Tipatshimuna 
Description:
Man’s or boy’s hunting coat, good skins with simple painted designs in yellow (layout and cross-hatching), vermilion for double curves and some other motifs, brown for diamonds, black for details, and blue (faded) for cross hatching below the double curves in their terminals and in the diamonds. Coat open in front, single button of white metal with opposing buttonhole. Button probably dates c. 1760-90
References:
Dorothy K. Burnham. 1992. To Please the Caribou. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Adrian Tanner. 1979. Bringing Home Animals. St. John’s: ISER; Frank Speck. 1914. The Double-Curve Motive in Northeastern Algonkian Art. Anthropological Series no. 1. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 42. Ottawa: Department of Mines; Frank Speck. 1977[1935]. Naskapi. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press; Lucien Turner. 1979[1884]. Indians and Eskimos in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula. Quebec: Presses COMEDITEX. Lynn Drapeau. 1999. Dictionnaire Montagnais-français. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Innu Narrative:
“I would call it pishakekup (hide coat or caribou coat) because it is made out of hide.” Sheshin (Rich) Rich
“I made his coat. I put the spider designs on both sides in the front and both sides at the back too. It was a very clear design on the back of his coat, and it could be seen very clearly when he walked around.” Matinen (Rich) Katshinak
“It’s called pishakanekup (caribou skin coat) or atikuianakup (caribou skin coat). Yes, the smaller one, just like the one a child is used for (to wrap a child in or to sleep on). I remember people in Davis Inlet wearing caribou clothing in the past. These are the only people who I can remember seeing with caribou clothing. Our grandfather, Meshkana (late Sam Rich), was still alive when we went to Davis Inlet; he was still wearing a caribou fur coat. We used to go with him when he went ice fishing, and he would catch lots of rock cod. We met up with his family at Sango Bay. Davis Inlet Innuat were still wearing caribou fur coats while some dressed up the way we dress nowadays.” Matinen (Selma) Michelin
“This type of a coat would be called pishakekup kamishinanikan (painted skin coat).” Munik (Gregoire) Rich
“I heard he had visions about the designs. He would dream about them first, and he would draw how they looked in his vision. And that’s exactly how they were made, when they would draw them on paper.” Matinen (Rich) Katshinak
“Madeline ( Mishta Matinen) made this kind of coat. She made one for a man by the name of Mr. King – the storeowner. She made it really nice and it was all made out of caribou hide. She sold it to him.” Pinamen (Rich) Katshinak
“This is the kind of coat that Mr. White took. He didn’t like the fur coats. I never used that kind. I wore the fur coats. They are very warm. You don’t use a shirt underneath. The good skins are the caribou calf skins.” Tshishennish Pasteen.
“The women were very skilled in painting the designs. The women today would know how to make them too if they tried. They used mikuanike, uname, and shiphipnipinish, uahuts (fish eggs) [MacKenzie lists uakun and uakua as “fish egg;” mikuanapui as “ink”]. And they used a lot of different things for paint.” Tshishennish Pasteen
“No. We didn’t paint our clothing. We would only wear minauiai akup (caribou fur coat) for clothing. I only wore a light shirt inside and I wore the caribou fur coat over it. That’s how I used to dress. There were no holes in the coat, because if there were holes in it, the wind would go through it. I didn’t get cold with it on. It was very warm. I would use my coat for a blanket too. We used our coats for blankets. My father would keep the fire going in the night when there was wood and when we got cold. He would keep the fire going in the nights.” Uniam Katshinak
Other Info:
The painted caribou-skin coats of the Innu have been described at length in several publications (see. Burnham, Turner, 1979[1894]:123-127; see also Tanner, 1979:140-142). In the pre-settlement period, the decoration of clothing such as the elaborately painted coats was part of a symbolic system of exchange between people and animal masters, who lived in relations of constant reciprocity with one another. As Tanner (1979:141) noted, “the decoration of utilitarian objects used in the hunt is for the purpose of showing respect to the animal about to be killed, and to ensure that object performs its function properly. An exception to this is the special coat or parka made of the skin of an animal, which gives to the wearer the animal’s power.”
Both Tanner and Speck reported that the designs used on the coats appeared to a hunter in a dream (Tanner, 1979:142; Speck, 1977[1935]:190).
Dorthy Burnham (1992) has studied the history, design (cut) and decoration of these coats in great detail. She notes that “Two types of design dominate the painted decoration of the coats: those based on quadrate layout and those based on double curves. The two traditions may have developed separately but on these coats they are often intermingled” (1992:59). Whatever their relationship to pre-contact clothing designs, Burnham believes that “there was a sequence of style that followed the visual appearance of garments worn by Europeans in the areas where the painted caribou-skin coats originated” (1992:5). See Speck (1914) for a discussion of the double-curve motif in northeastern Algonkian art.
“This coat was purchased by the Newfoundland Museum with the assistance of the Government of Canada, under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, Department of Communications. It was bought from Alika Podolinsky Webber, who acquired the coat from Ian Satow, grandson of Gordon Antoine Neilson, who owned material collected by his ancestor the Honourable John Neilson (1776-1848). In 1942 this coat was being used to wrap a plate that was once owned by Marquette and that was given in 1798 to John Neilson by Père Carot, a Jesuit priest. The supposition is that the coat was given to Neilson with the plate. From the cut and decoration of the coat, and particularly from the evidence of a button sewn onto the right front, a late 18th- to early 19th-century date is most probable. The skin of this coat is most unusual. It was not prepared in the usual way, which results in a white skin. Instead it was smoke, resulting in a darker colour. With smoking, the skin does not show the painting to advantage. Possibly that is why these special coats were normally made of skins that were as white as they could be made.” Dorothy Burnham (1992:184)