46 
They own three totem poles, which used to stand next to those of 
Lsclt, tlieir cl-ief, at the western or lower end of the front row of totem 
poles, near the river. After their restoration, in 1926, two of these poles 
were removed to the rear, along; the village lane, tliey now face northwards, 
at the lower (western) end of the row. 
DESCRIPTIONS 
The oldest of these three poles, and the shortest (Plate VII, figure 1) 
is called Supernatural-frog (Narhnarom-ranaa'o). Its figures are: Plang- 
ing frog ( S'pcerem-ranad' o) ] Man-cut-in-two (Stagyet); the Frog (Ranaa'o), 
or rather, its head, upside down, on the man’s body; and a round opening 
for a ceremonial doorway, now partly undergrouncl. 
The second pole, and the tallest of the three (Plate VII, figure 2), is 
called People-in-the-Copper-shield (Litgeegycedem-hayocis). Its figures are: 
supposedly Ha’ku, the family chief in whose memory the pole was erected, 
holding the Bear-cub (Smaih) upside down, between his hands; the Hang- 
ing-frog (^pcercm-ranad'o)) Supernatural-frog (Narhnarom-ranad’o), head 
downwards; People-in-the-Copper-shield ( Lugeegycedem-hayoBts ) — the cop- 
per slab representing a copper shield and a human being sitting in it; a 
large human face, representing Hlserem-nenerh, a man in Ha’ku ’s family, 
in whose commemoration the pole stands*; on his body, the Hanging-frog, 
head downwards; at the bottom, a large human face supposedly representing 
Kwaw-amawn, member of Ha’ku’s family, whom the pole commemorates. 
The third and most recent pole (Plate VII, figure 3) stood, until it 
was restored, at the western or lower end of the front row of poles. It is 
now the last in the rear row, at the same end of the village. It is named 
People-in-the-copper-shield (LugeegycBdem-haywts). Its figures are: Man- 
in-the-copper (Gycedetn-hayoets ); a long section of the shaft is uncarved, 
more than one-third of the whole length of the pole; Man-in-the-copper- 
shield (Gyadeyn-haycets); Hanging-frog (Spoerem-ranaa'o); a large human 
face at the bottom, supposedly representing T-haku (who was also called 
Kwawdzabarh),® in whose memory the pole was erected. 
ORIGIN 
The origin of some of tliesc family or clan emblems is practically the 
same as that of Lajlt’s coat-of-arms. The Frog is identical. 
Most of the other emblems, however, seem to have been obtained, 
some time in the near past, from the family of Wee’alerh, of Kispayaks, 
a distant relative. Wee’alerh’s traditional privileges are now for the most- 
part the property of Nseqt or Harae or Telramuk, of Kispayaks. But 
some of them devolved in permanence upon Ha’ku of Kitwanga, for the 
following reason. One of Tarhtsurh’s uncles (of this household) once 
went up to Kispayaks for gambling. He returned home with Hlawraw- 
larhlaq, a Kispayaks woman, whom he adopted as his sister. She w^as 
the only survivor in the family of Wee’alerh (of the Larhsail phratry), of 
•TKis interpretitlion, from Alfred Sinclair, of this family at Kitwanga, may bo erroneous. Sinclair, the inter- 
preter, had been educated by missionaries and seemed at times not to pos.soss suflicient knowledge of some of the 
old cu.stoms. We rather believe that this large face, represented lliree times on tlie poles of this family, and the 
Jlan-cut-in-two, are crests derived from the extinct family of Wee’alerh, of Kispayaks. If they are, then the name 
of the large face is llalf-way-out {Ramdejirhastu), 
*Again, Sinclair, who gave this information, seems to have been mistaken. This large face may once more 
represent the crest Ilalf-way-out. 
