Canadian border from Hudson’s Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the pacific (Newman, 1985).

Between 1831 and 1872 the HBC sent several men into Yukon via several different routes to establish trading posts. In 1840, John Bell built Fort McPherson. In 1847, Alexander Murray built Fort Yukon. In 1848, Robert Campbell established Fort Selkirk. The Geological Survey of Canada, formed in 1842, sent George Dawson in 1887 (and later, others) to Yukon to map lands, rivers and boundaries. Most of the artifacts collected by these men for the Geological Survey of Canada were amalgamated with the newly established National Museum of Canada in 1910, now known as the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The CMC is currently the repository for most Yukon artifacts held in Canada today.

As the collecting of artifacts became more of a science, and attitudes toward heritage preservation changed, the Canadian government initiated policies to encourage the establishment of museums within its own borders. The National Museums of Canada Act in 1968 and the National Museums of Canada Policy in 1972 were initiatives developed because of the concern for National collections (Krahn, 1986). Repatriation of artifacts is one of the key concepts in the evolutionary history of Canadian museums (Muse, 1988).


The challenge was identifying a mechanism to provide intellectual access to Yukon’s heritage artifacts which are sitting in storage in museums half a world away. The Cultural Services Branch received funding from the Museum Assistance Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage to develop a database which would include images of the collections. With the growing interest of First Nations in developing cultural/heritage centres, and the increasing interest of scientists in early natural history collections, the digital cataloguing and database development of these dispersed collections became an important research tool.


When the Searching For Our Heritage project first began, few museum records were computerized. Communication occurred over many months by mail. Some Canadian content was stored in large computers in Ottawa as part of the National Inventory Program (now Canadian Heritage Information Network, CHIN) databanks. Other records were hand written files. Today, more than 20 years later, it is a very different story. Yukon has a majority of its own museums collection records safely stored on personal computers with backups held in a branch computer database administered by the Museums Registration Coordinator. The records are now standardized using uniform fields of information. Digital cameras and scanners are used to provide a visual record of the collections. The Searching For Our Heritage database is now operating as a resource for researchers, museums and First Nations to gain a better understanding of Yukon’s unique heritage legacy. Funding assistance from Land Claims Implementation is now being used to research museum data collections on-line. Email is used regularly to communicate with Curators and Keepers of Collections and Collection Registrars worldwide to obtain further information. Digital images are sent back and forth via the internet in mere seconds.

While the challenge of funding and standards can be overcome by creative thinking and political will, the issues of intellectual property and legal jurisdiction have not kept pace and remain major challenges.

For a small jurisdiction, the internet has allowed Yukon to bring its diverse history virtually onto the doorstep of any person within the world and thereby collectively we preserve and share our cultural heritage legacy for this and future generations.

The Searching for Our Heritage: A Review of Artifact Collections Outside of the Yukon report was first printed in 1989and has since been updated and reprinted and distributed to Yukon communities. Over time, more museums have been contacted and have agreed to share information. Additional images have been acquired for the database. A Power Point presentation on the project has been developed and is being delivered to Yukon First Nation communities. Binders containing colour photographs of artifacts identified to a particular First Nation have been shared with community Elders for further information and input.

Copies of this database are shared with First Nations around Yukon as new information is found, or additional museums participate, or the database is updated with more photos, new copies of the updated database are sent to the communities.

The Yukon has showcased its heritage stories through various internet sites including the Virtual Museum of Canada (VMC), Community Memories and the Yukon Treasures site (http://www.yukonmuseums.ca) and Canadian Culture on-line. Six exhibits: Explore Herschel Island; Yukon Photographers: The Gold Rush Era, The Bishop Who Ate His Boots; Fort Selkirk: Force in the North, and the soon to be released Mount Logan: Canadian Titan, are currently on exhibit at the VMC. All sites are bilingual. Herschel Island and Fort Selkirk have also been translated into German, accommodating the fast growing German-speaking tourism market visiting the Yukon.

The internet has been used to provide research information for these virtual exhibits, offering visitors worldwide the opportunity to surf these sites from the computerized comfort of their own homes.

The information on these sites is well documented and accurate. These virtual sites and other Yukon data found in the Artefacts Canada site at CHIN are used by researchers and students looking for accurate information they can rely on as being trustworthy.

Yukon Cultural Services Branch small capital funding support program provides the latest computer hardware, software, digital cameras and scanners to even the smallest museum, allowing them in turn to document and share their wealth of information.

Future Plans

The Museums Unit is conducting the preliminary planning to develop an exhibit to showcase items that have been identified through the SFOH database; representing each of the 14 Yukon First Nations. Ideally items will be borrowed from various museums worldwide. It is hoped that this will help to bridge the gap and create partnerships between the First Nations, the Cultural Services Branch and organizations around the world. This partnership will enable First Nations to make connections, solidify relationships and arrange over time to have more artifacts on loan. For this particular exhibit, items that have not been in the Yukon for many years will be selected. Elders from Yukon communities will be involved in advising the department, during the exhibit and workshop, presentations and discussions around issues and challenges in intellectual access and repatriation.

Work is currently being done on developing biographies of collectors and manufacturers of the artifacts to further enhance the information of these artifacts. This will increase the exchange of information between Yukon First Nations and the museums holding Yukon collections.

With assistance from the Yukon Historical and Museums Accociation in providing funding through the Heritage Training Fund, and offering training opportunities to Heritage workers, the investment ensures a well trained museum work force to take on the challenge to further identify and develop intellectual access and repatriate significant artifacts, which helps tell the cultural story of Yukon.


It is important to remember that many artifacts hold sacred or religious meaning and it is vital that they are treated with the proper respect born out of First Nation customs. The Elders are the keepers of traditional knowledge and their input is vital to identifying the contexts, social, and spiritual meaning attached to the artifacts.

The Cultural Services branch has undertaken a major funding program to assist Yukon First Nation cultural/heritage centres in the advancement of their own goals and objectives, including the eventual repatriation of important cultural objects to Yukon. The information compiled by this project provides for the possibility of museums and cultural/heritage centre requests for loans, replicas and reproductions.

By working together, differences that might arise between museums and First Nations on how to preserve First Nation artifacts can be addressed. It is imperative not to ignore the First Nation perspective on the importance of these artifacts or we run the risk of failing in our duty to assist them in safeguarding their cultural legacy. With help, and leads from the public, we can continue to locate and identify the many artifacts that have found their way into museums and private collections worldwide. In this way we are able to provide intellectual access to the legacies of the past for all.


Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, Ice and Men.The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic University of Washington Press. Seattle and Washington. 2nd printing w/corrections, 1995, 263-64

Canadian Heritage, 1983-84.Annual Report re: Cultural and Property Export and Import Act.

Coates, Kenneth 1982. “Furs Along the Yukon: Hudson’s Bay Company – Native Trade in the Yukon River Basin, 1830-1893. B.C. Studies, No. 55. p. 54,55. See also Mercier, 1868-1885 and Murray, 1947-1848.

Council For Yukon Indians, 1993.Umbrella Final Agreement. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Cranmer Webster, Gloria, 1988. “The ‘R’ Word” October 1988 issue of Muse pp. 43-46.

Dall, William 1869. p. x. Dall’s quote in introduction of Mercier’s journal (noted below).

Hudson’s Bay Company Archives: B 239/C/10 January 1, 1856.

Jackson, Lori 1988. “Report of the Native Exhibit of the MacBride Museum.” pp. 67-70.

Mercier, F.X., 1986. Recollections of the Yukon: Memoirs from the Years 1868-1885. Linda Finn Yarborough, ed Alaska Historical Commission, Studies in History No.188 p. ix.

Krahn, Ed 1986. Museums Operation Manual, Government of Yukon, p. 8.

Latin-Pelletier, Diane, Curator, Old Log Church Museum, Interview Whitehorse, July 7, 1989

Searching for Our Heritage: A Review of Artifact Collections Outside of the Yukon.

Lord Cultural Resources Planning and Management Inc. 1986.Yukon Museums Policy and System Plan report

McClellan, Catharine 1987. Part of the Land, Part of the Water. pp. 45-46, 75, 233-37. Douglas & McIntyre Ltd.

Murray, Alexander 1947-48. “Journal of the Yukon.” Canadian Archives, No. 4. pp. 82-95.

Newman, Peter C. 1985.Company of Adventurers, 16.

Ottawa: National Museums of Canada,1974. The Athabaskans: Strangers of the North. 17-20

Searching for Our Heritage: A Review of Artifact Collections Outside of the Yukon, Revised. 2003. Tourism and Culture, Government of Yukon

Yukon Bureau of Statistics: Yukon Monthly statistical Review May 2007 http://www.eco.gov.yk.ca/stats/monthly/rev072007.pdf accessed July 19, 2007

Cite as:

Charlie, S. and E. Krahn, Searching For Our Heritage, in International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting (ICHIM07): Proceedings, J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. 2007. Published October 24, 2007 at http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/charlie/charlie.html