Alaska Native in Traditional Times: A Cultural Profile
Project
as of July 2011
Do not quote or copy without permission from Mike
Gaffney or from Ray Barnhardt at
the Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska-Fairbanks. For
an overview of the purpose and design of the Cultural Profile Project, see Instructional
Notes for Teachers.
Mike Gaffney
Chapter Three
Alaska Native Cultures – Think Pluralism!
| Note: At the end of this chapter you will begin the
Cultural Profile assignment by selecting the Native group or groups you
wish to research. In the next chapter you start work on their Regional
Environment and their use and occupancy of the land, the first part of
your Cultural Profile. |
There is no such person as an Alaska Native!
In Chapter Two we spent time deciding what names to use when
identifying the indigenous peoples of North America. Now we further develop
the identification and naming
process for the different Alaska Native cultures. But the first thing we
need to understand is that there really is no such person as an “Alaska
Native.” Here is why.
When talking or writing about Alaska Natives, many times we say
the “Natives” or
the
“Native people.” We say things like, “a Native perspective” or “Native
studies” or “Native
rights.” But we must keep in mind that the term Native is
simply a quick, convenient way to distinguish Native people and their
experiences from those of non-Native people. Even a passing
glance at the multi-cultural realities of Native Alaska tells us that there
has never been just one Alaska Native cultural group. There has never
been a single Native language or single Native
society or single Native history. There are Haida, Tlingit, Eyak, Chugach,
Alutiiq, Aleut (Unangan), Central Yup’ik, Siberian Yupik, Iñupiaq,
and a variety of Athabaskan-speaking peoples. These are human groups dating
from ancient times with cultures and languages distinct
from one another. Thanks largely to the work of the Alaska Native Language
Center (ANLC) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, we can even take
Athabaskan speaking groups and sort them
into eleven regional societies, each with its own language and history. We
should never forget this reality of Native cultural pluralism when we
hear, read, or say the word “ Native.”
As previously discussed, the term Alaska Native is a foreign
concept brought to Alaska by Russians and Americans to distinguish themselves
from the
indigenous peoples. Much of
Alaska’s history is about how the invaders – particularly the
Americans – constructed
colonial systems to maintained this distinction. If the term Alaska Native
has any basis in reality, it is as a
concept reflecting the common political and legal interests of all Alaska
Natives regardless of culture, language, or geographic region. It is even
said by some that the term Alaska Native was
not often heard in Native communities until the land claims movement
of the 1960s. As Natives from all regions of the state became more aware
of the
land claims issue, they found common
ground as Alaska Natives, not just as Eskimos or Indians, or as Iñupiaq
or Tlingit. During the land claims struggle, for example, there emerged the
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), a statewide organization representing
the interests
of all Native peoples within the larger Alaskan
and American political and legal systems.
Mapping Native Cultures
The ANLC Map. This textbook includes a smaller
foldout version of the map, Native
Peoples and Languages of Alaska published in 1982 by the Alaska Native
Language Center (ANLC) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Now is the
time to take out your copy of the
ANLC map. Shortly instructions are provided for studying map. But first
some background information on the map’s purpose and design.
In the
1970s, ANLC undertook a research project to map the Native languages
of the state. In 1982 they updated their research and published a new Alaska
Native language map.
ANLC wished to determine the extent to which Native languages continued to
be spoken in the everyday life of Native communities throughout the
state.
They were especially interested in the
number of youngsters speaking their Native language because this is a good
indicator of a language’s current and future strength. What makes
this map so useful is that it places a large amount of significant information
right in front of us. At a single glance we have what we need
to understand the remarkable pluralism of Native languages and cultures.
But note that the research represented by the map was completed decades
ago. More recent research suggests that
the total number of Native language speakers is less today then in 1982,
perhaps in some cases much less. Yet the relative numbers seem to have
remained fairly constant. That is, when
compared to other Native groups, those having the most speakers of their
Native language in 1982 (e.g., Siberian Yupik) still have the most speakers
today.1
We know, for example, that the total number of everyday
speakers of Central Yup’ik has
declined since 1982. Nevertheless, according to the 2000 United States
census, there are about 16,000 Central Yup’ik people living in
Bethel and surrounding villages. Of these, that same census estimates
that over 60% still speak their Native language in the home. In contrast,
the
Tlingit Indian population of Alaska is about 10,000, but has only about
500 speakers of the language. The current population of Koyukon Athabaskans
is about 2,300, of whom only about
300 speak the language. Therefore, compared to the Tlingit and the Koyukon,
the Central Yup’ik
in the Bethel region have experienced much less of a language shift to
English. ANLC also assists our study with short explanations on the
map itself. Note how each village has a dot ?
the size of which indicates the population size of the village. The extent
to which a dot is blacken indicates the estimated number of children
speaking the Native language in that village in 1982 (
e.g., ● = most children speaking the language ).
Language shifts and historical questions. At
this point you might be asking questions such as: Isn’t this a history
project? Why are we using what is essentially a map of language demographics – a
map of language statistics about Native populations? In fact, the only time
the word “history” appears on the ANLC map is in a short paragraph
on how Native languages were suppressed by schools where children were
actually punished for speaking their language. So what is the connection between
this map and
Native history?
While the map does not contain historical information, it does
raise big historical questions. For example, we have already said that the
map shows
a much greater language shift
to English among the Tlingit and the Koyukon Athabaskan than among the Central
Yup’ik. The
interesting historical question raised here is: What happened to cause
a much greater shift to English among the Tlingit and Koyukon compared
to the Central Yup’ik? To answer this
question requires research into Yup’ik as well as into Tlingit
and Koyukon contact histories to see how they differ. Indeed, the map
raises
other historical questions of a similar nature. Just
within the Central Yup’ik region there is this historical question:
Why is the Yup’ik
language much stronger along the Kuskokwim River and the Bering Sea
coast than in the Bristol Bay area
and along the Yukon River? Again, several different Native contact histories
must be examined for the answer.
The ANLC map is therefore worth close
examination for two reasons. The first is that it clearly displays information
showing the pluralistic
nature of Native languages and cultures. This
is absolutely required information. It makes no sense to attempt a more detailed
study of Native cultures and histories without first understanding this
pluralism. Secondly, the more we study the
map, the more likely it is that comparative historical questions will occur
to us. We will see that not only is there a pluralism of Native cultures
but also a pluralism of Native histories – that the
contact histories of Native regions can differ significantly one from
the other. Consider this question: Why were the Tlingit much more successful
than the Aleuts in resisting Russian
colonization? We use a “comparative conditions” approach
to answer this question. We ask: Were the Aleuts and Tlingits operating
under
different conditions? If so, did these different
conditions contribute to the different outcomes? Here is how the comparative
conditions approach works.
Condition 1 – Environment:
Aleuts – Mostly barren Island environments offered little physical protection and few
land-based subsistence resources. They were easily cut off from the sea which held their
primary subsistence resources. Materials for building fortifications was scarce.
Tlingits – Heavily forested islands and mainland offered considerable protection and
contained adequate subsistence resources if cut off from the sea. Abundant forest
products provided materials for building strong fortifications.
Condition 2. Demography:
Aleuts – Small scale contact. Small island populations meant small scale contact which
favored the Russians because it did not take a large force to invade and establish control
one island at a time.
Tlingits – Large scale contact. Invading Russians confronted large, densely populated
settlements – for example, the Sitka Battles.
Condition 3. Social Organization:
Aleuts – Weak inter-island relationships, hence
military alliances difficult to assemble at the time of the invasions.
Russian divide and conquer strategy worked well.
Tlingits – Wide
ranging clan-based kinship system united groups across Tlingit settlements,
thus providing a built-in military confederation. If invaded, one Tlingit
group
could call upon other kin-related groups in other locations for
support.
Condition 4. Technology:
Aleuts – No access to firearms.
Tlingits – Access to firearms and other military equipment through trade with the British
and Americans.
Condition 5. Foreign Relations:
Aleuts – No alternative to the Russians. Until 1867 the Russians were the only foreign
presence of any significance in the Aleutians.
Tlingits – Multiple early contact history. Unlike their monopoly of force in the Aleutians,
the Russians faced rival European powers in Tlingit country. Tlingit contact with British
and American traders gave them a strong bargaining position when dealing with the
Russians.
So we see that under each of the five conditions the Tlingits had a clear comparative
advantage over the Aleuts. And when all these Tlingit advantages are added together, we have
the answer to our comparative history question. As you study the map, think pluralism, both in
terms of Native cultures and Native histories.
ANLC Map: A Study Guide
Often overlooked features of the ANLC map. There are ten features of the map that
are sometimes overlooked or which deserve special attention because they raise important
historical questions.
1. Be mindful that the purpose of the ANLC map
is to display the different Native language regions of Alaska, but not the
different Native cultures of Alaska. Certainly in the
broadest sense, the boundaries shown between languages represent boundaries
between cultures, for example between the Iñupiaq and Interior Athabaskans.
Yet the Alaska Native cultural picture is actually more complicated. Within
the Iñupiaq-speaking region, for example, there are
important differences between the coastal whaling communities and the inland
settlements along the Noatak and Kobuk rivers and the interior caribou hunting
people of Anaktuvik Pass. We also
find differences within the large Central Yup’ik and Interior Athabaskan
language/culture regions.
Native cultural pluralism gets even more complicated. Not only
do we find different ways of life within a Native region, but we also find
that similar elements of social organization can
transcend these Native regional boundaries. For example, all Native societies
south of the Alaska Range – from the Aleuts in the far southwest
islands on down to the Tlingit and Haida in Southeast – had
stratified societies containing different social classes, including
the institution of slavery. In the next chapter we explore in more
detail this distinctive southern Native social
organization and compare it to the different settlement patterns and
social organization of Native groups north of the Alaska Range.
Note
the several places on the map where a broken line – – – is
found within a Native region. This indicates a boundary between different
dialects of the same Native language. This
could mean still more cultural differences. It may be that an important
element of a community’s
cultural identity was how their dialect – the way they speak the
language – distinguished
them from others of the same language group.
Always keep in mind that the map’s broad language boundaries
do not reflect all aspects of Alaska Native cultural and historical pluralism.
2. Look at the Alutiiq (Sugpiaq) region along the Gulf of Alaska and the North Pacific.
Also known as the Pacific Eskimo region, it includes Kodiak (Koniag people), the Alaska
Peninsula, and Prince William Sound. According to ANLC, in traditional times the people called
themselves Sugpiaq (suk 'person' plus -piaq 'real'). The appellation (or name) Alutiiq was adopted
from a Russian plural form of Aleut, which the invaders applied to the Native people they
encountered from Attu to Kodiak. Unlike the Aleut (Unangan) language, however, the Alutiiq
language is closely related to Central Yup'ik. Over time, Sugpiaq has given way to Alutiiq as the
appellation of that region’s language.
3. You should memorize the correct spelling of Native groups, including all eleven
groups within the larger Athabaskan language region. Substitute Gwich’in for Kutchin since it is
now the most commonly used appellation for this Athabaskan group. Likewise, note on the map
the preferred appellation for Ingalik is Deg hit’an.
4. Study the North American insert in the upper
right-hand side of the map. Note the extension of the Athabaskan language
throughout much of Northwestern Canada. Also note that
the language resurfaces among several small tribes on the pacific coast
in Oregon and Northern California. It then makes a huge geographical leap
to the Southwest where it is spoken today by
the largest Indian nation, the Navajo, and by several Apache groups.
This linguistic connection between Athabaskan speakers in the Far North and
the Navajo and Apache Athabaskan speakers
in the Southwest certainly raises intriguing questions about ancient
Native American history.
We should also note that Dene, meaning “the
people” in Athabaskan, is the most
common appellation used in Canada. One example is the Native political
organization Dene
Nation of the Canadian Northwest Territory. Also the word, Dine,
meaning “ the people” in the
Navajo Athabaskan language is rapidly becoming the preferred appellation
within that Indian nation.
5. Again look at the North American map insert.
Note the extension of the Iñupiaq/Inuit
language across the entire North American Arctic rim into Greenland.
Although marked by dialectical differences — for example, between Iñupiaq
spoken in Alaska and Kalaallisut spoken in Greenland — it is one Inuit
language family.
Knud Rasmussen, the famous Arctic explorer of the early 20th
Century, found this to be
the case during his 1921 - 1924 “Great Sled Journey” across the
North American Arctic. He was born and raised in Greenland, the son of an
Inuit mother and Danish father. His first language was Kalaallisut. Danish
was his second language which he learned in school. Upon reaching
Iñupiaq settlements in Alaska, he made this observation:
In so prolong a separation, it would be natural for the language and traditions of
the various [Inuit] tribes to have lost all homogeneity [similarity]. Yet the remarkable thing I
found was that my Greenland dialect served to get me into complete understanding with
all the tribes. 2
Of course this raises another interesting historical question: How did this language cohesiveness
survive over such a wide area of extreme terrain and climate for so long?
6. Now look at the population figures found in the Language Table on the left-hand side
of the map. Notice how much stronger the Athabaskan and Inuit languages are in Native
communities outside of Alaska – in Canada, Greenland, and among the Navajo. Why is this?
Only comparative historical research will yield the answer.
7. Look for St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Strait. The map shows that the Siberian
Yupik language is also found on the Chukchi side of the Bering Strait, not on the Alaska side.
Moreover, Siberian Yupik ancestral ties are found on the Chukchi side and not the Alaska side of
the Strait. Finally, notice that the Siberian Yupik language is among the strongest in Native
Alaska. Why?
8. Look for Metlakatla at the southern most point of Alaska. The green area is Annette
Island, home of a Tsimshian tribe who occupy the island as the only Indian reservation now
existing in Alaska. Here is another historical question: Are all Native groups shown on the
ANLC map indigenous to Alaska? Of course the answer is no. In 1887 the United States
government gave a missionary and his congregation of Tsimshian Indians from Old Metlakatla
in British Columbia, Canada, permission to settle at New Metlakatla on Annette Island and
establish a reservation. The Tsimshian are the only non- indigenous Native tribe in Alaska.
(Incidentally, the Court of Claims in the 1959 Tlingit and Haida case ruled that the Tlingits held
aboriginal title to Annette Island and must be compensated for its illegal taking by the United
States.)
9. Look for the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea. Be sure to note that these islands are
occupied and locally governed by Aleut communities. They should be marked as Unangan or
Aleut on whatever map test you may take.
10. Look, finally, at the southern coast of the Seward Peninsula and note the isolated
Central Yup’ik area on Norton Sound. Here are more historical questions: What are the Central
Yup’ik doing there? Is not this area part of the traditional homeland of the Iñupiaq? Actually,
even larger portions of the southern Seward Peninsula may have been occupied at one time by
the Central Yup’ik .
The First Cultural Profile Assignment
Selecting a Native group for cultural profiling. Now
it is time to take the first step in completing the Cultural Profile Project.
You first must decide whether to focus on a larger
Native culture area or on a smaller group occupying a distinct environmental
niche within that area. When you begin constructing your cultural profile
in the next chapter, you are first asked to
describe the main elements of the environment within which your selected
Native group lives. Why do we need this information at the very beginning?
Because the nature of the environment
and the amount and kind of subsistence resources it contained largely
determined the social and technological adaptations a Native group had to
make in order to most effectively live in that
place. The concept tying together the relationship between the environment
and a Native group’s
social organization and cultural products is environmental adaptation.
For now, think of environmental adaptation as the process by
which a traditional Native society socially organized itself and
developed technologies to effectively live in and harvest the
subsistence resources offered by the environment.
Regional vs. local Environment as a major selection factor. Let’s
take the Iñupiaq as
an example of why environment is a major factor influencing your selection
of a Native group. You can do a general profile of the larger Iñupiaq
culture area as it is shown on the ANLC map. But remember that the ANLC map
displays only language regions within which may exist
different environments. This means you have different Iñupiaq
groups making adaptations to different environments. So you might
consider focusing on a local environment within the larger
Iñupiaq region such as coastal sea mammal hunting areas or
the more inland settlements along the Noatak and Kobuk rivers. If,
for example, you chose the coastal Iñupiaq, then sea ice is
a major environmental feature – a feature absent from the Iñupiaq
riverine environment. Or you can move deeper inland and select the
Iñupiaq of Anaktuvik Pass. Here again we are reminded
that cultural pluralism is a defining feature of Native Alaska, both
past and present.
Emphasizing cultural pluralism also forces us to
make a similar decision for other large
Native language/culture areas. Within the large Athabaskan speaking region,
for example, there are major differences between the environments
of the Tanaina people south of the Alaska range
and that of Koyukon people north of the range. Of course the selection process
is much easier when an entire Native culture area essentially occupies
the same regional environment.
Examples are the Unangan (Aleut) in the Aleutians, the Siberian Yupik on
St. Lawrence Island, and the Tlingit and Haida in Southeast Alaska.
Assignment
Now having firmly in mind the pluralistic nature of Alaska Native
cultures and histories, it is time to take the first step in completing the
Cultural Profile Project by selecting the Native group or groups whose life in
traditional times you will research.
Review Questions
Why do we say there is no such person as an Alaska Native?
Why do we emphasize the pluralism of Native histories as well
as Native cultures?
Can you explain why regional differences in Native language shifts
to English raise interesting historical questions?
On the next page is a blank
map of Alaska. From memory,
can you reproduce the ANLC map, including correct spelling
of the different Native groups?
Figure 3-1
ENDNOTES
-
Go to: www Alaskool.org, accessed March, 2010.
-
Rasmussen Knud, Across
Arctic America, Putnam & Sons, 1927, p.
x.
Table of Contents | Chapter
4
 The
University of Alaska Fairbanks is an Affirmative
Action/Equal Opportunity employer, educational
institution, and provider is a part of the University of Alaska
system. Learn more about UA's notice of nondiscrimination.
Alaska Native Knowledge
Network
University of Alaska Fairbanks
PO Box 756730
Fairbanks AK 99775-6730
Phone (907) 474.1902
Fax (907) 474.1957 |
Questions or comments?
Contact ANKN |
|
Last
modified
July 6, 2011
|
|
