Swanton[112] gives two interpretations of the Haida house post fig. 199. He had two informants; both explained the top figure as an eagle but they differed as to the meaning of the rest. The one claimed that the lower part of the pole represented the story of a woman being carried away by a killer-whale. The woman’s face shows just below the eagle’s beak, and the whale’s blow-hole is represented by a small face above the face of the killer-whale. The second informant, however, explained the large face at the bottom as that of a grizzly bear, presumably meaning thereby, the sea grizzly bear; and the small figure over it as the “sea ghost” which usually rides upon its back. The woman’s face he left unexplained. From an objective point of view, the face at the base of the pole appears as a grizzly bear’s face. Attached to it on each side are the ears and above these, the flippers. Just under the talons of the eagle is found the inverted tail of a fish or aquatic mammal, which presumably belongs to the figure at the bottom, although it seems rather small. It seems doubtful whether the upper face, to which belong the two hands just under it and the legs, in squatting position below the tail, is that of a woman because there ought to be a large labret in the lower lip. Furthermore, the face has animal ears so that it does not seem likely that the intention of the artist was to represent a woman. [112] John R. Swanton, The Haida, Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol. V, p. 128. It is true that in some other cases in which this same story is represented,[113] the person sitting on the back of the killer-whale has no labret, while in other cases it is shown. Obviously in this case the symbolism is not clear enough to enable an Indian who does not know the artist or who does not know the meaning of the carving, to interpret it correctly. [113] See Swanton, The Haida, pl. 15, fig. 1, where the woman is shown without labret while in the specimen pl. 14, fig. 5, she wears a large labret. The uncertainty of interpretation becomes the greater the more fragmentary the figure. A set of gambling sticks which in 1897 I submitted to the best carver and painter (Charles Edensaw) among the Haida, could not be satisfactorily interpreted by him (figs. 200, 201). For example: Number 35 he recognized as a series of three dorsal fins without being able to tell to what animal they belonged. Number 36 he explained as a shoulder on the right, and a tail on the left, but he was unable to identify the particular animal. Number 37 he explained, hesitatingly, as a mosquito. For the following group he felt quite unable to give any satisfactory explanation. The uncertainty of explanation appears particularly clearly in the interpretation of Chilkat blankets. I give here a few examples according to Lieutenant George T. Emmons.[114]